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.
If there's a massacre, then we wait to see how the gun or guns were obtained.
A. The guns were obtained LEGALLY (and not through gun show either). So then, more gun control laws would have been ineffective in preventing the person from obtaining the gun or guns (unless that gun control is prohibition and confiscation).
B. The guns were obtained ILLEGALLY. This could be black market sale, theft, etc. So then, the laws were already flaunted, thus more laws would not have been effective, they would have been just as disregarded.
C. The law didn't work; the background check missed something, etc. So the law should have worked but didn't for some reason.
D. The guns were obtained through a GUN SHOW.
(In the future we'll have E. The gun was 3D printed.)
---------------------
I think we can and should do something about D. above.
But it's interesting how both A. and B. above can point out the problem with current or more stringent gun control laws. Isn't it?
That will work about as well as the ban on meth, heroin and pot. Remember when alcohol was banned? It made millionaires out of common mafiosi.
Besides, who is going to go door to door confiscating private property? YOU?
It seems that they are willing to initiate a bloodbath in an ill-fated attempt to save a few lives.
The casualties resulting from an attempt at confiscation would dwarf a century of gun deaths.
I didn't mean you in particular were cavalier about other people's rights, I meant everyone (including myself) tend to be cavalier when a law doesn't affect them directly. I'm reluctant to discuss high capacity magazines but they were banned in Connecticut a couple of years ago. If you had any in your home you had to register them with the state police. I live in a part of the state with limited police presence. There was a home invasion down the road from my house a year or so ago, it took the police over an hour to respond. Around the same time two pickup trucks full of drunk guys stopped in front of my house, about 25 feet from my bedroom windows. They got out and were yelling at each other all the while beating my front garden light and mailbox with a metal bar. To be honest I was terrified (to state it politely), retrieved a pistol from my bedroom safe and turned on the porch lights ........ they left (thank goodness). The point is that at that moment I wanted a 10,000 round magazine in my pistol, so I'm reluctant to dictate what a person needs for their personal security.
Back on track...............Finally some sense. Here and in other forums I was trying to say that the first solution is a revamp of HIPPA and some sort of reporting mechanism to flag potential mad people. But my sense is that it would be theoretically easier to repeal the first amendment than to chip away at HIPPA. I just don't see how, while still a good idea, mandatory background checks will do anything to stem the rash of mass shootings. Just being pragmatic.
Like you I'm all for funding research to find the cause and perhaps prevention of this plague. But I think we have to let Joe Average gun owner off the hook.
I don't disagree with anything you said here except that you claim background checks won't work & I agree they don't always work but they do help. There was a gun dealer in Reno who was convicted of selling illegal weapons (i.e. machine guns) People had been talking about him for awhile, claiming that if a felon wanted to buy a gun he was the 'go to guy' at the Reno Gun show, that he would usually have an unlicensed friend conduct the sale in order to avoid the background check requirement, but I guess in this case he got so greedy that he sold directly to these ATF agents. I posted an article earlier in this thread about a Reno cop selling a gun at Starbucks to a guy who was prohibited because of a mental health commitment. If Nevada required a background check for all transactions it just 'might' have stopped some of these kinds of transactions & I'm sure the Cop would not have jeopardized her job if it had been illegal for her to sell the gun without a background check.
It seems that they are willing to initiate a bloodbath in an ill-fated attempt to save a few lives.
The casualties resulting from an attempt at confiscation would dwarf a century of gun deaths.
I believe that would be the case. But maybe that is what the end goal is for many of them, as they attempt to radically change the ideals of which this Republic was founded on.
^ You're proving my point that RWNJ's can't wrap their heads around anything that isn't total prohibition.
It's an IF/THEN statement.
IF RWNJ's refuse to compromise on ANYTHING gun related, THEN there is a chance that a majority of people will become fed up and just ban guns entirely. It's called an "amendment" for a reason. Amendments can be themselves amended.
