Two questions, two million cries foul

[DeletedUser2259]

WOW.
First it's good the be an American. Part of the reason why it is good is this debate.
Second my point is not that confusing. If you made guns completely illegal people who kill would still get them or they would find another way to kill.
Killing is ingrained in all of us. That is why so many people still hunt these days without any need to do so.
I like to know I have the right to buy a gun if I so desire. I like to know that we as a people have the right to bear arms. That is very American and I like being an American.
The argument that if we take away automatic weapons people won’t kill “as many” is silly really. Although I do not own a gun I can shoot one very well. In most circumstances other than all out war against another armed person, a bolt action rifle or revolver or a shotgun will kill just as many.
As for a questioner, sure, but in some of these cases the weapons are not owned by the person who kills but rather by a parent or a friend or someone else.
My point is that if all we do is talk about guns without addressing the societal reasons for killing, “anger, starvation, mental illness, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, lack of proper perspective, poor education and values, and so many more”, we miss the chance to prevent infinitely more crimes than if we abolish guns.
Someone mentioned the slippery slope of gun control. Very well put. It is all a slippery slope. The upping of the ante... Once you allow anything to happen the next thing will be bigger. People give up rights all the time only to complain after the fact that they have lost.
Social security checks used to be labeled social security, they just changed them to say “Government benefit check”... They refer to it now as an “entitlement” bundled in with welfare etc. It won’t be long before they simply say... oh well... sorry pall... we spent your money too bad... slippery slope.
One of the reasons why I became an American is because I have an innate distrust in any form of government. That little piece of paper we all keep talking about, really means something to me.

Random opinions:

I've always thought we should have "ammo" control.
Everyone should have the right to owning a gun, but why do you need a personal stockpile of 100's of rounds of ammunition?

As for new laws, Background checks on people buying a gun should include some sort of check on who all will have easy access to that gun, and do checks on them too.

Plenty of great ideas that are too hard to implement.

I think a lot of the problems in the U.S. are from our dual-personality politics.
* Liberals keep crazy people from being locked away in mental institutions, and prevent censorship of violent media.
* Conservatives block gun control laws and promote gun manufacturer profit$

I would agree in principal. That is the problem with a free society. In the end we have so many 'rights" nobody has any rights at all.

Hi Cavalier, don't you reckon three grieving parents are better than thirty grieving parents? What about parents who lose two or three children? Do you think the parents would be concerned if all of their childs' friends were shot dead? Do you honestly care about profiling, or are you really concerned about the "slippery slope" of gun restrictions once the second amendment is challenged?

Also, to be clear, my original questions are not to target any one group. They are designed to target everybody who, in a court of law, could not be found fully responsible for their actions. Usually that is children and those with severe mental conditions, either short term or permanently, however it could very well extend to others. You would also answer these questions throughout the course of the pre-existing mandatory background checks, not simply take someone's word for it over the counter.

Sure I do. I wish we had 0 grieving parents. I didn't think this was a debate about the rights of those parents. If it was and if I was one of them and if the person who did that to my child was still alive I would feel compelled and indeed justified in hunting him down with a gun, a knife, a rock anything and killing him in a very slow and painful way.
And it would not matter to me at all at that moment what the societal causes were or were not nor would I be interested in debating amendments. All I would want to do would be avenge my child’s death.
To me, those parents at that moment get a free pass on all kinds of laws and amendments.
Well intended laws are sometimes stupid. If someone with a gun breaks into my home I do not have the right to shoot, knife them, electrocute them or injure them in any way. Instead I have to risk my life further to put myself between the exit door and them and then confront them so that I can prove they were a danger to me.... How stupidid that? Meanwhile they are busy killing my family.

