Yet another shooting in America

[white avenger]

If the country decided it wanted to take a step in the direction of sanity then they'd toughen up their laws and have an initial amnesty period. Make it clear that it's not normal to own or carry deadly weapons and it won't be accepted in future. Allow people the chance to hand in their weapons for cash for a year or so. After that period harsh prison sentences for anyone with unlicensed deadly weapons. It'll be massively hard work but you need to start somewhere.

As I said above, as long as we have the Bill Of Rights in America, and as long as one of those rights listed in it is the right to keep and bear arms, there can not be any sort of confiscation such as you describe. As for tightening up our laws, I can heartily agree with that. Tighten up and enforce the existing laws, as written. Creating more restrictive laws does nothing more than penalize the vast majority of citizens for the actions of a very few sick individuals.

Allowing people the questionable right to turn in their weapons for cash sounds impressive at first, but where does that cash come from? The American tax payers. Who determines the price paid per firearm? I know people personally who have target pistols that have had literally thousands of dollars worth of custom work done their rifles. Are you suggesting that my friend turns in his customized Winchester Model 70, valued at about $10,000, for a few hundred dollars, if even that much? Then there are collectors' guns, worth far more than the same standard model that has no historical significance. Family heirlooms? What value do you put on the .22 rifle that your father used when he was a boy to put meat on his family's table? There is no way that the government can give fair recompense to the gun owners for the "right" to turn in their firearms.

And, of course, there is the old, and quite true adage, "When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns." Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Passing a law requiring that all firearms must be turned in only means one more law for them to ignore.

Then there's the fact that, even if you could shut down all manufacture of firearms in the united states (putting thousands of people out of work, by the way, but let's not get into that here and now) and destroy literally every firearm in the United States, almost half of the guns in this country are imported, either from Europe, South America, or Asia. The same people who can't be stopped from smuggling illegal drugs into the country now won't be stopped from including guns in their shipments, especially considering what the new prices are going to be.

And, guess what. After all of that has been done, there will still be sick individuals all over the country who will be killing people, just like the guy in China a couple of years ago who managed to kill 80 people in a factory before he was stopped. He used a machete to do the job, because China has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet.

There will always be sick, crazy people in the world, and there will always be some of them who want to achieve their few seconds of notoriety. Killing a large group of people seems to be the preferred method for doing that. Don't delude yourself into thinking that, just because those few individuals can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AK-47 that they won't be able to accomplish their goal. Find some dependable way of identifying them before they act, and you might have a workable solution to this problem. Denying the honest citizens of this country the rights guaranteed to them more than 200 years ago simply won't work.

 

[Blaze]

In my opinion, data doesn't lie, and data shows that country with strict gun regulation have less incidents like these. Doesn't solve the bigger picture, but it helps prevent useless deaths.

On a side note, even if nothing can be done about, I am appalled that owning a gun is a human right.

 

[Buffy Summers]

It comes from the right to take up arms against oppressive government if necessary.

 

[thetopher]

I think having the right to defend yourself and your family is an important one- the debate should come as to what degree that right should be unheld. Do people need access to automatic rifles to defend their family?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Do people need access to automatic rifles to defend their family?

Yes, they do. It just depends on where in the country you live and how far, literally, in the country you are. There are needs to have automatic rifles to defend your property.

 

[brinkster130]

I think having the right to defend yourself and your family is an important one- the debate should come as to what degree that right should be unheld. Do people need access to automatic rifles to defend their family?

While I don't personally understand the need for automatic assault rifles (or similar guns) the most common type of gun used in mass shootings in America is a basic handgun. So I don't know that adding regulations about types of guns will significantly impact the amount of gun violence we have. That being said, I do wish that additional regulations would be put into law to make it not only harder but a longer amount of time to get a gun. Having programs to get as many illegal guns off the street should be made a priority as well.


There isn't an easy solution, or even one solution to this problem but I wish America would try something rather than arguing about for a week before forgetting about it.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Not to disagree with you, because I really don't, but it's pretty easy for everyone to go around saying "America's doing nothing" but do you really know they're doing nothing? Gun control & school violence is a huge topic here, and just because you don't see media coverage of it because it doesn't glue eyeballs to tv screens the way a shooting does, doesn't mean no one is doing anything.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Having programs to get as many illegal guns off the street should be made a priority as well.

That in my opinion is a bigger issue. And illegal dealers is an offshoot of that as well.
 

just because you don't see media coverage of it because it doesn't glue eyeballs to tv screens the way a shooting does

and THAT is part of the problem too. Because again, the shooting was 'announced' on social media before it took place. The fact that these people become pseudo-celebrities because of all of the attention is another factor, in my opinion.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Totally agree. When you put a narcissistic culture that glorifies celebrity for any reason in the same body with mental health issues, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[white avenger]

In my opinion, data doesn't lie, and data shows that country with strict gun regulation have less incidents like these. Doesn't solve the bigger picture, but it helps prevent useless deaths.

On a side note, even if nothing can be done about, I am appalled that owning a gun is a human right.

You're right, data doesn't lie. It simply depends on which true data you choose to present to support your argument. For example:

I don't totally agree with all of this, but the presenter uses provable data to support his argument.

