You picked up what I was laying down.
School/Mass shootings what's the answer?
- Thread starter Lawnboy
- Start date
You picked up what I was laying down.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
A couple things to interject.
Rob made a comment about Washington Voters taking the initiative process. "We" did and it was horrible. It made legal gun owners criminals. If you had a large family, and let's say you wanted to cut out of school early and go hunting with your uncle, you already can't bring you gun to school, and now he can't pick yours up for you, and nor can you borrow one of his guns. Both of those require you to go through a licenses FFL for a transfer. The bill was written by people who don't own guns. And the media mass blitzed the benefits of the legislation (attempting to prevent person to person sales without an FFL and a background check involved), while no one mentioned all the drawbacks. Hell, my parents voted for it because they didn't read through the entire bill only to find out the they would likely be breaking the law every year in one form or another. The initiative process has a good heart, but seems to always produce flawed legislation that often needs to be corrected in the legislature, since may or may not happen. The point is, avoid Initiative process on gun control, well thought out compromise is better than people who have no idea what it means to own a gun writing the rules.
Second, this topic stayed very productive and moderate (in terms of putting down others) until a couple of people, two in particular, one on each side of the debate, came in a started telling people the were hypocrites or just needed more GOD. Neither of those are facts and both need to tone it down. This is one of the better discussions I been a part of on the subject and we need to keep it out of the weeds.
Lastly, one of the ideas floating around in my head is that, like several have expressed on here, taking the guns away from people who want to do harm will not stop them. And are ARs (or any gun) really the worse thing they could be using to inflict damage? I think a gun often does a lot less damage than a bomb. While it takes more time and effort to plan out a bombing that an shooting (you don't have to make anything), some of these bad hombres appear to have thought it out for a long time. I also remember talking to a Canadian couple living in Hondurous who, when asked how nice it must be to live in a country where the criminals don't have guns, responded "They still have machetes".
Rob made a comment about Washington Voters taking the initiative process. "We" did and it was horrible. It made legal gun owners criminals. If you had a large family, and let's say you wanted to cut out of school early and go hunting with your uncle, you already can't bring you gun to school, and now he can't pick yours up for you, and nor can you borrow one of his guns. Both of those require you to go through a licenses FFL for a transfer. The bill was written by people who don't own guns. And the media mass blitzed the benefits of the legislation (attempting to prevent person to person sales without an FFL and a background check involved), while no one mentioned all the drawbacks. Hell, my parents voted for it because they didn't read through the entire bill only to find out the they would likely be breaking the law every year in one form or another. The initiative process has a good heart, but seems to always produce flawed legislation that often needs to be corrected in the legislature, since may or may not happen. The point is, avoid Initiative process on gun control, well thought out compromise is better than people who have no idea what it means to own a gun writing the rules.
Second, this topic stayed very productive and moderate (in terms of putting down others) until a couple of people, two in particular, one on each side of the debate, came in a started telling people the were hypocrites or just needed more GOD. Neither of those are facts and both need to tone it down. This is one of the better discussions I been a part of on the subject and we need to keep it out of the weeds.
Lastly, one of the ideas floating around in my head is that, like several have expressed on here, taking the guns away from people who want to do harm will not stop them. And are ARs (or any gun) really the worse thing they could be using to inflict damage? I think a gun often does a lot less damage than a bomb. While it takes more time and effort to plan out a bombing that an shooting (you don't have to make anything), some of these bad hombres appear to have thought it out for a long time. I also remember talking to a Canadian couple living in Hondurous who, when asked how nice it must be to live in a country where the criminals don't have guns, responded "They still have machetes".
Colorado has seen its share of mass shootings, and I would contend passed a law limiting magazine capacity (which is mostly ineffective and unenforceable) as a result of those tragedies.
