Welcome to EMT City
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing topics, give reputation to other members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

235 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I wanted to start a civil discussion among us, those that see this first hand. Please keep it civil or I will ask Admin to close it.

The way I see it, there are three prevalent issues in situations like this that can affect the outcome. The first is the security of the site. From what the news is saying, security was pretty high at this school. The mental illness of the shooter is the second. Mental illness is a horrible disease that affects so many people. Despite what certain news channels would have you believe, there is tons of research on the subject but treatment remain elusive. Our mental health system sucks and should be improved, but for many of these people they never make it to the system because there is just not enough to push them there. There are thousands of little signs that, in hindsight, add up to a devestating picture but that cannot be appreciated as they are happening. Often times, the first sign of a mental health problem is when they act out and go on shooting sprees. Do we just lock up anyone we have a concern for mental illness against their wishes? Our laws work against us in this case. There are fluridly manic people walking around all over the place. There is nothing we can do about that. Our laws pretty clearly say that unless someone is a danger to themselves or others, at that specific time, we can not hold them against their will. This does not mean that in an hour, in their mania, they will not become homicidal and go on a shooting spree. Even with a perfect mental health system, we cannot predict who will snap. We are not psychic. It is the same way with chest pain pts. We can admit them for their chest pain and work them up. It does not mean that as soon as they walk out of the door, one of their plaques isn't going to rupture and lead to a STEMI/death. So we have maximized the security and cannot do anything about the mental health issues. That only leaves us the last common thread, the gun. This is the only part of the equation we have any control over. We need to start seriously talking about gun control in a rational manner. It does not mean taking away everyones guns.

There are plenty of people that jump on the second amendment. Keep the second amendment in the proper frame. In the 1700s people used their guns for food, protection from parties (Indians, French, British, etc) when the goverment could not provide that protection. They also were dealing with single shot, smoothe barrel, rifles that had the accuracy of a sling shot when they actually fired. The founding fathers were smart guys and knew that times would change. Thomas Jefferson felt that any constitution would be worthless after 19 years and would need to be rewritten by each generation. In the end, we were given the amendment process, which allows a new amendment to overrule a previous amendment. It would be interesting if we could resurect one of the writers and get their impression on our current weapons technology (as well as several other issues). I would guess that they would say, "Hey, it's up to you guys. We dealt with what we had to in our time, you have to deal with your time. That is why we gave you an amendment process."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

While I am a Canadian working towards my US citizenship, I have lived in the USA for 6 going on 7 years. I must admit it was a shock to me to know that many, many people carry a weapon on their person. Coming from a Country where there is strict gun controls I found it somewhat discomforting at the ease in which people can acquire a firearm.

I will not pretend to say I know all there is to know about why people snap. My feeling is, especially around the holidays, people with a mental illness and left to their own devices feel lost and increasingly depressed causing things to spin out of control to a point where they can't help themselves. That is on us as a Society. I don't mean to sound callous but, while the events of the last few days are indeed tragic, the CT shootings are only different by the number of innocent victims and the ages. Unfortunately, innocent victims of GSWs happen everyday. The USA is not alone when it comes to citizens suffering from mental illness. I think that 100% of all other Countries also have the same problems as we. I don't know if their treatment of the mentally ill is different, but I do know that firearms are not as readily available anywhere else in the World.

When I hear people cite the second amendment as a reason for a firearm, all I hear is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". What I seldom hear though is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". As Doc stated, this was written at a much different time. We no longer require a Militia as we have well trained LEOs and the Largest, best equipped and trained Military in the world. The chances of the lay public being called into service and them needing to bring their own weapon are virtually nil. I am all for some form of gun control. I understand that a rifle for hunting is a part of American hx and I don't think that is what needs to be regulated as stringently although plopping down a DL and walking out of Wal-Mart with a semi-automatic rifle and 500 rounds of ammo needs to stop. There are other controls that I would like to see put in place but, I do not wish to start a "big to-do". I do not have the time to check back as frequently as I would like.