 

[DeletedUser]

WOW.
Killing is ingrained in all of us. That is why so many people still hunt these days without any need to do so.
I like to know I have the right to buy a gun if I so desire. I like to know that we as a people have the right to bear arms. That is very American and I like being an American.
The argument that if we take away automatic weapons people won’t kill “as many” is silly really. Although I do not own a gun I can shoot one very well. In most circumstances other than all out war against another armed person, a bolt action rifle or revolver or a shotgun will kill just as many.
As for a questioner, sure, but in some of these cases the weapons are not owned by the person who kills but rather by a parent or a friend or someone else.
My point is that if all we do is talk about guns without addressing the societal reasons for killing, “anger, starvation, mental illness, poverty, lack of hope, desperation, lack of proper perspective, poor education and values, and so many more”, we miss the chance to prevent infinitely more crimes than if we abolish guns.
Someone mentioned the slippery slope of gun control. Very well put. It is all a slippery slope. The upping of the ante... Once you allow anything to happen the next thing will be bigger. People give up rights all the time only to complain after the fact that they have lost.
Social security checks used to be labeled social security, they just changed them to say “Government benefit check”... They refer to it now as an “entitlement” bundled in with welfare etc. It won’t be long before they simply say... oh well... sorry pall... we spent your money too bad... slippery slope.
One of the reasons why I became an American is because I have an innate distrust in any form of government. That little piece of paper we all keep talking about, really means something to me.

When you say killing is ingrained in all of us. I would dispute that. A violent undercurrent in a country may endorse that feeling. If you said that to anyone outside the USA I think you would find most people hold a different view. Surely any society should move toward a less violent lifestyle and not seek to escalate the situation which seems to be the case here, having heard shocking arguments for armed schools, teachers and even children to prevent this happening again. Perhaps the Hollywood movies that glorify guns and killing together with the fallacy of the enshrined second amendment, now an absolute part of the American psyche which underpins the hostile attitude that which was originally for flintlock rifles to be held against the King. So 94,388 people killed by guns in your country this year and 50% of the total worlds guns are held in your country. In order for you to feel safe, when you clearly are not? To the rest of us it just doesn't make sense.

 

[DeletedUser2259]

Yes but first I was referring to the fact that humans are also animals and killing is part of a natural animal instinct and second. Our country is ours. Most of the nuclear bombs are ours also. Our right to debate our situation is ours. We are Americans and although we may argue with each other never underestimate our ability to unite. We don't reallly need someone from another country telling us how to be U.S.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes but first I was referring to the fact that humans are also animals and killing is part of a natural animal instinct and second. Our country is ours. Most of the nuclear bombs are ours also. Our right to debate our situation is ours. We are Americans and although we may argue with each other never underestimate our ability to unite. We don't reallly need someone from another country telling us how to be U.S.

Fair point. I could say the 4m dead from US intervention in other countries since World War II could say the same thing about the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they are dead and can't speak for themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

When an event like the shooting occurs, everyone wants to start pointing at guns as being the cause. It is easy to gloss over the underlying reasons for the breakdown in civilization. Without starting a religious debate, let me point out a few factors that contribute to tragedies like this.

First, our society forgot that laws were established to allow mankind to live peaceably in an established community. They were written to promote the general welfare of that society. We have so debased our legal system that criminals/perpetrators have more rights than the society who is their victims. We have elevated the status of criminals above those of ordinary people and even the very people in whom we trust to protect and teach our children. We elect, and reelect I might add, people who have been convicted of crimes. We idolize, or at a minimum overlook actions, individuals (sports figures, actors and other “celebrities”) who act like they are “above the law”.

We have lost the concept of family values, let alone community values. The “family unit” has been replaced by gangs, cliques and mobs, who are free to roam unobstructed. Instilling a sense of discipline is relegated to the community (schools, law enforcement, etc.). And then after giving them the task, society takes away all their authority. More and more classrooms are becoming zoos instead of places of learning because teachers have no authority to enforce discipline. We establish a policy of “no child left behind” so the entire country is left behind. (The United States ranks 18[SUP]th[/SUP] in the world in education. No wonder all the good jobs are going overseas or taken by immigrants.) We are becoming a country of “George Jetsons” where the average person can push a button but lacks the understanding and principles behind the process. If you don’t believe me, try giving a math problem to a group of teenagers and see how many can get the correct answer without using a calculator. Progressing onward, we have lost our sense of community. At one time, the people of this country would come together for barn raising, fire brigades, etc. to help a neighbor. Now most people will turn their backs on the needs of their neighbor, whether they are being victimized or just hit by misfortune. As a society we have become egocentric. We are so inured to the plight of others that it takes a mass tragedy like Sandy Hook and “Sandy” for anyone to notice when we should be screaming at the top of our lungs for change. How is it we can treat prisoners better than the homeless or downtrodden!?

