If you are not a member of "a regulated militia", then I don't see how you should be allowed to have a gun. That amendment has been twisted beyond recognition and people need to start acknowledging that.
The state of mental health care in the USA is terrible. People need to start acknowledging that.
There's a whole lot less child massacres in countries with stricter gun control. Those numbers don't lie.
Scott's point is valid, and I think it's time to stop letting the gun control folks be the grief police. Some people grieve by trying to fix the problem.
That's how Batman handles it, and maybe we should all be a little bit more Batman about this.
Ironically, Norway has some of the strictest gun laws and also had the bloodiest massacre than any event in the US that I'm aware of.
Frequency is also a factor here I think. It seems as if we have shootings like this at least once a year now. I know we have shootings MORE than once a year. This year alone we had the movie theater shooting in Colorado, the shooting just a few days ago in Oregon and now this. We had the Virgina Tech shootings a few years ago and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch between now and then.
If we're not going to regulate the guns, then we have to do something about the culture and the people because it seems to me at least that Americans seem to be more prone to picking up a gun and KILLING PEOPLE than sorting out whatever issues that we might have in a constructive manner.
So if all these pro-gun advocates are against taking away guns period, then it's the PEOPLE that need to be dealt with. Unfortunately my fellow Americans are not the most rational or peace loving people on the face of the earth AND they are heavily armed. So I'm guessing we're going to see many more innocent people getting killed efficiently with firearms...
And yet if it happens in tribal Waziristan, no one cares. Darn you Dunbar's Number!
False analogy. You (as a society) actually HAVE the means and set-up to do something about it, which is harder to do in a tribal area in a less developed part of the world.
Also, the right to firearms and the right to safety from those firearms are not mutually exclusive. Anyone seeking to remove either right SHOULD be prosecuted.
Why? I mean especially pertaining to the first part. When is it time to come to the logical conclusion that rules laid down hundreds of years ago might not be applicable today, with the advancement in technology that said rulemakers couldn't possible imagine or foresee?
If you are not a member of "a regulated militia", then I don't see how you should be allowed to have a gun. That amendment has been twisted beyond recognition and people need to start acknowledging that.
When you need help now, the police are just minutes away!
The state of mental health care in the USA is terrible. People need to start acknowledging that.
Can't argue with that.
There's a whole lot less child massacres in countries with stricter gun control. Those numbers don't lie.
Massacres are such an insignifigant percentage of killings that I don't really care.
Scott's point is valid, and I think it's time to stop letting the gun control folks be the grief police. Some people grieve by trying to fix the problem.
I see the problem as having more to do with our attitude that mental illness is fake and bullying is okay than with the tool used to commit the deed.
That's how Batman handles it, and maybe we should all be a little bit more Batman about this.
I don't care what Batman does.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
And yet if it happens in tribal Waziristan, no one cares. Darn you Dunbar's Number!
False analogy. You (as a society) actually HAVE the means and set-up to do something about it, which is harder to do in a tribal area in a less developed part of the world.
We actually have the means to end the senseless murder of children there, too. We just chose not to do so.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Also, the right to firearms and the right to safety from those firearms are not mutually exclusive. Anyone seeking to remove either right SHOULD be prosecuted.
Why? I mean especially pertaining to the first part. When is it time to come the logical conclusion that rules laid down hundreds of years ago might not be applicable today, with the advancement in technology that said rulemakers couldn't possible imagine or foresee?
Because its not the advancement in technology that is at the core of the problem. For once, I agree with Scott Betts, its the gun culture. The idea that we can go out and buy a gun, and thus ends our responsibilty, is whats the main culprit. If you choose to own a firearm, YOU are responsible for what it is used for. You are responsible for keeping it locked up. You are responsible for keeping it from malfunctioning. You are responsible for not using it to murder children. The only non-you part is making sure you are mentally healthy, as that would probably be impossible. We need to end the stigma associated with mental illness. Encouraging an associate to seek mental help should have no more stigma attached to it than encouraging them to go to a chiropractor. We, as a people, are failing in our responsibility. But there are countless individuals who have not failed, and I really dont desire to take away any of their Bill of Rights rights. If you can figure out a way to well regulate the militia (any able bodied white man in the original Constitution, now would mean any able bodied person), WITHOUT infringing on the right of the people to bear arms, I (with zero snark) would like yto hear it.
|
In my mind we are all missing an important point here. Regulate guns or don't people with a mind to get one will. The act of obtaining a firearm unlawfully has to be fall less distasteful than killing people. We have seen that certain people have no problem with one why would they have a problem with the other. Unless you collect every firearm up and lock them away whatever, they will always be available to someone with a desire to own one. The weapons are not the problem the people using them are, plain and simple. Until you find a way to stop people from having the desire to kill each other there will continue to be massacres.
