Elliot Rodger - California killing spree - all the issues

@cosmo, oh yeah man for sure I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of wackos. the question is, how do we do that? the problem is no one has the answer but everyone thinks they have the answer. Chicago is a prime example that strict gun laws don't mean shit, yet the most often "cure" for gun violence, is tighter gun laws. with every law passed, with every new restriction, there is still violence. that's why we can't look back at the Clinton era assault rifle and high cap mag ban and say holy shit guys, look at the difference in violence when the ban existed.

you can enact every single type of gun legislation imaginable just short of total prohibition, and there will still be gun violence. that being said, if anyone can come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not leaving me(the average shooter) with only bb guns and black powder long rifles to choose from, I am 100 percent for it.

Godfather. said:

jmuscatello said:

I know the links might be fucked up for the Denver Post May 2 article I posted above, sorry, but basically the NRA and the even more extreme Rocky Mountain Gun Owners inserted themselves into a non-gun issue. They lobbied against a bill which would have made the civil commitment process in a mental health crisis in CO a tiny bit easier. Why? Because it might have meant more people in a mental health crisis situation would have their access to guns restricted. So I feel like in a way, I can put a little blame with the NRA when I read a story like the Elliot Rodger's one.

I agree that's messed up but I have a question, what else did the bill have in it ? I mean there is always another ...thing added to the package that the gun rights groups don't want like an increase in sales tax on a guns or amo or another restriction of some sort or something like that but if that's not the case I would be very disapointed in them.


Godfather.

I'll find out what the bill all included and fill you in tomorrow, but as far as I know there was nothing at all about guns in it. Sad but true I almost missed my son's whole continuation thing today because of this thread. I was very, very late

goingtoverona said:

@cosmo, oh yeah man for sure I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of wackos. the question is, how do we do that? the problem is no one has the answer but everyone thinks they have the answer. Chicago is a prime example that strict gun laws don't mean shit, yet the most often "cure" for gun violence, is tighter gun laws. with every law passed, with every new restriction, there is still violence. that's why we can't look back at the Clinton era assault rifle and high cap mag ban and say holy shit guys, look at the difference in violence when the ban existed.

you can enact every single type of gun legislation imaginable just short of total prohibition, and there will still be gun violence. that being said, if anyone can come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not leaving me(the average shooter) with only bb guns and black powder long rifles to choose from, I am 100 percent for it.

...
I wish I had an answer... but, i'm the first to admit, i don't. It is a tough call, balancing Constitutional rights versus public safety.
One thing I do know... North Dakota is not like California. I don't care about gun laws in North Dakota... i just want North Dakota to stay out of California's gun law debates. We have places like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacremento to deal with that are nothing like the cities in North Dakota. If North Dakota wants me to stay out of their gun laws... then, they should stay the fuck out of mine. If people in rural North Dakota want to own 100 AR-15s to fend off the government... fine. I just don't want that same free access given to those North Dakotans to apply to the Crips and Bloods in South Central Los Angeles.
From what I understand, Chicago has a very servere gang problem, right? They probably need to focus on that problem along with their gun legislation. The entire state of Illinois does not have gun violence problem, does it? Even the city of Chicago, i'll bet there are scary parts of the city and there are nice parts of the city. Concentrate on the scary parts, first. Find out what the problems are and see if they can be fixed.
They can start by coming down really hard on gun law violators... regardless of age, race or economic status. figure out where the illegal guns are coming from and hammer the sources... hard. At least... TRY to do something because doing nothing has proven to be a failure.

goingtoverona said:

i'd add to that by saying in addition to doing nothing, everything we've done, has been a failure.
and I can tell you what the problems are, or the main ones at least, poverty and drug prohibition.

...
I agree. Things we've done have been ineffective. Probably because there are too many loopholes in our solutions. For example, we require background checks be made by licensed gun dealers. But, do nothing about private party sales.
And that we need to focus on poverty.

lcusick said:

I agree with goingtoverona and it's evolution baby's posts about the real issue of mental health. Here the parents knew how sick their son was and how much of a threat he was posing and the police overlooked it. I teach extremely disturbed teenagers and we do not put money into helping these people. We just put a band aide on their issues and send them on their way. There is no money put into mental health. Hands down, I can name several of my students who will seriously hurt someone someday. I have voiced these concerns over and over, but they are discharged from our facility because the health insurance only covers the cost for a certain period. It does not matter if they are healthy or not. We put money into the wrong things in society not mental health or education. Rant over.

...
I think the problem isn't mental health... or guns. It is guns in the hands of the mentally unstable individuals in out midst.
If we can figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people... without violating our Constitution... that would help. But, that's the hard part because the constituition grants rights to all of us... including the crazy people.

dignin said:

goingtoverona said:

@cosmo, oh yeah man for sure I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of wackos. the question is, how do we do that? the problem is no one has the answer but everyone thinks they have the answer. Chicago is a prime example that strict gun laws don't mean shit, yet the most often "cure" for gun violence, is tighter gun laws. with every law passed, with every new restriction, there is still violence. that's why we can't look back at the Clinton era assault rifle and high cap mag ban and say holy shit guys, look at the difference in violence when the ban existed.

I don't know if Chicago is a great example. Word on the street is the gangs get the guns from outside of Chicago to get around the tough gun laws. I suppose if those same laws applied everywhere in the US it might be a lot harder for them to get their hands on them, given that they would have to cross a border. But that is just a guess.

Word on the street? Ok.

Word on the street is they get the guns from the Mexican drug cartels who got the guns from the Obama administration through Fast and Furious.

founded by violence, expanded by violence, violence as entertainment. Violence is your birthright as an American. embrace it.

Freedom was gained by blood shed. Freedom REQUIRES blood payments on a regular basis. Freedom is a motherfucker, aint it?

unsung said:

dignin said:

goingtoverona said:

@cosmo, oh yeah man for sure I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of wackos. the question is, how do we do that? the problem is no one has the answer but everyone thinks they have the answer. Chicago is a prime example that strict gun laws don't mean shit, yet the most often "cure" for gun violence, is tighter gun laws. with every law passed, with every new restriction, there is still violence. that's why we can't look back at the Clinton era assault rifle and high cap mag ban and say holy shit guys, look at the difference in violence when the ban existed.

I don't know if Chicago is a great example. Word on the street is the gangs get the guns from outside of Chicago to get around the tough gun laws. I suppose if those same laws applied everywhere in the US it might be a lot harder for them to get their hands on them, given that they would have to cross a border. But that is just a guess.

Word on the street? Ok.

Word on the street is they get the guns from the Mexican drug cartels who got the guns from the Obama administration through Fast and Furious.

Just a turn of phrase. There are a lot of articles about how the guns are brought into the city.

Never heard of the Fast and Furious connection, but it doesn't surprise me that you can bring this back to being Obamas fault.

unsung said:

Wow, we actually agree. Gun laws are states rights issues and the Feds should stay out of it.

...
I totally understand that if you live out in the rural parts of our country, you need firearms for protection because there are not going to be police forces out there and there are other wild animals that will cross your paths on a daily basis.
We don't see too many wolf packs here in Long Beach, California. The gun laws should be different here, in large metropolitan cities than in towns with populations in the 3 digit range. If people out in the boondocks want to store up an arsenal... let them. But, i do not want my neighbor across the street to be able to stockpile mass quantities of weapons and ammo. If he wants to stockpile that shit... he is free to move to Idaho, where it is allowed.
...
The Feds would need to still oversee interstate gun traffic.