So take a good hard look at “the man in the mirror”. Does it take a tragedy of this magnitude to affect your conscience? Are you a person who condones lying, cheating, stealing as long as it benefits you? How many people have you passed who needed your assistance, but you ignored because that ONE person was a stranger? It is not guns that create the environment in which tragedies like this occur. It is a society that “looks out for number one” the heck with everyone else.

 

[DeletedUser2259]

Fair point. I could say the 4m dead from US intervention in other countries since World War II could say the same thing about the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they are dead and can't speak for themselves.

Yes that is very true. And a big reason why we are so hated today and that too is diferent from the way things used to be.

- - - Updated - - -

When an event like the shooting occurs, everyone wants to start pointing at guns as being the cause. It is easy to gloss over the underlying reasons for the breakdown in civilization. Without starting a religious debate, let me point out a few factors that contribute to tragedies like this.

First, our society forgot that laws were established to allow mankind to live peaceably in an established community. They were written to promote the general welfare of that society. We have so debased our legal system that criminals/perpetrators have more rights than the society who is their victims. We have elevated the status of criminals above those of ordinary people and even the very people in whom we trust to protect and teach our children. We elect, and reelect I might add, people who have been convicted of crimes. We idolize, or at a minimum overlook actions, individuals (sports figures, actors and other “celebrities”) who act like they are “above the law”.

We have lost the concept of family values, let alone community values. The “family unit” has been replaced by gangs, cliques and mobs, who are free to roam unobstructed. Instilling a sense of discipline is relegated to the community (schools, law enforcement, etc.). And then after giving them the task, society takes away all their authority. More and more classrooms are becoming zoos instead of places of learning because teachers have no authority to enforce discipline. We establish a policy of “no child left behind” so the entire country is left behind. (The United States ranks 18[SUP]th[/SUP] in the world in education. No wonder all the good jobs are going overseas or taken by immigrants.) We are becoming a country of “George Jetsons” where the average person can push a button but lacks the understanding and principles behind the process. If you don’t believe me, try giving a math problem to a group of teenagers and see how many can get the correct answer without using a calculator. Progressing onward, we have lost our sense of community. At one time, the people of this country would come together for barn raising, fire brigades, etc. to help a neighbor. Now most people will turn their backs on the needs of their neighbor, whether they are being victimized or just hit by misfortune. As a society we have become egocentric. We are so inured to the plight of others that it takes a mass tragedy like Sandy Hook and “Sandy” for anyone to notice when we should be screaming at the top of our lungs for change. How is it we can treat prisoners better than the homeless or downtrodden!?

So take a good hard look at “the man in the mirror”. Does it take a tragedy of this magnitude to affect your conscience? Are you a person who condones lying, cheating, stealing as long as it benefits you? How many people have you passed who needed your assistance, but you ignored because that ONE person was a stranger? It is not guns that create the environment in which tragedies like this occur. It is a society that “looks out for number one” the heck with everyone else.

Well put. And painfully true.

 

[DeletedUser]

... The argument that if we take away automatic weapons people won’t kill “as many” is silly really. Although I do not own a gun I can shoot one very well. In most circumstances other than all out war against another armed person, a bolt action rifle or revolver or a shotgun will kill just as many...

The line of "what's allowed" and "what's not allowed" has to be drawn somewhere between slingshot and nuclear bomb.
Gun control advocates are trying to move the current line one step closer to slingshot.

But when you think about it, if a Militia really needed to arm itself to defend citizens from a corrupt U.S. government military, it would take a whole lot more than assault rifles to survive. We'd need our own armored helicopters, rocket launchers, and even nukes to broker a peace via mutually assured destruction.