So insulting gun owners is fine but calling out the gun grabbers is uncivil?
No one has done so, so put the mantle of martyrdom back in the closet again.
Why do these shootings always happen when a big movie comes out? Something fishy going on about these shootings and I can't quite put my finger on it yet.There's nothing "fishy" about it. These are independent events only very loosely connected by the occasional shared cultural element.
Are you sure? How do you know these events are not events set up by the government to get the people to turn on gun laws? These events always seem to happen on certain mysterious dates.
|
People who want to plan out and organise a terrorist action can still find a way to do so without guns being available, true. It isn't nearly as easy to do so and it may result in the people getting arrested before the action since getting the weaponry they need is illegal, but I'll grant that it is possible.
But the issue is what increased gun availability does for the single mentally unstable person. They may well lack the resources or the ability to get weapons illegally if that was their only option. Their attempts to get the weaponry they need may fail and they get arrested while attempting it. They can't just 'go crazy' one day, get their legitimately obtained gun out of the safe and decide to go on a killing spree.
Easier without gun. gasoline and fire could have killed many more. Fertilizer bomb could have been much higher death toll. guns just take less thought
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I'm Canadian and we have gun control. We also own many firearms privately. Gun control is not gun banning—it is keeping certain firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Is it perfect? No. The Montreal Massacre of 20 years ago occured when a mentally disturbed man broke into a miltary armory, stole an assault weapon, travelled to Montreal and killed a group of female engineer students for being "feminists." He broke all kinds of laws doing it.
Gun control won't stop this sort of thing from happening, nor will it stop people from owning guns. It WILL reduce the number of these incidents and cut down on the death toll when they occur. We have no where near the number of gun related deaths in our country as happen in the US, and culturally we're nearly identical.
Even as this was happening in Connecticut, a man assaulted school children in China with a large knife. 20 children were injured, some severly. But none were killed and the man was stopped with less danger to the men who stopped him because he wasn't able to just shoot them. Some have died over there from these sort of attacks, but again the numbers are smaller and the incidents fewer because a gun makes killing easy.
This is just horrible in so many ways, but I have to agree with Scott here: "wait, it's too soon" just strikes me as wrong.
It's not too soon; it's too late.
|
|
And you don't think 'less thought' is a significant thing? Putting in thought isn't generally an easy thing to do for the people who choose to do this kind of thing.
Far more people have the capability to get a gun and go shooting than have the capability to successfully produce a homemade bomb and get it somewhere that it can do damage. If somebody wakes up and snaps they can get their gun and go shoot somebody. Are you honestly suggesting that it's just as likely they would instead rig up a bomb on the spur of the moment?
I can have a bomb capable of killing much more in 15 minutes. all you need is a car and some gas cans. fire is the biggest killer
Because its not the advancement in technology that is at the core of the problem. For once, I agree with Scott Betts, its the gun culture. The idea that we can go out and buy a gun, and thus ends our responsibilty, is whats the main culprit. If you choose to own a firearm, YOU are responsible for what it is used for. You are responsible for keeping it locked up. You are responsible for keeping it from malfunctioning. You are responsible for not using it to murder children. The only non-you part is making sure you are mentally healthy, as that would probably be impossible. We need to end the stigma associated with mental illness. Encouraging an associate to seek mental help should have no more stigma attached to it than encouraging them to go to a chiropractor. We, as a people, are failing in our responsibility. But there are countless individuals who have not failed, and I really dont desire to take away any of their Bill of Rights rights. If you can figure out a way to well regulate the militia (any able bodied white man in the original Constitution, now would mean any able bodied person), WITHOUT infringing on the right of...
It certainly is a big part of the problem. Try going on a shooting spree with the weaponry of the time the 2nd amendment was written. Single shot muzzle loaded riffles. So the availability of far more advanced weapons is clearly a reason to look at the "right to bear arms" - things have changed since then, both technologically and in mindset.
I also fully agree that mental health issues should be a big part of the solution to problems like this (it might gain very positive results in other types of crimes too). But it really should be a two-pronged effort. Taking a look at societal problems/issues AND restricted ownership of firearms should be the way forward.If you really, really, really want that handgun and you have all your ducks in a row, what does it matter to you if you have to go through several hoops and wait maybe 6 months before you can get it? Are you advocating for the fact that many gun owners are impatient 12-year-old kids who are all of the "gimme gimme GIMME!" variant?
A regulated militia... isn't that the National Guard?