I think having the right to defend yourself and your family is an important one- the debate should come as to what degree that right should be upheld. Do people need access to automatic rifles to defend their family?

While I don't personally understand the need for automatic assault rifles (or similar guns) the most common type of gun used in mass shootings in America is a basic handgun.

Back in the 60's the primary target of the gun control advocates was the handgun, in particular what was called the "Saturday night special," cheap, easily concealed handguns that were defined as having "no sporting use." The Gun Control Act of 1968 banned the importation of that type of gun, which was almost exclusively imported from either Brazil or Italy. No appreciable change in the crime rate after GCA68 was enacted could be attributed to that ban.

The current emphasis placed on banning or highly regulating the availability of so-called "assault weapons" doesn't work for the simple reason that what makes a common sporting rifle into what is defined as an assault weapon is purely cosmetic. Plastic or fiberglass stocks instead of wood, different sight configuration, and extended box magazines being the primary defining elements, and none of those in any way makes an AR15 one iota more deadly than a Ruger Mini 14, which is designed to be and is recognized by the government as a legitimate sporting firearm.

As far as what is truly "needed" for self defense, here in Georgia, the law says "defense of self, others, AND PROPERTY," which is the common definition most places. Just about every time that there is a disaster or riot, there will be store owners defending their places of business with rifles and shotguns. In those cases, yes, there is a definite reason for the private ownership of what the liberal press refers to as assault rifles, and once the need arises, it's too late to go out and buy one. If you need it and don't have it in advance, you're up the well known creek without a paddle.

Eliminating, or greatly limiting, the right of law abiding citizens the right to defend their lives, families, and property only increases the risk that they will be victims.

Has it occurred to anyone that banning assault rifles, or any other class of firearms on the argument that doing so will prevent deaths is like banning icebergs to prevent ships sinking. Maybe it would work, but it would probably be a good idea to investigate some alternate solutions as well.
 
Blaze: This mini documentary proves the point guns=bad. The data presented proves my point further, guns need to be restricted, that applies to the government too

No offense, but just how do you propose restricting the government's supply of weapons, and how would you suggest such an unarmed nation defend itself from any other power who might choose to invade and conquer them. Even a worldwide ban on guns, assuming that such a thing were possible, wouldn't eliminate the technology to produce new guns from being manufactured by anyone with the material and facilities to do so.

 

[Buffy Summers]

It's not like people in other countries don't hunt, right? So really, a kid takes a shotgun to school instead of a handgun. What's it really going to do?

The violence is a symptom of other things.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

It's not like people in other countries don't hunt, right?

Some of them want to hunt dentists! ba dum bum.. too soon?

 

[Buffy Summers]

Pretty much the first thing my dentist (who is an avid hunter) said to me when I went in last month, was that it wasn't him lol. But the second guy that I guess they then decided didn't break any laws is my sister's neighbor!

 

[brinkster130]

Not to disagree with you, because I really don't, but it's pretty easy for everyone to go around saying "America's doing nothing" but do you really know they're doing nothing? Gun control & school violence is a huge topic here, and just because you don't see media coverage of it because it doesn't glue eyeballs to tv screens the way a shooting does, doesn't mean no one is doing anything.

Well "nothing" may be a little dramatic; however no significant changes have been made to gun laws and requirements, mental health care or the way our media sensationalizes school shootings so as far as the big picture goes, it is safe to say that not much has been done. It's mostly debates, rants and rage followed by the masses moving onto another news story or cause. But yeah, there have been small efforts made to change things.

and THAT is part of the problem too. Because again, the shooting was 'announced' on social media before it took place. The fact that these people become pseudo-celebrities because of all of the attention is another factor, in my opinion.

I totally agree. In a way we glorify the killers and give their life the attention and meaning they wanted but felt like they weren't getting. I bet people could name more gunman that shot up schools than they could victims.

As far as what is truly "needed" for self defense, here in Georgia, the law says "defense of self, others, AND PROPERTY," which is the common definition most places. Just about every time that there is a disaster or riot, there will be store owners defending their places of business with rifles and shotguns. In those cases, yes, there is a definite reason for the private ownership of what the liberal press refers to as assault rifles, and once the need arises, it's too late to go out and buy one. If you need it and don't have it in advance, you're up the well known creek without a paddle.

Eliminating, or greatly limiting, the right of law abiding citizens the right to defend their lives, families, and property only increases the risk that they will be victims.

Has it occurred to anyone that banning assault rifles, or any other class of firearms on the argument that doing so will prevent deaths is like banning icebergs to prevent ships sinking. Maybe it would work, but it would probably be a good idea to investigate some alternate solutions as well.

Ok, so what if instead of banning that type of weapon all together they added some regulations to being able to purchase those weapons? Like say, 1) a two month waiting period between going in to purchase and recieving said gun. 2) a mandatory gun safety class that includes warning signs to watch out for in other people. 3) pass a basic gun safely course. 4) be cleared of a mental health back ground check and 5) show proof that you will be able to safely store said weapons.

That wouldn't be too hard, but it has potential to stop hear of the moment crimes that are committed with legal weapons.

