Quantcast

Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Hammerhead6814, Dec 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    52,527
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Hammehead,

    You've missed the point that there's little need to do anything at all and that reacting to a tragedy is best done with some distance and perspective gained by it.

    Out of a population of 300,000,000 how many people this year carried out inexplicable mass shootings? 5, 0.00000016% of the population.

    Do all of them fit your criteria of young men that you want to restrict? No, two were "adults".

    Of that 300,000,000 how many were killed in mass shootings? 47, 0.0000017% of the population.

    How many people would you subject to these controls? There are about 2.2 million schizophrenics in the US. Not all of them are violent (supposedly ~2%). Truth be known, not even mental health professionals can predict with any accuracy if or when a sufferer is going to begin to show violent tendencies. Would you subject all of them and everyone in their families to this restriction? What criteria would you establish?

    It is probably too soon to start saying we have to impose specific restrictions on specific groups of people in this country and that time may never come about until we see a real statistical risk instead of these isolated horrific incidents that harm such a tiny fraction of the population with such infrequency.
     
  2. Rocketmedic

    Rocketmedic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Texas
    Real "High Road" for a member of THR, much less a moderator. So much for standards.

    I despair that my firearms rights are linked to the popular THR public stances and Adam Landza's actions and Michael Bloomberg's political machine. My children will not know firearms as I know them.
     
  3. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,865
    im not honestly sure what you expected....

    you came here( a gun forum) to suggest some pretty radical(and lets be honest, pretty useless) gun regulations, and are shocked when the majority of people dont agree with them?

    dont honestly tell me you expected us to great your ideas with open arms.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  4. MountainBear

    MountainBear Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    Oregon
    Your attitude is complicit in that tragedy. The reason your children won't know firearms as you know them is people like you not standing up for your rights.

    And as for your suggestion earlier in this thread regarding the ID cards and jailing people for violations and "unauthorized" magazines, who are you suggesting enforce this? If they were successful, the jails would burst at the seems from the violators. More likely, it would end up with a lot of enforcers needing medical care and a civil war.
     
  5. Isaac-1

    Isaac-1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Location:
    SW Louisiana, not near N.O.
    As I see it the problem is the anti-gun crowd, they will not comprimise, if you say manditory training is required before buying a gun, they will make sure it cost $1,000 and is only offered once per year at a remote location, with limited spaces available.

    The same goes when you bring mental health into it, they will make wanting a gun a sign of a mental illness, either that or every little disorder will be a mental illness, just the other day I read a message here about one of the states in the NE considered ever going to a marriage counselor being considered a mental illness. This works out so great when you also have state laws that say you must go to marriage counselors before you can get a divorce.

    I personally would have no problem with background checks and other restriction for all guns sold including private sales if they were done with no traceability, and if the only disquallifiers were a history of VIOLENT crime, or SERIOUS Mental illness of the person doing the purchase. I would also be willing to accept waiting periods between gun purchases for 1st gun only, if that time was less than a year, if this means NO waiting periods all later gun purchases. Of course the problem is in the real world it would not stop there.
     
  6. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Interesting...the idea that we can give up enough rights to preserve our rights.

    Or is it "...my children will know firearms as I know them...but I don't care if your kids get to know firearms the way YOU know them...?" Sounds like the sort of (for lack of a better term) "duck hunter" gun owner speech that we used to hear back in the 80's. "Got no use for them killin' machines..." type of talk. I'll agree to a ban on YOUR guns, if I get to keep MINE.

    Very sad. Fortunately, a dying breed.
     
  7. Caliper_Mi

    Caliper_Mi Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Michigan
    Great way to ensure that many people avoid treatment or counseling for their problems.

    Besides the RKBA issues that your proposal has, I see one huge issue: it would require Government tracking of all gun owners: who they are, what they own, etc. I, for one, do not think that the Government has any right to know what I own, especially not something that is related to an inalienable human right like this.
     
  8. Wes B

    Wes B Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    67
    Scott, If it came across that I was classifying Aspergers as a mental disorder, I didn't intend that.

    I was speaking in a broader, more general, sense. That these people that do these sorts of things have some sort of issue. And in lieu of banning firearms, etc... , the focus of discussion should rather be on identifying the characteristics of the person that led to the violent act. That is, we should be focused on the causation of the event rather than the method of the event.
     
  9. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,344
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    There's nothing not high road about calling collaborators collaborators. You and a few others have suggested measures that make the UK's restrictions look moderate.

