Maybe the restrictions weren't enough?
Just yesterday a few of you were stating how dumb the regulations were including some stuff but not others.
Maybe I should mention to you it has been tried, with no affect?
But no, I mentioned that already a few pages back.
Don't worry, I'll be here to pick up the slack.Thought you were done?
Guess not
My entire argument in gun control?
You must have missed my posts where I state I don't know if it will product the desired results, where I state I favor other solutions rather than gun control.
My position is that gun control as a solution is better than doing nothing at all.
I own a few guns, the times I have gone shooting I have enjoyed it, it was fun.
While I don't subscribe to gun culture, I have 2 years worth of mountain house for my family, a means of food production. Water, water filtration. Other supply's a secondary bugout location.
I believe in being prepared and accept that gun ownership comes with some gun violence.
But I also think with the freedoms of a gun ownership society, comes a great responsibility of reducing gun violence, especially of the recent kind.
You would think the gun culture in this country would be clamoring for ways to resolve the problems, but outside of select few all we get are, the price for freedom type comments.
Doing nothing is not an option, so what do you propose we do to help fix the problem?
Gun homicides vs. gun ownership:
I suggest that we respond to the threat of rampage killers in the same way we respond to serial killers.
Use our existing law enforcement infrastructure to attempt to respond once the killing begins as quickly as possible, while holding out hope that these happen as rarely as possible and that on some off chance a private citizen with bravery (with or without a firearm) is able to stop them before too many die.
Make mental health services more widely and cheaply available, perhaps with a network of therapists who volunteer their services at free or reduced rates to anyone who anonymously reports concern that they may be on the verge of becoming a rampage or serial killer, connected via a database of said therapists with one who is in their vicinity.
And like rational, mature adults, accept that due to the nature of how reality works that there will occasionally be serial killers who rack up multiple victims before they are stopped, and even sometimes dozens of victims and never be caught (like Zodiac), and that likewise there will be rampage killers who do the same.
It's frustrating that Hitler was able to commit suicide rather than face trial and execution, and it's frustrating that the Columbine killers, and this guy in Newtown, CT were able to end their own lives, on their own terms, rather than face trial and punishment.
Frustration is part of life.
I suggest that we respond to the threat of rampage killers in the same way we respond to serial killers.
Use our existing law enforcement infrastructure to attempt to respond once the killing begins as quickly as possible, while holding out hope that these happen as rarely as possible and that on some off chance a private citizen with bravery (with or without a firearm) is able to stop them before too many die.
Make mental health services more widely and cheaply available, perhaps with a network of therapists who volunteer their services at free or reduced rates to anyone who anonymously reports concern that they may be on the verge of becoming a rampage or serial killer, connected via a database of said therapists with one who is in their vicinity.
And like rational, mature adults, accept that due to the nature of how reality works that there will occasionally be serial killers who rack up multiple victims before they are stopped, and even sometimes dozens of victims and never be caught (like Zodiac), and that likewise there will be rampage killers who do the same.
It's frustrating that Hitler was able to commit suicide rather than face trial and execution, and it's frustrating that the Columbine killers, and this guy in Newtown, CT were able to end their own lives, on their own terms, rather than face trial and punishment.
Frustration is part of life.
Yep, combined with our outrageously high "gun deaths" ranking, this just shows the tragedy of accidental shootings that make it far more likely that someone in your family dies to your gun than someone else.
Yay, our number of gun deaths per capita are on par with Sub-Saharan African and Central American countries run by warlords! Now there is something to be proud of
I am not certain what to do.
I, however, hold the opinion that more gun control will not solve anything, citing its previous uses and ultimately disappointing results. I cannot support a policy that is known to fail, simply because of the notion that "we must do something." This is the only point where I disagree with you.
As for our argument regarding "fighting tyranny," you are far more prepared than I am for such an event. Despite this, I argue because I just feel no possibility should be flippantly dismissed simply because it is your opinion.
Finally you offer up something vs. do nothing.
I think mandatory mental health training or evals in addition to background checks would potentially reduce these crimes too. We can profile these types of killers we should be able to catch a few before they blow.
