I know, I can't believe the liberal media thought that 12 dead and 58 wounded in Aurora, and 20 little kids and 6 adults dead at Sandy Hook, was news-worthy! They shouldn't even print that stuff, I mean, really. There's usually some great NASCAR news I'd much rather follow.
The links you posted seem to have conflicting information with rankings. Also one of the articles stated gun ownership is on the rise, another states it's on the decline. To my it's just journalism using multiple factors (one article said they used 10 different factors) to get the math correct in order to support the the authors thoughts. I'll stick with the basic breakdown of states with the strictest gun laws and states with the most gun deaths as my reasoning for your argument that the states with the most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.
And with actual gun violence being on the decline in the past 20 years, what is the issue? The movie shooting and Sandy Hook shootings are no doubt horrible events. But they do not actually reflect gun violence in our society. To me it's all media fueled, and politicians jump on it as a way to get votes.
I readily admit there is a lot of conflicting information but my argument is that in states with high gun ownership AND lax gun laws they have higher rates of death by guns. And what is particularly galling to me is that in the US 30K+ dead a year and another 80K+ injured, some very seriously, is considered not statistically significant to be considered a problem worth fixing. Then compare our carnage with the OED countries and its even more glaring. What the fuck is wrong with us? Oh yea, the 2nd amendment and the tyranny of the government. Sheesh.
Go ask the parents and family or community members of those kids in Newtown or the victims of Aurora and the MIT police officer killed on campus and Columbine and McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA and Virginia Tech and the Navy Yard what the ISSUE is. When will enough be enough?
I just don't see the idea of how soon everyone will have a gun and there will be shootings on every block due to random arguments.
...
... Also, try this observational experiment... Go to your local Wal-Mart this Saturday afternoon. Park your car... stroll across the parking lot... enter the building and walk the aisles for one hour. Look at every person you see there. Imagine them carrying a loaded weapon. Come back here and tell me if you would feel safer if every one of those people had a loaded gun on them.
I fully understand that Newtown and Aurora were horrible events. But at the same time why do these two horrific events always seem to be the focus of anti gun advocates? I am not diminishing the tragedies that they are, but at some point we have to move away from those events and look at gun violence for what it actually is. And not feed into emotional stories and base or facts on those stories. The guns are out there, they won't all of a sudden disappear if they aren't in regulation or become illegal. I am in full support of figuring out a way to keep them out of the hands of that 0.0002 that use them to kill people. The million dollar question is how, and at what price of individual freedom? People freaked out about the NSA (which I honestly don't care if they government wants to listen to my silly phone conversations) invasion of privacy. Also let's say you open it up to a possible mental health check in order to buy a fire arm, will the buyer be required to take an annual test? Who pays for it? Once that Pandora's box is open, what's to stop them from doing the same with drivers license tests? How about job applications? Just because someone feels strongly against guns, regardless if the statistics show gun violence is actually decreasing, does that mean it's okay to invade someone who supports guns privacy? I just hate this idea that because I don't like something, it has to change.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
apparently you havn't been to one recently. It's not about judging the way people look, it's about observing the way they behave. Crazies muttering to themselves, children running amok, people who can't manage basic hygeine...Doesn't exactly inspire confidence!
Some people will mutter to themselves, I've done it before. Hygiene doesn't exactly equate to a person with evil motives. Children running a muck, that's just lack of parental control. But at the same time if a parent were to punish their kid in public, there is an outcry of child abuse. I live in a large city (Houston) and many people don't inspire much confidence in many things. An example is their driving ability, but I'm not calling for there to be an overhaul of who's aloud to drive. People live differently from myself, from yourself ect ect. It part of human nature. I still stand by that I personally think the walmart comment is off base and in bad taste.
I fully understand that Newtown and Aurora were horrible events. But at the same time why do these two horrific events always seem to be the focus of anti gun advocates? I am not diminishing the tragedies that they are, but at some point we have to move away from those events and look at gun violence for what it actually is. And not feed into emotional stories and base or facts on those stories. The guns are out there, they won't all of a sudden disappear if they aren't in regulation or become illegal. I am in full support of figuring out a way to keep them out of the hands of that 0.0002 that use them to kill people. The million dollar question is how, and at what price of individual freedom? People freaked out about the NSA (which I honestly don't care if they government wants to listen to my silly phone conversations) invasion of privacy. Also let's say you open it up to a possible mental health check in order to buy a fire arm, will the buyer be required to take an annual test? Who pays for it? Once that Pandora's box is open, what's to stop them from doing the same with drivers license tests? How about job applications? Just because someone feels strongly against guns, regardless if the statistics show gun violence is actually decreasing, does that mean it's okay to invade someone who supports guns privacy? I just hate this idea that because I don't like something, it has to change.
