Mass murders, gun control, and how do we fix it? (Putin, Congress)
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.
So, we are again immersed in this modern debate of spontaneous or fanatical attacks on crowd gatherings, access to weapons, and our helplessness to stop it. How do we predict the potential of an individual to decide to become a killer? How do we limit their access to weapons in a free society? Is there any compromise in our culture for to make access to weapons more selective?
I don't think we will ever be able to predict when someone snaps and decides to kill or to kill for a cause, not without everyone giving up their personal liberties. Unless we capitulate to be analyzed at any time for any reason, there are an infinite number of reasons that change the way we look at the world. If we want to remain free, we need to accept a certain level of risk.
Gun control is a lightening rod, politicians don't want to touch it and there are people as passionately for it as against it. But even the most ardent gun owner has to admit this is getting too frequent, is it due to cultural influence, or sensationalizing by the media? I wish I had an answer, I can see both sides, most of the recent mass shootings in the US involved legally acquired guns, so how would tighter control help? On the other hand, access to plenty of ammo and automatic weapons have resulted in a shooter doing a lot of damage in a short amount of time. Take guns away and the terrorist or murderer will find another way to kill people. Arm everyone and it could escalate what would have been minor disagreements into more frequent shootouts or collateral deaths. Do you think there is a solution in between?
As far as the media, it's one thing to report on an attack, but today's media doesn't stop there, they begin dialogue of opinions and conjecture and that may be part of the problem. The more opinionated the conversation becomes, the more it amplifies our emotions, so rather than see the problem it devolves into passionate differences and that ultimately results in a two sided and polarizing argument with no compromise and no action to the original problem. The media also provides a platform for the people who want to perpetrate terror on a global scale or local killers, they may thrive on the notoriety or the ability to force whole governments to react.
Really tough problem, especially in the US where we value our liberties and rights. There needs to be a conversation that includes organizations like the NRA as well as gun control advocates. Unless we can talk about it without attacking one another, this is going to continue to happen. What are your thoughts?
Well, the fact is gun control works. It is evidenced in countless countries where it has been enacted. Gun control does not violate Second Amendment rights. Our Founding Fathers made the Constitution a living document for a very good reason. We are ALLOWED to make changes to it and adjust it as society evolves. This includes the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment calls for "a well regulated militia" as is anyway, so putting requirements on training and ownership and the type of weapons available to civilians doesn't threaten any sane, non criminal individual anyway. We take away the right to vote to individuals who are serving time for crimes for Pete's sake, why should we allow them legal access to guns once they get out??!!!
How to fix it is easy (though lots of work and time; not an overnight cure) once it's allowed to happen. First thing we need to do is get money OUT of politics. As many as 90% of people want extended background checks, but some politicians vote against them and every other gun measure, because they are PAID to.
Secondly, we need extended wait periods WITH required training at the Federal level. Months, not days or weeks. Doing it state by state doesn't work, because I may not be able to get a gun right away in some states, but I can drive to another and they will practically hand it to me.
Storage requirements need to be enacted to prevent accidental shootings and suicides in home and theft. If your gun is locked in a safe and your ammo is locked in another safe, no one can steal it and your toddler won't accidentally shoot you or their siblings. This is how it is done in many other countries (Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland for example).
Licensed sellers only. No more gun show or Craigslist sales. Private sells can be done on consignment. This guarantees every buyer is properly vetted.
Ban open carry and assault type weapons. This does not violate your rights. You can still own a gun, but open carry has proven to cause a rise in gun violence and the only way to tell if someone is "good" or "bad" is to wait and see if they kill someone. No one should have to give their life because someone was legally carrying a weapon until they were murdered. Insane!
And saying open carry saves people is false. No mass shooting has ever been stopped by an average civilian. States with open carry have mass shootings and typically more gun violence than those who don't. It is a false sense of security.
No one NEEDS a gun that can fire 30 rounds. 6 is more than sufficient especially if you have been trained how to properly use it. Even if crime stays the same, less lives will be lost, because less bullets are being fired. To those who say "they'll find a way..." So what?? Some will, but we need to stop making it so damn easy for them!
The "criminals don't follow laws" theory is a fallacy as well. If laws didn't deter crime, then we shouldn't have any at all. Many criminals obtain guns LEGALLY, so we need to make it illegal for anyone with a record to own one. This does not violate your rights! You broke the law, your rights are revoked, end of story. All these other countries have criminals, gangs, abusers, drugs and the mentally ill, yet they don't go on shooting rampages in those countries, because they aren't allowed to have guns and heavy restrictions that work prevent them from getting them.
