If gun control isn't the answer, what is?

[Cecilie1200]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Gun control will work in the long term. What will happen is the same thing that happened with cigarettes. The use has declined over the decades since we started placing warnings on them, society has placed burdens on smokers, the health risks have been highlighted and we've taxed the holy you-know-what out of them.

They are still available but much less front-and-center than they used to be.

It takes an incrediby long time to do this but in the end, it is worth every minute spent.

What you do is make the high volumes cartridges harder to get via mail order, place a surtax on them to make them cost prohibitive, and manufacturers sell less of them. So less are made. It is supply and demand.

Lets say that we have a bazillion of these clips out there. Over time, they wear out, get damaged, stolen, destroyed by various means such as fires, floods, etc... So the Bazillion becomes a bathousand over time. Meanwhile, the public becomes safer by increments since you're not able to log on and buy them.

You can replicate the model with things such as the AR15, AK47, etc.. and you're not diminishing the rights under the 2nd amendment at all.

Meanwhile, what you do is place armed guards in schools--men and women trained in aggressive deterence. At no point do you put guns in the hands of teachers or students. Thats batshit crazy.

Human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon but if you took everyone who can't swim and kept them away from water, you'd have fewer drowning deaths. If you stem the tide of guns, eventually, you'll have fewer on the streets.

It's not politics; it's logistics.

It's retarded, because you're conflating two incredibly different situations, and two WILDLY different goals.

In the case of cigarettes, you're trying to affect the behavior of the general, mostly-sane population, and convince them to buy and use fewer cigarettes in general, because the general, everyday possession and use of cigarettes is considered bad and harmful.

In the case of guns, the problem - for most of us, anyway - ISN'T the general, everyday possession and use of firearms. It's the handful of crazy, violent people who decide to go on rampages.

So we can conclude one of two things.

1) The correct analogy would be to the small handful of crazy people who are going to torture their wives and children with lit cigarettes REGARDLESS of what the rest of the people around them do concerning cigarettes.

2) Leftists aren't trying to solve the problem of crazed shooting rampages at all, but what they perceive as the REAL problem, which is that PEOPLE SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS! It doesn't fit in with their ideal world toward which they're determined to work, regardless of whether or not anyone else wants it and no matter WHOSE rights, freedoms, and basic safety they have to trample and which tragedies they have to exploit.

So YOU tell US which conclusion we should go with.

 

[Oldguy]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Gun control will work in the long term. What will happen is the same thing that happened with cigarettes. The use has declined over the decades since we started placing warnings on them, society has placed burdens on smokers, the health risks have been highlighted and we've taxed the holy you-know-what out of them.

They are still available but much less front-and-center than they used to be.

It takes an incrediby long time to do this but in the end, it is worth every minute spent.

What you do is make the high volumes cartridges harder to get via mail order, place a surtax on them to make them cost prohibitive, and manufacturers sell less of them. So less are made. It is supply and demand.

Lets say that we have a bazillion of these clips out there. Over time, they wear out, get damaged, stolen, destroyed by various means such as fires, floods, etc... So the Bazillion becomes a bathousand over time. Meanwhile, the public becomes safer by increments since you're not able to log on and buy them.

You can replicate the model with things such as the AR15, AK47, etc.. and you're not diminishing the rights under the 2nd amendment at all.

Ok, you're offering a long term solution. Not bad. Not perfect and full of holes but...not bad for a starting point.

Meanwhile, what you do is place armed guards in schools--men and women trained in aggressive deterrence.

How do you determine whether or not they are trustworthy with a gun? For instance, would you trust a Jerry Sandusky type with a gun? How would you know?

At no point do you put guns in the hands of teachers or students. Thats batshit crazy.

Students? No, of course not. Teachers? Well...I would have agreed with you before listening to an interview with the Superintendent of the Harrold, TX school system this morning. They've had "packing teachers" for the past 4 years and have had no problems. Granted, it's a very small rural system (16 teachers overall) and their experience might not be applicable to urban systems, but the way he explained it, it makes perfect sense.

Human behavior isn't going to change anytime soon but if you took everyone who can't swim and kept them away from water, you'd have fewer drowning deaths. If you stem the tide of guns, eventually, you'll have fewer on the streets.

How would you keep non-swimmers out of the water without the government intruding upon their rights? Please apply that to your thoughts on the subject at hand.

 

[Oldguy]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS.

The discussion needs to go to where it belongs. Crazy people. Look at all the mass killings of the last decade or more and mental illness has been at the root of the majority of them. If we keep the discussion on guns, we all lose.

If we describe all killers as "crazy", then what's to prevent expanding that definition to include any anti-social or dangerous behavior? Don't forget that being deemed legally "crazy" is what landed Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag, when his only crime was speaking his mind.

 

[Koios]

No, I'm saying the UK figures around gun crime are highly misleading.

I'm also pointing out that after the UK banned civilian ownership of firearms, gun crime skyrocketed there.

Sorry if the true doesn't fit your agenda.

The UK hasn't banned civilian ownership of firearms. Stop making shit up.

That's why their Olympic shooting teams were not able to practice on UK soil...

Foreign nationals while in the UK are also required to have ceritficates of ownership. So not banned, per se but highly limiting by making it a pain in the ass to get certified and thus be able to own firearms, the handling of which is far more restricitive than here.

 

[Oldguy]

Teach our children love and respect,hope for the best.

Dogs do what dogs do.

Teach your children accountability. When parents are repeatedly called to the carpet about their darling's behavior, their first response should not be "Yes, but"

Yes, but....it is. What do you do about that? Who does it?

 

[Oldguy]

You teach those parents that not all business owners are evil greedy people...and that most are decent human beings..... and entering the worlkplace with an attitude of enthusiasm and dedication will likely result in a long term career filled with promotions and personal success.

How do you do that? Who does it? Is it mandatory? Who writes the curriculum? What's the standard for "passing?"

 

[Oldguy]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

You could have a cop on every corner, in every class room and there would be SOMEONE somewhere attempting to mimic prior events.

Behavior modification is the ONLY way to REDUCE these events.

All the shooters in prior events had mental problems.
From NOW on if ANY laws are to be changed it should be those restricting these people's behavior!

But BANNING GUNS is a finger in the dike solution! It will happen again because CT had one of the strictest gun laws in the nation!

So, you're advocating government behavior modification? What would that look like? And, if not government, who?

 

[Seawytch]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996. Lets ask them.

 

[Oldguy]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS.

The discussion needs to go to where it belongs. Crazy people. Look at all the mass killings of the last decade or more and mental illness has been at the root of the majority of them. If we keep the discussion on guns, we all lose.

And as the size of magazines increases, so does the body count. Hell, you can now buy 100 round magazines on-line, for most assault style rifles, with no background check.

You can change magazines in mere seconds.

 

[Seawytch]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS.

The discussion needs to go to where it belongs. Crazy people. Look at all the mass killings of the last decade or more and mental illness has been at the root of the majority of them. If we keep the discussion on guns, we all lose.

And as the size of magazines increases, so does the body count. Hell, you can now buy 100 round magazines on-line, for most assault style rifles, with no background check.

You can change magazines in mere seconds.

Seconds can be an eternity.

 

[Oldguy]

they dont want answers.

they want us to just get used to the "collateral" damage their worship brings this country

They want the magic of being without any impact on their so-called liberty,

or their wallets.

Can't be done.

We have tens of thousands of veterans, for starters, who need jobs or better jobs. Start training them to be armed guards, with federal funds, and start putting them to work.

Indeed.



As we all know, tens of thousands of veterans, many of whom complain of PTSD, are perfectly suited to carry a gun around a school full of screaming and yelling children.



Ok, I'm being sarcastic.

LOL Yeah. And, a lot of the guys I served with couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 10 feet!

 

[Oldguy]

Of course, the left jumps straight to gun control. What better way to solve any problem there is then by restricting freedom and increasing government size and scope? We all know that those handguns went into the school by themselves and started shooting kids. Therefore, we should get rid of all guns.

Why treat the symptom when you could treat the cause? I've heard people compare this to the Chinese dude who stabbed a bunch of kids in China. Supposedly, that was so much better because no kids died. Obviously it's good that they didn't die but it doesn't stop them from being scarred for life, both mentally and physically, for having gone through that. Less deaths or not, it's still a tragedy.

My solution, which wouldn't be a full solution (nor would eliminating all legal gun ownership in the U.S.) because nothing will work 100% of the time, is to get some early and/or better education regarding mental disorders like depression, etc. If people, even kids/teens, are better equipped to detect the signs being given off by wackos like Ryan Lanza, then maybe we'll get some better early intervention to either help them through their issues.

Not bad. I don't think you're proposing a "snitch" system, but more of a situational awareness type thing, right?

 

[g5000]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

There is no silver bullet. No pun intended.

Both shooters were from broken homes.

Both obviously had mental health issues.

Both used guns which are entirely legal under an assault weapons ban.

The school was in lockdown, but that was easily bypassed by simply shooting out a window.

The media loves to hype the shit out of these things, giving the killers all the air time they could possibly have hoped for. Plastering their faces on the screen around the clock, putting up every detail of their shitty little lives.

Lots of factors contributing to the problem.

.

 

[spectrumc01]

The re-opening of mental assylums. The ones that never should have closed in the first place. Guns, videogames, music, tv, and all the other BS don't kill people...Fucking mental patients kill people. Lock them up. Proof of needed medication is enough.

So, everyone who kills someone is a mental patient?

After watching your replies I can only surmise that you have too much starch in your shorts, and that is the reason for your disagreeable demeanor.

 

[Oldguy]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS.

The discussion needs to go to where it belongs. Crazy people. Look at all the mass killings of the last decade or more and mental illness has been at the root of the majority of them. If we keep the discussion on guns, we all lose.

And as the size of magazines increases, so does the body count. Hell, you can now buy 100 round magazines on-line, for most assault style rifles, with no background check.

None of that matters, and all the gun legislation wouldn't be needed if we locked up the crazies. We used to do it, when we had state institutions. If you are on medication you can't own or posess a firearm. I don't care if it's for depression or what ever, if you are on a medication designed to "balance you out" or help you "cope", no guns for you.

NRA people need to speak up. If we lock up the crazies there are no more mass gun attacks, and no more call for anti gun legislation. Re focus your energy.

You realize, don't you, that you're suggesting something like half the adult population would be denied gun ownership?

 

[Oldguy]

In order to drive, you're required to complete a series of courses and pass tests that show you sufficiently to know how operate a car, as well as understand what different signs mean, the concept of right-of-way, how to park, etc. Makes sense since cars are deadly weapons capable of taking the lives of many people by one single person either wanting to take lives or making a mistake.

I used to be an avid boater. You can legally operate a boat at the age of 12 if you complete a course and get certified. I still think that age is quite young but at least you're required to get educated on boating safety and how to properly operate a boat. If you're 18, you don't need any certification to drive a boat which is frankly ridiculous because boats are harder to operate in a safe manner than cars are: no designated driving lanes and no brakes. And really, it's not too expensive to get a fishing boat that does 70 MPH.

I would be all in favor of requiring someone to take a course and pass a test showing that they have been educated in the use, operation of and storage of any firearms. Pile this onto the obvious background checks as well. At least this way, someone who's of age and wants to commit a heinous crime like this at least would have to get educated and go through the "trouble" of taking the class and such first. Maybe those who want guns going forward would learn something from the class, specifically regarding safe storage of the guns to keep them out of the hands of others (in Lanza's case here). To me, this is sensible, smart and something that all sides could easily rally around that would have a sizable impact on gun-related violence over time.

Do you means something similar to the courses required for a concealed carry permit for ALL gun purchasers?

That's worth thinking about but, some might object because it would leave a paper trail to the gun you bought: i.e. registration.

 

[Dreamy]

What is the answer?

Something, or nothing? If something, what?

Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996. Lets ask them.

Yes, let's explore this deeper:


America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake | The Daily Caller

In contrast, for criminals and their enablers, “gun control” is the gift that keeps on giving.


Take Melbourne, Australia’s second most populous city. Between January 16, 1998 and April 19, 2010, 36 criminal figures or partners were murdered during the Melbourne Gangland Killings.


Alas, family environments, from businesses to parks, were drawn into the mess.
​

The passage of gun control laws fueled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.

 

[spectrumc01]

And as the size of magazines increases, so does the body count. Hell, you can now buy 100 round magazines on-line, for most assault style rifles, with no background check.

None of that matters, and all the gun legislation wouldn't be needed if we locked up the crazies. We used to do it, when we had state institutions. If you are on medication you can't own or posess a firearm. I don't care if it's for depression or what ever, if you are on a medication designed to "balance you out" or help you "cope", no guns for you.

NRA people need to speak up. If we lock up the crazies there are no more mass gun attacks, and no more call for anti gun legislation. Re focus your energy.

You realize, don't you, that you're suggesting something like half the adult population would be denied gun ownership?

Yep. If your not mentally qualified your not mentally qualified. Our forefathers never expected our village idiots to become as equal to a normal person in rights. They were locked up until just recently, and now every mass shooting seems to have been comited by someone with a mental disorder. Assassination attempts of Reagan, and Lenon were by crazy people. I believe "Squeeky" Froam was a lunatic, along with Manson. If you don't want to lock them up...fine. Just don't let them purchase a gun.

 

[Oldguy]

a Nanny form of government.

An interesting comment because that's EXACTLY what the gun control debate boils down to. It's just another "nanny state" issue at it's core.

Does the state have a roll to play in protecting us? If so, how much?

 

[Koios]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS.

The discussion needs to go to where it belongs. Crazy people. Look at all the mass killings of the last decade or more and mental illness has been at the root of the majority of them. If we keep the discussion on guns, we all lose.

And as the size of magazines increases, so does the body count. Hell, you can now buy 100 round magazines on-line, for most assault style rifles, with no background check.

You can change magazines in mere seconds.

Yes; 1836.3 of them, give or take.