Does the 2nd amendment give me the right to bear nukes? If so, I want one with unicorn stickers.

 

[DeletedUser2259]

LOL.
You would be surprised what desperate patriotic people are willing to endure.
If we can agree that a person who has even the most basic aptitude with a gun can kill hundreds with a shot gun loaded with alternate heavy buck and slugs then we know that a ban on assault weapons is just the governments way to start the ball rolling toward disarming US citizens completely. And that is why I oppose any such thing, even if I never intend to own a gun.

 

[DeletedUser2711]

LOL.
You would be surprised what desperate patriotic people are willing to endure.
If we can agree that a person who has even the most basic aptitude with a guncan kill hundreds with a shot gun loaded with alternate heavy buck and slugsthen we know that a ban on assault weapons is just the governments way to startthe ball rolling toward disarming US citizens completely. And that is why I opposeany such thing, even if I never intend to own a gun.

And that mindset is the problem in a nutshell.

Reasonable limitations, put to a vote, are not complete disarmament. Permits do not have to be all or nothing. I may have a driver's license but it takes more than that to drive commercially.

The question on everyone's mind right now is: Why did the shooter's mother have an assault weapon in the first place? And why with so many clips and so much ammo?

So just because posing a limitation doesn't cure the whole problem, we should do nothing? We shouldn't look at the whole problem, see ALL the possible solutions or at least changes that make such tragedies less possible? It's broke but don't even try to fix it?

-added-

There are limitations on how many cars one person can sell in a given time period. This separates a dealer from a private seller. It does not outlaw the sale of motor vehicles. As far as I know, no one has died directly from buying or selling a car. And still, it is regulated and restricted.

There is also a limitation on the sale of real estate. Again, as far as I know, no one has died directly from buying or selling real estate, although I am aware of crimes committed upon agents in the course of showing a home.

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed Lanthano, in a nutshell Cavalier is posing a slippery slope fallacy. Many advocate for stricter gun control, therefore they must – without posing any justification – support the eventual complete outlawing of guns.

Time to 'fess up about this thread. It was a test of ours to see who would be first to complain about gun reform: left wing anti-discrimination advocates or right wing 'civil libertarians'. As I expected, we've had more from the latter come out of the woodwork than the former. In fact, the only person to mention "profiling" or anything like it was Cavalier, who used it as a front to conceal the aforementioned slippery slope. Looks like I won, sucked in Domino

The point is made rather comically in this tweet from a conservative Australian politician, in response to Rupert Murdoch:
Rupert Murdoch: Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.
Malcolm Turnbull: @rupertmurdoch I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it.
Apparently the whole world knows which camp needs convincing on this one!


Now to respond to some of the arguments mentioned in this thread. I've picked on Cavalier enough, so I suppose that leaves gimccla hehe. It's fair to say society has lost family values, to an extent I agree, most communities eventually do as they expand beyond everybody-knows-everybody in size. Given this is near inevitable, on a macro level I feel you are crying over spilled milk rather than resolving the issue. If my brother is replaced with a mob, my cousins with a gang and my family with thugs, why do we continue on with a gun policy fundamentally based on trust without the maximum possible safeguards? Where exactly does an assault rifle fit into functional "family values"? At present, guns are the hallmark of dysfunctional family values...

Patch the wound then go to the hospital to receive your anti-venom, the one or the other bickering is silly.

Contrary to earlier assertions, no-one wants to outright ban guns. However, there are reasonable reforms that continue to be ignored on principle, which is what I would really like you to respond to. Keeping deadly weapons away from those with severe mental illnesses is just one example, which should occur in combination with better quality of treatment, so we have less unmanaged mentally ill people and less chance any individual amongst them has access to a deadly weapon. Other examples of reasonable reform include trigger locks, safe storage requirements and smart gun technology. Many would even consider an assault weapons ban for individuals as reasonable, so long as certain professions are exempt and the weapons can still be used by the public at licensed gun ranges. (Why you would need one elsewhere is beyond me; this whole idea of a twenty first century militia comes more from Hollywood imitation than any true reality.)