La Lana wrote: But the bottom line is...is the bullet is what kills someone. The report will list that as the cause of death...not person.
I think the bottom line is that someone pulled the trigger.
But what kills that person...is the bullet. When a coroner lists that as the cause of death...it's not blaming the gun...the bullet was the cause of death.
But what kills that person...is the bullet. When a coroner lists that as the cause of death...it's not blaming the gun...the bullet was the cause of death.
I've said all of this recently and this is my take on it:
The problem is the culture we live in. I'm not anti-gun but the less guns in society, the better. The people who want guns to be legal should be the people pushing to keep the bar high so that we don't have an absurd amount of gun violence. I once looked up the states with the most gun ownership and the states with the highest gun deaths. Guess what? They correlated extremely well. The average person just isn't stable enough to handle that kind of power. Take yourself at your least stable/most angry you've ever been and put a gun in your hand. Most people if they're honest will admit that would be a bad scene I think. The most likely firearms related incident if you own a gun is you shooting yourself with it, and that says a lot.
The 24 hour media news cycle in a celebrity driven culture that can take seemingly anonymous people and make them seem larger than life. We live in a country that thinks death is a good punishment. Something is wrong with that. We've also become better at making escapism perfect. Video game violence is something that, like guns, you can either handle or you cannot. So think about it, for someone who was already isolated, may have been developmentally disabled, (the only reason that is relevant is that it may have been a cloak to actually seeing who the person really was) and has trouble connecting finds a way for this to be perpetuated and dehumanizing people. Children do not at all benefit cognitively from video game violence and I think that parents need to stop allowing their children to play these games.
I think it's only going to get worse unless parents teach their children personal responsibility, and resilience, and stop paying for violence. We have an unhealthy addiction to violence in this country and if you take the economy out of it, it's extinguished. If people are valuing creativity and empathy, we arent destroying.
I know a guy who is a rabid NRA fanatic -- I can't talk to him about gun control, gun rights (or health care or Obama for that matter).
But I agree with many liberals...
... It baffles me that getting a gun is easier than getting a driver's
license. For guns, there are no proficiency tests, no written tests,
no renewals required, etc.
... It bothers me that it is easier for a marginal person to obtain a gun
than to get mental health care.
... It is quite clear to me that countries with tighter gun controls than
the USA have significantly less gun violence than we do in the USA.
... Sure there is a constitutional right to own guns, but...
1) The Constitution can be changed,
2) When those gun "rights" were enacted, "guns" were basically
muskets and not semi-automatic assault weapons.
... I read elsewhere that the NRA recommends that we place an armed
policeman in schools (or, as my friend suggests, we arm the teachers).
Who pays for this?
... It amazes me that one guy failed to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane,
and now we have to go through airport security barefoot, but after
instances of gun violence in schools (elementary schools, for goodness
sake), we are unable to curtail the ease with which sociopaths can
obtain guns.
Anyone with me? Any NRA "spokespersons" wanting to defend their "right" to kill random first graders?
The title to your thread is the answer to your questions. Did you not see the forest for the trees?
Natural Means
Posts: 287
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
I'm a part time shooter (rifle hunting mostly some for food and some for feral animals) and have resisted 'Big Brother' zealously here.
But for pro gun groups to un sympathetically maintain hard line resistance to community safety will hurt shooter interests (am I allowed to say backfire :-) )
Rational storage requirements
Demonstrated proficiency
Some logical reason to own
Logical maximum number (a pistol if you're scared, a low power rifle for little animals, a high power for big animal, a spare, and a shotgun who the fuck needs more?)
Mental health check, and a minimum check of anger management.
These things might make your community safer and definitely make your non shooting neighbour feel safer.
Stay Puft
Posts: 2,413
Ofu, Manu'a, American Samoa
Alec Dealty wrote: If you want to change the Second Amendment, there is a method for doing that.
Art of CIP wrote: There's no need to change the second amendment. Even if the amendment was changed - it exists as part of a system of laws - multiple amendments would have to be changed as well to accommodate any changes to the second amendment.
The method for changing the 2nd amendment would also work for changing any other amendments, or any other parts of the constitution, that you think might need to be changed.
toesup wrote: When was the last time a sane person committed a mass shooting?..
.. and..
The last person to remove all guns from the populous was one 'Adolf Hitler'..
??????????
You're joking right?