Hey Mattsl1983, honestly, I was trying to stay with you, read your stats, follow your arguments, maybe I'd see another perspective. But frankly you're sounding pretty fucking naïve. Do you think we're all emotionally-charged reactionaries? Don't understand numbers? Really? I think I probably understand statistics and the concept of crime being "random" or "isolated" easily as well as you do. So here's an emotionally-charged question: any chance you have kids yet? are they in school? maybe just a significant other or wife that goes to the movies? Not to say your viewpoint isn't valuable either way, because a lot of people "get it" without families to worry about, but my guess is that you might tune in a bit differently, your awareness might be heightened, if maybe you had kids in school these days. Oh, but that's reactionary and emotional, sorry about that.
Not a pity party - I feel more fortunate than so many. And many people feel the impact from tragedies that happen nowhere near them. But guess what, my kids, in our very suburban, "normal" school district have known the "run to and crouch down in the inside corner of the classroom away from windows" routine since they were 4. Man, they really have it down! Makes a parent so proud! Columbine is in our school district - that was a bummer. But the much less famous Deer Creek MS, Platte Canyon HS, and Arapahoe HS shootings were also in our district or immediately adjacent. Never mind that one of my sons happened to be at a movie theatre about 12 miles away from Holmes the night he was opening fire on movie-goers in Aurora - won't even go there. Have a kid and figure that one out for yourself, asshole.
But back to just school shootings - so very isolated for sure.... as a parent you end up reading up and trying to figure out why and how it could happen and how maybe it won't happen again. Maybe you too will look at things in such irrational, emotional terms some day. Well, Columbine made me look to mental health problems and easy illegal access to automatic weapons. Deer Creek led me to mental health problems (darn, off his meds again!) and unsecured guns owned by family members. Arapahoe HS again leads me to undiagnosed mental health problems (because most of it doesn't present until adolescence and isn't yet diagnosed) and the ease of walking into a big box store to buy a shotgun at age 18 because your debate coach pissed you off (isn't it great to be an American!? that boy had his rights though). And Platte Canyon? Well, check out the 3/30/2007 Denver Post article about the mentally ill guy's firearms. Guess, what? It's not only the ones dead you need to consider in your statistics. Everyone anywhere near that school, kids and adults, especially those held hostage and assaulted, are affected to some degree. Not to be too dramatic, but I don't think you get it.
I've got no corner on this market. Every parent in every school district in the US has been right in this stuff, or closely affected, and all kids in US public schools now know about "school-shooter preparedness".
Do I give a shit about Unsung's rights to arm up so he's stockpiled and ready for that big fiery showdown with the oppressive US govt? Really I can't say I do. Do your concerns about unfair disparaging remarks about Walmart and the traffic in Houston matter to me? Nope. Sorry. I honestly tried to listen to you, but you got nothin'.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
I'm not going to take away from your very emotionally charged post. That is a yes to me having a family. My question is how do you make the changes you wish to see? Will they actually make a difference, or will it just be a "we did something" change? I ask because let's say AR14's get outlawed, statistically that makes no change in the bucket aside from maybe a drip. Mental healthcare checks, that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. What is the logical feasible solution?
I'm not a big guns person, I'm pretty neutral on the issue. Would I like to see a change to stop some of the horrific events that have happened? Absolutely. Am I willing to just change the Bill of Rights when the real issue isn't being addressed? Absolutely not. If a proposed amendment that will actually make a difference and changes comes up, I will absolutely support it. But I'm not about to support any change that will violate individual rights based off gun violence (which is on the decline) because of a few media hot topic events. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.