Also, again, it's a product of the past, there's no need for a militia now. The needs of that past are gone, so it would only be logical to take a look at the whole thing and see if it can be updated to current times. It's not some kind of magical piece of paper that can't be questioned and must be forever held in awe. Heck, they are AMENDMENTS themselves to the original!
|
|
I can have a bomb capable of killing much more in 15 minutes. all you need is a car and some gas cans. fire is the biggest killerYou didn't address any of my points on the ease of use to decide to do something like this. Just because you're apparently interested in knowing how to make a bomb doesn't mean most people are.
And if your argument is true, shouldn't other western countries that have stricter gun laws end up with a similar number of murders to the US? I live in New Zealand and we have far fewer shootings due to the strict gun laws. But we don't have the corresponding increase in fatal attacks made with homemade bombs.
I honestly believe we are a more violent society, we would have higher numbers regardless.
|
|
I can have a bomb capable of killing much more in 15 minutes. all you need is a car and some gas cans. fire is the biggest killerAnd you don't think 'less thought' is a significant thing? Putting in thought isn't generally an easy thing to do for the people who choose to do this kind of thing.
Far more people have the capability to get a gun and go shooting than have the capability to successfully produce a homemade bomb and get it somewhere that it can do damage. If somebody wakes up and snaps they can get their gun and go shoot somebody. Are you honestly suggesting that it's just as likely they would instead rig up a bomb on the spur of the moment?
Cars don't explode in real life as easily as they do in the movies. Gas burns really well, but it doesn't explode that well. Gas fumes do, but they're harder to contain.
Now how do you intend to deliver your car/gas bomb to the interior room of the school to kill the actual target and all the kids near her?
start a fire, run down the kids as they gather outside. Fill a bug sprayer ($20 at the hardware store, i have seen up to 5 gallon pack style) with gas and walk in and spray and light. Not hard. Fire kills, doesn't have to go boom.
I honestly believe we are a more violent society, we would have higher numbers regardless.
If that is true, how can the problem even be adressed? Is this something that you are just going to have to live with? I love the US; you guys generally stand up for what is right when push comes to shove. Your strong sense of freedom and your belief in democracy has always impressed me. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are personal heroes of mine.
I'm am hopeful that you are wrong in this. You may be right; a lot of immediate evidence seems to support you. But I hope in my heart that it simply isn't the case.
As a response to the often asked militia question:
That ammendment was written by a people who had just been through a long war with their own government, to break away from what they felt was intolerable mistreatment. While I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs of that belief, I will point out that the idea behind the Second Ammendment was to allow the people not only the right to have weapons for personal use, but to allow them to defend themseves agains any enemy -foreign or domestic- with the same level of force the enemy would be using.
If an enemy attacked using automatic weapons, would you want to respond at that level or with a flintlock?
Besides, there are far more questions unanswered in this shooting than guns and why he had them.
Such as, how did he even get in the school, dressed as he was and carrying guns, when they had a supposedly secure, show ID and sign in policy?
Also, for those who want to check on such things: Wiki on scholl and school-related shootings
None of which is any comfort to those familes affected by this or any other incident, gun-related or not.
Believe me, if I could make it not have happened, I would, as I'm sure everyone here would as well.
I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did.
|
|
As a response to the often asked militia question:
That ammendment was written by a people who had just been through a long war with their own government, to break away from what they felt was intolerable mistreatment. While I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs of that belief, I will point out that the idea behind the Second Ammendment was to allow the people not only the right to have weapons for personal use, but to allow them to defend themseves agains any enemy -foreign or domestic- with the same level of force the enemy would be using.
If an enemy attacked using automatic weapons, would you want to respond at that level or with a flintlock?
Besides, there are far more questions unanswered in this shooting than guns and why he had them.
Such as, how did he even get in the school, dressed as he was and carrying guns, when they had a supposedly secure, show ID and sign in policy?
Very true, he could have waltzed in in some magic gun free alternate reality and cut down a classroom full with a knife. schools being so vulnerable is scary
|
|
Think about the way women flip out when we discuss any controls on abortion, some things are important to some and meaningless to others.So insulting gun owners is fine but calling out the gun grabbers is uncivil?Is talking about gun control insulting to gun owners?I think women have a right to flip out when other people (usually men) are talking about their bodies. Some people believe that abortions should be illegal even if it would save the life of the mother. Some people think that rape is one of god's gifts or that women that didn't want to be raped can't get pregnant. I'd hope that these aren't the norms for the pro-life side but that's some of the arguments that these women have to deal with. Personally I'd hope that a women never need or want an abortion but if she did I'd prefer it done in a hospital rather then being forced to turn underground.
How is a ban on assault rifles for example, a object that very few of us actually need, the same as restricting access to medical procedures, something someone might need to actually survive?
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much talking.
