Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gun control is a dead end, a red herring. It doesn't work, it deprives the innocent and responsible citizenry of legitimate firearms for sport and protection, and at the end of the day it's unconstitutional.
Eric Holder talked about forcing gun owners to wear electronic bracelets. If you're not wearing the bracelet, your gun won't work. The technology probably exists to do this, but there's no way that Americans would ever submit to such a thing, even if they could somehow retroactively fit the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. It's a joke, and shows how out of touch the Left is with reality.
To stop the shootings, we need to address the mental illness problem. Deinstitutionalizing people with severe mental illness back in the 1970s-80s was a horrible mistake and we should rebuild these institutions -- not go back to the 1950s era of insane asylums with electroshock therapy, strait jackets etc. -- but provide modern treatment and counseling and keep them from harming themselves and others. We should be identifying mental illness starting in junior high and high school, and give those kids help, not just let them fester and brood and turn into the next mass murderer.
Secondly, we should be addressing the socio-economic problems of the black ghetto, where young black men commit over half the gun homicides in the U.S. (and most of their victims are also black). Give them remedial education, economic assistance, tax-free zones to encourage more jobs -- whatever it takes.
There are lots of ways we could be reducing gun violence, but focusing on taking the guns away is absolutely the wrong approach.
Want to stop mass shooting, it is very simple to do and it only requires two steps to accomplish.
Step 1, eliminate gun free zones, they are death traps
Step 2, the name of any shooter will never be released in any form, all traces of them existing is removed, if the shooter survives and goes to trial, they would be referred to as defendant, if convicted, they are referred to by a prisoner number
these people are cowards who crave attention, which the media is more than happy to give them. Who can name any of those murdered ? and who can name the killers ?
Gun control is a dead end, a red herring. It doesn't work, it deprives the innocent and responsible citizenry of legitimate firearms for sport and protection, and at the end of the day it's unconstitutional.
Eric Holder talked about forcing gun owners to wear electronic bracelets. If you're not wearing the bracelet, your gun won't work. The technology probably exists to do this, but there's no way that Americans would ever submit to such a thing, even if they could somehow retroactively fit the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. It's a joke, and shows how out of touch the Left is with reality.
To stop the shootings, we need to address the mental illness problem. Deinstitutionalizing people with severe mental illness back in the 1970s-80s was a horrible mistake and we should rebuild these institutions -- not go back to the 1950s era of insane asylums with electroshock therapy, strait jackets etc. -- but provide modern treatment and counseling and keep them from harming themselves and others. We should be identifying mental illness starting in junior high and high school, and give those kids help, not just let them fester and brood and turn into the next mass murderer.
Secondly, we should be addressing the socio-economic problems of the black ghetto, where young black men commit over half the gun homicides in the U.S. (and most of their victims are also black). Give them remedial education, economic assistance, tax-free zones to encourage more jobs -- whatever it takes.
There are lots of ways we could be reducing gun violence, but focusing on taking the guns away is absolutely the wrong approach.
Yes, Eric Holder was one step away from tattoos. Where have we seen that before?
There is a socio-political aspect of this problem. The financial, social and governmental elite in this country and the world are terrified of the working and middle class citizens that the elite have been robbing with their crony capitalism and phony Mideast Wars. The people that are running the system are certain that we will get sick of their robbery and first try to vote them out of control and, if necessary, throw them out. I trust most citizens to use proper judgment when carrying a weapon. I expect the elites that own the government to do all they can to disarm everyone but their guards.
All ruling elites throughout history have benefited from the fact that personal weapons have been too expensive for the masses (with the possible exception of the Longbow) so they remained unarmed in any significant way. The mass produced firearm put an end to that situation. Now any citizen can afford to buy an effective personal weapon.
This is the political reason I favor universal gun ownership by citizens that realize the police are not there to stop crime but to investigate crime as part of a very expensive and mostly ineffective legal system. The legal system is there to solve crimes not prevent them. It is also there to provide a decent living for most of these people. Only the victims are there to stop the crime if they are armed and are willing to use the arms.
There is a strange idea in many "liberal" circles that wants to keep the assailants in these situations from harm. They do not see a violent assault as worth more than a few years in prison. This is hardly any more than a drug dealer trying to get enough money to support his own habit gets if caught. Forgiveness is one thing but you have to survive to forgive. Criminals are looking for your money not your mercy.
I do not agree with offering mercy to an assailant. Maybe it is my experience in one of our forgotten wars but I will shoot anyone that physically assaults me or mine. Mercy is one of the things that I lost in that war. Alertness and attention to my surroundings were not. How I am armed is dependent on my expected and actual conditions.