"Not a pity party - I feel more fortunate than so many. And many people feel the impact from tragedies that happen nowhere near them. But guess what, my kids, in our very suburban, "normal" school district have known the "run to and crouch down in the inside corner of the classroom away from windows" routine since they were 4. Man, they really have it down! Makes a parent so proud! Columbine is in our school district - that was a bummer. But the much less famous Deer Creek MS, Platte Canyon HS, and Arapahoe HS shootings were also in our district or immediately adjacent. Never mind that one of my sons happened to be at a movie theatre about 12 miles away from Holmes the night he was opening fire on movie-goers in Aurora - won't even go there. Have a kid and figure that one out for yourself, asshole."
Well I guess since I'm apparently an asshole, here we go... Maybe since all this is happening in your close district, you residents need to figure out what in the community is the issue? I can't blame an inanimate object that requires a person to use as the problem. If your community constantly seems to have to deal with these issues, I'd look into the why's of these events. Why are there so many people in your community willing to get a gun and shoot people? I'm so sure that once guns get banned, your community will never have an issue again... Because it's the gun... Now you can call me an asshole.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
apparently you havn't been to one recently. It's not about judging the way people look, it's about observing the way they behave. Crazies muttering to themselves, children running amok, people who can't manage basic hygeine...Doesn't exactly inspire confidence!
It's just like being downtown in most urban areas.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
Okay, I won't call you an asshole anymore, I'll just think it. Again I'd say you sound naïve to me. I think it's just wonderful you're so proud of living in Houston - I wouldn't trade with you for anything - but I don't think your community and your schools are immune to gun violence. I don't know what you're picturing, but ours is a high-performing district with nationally-ranked high schools. Guess what, it can happen anywhere. What a great suggestion that we residents should figure out what in the community is the issue - we never thought about that! I think by the examples I've given you might notice the trend of mentally ill people getting guns so easily, in 3 of the 4 cases the shooters were young adults with no violent criminal background at all. The older Platte Canyon shooter was arrested 2 months before he attacked the kids there, and once he bonded out the police gave him his gun back. He owned 15 guns though, so maybe that one wasn't such a big deal.
But for school shootings, here's an idea: raise the minimum age to legally purchase a long gun from 18 to 21. There are so many studies out there showing that most mental illness presents in that 18-24 age range, rarely earlier than 14-16. The minimum age to purchase alcohol was raised to keep it out of high schools, but roughly half of US high seniors can go buy a shotgun, with - at most - a 60 sec instant check. No cooling off period, no parental consent. So when a kid gets pissed at his debate coach, he can just buy a gun and all the ammo he wants and go shoot up his school. The Columbine kids got their guns illegally, granted - but since then schools have put a lot of threat assessment procedures in place, and there is a good chance the asking-around to find guns may have tipped someone off to a problem. At least it took them months to carry out their plan. Combined with the threat assessment efforts, I honestly believe that raising the minimum purchase age would make schools safer.
I know you'll say that statistically a minimum age change would do no good, but statistics support this. A disproportionate percentage of gun-related homicide and violent crimes occur in the 18-24 age group. From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a survey of convicted gun offenders in 13 states showed that nearly a quarter of them would have been legally prohibited from obtaining firearms if the minimum legal age was raised to 21.
But for you, the solution is to do nothing? Because you don't see it as a statistically significant problem in your community? Well, your .0002 gun homicide statistic doesn't include, for example, the 2 students shot at Deer Creek MS, because they weren't actually killed....
Well I guess since I'm apparently an asshole, here we go... Maybe since all this is happening in your close district, you residents need to figure out what in the community is the issue? I can't blame an inanimate object that requires a person to use as the problem. If your community constantly seems to have to deal with these issues, I'd look into the why's of these events. Why are there so many people in your community willing to get a gun and shoot people? I'm so sure that once guns get banned, your community will never have an issue again... Because it's the gun... Now you can call me an asshole.
and with this, you really did prove your last point perfectly
Hey Matt, I think Cosmo only brought up Walmart because it certainly does have a reputation. I certainly avoid the place because of people's behavior there.
The Associated Press LINCOLNTON, N.C. — "Police say a man in North Carolina sucked a woman's toes at a Wal-Mart after he convinced her he was a podiatry student and persuaded her to take off her shoes.
Detective Dennis Harris said the woman agreed to try on several pairs of shoes at the discount store in Lincolnton, and that at some point during the process, the man stuck her foot in his mouth. Harris said the man apparently tried the same thing at another Wal-Mart 15 miles away, where he told a woman he was conducting a survey on the feet of different races and nationalities.
