OK, then ban speed loaders too. And limit magazines to 6 rounds. No, it still won’t prevent ALL the killings. Might slow 'em down a bit. I think that’s worth doing. You don’t, or you’re offended by the meager imposition on your ‘rights,’ whichever. That’s the difference between you and me.
Well the bit about the school counselor proves…what? That somebody dropped the ball? I’d like a cite that HIPAA prevents anyone from saying to the proper authorities, “this person shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun.” Of course, without gun registration, that wouldn’t do shit anyway; you just go down to the gun show and buy your arsenal there. (Yeah, I know, there’s no gun show loophole. You can just buy a lot of guns there without restrictions on the transfer.)
And if people had to commit crimes with knives or blunt instruments, it would be tough for them to kill 26 people at once, wouldn’t it now?
Maybe not. But how about let’s try stuff that doesn’t involve taking away your guns, but might make mass murder a bit harder, okay?
So…what are you proposing - that the media suspend their normal judgment of what’s newsworthy when it involves a gun?
I’d actually be good with that, if HIPAA is actually a problem - *as long as we can keep the people reported as potential threats from buying guns in the first place. * Because, you know, that would be something, and something’s better than nothing.
But the NRA has fought that, tooth and nail. And largely won. So WTF good would it do?
You’re the one who foisted the fake number. You did it to advance your agenda. You obvoiusly wanted to make the case for a favorable risk/benefit ratio for guns.
So my point is that your argument was based on a fiction.
No, that’s about the only thing the NRA is for: more strict punishment for people who commit gun crimes. And no, it doesn’t work, for exactly the reasons you give.
The restrictions that might help are restrictions on the attributes of the guns one can legally own and purchase.
And again, I have to ask how realistic is it that a man in the frame of mind to commit 108 deadly felonies is going to stop and say “oh, dang, gun law says my pistol has illegal attributes. Guess I’d better hold up the killing spree until I can get the paperwork straight.”
Nobody thinks that modifying the law is going to magically alter his murderous intentions. However, restricting access to guns (which gun regulation would do) will limit his ability to execute his intentions.
Now you are going to make the facile argument: Well, how would implementing a regulatory regime reduce access to guns? We make marijuana illegal and you can still get marijuana, hurr durr.
Of course, it is more difficult to get marijuana now that it is illegal. Were it legal to sell, like liquor and cigarettes, I’d be able to traipse on over to my local Jewels and buy some. But it’s not, and accordingly, it is commensurately more difficult to get weed.
But if you are prepared to prove up the contention: It is typically equally easy to obtain contraband as it is to obtain permissible articles of commerce — I welcome your demonstration of this point.
This showed up in my FB newsfeed, complete with the original poster - from 1981 (which explains the West Germany). It was put out by Handgun Control Inc., the predecessor to the Brady Campaign.
And I wasn’t kidding when I said I’m sick of politics. I have been avoiding politics for weeks and I have been so much happier. I also have no particular ideological underpinning when it comes to gun control. I grew up in a house with guns and in the gun culture, I don’t like them, I don’t understand why people love them so much, but I don’t really care if people have them, either. My immediate thought when anything like this happens is that it underscores the need for comprehensive and competent mental health care in this country… however, the idea that this issue would be resolved with a simple policy change of any kind strikes me as ludicrous. I’ve studied social issues enough to know that they are extremely complex. And naturally I have to think of the kids I know who are exposed to constant violence and nobody ever talks about it, nobody grieves for them. When I think about what they go through every day, it makes me want to spit nails. Nothing we do will ever be enough to put an end to it. You know, it’s just one of those events that’s attached to so many different emotions and thoughts and attitudes that one can’t help but feel overwhelmed by a sense of negativity.
I’m depressed today. I get melodramatic when I’m depressed. No hidden liberal agenda. Just the same old bullshit.
Seems like an easy problem to deal with. We just make sure all the crimes happen to you and people who think like you. We remove your police protection, so you become a target.
