Gun Control

[HuskerNationNick]

How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior.

You just have to find someone with equally good taste in vermicelli. (It's Barilla.)

 

Also . . . this is the internet. We'd all get along just fine over beers.

 

Thats true, unless your a Bo hater lol.

 

I don't hate Bo. I just think he's a bit of a douche. Does that mean we can still be friends while drinking?

 

Of course! Lol I am sure everyone is different in person than they are on this forum.

[beanman]

How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior.

You just have to find someone with equally good taste in vermicelli. (It's Barilla.)

 

Also . . . this is the internet. We'd all get along just fine over beers.

 

Thats true, unless your a Bo hater lol.

 

I don't hate Bo. I just think he's a bit of a douche. Does that mean we can still be friends while drinking?

 

Of course! Lol I am sure everyone is different in person than they are on this forum.

 

I'm awkard and quirky, but when I drink I'm a good time. Until the part where I throw up in your backseat.

[carlfense]

I'm awkard and quirky, but when I drink I'm a good time. Until the part where I throw up in your backseat.

When I drink I think that everyone is my best friend on earth. Also . . . I think that I can dance.

 

It's not good.

[Ziggy]

The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no.

Japan has millions of gamers and violent video games . . . yet they had 11 deaths by firearms in 2008.

 

In that same year there were almost one thousand times that number of firearm homicides in the United States.

 

The main difference? It's almost impossible to get a gun in Japan. (And I'm not arguing for gun bans here . . . just pointing out that access to guns DOES in fact play a huge role in this problem. Guns don't kill people. That I agree with. People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people.)

 

Funny you bring up Japan, because I doubt Hiroshima and Nagasaki would agree with " People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people". And my point about media violence was a small piece of my entire argument. The fact is you constantly attack a sentence taken out of context to try and prove your smarter than everyone else. I honestly stopped coming to this forum for a while mostly because of you. TTFWIW

[carlfense]

Funny you bring up Japan, because I doubt Hiroshima and Nagasaki would agree with " People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people".

What?

 

Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People with nuclear weapons do kill people. People without nuclear weapons kill fewer people.

 

I have no idea what Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with any of this . . . even in a hypothetical sense.

 

 

And my point about media violence was a small piece of my entire argument. The fact is you constantly attack a sentence taken out of context . . .

The comment about violence in media isn't directed to you. I've seen the same thing repeated endlessly in the media as a driving factor in these mass shootings. Those claims seem to lack much in the way of scientific evidence.

 

It's not out of context. It was included as part of a larger post and I trust that you wouldn't have included it if you didn't at least suspect that it was a significant factor. If you have specific parts of posts that you wouldn't like anyone to talk about please point them out so that they aren't addressed. Otherwise . . . I guess you could leave them out entirely? I don't know.

 

I don't care when people show me when I've made factual errors.

 

 

I honestly stopped coming to this forum for a while mostly because of you.

I think that you can still ignore specific posters if you don't want to see comments from me. That way you won't have to avoid an entire forum to avoid seeing posts that you'd rather not see.

[rawhide]

Mental Health. I think the boys(girls) at the hill need to man up. Create legislation that actually does something. Gun legislation other than outright bans will do nothing and even banning guns will do much less. Criminals will still get guns with our porous borders. Concentrate on mental health which should have been incorporated into Obamacare since it was just a eleventy billion page healthcare plan. And what my cynical mind sees from all this bureaucratic legalese laws are LOOPHOLES.

 

I don't pontificate I'm just dogmatic on certain issues as I have noticed of many others here also. But it's good to have strong beliefs. You just have to stick by them. No waffling

 

GBR

[strigori]

Mental Health. I think the boys(girls) at the hill need to man up. Create legislation that actually does something. Gun legislation other than outright bans will do nothing and even banning guns will do much less. Criminals will still get guns with our porous borders. Concentrate on mental health which should have been incorporated into Obamacare since it was just a eleventy billion page healthcare plan. And what my cynical mind sees from all this bureaucratic legalese laws are LOOPHOLES.

 

I don't pontificate I'm just dogmatic on certain issues as I have noticed of many others here also. But it's good to have strong beliefs. You just have to stick by them. No waffling

 

GBR

Totally agree. The state of our mental healthcare system is beyond pathetic. The main answer you will get is if someone needs help and you don't have really elite healthcare plan, is to start a criminal paper trail, so they can go to prison to get help. That is just wrong.

 

Culturally we need an adjustment too. There is too much attitude that men in particular need to 'man up and get over it' when confronting mental health issues. Its a nasty stigma to even see a mental heathcare professional.

