Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

[sansone]

a lifetime friend of mine from another part of the country just called to tell me I need a new job in light of the recent tragedy. His belief is more weapons are on the street because of people like me. I explained the background check procedure, mandatory 3 day wait for handguns, and assured him only law abiding adult citizens are acquiring firearms from me..

All rubbish he says, our rights are outweighed by these mass shootings..

After much soul searching I have come to realize facts mean nothing to people who believe banning something will stop future tragedies. A person who never has a desire for a thing, sees no problem with stopping ALL others from having it.

Our guts ache from the recent tragedy, my good friend increased the pain, but I finally understand what legal gun ownership is up against.

 

[Texan Scott]

All rubbish he says, our rights are outweighed by these mass shootings.

A person's rights are outweighed only by the dictates of their own conscience.

 

[bigfatdave]

It's exactly this kind of mind-set that's going to get the AWB reinstated. When it passes, guys like you will be to blame. We could save ourselves, but no. You'd rather children die than compromise.

I would prefer that the kids have actual protection, through allowing/encouraging the staff to be armed and removing the stupid GFZ.
Guys like you are why we have all the stupid little laws. No more compromise, it doesn't work, it doesn't slow the gun-banners down, it doesn't appease the politicians wanting a government monopoly on force, it doesn't protect kids, and it doesn't work.

 

[limpingbear]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?
no more comprimise, they need to come up with something besides banning guns.

 

[bigfatdave]

rocketmedic, your silly proposal is another example of attempting to reduce crime by hassling the lawful.
It doesn't work. If you like the flawed cars/guns analogy, your little licensing scheme will be just as well followed as driver's licenses reduce DUI and "operating w/of license" infractions. Your capacity suggestions are amazingly ignorant. Who enforces this nonsense? How do you suggest limiting access to sheet metal and springs?
I feel dumber for trying to think out how it would work.

NO MORE COMPROMISES
Gun laws don't work. They can't work.
Murder is already illegal. Someone planning to murder another human being or many other human beings isn't going to be deterred by some stupid little laws about mag capacity, or a gun-free zone.
You can't reduce murders by legislation of tools.

 

[Wes B]

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. Hundredth's and thousandth's :banghead:. Must'a had an idjit attack.

So, disregarding my flagrant incorrect use of the maths, the fact remains that not a majority, or a super-majority, or most; but an overwhelming preponderance of gun owners do not commit these types of crimes.

How about we stop inventing ways to punish law abiding citizens with more stringent gun laws. More stringent gun laws that will be ignored by the crazies that do commit these crimes.

I think the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the dismal state of mental health care in this country.

 

[cambeul41]

Isn't the Brady Campaign looking for a spokesman?

RocketMedic, are you angling for a job?

Your proposal seems designed to destroy gun ownership by the ordinary citizen.

Of course I do confess to being one of those who want to simplify all gun law and make all of government as little repressive as possible.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's true that most of these mass shooters have been in their 20's, male, and fairly obviously mentally unbalanced. But some of the proposals in this thread are, frankly, appalling. They cast too wide a net. I was 23, in 1968, when I bought my first AR-15. I had several other guns before that. It's a personal insult to me, and to millions of others who are/were gun owners in their 20's (many of whom are veterans) to brand us all as threats to society, based on the actions of a tiny number of nut cases.

 

[gp911]

Wow, the knee-jerk garbage on this thread is surprising. Let's stop drunk driving by making cars harder to get and restricting everyone to driving subcompacts unless they prove they have a need for something larger. We can require ignition interlocks with breathalyzers for everybody that signs up for their permit-to-consume-alcohol, which of course will require recertification every five years, and then there's the restrictions on liquor ownership for persons who have ever been prescribed an antidepressant, which of course requires a national registry of prohibited persons...

Come on, it's just "common sense" lawmaking. Your freedom isn't worth all those people dying from drunk drivers, you are just being selfish. It's for the ch-

You get the idea. Once you look at these restrictions from a rational perspective they aren't using "common sense" at all, they just make people feel good that don't care to examine the issue objectively.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. Hundredth's and thousandth's :banghead:. Must'a had an idjit attack.

So, disregarding my flagrant incorrect use of the maths, the fact remains that not a majority, or a super-majority, or most; but an overwhelming preponderance of gun owners do not commit these types of crimes.

How about we stop inventing ways to punish law abiding citizens with more stringent gun laws. More stringent gun laws that will be ignored by the crazies that do commit these crimes.

I think the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the dismal state of mental health care in this country.