I find it hard sometimes to discuss this issue with some as they become very defensive of the 2nd amendment and will not even consider a different point of view may carry some merit. The very word amendment means change but alas, they consider it carved in stone. The simple fact is, if there are less firearms, then there is. The argument that criminals won't comply or obey new legislation holds little water. If there are less guns and ammo available, where are they going to get them/it? If law abiding citizens keep their weapons secured in a locked cabinet and bring them out for hunting or sport shooting, I have no problem with that. But the fact that the guy sitting next to me at a restaurant is carrying a concealed weapon is a little scary. I have no way of testing this theory, but my belief is that 50% of the people that carry a concealed weapon, would never use it in a confrontation. It's all well and good to have the bravado to carry, it is quite another to pull the trigger and kill someone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

But the fact that the guy sitting next to me at a restaurant is carrying a concealed weapon is a little scary.

Why is this scary to you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why is this scary to you?

Dunno, what if he snaps?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dunno, what if he snaps?

What if he doesn't and is useful in the event of a violet crime perpetrated in the same room? I indeed hold you with respect but this is very subjective don't you think?

I am sorry that I started posting in this thread post because I really don't have a lot of time to chat right now. I will be back. I just don't know when.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

http://www.forbes.co...e-a-lot-of-guns

Actually Kaisu, when it comes to firearm ownership, the US is tops in the world. We also have the highest homicide rate among most first world countries but we are beaten by the central American countries. I'm not sure why we have such a culture of violence compared to the rest of the world, but would you leave a knife or gun easily accessable to a person with a propensity for violence? I don't know if allowing easy access to a society with a propensity is the best idea either. I'm tired of seeing the senseless violence at work everyday so, yeah, I'll admit I'm cranky and jaded.

EDIT: This was a reply to Kaisu, but her post no longer exists but the link is still informative.

Edited by ERDoc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What if he doesn't and is useful in the event of a violet crime perpetrated in the same room? I indeed hold you with respect but this is very subjective don't you think?

I am sorry that I started posting in this thread post because I really don't have a lot of time to chat right now. I will be back. I just don't know when.

It's all good DFIB. That is my opinion. I'm not comfortable around guns. I don't like them. I just have a vision of the OK Corral as everyone pulls out their pistol and hits more innocents than perpetrators.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's all good DFIB. That is my opinion. I'm not comfortable around guns. I don't like them. I just have a vision of the OK Corral as everyone pulls out their pistol and hits more innocents than perpetrators.

I like guns and enjoy the company of law abiding citizens that enjoy them as well. I like walking into Wal-Mart knowing that 3-4 out of every 10 people in the store are most likely legally carrying a gun under their shirt, or in their purse.

It is probably due to being raised in a culture were guns are common and never seeing an accident or a gun misused before entering EMS or traveling to other countries, most of where guns are illegal or heavily regulated. I know gun violence existed but I never saw it among law abiding citizens.

I am glad to hear your opinion. I celebrate diversity.

@ ERDOC. I find your initial post interesting. I really want to talk with you in this thread, but will have to find the time to do it justice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dunno, what if he snaps?

What if the person in the car next to you snaps? Are you going to argue taking cars away? How about knives on the table in a restaurant? That guy in the restaurant might snap and use the knife or fork on the table. Should we then take those away? I witnessed, and had to testify in court as a witness to, an assult involving a Bic pen. Should we then take away writing instruments "if" somebody snaps?

I'm not trying to be flippant or mock your position. That you don't like and are not comfortable around firearms is respectable. I can respect where you're coming from.

However, I think the discussions brought about by the events in Connecticut on Friday are slightly misguided. Everyone immediately jumps on the tools used but ignores the underlying factor at play. The shooter was out of his gourd. What person in his/her right mind would walk into a school and shoot children?

Gun control will have to be a part of the discussion in the fallout from this event. It is folly, however, to make it the main point of the conversations. Mental illness is huge, widely misunderstood and even more widely ignored by the vast majority of non-health care providers out there. (Hell, it's even widely ignored and misunderstood by a lot of health care providers, too!) Until we figure out what causes people to do this and develop a means to deal with people while respecting their rights it will continue to happen again.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Well, I'm a foreigner so please excuse me if I lack subtleness in my knowledge of US culture and Constitution.