If you are not a sociopath, as you claim then you can’t be okay with other people dying and not be okay with you dying.
I’m sorry you’re depressed, and I’m glad you were feeling happier when you were avoiding politics. But I resigned my position on the olivesmarch4th Happiness Brigade a long time ago, so please try to understand when I say, “Go fuck off somewhere else then. This isn’t about you or your goddamned feelings.”
Anyway, politically there is little real chance of any kind of blanket gun banning in the United States. Even getting something like the assault weapons ban (which even most liberals agree in retrospect banned nothing of consequence and just focused on silly misconceptions about firearms and banned weapons that were hardly being used in crimes in any case) is probably highly unlikely, despite Obama’s vague campaign claims.
What should be focused on instead of trying to ban individual types of weapons, is individual level licensing and certification. While a few of the spree shooters obtained their weapons illegally, most didn’t. Further, the real “important” aspect of gun crime in America are the thousands of non-spree shooting gun homicides.
I’m a gun owner, but I view gun ownership as imposing behavior responsibilities, morally, on the gun owner. You shouldn’t leave your guns where they can be easily taken, nor where they can be easily found with children. You shouldn’t sell guns to unstable people. You shouldn’t use the guns dangerously. I think those are moral responsibilities that some individuals who own guns do not live up to, and I’ve be fine with those being enforced by law.
Through:
Mandatory education and safety courses.
Legal storage requirements. I would not enforce these through inspections as that’s too much of a constitutional violation (but I’ve pointed out in other threads today this is done in other countries), but I’d stipulate anything “bad happening” because you failed in this you become massively criminally and civilly liable, and lose all your guns and rights to purchase any guns ever again.
Strict prohibition on ownership for people in certain classes. (All felons, certain types of misdemeanants, former mental patients etc.)
Prohibitions on untracked private transfers and sales.
Psychiatric review prior to licensing for “at-risk” populations. Namely young males, people who have divorce or custody proceedings ongoing in family court, people who recently lost their jobs etc.
In all reality if you just made it a lot less convenient for young men to legally acquire firearms I think you’d see a dramatic decrease in firearms deaths. If someone is interested in planning something for months, no, it would not stop that. But most young men who kill with guns didn’t plan it for months. They happened into a gun, bought it from a friend, bought it legally on a lark or etc, then got into a stupid situation where they used the gun. Or they got involved in a crime and brought the gun with them, and made it a more serious crime.
If you made it as hard to get a gun as it is to register to vote, I promise you most young men would no longer bother. If you made it even harder, and required all the classes and licenses and psychiatric approval it’d drop farther still.
That’ll do a lot more than fruitless things like the assault weapon bans that “ban guns that scare people.”
Well, to be frank, she wasn’t talking to you, asspipe, she was answering a post and points I’d addressed to her. Plus this is a public message board of which she’s a member in good standing and therefore just as entitled to post about her feelings just like many other posters in this thread have posted about theirs.
There’s no point. Kimmy_Gibbler has made it clear that he’s a psychopath for quite a long time. He just admitted once again that he doesn’t care about other people. That’s the exact same problem that Crafter Man has. It’s no wonder he doesn’t want us fighting with him.
The only difference between Kimmy_Gibbler and Crafter Man is that the former is a bit smarter and knows how to throw in a little bit of pretending like he cares. Fortunately for us, the cracks show in the facade all the time. For instance, you don’t fucking curse someone out while at the same time saying you are happy for them. The two concepts are completely in contradiction.
You don’t think he’s going on about changing the second amendment because he actually thinks it could happen, do you? It just makes him look good, like he’s against the killings, while at the same time allowing him to blast everyone who wants to actually do something about it that might actually work.
And now watch for him coming back and insulting me, another person with a mental disorder, because, despite claiming to be a lawyer, he’s never once been able to make a true argument when someone disagrees with him.