I agree with everything you said, but I do have a question. I understand this animal had Asperger's, but he killed himself when confronted by force. Is that the action of someone mentally unstable, or the action of pure evil? I honestly am not sure, but think it merits questioning.

Shawn

 

[whetrock]

If you give .gov an inch they'll inevitably go a mile. They won't stop with just "High capacity Magazines" or so called "Assault Weapons." After they, restrict or outlaw these, weapons they will go after the next, most useful defensive, and offensive (in they're eyes) weapons and keep eroding away at our individual liberties, until we wake up one sorrowful morning and come to the realization that our right to keep and bear arms has become almost nonexistent. With some things compromise is to be expected, however when it comes the the venerable Bill of Rights, I prefer to not compromise in the least bit. You've got to draw your line in the sand someplace, and my line doesn't begin after "assault weapons" or "high cap mags".

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

We require a year-long permit process before buying a car.

Who is this we? I know of no such requirement in most states.

You can't buy a car without a license

This is simply not true in most states.

You may want to consider the licensing and purchase requirements of the US as a whole before making sweeping generalizations and applying them to guns.

You really think someone is going to throw their child out to own a gun?

I said nothing about throwing out a child. However, one of the biggest challenges we face in dealing with the problem of mental illness is the stigma associated with it. There is a reason why so many of the mentally ill are homeless. All your plan does is further exacerbate the problem attaching additional consequences to a diagnosis. People in this situation need help, not a scarlet letter bestowed to them and their families.

And you know damn well what I mean by mental illness.

I'm afraid I don't. The DSM-IV has 297 disorders covering a wide range of conditions. Are you limiting it to those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or is a single diagnosis from a family practitioner enough?

 

[Justin]

I said nothing about throwing out a child. However, one of the biggest challenges we face in dealing with the problem of mental illness is the stigma associated with it. There is a reason why so many of the mentally ill are homeless. All your plan does is further exacerbate the problem attaching additional consequences to a diagnosis. People in this situation need help, not a scarlet letter bestowed to them and their families.

It seems fairly obvious to me that following through on such a proposal would be to the great detriment of not only gun owners, but also people who suffer from a mental illness.

For example, how many troops returning from Iraq or Afghanistan would simply opt to refuse treatment for PTSD if they knew that they'd lose their right to own a firearm as a condition of being diagnosed?

As for the previous person who posted about taxing standard capacity magazines at a rate higher than what is assessed to own a legal machine gun, it strikes me as blazingly clear that his proposals would do nothing to affect violent crime, but rather, would only serve to generate a massive black market for these magazines. Given that 3d printer technology gets better every year, it would only be a matter of time before his proposals would be shown to be completely ineffectual.

I find it particularly offensive that he's so quick to throw other gun owners under the bus simply because they opt to own Glocks or AR-pattern rifles.

 

[RX-178]

Freedom can be a scary and dangerous thing. Freedom means stupid people can be stupid, crazy people can be crazy, and even that evil people can be evil.

The only way to make it less dangerous is to further control society. So why stop at the 2nd amendment?

There's violent graphic video games that show our hero
es killing dozens of people at a time without any remorse, not to mention all the popular revenge-themed action thrillers, we could curtail the 1st amendment to restrict them.

How about unreasonable search and seizure? After all, if the police can search people whenever they want, they have a better chance of catching something like this before it happens.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Maybe we can get leads on other crimes in the making if prisoners are tortured regularly.

The fact is, I don't have the answer. After all of the collective experience of the human race, since the beginning of our existence, nobody does. People are going to get hurt. People are going to die. In fact, there are plenty of nations on this planet where governments practice all of my tongue-in-cheek 'suggestions', and people are still hurt and killed.

Knowing this, I would much rather live in a free and dangerous world, than a controlled and 'safe' one.

 

[Texan Scott]

... deleted, double post.

 

[Wes B]

I agree with everything you said, but I do have a question. I understand this animal had Asperger's, but he killed himself when confronted by force. Is that the action of someone mentally unstable, or the action of pure evil? I honestly am not sure, but think it merits questioning.

I agree completely. This is the discussion we should be having.
Identifying mental issues.
Treating mental issues.
Finding a way for these people to live their lives without causing themselves or others harm.
And, identifying the outright evil people. My guess is that they will have some identified disorder.
Either way, that is where the focus should be.

In addition to the issue of mental health being the focus of the debate. What happened to the quality of education in America? It is evident to me that people have no understanding of cause and effect, the difference between correlation and causation, or researching facts before writing on a subject.

Example: When did a Bushmaster AR in .223 become an "Incredibly Powerful Assault Weapon"?
Heck, I plan on buying a lever action .45/70 soon. What will that be in comparison?

 

[Texan Scott]

I have a son with Asperger's Syndrome. He is NOT mentally ill. To say so is uninformed but excusable. To say so again would be ignorant and offensive.

Asperger's is a form of autism. It is NOT mental illness, any more than dyslexia or Down's Syndrome. It is a developmental and cognitive disability with no associated mental retardation or delusional/ psychopathic issues. It absolutely does NOT explain the shooter's behavior.

Sometimes, an autistic child's behavior is disability related. Sometimes, as with any child, it's just simple disobedience, doing what they want while knowing it isn't allowed.

And sometimes, people WILLFULLY CHOOSE to do things they KNOW to be heinous and morally reprehensible. It's called EVIL. For some reason, some people are reluctant to say it, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade.

 

[Rocketmedic]

@ MG Mikael: You are very, very wrong. You are also the reason that we will see a ban on civilian ownership of at least some firearms in the not-so-distant future.

 

[RX-178]

You know, according to I think Ynet news, the shooter was described as having the following traits.

Asperger's Syndrome, a fascination with Japanese culture, and regular playing of the game Dynasty Warriors.

Well you know what? I've got Asperger's syndrome, I grew up partially in Taiwan where there's a lot of crossover with modern Japanese culture (I'm even a lifelong anime fan), and I own every single Dynasty Warriors game, from 2-6, which is where I think the series jumped the shark.

The news outlets say that his mom took him target shooting regularly. Well, my dad took me target shooting regularly.

Want to add another one? I was bullied severely in school, and I still have nightmares about a classmate from back then climbing on my back and forcing my face into the sandbox until I lost consciousness.

It seems like the only difference between me and Adam Lanza is that I /DIDN'T/ go out and murder over 20 innocent people.

NOTHING about his mental condition took away free will. He CHOSE to commit a heinous, cruel, unforgivable, and unmistakably evil act.

Nothing about my mental condition has taken away my free will. I have NEVER chosen to murder people.

 

[powderx]

We're toast as a society if we start doing as the OP and the other suggest. This kind of feel-good stuff that has no basis in reality or critical thinking is what is eroding us from within.

 

[Texan Scott]

RX, thank you... and very well said.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Scott, I know what Asperger's is and I agree with you, but even as I type this MSN is referring to his "mental illness". I think this act was nothing more than pure evil. I was referring to other people calling this a mental health issue and while it has been part of the problem in the past, I do not think it was the case here.

However with that said, if you took offense to what I said then I apologize to you and your son. I certainly didn't intend to.

Shawn

 

[Ironclad]

Freedom can be a scary and dangerous thing. Freedom means stupid people can be stupid, crazy people can be crazy, and even that evil people can be evil.

The only way to make it less dangerous is to further control society. So why stop at the 2nd amendment?

There's violent graphic video games that show our hero
es killing dozens of people at a time without any remorse, not to mention all the popular revenge-themed action thrillers, we could curtail the 1st amendment to restrict them.

How about unreasonable search and seizure? After all, if the police can search people whenever they want, they have a better chance of catching something like this before it happens.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Maybe we can get leads on other crimes in the making if prisoners are tortured regularly.

The fact is, I don't have the answer. After all of the collective experience of the human race, since the beginning of our existence, nobody does. People are going to get hurt. People are going to die. In fact, there are plenty of nations on this planet where governments practice all of my tongue-in-cheek 'suggestions', and people are still hurt and killed.

Knowing this, I would much rather live in a free and dangerous world, than a controlled and 'safe' one.

This is a great quote and I agree completely. This is America. If we lose our freedom, what do we have left.


On the issue of paying extra money for increase mag capacity, what exactly could ever be accomplished by that? How is it reasonable to say "this is illegal, unless you pay the government more" ? It seems pretty elitist to mandate that only people with hundreds of dollars of disposable income should be able to have more than 10 rounds.

 

[mister_murphy]

By banning/restricting the "widget" there is no way to prevent a person from stealing, or illegally obtaining widget, and doing something monsterous. There just isnt. If we try to eliminate one item, or widget as it may be, that could be used, that person so inclined would find something else to try to reach his/her objective.

The only way to try to find a solution is for there to be communication between folks on who is, or may be violent, and investigate what needs to be done, and at what level. This will not be an easy discussion to have, even more difficult to decide which way to go, and to implement it. Even with hardened violent criminals its difficult to keep them locked up for long.

 

[Texan Scott]

ATBP, please take my post as an attempt to inform those that need only informing, reassure those who only need reassuring, and rebuke only those that need rebuking.

Like MSN. Frequently MSN. Especially MSN.