T I see no flaw in your points given, as the country seeks a correction in the abundance and proliferation of guns and gun violence in our culture. My concern with correction in this matter is it will not be dealt with in the level headed manner and non political process that allowed you to base your decisions on. Just as every media outlet has proliferated all gun crime coverage, those in the anti-any type of firearm army will not settle for "common sense" changes but will reenact the witch hunts of old with cries to burn the beastly gun owners.
Just to add to Stu's post, which I agree with 100%. I do not feel that the direction we are going toward to with stricter gun control will eliminate those who have desire to kill. It just changes the format on how it's accomplished. We as a nation "always" desire the quick fix and ignore the core issues of our problems.
I get that Stu....but crime is crime and death is death and the slaughter of two dozen babies has to be a clear wake-up call for our society. It is a fact we are killing our own citizens at a rate that is 3X greater than the rest of the developed world and puts us as a clear statistical outlier. There is no sugar coating that.....that can't possibly be a good thing no matter the context in which it is framed. That isn't emotional but is indeed factual. I don't suggest at all that it is an epidemic, but simply say that in my view it is unacceptable for any civilized society with the wealth of knowledge and brain power at our disposal to be destroying its own citizens at a rate that is so grossly in excess of the rest of the developed world......it is a clear indicator that something is horribly wrong and that as a civilized society we should be compelled to address it. We are off the charts bad in what is arguably the worst possible indicator of human behavior and civility. How can that not be something that is a moral imperative to improve in dramatic fashion? Put it in football terms......it would be the statistical equivalent of a defense in the B1G giving up 83 points a game!!! Perhaps other defenses in the conference give up more rushing yards and perhaps we improved from 85 points the year before, but we SUCK....BAD....are not even remotely competitive and just had the worst beating in the history of the program on global television and the boosters have stopped writing checks.......should it not be clear that our scheme is a f#@ked up mess and that for the good of the program we need to go in a different direction??? :shock:
I agree with you 100% Ralph....that is precisely why I feel that the gun lobby needs to get out in front with meaningful, and importantly, politically viable proposals. I believe it to be in their own political self-interests to do so.... Given the emotions involved, it is quite likely that the political solution will over-correct on this and that ultimate solution will be a long, bumpy road but the longest journey begins with the first step and we are not in a position politically or morally - in my view - to not begin the journey
Exactly Ralph... The quick fix in this case is broken itself. The quick fix will not fix anything. Yes, when guns are used as the tool to perpetuate these tragedies, more people will be killed in a shorter period of time. Nobody disagrees with that. Let me see if I can draw an appropriate analogy to this problem: Let's look at the hypothetical news report here: 15 people die today on lake Travis. A 32' yacht crashed into the dam while the hydro-electric generators were generating at maximum output. Currents created by the generation of this power made it impossible to get to shore for the 12 people seen trying to swim away. All 15 occupants of the vessel died in this tragedy. Immediately, there is an outcry from one group that these huge boats should be banned on inland waterways. It is later determined that the push for this ban originated from a few boat manufacturers that make smaller boats and the large yachts are cutting into their business. Yet another group wants to ban hydro-electric power generation in favor of solar power. They use this tragedy to condemn the senseless death of 15 on the generators when their underlying ulterior motive is that the swift currents are endangering their use of town lake downstream of the dam. The actual cause of the crash was the fact that the skipper was found to have a blood alcohol level 3 times the legal limit once his body was extracted from the wreckage. There are approximately 87 alcohol related deaths each year on the lake but they usually happen only one at a time. The generators or the yacht must be targeted since 15 times the normal alcohol related tragedy happened this time. The root cause of these babies dying is mental illness. The tool (see generator or yacht above) is the gun. We do not need a quick fix that will fix nothing. We need a well thought out, rational fix that will make a difference. Do we need to ban the yacht to be able to eliminate alcohol related boating deaths? Hell no... just like we do not have to ban guns to treat mental illness.
One more point. I ask of anyone that is pushing to ban guns, any guns, over this issue: "Are you willing to take the blame for the next tragedy if all guns are banned and a explosive device is used to kill the next 20 babies?" Get rid of the problem!!! The tools used are irrelevant!