    So you wouldn't despair if your rights were lost under your own proposals? Because the suggestions you made on page 1 are tantamount to a near-total gun ban. Even the fudds don't go as far as you did.
     
  10. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

    We all feel powerless about this recent tragedy. We all hate feeling powerless. Doing something, anything, helps us avoid that awful despair. Terrible, violent occurences often require action, which is why we have all been given this impulse. That emotion is what drove the heroic actions of teachers and police officers last week.

    But in forming laws and policy, it is of paramount importance that we be impartial. That means setting aside our emotions and instincts, painful and vivid though they may be. We need to apply logic and reason to this problem if we are to get intelligent laws and policy implemented. Both sides of the "debate" (moreso the pro-regulation folks, at present) will attempt to use this emotion to cloud the calm senses needed for good decisions. Instead of focusing on how we feel, let's focus on fact-based, logical answers to at least these questions:

    -Would a magazine limit have really accomplished anything, given shooters are usually unopposed? Does it really matter what gun, or type of gun, is available?
    -Would any declaration of a person's sanity have any bearing on their future disposition?
    -Would several armed police officers/guards/teachers in the immediate vicinity have had even the potential to end the attack sooner? Would this be a deterrent to a "sane" shooter in the future?
    -Would a waiting period of days to months matter if shooters spend months to years planning their rampages?
    -Are we ultimately, despite whatever laws are passed, dependant upon citizens following the laws for them to have any effect?
    -Does a person's state of mind change, regardless of stimuli, due to genetic and congenital predisposition? Is this always detectable? Is it predictable?
    -Is it right to revoke a law-abiding citizen's inalienable rights via prediciton?
    -Is it worse to suffer occaisional tragedy than to suffer constant tyranny? How occaisional? And how onerous of tyranny?

    I work in aviation. Every regulation in the FAAs FAR-25 book is "written in blood" as the result of some (usually tragic) design failure. Planes are now very safe; this trial-and-error process has been repeated many times to create very good designs. But I am under no illusion that an airplane will crash again one day due to an unforeseen design error. That does not mean planes cannot be trusted to carry people. The same goes for laws of any stripe; people or circumstances will always find a way around them. Laws are based on what happened in the past, so expecting them to protect us in the future is folly. If a mere law really and truly could prevent a crime, by all means pass it. But you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't simply deter crime.

    Personally, the only firearms regulation I could get behind, from a "fact-based" perspective, is a relatively high legal age of possession; many neurological disorders rear their heads towards the end of puberty, making 18 a poor age to define as "maturity". I would be all for assisted training and use prior to this time, but again, we would be relying on parents to follow the possesion/access laws in any case (as was the case with this latest tragedy).

    Firearms are "great equalizers" that can eliminate a predator's advantage over his prey; but only if the prey rises to accept that equal power. Too many people don't trust themselves enough to wield a gun, and therefore feel the only way to obtain an "equal footing" from their self-imposed low position is to disarm everyone else.

    If there is one thing laws should never be based around, it is vague, empty phrases like this. Stripping people who have broken no laws of their basic human rights is extremely sensitive business; we must be incredibly thorough and precise in doing so.
    I emphatically agree. And even more important than causation, is what exactly our legal and regulatory structures are capable of doing to curb these attacks. After all, the "cause" of this attack may be as mundane and unsatisfactory as "he was crazy."

    TCB
     
  11. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    The President should worry about the gun related crimes in his own 'backyard' before trying to indict lawful citizens.
     
  12. Cranky CJ

    Cranky CJ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Northern Colorado
    Every time there is a mass shooting, it is forgotten a few months later. Do any of you really think the mommies of this country are going to forget this time?

    This- gun regulations- is going to happen. The mommies of this country are going to get mobilized and ensure that 'something' happens.

    Their babies are getting shot up in their school rooms by very mad people and the mommies aren't going to just let it go this time.

    Mock some peoples' ideas all you want, but things are going to change. Be part of the solution or mock it. Your choice.
     
  13. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    I intend to. As I said elsewhere:

     
  14. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,203
    I wish you were joking about this, but clearly you're not. To answer your question about why many of us feel that these kinds of restrictions are absurd, I think we first have to look into the fundamental root of violence. Naturally, people are the cause of violence, not guns. Whether or not a gun has a 5-round or 30-round magazine is pretty largely irrelevant to that debate. At the end of the day a gun has no conscience, and its user determines how it will be used. Similarly, a can of gasoline and an oily rag can't decide to burn down a school, and a pile of fertilizer mixed with fuel oil can't decide whether or not to detonate in a cafeteria. A car can't stop its driver from drinking before going 100 mph through a neighborhood, and a knife can't decide what object it is thrust into.