Thank you for getting my point. People are getting tired and frustrated in their attempts to even discuss, much less pass, the most minor regulations on firearms in this country. And on the flipside, the NRA's response is to further unravel regulations that were already in place. Push people to the point where they feel like they're negotiating with terrorists, and that's the reaction they will get: You don't negotiate with terrorists. You just say enough is enough.
If there is ever a law put on the books to ban guns entirely, it will be because the gun lobby refuses to consider even the most minor compromises to appease the growing number of people who are fed up with inaction on gun violence. And if/when that happens, I'm not going to feel the least bit sorry for them.
Thank you for getting my point. People are getting tired and frustrated in their attempts to even discuss, much less pass, the most minor regulations on firearms in this country. And on the flipside, the NRA's response is to further unravel regulations that were already in place. Push people to the point where they feel like they're negotiating with terrorists, and that's the reaction they will get: You don't negotiate with terrorists. You just say enough is enough.
If there is ever a law put on the books to ban guns entirely, it will be because the gun lobby refuses to consider even the most minor compromises to appease the growing number of people who are fed up with inaction on gun violence. And if/when that happens, I'm not going to feel the least bit sorry for them.
We have already given you enough of our cake. We would like some of it back. Repeal the NFA, do that and maybe we will give you something.
So, why do you libs keep attacking gun ownership and ignoring the real problem...that there are people on the loose that commit crimes?
It's not like we don't know who they are! 80-90% of violent crimes are committed by people who've been previously committed and these school shootings have been committed by people that should have been under supervision. In all bu a very few cases the person was known to be unstable or prone to violence. Yet you ignore all of that and go after the tool they chose. You do realize that there was murder and mayhem before guns, right? Any competent person can see that without guns there still would be murder and mayhem.
Unjustified homicides are a miniscule fraction of all preventable deaths...what are you doing about the reasons that cause the most preventable deaths? NOTHING!
There are more children dying from falling/falls from furniture than from guns each year...are you trying to do something about that?
No..you're not! Your whole position is dishonest.
Those responsible for the inaction, are those not willing to take responsibility for their own security .
This has always been the crux of the problem.
I'm not dodging a darned thing, if I'm wrong, then show me that stats of how many children were killed in Detroit due to drive by shootings.
Yes you are dodging. Go back to post #173 where you asked a specific question and I gave you a concrete answer backed up with data. You completely ignored it and went back to crying "OMG the guns kill".
I also showed you the FBI stats for the number of times a legally owned gun was used by a private citizen to kill an attacker - the justifiable homicides. That's on the average 230 a year, 10 times more than the average number of victims of mass shootings. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, not accounting for all the encounters when the gun scared the criminal away without killing him. That's hundreds if not thousands of lives saved each year, again something you completely chose to ignore.
I also showed you that many of the states with highest gun ownership rate have low murder rate, better than many Western European countries. Vermont, Idaho, Iowa, Utah, Wyoming. You again chose to ignore this.
I showed you that there's a very strong, undeniable correlation between murder rate and demographic, that has nothing to do with legal gun ownership. The top murder rate area, DC, has complete gun control. You again chose to ignore this.
You have a clear agenda and carefully avoid an honest, straightforward, data based discussion. This is very obvious.
Thank you for getting my point. People are getting tired and frustrated in their attempts to even discuss, much less pass, the most minor regulations on firearms in this country. And on the flipside, the NRA's response is to further unravel regulations that were already in place. Push people to the point where they feel like they're negotiating with terrorists, and that's the reaction they will get: You don't negotiate with terrorists. You just say enough is enough.
If there is ever a law put on the books to ban guns entirely, it will be because the gun lobby refuses to consider even the most minor compromises to appease the growing number of people who are fed up with inaction on gun violence. And if/when that happens, I'm not going to feel the least bit sorry for them.
So side A thinks any added gun control legislation is a slippery slope / stepping stone to an eventual ban, so they oppose it all. Side B thinks consistent (and successful) resistance to any added gun control legislation will lead to the need for a total ban because nothing else can get done.
Meanwhile, a total ban (presumably with door-to-door confiscation by force, otherwise why bother?) would be a bloody, generational civil war with huge amounts of death and collateral damage.
Hmm.
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.