I'll tell you what's bleak... a crooked government that can walk all over it's disarmed citizens at will without fear of the oppressed masses fighting back.
And if anyone still believes it can't happen here... well who could believe that anymore? The government has been caught lying and scheming so many times that is isn't even funny or ironic anymore. They've demonstrated their willingness to kill ANYONE who gets in their way (intentionally or not) over and over in the Middle East. They've demonstrated how much they value American Citizen's rights and liberties in scandal after scandal involving the NSA, CIA, FBI, FEMA...hell, name a federal agency and it's got a scandal. They've been caught over and over doing thing only evil empires do like torture, imprisonment without trial, bribing, assassinating, using terror for manipulation, ect.
Giving your guns up to the US Government now would be like sewing a star on your jacket and climbing into a train cattle car in 1940 with a copy of "Hitler's Final Solution How-To Guide" in your pocket. It would be like giving your pistol to a knife-wielding robber and saying "be gentle with me". It would be like listening to a campaign speech and really believing the wannabe president was gonna deliver on his/her promises.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUSTWORTHY. This is why all attempts at more gun control have failed.
You left out something:4. Publish a list of Gun Owners and their weapon so when CRIMINALS that ignore laws decide to steal a weapon they will break into the correct house. After all we wouldn't want to inconvenience these poor souls would we?
Only 10%-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. Stealing a gun is largely inconvenient and messy. Stealing a gun is generally an opportunistic move, not a planned move. I would never want the information published, but when it was done in the past (because in some places it is public record) there was no actual fallout from it having been done in terms of robberies.
What I find ironic there is that most people argue that knowledge that someone is armed is in and of itself a massive deterrent to crime. Wouldn't a published list act as a "better not rob this place or you'll get shot" notice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma
New Orleans 2005.
The mayor and local police force grossly overstepped their boundaries and laws have been passed to clarify that they do not have the right to disarm citizens. While every 2A lawyer in the country said people should comply with such an order, I would personally have been very hesitant in their situation to do so.
This however is an extremely poor example if you were looking to point out some sort of systemic plan by the government to confsciate guns. This was an isolated incident by an overworked and stressed police department and they wrong. It has not been repeated since, even in "anti-gun" NJ and NY following Sandy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
So three people out of the American people said to have it......but didn't the American people say through Congress that they didn't want it. Isn't that what happened after Sandy Hook?
Saw an interesting viewpoint on the issue under discussion. Essentially, "Great, he's going to use 18 months going after something the American people don't want. Why doesn't he work on the problems we really have?" (mostly my words here, what they said wasn't as nice).
So then perhaps one ought to ask what do we have when the chief executive is committed to do something other than what the representation of the people say is wanted.
The President is tasked with setting their own agenda and doing what they feel is best, as most executives do. Congress is the Peoples representatives and should be the ones listening to their constituency. If the President feels that dedicating himself to passing gun control measures is what he needs to do, then fine. If the People are against it, then our representatives in Congress will block the Presidents agenda. It's how our government has worked since the time of Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewCarnegie
The typical solution espoused after a mass shooting is to round up all the guns. We all know that is not possible and we also know that criminals and those that society does not want to have guns will get them one way or another.
So what if......we stopped vilifying decent, law-abiding gun owners, we encouraged law abiding citizens to take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their community, we didn't freak out every time that the word "gun" was mentioned, and we quit creating "gun free" slaughter zones for mass shooters?
Imagine if a mass shooter walked into a theater and was confronted by 10 law-abiding citizens scattered across the audience who were determined to protect their families and neighbors. I think mass shootings would plummet.
We all know that mass shootings are almost impossible to stop and taking away guns is not a reasonable solution to anything.
1. I personally thought that my proposed ideas (which you may or may not be responding to) went a long way to enhancing the rights of legal gun owners while working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
2. If the people in the theater had proper training, then the attacker would most likely be quickly taken down. If they lacked proper training, then it could be even more of a bloodbath. Many things I have read from tactical trainers is that even if you are armed, the proper procedure is to run from the situation and not engage unless you are absolutely forced to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
I'll tell you what's bleak... a crooked government that can walk all over it's disarmed citizens at will without fear of the oppressed masses fighting back.
And if anyone still believes it can't happen here... well who could believe that anymore? The government has been caught lying and scheming so many times that is isn't even funny or ironic anymore. They've demonstrated their willingness to kill ANYONE who gets in their way (intentionally or not) over and over in the Middle East. They've demonstrated how much they value American Citizen's rights and liberties in scandal after scandal involving the NSA, CIA, FBI, FEMA...hell, name a federal agency and it's got a scandal. They've been caught over and over doing thing only evil empires do like torture, imprisonment without trial, bribing, assassinating, using terror for manipulation, ect.