I'll talk here only of the guns, and will not try to related it to the tragic shooting, because I think there are many more issues, way more complex and deep-rooted ones. I wouldn't like the "gun debate" to obscure the real issues.

That being said I grew up n a "no-gun" country, in a family that is against weapons. Here no one is supposed to carry any weapon, no billy, to taser let alone a gun. Only teargas sprays are tolerated. Oh and if you use any object to hurt someone, that object can be classified as a weapon is a trial was to occur (provided you managed to hurt the person with it of course).

That is because it is in the french essence that the state provides safety and that the state only holds the legal use of force and weapons. The concept of "milicia" has always been fought against in a country that developed the concept of administration and police quite early. The History of France was the struggle of the central power to establish unity and peace over the divided lands of the kingdom, and against the political aims of the Catholic Church.

That is why today in France, we are firmly attached to the concept of public services either EMS, Fire Dept. or Police Dept. We do not accept the creation of private armed groups (aka milicia). Of course, and as said earlier, the History of the US is very very different (event if closely linked with France's History) and it was back then obvious that the people had to bear arms to protect their land against all the actual threats lying in the countryside. But time have changed, so have the threats and society.

Why do I bother you with the opposition of public and private holding of legal violence? Because that's a choice you'll have to make if you want to move on with guns. I personally strongly think that as long as the state will not demonstrate it provides sufficient security, and fight to prove so, people will cling to their guns. Here I'm talking of the guns anyone can wear at anytime, not the hunting, sport and collection weapons, which are something different. The alternate model is of an unarmed civile population and a strong protective state that holds the legal use of violence.

In the US, one might think this looks like the onset of a state tyranny where the people is held hostage and disarmed by an all-mighty government.

In France we think having the people carry firearms spreads the seeds of a civil war that could not be stopped.

Of course these are exaggerated positions, but I think they're the underlying views in each country.

And what about the creep next door? Well, I talked about values and traditions, but I think that today's first argument favoring guns are self-defense in the everyday life.

I don't know about you, but I've never been in true danger, I mean I never felt my life at risk facing someone determined to hurt me. Yet, I know a lot of police officers and I'm a former crime law student and I know for sure that a situation of true immediate danger doesn't leave time to think. A non-trained person, in an extreme situation (or so perceived) will have extreme reactions.

To answer an example that was given above, I would not trust anyone carrying a gun near me that is not a policeman. Why? Because in case of danger, I wouldn't trust his/her reaction and most of all, I do not recognize him/her the right to kill of wound (maybe for lifetime) anyone.

Then what, do we simply let them do? No, here is a translation of an article of french crime law "statutes":

"When facing a crime punishable by jail, every-one has the legal habilitation to arrest the author of said crime and bring him/her to the nearest police officer."

That being said, the vision we have of blatant offenses is that the people can legally unite and use the strictly necessary violence to subdue the criminal and pass him/her over to the police. In most case, that person will not be armed, so the people will be able to proceed "safely" and no one will be killed in the process.

Of course, in real life people take blows, some people have knives and even guns, but overall we're doing fine.

The same concept of restrictive use of weapon applies to our Police. A field officer will carry a 9mm gun, a billy, a teargas spray, a taser and sometime even a "flashball". Many non-lethal weapons, since drawing your gun automatically starts a long and fastidious procedure.

That's because the law here is quite clear and stringent (that's a good side of the french law system, based exclusively on the Parliament acts and not the judges' precedents) and the right to kill can be granted only if a bundle of conditions are gathered. Why? because we think it should take a lot to clear of your criminal liability in seriously injuring/killing someone. Our version of the "stand your ground" doesn't leave place to interpretation.

I'm not saying it's the best system, because it can actually be too stringent and cause some situations to seem unfair for the people who did the right thing. Yet, killing someone has to be the ultimate resort.