The second woman also agreed to take off her shoes, but left when the suspect asked her to remove her socks. Both confrontations happened Monday. Police are looking for the man."
Jmus, I don't think you comprehended anything I said. Please tell me at what point I said I was proud to live in Houston? Please tell me where my solution is to do nothing? I could easily pick apart your comment, but I'm not going to. How about you just keep on keepin on your way, and I'll go mine. Your inability to sit at the grownups table has resorted in name calling, assumptions being used, and a lack of facts, and that really just doesn't make for a good discussion. I'm just going to ignore any of your comments on this thread.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Hey Matt, I think Cosmo only brought up Walmart because it certainly does have a reputation. I certainly avoid the place because of people's behavior there.
The Associated Press LINCOLNTON, N.C. — "Police say a man in North Carolina sucked a woman's toes at a Wal-Mart after he convinced her he was a podiatry student and persuaded her to take off her shoes.
Detective Dennis Harris said the woman agreed to try on several pairs of shoes at the discount store in Lincolnton, and that at some point during the process, the man stuck her foot in his mouth. Harris said the man apparently tried the same thing at another Wal-Mart 15 miles away, where he told a woman he was conducting a survey on the feet of different races and nationalities.
The second woman also agreed to take off her shoes, but left when the suspect asked her to remove her socks. Both confrontations happened Monday. Police are looking for the man."
I understand the whole some people at Walmart are weird and different from you and I, but I don't think that necessarily means they are more likely to get a gun and shoot people. That's pretty disgusting about the toes though.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
I agree with you Matt, that the solution isnt obvious. I just think most people arguing against guns in here are saying we have to try something new. Personlly, I wish we'd try something new, but I wasnt kidding earlier when I said I think it might be too late. But here's something to think on -- The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords -- someone tackled that shooter when he was reloading or exchanging magazines. Personally, I think limits on magazines could slow down some people on mass shooting sprees. I know these are tiny fractions of offenders, but if I were a gun owner, I wouldnt see it as too much too ask that I reload a few extra times at the range. It might not make much of a difference, but it just may save a few people on the next mass shooting. Its just an idea.
Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.... wouldn't raising the minimum age from 18 for purchase or even possession help, considering the 18-21 age group is more at risk for undiagnosed mental illness than any other? And the 18-24 age group commits more violent crime in the US than any other? Isn't that worth looking into?
And I'm seeing so much fairness and wisdom at the grownups' table, mattl1983, I'm so hurt you don't want me to stay. Like suggesting that those of us who support some amount of gun control do so because we think that guns cause violence. That's a beauty. In all the posts I've ever read on this forum I've never seen any of us suggest that guns are causing the violence.
But I do agree with you, let's ignore each other completely.
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
... The point i'm making is to punch holes in the logic of the NRA leadership and Gun Advocates that claim more guns mean safer streets. That would work only if all of the citizens involved were clones and equals. That is not the case in the U.S. right now. And you ask the million dollar question... How do we keep the guns out of the hands of people like James Holmes, Adam Landza and that old guy that shot the movie texter... without stomping on the Bill Of Rights? I don't know the answers... but, I do know that the background checks are failing us when James Holmes can leagally obtain the firepower he possessed. All i know is what we currently have in place isn't working. Doing nothing fixes nothing. Putting more guns out there will, more than likely, make matters worse. ... Maybe, closing the loopholes, such as placing the same restrictions on private party gun sales as we have on licensed gun dealers might help. We make parties responsible whenever we transfer the titles of our cars and houses... whether you buy from a dealer or developer or you buy from a private party. Why not do the same with guns? Again... i don't have the answers.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The logic that more guns equal less crime is actually a wash. I've found multiple reports that swing either way on the matter. Some will say that according to their studies more guns equal more violence, others will state the opposite. Without digging to deep on it and spending a bunch of time going through the different conflicting reports, I just take it as a wash for right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll get bored and start looking into it further.
"All i know is what we currently have in place isn't working. Doing nothing fixes nothing. Putting more guns out there will, more than likely, make matters worse. ... Maybe, closing the loopholes, such as placing the same restrictions on private party gun sales as we have on licensed gun dealers might help. We make parties responsible whenever we transfer the titles of our cars and houses... whether you buy from a dealer or developer or you buy from a private party. Why not do the same with guns? Again... i don't have the answers."
Cosmo, I'm with you on this. What would be the downside of going this route?