In the Netherlands we have no guns under the populous (except for members of a gun club) and the last time I've checked our prime minister was not mstr Adolf and neither is he the prime minister of all the European countries that have similar rules about guns as us.
And even then its complete and utter nonsense, mstr Adolf was the first to arm his personal hitsquads (the SA) with weapons from the old army depots, they eventually became so powerful that even Adolf found them to be a threat and he eliminated the SA leaders in the night of the long knives with help of the SS.
??????????
You're joking right?
In the Netherlands we have no guns under the populous (except for members of a gun club) and the last time I've checked our prime minister was not mstr Adolf and neither is he the prime minister of all the European countries that have similar rules about guns as us.
And even then its complete and utter nonsense, mstr Adolf was the first to arm his personal hitsquads (the SA) with weapons from the old army depots, they eventually became so powerful that even Adolf found them to be a threat and he eliminated the SA leaders in the night of the long knives with help of the SS.
sdgillis wrote: My dad told me never to join the NRA. Once they get your address they never leave you alone, they constantly harass. He is gun person and has even helped to pass laws aiding people's rights to bear arms and keep gun rights intact where he lives.
I feel sorry for people who have lived the city life and never had the chance to let loose out in the country just shooting, blowing up or releasing whatever agnst they have on a pile of old bottles, tires, cans, etc. It's quite therapeutic.
In the cities they use children instead of bottles and tin cans. Apparently its very therapeutic too.
Looknsee Photography wrote: ... It baffles me that getting a gun is easier than getting a driver's
license. For guns, there are no proficiency tests, no written tests,
no renewals required, etc.
Also true of free speech, the right to assemble, the right to a trial, etc. Shall we put restrictions on those rights?
... It bothers me that it is easier for a marginal person to obtain a gun
than to get mental health care.
So make it easier to get mental health care. And less of negatively seen by society. Good luck with that. Seriously.
... It is quite clear to me that countries with tighter gun controls than
the USA have significantly less gun violence than we do in the USA.
But some of them have more violence (even gun violence) than the USA. Thailand has much stricter regulations. It's gun violence rate is 3 times that of the USA. The UK, despite its lower gun violence, has a higher overall violent crime rate. In the UK and Australia, gun violence is rising while gun violence in the USA is declining. If we accept that those cultures are similar, what are the significant differences? There is a pretty good argument to be made that the differences are in legal private firearm ownership.
1) The Constitution can be changed,
Yep, 75% of the Congress and 75% of the States. Not happening regarding the 2d Amendment. Never get Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Iowa, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas to go along with it.
2) When those gun "rights" were enacted, "guns" were basically
muskets and not semi-automatic assault weapons.
Actually, the 2d Amendment states "arms" - and arms when the 2d Amendment was enacted included rifles, muskets, pistols, cannon, and grenades.
... I read elsewhere that the NRA recommends that we place an armed
policeman in schools (or, as my friend suggests, we arm the teachers).
Who pays for this?
Why not volunteers? Do you really think that you couldn't get adequate volunteers to guard our schools? If you can't? Then we have bigger problems than gun control is going to address.
... It amazes me that one guy failed to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane,
and now we have to go through airport security barefoot, but after
instances of gun violence in schools (elementary schools, for goodness
sake), we are unable to curtail the ease with which sociopaths can
obtain guns.
And how effective have those requirements to go barefoot through security been at catching terrorists? Has TSA caught even one terrorist?
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: I have no idea if she was ultimately responsible, neither do you, neither does the government. What I'll admit is that her desire to own weapons of the type she owned makes her look unbalanced in retrospect.
Having semi-automatic weapons in the house and accessible to her son with known mental problems makes her completely irresponsible.
Let There Be Light wrote: ...Having semi-automatic weapons in the house and accessible to her son with known mental problems makes her completely irresponsible.
Armchair speculation in retrospect isn't worth much. There are mental problems and there are mental problems. Some might be able to handle a gun, some might not.
Having semi-automatic weapons in the house and accessible to her son with known mental problems makes her completely irresponsible.
How do you categorize "known mental problems"?
According to what I have read regarding Lanza in observations by his peers, teachers, etc. I have yet to see anything listed that would have caused a court to order him to get treatment. I haven't seen anything listed that isn't within the range of norms for a teenager.
Al Lock Photography wrote: How do you categorize "known mental problems"?