I mention that because Denver also has an extremely high rate of hit and runs (also a large number of fatalities from them).
https://crime.denverpost.com/crime/traffic-accident-hit-and-run/
I know we don't want this discussion to get into the weeds by making comparisons about the frequency of traffic accidents/fatalities and mass shootings - but the fatal hit and runs are a relatively common occurrence.
I didn't post this information to refute a point as much as just point out there just seems to be a mentality with some that cannot be managed through laws and ordinances.
Little Canyon Creek
Active member
I really don't see how American exceptionalism plays a role in this. It isn't that America is portraying themselves as the model example for other countries in this issue but committing the same transgressions at the same rate as other countries. The very point I was trying to make is that we have a problem that other countries in our same socioeconomic position do not have. We have much higher rates of gun violence than Europe, Austrailia, New Zealand and Asia, and I don't see how that isn't a problem.
You can think there is a problem with an individual amendment without thinking the entire document is bunk. Changing amendments to the constitution is pretty difficult, so this isn't likely the most successful path. And to be fair, there are huge benefits to making it more difficult to change amendments such as maintaining due process and a free press. But there isn't anything in the 2nd amendment about what type of guns are legal and what others aren't. Which means you could argue that all arms are legal, or you can argue that some guns aren't legal and others are. I mean, can I really go down to Cabela's and buy a Blackhawk helicopter? Or a M1 Abrams tank? No, I can't but to have a realistically equipped militia in the spirit of the 2nd amendment I would need both of those things. So we have already drawn a line and decided that some guns are legal to own and others aren't. It just seems like we need to redraw that line.
Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up because I really don't want what has been by far a constructive dialogue to be derailed, but as far as the Russians go there has been reporting and congressional testimony within the last year highlighting Russian donations to the NRA. The Russian government really has no interest in this issue other than to inflame tensions in the US. I find it frustrating that the NRA and some other groups felt it more important to accept money from a hostile foreign power than to simply make due with what they could generate domestically.
Don't know how to fix the images, they work on everything I can try them with.
My point wasn't about terrorism, but mass shootings and terrorism affect us similarly so the point to be made is similar. Of our 33,000 gun deaths, about 2/3 are suicides. The remaining 1/3 are overwhelmingly criminals shooting criminals, being shot by a significant other, or accidents. If you had a pie chart, mass shootings and terrorism would be such a small slice of the pie that you couldn't even represent it visually. A discussion about how to make us safer in general, or reduce gun violence in particular, would be EXTREMELY short sighted if it focused on mass shootings.
We should recognize things that are very scary but also very unlikely for what they are, and treat them as such. We should not make our policy and give up our rights based around things that are exceedingly unlikely to happen.
I value the ability to share our thoughts and heal in our own manner.
Mental health I believe is a key factor that needs to be faced for the ownership of a firearm. The challenge is our right to privacy (Privacy Act) and who/how is it decided where that line would be drawn?
I also do not understand the whole basis of our insanity pleas... How can one not be insane to go on a murdering rampage? And in no way would I support any form of lenience - more an observation...
Mental health I believe is a key factor that needs to be faced for the ownership of a firearm. The challenge is our right to privacy (Privacy Act) and who/how is it decided where that line would be drawn?
I also do not understand the whole basis of our insanity pleas... How can one not be insane to go on a murdering rampage? And in no way would I support any form of lenience - more an observation...
Idahoarcheryhunter
Well-known member
Also looks like Florida will pursue the death penalty in this case, if anybody was curious.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
This is taking a very small amount of what you said, and I'd like to say you are doing a great job of stating your argument.
However, I'm not sure that this is a great statement because you're not looking at homicide rates in general, or I guess "violence" rates in general. I think it would be interesting to compare those rates between countries because I think they would be quite a bit closer. I do think that the US would still be up at the top, but I don't think the gun argument would be quite as good of one. Does anyone have these stats available by chance? I'll do some digging.
pabearhunter
Well-known member
I wonder how many people are killed daily from cell phone use in cars. BAN the CAR and or CELL PHONE. How about making it so that the cell phone will not work in car. It is all about people using any thing that will harm another person.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
I read this morning that both the FBI and local law enforcement were on to this guy long before the shooting happened, but didn't intervene in any meaningful way. Does anyone see a huge problem there? I do...