[walksalone]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, so forgive me for not perusing the four pages, but, there was an interesting USA Today article a few days ago talking about Australia's gun laws and how they dramatically cut down on their gun crime violence after 1996. I don't remember many of the specifics, but the essentials of their gun law changes were to classify weapons into five different categories and put an outright ban on assault rifle ownership. Getting a gun and getting ammunition became significantly more challenging. They also implemented a buyback program which was responsible for the destruction of 650,000 guns.

 

Since then, they've had ZERO mass shootings and cut their homicide rate by more than 50 percent.

 

America is a unique beast when it comes to culture, a gun/crime culture unlike anywhere else in the country. Following Australia's example probably won't have the same drastic effects, but I think it could help quite a bit.

 

Disarm the criminals first, those with a record of violent crime. Then sort out those that have mental problems, then worry about average law abiding american...

[HuskerThor]

The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no.

Japan has millions of gamers and violent video games . . . yet they had 11 deaths by firearms in 2008.

 

In that same year there were almost one thousand times that number of firearm homicides in the United States.

 

The main difference? It's almost impossible to get a gun in Japan. (And I'm not arguing for gun bans here . . . just pointing out that access to guns DOES in fact play a huge role in this problem. Guns don't kill people. That I agree with. People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people.)

And good people with guns, kill bad people with guns.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no.

Japan has millions of gamers and violent video games . . . yet they had 11 deaths by firearms in 2008.

 

In that same year there were almost one thousand times that number of firearm homicides in the United States.

 

The main difference? It's almost impossible to get a gun in Japan. (And I'm not arguing for gun bans here . . . just pointing out that access to guns DOES in fact play a huge role in this problem. Guns don't kill people. That I agree with. People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people.)

And good people with guns, kill bad people with guns.

 

Again, but the good guy with the gun who kills the bad guy with the gun will do so only after the bad guy with the guns starts shooting, or pulls the gun. The good guy isn't going to react until the bad guy does something, and by then, the bad guy could have already killed 4-5 people, and that's unacceptable.

 

I understand the logic, if we take away guns, then we are taking away guns from most law-abiding citizens. A very small percentage of gun owners use their guns to massacre people. And if we take them away from these good guys, how are we to prevent the bad guys from getting the guns anyways, leaving the good guys completely unprotected?

 

One swooping action isn't going to make this problem magically disappear, or even reduce it. If it were up to me (which thank God it isn't because I don't want to deal with that kind of responsibility and headache everyday--although a beach house in Hawai'i and a permanent pension after "retirement" does sound nice), I would make it tougher to get a gun, and reduce the number of firearms a person can have. Seriously, what single person needs 40 guns? It shouldn't be tougher to go into a Walgreens to buy Sudafed than it is to go into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun. It shouldn't be harder to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun. The background check shouldn't check just for prior felonies and incidents of domestic abuse/assault, because how many of these killers have fit that background? The answer--none. The background check must be more thorough, using some sort of psychological test to ensure that they are mentally stable, and even after that, the check must happen every year because believe it or not, your personality is fluid and will change over time.

 

 

If you pass that, congratulations, you can get a gun, and you can conceal it as well. I do believe if a bad guy knows that there are people around, and not just one, or two, but 10, who could very well stop him, that it will deter him from trying, or if it doesn't, that it will at least lessen the loss.

 

The media must also play a role in this. They must stop publicizing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes, it's a claim to fame and a fulfillment of attention that a lot of these killers are looking for. Cut that off, and attempts might go down.

 

I've given my opinion on mental health, so I won't repeat it here. But these things have to happen together, in my opinion, if we want to reduce these mass shootings. Not one thing will change the numbers. One thing that is absolutely certain, is that something must happen. Both sides of the political fence must understand that innocent lives are on their hands, that they can't afford to grandstand and fillibuster (sp?) because that (and I'm using my whiny, nasally voice here) isn't what they want.

 

Come on Washington, you haven't done many things right for a while, take a step in the right direction.

[lo country]

Just as you can not legislate morality ie abortion and gay marriage, you can not legislate evil away.

 

The gov't now wants to pass MORE LAWS to punish people for BREAKING EXISTING laws. The shooter in CT murdered (against the law) his mother and then murdered (again against the law) the students and teachers. The weapons he used (lawfully purchased by his mother) were stolen (against the law). No one wants to admit that evil exists in this world. All the laws in the world, all the firearms restrictions would not have stopped this wack job.

 

Taking guns, regardless of type, from those who can lawfully purchase them is ridiculous. Tighter checks, sure. Psych eval, sure. Complete a safety course and show competence to include shoot don't shoot, use of force continuum, sure. Permit renewal to make sure a owner hasn't been convicted of certain crimes that would have prevented initial ownership, sure. Allow quick check to cross reference various databases other than NCIC, sure. Require proof that the owner has a secure safe to store the weapons, sure. Make the person who has unsecured weapons civilly/criminally negligent for not securing them, sure. But to disallow the ability to lawfully possess and own, hell no.

