Without a solution to get people to turn in the 'assault' weapons they already have...a new ban on 'assault' weapons is topical. It won't really accomplish anything but give some people warm and fuzzys that we are at least doing "something," Even if it will make no difference whatsoever. These things will still happen. Guns don't have an expiration date. A AR-15 purchased last year doesn't become useless after a certain amount of time.
Would some of you make it a criminal offense to own a gun that somebody just purchased legally last year? How do you plan on enforcing the law to make these people part with them?
---------- Post added December-17th-2012 at 04:30 PM ----------
Not adding to the problem would be a start.
I have seen some ramblings of Lanzas mother teaching him how to shoot targets and fire the guns safely, I also read she had the guns locked up, has this been confirmed?
Last edited by GoSkins561; December-17th-2012 at 03:32 PM.
need a new sig
As I said earlier, it's not going to be possible to eliminate all guns, or even all assault weapons. But we can reduce their number, and that's not just for a warm and fuzzy feeling. Even preventing one gun from getting into the wrong hands can make a difference. Forcing a shooter to spend one extra second reloading can save a life. We can take steps that aren't going to solve our problems completely, but might just save the life of one victim somewhere down the road.
Talk about playoffs in college football:
We're talking about playoffs?! -TJ
Maybe someday even all the LEOs I know and every LEO agency I've ever seen quoted on the matter will change their minds about it, too.
BTW, I posted I carry, but was saying that claiming that people like me were a serious force for deterrence was silly--Painkillers to articles from FLA and dude here using the web report have set me right and all the "stuff" I was using in development of my opinion (I wonder what all that could have been) is suspended.
Oh one more thing, hate to bring it up here, but does the phrase "dupe acct." mean anything to anyone here?
Last edited by Jumbo; December-17th-2012 at 03:38 PM.
"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
need a new sig
Of cours there is a big black market for weapons - but guess what they are bought almost exclusively by criminals who use them to shoot other criminals. Armed robberies are very rare, armed robberies of domestic houses almost unheard of. Our murder rate is one of the lowest in the world and murder by handgun very very rare and the cases where I happens are almost all criminal on criminal.
I don't think you could get such a law passed in the US in the first place and there are so many more weapons in circulation thats it's probably not practical if you could. But some move in this direction has to happen.
Here are some more papers on it from the Austrailian govt.
One thing I do find interesting is that there is now thought about a knife ban/buy back program/increased penalties. It could be a slippery slope.A review of the recent Australian data indicates an increase in the use of knives for homicide offences, while their use decreased or remained steady in relation to robbery, sexual assault and kidnapping/ abduction.
My feelings are this. "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." from:
From my point of view this allows states to set up militias. AKA the National Guard, Air Guard, etc. I believe in this statement "the people" refers to the states. The founders, from my opinions formed from research, didn't want a big government overseeing or regulating everything they did. They just ousted a leader of that magnitude. "The people", thusly the "states", should govern themselves. This has been interpreted as "i can own what i want cuz the constytushun says i can." It doesn't. I'm a gun owner and belive I have the priviledge, as you stated, to own what I want within limits. There is nothing in the constitution that grants anyone any rights to own anything, save for land I think? I'll get hammered for this and will put up with it because the vividly pro-gun minded readers will not realize that I am a gun owner and believe in protecting those priviledges I protected in combat. Conversely, I am not pro-take-away-everything-that-scares-me-because-I-don't-understand either. Please don't feel free to tell me what an idiot I am. I am the way that I am. Perhaps we should rewrite it as such:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The state shall pass down priviledges to it's citizens, to keep and bear Arms, so long as it is mutually beneficial and just."
Or something like that where the state can dictate what guns are allowed, not allowed, how many hundreds of thousands of rounds I am permitted to keep in my cellar - or eliminate ownership all together if it is consensus among the populace.
This being said, there is no way America can come together to solve this. Just read this thread. We'll kick and scream for a few weeks that something needs done, yet nothing will. Both sided of the isle will point at each other and place blame "well if they would do such and such we'd happily do this and that" rinse repeat. If priviledges are taken away, the resentment from the pro-gun will burn for a long time. If nothing is done, the anti-gun people will freak out. I will be seriously impressed if anything other than continued rabid agenda-minded media outbursts (from both sides) continue to happen. Yes, I doubt our ability as an advanced, 'able minded' society to actually tackle and work to solve a societal problem.
Treat the problem, don't put a band-aid on it. If you want a motorcycle license in the state of WA, you must bring attend a hands on class to get said endorsement. Make everyone, me included, attend said state-endorsed safety class/endorsement. Put it on your drivers license. Oh you don't have a drivers license? The deputy will be by to collect your firearms which will be sold at auction and said proceeds will be put into the states general education fund. What can we do as private citizens? Lock up your guns, get treated for mental illness, for the love of God - TELL someone is your friend/lover/associate is acting in a psychotic or negative way. I don't buy this "he was perfectly normal until he slaughtered 30 people. We never saw this coming." The last minute attempt of a mother to protect her child's reputation. All that is. We choose to look the other way. We, the americans, love to blame the other guy - the fact we have this problem is on all of us. We need to force a change, and force it soon. Or be ok with the fact that we have indirectly assisted in the wreckless murdering of children.
Before you rip my face off, remember - Goonie loves all of you!
Last edited by DaGoonie55; December-17th-2012 at 04:12 PM. Reason: formatting
I don't see that happening here.
Last edited by Painkiller; December-17th-2012 at 04:12 PM.
I dunno. CT already has really strict gun control. I think this is proof positive that gun control is garbage.
Apologies is this has already been posted:
Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say
"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.
Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
My point was that you’re never going to get anything done by proposing bans. It’s too politically unpopular, and even if it happens to pass it will have negative political consequences down the road. And I agree with you about the NRA, but it’s the situation we have now with their power so anything gun-related needs to be worked out with them to be sustainable long term. And they aren’t going for any sort of bans, not even magazine capacity restrictions.
I make the point a little better in my previous post in this thread, which I’ll include below. Anything that happens will need to have both sides on board, and bans on anything aren’t going to get that happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)