A while ago, there was this video on the Internet: in the US, some drunk dude destroying a fast food with a metal club (no victim inside) then leaving when the police arrives. He faces them, they command him to drop his "weapon" he doesn't: they shoot him to death. More than 10 bullets. This situation can be sum-up the following way:

A man, clearly not in a reasonable state and armed with a low range weapon, threatens people and the police.

Now look at this video, in a little french city:

Exactly the same situation, yet not the same ending: a life was spared.

Again, I'm only bringing fact you may or may not have. I don't wanna discuss if they took too many risks, why the taser didn't work etc... I just want to bring to your attention how things are done here, so that you may think with more elements.

I hope it wasn't too boring, but I tried to bring more elements than just my feeling about this. When something is deeply anchored in a society, it's always good to try to look at as many elements as possible.

Edited by Secouriste
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is none of my business and not my problem so I wasn't going to take part in the discussion, until I read this...

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm also from outside of the US, in a country with stricter gun control laws.

I don't understand why this is a bad time to talk about gun control or the mental health system, or violence in society in general. Isn't this the perfect time? Wouldn't it be more disrespectful to the dead or the grieving not to have difficult discussions in the aftermath of something as horrific as this?

Unfortunately I don't think there's a good answer here. Personally, I don't understand why a basic bedrock of US culture is the right to walk into a department store and purchase an assault rifle. But, as an intelligent individual, I also know that it's possible to commit similar acts with a handgun, e.g. Dunblane, 1996. Or that a single-shot rifle, legal with little more than a driver's licence in my country, could be modified to full-auto, or used in just as deadly a manner with single, aimed shots. If I was an American citizen, something like this might make me support a federal ban on assault weapons, but as a rational human being, I can't believe that that would be sufficient to prevent it from happening again.

Approaching this from the mental health angle presents the issues that ERDoc has already eloquently described. A fair percentage of society has simple depression. A large number of people have major depression, and a fairly large number of people have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, many of whom are poorly medicated. Yet the overwhelming majority of these people don't go around shooting up schools. If being restricted from purchasing an AR-15 at Walmart is an unacceptable infringement on your liberty, I can't understand how allowing the random detention and arrest of the mentally ill is going to be considered acceptable.

Everyone's an expert after these events happens. Every second-rate news anchor can postulate a host of reasons why Anders Behring Breivik should have been arrested before he shot up Utoya, or how people should have predicted what Klebold and Harris were going to do. But these shocking events, by their nature, are unpredictable.

The violence in society issue is even more problematic. I'm not convinced that this is a solely US problem, either. But its hard to identify the root causes, and produce a reasonable plan to address it.

This whole event is utterly tragic. No one would think badly of any of the responders if they descended into a spiral of alcohol and depression -- yet we have a ton of 6-7 year old children who survived and witnessed these events. How will they recover? Where will they be in 20 years?

As an aside, I share Jake's fear of the random armed stranger sitting next to me. I trust my cops to (mostly) not do stupid and thoughtless things with firearms. But the average citizen? They scare me. I'm not convinced that the widespread availability of firearms prevents crime, and wonder if rather it acts as a multiplier?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Living in an area where we do alot of hunting and fishing I have to ask the american people why do they feel the need to have assult rifles? I do truely understand the right to bear arms but if this ammendment is not working in this day and age maybe it is time for it to be changed.

I do not think that it was guns that killed these kids, it was the person that was pulling the trigger, but with that being said if there were no legal guns in his house would this tradgety happen? I think we could beat this to death Ya or Nay on guns but what has to happen is that people have to take responsibilty for their actions. In Canada if you have guns you are suppose to lock them up in a secure cabinet. You have to have a FAC license in order to buy ammo. There are some safe guards that can be put in place.

Im not personally afraid of guns and truely dont look at people and think are they carrying a gun, and are the going to shoot me. I was in the military and my father was a hunter so I have been taught to handle guns with respect. My children have been taught to shoot guns and treat them with respect even the pellet gun had many lessons attached to it.