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
I heard a great argument recently on Dan Carlan's podcast. He said something along the lines of, "Until you make the punishment for killing someone worse than death, it isn't a viable deterrent." I don't think I'm arguing in support of torture for terrorists/mass murderers, but I also don't think that these guys are scared of death, which is the punishment that they're going into these situations expecting/prepared for. Just some thoughts.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Its been reported that he was part of, and received some kind of training from a White Nationalist movement in Florida. Though how a kid gets to accumulate these weapons and spend time training with a bunch of militia wannabes is beyond me.
RobG
Well-known member
I think we are on the same page, but people aren't logical. We fear death by the underwear bomber more than we do driving drunk. Unfortunately, that can't be changed because it is deeply ingrained in our genes.
Do people really believe a government takeover of the entire country is really a possibility? Who's heard the stat that less than 1% of the population is in the military? So that means that 99% of the population would let 1% takeover, it's ridiculous. The military might brainwash a bit, but there's NO way that every single member would up and turn on the greater population. In todays day and age with social media and the news being what it is, I don't think there's any way it could happen. The argument that these guns are to resist the government is ridiculous.
The problem I see is that firearms are the common denominator in all these shootings. The shooters all had different social statuses, age, background, political/religious affiliation, economic background, family situations, and mental factors.
The guns are the one thing there is a real chance at changing because it's an "item". We've been fighting a set of beliefs in various countries for decades, and getting no where. The thought that society can get everyone to fall in line with a common set of ideas is not going to happen. What is possible is controlling that item. Guns are meant for destruction. Whether it's destroying targets, game, or people. That's what they're for. I see nothing wrong with further regulating such an item.
The problem I see is that firearms are the common denominator in all these shootings. The shooters all had different social statuses, age, background, political/religious affiliation, economic background, family situations, and mental factors.
The guns are the one thing there is a real chance at changing because it's an "item". We've been fighting a set of beliefs in various countries for decades, and getting no where. The thought that society can get everyone to fall in line with a common set of ideas is not going to happen. What is possible is controlling that item. Guns are meant for destruction. Whether it's destroying targets, game, or people. That's what they're for. I see nothing wrong with further regulating such an item.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Neffa, if you are calling me out without actually calling me out, I'd prefer to be taken in the context of my comment. I said it was hypocritical and delusional thinking to suggest that it isn't the guns fault while at the same time blaming it on other objects like video games/music and movies. I also made it clear that i am not on either "side" just that there is room for intelligent dialogue from both. I stand by that logic. And as a father of school kids, and husband of a elementary school teacher who now has to deal with this reality EVERY DAY, I have ran out of patience for entertaining the mental gymnastics people put themselves through to cling on to wanna-be military hardware while taking offense that conversation and possibly even more regulation is necessary to keep the blood of these kids from being continually shed.--Thanks.
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
Its posts like these that remind me NOT to click on these type of threads.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
x2. This has been generally a good discussion and is worth the read though tjones.
pabearhunter
Well-known member
I guess you can't see the point that is being made.
RobG
Well-known member
I don't have time to find a really good study, but this touches on the irrational fear. https://qz.com/898207/the-psycholog...gh-guns-are-3210-times-likelier-to-kill-them/
Trying to change this quirk of humanity is pointless.
Trying to change this quirk of humanity is pointless.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I will caveat this as a bit tongue in cheek, and is just intended to provoke thought:
So he was part of an extremely fringe group with radical ideology, so really a very close parallel with extremism within the Muslim culture. We also see that mass shootings and terrorism have a similar statistical impact on our citizenry.
Logically then, gun control could be viewed as equally as inappropriate/ineffective as the travel ban, or vice versa. Mortgaging rights for a temporary feeling of safety.
Similar threads