 

Another thing, if you are going to talk about gun control, please be aware that a "clip" goes in your hair and a magazine goes in a firearm. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a .223 or 5.56 caliber rifle. With a semi automatic rate of fire. No different than some magazine fed hunting rifles. A round no larger than a .22 caliber rifle. They are an "easy target" as they share similarities with the M-4.

 

I also wonder if a ban goes into effect, how many American jobs will be lost. Not just the manufacturers, but those who make the after market accessories. Another area that will suffer will be the LEO and military community. Often the civilian market drives research that benefits the LEO and military. For example, the ban goes into effect. Rock River, Bravo Company USA, Noveske etc gear down and quit manufacturing and innovation (no demand why spend money to invent new and better products). Colt has the DOD contract. No competition. Less Quality control. Don't like it, open the bids back up. Oh wait, everyone else stopped making them.

 

Gun control is a knee jerk reaction. No one wants to talk about involuntary committal. Most states, the person needs to be an articulable threat to themselves or others. The mindset to create harm and the means and ability to do it. How about some guy has "issues" he is committed until deemed ok?

 

Let's ban abortion. That kills a lot of unborn children every year. Oh yea, that goes against some ones right to a choice. What about banning dating, marriage and civil unions? Domestic violence is huge. Ban jobs because of work place violence. Hell ban the subways in NY. 2 Deaths already. Ban cars, boats, cigarettes and prescription pain meds. Hell ban cell phones as they cause brain cancer.

 

I sure don't hear anyone making a huge issue to go after video game manufacturers or Hollywood. Read LTC Grossman's book On Killing for an interesting take on video games and violence.

[lo country]

On another note, crime can not be stopped, but in some instances it can be deterred.

 

It is no different than telling kids to not talk to strangers, not leaving a purse or cell phone in plain view in your car when shopping. Locking car doors, house and downing garage door and having an alarm company sign in your yard, leaving lights on etc.... These simple things do not stop crime, but they are deterrents.

 

At schools, install one way in and one way out. Have a staff member at that entrance during open hours. Greet ie verbally challenge everyone who comes in. This let's people know that the school is alert for strangers and aware of people entering who shouldn't be there. External cameras monitored by the school. Alarm system that immediately notifies LEO of an active shooter. Have staff walk the exterior of building. ZERO TOLERANCE on bullying. Seems a lot of the shooters were bullied. Again, can't stop, but might help. Talk to the local PD and get off duty guys in there. Again, presence is a deterrent.

 

Very few of these type incidents are a spur of the moment issue. They are pre-planned and staged ahead of time. Installing some of the above measures might make a person think twice. It also makes it harder for them to enter unimpeded.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is no DIRECT LINK between video game/media violence and violent crimes.

[strigori]

Hollywood and Video Games again? Really? Anyone even suggesting this link, again, needs to pull their heads out. The only 'argument' people make with it is the correlation that "someone played X and did Y so clearly there is a link" Only that line of reasoning is BS. Might as well claim owning a TV or a refrigerator or wearing pants is a cause, because all the people who played video games did those things too.

 

If you do not play games, don't try to run opinions on them. Politicians are almost universally wrong on info they talk about to begin with.

 

And for the record, the US Supreme Court ruled last year that Video Games have the exact same protections under the Constitution as all other forms of media. Scalia even wrote the majority opinion.

[lo country]

Hollywood and Video Games again? Really? Anyone even suggesting this link, again, needs to pull their heads out. The only 'argument' people make with it is the correlation that "someone played X and did Y so clearly there is a link" Only that line of reasoning is BS. Might as well claim owning a TV or a refrigerator or wearing pants is a cause, because all the people who played video games did those things too.

 

If you do not play games, don't try to run opinions on them. Politicians are almost universally wrong on info they talk about to begin with.

 

And for the record, the US Supreme Court ruled last year that Video Games have the exact same protections under the Constitution as all other forms of media. Scalia even wrote the majority opinion.

The games do not cause violence. It was a study done by LTC Grossman that shows an increase in the number of persons' in combat who actively engage targets compared throughout our history. It basically says that the increase can be attributed to video games and a more realistic training environment. It doesn't make people more violent, but it does desensitize some people.

 

It also stands to show how reaching this complete argument is. Let's blame everything, BUT the real issue. The person who goes off the deep end and kills another person.

 

For the record, I am not against video games or movies. Iagree the SCOTUS opinion. Just as I am strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution as a whole.

 

And to quote you, if you haven't read his book do't try to run opinions on it...........Just saying.