I looked at our elemntry school where the my sons went to and the good thing is that evey classroom has an exit door to the outside. I know that this is not possible eveywhere but maybe someone should look into getting an escape route for each class.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Whenever this debate pops up, people bring up other objects that can be used as deadly weapons such as the ones Mike mentioned. The difference is these other objects have nonlethal purposes. The only purpose of a gun is to kill, whether it be for hunting, personal protection or a killing spree.

One argument that I find laughable in these debates is the one that a person should be able to protect themselves from the government. First, the government can't pull off something as simple as breaking into a hotel room to spy on someone. There is no way they are ever going to be competent enough take control over an entire country. This plan also depends on the members of the military to be conspirators in the whole thing. There is no way you would every get that many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to turn against their own countrymen. The final thing, if this take over ever did get successfully organized, the battle was lost years ago. A person's AK-47 or whatever semi-automatic they prefer is no match for tanks, bombers, fighters, submarines, etc. The government had you outgunned decades ago and if they really wanted to kill you, they could have done so already.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I'm with other non-US citizens here. I just don't get the whole gun thing. To get a gun license here in NZ is such a rigorous process. It takes a long time and you need to get vetted by the Police and pass background checks, a face-to-face Police interview and have references. Then you get a license that allows you to buy only hunting type rifles and shotguns. If you want a handgun you need to get an endorsement on your firearms license to allow you buy one and this endorsement process is even more rigorous than getting the actual license. If you do not keep your guns unloaded with ammunition separate then you can be prosecuted. If you have a handgun and are caught with it on your person or in your car or you found not to have a gun safe in your house, you are prosecuted. As a consequence we have maybe 1-5 people murdered by guns each year, a lot more with knives. What does this tell me? It tells me that logically if less people have guns then less people get killed by guns. But if we had looser gun controls here would more people be killed by guns and less by knifes? Who knows.

Our police do not carry guns or tasers on their person. We have had a handfun of NZ police murdered in the past 10 years. None of them would have lived if they had access to a gun. It was total random unforeseen violence that got them killed.

In countries that have strict gun control do you see people go on school stabbing rampages? No. Sure there might be some isolated examples but it's pretty difficult to kill a lot of people with a knife before you would be stopped by someone. With a gun you can kill a person every few seconds. Therefore to me it seems that the argument that people will use other weapons if guns are better controlled doesn't work, because the reason people use guns in mass killings is combination of efficiency and ability to easily access.

Just my two cents worth. I'm from a country which has strict gun control so I would never change my mindset to one of a US citizen who loves their right to bear arms, so my debate is totally one sided to my point of view. Are people on the opposite view from me going to change their minds. Probably not.

Edited by HarryM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Agree 150% with everything the non US people are saying and I couldn't say it better without getting angry about it.

As for mikes comment about knives and other potential weapons...how many innocent kids would have died had he walked into the school with a knife as opposed to a gun?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think my comments are being taken out of context. My point was that to address only the tools of destruction and not the person weilding those tools is folly. Want to prevent this from happening again? Address the problem affecting the person and the tools, no matter what they may be, become less relevant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

One thing I have learned throughout my world experiences is that making judgements about one culture based on the values of your culture can create many pitfalls. Sometimes, a certain amount of cultural relativism must exist if you want to attemtp to see a point of view from somebody elses eyes. I certainly learned a thing or two when I lived in Afghanistan. The bottom line is that guns have been an integral component of the culture and life of both historic and contemporary United States. The citizens took up arms to overthrow Birtish rule, arms were taken up during the Civil War and guns have seen this country through the industrial revolution to the quantum revolution. Guns are even part of the sports scene in the form of recreational persuits, competitions and contests. Guns have been part of our society for hundreds of years.