Also made me think as I watched yet another fucking pill-for-whatever-ails-you commercial - what about those who take medicine that has side-effects mimicking mental illness? And worse?
Lastly - unless I missed something, doesn't seem like matts' comments warranted an asshole label earlier in the thread.
The logic that more guns equal less crime is actually a wash. I've found multiple reports that swing either way on the matter. Some will say that according to their studies more guns equal more violence, others will state the opposite. Without digging to deep on it and spending a bunch of time going through the different conflicting reports, I just take it as a wash for right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll get bored and start looking into it further.
Disingenuous at its worst. "The logic"? Who's logic? And then to follow up with, "when I get around to it, I'll let you know." Lazy. Make a claim such as, "others will state the opposite." Post a link, cite the source. You've seen links for the opposite side of your argument. But maybe, when you can get around to it, you'll post links to yours. Yea, we know, the carnage is statistically insignificant to YOU. Wouldn't want to spend too much time on it, you have other things to do, I guess we should stop wasting your time with our concerns? Your post above is exactly what ails this country. Too lazy to care, doesn't affect me and the problem on its face is so insurmountable, there is no logical, fact based way to lessen, resolve, limit, the carnage. I'm so glad you've given up on (the) US. Nice. And "actually?" Really, have any sources you'd you like to site that back that claim up? More guns don't equate to more gun deaths? Hmmm, looking forward to seeing those sources so we can at least have an honest debate here. Go ahead, tell me to fire up the Google machine.
"Not a pity party - I feel more fortunate than so many. And many people feel the impact from tragedies that happen nowhere near them. But guess what, my kids, in our very suburban, "normal" school district have known the "run to and crouch down in the inside corner of the classroom away from windows" routine since they were 4. Man, they really have it down! Makes a parent so proud! Columbine is in our school district - that was a bummer. But the much less famous Deer Creek MS, Platte Canyon HS, and Arapahoe HS shootings were also in our district or immediately adjacent. Never mind that one of my sons happened to be at a movie theatre about 12 miles away from Holmes the night he was opening fire on movie-goers in Aurora - won't even go there. Have a kid and figure that one out for yourself, asshole."
Well I guess since I'm apparently an asshole, here we go... Maybe since all this is happening in your close district, you residents need to figure out what in the community is the issue? I can't blame an inanimate object that requires a person to use as the problem. If your community constantly seems to have to deal with these issues, I'd look into the why's of these events. Why are there so many people in your community willing to get a gun and shoot people? I'm so sure that once guns get banned, your community will never have an issue again... Because it's the gun... Now you can call me an asshole.
I don't believe I've read one poster state, "that once guns get banned" In this thread. But there you are throwing your emotion into it. To the opposite, I believe all posts have stated unequivocally that they respect the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms. Just that there needs to be, based on factual data, that some regulation is in order. But oh yea, 30K+ deaths and 80K+ injuries per year from guns, those inanimate objects, don't deserve a mention in the press. They're one offs dontcha know? Its a vacuum, a statistical anomaly, not worth our attention, concern or compassion.
The one good thing about numbers, is that they don't lie.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
So, where do our rights come from Unsung? Inquiring minds want to know.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
Maybe when Indiana stops allowing straw and bulk purchases of guns and passes background checks for gun shows? I dunno, maybe you could posit a solution?
And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.
... Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart? (and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not) ... Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun. I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
I agree with you. I'm not trying to arm every citizen, but a real solution hasn't been proposed yet. I'm all for background checks on every type of fire arm. I don't think registering will make any difference. I'm all for keeping the mentally ill from being able to legally purchase a fire arm. But how do we do that? Will we need to get cleared by a psychiatrist in order to buy a fire arm? Is that a possible solution moving forward? What do we do about the guns that are already out there? The proposed solutions so far is what i disagree with.
Grandfather current gun owners in, no questions asked. Pass legislation that takes effect in 2 or 3 years. Yes, pass a questionnaire regarding your "state of mind." Any psych majors on here? What "solutions" do you disagree with? Or is it all of them, just say no? State your opposition. A bill was written and proposed after Newtown. What do you disagree with in that bill? Did states raise their drinking age to 21 overnight to stem drunk driving deaths? Did automobiles get safer overnight? How about air travel or any other travel for that matter? Maybe, just maybe, my great grand kids won't have to duck and cover and shelter in place or worry about getting a cap in the movie theater, shopping mall, grocery store or just walking down the street. But maybe its just so insignificant of a problem, statistically speaking, that I'm overly emotional? Or maybe I need to move? Or ask my community what the problem is? Yea ha, Texas! Land of the free, home of the Alamo and Rick Perry and GWB!