The violence is a symptom of other things.

Oh totally. But I am surprised at how often these gunman have purchase guns legally. If your mental health has been questioned by professionals then I don't think you should have the right to buy a gun.

 

[white avenger]

Most states already have waiting periods for buying firearms, but they're measured in days, not months. Given modern technology, the amount of time required to investigate a person's criminal record and whether they have a history of mental illness takes only a few hours, at most. The waiting period isn't for investigation, it's considered a "cooling off" period, keeping someone from buying a gun on the spur of the moment and shooting someone else because of an argument that they just had.

As for firearms safety classes, I have no objection to that. I think that it would be a good idea, especially for people who have no prior experience with firearms. There are some states that do require firearms safety courses now as a condition for buying a handgun or attaining a Concealed Carry license.Whether or not it would deter crimes or not, I have serious doubts. Incidentally, there is an organization ready and willing to provide free firearms safety and shooting classes in schools, and I'm sure that they would be more than happy to work with any state or municipality to set up a program for adults for a quite reasonable fee. They used to sponsor firearms safety classes for the Boy Scouts, and there were even merit badges awarded to Scouts who completed their courses. The National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, they have become so demonized over the last few decades that, today, it is considered politically incorrect to allow them to warp the minds of our young people.

 

[GwenRaiden]

My opinion has changed a few times over the past decade on the subject of gun control. America is becoming a police state. Or, has already become. Why give up your arms when the police are amping theirs up, military-style. How is that fair or right. That wouldn't make me feel trustworthy or safe in my community. Cop soldiers walking the streets with a license to kill, and you having no right to
protect yourself from it.

Obviously, being from Scotland, I don't, and probably never will, have to deal with this (other than Dunblane). But if I were American, I'd feel nervous about all-out gun control.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Oh totally. But I am surprised at how often these gunman have purchase guns legally.

The problem isn't just in terms of legality. It's where they were purchased.

I could legally sell you any one of my guns. I don't have to perform any background checks or anything of that nature. Just have to file the paperwork stating I sold my gun to you and you are the rightful owner. You have now legally purchased the gun. To get a true scope they need to start reporting WHERE the guns were being purchased.

 

[white avenger]

This isn't the problem that it's made out to be. The odds of my selling one of my guns and having it used in any sort of crime are just about nil, mainly because by far, when an individual sells his gun, he sells it to either a friend or someone he is at least acquainted with. Even the infamous gun show sales almost always involve someone buying from, or selling to, a licensed dealer, who is required to keep all of the same necessary paperwork as a regular gun shop owner, and there is always one or more BATFE agents present to make sure that everything is kept legal. I know this for a fact, because I used to be a dealer who worked gun shows.

The real problem is what is called "car trunk dealers," who sell guns of all sorts, without any pretense of keeping paperwork, at antique shows and flea markets. There is already a law regulating this sort of dealer on the books, but it is rarely, if ever, enforced, even though it's not uncommon for Police officers to know the people in question, and even buy and sell guns from them, themselves. This is the source of the illegal out of state guns that wind up in New York and Chicago, not me selling my 45 automatic to my next door neighbor, or someone who I know from work. Stop those illegal dealers, and the number of the illegally owned guns that we keep hearing about would be greatly reduced.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

This isn't the problem that it's made out to be.

No, but you dont know unless presented with where the purchases were made. You don't know if it was bought from an individual, a chain or a local store. So you cant talk about why and how X person fell thru the cracks unless you know where the cracks were.

The real problem is what is called "car trunk dealers,

I completely agree, but since those aren't really 'legally' purchased I didnt mention it. The FBI says the number one contributing factor of gun violence (if I am not mistaken) is due to illegal dealers. And that has been a problem since the early 90's that I can remember...

 

[white avenger]

No, but you don't know unless presented with where the purchases were made. You don't know if it was bought from an individual, a chain or a local store. So you cant talk about why and how X person fell thru the cracks unless you know where the cracks were.


I completely agree, but since those aren't really 'legally' purchased I didn't mention it. The FBI says the number one contributing factor of gun violence (if I am not mistaken) is due to illegal dealers. And that has been a problem since the early 90's that I can remember...

You just answered your own question. Every firearm in the United States that is bought or sold, or even just worked on by a licensed gunsmith is recorded through the paperwork that that dealer has to fill out. Using that information, the guns, by serial number, can be traced back to the dealer who sold them and the person who he sold it to. From that point, the original owner is contacted and asked how he disposed of the firearm. A lot of them were stolen, since guns are one of the three main items that burglars go for, but, also, quite a few of them come from police evidence lockers or from lists of guns seized in crimes and, supposedly, destroyed (in other words, crooked cops are actually supplying, guess who? The car trunk dealers)

That is the major source of illegal firearms that get shipped North from the Southern states. The car trunk dealers sell them in large lots to out of state (illegal) gun dealers, who in turn ship them North and distribute them to their own local car trunk dealers.

This entire operation is totally illegal, violating all sorts of state and Federal laws, and those dealers should be tracked down, arrested, and given maximum sentences for their crimes, but it's not happening, even when the illegal dealers are known. It's the old adage about knowing who to bribe.