Agree 100% Tom on this point....further I agree that the state of our mental health care system, info, treatment and disclosures could possibly be an additional contributing factor. That said, the world's other developed societies also have segments of their population with mental health issues..... Are we suggesting that the cause of the massive differences in murder rates between our country and every other developed country in the world can be attributed primarily to differences in the relative state of our mental health care systems? If we amend our mental health care systems and model them after those of other developed nations we can close the massive gap in murder rates? Do we really believe that the mental health care systems - or the incidence of mental illness in the US is vastly greater - of each and every developed country on the planet are so vastly superior to that of the US that it can cause such a massive difference in each and every case? With all due respect Tom, I just don't think that is credible.....a contributing factor perhaps
Please forgive the ongoing "beat down" of the dead horse but the sincerity of every post and the oncoming issue of banning guns or anything else that becomes the target or hot issue in America requires examination. Here is one example of many where the argument is if the tool used to kill or the person doing the killing is the issue and how do we go about fixing the problem in America. Huge school bombing in 1927 puts Sandy Hook in context http://news.yahoo.com/mass-school-bombing-1927-puts-sandy-hook-context-185608674.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Perhaps no rifle even taken into building after all.. I think this is from yesterday 12/26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXcvOE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Yep... lets FIX THIS PROBLEM by banning peanut butter. There were over a 1,000 jars in stock at the Sandy Hook grocery store. May have had more to do with the killings than a forearm that was left in the car. Knee Jerk Reactions fix nothing! Now that more information is readily available, think this out and make a rational decision... something our government hasn't been able to do for decades!
Pretty good article written by a liberal; http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Stu, Good research work. I am amazed at how fear of an item has pushed through bans far more than any understanding of the issues ever has. Gun control advocates point at the deaths caused through the use of guns but state it as deaths caused BY guns. That is a far more powerful statement than the former that scares the general public. Why is it that the law abiding public is afraid of John Doe with a gun but not afraid of John Deputy with a gun. They don't trust the general public with guns when they do trust the police with the same. That should tell them that guns are not evil. People are evil and that is what we should be trying to fix.
Here's a little perspective on why I find the "assault weapons must be banned" hysteria a little bit off target. Below is the gun I own: a Serbian made SK-47. And this is a Browning BAR Stalker (7mm "hunting" rifle). So... they LOOK different (which seems to be very significant to the folks that want an "assault rifle" ban), but the only real difference is that the Browning is more accurate at longer range, and it holds 5 fewer rounds than the "assault" weapon. Anyone that owns a semi-auto shotgun knows how quickly you can reload one of these. If Lanza had gone into the school with the Browning (sans the scope), instead of the Bushmaster 223... the outcome would have been identical. What would Obama and the rest of the gun-banners be asking for if that had been the case??? Everyone should be thankful he didn't have access to a true assault weapon similar to the crazy bank robbers in LA a while back. Had he been carrying a fully automatic AK or other assault rifle with 75 rounds per clip he likely would have killed everyone in the school and many of the responders. The media/haters needs to stop blurring what are CLEAR lines of difference between types of guns, then perhaps some logical solutions can be created. I personally would not cry if they moved high capacity magazines to the class III list with the automatic weapons... they really only serve military purposes. The rest of this knee jerk stuff will solve NOTHING... but might cause some serious standoffs if the govt tries to take legally purchased items from citizens.
That ABC clip sounds as if it was aired while the press was scrambling for any official information and prior to the medical examiner's autopsy results and press conference. He makes it pretty clear what type of weapon was used in the shootings - at least those that he examined. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html Tom, I appreciate the yacht and generator analogy but the football analogy resonates with me in this instance....the defense is giving up 83 points a game, 3X what the next worst unit in the conference is giving up and yet the gun lobby is blaming the offense for not scoring enough to win..... If greater restrictions on weapon availability will not be effective in the US in reducing firearm deaths, how is it possible for them to be so effective in limiting firearms deaths in every other developed nation on the planet? Surely you can understand why it just doesn't seem reasonable to many objective observers.....
Scott, I agree....but as a practical matter it is a very emotional issue, the differences are not well understood by the masses and it has become hugely political so BOTH sides will put out whatever they feel provides their side the greatest opportunity for the largest gains.... Speaking only for myself, I would just like an objective analysis of the types of legal frameworks in place in most every other developed country that have been so successful and a rational examination of the pros and cons of implementing something similar in the US to provide a framework for making an informed judgement
BT, I'm not against discussion and looking at everything, but as you point out... that's not the goal of either side right now. I do think that the cultures of countries has as much to do with the "success" of gun restrictions as the restrictions themselves. Europe is VERY different from us. Most of them lean very far toward socialism and the "government will take care of me" way of thinking. Americans USED to be quite the opposite ,although it seems we are moving more toward their model than I like to consider.