Therefore, I am not sure it is reasonable or even productive to apply or force a world view onto something that is so well engrained into another society. We see how well that is working when applying "Western" ideals to traditionally non-western nations. However, where real progress may occur is in the form of productive dialogue and reasonable legislation with goals that look at the safety related, constitutional related and logistical aspects of the problem that we face. I simple do not believe berating us and saying you cannot believe or understand our culture is productive or helpful. However, the first and perhaps biggest step is for all parties involved to recognise that a problem exists and that problem has not imporved under our current system of policies and procedures.

If we can begin to agree on common ground, we can begin to put the hyperbole away and perhaps once we move on in this productive exchange, begin to look at what other countries are getting right and perhaps how these notions can be integrated into a system that protects the rights of our citizens.

Edited by chbare
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

to think.... this is the subject im going to post on for my first post in a few months.....

You are all well aware of the knee jerk reaction that the government took here in the wake of the port arthur massacre in 1992. Firearms ownership is not illegal, but is quite restricted. Semi automatic refiles are banned, firearms are legal provided you are a member of a sporting club and compete 'x' number of times per year. Hunting is a reasonable excuse for ownership but you have to hold permits to shoot on publuc land and letters from landholders for private property

The regulations on storage and transport is strict, the penalties heavy.

Self defence is not a legitmate reason for ownership

The bleeding hearts here will try and tell you that after the new legislation came into effect, firearm related homicides are down, so is firearm related suicides. Pro gunners will say since "disarmament" violent crime is up. The statistcs say though that suicide rates have increased with the method of suicide being substituted. I recall an article form the ?? crime institute, saying that suicide by firearm reducing had more to do with the cessation of a decade long drought than the new firearms laws. In anycase the firearm related suicide had been reducing for 5 years befor the new laws came into being

Fire arm related homicde was decreasing before the new laws came into effect. Academics have pointed out many times hat the homicide rate was to do with gang and drug related crime, and periods of economic depression when crime increases. Statistical differences in reducing homicide by gun was linked heavily with breaking up of major crime and drug syndacates and had little to nothing to do with the fire arms laws. homicide rates have actually increased but the method is subtituted. There is also an academic article floating around saying that in the vast majority of homicides the outcome would have little to no change should the deceased have been carrying a firearm in the circumstances of their death.

Given our experience, I dont honestly believe that removing any particfular type of firearm will ultimately change the situation. If the desire is there then the method will be substituted. Mcveigh didn't use a firearm and he still killed a lot of people. The same or similar method could be used in any of the recent massacres.

Interestingly when a person starts shooting people the the media calls it a massacre. When the deaths are caused by explosives the media calls it a "bombing"

I have no opinion on fire arms for self defence, the only thing i will say is that i dont believe it is a step that is necessary in Oz at this time

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

The only thing that bothers me about a lack of gun control, is who can own firearms, with no control. I was in a local business, a typical rural establishment. They sell everything except the kitchen sink, but they could probably order one in two weeks. At the counter, I observed an individual whom I've known most of my life. I've also transported the individual numerous times..to the psych ward of a specialty hospital. The individual is prone to violent outbursts, is bipolar, schizophrenic, and is prescribed at least two dozen medications for mental health disorders, a list I can't frankly remember under "past history". The individual was buying shells for the Smith & Wesson fifty caliber handgun (a popular tool among bear hunters) that was casually brought in to show off, and is permitted to carry it anywhere.

All that I could think was... This is a person that should neither have the right, nor privlidge to own any kind of firearm, much less something that could blow the head of a human to a mist of fine bone and liquified tissue.

Certainly millions of people suffer from mental illness, as defined, depression, etc.. and most of them are perfectly stable. But there are some whom are not, but can go right in, fill out a form, and buy any sort of gun the want. Whether its to hunt, or go on a psychotic murdering rampage. It's not like they're going to tell the arms retailer what they plan on doing, and since a background check doesn't include a medical history, they'll never know.

Edited by Chief1C
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't agree with gun control. People focus on guns because of the media. However guns are not the problem. There are far less crimes and homicides committed with guns than other weapons. Why should I be punished because of some dumbass criminal?

People die every day in car crashes. Many of those result in a Vehicular Homicide charge. Should our cars be banned because some idiot kills innocent people with a vehicle? Should I ban knives because people get stabbed to death?

