A little common sense and gun control?

[EagleFan]

Boy held hostage in bunker after being snatched from school bus - U.S. News

One killed, two wounded at Phoenix office complex; gunman still at large - U.S. News

Teen girl who performed at president’s inaugural events fatally shot on Chicago’s South Side. - The Washington Post


More violence, still no answers. There needs to be a compromise on both sides but only the whackos are running the show for each side.

If I own a dog that gets loose because of my negligence and kills someone I would be in more trouble than if I owned a gun that got taken because of my negligence and used in a murder.

Again, there needs to be common sense on both sides.

[Buccaneer]

53 people in Chicago (and 31 in Philly) were killed by guns since Newtown. But I guess they don't count since none of them (I think) were by semi-automatics and automatics. I still say you have to attack the root cause of the culture of violence in the inner-cities, else any legislation will be meaningless in the number of gun deaths.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Boy held hostage in bunker after being snatched from school bus - U.S. News

One killed, two wounded at Phoenix office complex; gunman still at large - U.S. News

Teen girl who performed at president’s inaugural events fatally shot on Chicago’s South Side. - The Washington Post


More violence, still no answers. There needs to be a compromise on both sides but only the whackos are running the show for each side.

If I own a dog that gets loose because of my negligence and kills someone I would be in more trouble than if I owned a gun that got taken because of my negligence and used in a murder.

Again, there needs to be common sense on both sides.

All these things do is show how we can never prepare for these things. (before either side jumps on me here, I'm in the middle here. I don't really have a problem with the Obama gun control measures)

We have a 70 year old guy who snaps due to a petty squabble at work.
A 65 year old guy who was a nut job, storm a school bus. (ok, quick, think off all the 65 year old who are off kilter that you have known in your life. How many should have been arrested?)

Then a teen/young male firing at a group of teens getting shelter from the rain. I'm going to assume gang related, but pick your own cause.

How many of those do the compromises stop? Possibly the 65 year old nut job. The 70 year old guy who snapped? No. The kid who jumped the fence and fired into the crowd with a pistol? Not likely. One, it was a handgun, two it was a young adult/teen. So either he shouldn't have had the gun and got it through illegal means or he has no criminal history and was eligible to buy one.

And there is what is so frustrating about this debate. .. on both sides. There is no "catch all" solution here. The simple reality is we don't have the ability to figure out who is and who isn't a risk. Bath, Michigan happened in 1927. HH Holmes slaughtered many young women (and children) in the 1800's. Ed Gein was killing in the 1950's.

McDonalds in San Ysidro happened in 1984. Luby's in 1991. Pick a decade, any decade. . . you'll find this stuff. It is nothing new and it will not stop, no matter what laws we put into place.

[CraigSca]

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com

[Toddzilla]

In before the lock...

o/u on number of boxings resulting from this thread is set at 2 1/2

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com

I read that earlier and it absolutely infuriated me. It's time to start making people criminally responsible for this shit. If you are the head of some agency responsible for contributing to this database, and you don't do it, and that ends up in a mentally ill person you should have flagged shooting up a school, you just ended up with 10 murder charges.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Oh, and if this doesn't irritate the heck out of you - regarding the current gun laws on the docket that are to prevent the violent mentally ill from purchasing guns...

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com

I was reading the other day how Massachusetts was one of the states which hadn't sent any mental health records to the federal database. So it's certainly not just "lack of political will" that keeps that from happening. It's the knee-jerk, lazy reaction to over-rely on perceived "privacy rights." It's a balance, but if society thinks there's too much violence, you have to push back on rights and freedoms. It's easy to want to push back on gun rights if you hate guns or don't have any use for them yourself (Kind of like the good point someone made in one of the bible threads about how its easiest for some Christians to go after homosexuality and abortion, instead of say, infidelity, because the latter implicates more of them personally). It's way more challenging, and takes more courage and sacrifice regarding ones own values, to push back on privacy rights, on criminal defendant's rights, on the rights of the mentally ill, etc. So not as many people are willing to take strong stances in those directions, because there's no cheering crowds for those views, at least not yet. Which kind of creates potential I think - because if we're actually making difficult decisions, there's less perception/reality that it's all just about political opportunism.

[panerd]

6 dead: Chicago shootings rise for holiday weekend - UPI.com

If only Chicago had some gun control laws in place!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

6 dead: Chicago shootings rise for holiday weekend - UPI.com

If only Chicago had some gun control laws in place!

If I understand CNN right, banning assault rifles in the gun-toting South will solve this.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage

At this point, this one sounds like a domestic dispute, not a random incident. Those have been going on for my entire life, this one likely isn't more than a local headline if not for some rounds fired afterwards (which seem possibly to have been an attempt at suicide-by-cop).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage

You realize homicide deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90s right?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You realize homicide deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90s right?

