But again, what do you do with warning signs before a crime has been committed? Yes, there is a responsibility of parents. But that's like saying if we all just got along, none of this would happen either. Saying parent better is the same as ban all guns.
Not at all, but most likely if people everywhere refuse to budge a little. If there's a line in the sand on infringement, then, well yeah, I think so. There's not one answer to the problem, because there's not one cause, but focusing on mental health, schools, families, community AND guns could net a much better result. Or, we get to a point where people say well, that won't work, with no way of knowing, and then we'll sit back and watch another 20 or so kids get killed this year.
I know this isn't a school shooting, but the shooting last week in Nevada of the police at pizza and guy in walmart, the male shooter had previously been trying to get an AR15 but couldn't since he was a felon. He ended up having to get whatever he could, a couple handguns. As a result, we have 3 dead. How many might have been killed if he had gotten the AR15. I'm not saying ban guns, but i point this out to show that although there are instances where kids plan things out for months (adults in the Nevada case) they don't always plan them well, and will often move off their original plan to something less lethal if roadblocks are put up. I remember reading about a local case (Oregon or Washington, can't remember) a few months ago where students turned in another student who was likely planning a massacre because he kept talking about aspects of his planning at school. If a kid has a hard time getting an available gun, perhaps he gets turned in trying to buy one at school, or gets caught stealing one from a neighbor. Perhaps he simply moves onto a different plan, maybe one with a knife instead of a gun, or one with a .22 instead of a .45. Making it difficult does have a role to play in 1) perhaps getting his actions noticed ahead of time and plan averted, 2, getting him to move onto a different plan less thought out or with lesser equipment, where 1 or 2 get injured instead of 10 or 20. Also, perhaps making it difficult does nothing for this specific incident, but one elsewhere is averted. I'm for common sense gun laws, and that goes both ways. For example, although on one hand I think proof of age and legal ownership abilities should be required to buy ammo, I also believe we should get rid of laws that are based on appearance of evil but play zero role in actually affecting the situation, like what kind of handle you can have on a shotgun or rifle.
Do you have an amendment to the Second amendment that you think will correct the ills of our society and that will pass through the process?
Man some of you guys...... Some of these posts are making me sick to my stomach reading. Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
You should see in person what flying hot rounds do to a human being before being able to post an opinion on this. Sickening. Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Why's that? It doesn't take someone to get shot in front of you to understand what bullets do to the human body.
Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation HCP, other than to insult the people who are trying to discuss the topic. We get it. You think all guns should be banned. Go circlejerk with the rest of the anti-gun crowd on Facebook.
I see you have been discussing this with RR7 who articulates things better than i do in my rushed manner. But my gut reaction is are you kidding me? Like I'm going to solve this incredibly complicated issue with suggestions on the internet? But I can tell you this . . . millions of dollars have been poured into study how to stop drunk drivers from killing people. The national government comes out with numerous studies and data to suggest how to handle the this and put best practices in place to help curb this problem (obviously can't completely stop it). They have been successful with regulations and specialty courts and through data over the decades, this is a proven fact. Texas is a great example of closing prisons while reducing recidivism. If the government had the power to regulate guns this way, I'm sure they would come up with practices to put into place that would continually evolve in hopes of curbing these types of incidents as much as possible. But they are restricted because of the constitutional rights when it comes to guns. Anyways RR7 says it better than I, but these situations are so incredibly sad it needs to be attacked at all angles. Unfortunately (in my mind) one angle is closed off because of the constitutional issues. FWIW- I'm no expert (and there lies the problem with asking for solutions on the internet) but mental health exams and responsibility tests be required before being allowed to own a gun comes to mind, but I can't imagine anything like that would pass the constitutional test.
No, I personally don't think an ammendment is needed. I am not looking to restrict gun ownership. I am looking to make some common sense changes in other laws surrounding guns, like mandatory gun locks or safes of a certain quality for any firearm not on ones body or within a certain distance from their being (10 feet or 1000 feet, I don't have specifics.) I would like to see ammo much more regulated. I just ordered some Critical Duty rounds for one handgun over the internet, no age checks or anyone checking that I can legally own a gun. I think ammo purchases should be in person and ID. I think guns should be either sold through licensed gun shops, through FFL's, or be done at the local sheriff station where a background check can be administered, no private sales without a background check. I don't believe any of these laws would violate the 2nd amendment, especially if they are administered at the state level.
I think that sort of context is important. Maybe that's it: in order to get a gun, you have to be shot in the leg first. Then you know.
Totally agree with this. If ANY sort of alteration is met with staunch resistance because we like to assume that the founding fathers got THIS one right, and it shouldn't be touched even after 200+ years, then what's there to do? The document that people don't want touched as it pertains to the 2nd amendment had to be amended to allow blacks and women to vote. Why? Shouldn't we just assume they had it right when they did it?
IMO, every kid in the world should have that context given to them from the time they are old enough to understand. And it'd be a damn shame if a child was brought up never understanding the full impact of what a firearm can do, and the respect they deserve.
You're right, you and others should just keep throwing out terms like "stricter regulations" and "common sense gun laws" because that will get the job done. While you do that, I'll keep saying we need to cure cancer.
That's not the case at all. I think Further has mentioned a few of his own proposals. Your solution is treat the kids. Yours is just as bad if not worse than regulations on guns. It's not at all like saying cure cancer. He listed specific things. You said more teachers and money for schools. Cure cancer with that too, I suppose.
I wasn't talking to Further. I was talking to ToB. When I asked him what he meant by "stricter regulations," he just gave me that "aww shucks" attitude and said that he would leave it up to the government to figure it out. Further at least proposed ideas, although I don't know if mandatory gun locks will actually do anything because it would be impossible to enforce and I'm not sold on their effectiveness. Regulating ammo is another option, but again, I don't see how it prevents someone from stockpiling and then doing what this kid just did. You guys keep throwing out window-dressing ideas that sound nice, but won't actually do anything because even if you take away the guns, there will still be angry individuals who want to hurt people (as shown by that stabbing recently in Pennsylvania.)
You don't know if they won't do anything, but I guess stating it emphatically makes you feel better, so what's the point of the discussion here. Your window dressing is treat the kids, not the tools, but the only thing you offered up is money to teachers/schools. Trying to find stricter gun laws that might curb some violence COMBINED with other steps COULD potentially help. You have no idea. I'm not stating 100% it will, yet you're certain it will not. But have offered nothing. How do you want to treat kids that might show some sort of predictable violent behavior exactly? Or are you just tossing out your very own window dressings, with nothing behind to prop it up?