Comments
Go ask the parents and family or community members of those kids in Newtown or the victims of Aurora and the MIT police officer killed on campus and Columbine and McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA and Virginia Tech and the Navy Yard what the ISSUE is. When will enough be enough?
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
apparently you havn't been to one recently. It's not about judging the way people look, it's about observing the way they behave. Crazies muttering to themselves, children running amok, people who can't manage basic hygeine...Doesn't exactly inspire confidence!
Not a pity party - I feel more fortunate than so many. And many people feel the impact from tragedies that happen nowhere near them. But guess what, my kids, in our very suburban, "normal" school district have known the "run to and crouch down in the inside corner of the classroom away from windows" routine since they were 4. Man, they really have it down! Makes a parent so proud! Columbine is in our school district - that was a bummer. But the much less famous Deer Creek MS, Platte Canyon HS, and Arapahoe HS shootings were also in our district or immediately adjacent. Never mind that one of my sons happened to be at a movie theatre about 12 miles away from Holmes the night he was opening fire on movie-goers in Aurora - won't even go there. Have a kid and figure that one out for yourself, asshole.
But back to just school shootings - so very isolated for sure.... as a parent you end up reading up and trying to figure out why and how it could happen and how maybe it won't happen again. Maybe you too will look at things in such irrational, emotional terms some day. Well, Columbine made me look to mental health problems and easy illegal access to automatic weapons. Deer Creek led me to mental health problems (darn, off his meds again!) and unsecured guns owned by family members. Arapahoe HS again leads me to undiagnosed mental health problems (because most of it doesn't present until adolescence and isn't yet diagnosed) and the ease of walking into a big box store to buy a shotgun at age 18 because your debate coach pissed you off (isn't it great to be an American!? that boy had his rights though). And Platte Canyon? Well, check out the 3/30/2007 Denver Post article about the mentally ill guy's firearms. Guess, what? It's not only the ones dead you need to consider in your statistics. Everyone anywhere near that school, kids and adults, especially those held hostage and assaulted, are affected to some degree. Not to be too dramatic, but I don't think you get it.
I've got no corner on this market. Every parent in every school district in the US has been right in this stuff, or closely affected, and all kids in US public schools now know about "school-shooter preparedness".
Do I give a shit about Unsung's rights to arm up so he's stockpiled and ready for that big fiery showdown with the oppressive US govt? Really I can't say I do. Do your concerns about unfair disparaging remarks about Walmart and the traffic in Houston matter to me? Nope. Sorry. I honestly tried to listen to you, but you got nothin'.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Well I guess since I'm apparently an asshole, here we go... Maybe since all this is happening in your close district, you residents need to figure out what in the community is the issue? I can't blame an inanimate object that requires a person to use as the problem. If your community constantly seems to have to deal with these issues, I'd look into the why's of these events. Why are there so many people in your community willing to get a gun and shoot people? I'm so sure that once guns get banned, your community will never have an issue again... Because it's the gun... Now you can call me an asshole.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
Again I'd say you sound naïve to me. I think it's just wonderful you're so proud of living in Houston - I wouldn't trade with you for anything - but I don't think your community and your schools are immune to gun violence. I don't know what you're picturing, but ours is a high-performing district with nationally-ranked high schools. Guess what, it can happen anywhere. What a great suggestion that we residents should figure out what in the community is the issue - we never thought about that! I think by the examples I've given you might notice the trend of mentally ill people getting guns so easily, in 3 of the 4 cases the shooters were young adults with no violent criminal background at all. The older Platte Canyon shooter was arrested 2 months before he attacked the kids there, and once he bonded out the police gave him his gun back. He owned 15 guns though, so maybe that one wasn't such a big deal.