Dang. My bad. So it's ok then. Nevermind.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

53 people in Chicago (and 31 in Philly) were killed by guns since Newtown. But I guess they don't count since none of them (I think) were by semi-automatics and automatics. I still say you have to attack the root cause of the culture of violence in the inner-cities, else any legislation will be meaningless in the number of gun deaths.

I agree with this - I feel like the root cause seems to be poverty and the stress of living in todays world. More people are resorting to crazy behavior because they are being driven crazy by the symptoms that come with the slow death of the country and by the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum. Gun control won't fix it. I would actually advocate less gun control. I'm more worried about just criminals and military/police having guns than I am the rest of America. A war on guns will lead to more problems just like the war on drugs has. Both need to end.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

It's getting to the point where nobody even bothers making threads about these things anymore.

BBC News - Five dead in Santa Monica shooting rampage

this was literally outside the window to my office in santa monica (the shooting at buses and random cars part of the rampage). it was terrifying.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I agree with this - I feel like the root cause seems to be poverty and the stress of living in todays world. More people are resorting to crazy behavior because they are being driven crazy by the symptoms that come with the slow death of the country and by the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum. Gun control won't fix it. I would actually advocate less gun control. I'm more worried about just criminals and military/police having guns than I am the rest of America. A war on guns will lead to more problems just like the war on drugs has. Both need to end.

that and the "it" thing to do now for crazy, unhinged people is to shoot it out. they used to just off themselves but now they see how much attention shooting up a school or mall gets and they go that route instead

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Pyser

this was literally outside the window to my office in santa monica (the shooting at buses and random cars part of the rampage). it was terrifying.

Didn't you hear? Deaths by firearm are down by half since the 90's.

It's just a domestic dispute.

This means there was no reason to fear a guy dressed all in black with an assault weapon running around on the street shooting.

It's ok.

Sell more guns to anybody who wants them. THAT is the smartest thing we can do.

[TroyF]

M GO,

See my post fom above. I do not have a problem with the Obama measures on gun control, but the idea that it will stop this stuff is laughable.

1) guns are out there, period. The shooter in Norway went outside his country to get guns. If he had wanted to, he could have purchased them illegaly anyway.

2) these things have been happening forever. No, it doesnt make it ok, but it also does not mean you are EVER going to stop thus stuff either.

3) Gun violence is down. Does not mean it is eliminated, but it is down.

I wrote about Bath, MI above. This is not all that different from what appened there. Psycho kills people in his own home, burns it to the ground and then heads on out to kill. The guy in Bath gad set some bombs up in a. School and targeted children with hs insanity, but this type of thing will neve go away.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Sell more guns to anybody who wants them. THAT is the smartest thing we can do.

How about you demand we fix the problem first? Then take away the rights of any number of the 99% that don't do illegal things with guns? Blaming the gun-toting South and the NRA is not "a first step" to solving anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

It's just a domestic dispute.

That was in reference to why this wasn't a spellbinding news item that captivated the board.

[EagleFan]

4-year-old boy accidentally kills dad in Arizona

[Warhammer]

How anyone can have unsecured guns in the house with kids is beyond me.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How anyone can have unsecured guns in the house with kids is beyond me.

As far as kid-proofing a house goes, you'd think this would at least be on the top half of the list.

[panerd]

Not defending the homeowner because I don't just leave guns laying around but the father and son were visiting somebody else so it wasn't really the dad that left the gun out. But now not only do lunatic mass murderers cause us to want to take guns from everyone but so do irresponsible guys who leave guns laying around. Can't fix stupid, the huge myth that the gun control crowd thinks more laws will do.

The OP talks about a little common sense on both sides and links a story of a man leaving a gun laying around as an example. Doesn't sound like he understand what common sense means.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by panerd

Can't fix stupid, the huge myth that the gun control crowd thinks more laws will do.

I can't speak for the entire "gun control crowd," but I personally feel the laws on the books now don't work because they are weak and ineffectual.

The owner who left a gun where a visiting child could get to it should lost the right to own firearms. He has proven himself to be irresponsible. As it is, he could go out & buy assault weapons, leave them out where others can get them. then go out & buy more. And there are a lot of people who seem to see nothing wrong with it.

The proposed measures don't seem like they would have much of an effect. Even if we run a background check and gun dealers actually follow through and abide by the law, people who really want to get a gun can get one. It's not difficult. When a nutjob has an agenda & access to guns, there's going to be some dead people. It's the world we live in. Apparently it's perfectly fine to many people.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I can't speak for the entire "gun control crowd," but I personally feel the laws on the books now don't work because they are weak and ineffectual.

The owner who left a gun where a visiting child could get to it should lost the right to own firearms. He has proven himself to be irresponsible. As it is, he could go out & buy assault weapons, leave them out where others can get them. then go out & buy more. And there are a lot of people who seem to see nothing wrong with it.

The proposed measures don't seem like they would have much of an effect. Even if we run a background check and gun dealers actually follow through and abide by the law, people who really want to get a gun can get one. It's not difficult. When a nutjob has an agenda & access to guns, there's going to be some dead people. It's the world we live in. Apparently it's perfectly fine to many people.

When a nutjob wants people dead, they will be dead. It could be a plane, poison, bombs, knives, or any number of other things. Yes, the gun makes it easier, but if you truly believe that mking all firearms going away tomorrow would make you safe from a nutjob, you are more naive than i believed you to be.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by TroyF

When a nutjob wants people dead, they will be dead. It could be a plane, poison, bombs, knives, or any number of other things. Yes, the gun makes it easier, but if you truly believe that mking all firearms going away tomorrow would make you safe from a nutjob, you are more naive than i believed you to be.

Completely safe? No. Remove the guns from this California guy & give him knives instead and two more people are alive. Put a knife in the 4 year old's hands instead & his day (hopefully) takes it away. People won't be throwing knives into a group of people at a bus stop because someone stepped on his shoe.

Are we going to get rid of guns? I would be naive to believe that. If we were to put in some common sense reforms though it would help.

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the government is infringing on their rights, but it would clear up a lot of random gun crimes. Sure, guns in the hands of criminals wouldn't be registered or tested, but those guns get into their hands somewhere. Test new guns when they come into the country even before they hit the market. Then you can trace where those guns left the legal grid. Plug those holes & you start to remove guns from the criminal element.

No solution is perfect, but doing nothing clearly doesn't work. More guns doesn't seem like a good answer either, as when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

[Dutch]

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It
will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the
government is infringing on their rights

So people that support the 2nd amendment are nuts? I think it's nuts that we allow 10,000 murders each year in this country and not prosecute the criminal with extreme prejudice. If you want to fix the crime problem, you get tough on crime, not the NRA.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

Exactly. Success at life is based on good choices, not good legislation.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The thought "some law should have prevented that fat kid from having a triple cheeseburger" never crosses my mind either.

But then nobody ever died because someone else recklessly used one in the general proximity.

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why? What about a gun makes you feel good? Is it power? Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless? Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

But then nobody ever died because someone else recklessly used one in the general proximity.

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why? What about a gun makes you feel good? Is it power? Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless? Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?

A child isn't influenced by their parents eating unhealthy foods?

I don't love guns. I have guns though.

Why? Protection.
Does it feel good? No.
Is it power? No.
Is it fear? No.
Do you know anybody that was murdered with a gun? No.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Completely safe? No. Remove the guns from this California guy & give him knives instead and two more people are alive. Put a knife in the 4 year old's hands instead & his day (hopefully) takes it away. People won't be throwing knives into a group of people at a bus stop because someone stepped on his shoe.

Are we going to get rid of guns? I would be naive to believe that. If we were to put in some common sense reforms though it would help.

I would have all firearms registered & ballistics test run on them. It will never happen because the NRA & gun nuts would scream about how the government is infringing on their rights, but it would clear up a lot of random gun crimes. Sure, guns in the hands of criminals wouldn't be registered or tested, but those guns get into their hands somewhere. Test new guns when they come into the country even before they hit the market. Then you can trace where those guns left the legal grid. Plug those holes & you start to remove guns from the criminal element.

No solution is perfect, but doing nothing clearly doesn't work. More guns doesn't seem like a good answer either, as when you see a fat kid you don't think "if only that kid had a triple cheeseburger."

Are you really that influenced by this hot new media topic that you think nothing is being done about guns? There are no laws on the books, no people going to prison?

[Lathum]

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

[panerd]

I saw a liberal guy on a round table discussion show make what I thought was the best analogy for the NRA I have heard. He said it isn't the NRAs job to make a compromise, their purpose is to defend gun rights. He said its like a defense attorney. Their only job is to defend their client. The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury can decide they are wrong or come up with a compromise. You don't like what the NRA is doing? Elect politicians that won't be in their pockets, sway your politician to your point of view. But to blame the NRA is excusing the other side that doesn't do their job and really missing the point of why the NRA exists.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

Gunvault, GunVault Safes

Just take a look at the quick access items here. No problem getting to your firearm quickly when needed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

Are you talking about every scenario?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by panerd

Are you really that influenced by this hot new media topic that you think nothing is being done about guns? There are no laws on the books, no people going to prison?

Like most things our government does the laws are designed to actually not do much. What is on the books has very little effect. What is proposed would also have little effect. Those who might go further don't out of fear that their opponent will be heavily funded by influential lobby groups.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I never understood the protection angle. It seems to me if you are a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have the opportunity to get to your gun by the time needed it. It's not like an intruder is going to wait.