A gun has never killed a person. It is nothing but a hunk of steel. It has no brain, no life of its own. It cannot make decisions on its own. It takes a person to make a choice. A person must choose to use a gun in anger. A person must aim the gun and pull the trigger. It is the person we need to control.

Plea bargains', good time, consecutive sentences, etc. must be abolished. In the 1800's our prisons were hard. There was no tv, radio, books or leisure time. Prison was an 8x10 cell with a bed and a bucket for bathroom use. If you weren't in your cell reflecting on your crimes, you were out in the yard doing hard labor or on a chain gang.

The ACLU, NAACP and other so called "civil rights" organizations have turned our society into a bunch of sissy, politically correct crybabies. Commit a crime and you should be punished.

Mass murders have always happened and always will. They occur every day somewhere in this world. We must remember that Evil exists and sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Wars have been fought over this.

The only way to overcome evil is to embrace the good that is in life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

A gun has never killed a person. It is nothing but a hunk of steel. It has no brain, no life of its own. It cannot make decisions on its own. It takes a person to make a choice. A person must choose to use a gun in anger. A person must aim the gun and pull the trigger. It is the person we need to control.

Maybe, however the point is that military style assult weapons have NO place in the general community..I own guns, I live in a rural area and abide by the laws that allow me to own them. Assult weapons are not used for "hunting" and most responsible people would agree with that.

Yes we do need to control the 'person', but we also need to control the óbject'.

"People say what if they had a knife?'' Trouble with that statement is that a knife cannot kill 30 people in one go from 50 feet, thent o be reloaded and then kill andother 30..........

Take the most lethal available weapon away from the 'mentally disturbed' and then there will be no easy way for them to ''go postal' (another great American term, that derives from these type of events) if they do not have the access to these style of weapons (assult weapons)

at the time the Australian Governemnt implemented the new gun control laws here in 1990's I was apprehensive and alarmed, but see the good it has done in both my role as an emergency service worker and a avid shooter.

So yes control the person, get better mental health services, but also control the tool that can cause this high number of deaths.

Mass murders have always happened and always will. They occur every day somewhere in this world. We must remember that Evil exists and sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Wars have been fought over this.

we can do some thing to prevent this, and we can do things to minimise these results..........no one is advocating that you dont own a gun, what they are saying is why does ''joe public" need assult weapons? Why do you not have a better way of recording where these weapons are? do all people that own firearms have them secured in a way that is safe storage (a locked gun safe, with the ammo separate)......

Do this and you can move forward to preventing things like what happened in Conneticut.

Edited by craig
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

375529_447614721954052_331347112_n.jpg

Saw this on another site and it should put an end to the discussion.

Edited by spenac
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

375529_447614721954052_331347112_n.jpg

Saw this on another site and it should put an end to the discussion.

No one said make guns illegal......gun control is not making them illegal.....it is making the community safe

again I ask, why does Joe public need to own military style assult weapons?

If these type of weapons were controlled, then maybe it would not be as easy for the 'nutters' to get hold of then to carry out these sensless murders..........

it's illegal to drink under 21 in the USA (and I know people do it) but maybe were should amend the rules to make it ok for anyone to drink as alcohol dont kill people, its the drunk people that do it............

You can own your hunting rifle, buy why have the same style of weapon the troops are using in the middle east or Afganistan?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder if as some say that the writers of the constitution were to stupid to understand that weapons would change in the future and really just wanted everyone to have a musket like some claim? If they were that stupid seems the document would never have survived. I am sure they realize that the history of weapons was always progressing. Started with bare hands, rocks, sticks. Then slings to speed rocks up. Spears and bow and arrows of different sorts as time went by. Then some black powder weapons of many sorts. Surely they understood that those that would be attacking would continue to progress with their types of weapons thus would expect that a person would be able to have equal or better to defend themselves. But maybe you are right that they were just ignorant people and did not know history so really just meant a musket was all that was allowed, though I could not find that written anywhere in the constitution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now