Jump to content


Parkland, FL High School Shooting


Recommended Posts


45 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

So, you don't want to take steps to reduce them, because it won't completely prevent them? Or am I off base here? 

I didn't say that and if you read the bottom part of my post, you will see that I am not opposed to strict gun laws.  I also posted figures about how the gun control laws didn't really effect the number of attacks or casualties in Australia over the last 20 years since the laws were put into motion. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

I didn't say that and if you read the bottom part of my post, you will see that I am not opposed to strict gun laws.  I also posted figures about how the gun control laws didn't really effect the number of attacks or casualties in Australia over the last 20 years since the laws were put into motion. 

 

 

This may be just a guess, but it appears that Australia may not have the mental health issues that the U.S. has.  When you mention Australia, they don't seem to have a vast history of mass attacks and violence.  Mass violence could be a greater part of culture in the U.S., and due to the ease of gun accessibility, it's easier to carry out massive attacks of violence.  I would be interested in seeing how gun control legislation has impacted a greater population of developed countries.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

This may be just a guess, but it appears that Australia may not have the mental health issues that the U.S. has.  When you mention Australia, they don't seem to have a vast history of mass attacks and violence.  Mass violence could be a greater part of culture in the U.S., and due to the ease of gun accessibility, it's easier to carry out massive attacks of violence.  I would be interested in seeing how gun control legislation has impacted a greater population of developed countries.

Joe Hockey,  Australia's Ambassador to the US,  had this to say about the difference in cultures when it comes to guns in an interview.  He was in the Australian Parliament and helped craft the National Firearms Act for Australia.  

 

OK, Joe. Following the Vegas massacre, you tweeted that, essentially, guns are more cultural and pervasive in the U.S. than in Australia. What do you mean by that?

Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of "the government will protect me." Australia wasn't born as a result of a brutal war. We weren't invaded. We weren't attacked. We weren't occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Landlord said:

If you insist on making an analogy out of the two, okay, so be it. If you want to own and operate a vehicle, you have to:

 

• Acquire a license, with written and practical tests

• Renew your license every few years, and be in a state and federal database

• Get specialty licensing for specialty vehicles

• Have your vehicle registered, pay yearly tag fees, and have at least liability insurance

• Restriction of crazy high-performance and potentially unsafe vehicles to private courses/competitions/etc.

 

That's a good list of reasonable ways to approach something that is serious and important to regulate the right way. Does any of that seem unreasonable to apply to gun ownership? If so, could we at least research it to make sure? Well, apparently, we can't. Apparently we can't do anything, other than offer thoughts and prayers. I'm going to go ahead and offer mine up in advance to the families of the kids who get murdered 5-6 months from now.

1

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but there is a reason so many people throw up their hands and say "There is nothing we can do". Every American is born with the inherent right to own and use firearms. No one is born with the right to drive a car. The government can put as many restrictions on it as they want and there would be no real debate over whether we could do it.

 

Many of the changes we'd like to see will require amending the Constitution, something that is really f'ing hard to do.

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but there is a reason so many people throw up their hands and say "There is nothing we can do". Every American is born with the inherent right to own and use firearms. No one is born with the right to drive a car. The government can put as many restrictions on it as they want and there would be no real debate over whether we could do it.

 

Many of the changes we'd like to see will require amending the Constitution, something that is really f'ing hard to do.

 

 

If you have the financial means and dedicate the time/effort, and aren't a criminal, you have every right to drive a car.

 

Just like if you can legally acquire them, you have every right to own a gun.

 

One is in the constitution, one isn't, but they're really not any different.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, commando said:

i reread the 2nd amendment and realized something.   why do the first 4 words get left out of all the discussion about gun control?  "A Well regulated militia".  it seems that it wasn't meant to be an unregulated free for all to me.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but we've spent the last ~100 years trying to figure that out. Trust me, no one ignores those words. The current interpretation, as of DV v Heller, is that the 2nd Amendment has horrible grammar and that there are two parts:

  1. A well regulated militia is necessary to ensure a free state
  2. The rights of citizens to keep and bear arms (own/use) shall not be infringed

Essentially, in order to create a well regulated militia, you need people that can own/use weapons. The militia can be regulated, but the rights cannot be infringed.

Link to comment
Just now, Landlord said:

 

 

If you have the financial means and dedicate the time/effort, and aren't a criminal, you have every right to drive a car.

 

Just like if you can legally acquire them, you have every right to own a gun.

 

One is in the constitution, one isn't, but they're really not any different.

 

 

No, you do not have a right to drive a car. If you have the means, and are qualified you can have the privilege but no one is born with the right to drive a car. Rights are inherent and irrevocable (to an extent). The US government could make it illegal to own/drive cars tomorrow and there is nothing we could do, other than try to replace them in the next election. It could not do the same with firearms.