    We've tried the AWB/high-capacity magazine ban in the past, it failed miserably. It in no way impacted crime, or the actions of criminals. A new ban would have no greater impact on crime, even if the ban was merely disguised as a ludicrous "tax" on magazines. First, millions of these magazines exist (maybe billions). Those magazines will be out there, whether laws are passed or not. Second, the whole "high-capacity" idea was invented either by a journalist or a politician. The Glock 17, for example, was designed to take a 17-round magazine (hence the name). Such a magazine is a "normal capacity" magazine. There's nothing wrong with such a design. Regardless, magazine capacity is still largely irrelevant when you're talking about an armed coward shooting at unarmed elementary school children. A guy with a revolver and no moon clips could have killed just as many of those innocent and defenseless children. As such, your proposal seeks to place SERIOUS restrictions on MY rights, with no tangible benefit whatsoever. Frankly, a guy with a sword could have wreaked as much havoc on such a vulnerable population. Once again, the problem is with the evil person, not with the object he uses to commit his crime. We need to treat the disease, not eliminate a symptom.

    As for your proposed ammo tax, that also demonstrates misplaced blame. Ammo didn't cause this psychopath to kill people, nor did guns. I'm not responsible for this one idiot's actions simply because I want to go to the range and shoot. Nor do the 100,000,000 other gun owners in this country (who did no wrong) carry the burden of this crime. I'm not responsible for funding mental health treatment through my hobby, when my hobby harms no one. That's not even to mention the fact that the ownership of the items I use for my hobby is constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed. If the government wants to allocate more funding to the treatment of severe mental illness, I'm perfectly fine with such a decision. But, I'm not willing to foot the bill for these services through my hobby, especially when the problem is endemic within our society. If I need to pay for these services, so should everyone else. Gun owners don't bear the burden for solving a societal problem of severe mental illness.

    If a gun wasn't used at that school on that day, something else probably would have been. Stop feeling guilty for being a gun owner, and don't buy into the misplaced blame that the media has attempted to thrust onto your shoulders. You are not responsible for that a-hole's actions, nor are any of the rest of us!


    Since you are seeking solutions, here are a couple:

    1) Do a better job of making sure that the severely mentally ill (the dangerously mentally ill) are not able to purchase guns. One news story I already read suggested that this killer was denied when he attempted to purchase a firearm. The system worked on that level.

    2) Protect our schools with full recognition of the valuable assets we have at these locations. Arm teachers, place armed officers at the school, and turn a soft target into a much harder target. A person shouldn't walk into a school to commit a shooting without facing an armed confrontation from someone who will kill him if he tries to kill our children.

    3) Forget about giving up your rights due to panicked cries from those who know nothing of violence, and even less about guns. Realize that good people outnumber evil people, and recognize that stopping these people in the act is within our power. I do believe that if everyone was armed, a coward like this week's killer (who's name should be forever forgotten) would never have been able to complete such a heinous crime. Arming everyone is probably not the best bet, but arming the law-abiding and decent citizens of this country is a great (and free) means of obtaining better "homeland security".

    4) Stop encouraging future killers. Do not give these cowards the media attention they seek. You may notice that I've not mentioned this pathetic loser's name once in any of my posts on this subject, and will only speak of him in ridicule and scorn. Too many troubled young people see that they can gain fame as they end their lives by horrifically ending the lives of others. Don't give them that attention, don't give them that satisfaction. I'd be thrilled if the media changed their approach and only ever referred to this individual as the coward he is. How many of you remember the names of the Columbine shooters? How many of you remember the names of a victim of that shooting? The losers who commit these crimes deserve no lasting fame. They deserve our scorn, and deserve to be forever forgotten.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  15. henrifirstman

    henrifirstman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    82
    America is missing the point.
    We have all been blessed with these awesome liberties and freedoms.
    If the faculty at the school was allowed to carry, this monster would not have killed 20 kids.

    The problem is, some of us are.afraid of.this great responsibility and when bad things happen, we look to our elected officials to legislate and .regulate. To control.
    YOU CANNOT CONTROL A PSYCOPATH GHROUGH LEGISLATION

    Throughout history this trend can be seen and it's disgusting.
    We're losing our resolve and we need to change it.