A "conservative" loudmouth I used to work with was blabbing on about how great guns are and how he has one in case someone ever breaks in. I asked what he would do if he caught a guy that didn't have a gun, or who he got the draw on. "I'd call the police." I had him humor me & point his hand like it was a gun and hold it on me, the bad guy. Told him to do so. When he turned his head to dial the phone I slapped his hand. He got upset that I did that & was even less happy when in front of everybody I told him how if I was a real bad guy, I would have his gun now. Any "bad guy" a "good guy" pulls a gun on will likely have one advantage in that he has nothing to lose.

I would be interested in seeing statistics on how often (when an average person pulls one) they help a situation compared to simply escalating it.

Guns have their place and they should. The guns themselves don't scare me, but the idea of who may have them does. And I hope I'm never in a situation where I actually thing one would come in handy. I hope none of us are, even those who are 100% pro-gun & completely against any kind of controls.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

I saw a liberal guy on a round table discussion show make what I thought was the best analogy for the NRA I have heard. He said it isn't the NRAs job to make a compromise, their purpose is to defend gun rights. He said its like a defense attorney. Their only job is to defend their client. The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury can decide they are wrong or come up with a compromise. You don't like what the NRA is doing? Elect politicians that won't be in their pockets, sway your politician to your point of view. But to blame the NRA is excusing the other side that doesn't do their job and really missing the point of why the NRA exists.

But what is the NRA doing?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Honest questions for the people who love guns here. Why?

What about a gun makes you feel good?
It doesn't really matter, there's a rather explicit right to have one. The ability to exercise that option is a key. Some are also among the most aesthetically pleasing items invented.

Is it power?
I'd say it's more about having options.

Is it fear that someone else has a gun and without one you'd be completely helpless?
Again, the options thing.

Also, did you know anybody who was murdered with a gun?
Yes, unfortunately more than one as a matter of fact. And several others who were seriously injured by them, both by criminal action/intent and accidentally. And in the deaths, all were weapons possessed illegally by convicted felons.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mike D

But what is the NRA doing?

I meant anger that they don't want to "compromise". Why would they?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

So Jon, since it is a right, and one that shall not be infringed, is there any instance where it would be applicable to infringe upon the right or is it the right of everybody to have any Arms?

A strict reading of this could say that the government has no right to stop anybody from having any Arms whatsoever. By "people" it does not even state "citizen" or anything of legality. Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

It could also be said that requiring registration of all Arms and ballistics testing of every firearm is not in violation of the 2nd Amendment. It's not infringing.

I think there should be every option on the table in keeping weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to harm others. If the politicians really wanted to they could impose fair regulations that could help save innocent lives. Some good people might even still be alive if the holes in the system were plugged.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

Frankly, given only the two extreme options I'd prefer that to further restricting the rights of American to bear arms.

It's a non-negotiable item afaic, and generally speaking I'd say it's been infringed upon far too much already.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

And there is the divide that will never be able to be breached.

There is no bargaining when one side would prefer Osama Bin Laden be able to walk into Kmart & purchase an arsenal that can kill everybody than have to get a license for his gun.

It's one reason I fear this country will one day fracture in two. It would be interesting to see the resulting different societies though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

There is no bargaining when one side would prefer Osama Bin Laden be able to walk into Kmart & purchase an arsenal that can kill everybody than have to get a license for his gun.

Well, hypothetically speaking, we might actually see some rational immigration policies if that were the case. Nothing happens in a vacuum after all.

It's one reason I fear this country will one day fracture in two. It would be interesting to see the resulting different societies though.

There's another difference. What you "fear" is very very close to becoming what I "hope".

[EagleFan]

Sadly, if the house owner had a dog that he was irresponsible with and it killed the boy's father he would probably be in more trouble than he will be in for this (which is probably none).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mike D

But what is the NRA doing?

Being an effective trade group for gun/ammo manufacturers.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Being an effective trade group for gun/ammo manufacturers.

Important note....NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Important note....NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

Sadly the gun owners don't understand that fact. Because the "NRA is on their side!". Yeah in the same way that tobacco lobbyists are there to help the smoker...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

So Jon, since it is a right, and one that shall not be infringed, is there any instance where it would be applicable to infringe upon the right or is it the right of everybody to have any Arms?

A strict reading of this could say that the government has no right to stop anybody from having any Arms whatsoever. By "people" it does not even state "citizen" or anything of legality. Technically, shouldn't an incarcerated terrorist from Pakistan be allowed to bear Arms? Shouldn't rocket launchers be legal to possess by his friends that are here?

Put it within the context of the United States Constitution probably makes it more clear -- "the people" is short for "the people of the United States".

And more clearly...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.