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.
And I would further ask these gun crazies who feel this way -- are they admitting that they want to participate in extrajudicial assassinations of elected representatives?
I can see that you are trying to get someone to say they support a violent overthrow of the elected govt, but think about it, if the founding fathers included the section about protecting the people against tyranny with force, what do you think they were talking about, if not a forcible removal from power?
"the people have the right and duty to THROW OFF such govts and install new guards for their future", besides that, if a govt has become tyrannical and the people must remove them from power, do you actually think the tyrannical govt is going to just give up and walk away, "OK you found us out, we are guilty of being tyrannical, heres the keys to the kingdom, good luck"!!
Of course not, the tyrannical govt is going to do anything and everything it can to protect itself and ensure power is never taken from it.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,346 posts, read 8,561,064 times
Reputation: 16684
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
Haven't read all the responses here but seems more civil and rational than some of the discussions I have read on this topic.
First of all I would like to state that you are making one assumption - that everyone agrees that it is a priority to reduce mass killings. The reality is that there are a fair number of people that are apathetic or fatalist about this issue; it's not affecting them, so why should they care? So not everyone views this as a pressing issue.
But assuming that you do want to reduce the frequency of these shootings in any measurable way, there are multiple steps that must be taken (in a perfect world of course):
1) Rate of fire of gun technologies should be restricted by law, as this is the characteristic most directly associated with enabling mass lethality. As some gun experts have pointed out to me, even bolt-action weapons can have a high rate of fire. So rather than restricting specific classes of weapons, regulate the maximum rate of fire of the system.
2) Restrict the access of mentally ill and violent felons to guns. Far more difficult to enforce than restrictions of the source of the weapon.
3) Change the culture we live in. We have become a nation absorbed with violence and vengeance. This is the most difficult goal of all. Probably impossible.
I understand the logic of your thought process over the rate of fire, but I wouldn't want that as I use a firearm for self defense.
It's the equalizer. If you have 3 intruders breaking into your home at night it's close quarters, things happen fast. You don't want to have to fend them off with a firearm that shoots slow.
You don't want to take one out and have to yell at the others "Wait guys, I can't shoot that fast!"
Indeed. How about just Chicago black-on-black murders? Or is it only when majority-white kids are slaughtered that the "compassionate ones" voice their concerns? Chicago has gun control on steroids.
If our Great Leaders truly gave a damn about preventing these school killings, instead of giving a damn about TV air time, they could do exactly the same thing they do in almost all federal, state, and many county buildings:
Metal detectors. Armed guards. ID required. Armed guards roving the buildings.
So if our Great Leaders TRULY cared, pull those guards and put them in the schools. How many mass killings have there been in federal buildings and state buildings in the last 10 years?
I was talking to my kids about this last night. Here are their responses:
Q: How about metal detectors, reinforced doors, guards?
A: The shooter will just have someone pull the fire alarm and shoot the kids when they file outside. So those three remedies will be rendered useless.
Q: Gun control
A: The nut will just fashion a homemade bomb like the Boston Bomber. Probably set it off in the stands at a football game.
I truly believe the problem is a combination of the drugs that others have mentioned and a lack of the ability to lock someone up in a psychiatric hospital. I understand this was abused in the past. Men locking up their wives because it was convenient for them. But I think if you rely on a board of doctors and thorough examinations, this wouldn't be an issue.
The other issues, and I can't stress this enough, is the way the media makes celebrities out of these shooters. They all idealized the shooters that came before them. They kept scrapbooks of their media attention. They took note of what was the most effective way of garnering media attention.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding the wall, what about the criticism that guns, drugs, and to a smaller extent humans, will be flown in by plane? I'll admit I don't know a lot of details about the proposed wall but am not (yet) convinced it would be all that helpful.
To me, personally, the 'wall' isn't a comparison of those entering the USA illegally by land at our southern border vs. those 'flying in' and overstaying a visa. The drug smugglers are not , for the most part by far, flying in their 'parcels', they are coming in via the cartel's tunnels, or by those being forced (physically or economically) to 'run' them in. The "Fast and Furious" was explained in a documentary by National Geographic, a few months ago. (that's when I viewed it, not sure of it's original date. It alleges that the transfer of arms was arranged to be received by the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, in exchange for them to act as informers to the US of what all "the other" cartels/gangs were doing....makes our DEA appear functional, and in return the Sinaloans were to be the only of the 5 or 6 other cartels....allowed to conduct their 'business'. Those 'missing' guns were used to dominate the 'other' drug cartels, and those living in the areas of these 'turf-wars' found themselves in a bloodbath. People in Arizona are afraid to patrol their own properties; these 'runners' are in life or death situations, in their own minds. I believe that the huge influx 2 or 3 yrs. ago of children and some women were a 'cover' for the men who were attaching themselves to these groups; many were abandoned and died without a guide.
Sure. All you have to do is require tiers of rigorous training and permitting. Air rifle? .22 rifle? A basic gun safety course and a permit that does a simple background check. A bolt action deer rifle or a shotgun? A bit more required training and range time every year before renewing your permit. Semi-automatics and hand guns get yearly background checks and even more training and range time with instructor time.
When you create a gun safety culture, the nut jobs will usually be easy to spot and you look more closely before renewing their permit.
With that kind of system, junkies and gang bangers don’t get access. If you want the right to carry a gun, you have to earn it.
I agree with your first paragraph re: structured training and range time, etc!
I have seen "the nut jobs" escape consequences for alarming behavior because of influential parents (one father was the head of the local board of education) a late life child that could do no wrong.
After Columbine I read a cautionary essay about 'participation trophies', etc. that destroy a child's TRUE accomplishments and seem to believe that a false sense of accomplishment will morph into a successful pattern afterward. There are parents that live through their child and tell them that they are far superior to 'other students' in their endeavors. When these kids meet the real world of their peers they can be shunned , ridiculed, etc. and then at home they are back on the pedestal and are living 2 different realities. Until......
Re: the 'nut jobs': they may not be so easy to spot, especially if they are in the epidemic of drugging children. Sometimes 'they' are the nicely dressed kids, and isolated rather than 'acting out'. That got my attention! So many of the current meds have no test that indicates that they are appropriate...other than seeing improvement in compliant behavior at school. 'They' give the med and watch to see if it 'works'.
The sheriff and his deputies posing outside of the school, while kids were being killed, are another part. It was on the news that the school was receiving government funds for participating in a 'program' and seem to have been unwilling to deal with this killer's warning behaviors BEFORE the killing spree...to protect the scholl's reputation and not possibly lose their additional funding by the failure of this program. I think it was called "Promise", but I'm not sure I have the name right. It seems like they were formerly protecting his disturbing actions, statements, threats, etc. to protect the cash flow & 'the program'. How horrible for the parents to learn that their children were left inside with the shooter and the police didn't respond! (the FIRST, police....the neighboring police that arrived later were shocked that it was allowed to continue.
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.