 

That is the difference.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Branno said:

 

No, you do not have a right to drive a car. If you have the means, and are qualified you can have the privilege but no one is born with the right to drive a car. Rights are inherent and irrevocable (to an extent). The US government could make it illegal to own/drive cars tomorrow and there is nothing we could do, other than try to replace them in the next election. It could not do the same with firearms.

 

That is the difference.

 

 

It could if it changed the constitution...?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

It could if it changed the constitution...?

 

 

Yes. Something that requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate plus it must be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Saying the only difference is that one is a right guaranteed by the Constitution is a huge difference. 

 

This is something that should inform our discussion. Due to our Constitution, we can't enable European style strict gun control. That's when you have politicians claim there isn't anything we can do. But there is, and we should focus our efforts on trying to get measures that are both effective and constitutional. Arguing for anything more would be like trying to make the sky green.

 

Link to comment

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Sure, he and I just spoke about this last night. It was a 30 minute conversation, but I'll sum up his viewpoints the best I can.

-He's of the mind (and this is common of his generation, especially in our area) that you fight fire with fire. Why would you disarm the innocent of the only protection they would have against such a lunatic.

-Why would you take away the ability of a man to protect his family in an attempt to stop a lunatic from doing something that he'll likely find a way to do anyways.

-Tyranny.... It's a real fear (i use that term loosely) among portions of older, White America. Personally, I acknowledge the likelihood of it ever happening are small, but I'd also be lying if I said there wasn't a small part of me that would worried about it if we disarmed American citizens.

- An armed general public is our best asset of national security. This is a stance that I have personally, long agreed with.

 

Most of you will say "Nobody is trying to take all of your guns, just the assault rifles", but there is a belief among pro-gun citizens, including my Father-in-law, that the government wouldn't stop there.

 

 

But, I'm assuming you and/or your father in law have a real problem with a few men kneeling in protest of how the government is treating their citizens.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

But, I'm assuming you and/or your father in law have a real problem with a few men kneeling in protest of how the government is treating their citizens.

 

You shouldn't assume. I think you'd find I'm not your typical, southern conservative.

 

Nah. I never did have an issue with it. Those players can do as they see fit (Never talked about it with him, but I'm sure he'd disagree with their stance).

 

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

(Never talked about it with him, but I'm sure he'd disagree with their stance).

 

 

My comment was based on people I personally know that share his views of gun ownership and protecting against a tyrannical government....but, they went apes#!t when a few black men took a knee during the anthem because they should respect our country better than that.

 

The two thoughts within the same mind are not logical.  

Edited by BigRedBuster
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

My comment was based on people I personally know that share his views of gun ownership and protecting against a tyrannical government....but, they went apes#!t when a few black men took a knee during the anthem because they should respect our country better than that.

 

The two thoughts within the same mind are not logical.  

 

I would agree.

 

Hey, I'm a Libertarian at heart, "live and let live"....

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Landlord said:
16 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

I am pretty liberal, but when it comes to guns I am definitely a right-winger.  

 

Here's what I do not understand: why do people always blame the gun(s)? 

 

When people lose their lives in a car wreck, (assuming no manufacture defect) nobody blames the car.

 

If you go skiing and hit a tree, no one blames the ski resort.

 

If you get stabbed by a crazy ex, no one blames the knife manufacturure.

 

But when people are killed by guns, most everyone blames the gun makers and it doesn't make sense.

 

I have a conspiracy theory about why most mass shootings occur at schools but am hesitant to put it into this thread.

 

I do agree though that Trump was 100% wrong to end Obama's ban in selling guns to people with a history of mental issues.  That law/executive order should have stayed in place.

 

 

 

I know Landlord already answered this in depth, but it is worth reminding that guns are specifically designed to kill, and assault rifles  with large magazines are specifically designed to slaughter as many humans as quickly and efficiently as possible. Cars, knives, and ski resorts all serve useful, non-slaughtering purposes. You could make a slightly better case for high-fructose corn syrup, but the victims have more of a choice there. You can also make a good case for a 12 gauge shotgun during hunting season.  But there is not a single good scenario* for an assault rifle, much less a stockpile.  

 

I think people also blame guns in the thousands of cases where a child, a manic depressive, a jealous lover, or the home invader uses an easily accessed handgun against the wishes of the owner.  Or when that easily accessed gun lets the owner make a rash decision they can't take back. 

 

I believer there are around 250 justifiable homicides a year, in which someone defends themselves or their property with a gun. There are literally 100x more people who use a gun to intentionally kill someone else, accidentally kill someone else, or kill themselves. 

 

We are bombarded with images of cool badasses wielding guns, but the vast majority are sad f#*k-ups. We're not going to take away everyone's guns, but maybe we could successfully mock this ridiculous fetish.

 

 

* I think it would be a total rush to fire one in the safety of a shooting range, but I'd be cool if the shooting range owned and kept the assault rifles there. 

 

Edited by Guy Chamberlin
  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...