Will doing these things stop every murder and mass shooting? No. Definitely not immediately, but it will reduce senseless death and make us safer out on the streets. With proper implementation, the occurrence of shootings will go down year by year. Another argument is that crime increases. I have not seen a correlation, but so what if it does? I would much rather someone steal my TV or car than murder me or my children just because they were having a bad day.
I should not fear my children going to school. I should not fear sitting in a crowded theater on opening night. I should not fear eating in the food court of a mall. I should not fear walking down my own city street. We should live in a more peaceful country.
This latest incident occurred in California which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. There is an estimated 300 too 400 million guns in the hands of private citizens. Short of an outright ban that would take many decades to take affect there is not much you can do to stop an incident like this. There is absolutely no correlation between states gun laws and gun related deaths. States with the highest rate of gun ownership tend to have the least murders by gun but there are exceptions like Louisiana. A state like California with very strict gun laws is very similar in both ownership and death rates as Pennsylvanian but has some of the loosest gun control laws. It's all over the place.
In Chicago it's very expensive to obtain a weapon, the areas with the lowest rates of legal gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. While that itself is not the only reason one has to wonder if the people in these areas could more easily legally own guns and shoot back if that statistic would change.
Where I live there is about 90% gun ownership. It will take me longer to drive to the gun store than to make the purchase. Open carry is legal but rare, a concealed carry permit is easy to obtain, gun shots are not uncommon and I can even purchase a fully automatic gun. Despite that we have no gun violence and crime is minimal, while the people that live here are the primary reason for that the distinct possibility of getting shot is something the criminal type is going to consider.
Quote:
We take away the right to vote to individuals who are serving time for crimes for Pete's sake, why should we allow them legal access to guns once they get out??!!!
Felons cannot legally purchase firearms.
Quote:
Secondly, we need extended wait periods...
There is absolutely no evidence that waiting periods do anything other than possibly cause deaths because someone was waiting to buy a gun to protect themselves.
Quote:
Licensed sellers only. No more gun show or Craigslist sales. Private sells can be done on consignment. This guarantees every buyer is properly vetted.
You are trying to play the world's largest game of whack a mole.
Quote:
Ban open carry and assault type weapons.
As if someone with the intent to kill is going to care about an open carry law?
As far "assault weapons" go other than fully automatic capability if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a M-14 and a semi automatic .308 hunting rifle I'm listening.
-------------------
The genie is out of the bottle so to speak, you can't put it back in. New gun laws will only serve to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pennsylvania Constitution enacted 1776
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-03-2015 at 12:30 PM..
At some point, perhaps the people will want to change the Second Amendment. But until that happens, people will have guns and, once in a while, some nut will go crazy.
Well, the fact is gun control works. It is evidenced in countless countries where it has been enacted. Gun control does not violate Second Amendment rights. Our Founding Fathers made the Constitution a living document for a very good reason. We are ALLOWED to make changes to it and adjust it as society evolves. This includes the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment calls for "a well regulated militia" as is anyway, so putting requirements on training and ownership and the type of weapons available to civilians doesn't threaten any sane, non criminal individual anyway. We take away the right to vote to individuals who are serving time for crimes for Pete's sake, why should we allow them legal access to guns once they get out??!!!
Regarding gun control not violating the Second Amendment - you obviously have NO idea what “shall not be infringed†means. You bet the Constitution can be amended. Try and get that done. But do NOT try and change the Constitution in any other way than an amendment. Yes, requirements on training and ownership IS a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. Again, shall NOT be infringed. And let’s say you have these safeguards in place. Do you honestly think criminals will abide by these new laws? So you’re perfectly willing to punish law abiding citizens? I’m not willing to go there. We have rights. We are born with those rights. I get to keep those rights. Until an Amendment changes that. Which will never happen. Period.
How to fix it is easy (though lots of work and time; not an overnight cure) once it's allowed to happen. First thing we need to do is get money OUT of politics. As many as 90% of people want extended background checks, but some politicians vote against them and every other gun measure, because they are PAID to.
Please show me your proof that 90% of people want extended background checks. Because you’re either lying or grossly misinformed.
Secondly, we need extended wait periods WITH required training at the Federal level. Months, not days or weeks. Doing it state by state doesn't work, because I may not be able to get a gun right away in some states, but I can drive to another and they will practically hand it to me.
No, we do NOT need extended waits with required training. Particularly at the federal level. The federal govt that has made it clear that it would like to disarm citizens. The federal govt that is the very reason we HAVE a 2nd Amendment. And when given the job of controlling permits, will make those waits years, not months or weeks. Shall NOT be infringed. Remember that? Speaking of the Constitution and rights, yes, state by state DOES work. Because of that pesky Constitution.
Storage requirements need to be enacted to prevent accidental shootings and suicides in home and theft. If your gun is locked in a safe and your ammo is locked in another safe, no one can steal it and your toddler won't accidentally shoot you or their siblings. This is how it is done in many other countries (Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland for example).