According to what I have read regarding Lanza in observations by his peers, teachers, etc. I have yet to see anything listed that would have caused a court to order him to get treatment. I haven't seen anything listed that isn't within the range of norms for a teenager.
most teenages dont need to be supervised to go to the toilet, either he or his mother were a little odd (looks like he was 5, still a little odd tho)
most teenages dont need to be supervised to go to the toilet, either he or his mother were a little odd (looks like he was 5, still a little odd tho)
Where is that coming from? The reports I've seen regarding Lanza don't mention it. Seems hard to believe that this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … iller.html would have missed that, for example.
So how did your country's lack of interest in guns work out for you when Hitler came knocking at the door?
Ooh please, you need to pull out a Godwin to make a case?
You know what rule applies to starting with a Godwin?
It's not 1940 anymore, my country is not going to be invaded by anyone anytime soon and neither is yours (and that has nothing to do with guns amongst the populous)
photoimager
Posts: 4,111
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Looknsee Photography wrote:
Lightcraft Studio wrote: That poor lady obviously misunderstood the suggestion. No one suggested arming the other students (although we're halfway there already here in Los Angeles)..
Nope, your the one who has missed the underlying message. The point the poster makes is quite simple. You don't solve the problem by making the tool / weapon available to everyone, you solve the problem by not making the tools / weapon available at all.
'An eye for an eye' etc breaks down when the first act is one person killing the other.
But what kills that person...is the bullet. When a coroner lists that as the cause of death...it's not blaming the gun...the bullet was the cause of death.
What the coroner lists as cause of death in such situations is getting shot. The problem is not the gun, the bullet or anything else those are simply tools used in the commission of the crime, if they're taken away the criminal will find another way to do the deed. The problem is the total lack of concern for other people that criminals have.
What the coroner lists as cause of death in such situations is getting shot. The problem is not the gun, the bullet or anything else those are simply tools used in the commission of the crime, if they're taken away the criminal will find another way to do the deed. The problem is the total lack of concern for other people that criminals have.
I think its a combination of lack of concern and, well hey, shooting them up with a gun would be fun, just like in the movies and video games, bang bang youre dead, movies and video games about throwing spears or making bombs are relatively rear, they just arent as much fun, its not really the fantasy that many people have
I think its a combination of lack of concern and, well hey, shooting them up with a gun would be fun, just like in the movies and video games, bang bang youre dead, movies and video games about throwing spears or making bombs are relatively rear, they just arent as much fun, its not really the fantasy that many people have
You have a point but that is also indicative of people who don't care about each other.....
Looknsee Photography wrote: It's ambiguous to me -- The "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part -- why is it there at all? Does this mean that citizens can bear arms only if they participate in a "well-regulated Militia"? If these citizens are not in a militia, do they have the right to bear arms? What does "well-regulated" mean?
Richard Karlsen wrote: Anyone who has actually studied US history should know it simply was well known at the time to mean "well equipped". Read a bit and find that the people were to be a far stronger force than could ever be raised by a "standing army" which was described as the "Bain of Liberty"
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials"
Seems simple enough!
Still ambiguous.
... You seem to admit that it's definition as drifted over time. What does it mean
now?
... Does the second amendment imply that membership in a "well regulated
militia" is a requirement for citizens to have the right to bear arms?
... Does the 2nd Amendment imply that there can be no regulation on the right to
bear arms? It seems to imply that "well regulated" means that that is okay,
even expected, that the right to bear arms comes with some regulation.
Jay2G Photography wrote: I've read a lot of the posts in here and the so called solutions. For those who believe in tests, and home inspections etc, I ask this. Who is going to pay for this?
Who pays for the drivers' tests & licensing process? Do something similar. Or cut the military spending 0.5%, transferring fund for foreign wars to some domestic usage. Require annual license renewal fees.
Jay2G Photography wrote: The problems with guns is NOT the law abiding citizen who goes to the local gun shop, fills out the proper paper work, takes classes, buys a gun case ( you know responsible gun owners). The problem is the criminals.
Yeah, and I note that these folks going on shooting rampages at elementary schools were not criminals until they aimed their guns at kids.
Perhaps the problem is not just the criminal, it is also the ease with which they can obtain ridiculously deadly firearms. Perhaps the problem is lax home security for guns.
Further, I will simply point out that in advanced countries with more strict gun control, the deaths from gun violence are significantly less than here in the USA.
Jay2G Photography wrote: Every law abiding American can turn in their gun and support legislation to BAN all guns. Then only the criminals will have them.
No one is saying that we should ban guns.