So little listening.
|
|
We are a chaotic bag of mixed types. unfortunately chaos seems to inherently breed violence. Our culture is all about being on top, either in success or fame, and i think some of the cause is people seeking fame.I don't doubt Americans are a complex people, most of us are, but I think the simple fact that there are less gun deaths in countries that have stricter gun controls is less likely a statistic showing American's being more violent, but more likely a statistic showing that when Americans want to get violent guns are more prevalent.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
Number 6
The Onion; f&!~ everything, nation reports
Not in that particular incident, Guy. However if you read further down in that article, you'll see references to other incidents that did result in deaths.
I'm -less- disturbed by such incidents because, while we seem to be having a spate of them, they're still an anomaly. What disturbs me more, and is why I might want to own a gun is an incident here in my hometown of Pittsburgh, Pa.
This incident Mother shot is equally disturbing and definately involved illegal guns. I don't think more gun control would have helped here.
Where's the failure? The guns? The 'gun culture'? Culture period?
More gun control is the easiest call. It might even work, until some other form of weapory evolved. But it's not the solution...not the whole solution, anyway.
Again, I don't know what is. Anybody have a genie we can borrow to solve the world's problems? Or, at least, ask what the solution is.
Meanwhile, all we can do is join in the mourning for those lives unfairly cut short due to a madman. And, perhaps, believe that bad as it was, it could have been much worse. At least he didn't have bombs or gas.
@Andrew R:
Citing a Cato Institute publication? Ahahahaha, yeah, that's not biased in any way at all.
You want assault weapons in case your house is attacked by a mob of people. When has that ever happened to you?
If such a case were to happen (highly, highly unlikely), why would they attack your house? Wouldn't it be better to look at what makes people break into other people's houses? I think you'd find that it's mostly because of poverty, substance abuse (i.e. to get money to support that habit), mental health issues and in some cases out of sheer boredom (often related to the first point) - unless you're a criminal yourself and has crossed their territory in some way. How about addressing those societal issues instead of just barricading yourself against the world with a stockpile of firearms?
|
|
@Andrew R:
Citing a Cato Institute publication? Ahahahaha, yeah, that's not biased in any way at all.
You want assault weapons in case your house is attacked by a mob of people. When has that ever happened to you?
If such a case were to happen (highly, highly unlikely), why would they attack your house? Wouldn't it be better to look at what makes people break into other people's houses? I think you'd find that it's mostly because of poverty, substance abuse (i.e. to get money to support that habit), mental health issues and in some cases out of sheer boredom (often related to the first point) - unless you're a criminal yourself and has crossed their territory in some way. How about addressing those societal issues instead of just barricading yourself against the world with a stockpile of firearms?
In my town we have had cases of groups attacking a home like that. It is not MY responsibility to give them what they want lest they just take it from me. My greater point is that it is security, if needed, much as VERY few women will ever need to have an abortion to save their lives but like knowing they CAN.
In my town we have had cases of groups attacking a home like that. It is not MY responsibility to give them what they want lest they just take it from me. My greater point is that it is security, if needed, much as VERY few women will ever need to have an abortion to save their lives but like knowing they CAN.@Andrew R:
Citing a Cato Institute publication? Ahahahaha, yeah, that's not biased in any way at all.
You want assault weapons in case your house is attacked by a mob of people. When has that ever happened to you?
If such a case were to happen (highly, highly unlikely), why would they attack your house? Wouldn't it be better to look at what makes people break into other people's houses? I think you'd find that it's mostly because of poverty, substance abuse (i.e. to get money to support that habit), mental health issues and in some cases out of sheer boredom (often related to the first point) - unless you're a criminal yourself and has crossed their territory in some way. How about addressing those societal issues instead of just barricading yourself against the world with a stockpile of firearms?
It is, however, the responsibility of society to take care of it and one way to do that is to limit the availability of certain weapons, institute programs to address the issues I mentioned, leverage higher taxes to fund those programs (because they benefit the citizens across the nation, high as well as low). Letting people arm themselves with more and more powerful weapons and "sort it out themselves in the name of protection" just adds more cost to society.
But I guess you'd rather spend the money on an assault riffle than pay that amount in taxes to stay safer - never mind the mental and emotional issues you might actually develop the first time you shoot and kill someone.
According to the CDC, there were 10,228 deaths due to alcohol impaired crashes in the US in 2010. They further state that 1.4 million drivers were arrested in the same year for driving under the influence of alcohol.Furthermore, the CDC states that there were 32,885 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in 2010.
Shall we adopt your stance against firearms and apply it to alcohol and/or motor vehicles?
Ultimately, the problem is much much deeper than just guns and gun control.
So why is it the US has the highest gun related death rate of any first world nation? Most of the other nations have similar stats on alcohol and motor vehicle related deaths but only gun deaths have a difference in the 1000s per year. It *doesn't* go much deeper than gun control. America just loves its guns and 10000 dead a year is, apparently, a small price to pay to be able to have them.