You won't stop all of them, but we should be looking to reduce them as much as possible.
I suggest that we respond to the threat of rampage killers in the same way we respond to serial killers.
Use our existing law enforcement infrastructure to attempt to respond once the killing begins as quickly as possible, while holding out hope that these happen as rarely as possible and that on some off chance a private citizen with bravery (with or without a firearm) is able to stop them before too many die.
Make mental health services more widely and cheaply available, perhaps with a network of therapists who volunteer their services at free or reduced rates to anyone who anonymously reports concern that they may be on the verge of becoming a rampage or serial killer, connected via a database of said therapists with one who is in their vicinity.
And like rational, mature adults, accept that due to the nature of how reality works that there will occasionally be serial killers who rack up multiple victims before they are stopped, and even sometimes dozens of victims and never be caught (like Zodiac), and that likewise there will be rampage killers who do the same.
It's frustrating that Hitler was able to commit suicide rather than face trial and execution, and it's frustrating that the Columbine killers, and this guy in Newtown, CT were able to end their own lives, on their own terms, rather than face trial and punishment.
Frustration is part of life.
That's about the 4th time I've suggested that therapist connection network idea. Maybe not in this thread, but in the various threads about this tragic event.
I think that would be a good idea but I also think doing absolutely nothing is perfectly legitimate.
Why is it that you gun people would change everything under the sun but when it touches your precious guns, it's zero tolerance, not one law should be make to restrict gun ownership and only those that relax gun ownership should be allowed?
Look, most logical people out there, me included is not looking for outright ban of guns. What irk me is all these attitude like gun ownership is untouchable and like any restriction is gonna lead to the down fall of America civilization and the rise of dictatorship.
We see this ridiculous argument that not even slightest restriction should be introduced because it will sure lead to complete ban and take away everyone's freedom. Yeah? Then why do we have any law and punishment at all, cause with that logic, any slight punishment would lead to death sentence for all and sending all people to death row. Some of these gun nutz should wake up and see what kind of idiotic arguments they are coming out with.
Everything is complicated. There is no black and one and one size fits all solution. While America should improve it's mental healthcare, reduce school/internet bullying, educate and promote better parent/child relationship and do many more good thing, there have to be equal effort in reducing deadly tools falling into the wrong hand. I don't care if its gun, samurai sword, whatever. When everyone can access something you can kill 20~30 people with in 10 minutes, there is something wrong. Gun control should be debated and not something untouchable like gun nuts and NRA have everyone believe it to be.
Why is it that you gun people would change everything under the sun but when it touches your precious guns, it's zero tolerance, not one law should be make to restrict gun ownership and only those that relax gun ownership should be allowed?
Look, most logical people out there, me included is not looking for outright ban of guns. What irk me is all these attitude like gun ownership is untouchable and like any restriction is gonna lead to the down fall of America civilization and the rise of dictatorship.
We see this ridiculous argument that not even slightest restriction should be introduced because it will sure lead to complete ban and take away everyone's freedom. Yeah? Then why do we have any law and punishment at all, cause with that logic, any slight punishment would lead to death sentence for all and sending all people to death row. Some of these gun nutz should wake up and see what kind of idiotic arguments they are coming out with.
Everything is complicated. There is no black and one and one size fits all solution. While America should improve it's mental healthcare, reduce school/internet bullying, educate and promote better parent/child relationship and do many more good thing, there have to be equal effort in reducing deadly tools falling into the wrong hand. I don't care if its gun, samurai sword, whatever. When everyone can access something you can kill 20~30 people with in 10 minutes, there is something wrong. Gun control should be debated and not something untouchable like gun nuts and NRA have everyone believe it to be.
You'd be surprised that gun laws in CT were already very strict. Would I support gun laws that actually work in reducing gun crime? Sure. Do I support what will inevitably be proposed in the Senate this coming February (which is essentially the CT state gun laws, except nationwide)? Not at all. Why? Because historical evidence suggests it doesn't do anything.
In other words, as it has been brought up many times, this isn't the place you should look if you're looking to fix the problem.