Giving your guns up to the US Government now would be like sewing a star on your jacket and climbing into a train cattle car in 1940 with a copy of "Hitler's Final Solution How-To Guide" in your pocket. It would be like giving your pistol to a knife-wielding robber and saying "be gentle with me". It would be like listening to a campaign speech and really believing the wannabe president was gonna deliver on his/her promises.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUSTWORTHY. This is why all attempts at more gun control have failed.
END RANT
Hyperbole much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
Obama has done quite a bit to put Guns in the public domain. just the opposite of his desires.
I find it interesting that the man who gets an 'F' on gun control from the Brady campaign and the man whose only legislation on "gun control" is signing a law allowing people to carry guns in national parks, is villified as a "gun grabber". Sure he has talked about the need for "better gun control", but he has not done much on the topic.
Have you ever considered that the rhetoric against Obama and the painting of him as a "gun grabber" by gun industry mouthpieces like the NRA was really just a clever marketing campaign?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Gun control is a dead end, a red herring. It doesn't work, it deprives the innocent and responsible citizenry of legitimate firearms for sport and protection, and at the end of the day it's unconstitutional.
Eric Holder talked about forcing gun owners to wear electronic bracelets. If you're not wearing the bracelet, your gun won't work. The technology probably exists to do this, but there's no way that Americans would ever submit to such a thing, even if they could somehow retroactively fit the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. It's a joke, and shows how out of touch the Left is with reality.
To stop the shootings, we need to address the mental illness problem. Deinstitutionalizing people with severe mental illness back in the 1970s-80s was a horrible mistake and we should rebuild these institutions -- not go back to the 1950s era of insane asylums with electroshock therapy, strait jackets etc. -- but provide modern treatment and counseling and keep them from harming themselves and others. We should be identifying mental illness starting in junior high and high school, and give those kids help, not just let them fester and brood and turn into the next mass murderer.
Secondly, we should be addressing the socio-economic problems of the black ghetto, where young black men commit over half the gun homicides in the U.S. (and most of their victims are also black). Give them remedial education, economic assistance, tax-free zones to encourage more jobs -- whatever it takes.
There are lots of ways we could be reducing gun violence, but focusing on taking the guns away is absolutely the wrong approach.
Gun control is not unconstitutional, far from it. Banning guns however IS unconstitutional.
I do agree with your approaches. Much more can be done to address mental health and issues related to systemic poverty. I do feel however that there is room for improvement in our current patchwork of gun control laws and that these improvements can enhance the rights of gun owners while keeping guns away from those who should not have them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Phx Native
Want to stop mass shooting, it is very simple to do and it only requires two steps to accomplish.
Step 1, eliminate gun free zones, they are death traps
Step 2, the name of any shooter will never be released in any form, all traces of them existing is removed, if the shooter survives and goes to trial, they would be referred to as defendant, if convicted, they are referred to by a prisoner number
these people are cowards who crave attention, which the media is more than happy to give them. Who can name any of those murdered ? and who can name the killers ?
To your Step 1...there is no zero evidence that any mass shooter chose their target based on it being a "gun free zone". The targets were chosen based on a myriad of other factors. While I agree that the general concept of a "gun free zone" preventing anything is stupid, calling them "slaughterzones" or "death traps" is hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie
Of course, his highness is never asked about how well all the gun control laws are working in Chicago, his hometown.
Very interesting you bring that up, because it is a point I have been hammering that no one wants to address. Study after study after study shows that the 85%-90% of guns used in crimes in places like Chicago come from states with lax gun laws like West Virginia. It is the open gun shows, private transactions and corrupt FFL's that fuel the supply of guns into the hands of criminals and gangs in cities like Chicago. Chicago's gun laws are rendered ineffective because of lax laws in other states.
West Virginia's violent crime stats have risen over the last two decades at the second fastest rate in the country. Violent crimes consist of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault
Eighteen years later, stats show the state has the second highest crime rate of violent crimes per 100-thousand people.
The Hawkins tragedy is only one of an increasing number of violent incidents involving firearms in West Virginia. Rates of gun violence in the state have soared over the last couple years, jumping 60 percent between 2010 and 2011 alone, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. In fact, murders and aggravated assaults that involved firearms reached a five-year high in the state of West Virginia in 2011. The murder rate in West Virginia from firearms stands at 2.86 per 100,000 people, above the national average of 2.7.
Researchers attribute the high rate of gun violence to the state’s legacy of hunting, long-engrained cultural attitudes that support gun ownership, and the dearth of state regulations governing who can buy a gun in West Virginia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
