Well, Obama’s going to try. Let’s see what happens.
When I was younger we had mental institutions that locked people up. It was decided at some point that many of the people didn’t need to be incarcerated so they were released. The institutions are pretty much gone now. I’m sure somewhere there are still places like that but the standards have been changed and I assume for the better. Maybe not. I have no way of knowing unless an older mental health expert weighs in.
but other things have changed since I was a kid. We played outside with other kids without adult guidance from a very early age. there was no pee-wee anything-ball. All games were pickups with other neighbor kids. I walked or rode my bike to kindergarten with with sister who would have been in the 3rd grade at the time. TV was watched at night with my parents with only 3 networks to choose from. They signed off in the evening. The shows were probably hokey by today’s standards.
It seems a lot has changed in my lifetime.
Thanks, I think I now have a better understanding of your point of view.
Something gradual, reasoned and effective. Bans and amendments are fights too unlikely to succeed.
Actually, I would love that - but in the real world… How about things already working in other countries, which avoid bans and acknowledge the existence of millions of weapons we have to live with?
- Canada has tough requirements before you can buy or move there with a gun including personal references and notification of spouses/conjugal partners.
- Buyback programs were quite successful in Australia, at least in reducing death by suicide.
- Stringent education, annual licensing, fees and storage requirements - with periodic reviews - works for machine guns (and automobiles).
and way out there…
- Tort reform to facilitate lawsuits against irresponsible owners/sellers whose weapons are involved in crimes. Perhaps even manufacturers and those you provide as references.
Apart from Police, Military and Security, why does anyone need to own a hand gun or any kind of self loading rifle, whether semi or fully automatic?
I’ll make exceptions for handguns for target shooters, but the kinds of handguns used in Olympic type competition are not the same as the ones that “normal” people own.
Surely a bolt or lever action rifle is sufficient for hunting?
That’s not a legitimate question. The Second Amendment does not require any showing of need to own a gun.
But the second amendment also doesn’t specify what type of guns.
If the legislature limited the kind of “arms” that were legal to “Bear”, that could be done without infringing the amendment.
When determining what type of “arms”, it is a perfectly legitimate question IMO.
they’re great for shooting people too. Ask a Kennedy.
Do you honestly think someone can’t kill you without a gun?
Absolutely not. But it takes no special skill or strength to pull a trigger. Convenient access to firearms make it so much easier for unhinged people to kill multiple people.
Unless, of course, you want to actually hit your intended target, which is harder than it looks. Also takes considerable strength to control the recoil.
I’m aware of the aiming bit, disagree with the recoil. I used to own quite a number of firearms and hunted regularly when I was younger. Now I do neither.
Lynnette Fromme might disagree.
Yes, there are other, very minor, secondary uses for guns. Rifles are good for hunting deer and pheasant, no doubt about it. But that is not the reason for the widespread use of guns in our culture. But these very minor, ancillary uses hardly justify the carnage that are done with guns.
/me points to the thread topic. That particular line of argument is a non-starter in this case. We are talking about rewriting or entirely dumping the Second Amendment.
Surely you have a cite then.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
But these very minor, ancillary uses hardly justify the carnage that are done with guns.
[/QUOTE]
Justify to who? You? Who decides what is or isn’t a minor use, or what value there is even if it’s a single use item? Again, you? Tobacco has one and only one use…what justifies the carnage it does? Alcohol only has one use as well, at least on the consumption end…what justified the carnage it does? Which causes the most carnage of those three? Which causes the least? Who decides justification for our society?
It constantly amazes me that every time (EVERY time) we have something like this tragedy happen the gun grabbers come out of the woodwork to try and justify their world view that we need to ban guns and change the 2nd Amendment. Doesn’t it get old, and don’t ya’ll knees get tired of all the jerking around on this stuff?
[QUOTE=jasg]
Something gradual, reasoned and effective. Bans and amendments are fights too unlikely to succeed.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the last part of your statement anyway. Bans and amendment changes are unlikely to happen except in the fantasy world that some folks live in the anti-gun side.
Except that their suicide rate is actually higher than here in the US. IIRC, EC mentioned Japan earlier…an attempt at another of his lovely apples to oranges comparisons about the fact that the Japanese have strict gun control laws and have much fewer incidents of these sorts of shooting sprees that happen in the US. Suicide rates in Japan, however, are also much higher than in the US…7th highest in the world, IIRC (the US is closer the the 40th highest). So, is it the gun control, or is it cultural differences we are seeing at play? Possibly the Japanese have a different outlook when they go nuts than to shoot up a school full of little kids, and instead they turn inward. They certainly don’t seem to need guns to whack themselves, however.
At any rate, no…it’s not time to change the 2nd Amendment. No, we don’t need a rash of new knee jerking laws or regulations about guns or gun control. Yes, it’s tragic that this sort of thing happens. I feel terrible for the parents of these kids…and sickened by the people who are using this tragedy to try and push through their political agenda, especially considering how bone headedly stupid it is, and how unlikely it is to have any effect other than mental masturbation and world view validation. We aren’t going to ban firearms in the US…not today. Not 10 years from now. Maybe, if there is a sea change in attitudes, there might be a gradual stiffening of regulation over time, but if you tried to ban guns now it would be an epic fail. If you tried to change the 2nd it would be an epic fail. If you DID manage to ban guns (i.e. put in laws making it illegal to own or possess a fire arm) it would be an epic fail…there are literally hundreds of millions of the things in the US, and 10’s of millions of gun owners who wouldn’t give up their guns. It would be similar to bans on illegal drugs…basically, it would make a fairly large percentage of the population into criminals. You’d probably push MORE people over the edge, since attempts to grab guns in the last 50 years in this country have already made many on the pro-gun side touchy on this subject. So, it would be like the War on Drugs…it would be expensive, it would be resource intensive, and in the end you’d get maybe 5-10% of the ‘illegal’ guns…and probably spur currently law abiding citizens to purchase or sell guns on the black market or through illegal channels.
You want a “cite” for whether or not something is justified? :rolleyes:
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s not a “kneejerk” or even slightly unusual thing for people to want to ban something that kills lots of people.
More nonsense. The people who live in that fantasy world are the pro-gun people, who are incapable of admitting that they’ve won, they’ll get to keep their guns and the slaughter will go on indefinitely. They are always filled with paranoia that any moment now Obama is going to steal all their guns to the UN can take over the country and institute Satanism as the state religion.
Possibly dumb question:
The Second Amendment alludes only to “arms” which seems like it ought to be a placeholder for any conceivable weapon. Why do we as a society agree that some weapons are improper for personal ownership and use?
I can have knives, handguns, rifles, and the like, but I cannot have grenades or missles. I can’t drive around in a tank full of shells. But those things are “arms” too, right? Where is the line drawn and who drew it?
Also, if the line is arbitrary (I believe it must be, to some extent), why is the idea of moving it to exclude a currently legal weapon so outlandish? Is it more or less outlandish to suggest making standards more permissive so I could own the anti-aircraft gun I’ve always wanted or mount a turret to my car?
It’s called “dancing on graves”. A very common phenomenon.