Why is it that you gun people would change everything under the sun but when it touches your precious guns, it's zero tolerance, not one law should be make to restrict gun ownership and only those that relax gun ownership should be allowed?
We see this ridiculous argument that not even slightest restriction should be introduced because it will sure lead to complete ban and take away everyone's freedom. Yeah? Then why do we have any law and punishment at all, cause with that logic, any slight punishment would lead to death sentence for all and sending all people to death row. Some of these gun nutz should wake up and see what kind of idiotic arguments they are coming out with.
You'd be surprised that gun laws in CT were already very strict.
So I'm a "gun person" now? Never owned one in my life.
I am also a fierce advocate of full drug legalization despite never having been high or even buzzed in my life.
What I am is a "personal freedom and liberty person" I guess.
I haven't said anything in opposition of any and all gun restrictions.
What I've primarily come out in opposition of is new legislation as a reaction to this specific event or recent shootings.
There are few things in this world I hate more than emotional, kneejerk reactions.
Weren't these New Jersey guns brought in from out of state anyway?
Don't worry, I'll be here to pick up the slack.
In other news, "assault rifle" and high-cap magazine sales are through the roof right now. Even though the possibility of a national AWB is incredibly slim.
I'm hedging my bets.
We see this ridiculous argument that not even slightest restriction should be introduced because it will sure lead to complete ban and take away everyone's freedom. Yeah? Then why do we have any law and punishment at all, cause with that logic, any slight punishment would lead to death sentence for all and sending all people to death row. Some of these gun nutz should wake up and see what kind of idiotic arguments they are coming out with.
It's called a slippery slope. Once the people have acknowledged the right of the state to regulate guns in one way, then the door is wide open for more restrictive bans. With regards to guns in the US, that is exactly what has happened:
1934 NFA - regulate select-fire, SBR's, silencers
1968 GCA - institute FFL system, ban interstate sales, ban mail-order sales, regulate "large" calibers
1984 FOPA - close off select-fire registry entirely
1992 import ban - ban all foreign imports that don't meet a bunch of arbitrary regulations (look up 922r if you're interested)
1994 "assault weapon" ban - already discussed, just bans a bunch of red herring features that would have paved the way to more bans if it didn't expire
The same thing happened in the UK and Australia by the way.
Note that all this legislation were ruled "constitutional" under the Commerce Clause, which of course has nothing to do with guns. Nothing more than a massive power grab by the feds. Also important to note is that all these regulations were instituted after some sort of violent event that scared the people into accepting them. The most egregious one was the 1934 NFA which was driven by Prohibition violence, something that the government itself created with their asinine Puritanism.
Thanks for saying this.
One should not automatically relate "more gun laws" to "lives saved." Much of the recent American gun control legislation is farcical in their ineffectiveness (namely, the Clinton AWB and the import ban this man stated).
It's called a slippery slope. Once the people have acknowledged the right of the state to regulate guns in one way, then the door is wide open for more restrictive bans. With regards to guns in the US, that is exactly what has happened:
1934 NFA - regulate select-fire, SBR's, silencers
1968 GCA - institute FFL system, ban interstate sales, ban mail-order sales, regulate "large" calibers
1984 FOPA - close off select-fire registry entirely
1992 import ban - ban all foreign imports that don't meet a bunch of arbitrary regulations (look up 922r if you're interested)
1994 "assault weapon" ban - already discussed, just bans a bunch of red herring features that would have paved the way to more bans if it didn't expire
The same thing happened in the UK and Australia by the way.
Note that all this legislation were ruled "constitutional" under the Commerce Clause, which of course has nothing to do with guns. Nothing more than a massive power grab by the feds. Also important to note is that all these regulations were instituted after some sort of violent event that scared the people into accepting them. The most egregious one was the 1934 NFA which was driven by Prohibition violence, something that the government itself created with their asinine Puritanism.
You should really shut the fuck up now, you're giving us Asians a bad name. Haven't seen a single coherent argument from you on why more gun control will have any effect whatsoever, just a bunch of childish insults against gun owners.