Lots of Americans manage to have guns in their homes that have never been involved in an accidental shooting or suicide. So why would you disarm those Americans (because forcing someone to lock their guns away, and keep guns and ammo separate IS disarming them)? As for theft, it’s already illegal to steal. To break and enter. Now you want to give those thieves a way to break in, and give the homeowner NO WAY to defend themselves? Nope, not going to happen. You libs want the government out of your homes with regards to so many things, except this. I have a better idea – if your gun IN YOUR POSSESSION is involved in an accidental shooting, you go to prison. For a very long time. No getting a pass because your child was just shot. Nope, you take the consequences. I bet kids getting in to guns would end pretty quick. And as for suicide, if you want to kill yourself, why should anyone stop you?
Licensed sellers only. No more gun show or Craigslist sales. Private sells can be done on consignment. This guarantees every buyer is properly vetted.
Ban open carry and assault type weapons. This does not violate your rights. You can still own a gun, but open carry has proven to cause a rise in gun violence and the only way to tell if someone is "good" or "bad" is to wait and see if they kill someone. No one should have to give their life because someone was legally carrying a weapon until they were murdered. Insane!
PLEASE show me the statistics that PROVE open carry has caused a rise in gun violence. Same with states with open carry having more mass shootings and typically more gun violence.
And saying open carry saves people is false. No mass shooting has ever been stopped by an average civilian. States with open carry have mass shootings and typically more gun violence than those who don't. It is a false sense of security.
You've made this claim more than once. Show me the proof of this.
No one NEEDS a gun that can fire 30 rounds. 6 is more than sufficient especially if you have been trained how to properly use it. Even if crime stays the same, less lives will be lost, because less bullets are being fired. To those who say "they'll find a way..." So what?? Some will, but we need to stop making it so damn easy for them!
So what? That statement right there shows me that you have no desire to end violence or mass killings. You just want to grab guns.
The "criminals don't follow laws" theory is a fallacy as well. If laws didn't deter crime, then we shouldn't have any at all. Many criminals obtain guns LEGALLY, so we need to make it illegal for anyone with a record to own one. This does not violate your rights! You broke the law, your rights are revoked, end of story. All these other countries have criminals, gangs, abusers, drugs and the mentally ill, yet they don't go on shooting rampages in those countries, because they aren't allowed to have guns and heavy restrictions that work prevent them from getting them.
They don’t go on shooting rampages you say? Paris ring a bell? Or Norway?
Will doing these things stop every murder and mass shooting? No. Definitely not immediately, but it will reduce senseless death and make us safer out on the streets. With proper implementation, the occurrence of shootings will go down year by year. Another argument is that crime increases. I have not seen a correlation, but so what if it does? I would much rather someone steal my TV or car than murder me or my children just because they were having a bad day.
So you’re OK with crime increasing, just because you’ve bought in to the gun grabbers propaganda? I’d rather not, thank you. And like a typical liberal, you don't have "facts" but just have feelings about the consequences.
I should not fear my children going to school. I should not fear sitting in a crowded theater on opening night. I should not fear eating in the food court of a mall. I should not fear walking down my own city street. We should live in a more peaceful country.
If you are in fear of being killed in a mass shooting, you need to think long and hard about the dangers that TRULY lurk in this world. Are you in fear of getting in a car? Crossing a street? Swimming in a pool? I bet not.
Interesting that people are disputing points I already discredited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
This latest incident occurred in California which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. There is an estimated 300 too 400 million guns in the hands of private citizens. Short of an outright ban that would take many decades to take affect there is not much you can do to stop an incident like this. There is absolutely no correlation between states gun laws and gun related deaths. States with the highest rate of gun ownership tend to have the least murders by gun but there are exceptions like Louisiana. A state like California with very strict gun laws is very similar in both ownership and death rates as Pennsylvanian but has some of the loosest gun control laws. It's all over the place.
That's why the laws need to be the same across the board (which I already explained). If the laws for obtaining a gun are the same in every state, then I won't leave Illinois to go to Missouri to legally obtain a gun I might be denied in Illinois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
In Chicago it's very expensive to obtain a weapon, the areas with the lowest rates of legal gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. While that itself is not the only reason one has to wonder if the people in these areas could more easily legally own guns and shoot back if that statistic would change.
Over 50% of guns confiscated in Chicago come from lax gun law states. Again state by state doesn't work properly.
Where I live there is about 90% gun ownership. It will take me longer to drive to the gun store than to make the purchase. Open carry is legal but rare, a concealed carry permit is easy to obtain, gun shots are not uncommon and I can even purchase a fully automatic gun. Despite that we have no gun violence and crime is minimal, while the people that live here are the primary reason for that the distinct possibility of getting shot is something the criminal type is going to consider.
