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.
I'm afraid these people will totally ignore the fact that lunatics go out of their way to target gun free zones... like I said above "Those who don't really bother to think things through", so expecting them to acknowledge they are completely clueless?
Not sure if anyone else has responded to this. Just in case no one has, here goes.
This report describes the 133 mass shootings – almost two per month that occurred in 39 states in the nearly seven-year period. Each description includes the location of the shooting, number of people killed and/or injured, and information on the shooter, gun(s), ammunition, and gun purchase, where available. <snip>
This survey includes every shooting we identified in which at least four people were murdered with a gun. And the findings reveal a different portrait of mass shootings in America than conventional wisdom might suggest. <snip>
Ninety-one of the 133 incidents (68%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 37 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”
No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.
I'm not offering this in defense of gun-free zones, but to counter statements that past experiences have shown that gun-free zones don't work, and are a target for armed crazy people.
Nor am I against guns. But it is simply too easy for mentally and/or emotionally disturbed people to get their hands - legally - on guns. And the solution to this problem must take both parts of the equation into account: the detection and treatment of disturbed individuals, and the enforcement of existing laws & passage of new laws that makes it far more difficult for such individuals to get their hands on guns.
People who can't even consider such steps are acknowledging that we as a society are powerless to stop these mass shootings. I don't think we're powerless ... unless we choose to be powerless.
How can you possibly know the motivations of others? The motivation of "most" reasonable people is to reduce the gun violence rate in the USA, which is much much much higher than anywhere else in the CIVILIZED world. First you say our only response is to limit guns, so we give suggestions that don't limit guns, and then you deflect and say that is what we meant anyway.
so far every suggestion by those that talk about "sensible regulations" do in fact limit gun rights. we do instance background checks on anyone who buys a gun from an FFL, doesnt limit gun rights, and only takes a little time, sort of like getting a credit check done at the car dealer. no big deal.
but then some want psychological evaluations done each time someone wants to purchase a firearm, now that DOES limit gun rights. how you ask, well who is doing the evals? is it going to be someone truly neutral? or is that person going to have an agenda? what recourse does a prospective firearms purchaser have if they disagree with the eval? and also who pays for the eval? remember this is being forced on the purchaser, its not voluntary. this is just one.
Quote:
I am a gun-owner. Not one, not two, but MANY of them. I want to protect my rights, and yours. But I also care about the crazy number of innocent people being killed.
we are all concerned, but where is the cry to ban cars when innocents die at the hands of a crazed motorist who drives into a crowd of people and kills innocents? where is the cry for banning aircraft every tone crashes killing a large number of innocent people?
Quote:
Still, all i can get is a deflection when I ask why the people who are FOR guns (you know, the Proponents) are not willing to lead the discussion on this. If you are a proponent, then you'd think you'd be the ones who are most for safety. I'm not talking about your words (you all say it) and I'm not talking about your hidden motivations, because quite frankly I don't know what they are. I am talking about your actions.
i am for safety, but i am also for rights as well. and i have no hidden motivations either, unlike the gun grabbers who say they want reasonable restrictions, but in truth they want outright bans on ALL firearms.
Quote:
You guys changes the goal posts every time someone makes a valid point.
truth is everyone does that, so this argument is a red herring.
Quote:
I guess I should ask differently. Are you saying that the price to have the second ammendment is that innocent people will get killed, and that any discussion about it is not worth a single human life? If that's what you are saying, then come out and say it. Otherwise, S[T]FU or engage in a serious discussion aimed at a good outcome.
alright, lets say there was no second amendment, and no guns in this country, but we had a large proliferation of cutting instruments, like axes, machetes, and various other edged weapons. you do realize that rampage killing can be done with a couple of axes right? so now do we call for axe control? axe registration? carry permits? do we limit the size of an axe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
What goal posts are being changed. You say that laws prosecuting people for lying on 4473, for failing to secure guns, etc. need to be enforced with prosecution and everyone has pretty much agreed with you.
exactly right!! the VP has said they dont have time to go after people that lie on their 4473, but let someone slip and not pay their taxes one year, and the IRS swat team rolls out. and how about those 16,000 NEW IRS agents hired by the feds to deal with obamacare? how about taking some of those guys and use them to go after those that lie on the 4473?
