Sorry I missed this Doc....
That current gun laws didn't prevent that psychotic kid from retrieving his mother's unsecured firearms and killing those children?
All this proves is that what we're doing now isn't working, therefore it is time to try something new.
And current gun laws didn't prevent that psychotic from entering a movie theater and shooting those people? Nor did it prevent Columbine. Nor do they prevent the access to and use of firearms in their various forms from being used to commit untold amounts of crime.
Exactly. So this means you can support one of two positions. You can agree with the Liberals who think it is time for newer measures to be taken (because children being slaughtered in our schools is a serious matter) or you can side with the Right Wing that just says, "Oh well, crap happens. Can't do anything about that."
The real question is does violent crime decrease when access to guns goes away? I'm not sure it does (see the Harvard paper I posted earlier).
Go away? No, but we're talking about
reducing access in certain circumstances, not abolishing it forever. Let's be realistic here.
However, it takes away an effective measure of self-defense from those who aren't criminal.
But no one is talking about taking guns away from law abiding citizens, so this is a non issue.
How do you propose denying citizens who have mentally ill children the right to own a gun?
That isn't what I said. I said they would be prevented from owning multiple firearms. This kid who killed all these children wasn't just mentally ill. He had a mother who had multiple firearms in her home, which he managed to acquire with relative ease.
I'd be interested how you propose not-tougher laws or other measures that can prevent gun-related tragedies.
Well for one thing, if this woman was only permitted to own no semi-automatic weapons or maybe just one handgun, then this kid's victims would have been reduced to however many bullets that one gun could shoot. But gun owners with mentally ill children should be required to undergo some kind of special training in awareness and safe keeping of their guns. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a firearm without an accompanying gun safe, for example. There are all kinds of things that can be done to reduce the loss of life by gunfire, I'm just throwing out some examples off the top of my head.
I don't propose a solution because it's unrealistic. However, in my utopia gun ownership would be severely restricted, and monitored (reserved for sportsmen, responders, military personnel, etc...). Anyone possessing an unregistered firearm would face heavy escalating fines with eventual jail time.
Here is something I posted on Facebook the other day, on several different threads:
It is simply idiotic for anyone to think it would be possible to flat out ban guns in this country, and for that reason you don't see anyone on the left promoting such nonsense. Even if you make gun ownership illegal, at this point there are simply way too many on the streets. People will get one if they really want one. And besides, most people already have one, or two, or three. It is flat out unfathomable that the government start breaking down everyone's doors to confiscate their weapons. This is the Armageddon scenario conjured up, not by the Left, but rather the Right. And it pisses me off because is treats an important topi with contempt and turns into into an emotional circus.
What I suggest is to continue gradual arms reduction measures, like the ones going on right now in LA and other cities. I read yesterday that they're doing guns for food programs where people bring in their guns and get $200 for food. They get a gift card to a grocery store. In less than a week they managed to pull 1,700 guns off the streets including, get this,
two rocket launchers!
As far as legislation goes, I would suggest investing in newer technology that would prevent guns to be fired by anyone except the legal gun owners who have them registered in their names. Most crimes are committed by people using someone else's gun. The technology I'm referring to was debuted in the latest 007 film where his fingerprint unlocked the safety from the pistol. But that's probably not the best way to go. A company in Ireland called Triggersmart has developed
a better technology that works, but says gun companies in the USA are afraid to use it because once they implement it in some guns, then all guns would need to have them.
This isn't a solution that's going to happen overnight, but we could at least get on the right path. No infringement on anyone's rights would be involved. People could trade in their current weapons to have this technology installed and the government would subsidize these measures. It could take decades before the old guns were completely phased out, but again, this is about a process that needs to start. Something has to be done. Just sitting back and saying crap happens isn't good enough. Also, I have no problem with a single armed security guard at all schools. But then, if Obama tried this then the Right would complain about him trying to expand the government by hiring an extra hundred thousand government employees.
Let me know your thoughts on the above.
Please don't be disingenuous. We both know if the Leftists had their way the population would be disarmed a la Britain.
Based on what evidence? Most people I know consider me on the "Left" and yet I propose and support no such thing. Indeed, from my various Facebook conversations with other "Leftists" it seems clear to me that none of them support this either. It would be 100% unconstitutional and that kind of goal is just too unrealistic. Even if you made guns illegal there is no way in hell you could confiscate them all. The best way to reduce the number of guns on the street is to limit production and provide incentives for people to turn them in. In this way there would be no infringement of rights involved.
I've lived in socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods in addition to socioeconomically advantaged ones, and am choosing to buy property in a socioeconomically depressed neighborhood to take advantage of a real estate opportunity. Police may or may not respond to a private security service when notified (I know, I have had historical discussions with both), my dogs are friendly, and the population surrounding my soon-to-be home is very diverse. I'd prefer my spouse or myself to be armed when at home, or if we choose when we're out and about.
Well, as most people know, I lived in Brazil for six years. I had a gun pointed right in my face and the man fired at me, missing my by inches. Guns are illegal in Brazil. Yet, criminals who really want one, will get one. It is quite common to be robbed at gun point. I coached a football team of 65 players and I once asked them as a group how many had been robbed in their lives. Nearly all of them raised their hands. Some of them had been robbed on multiple occasions. But the curious thing about this is that deaths rarely occur. These "bandits" as they are called, generally steal whatever is on you at the time and then leave. Brazilians take it for granted that they're not going to harm you so long as you don't fight them, and for the most part they are right. The exceptions usually occur in the really rough areas like Rio de Janeiro where the poor are usually loaded on drugs and ten year old kids are terrorizing the streets with machine guns. But my point is, giving guns to everyone, I just don't see that as a solution to the problem, and neither do Brasilians. In my case, if I had a gun there was simply no way I could have prevented that robbery. They had the drop on me whether I was armed or not. Indeed, that's the case almost always, which is why trying to prevent an armed robbery with a gun of your own is likely to get you either injured or killed. This notion that armed citizens are out stopping crime with their guns
appears to be something of a myth.