Felons cannot legally purchase firearms.
Sure they can. In some states like Texas the only thing you need to purchase a gun is a driver's license. No background check, no waiting period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
There is absolutely no evidence that waiting periods do anything other than possibly cause deaths because someone was waiting to buy a gun to protect themselves.
As if someone with the intent to kill is going to care about an open carry law?
But if open carry is ILLEGAL, then police can be called BEFORE someone is killed, just like the article I posted which I'm sure you read very thoroughly. Those people are DEAD as a DIRECT result of open carry.
As far "assault weapons" go other than fully automatic capability if you can explain to me the fundamental difference between a M-14 and a semi automatic .308 hunting rifle I'm listening.
-------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
The genie is out of the bottle so to speak, you can't put it back in. New gun laws will only serve to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining them.
Oh stop. Just because it would take work doesn't mean we should say oh well, and let the mass murder of civilians, CHILDREN, continue. TRYING is better than doing NOTHING. Right now we are doing nothing and look how well it's working for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John7777
At some point, perhaps the people will want to change the Second Amendment. But until that happens, people will have guns and, once in a while, some nut will go crazy.
It is more than just s crazy nut now and then. It is DAILY.
What part of "well regulated" do you not understand? The Second Amendment as is says that we must allow our citizens access to guns, but we can regulate them however we see fit as no specific regulations are currently listed. It does not say "every citizen has equal access to any style gun" does it?
And you don't seem to know how the Constitution works. We can completely repeal and throw out the second amendment altogether if we so wished. Our Founding Fathers deliberately made it adjustable, but the NRA has convinced a certain segment of our population that the Second is written in stone.
You say training and background checks infringe on your second amendment rights? That's funny because women have a constitutional right to an abortion, yet they have to sit through counseling and waiting periods just to obtain one. The right to vote for ALL citizens is protected by the constitution, yet some states are making specific ID cards and lengthy regustration required for voting. Why is it okay that these RIGHTS be subjected to scrutiny, yet the Second Amendment is untouchable?
That's all I have time to address right now, as I have to leave. But don't you dare accuse me of drinking "the liberal koolaid." All of my beliefs are based on independent research. I have taken a LOT of time to read about this and compare information from the US to other countries. I read about the laws here and I know about the laws in other countries and that they work. One mass shooting (you referenced Norway and Paris) in decades is NOTHING compared to the slaughtering US citizens face DAILY!! You all can sit SBD pretend your gun makes you feel safer and that every person's right to a hunk of obliterating metal is more important than a PERSON'S right to LIVE. The blood is on your hands not mine!
Well, the fact is gun control works. It is evidenced in countless countries where it has been enacted.
Will doing these things stop every murder and mass shooting? No. Definitely not immediately, but it will reduce senseless death and make us safer out on the streets. With proper implementation, the occurrence of shootings will go down year by year. Another argument is that crime increases. I have not seen a correlation, but so what if it does? I would much rather someone steal my TV or car than murder me or my children just because they were having a bad day.
I should not fear my children going to school. I should not fear sitting in a crowded theater on opening night. I should not fear eating in the food court of a mall. I should not fear walking down my own city street. We should live in a more peaceful country.
There are plenty of places where the politicians have meddled with individual rights in order to promise the simplistic, "sanitary", and unattainable world you want; Paris is one of them, as are Massachusetts and Connecticut. If you are that easily conned into putting your fate, and everyone else's, in the hands of Big Brother, please feel free to move there.
Well, the fact is gun control works. It is evidenced in countless countries where it has been enacted...
Ummm, nope. I've been researching this issue since 2002. In coutries with no guns, people who wish to engage in mass killings use bombs. At least my database of 4,500 bombings so indicates. And bombs are very indiscriminate killers.
Others refuted the rest of the fallacies you posted; I won't rehash.
In summary, your chances of getting killed in a mass shooting are still about the same as getting hit with lightning. It's like Shark attacks. It just sounds really scary but not very likely.
France has very strict gun control laws but somehow twice in a year Islamic's were able to gain access to fully automatic AK47's and kill many people. This attack is clearly another Islamic extremest attack I don't think their access to firearms would have made a difference if one is determined to kill they aren't going to worry about gun control laws. This is the problem with people who keep chanting we need to control guns. You are playing right into the hands of Terrorist because that is exactly what they want you to do is live in fear and remove the freedoms we enjoy everyday. Gun control only works if one follows the law.
The notion we need more federal law is not what this country was founded on. The states reserve the right to make laws as the people living in that state see fit. We already have enough laws on the books if they were enforced correctly such as the background check maybe this would have stopped people. I don't think it would stop everyone as someone who is very determined will find a way to acquire firearms.
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.