    If I or any one of us were there, I know darn well we would have put the threat down because we are good men and good men do what is necessary.
     
  16. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Accepted as a decent idea, but it would not have stopped this from happening. Let's give no "sorta-feel-good" fodder to the other side.


    Can I get an AMEN! Very, very well said.
     
  17. slim76

    slim76 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    "Hell" Paso
    Rocketmedic: there is danger in freedom. There is danger in life. No politician or salesman can fix that, though all will promise it.
    You talk about gun rights but you don't really mean rights, because what you are describing is PRIVILEGE. Your arguments are not based on logic but based on fear and emotion. The *need* to do "something" in the wake of this tragedy rather than doing the right thing which may be doing nothing at all.
    You can't legislate safety. Our founding fathers warned the future generations that a time would come when people would want to trade their rights for safety and being taken care. This is a delusion. No one can guarantee your safety. The mechanic could sabotage your car. The baker could poison your sweet-rolls. Your spouse could smother you in your sleep. The fact they haven't yet is because they haven't chosen to. You can't predict or have a guarantee on that.
    A tragedy has occurred and you come to us with your solution, perhaps well intentioned even, but this solution doesn't solve the problem.
    There are people who want to be able to fix things that will never be fixed. Murder is a bad thing, we have many laws regarding it and many solutions have been proposed yet it continues because of evil men.
    Don't punish the law abiding because you can't fix the criminals.
     
  18. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
  19. Dr. Sandman

    Dr. Sandman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    530
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    To all the "gun ban compromise" people out there, please think about things some more. Gun laws are not the answer. This kid broke many of them anyway.

    Anybody who kills children is by definition mentally ill. By the way, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a mentally ill person.

    As for future prevention, every school needs internal and perimeter security. That means armed guards at school all the time, when the kids are there. And even that will not stop this kind of stuff in the future, but hopefully lower the death tolls and discourage people from trying it.
     
  20. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    Um, I do. I am 23 and have just finished college. I have worked 3 jobs at once to afford my "arsenal" among them are "assault rifles", BUT I have been shooting since I was eight with my father.

    The problem with your proposal is that the analogy does not work. Driving is a privilege not a right. I DO NOT want my gun ownership to be a privilege to be revoked at any ornery LEs leisure.

    Oh since we are on this analogy, cars kill more people per year then guns. --Cars are evil, lets ban all cars--

    And Rockmedic, I am sorry but I hate your idea and you may have just given some gun grabber bad ideas.
     
  21. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ehh, not exactly. Someone who has been committed involuntarily. Plenty of people with various mental illnesses may own firearms lawfully.
     
  22. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Just for a talking points ... cars kill more KIDS just in the US, EVERY SINGLE DAY, every single year than this guy killed one day. Where's the outrage?
     
  23. WardenWolf

    WardenWolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    +1. I also have Asperger's, but I am NOTHING like Lanza. I would have gladly put myself between him and those kids, and done everything in my power to stop him. As a kid, I was bullied, and my father took me shooting a lot in my teen years. Oh, and i collect guns. But I am nothing like him, and would have given my life to stop him.
     
  24. mg.mikael

    mg.mikael Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    I respect your right to the 1st Amendment, so you can say what you want. But why can't you and others like you (who promote compromise with the gun control crowd) respect my right protected by the 2nd Amendment?

    Unfortunately I already live in an area where there is a ban on civilian ownership of certain firearms. I live in C[r]ook County, near Chicago and guess what I had nothing to do with the assault weapon ban in place here. But people like you who say "eh, if we can't beat them let's join them" so you compromise on one thing and then another and before you know it you're gun rights are so controlled that your freedoms are fewer then the restrictions.

    The streets in Chicago run red with blood every single day as countless people shoot each other, and guess what?......those gun restrictions don't work because apparently you're forgetting that the very definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law, hence why would they care that there is no concealed carry or that they need a FOID card to possess a gun here. What is more laws and more restrictions going to achieve; when only those like myself and others, the law-abiding, going to follow in the first place?
     
  25. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,382
    Location:
    South of Hell....Michigan.
    An assault weapons ban already exists in Connecticut...

    ..am I the only person who realizes this in the country? It did NOTHING and a reintroduction of the federal law would do NOTHING. I just read it and it is almost IDENTICAL to the Federal AWB. http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice