another shooting in Canada...Vancouver. That's twice...there was a mad rampage last week. Thought they were more stringent with gun control?
It's all window dressing man. You could enact every single one of those laws, and it still wouldn't stop something like what happened today. You could pass this law, but it would virtually impossible to enforce, and the only time you would see someone punished is after the fact. Kid shoots up school, parent is found guilty of not locking up the gun, parent is convicted. It still doesn't save lives. The problem with this is that it still doesn't prevent the shootings. The Clackamas shooting was with a stolen gun. The Newtown shooting was with a stolen gun. The shooting today was by a high school kid, so he couldn't legally buy a gun. Therefor he either stole it from his parents or he purchased it illegally. Either way, it doesn't prevent what happened today. How many of these shootings involve people with a CHL? The only thing you accomplish by making a CHL more difficult to acquire is less people with a CHL, but I don't think it would actually reduce these kinds of incidents. Again, people are just going to steal ammo, or make their own ammo. Either way, I don't think it actually stops people from shooting other people. My point is that people are going to kill if they want to kill. No amount of gun laws will stop what has been happening. Let's say in a perfect world they take away all guns. That's what some people would like, right? Let's say it's actually possible, and they remove every single gun from America. People will STILL find a way to kill. Whether it's knifes, or pipe bombs, or just good old fashioned beating someone to death with your bare hands. The only thing they might accomplish is slowing down mass shootings, but today wasn't a mass shooting. One student died, and if that's what someone is bent on, they can accomplish it with something as simple as a baseball bat.
How about we take our chances with parents actually stopping these crazy fuckers before they actually hurt someone?
I think these are very reasonable. PS when is Obama going to get his shit together and take away all the guns, I kept hearing Tea Party Patriots warn me!
They're reasonable, but they still wouldn't do anything. That's the problem. I constantly hear people talk about stricter gun laws, but why do they actually think stricter gun laws would stop these shootings?
Do you leave your front door open when you leave the house? Because if someone wants to break into your house, it doesn't matter how easy it, it won't deter them if they are determined to break in your house. /s
Yes, Obviously it won't stop everyone. But even it if deters a couple people from the ease of access, that's a big win! Any deaths prevented, is better than no deaths prevented. This isn't a rule about "You lose the game, you lost one person." Yes it's bad, but you can't just throw your hands up in the air and say it isn't perfect, you can't do it! I think the mandatory gun safe would be a big deal. You are right, that it would be hard to enforce. Maybe you can force the purchase when you purchase a gun, unless you have a nifty certificate saying you already have one. It would have to be grandfathered in with just all new gun purchases.
Car accidents kill more people than guns do. Clearly the answer is for there to be Defend My Lane laws that allow me to shoot anyone who is driving suspiciously.
Big Brother Google is already working to fix that problem. =] SOon we'll all be in autonomous cars and no more accidents. Only car deaths on PURPOSE! :dundundun:
Actually, in many countries in Europe, it's significantly more difficult to get a drivers license. They'll give any moron a license in the United States. So thank you for bringing up a really good point! I think if people want to enact stricter gun laws, we should also enact stricter laws about drivers licenses. You're getting pretty old sly. Your reflexes can't be what they were. You should probably have to retake the driving test every few years to make sure you're not like that 82 year old who crashed into a house yesterday.
I think it's upwards of 5K to get a drivers license in Germany, and they are certified in first aid or CPR iirc. Sykart is awesome, I have a membership there...
You are basing that on the fact that not every person will obey the law. But most gun owners, do obey all gun laws. So, in most cases, gun owners would obey the law taking their firearms out of reach of their children without express authorization. And yes, some would slip by, and after the fact, it would be nice to lock up these bad parents. And if parents start getting locked up of this, then perhaps even more gun owners will see the wisdom of following the laws and make sure their guns are secured. Not every law will address every situation. I know that the shooting is Walmart the other day it was known that the male shooter at some point in the recent past was pissed because he was a felon and was asking around online for people who would sell to him. He may had been too dumb to know that if he just kept quiet he could have bought a rifle from another owner and pretend it was legit. More info needs to come out about where they got their pistols. But the point is that not every law will work in every situation. So you try and find laws that can work together to limit the problem. This one I just think is common sense. We want people walking around ready to defend us, but we want them to be adequately trained. At the walmart shooting the man who was killed (not the cops) had a CHL and was going to confront and stop the shooter, but didn't know there were two shooters and the woman ended up killing the good Samaritan. Perhaps if he had more training, he would have spent more time assessing the situation since they were not actively shooting anyone when he got himself killed. More training and he may have either realized there were two gunmen or perhaps realized there was nothing to gain in the confrontation, and to let the police handle the situation. I now have to ask an employee to unlock a cage to sell me razor blades or Sudafed. If people are stealing, stores get pissed and will make sure that doesn't happen for long. Again, some people will get away with stealing from stores or from friends/relatives, but some won't be able to. Why have any laws since some people will break the law. Because many won't, and many will get caught in the process or simply be incapable of pulling it off. If you need 7.62 * .39 ammo, good luck easily finding the right stuff to steal. Just imagine someone is able to steal and are caught on camera in the process. Perhaps this will lead to an arrest before a massacre ever happens. Or they are caught in the process and a massacre is stopped. Or they simply can't get their hands on what they need and turn to less lethal alternatives where they stab one or two people vs. shoot 23. I think you are wrong on a couple points. 1, some of these laws may actually be roadblocks that halt a massacre. 2, Some of these laws will lead towards arrests that end up preventing massacres. 3, Some of these laws assure that those who do have weapons in public are better equipped to know when and how to use guns. 4, Some of these laws will make tracking and sales of these guns easier to follow and to reduce the number of suns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. There are no laws that will fix everything. Things will slip through the cracks and massacres will happen again regardless. But these are common sense laws that will reduce risk in society while still allowing everyone who is legally allowed to own guns to continue to own guns to their hearts content. I am not anti-gun. I have several and enjoy going to the range. next year I am planning my first hunts. But there has to be a balance and too much control has been given to the NRA and their ability to squash any gun legislation even when the legislation doesn't impinge or infringe on ones ability to own guns.