Quote:
If you don't think the ultimate aim of various gun control groups is banning and confiscation then you haven't been paying attention the last few decades. As I said, it's not said out loud very often but the aim is still there and was written in various groups' mission statements for a long time.
exactly, again. the gun grabbers are dealing in incrementalism. they do everything a little at a time. it starts with background checks, i mean no one can be opposed to that can they? and then its limiting magazine capacity, do you really need 15 rounds in the glock? wont ten do? then its, you need a permit to carry that gun, then its lets ban these scary looking weapons that we will call assault weapons because it sounds scarier to the average useful idiot.
then its ban this weapon, and that weapon, and soon its no one can have those black powder rifles, and then its you just lost your right to keep and bear arms because we are taking away the black powder pistols now, so you got nothing.
Quote:
It's just like when the Humane Society claims it isn't anti-hunting but files lawsuits every year over hunting seasons.
The anti-gun groups fix on the "worst gun ever". For a long time it was handguns, specifically so called Saturday Night Specials. They were eventually banned in many states.
Then in some states it was enhanced state background checks, such as in MD for handguns (along with a ballistic profile for every one sold in the State) where the check takes months, even though it was mandated in the legislation to take no more than 10 days.
Currently the "worst gun ever" are the so called assault weapons, which as a gun owner you know don't work any differently than any semi-automatic. They do look scarier, though.
There are a couple legislators in MD who have been trying to enact a $5/round tax on ammunition for years. One of those legislators is now MD Attorney General and stated during the campaign that he would use his office as AG to bypass the legislature in enacting new gun control measures.
Another group of legislators, since the "worst gun ever" assault weapon has been banned in MD, have now set their sights on semi-automatic and pump shotguns They're now the "worst guns ever made".
Just taking two cases in particular, Oregon, and Sandyhook, the problem seems to be guns in a house, available to crazies.
Background checks won't solve that problem.
If guns were not made available in the first place, we wouldn't need to worry about anyone using them.
My suggestion in answer to the op would be, change the constitution, and get rid of the second amendment.
It was written and adopted in a time of duress, following a war.
Remove ALL existing guns in the nation (That in itself would be a daunting task, but doable by the army, and national guard), stop gun manufacture completely, and the most important part, which is the only way this would work, very, very stiff penalties for possession and use of guns.
If one were found in possession of a gun, it would be an automatic ten years in prison with no parole, and no time off for good behavior.
Use a gun in the commission of a crime, and that would carry a life sentence with no parole.
A person would be a complete fool to be found with a gun if these were the penalties.
Like any law, enforcement is the key to it's success, and this gun issue is no different.
No one, including ALL politicians wants to face up to the fact this gun possession has gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed.
As long as the nra is funding political candidates, the problem will never be solved.
Just taking two cases in particular, Oregon, and Sandyhook, the problem seems to be guns in a house, available to crazies.
Background checks won't solve that problem.
If guns were not made available in the first place, we wouldn't need to worry about anyone using them.
My suggestion in answer to the op would be, change the constitution, and get rid of the second amendment.
It was written and adopted in a time of duress, following a war.
Remove ALL existing guns in the nation (That in itself would be a daunting task, but doable by the army, and national guard), stop gun manufacture completely, and the most important part, which is the only way this would work, very, very stiff penalties for possession and use of guns.
If one were found in possession of a gun, it would be an automatic ten years in prison with no parole, and no time off for good behavior.
Use a gun in the commission of a crime, and that would carry a life sentence with no parole.
A person would be a complete fool to be found with a gun if these were the penalties.
Like any law, enforcement is the key to it's success, and this gun issue is no different.
No one, including ALL politicians wants to face up to the fact this gun possession has gotten out of hand, and needs to be addressed.
As long as the nra is funding political candidates, the problem will never be solved.
Bob.
as i have said before, the lack of a firearm will not stop someone bent on killing as many people as possible. and as i have said before, if i were to want to go out and kill as many people as possible, i certainly would not use a firearm. truck bombs with a chemical weapon component is much more effective, witness the attack on the federal building in oaklahoma city in 1995.
They can only take names and look for an individual, so he/she doesn't do it to someone else... You are screwed though.
I suggest you be able to defend yourself from all forms of aggression..... Another law isn't going to stop me from kicking the crap out of you! Think about that.
LOL. Well I doubt you could kick the crap out of me so I'm not worried about your false bravado.
To the bolded thanks for the tip, but I grew up in the wrong part of Houston and never needed a gun to make me feel safe. I guess I'm just good at talking my way out of any situation so I just don't share your viewpoint.
I think we might ought to enforce the current laws and see if that helps any, but whatever.
I'm all for risk management.
Just don't be super surprised when it doesn't really produce many tangible results as it pertains to people who are determined to hurt others and themselves.
Well that's why instead of a patchwork of state laws with all sorts of loopholes, we should have a simple federal system that is can enforceable.
Well we can always make it harder for someone determined to do such things or make it easier for someone to slip up and get caught.
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.