Further, criminals & trained law enforcement professionals will both have guns.
Additionally, fewer criminals will have guns if guns are more difficult to obtain.
Finally, countries with stricter gun controls have fewer gun violence crimes. Go figure.
Jay2G Photography wrote: ... All too often in our society laws are passed that make life easier for the criminals.
The point would be to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns -- that's the whole idea.
Jay2G Photography wrote: The sad truth is that you see too many headlines of people who kill home invaders or some other bastard only to be charged with a crime and dragged through the court system. If you shoot and kill someone who breaks into your home where yourself and children are sleeping you be given a frickin medal, not arrested.
Except, of course, where deadly force is not required. When the dead guy is lured onto the premises for the purpose of murder. Not all the people visiting my home are criminals, and criminals got to live somewhere. I'm fine with a full investigation & if appropriate, a full trial every time someone gets shot.
So, if you shoot the meter reader, you should get a medal?
Looknsee Photography wrote: I don't know where you got "gestapo force" -- I didn't suggest that. Yes, I could stand to see more of our budget get devoted to the mental health of the communities. We don't have to raise taxes -- how 'bout we cut military spending by 2% -- that should cover it.
William Kious wrote: Of course you are suggesting it. There are tons of people out there who live on the fringe - who aren't quite "right" in the head - how are you going to give them all of this "help" when they might not want it?
Fine. Don't help them, but make it more difficult for them to obtain guns. Besides we are talking about a 20 year old, living with his mother -- shouldn't she be able to seek mental help for this kid, even if it is against his will? Columbine shooters were even younger, if I recall.
Looknsee Photography wrote: Besides, we've got tons of jails, with more per-capita incarcerated people that any advanced country in the world. What's different, expect the desire to help?
This kind of thinking is so fucking dangerous it's outright scary. How much evil in this world is perpetrated by a slanted desire to "help"?
Like I say, don't help them -- just make it more difficult to obtain firearms. Further, your snide comments are inappropriate.
Looknsee Photography wrote: Do you think the government is gong to oppress us if/when we put tighter controls on guns? If we license guns like we license drivers and if we control ammo like we control prescription drugs, do you think we'll live in a oppressive Animal Farm state?
William Kious wrote: You are already oppressed and you don't even realize it. You advocate it... nay, welcome it.
Maybe. Or maybe you are paranoid. Can you show me how I am "oppressed" if I want to take assault weapons out of the hands of people who will target elementary school children & teachers?
Looknsee Photography wrote: I'm suggesting that we put a system in place to prevent future similar occurrences.
William Kious wrote: Have you even considered the possibility that such a system doesn't exist?
Of course it doesn't exist. I'm calling for one. All I know is that doing nothing will not improve anything, and that is unacceptable for me.
William Kious wrote: Once someone is willing to trade his/her life for a cause, stopping said person becomes virtually moot.
Maybe. But maybe these sociopaths are partially motivated by their feeling of superiority they get from holding & firing their AS-15s. Tougher gun control doesn't mean gun bans, it just means that it is more difficult to obtain guns. For all we know, that added difficulty might be sufficient to impede a significant number of these shootings.
Evan Hiltunen wrote: I agree with the sentiments on the poster .... the solution is to take away all the rocks.
Then when Billy the Bully hits kids with a stick, take away all the sticks.
Billy the Bully will use a stapler .... get rid of staplers.
... then a book .... get rid of books ....
But, for sure, let's not look at what the heck is wrong with Billy the Bully.
Yeah, when that starts happening, let's talk about it.
Remember, the Sandy Hook shootings happened less that a week after the Clackamas Town Mall shootings. There are tons of instances of gun violence directed again innocent bystanders, including young children. And I haven't heard about death by sticks, staplers, or books.
On the other hand, one guy tried to take a shoe bomb onto a plane, and our security processes changed immediately. One small group of wackos blows up an office building in Oklahoma, and the way we purchase potential bomb-making material gets changed immediately.
But how many children have to be shot before we are willing to consider taking steps similar to the shoe bomb or manure bomb situations?
William Kious wrote: I wonder how many people who spout all of this anti-gun rhetoric have actually fired a gun...
I've fired a rifle. Didn't like it.
I've never pointed a gun or a knife at a person.
I've gutted the fish I've caught.
I've even helped butcher a live cow.
Unlike many, I tend to avoid ultra-violent movies & TV shows.
I think the bottom line is that someone pulled the trigger.
| 
| 
| edu