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.
Again, well aware of drug prohibition prior to the creation of the DEA. Nixon put the might of the federal government behind his war on drugs. There is quite a bit of difference from the creation of the DEA onward, verses the times you are talking about. Did they have militarized police under Anslinger in your free Google research? The security and family values crap is the conservative schtick which led to the DEA and the war on the drugs as we know it.
but the DEA wasnt created in the 70's...just RENAMED
its just like the ''war department'' became the "dept of defense'
WHICH CAME FIRST???....
1970's====Nixon coined the term and created the DEA
or
1930's====Harry Anslinger .....The pledge to wage “relentless warfare” on drugs ......Harry Anslinger head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
There are already negligence laws in place for this situation. 99% of the time the DA chooses not to prosecute because the family has already suffered enough trauma. That doesn't help with why laws exist - to be a deterrent. If you know you won't be prosecuted then you take no steps to secure your weapon from your kids. Or like in my case, you don't instill a respect for the weapon and a fear of parental punishment.
In your second scenario, if you are thinking of the Adam Lanza incident, then the mother had her guns secured. He killed his mother to get them. How much more protected do they need to be?
I'll admit that crossed my mind, but it's not really what I was getting at. My idea was in response to the claim (which I happen to agree with, BTW) that 99% of all gun owners are responsible and therefore not really the problem. I think that's mostly true (not sure what the actual percentage is, and I don't think it really matters). But there are a lot of DUMB MOTHERF---ERS out there who are not responsible. Very small pecentage, but still a big number. I am saying to hold them accountable. If there are laws on the books, enforce them. If the laws have loopholes, remove them.
I'm not for banning guns, and I can understand and even support the mentality behind NOT restricting them, but I am firmly convinced that we have a lot of work to do to make our society safer, and this is a start.
"you can't ban abortions because the black market for them will open up for it"
"ban guns so nobody has them"
That argument goes both ways. Neither side makes a lot of sense. You're spouting silly talking points that completely miss the complexity of BOTH issues is of no help whatsoever.
That argument goes both ways. Neither side makes a lot of sense. You're spouting silly talking points that completely miss the complexity of BOTH issues is of no help whatsoever.
This entire thread is silly. No new laws will stop murders. NONE. Guns can EASILY be gotten off the streets that DID NOT come from legal means. They are often stolen or shipped in from overseas. How does a gang member get a fully auto AK or SKS? Murder is already illegal and it still happens way too often.
How does coming down on the owner of the firearm or gun shop deter someone from killing people? Every single proposition in this thread would not do a damn thing to prevent murders. Why would someone who intended on mass murder be deterred by someone else getting in trouble? How would the mass murderer be deterred from killing just because the penalty for using an illegal or even legal firearm is 10 years mandatory when the penalty for mass murder is already life or DP? Let me get this straight, a mass murderer plans on carrying out his plan but stops and says, "I can't do this because I'm looking at 10 years for using a gun to commit a crime"? How in the world does that make ANY sense at all?
You are missing the point. If a responsible gun owner is accountable for his or her guns, then they will put them under lock and key. These laws are not aimed at the killer. You can't stop them. Even the DP is not a deterrent, they expect to die in the shooting.
These laws answer people who say "don't make any laws because bad-guys will get the guns anyway". They might, but this would make it harder at minimum, but the REAL effect is that it would eliminate unplanned situations, such as a kid playing with a gun, or someone getting pissed and grabbing a gun and killing someone or a bunch of people.
But you're right: If someone is sick enough to carefully plan a mass-shooting, you can't stop that. So let's quit using that as an excuse to not go after the ones we CAN prevent. (and doing so without restricting ownership, BTW.)
This entire thread is silly. No new laws will stop murders. NONE. Guns can EASILY be gotten off the streets that DID NOT come from legal means. They are often stolen or shipped in from overseas. How does a gang member get a fully auto AK or SKS? Murder is already illegal and it still happens way too often.
So preventing a loaded gun from being left out for a kid to find won't prevent (EVER) a curious kid from blowing his face off, or his siblings head off? And it won't prevent a person who just got fired from the post office from finding a gun (that they hadn't planned on finding) and using it to take out his revenge.
Those things are ALL mass murders, but both happen too often, and both are preventable WITHOUT RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. So why would you be against such a common sense law. What is the reason?
You are missing the point. If a responsible gun owner is accountable for his or her guns, then they will put them under lock and key. These laws are not aimed at the killer. You can't stop them. Even the DP is not a deterrent, they expect to die in the shooting.
These laws answer people who say "don't make any laws because bad-guys will get the guns anyway". They might, but this would make it harder at minimum, but the REAL effect is that it would eliminate unplanned situations, such as a kid playing with a gun, or someone getting pissed and grabbing a gun and killing someone or a bunch of people.
But you're right: If someone is sick enough to carefully plan a mass-shooting, you can't stop that. So let's quit using that as an excuse to not go after the ones we CAN prevent. (and doing so without restricting ownership, BTW.)
ok, but you are going to have to convince the Left wing to go against their beliefs that mandatory minimums violate people's rights because Liberals, especially the far left don't believe in mandatory minimums.
So preventing a loaded gun from being left out for a kid to find won't prevent (EVER) a curious kid from blowing his face off, or his siblings head off? And it won't prevent a person who just got fired from the post office from finding a gun (that they hadn't planned on finding) and using it to take out his revenge.
Those things are ALL mass murders, but both happen too often, and both are preventable WITHOUT RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. So why would you be against such a common sense law. What is the reason?
I'm not against it, it just won't happen. There will be the ACLU and the Left trying to fight against mandatory minimums which they ALWAYS do. They don't even want mandatory minimums for child predators. Also, our current POTUS would be against it, he is about to let thousands of drug criminals that have been charged with gun running and possession of illegal firearms out of prison.
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.
