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.
This sucks, but sadly this entire event will be forgotten within a week. This seems to be the norm now. Kids protest and the stupid grown ups tell them to shut up. Then you have the crazy gun nuts show up, more concerned about protecting their gun rights rather than caring about what actually happened. Yet no one cares about the 10 kids. This entire country does not care about those 10 kids dying at all. We have hardly made any progress at all since World War II.
Back in 1968 when RFK were shot, I was 11 years old. I believed that eliminating guns would eliminate crime. Obviously, I had a lot to learn.
I am just not very big on the gun control discussion. I do not believe That it should be a flashpoint type of an issue.
That's where you're wrong, weapons are regulated, heavily regulated. There's some 250 pages of federal regulations alone. Including thousands of federal, state and local laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal and negligent act imaginable. This does not even include any civil penalties.
Indeed each shooting will instigate the next. We can thank our non stop news coverage of each event that drags on 24/7 for months on end that permanently ingrains these idea's into these monster's heads. Thereby giving them the fame and notoriety that they seek. This crap was just not happening as often as few short decades ago when there were even less gun laws on the books. You have to take into consideration that after each shooting additional gun laws are passed in the name of "at least doing something" yet they accomplish nothing other than to further erode our civil liberties. I think that Columbine got the ball rolling and it's been non stop news coverage of every shooting ever since. "If it bleeds it leads"
Just checked some old articles on Columbine. This appears to be another copycat of Columbine.
Some similarities:
Suspect is a straight A student. Attempted to blow up school building using bombs. (but failed to detonate as well)
In my opinion this is more than "shooting" but a domestic terrorism case. (Columbine perpetrators were inspired by Oklahoma City bombing, it would have been worse if the bombs worked...)
I strongly believe guns bring more problems than they fix but I also agree that it is simply impossible to abolish 2nd amendment and/or take away all guns currently in circulation. I made a stupid emotional decision to vote for a candidate who promised to add a 20% gun tax but in hindsight I do not think that would have helped. So to be realistic I would support laws that would require more gun owner accountability. (people who fail to properly secure guns should be charged with felony and the permit should be revoked, and they should be criminally responsible if the stolen guns were used to kill) Other than that maybe better security at schools and counter-terrorism measures against domestic terrorists,(they also should be tried as terrorists because that's truly what they try to achieve)
However, the current debate seems to focus on guns, mental health, video games, faith...etc. Neither is very likely to solve domestic terrorism issues....and only cause people to become ever more divisive.
*Forgot to add the news media as well as social media which are also adding to the problem. However, they are not going away just like the guns. So trying to stop the media is also unrealistic.
Everyone is jumping to "eliminating guns." Now, I'd like to do that. But it's not what people, including me, are advocating for. There is common-sense safely stuff, the same kind of regulations that apply to owning and driving a car, for example, that we could do. But the NRA has stood in the way of all of it.
Everyone is jumping to "eliminating guns." Now, I'd like to do that. But it's not what people, including me, are advocating for. There is common-sense safely stuff, the same kind of regulations that apply to owning and driving a car, for example, that we could do. But the NRA has stood in the way of all of it.
If you'd like to do that, then obviously that's what you're advocating for.
Owning a gun is an inalienable right written into the Constitution, owning a car is not. Not only that but you do not need a license to own a car neither does it have to be registered, you just can't use it on public highways. You don't have to fill out a federal form that lists all of the legal conditions to LAWFULLY own a gun of which lying on that form is a federal crime punishable by ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. You don't have to submit to an FBI background check either. There are no legal conditions to LAWFULLY own a vehicle. Anyone with the money can buy a vehicle, no questions asked. So what are you trying to suggest? Putting seat belts and air bags along with catalytic converters on guns to make them as you say "common-sense safely stuff."
If you'd like to do that, then obviously that's what you're advocating for.
Owning a gun is an inalienable right written into the Constitution, owning a car is not. Not only that but you do not need a license to own a car neither does it have to be registered, you just can't use it on public highways. You don't have to fill out a federal form that lists all of the legal conditions to LAWFULLY own a gun of which lying on that form is a federal crime punishable by ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. You don't have to submit to an FBI background check either. There are no legal conditions to LAWFULLY own a vehicle. Anyone with the money can buy a vehicle, no questions asked. So what are you trying to suggest? Putting seat belts and air bags along with catalytic converters on guns to make them as you say "common-sense safely stuff."
No. It's not. I'm well aware that we can't always get what we want. For example, I'd also like ignorant men to shut the F up, but instead, I advocate for legal solutions to the problems I see in society.
Just checked some old articles on Columbine. This appears to be another copycat of Columbine.