But for school shootings, here's an idea: raise the minimum age to legally purchase a long gun from 18 to 21. There are so many studies out there showing that most mental illness presents in that 18-24 age range, rarely earlier than 14-16. The minimum age to purchase alcohol was raised to keep it out of high schools, but roughly half of US high seniors can go buy a shotgun, with - at most - a 60 sec instant check. No cooling off period, no parental consent. So when a kid gets pissed at his debate coach, he can just buy a gun and all the ammo he wants and go shoot up his school. The Columbine kids got their guns illegally, granted - but since then schools have put a lot of threat assessment procedures in place, and there is a good chance the asking-around to find guns may have tipped someone off to a problem. At least it took them months to carry out their plan. Combined with the threat assessment efforts, I honestly believe that raising the minimum purchase age would make schools safer.
I know you'll say that statistically a minimum age change would do no good, but statistics support this. A disproportionate percentage of gun-related homicide and violent crimes occur in the 18-24 age group. From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a survey of convicted gun offenders in 13 states showed that nearly a quarter of them would have been legally prohibited from obtaining firearms if the minimum legal age was raised to 21.
But for you, the solution is to do nothing? Because you don't see it as a statistically significant problem in your community? Well, your .0002 gun homicide statistic doesn't include, for example, the 2 students shot at Deer Creek MS, because they weren't actually killed....
Lol Check out this article I just saw:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ap/strange/nc-police-seek-man-who-sucked-toes-at-wal-mart/nfHZ2/
The Associated Press
LINCOLNTON, N.C. — "Police say a man in North Carolina sucked a woman's toes at a Wal-Mart after he convinced her he was a podiatry student and persuaded her to take off her shoes.
Detective Dennis Harris said the woman agreed to try on several pairs of shoes at the discount store in Lincolnton, and that at some point during the process, the man stuck her foot in his mouth. Harris said the man apparently tried the same thing at another Wal-Mart 15 miles away, where he told a woman he was conducting a survey on the feet of different races and nationalities.
The second woman also agreed to take off her shoes, but left when the suspect asked her to remove her socks.
Both confrontations happened Monday. Police are looking for the man."
Have you BEEN to a Wal-Mart?
(and yes... it is a joke. I'm not politically correct... maybe I should be... but, I'm not)
...
Anyway, the point was to go to the Wal-Mart... Actually, go ANYWHERE, U.S.A. where there is a large crowd of people... a Costco, Mardi Gras, a Swap Meet, the Mall, the freeway, Disneyland, a Pearl Jam concert and tell me if you would feel safer if everyone there was carrying a loaded gun.
I'm saying... I wouldn't feel safer.
Hail, Hail!!!
And I'm seeing so much fairness and wisdom at the grownups' table, mattl1983, I'm so hurt you don't want me to stay. Like suggesting that those of us who support some amount of gun control do so because we think that guns cause violence. That's a beauty. In all the posts I've ever read on this forum I've never seen any of us suggest that guns are causing the violence.
But I do agree with you, let's ignore each other completely.
The point i'm making is to punch holes in the logic of the NRA leadership and Gun Advocates that claim more guns mean safer streets. That would work only if all of the citizens involved were clones and equals. That is not the case in the U.S. right now.
And you ask the million dollar question... How do we keep the guns out of the hands of people like James Holmes, Adam Landza and that old guy that shot the movie texter... without stomping on the Bill Of Rights?
I don't know the answers... but, I do know that the background checks are failing us when James Holmes can leagally obtain the firepower he possessed.
All i know is what we currently have in place isn't working. Doing nothing fixes nothing. Putting more guns out there will, more than likely, make matters worse.
...
Maybe, closing the loopholes, such as placing the same restrictions on private party gun sales as we have on licensed gun dealers might help. We make parties responsible whenever we transfer the titles of our cars and houses... whether you buy from a dealer or developer or you buy from a private party. Why not do the same with guns?
Again... i don't have the answers.
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Maybe, closing the loopholes, such as placing the same restrictions on private party gun sales as we have on licensed gun dealers might help. We make parties responsible whenever we transfer the titles of our cars and houses... whether you buy from a dealer or developer or you buy from a private party. Why not do the same with guns?
Again... i don't have the answers.
"Cosmo, I'm with you on this. What would be the downside of going this route?
Also made me think as I watched yet another fucking pill-for-whatever-ails-you commercial - what about those who take medicine that has side-effects mimicking mental illness? And worse?
Lastly - unless I missed something, doesn't seem like matts' comments warranted an asshole label earlier in the thread.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The one good thing about numbers, is that they don't lie.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©