Some similarities:
Suspect is a straight A student. Attempted to blow up school building using bombs. (but failed to detonate as well)
In my opinion this is more than "shooting" but a domestic terrorism case. (Columbine perpetrators were inspired by Oklahoma City bombing, it would have been worse if the bombs worked...)
I strongly believe guns bring more problems than they fix but I also agree that it is simply impossible to abolish 2nd amendment and/or take away all guns currently in circulation. I made a stupid emotional decision to vote for a candidate who promised to add a 20% gun tax but in hindsight I do not think that would have helped. So to be realistic I would support laws that would require more gun owner accountability. (people who fail to properly secure guns should be charged with felony and the permit should be revoked, and they should be criminally responsible if the stolen guns were used to kill) Other than that maybe better security at schools and counter-terrorism measures against domestic terrorists,(they also should be tried as terrorists because that's truly what they try to achieve)
However, the current debate seems to focus on guns, mental health, video games, faith...etc. Neither is very likely to solve domestic terrorism issues....and only cause people to become ever more divisive.
*Forgot to add the news media as well as social media which are also adding to the problem. However, they are not going away just like the guns. So trying to stop the media is also unrealistic.
I'm with you as far as securing firearms from those who are either prohibited by law or who are unauthorized to use them. As far as passing laws that would require that, you can pass all the laws in the world, but unless the police go on unwarranted house to house searches those too would be unenforceable, besides being unconstitutional. Not only that but there's not enough manpower or resources to accomplish it. If they were to do that I don't think the public would want the police tied up with that task instead of out taking care of their everyday duties. Let alone showing up at their residences unannounced and searching it from top to bottom.
You'd better believe that the parents of whom their child took their firearms and went out on a murderous rampage will be held civilly liable for all the damages their negligence has caused. This may cost them millions of dollars in settlements or at the very least tens of thousands in legal costs to defend themselves in a multi million dollar civil suit. They stand to lose everything they have. Going forward their lives will be ruined until the day they die.
If laws such as those you suggested are passed, will they also require any and all objects that can be used to maim or kill to be secured as well? What if their teenager gets ahold of the liquor in the liquor cabinet or beer in the fridge along with the car keys? What if that same teenager grabs ahold of a knife from the kitchen drawer and goes on a stabbing rampage? Or fills a container full of gasoline from the container in the garage along with a book of matches and makes a Molotov cocktail? Grabs a hammer from the toolbox and beats somebody over the head with it?
As for myself? All my firearms are secured in a safe, a real one. If someone wants to get them they're gonna' have their work cut out for them. At least if someone were to steal them no one could say that I didn't make any effort to properly secure them. Not only that I couldn't live with myself if someone were to steal them and commit a crime with them due to my own negligence.
I don't believe that "guns bring more problems than they fix" as there are an estimated 65 to 80 million people who LAWFULLY use them for a variety of LAWFUL purposes without incident. More people are killed or maimed in traffic accidents.
I commend you for at least being a realist. Your last two statements are proof of that:
Quote:
However, the current debate seems to focus on guns, mental health, video games, faith...etc. Neither is very likely to solve domestic terrorism issues....and only cause people to become ever more divisive.
*Forgot to add the news media as well as social media which are also adding to the problem. However, they are not going away just like the guns. So trying to stop the media is also unrealistic.
Quote:
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” Jeff Snyder
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 05-22-2018 at 03:48 PM..
No. It's not. I'm well aware that we can't always get what we want. For example, I'd also like ignorant men to shut the F up, but instead, I advocate for legal solutions to the problems I see in society.
Oh yes it is! The Supreme Court has already ruled that owning a gun is an inalienable right written into the Constitution. Or are you arbiter of what's Constitutional or not, in which case we don't need SCOTUS.
Oh I see, when you can't win an argument just tell people that they're ignorant and to shut the F up? I guess you're speaking of yourself? As I've stated in post #38:
Quote:
"There's some 250 pages of federal regulations alone. Including thousands of federal, state and local laws that address both the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal and negligent act imaginable. This does not even include any civil penalties."
Just what "legal solutions" do you propose that would solve these problems? It's already a capital crime to murder people, in some cases it carries the death penalty, yet people still do it. What do you advocate for that?
Oh yes it is! The Supreme Court has already ruled that owning a gun is an inalienable right written into the Constitution. Or are you arbiter of what's Constitutional or not, in which case we don't need SCOTUS.
Oh I see, when you can't win an argument just tell people that they're ignorant and to shut the F up? I guess you're speaking of yourself? As I've stated in post #38:
Just what "legal solutions" do you propose that would solve these problems? It's already a capital crime to murder people, in some cases it carries the death penalty, yet people still do it. What do you advocate for that?
I included a really nice, well-researched link from the NYT in my post above.
I included a really nice, well-researched link from the NYT in my post above.
Oh yes I always look to the NYT for an unbiased source of information.
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.
