Well put forth these reasoable solitions you subscribe to. I'm all for reasonable discussion and reasonable solutions. I can't believe you want to turnus into England France or China.We could have all law abiding citizens turn in all their guns...doubt that's ever goong to fly. Then we would have to give prison terms to all the crooks that would continue to have them...but wait, our prisons are already overflowing. I have shown why I believe that so-called assault weapons are not the problem. I agree that for most of our purposes 30 round mags (not clips) seem unnecessary but they are not the proBlem either and banning them accomplishes nothing. Guns in general are the problem? Maybe. Certainly there are plenty of illegally owned and carried ones that cause most of our problems. BT seems to think this is simple accounting. More guns here. More gun deaths and murders here. A + B = C. Maybe so. I don't want to be Australia or England. They have their own problems. We do accept certain risks in life to retain our liberties. Not only that, but gun deaths and murders are actually decreasing. I believe that the differences in our society rests in a true moral deline. I'm not talking about the usual debated conservative vs. Liberal social topics. I'm talking about the way we are no longer raising, parenting, and mentoring our children. And I'm not dissing single parenthood...chilren can be properly raised by a single parent though it may be harder. We are becoming lazy and selfish as adults and parents...more so than those other countries that BT mentions ans compares us to. Maybe simplistic but that is my belief.
I've give this a lot of thought. Stu is right when he points to an overall decline in our moral fabric. Mix that with the de-sensitizing of violence by all forms of media and you have a deadly cocktail. So here is a new proposal from me. Toughen all gun laws pertaining to acquisition at least to New Jersey standards which may be the toughest in the land. This lessens the possibility that some undesirables gain access to guns, although minimally. A conviction for any crime involving a firearm in its commission, even if not deployed, carries a minimum sentence of at least 30 years if not life and no chance for parole. I believe these two measures address both ends of the equation while protecting the sanctity of the 2nd amendment.
Stu, that is simply not the case.....guns are not banned in England or Australia and all law-abiding citizens do not have to turn in their weapons. That is a misconception.....I have several close friends overseas and have gone shooting with them on their property with their guns. I don't want to be England of Australia either, but I don't believe that we need to or even practical to think that we want to duplicate their society in its entirety in order for us to find a solution to a very grave problem in our country....it seems a logical place to start.
Pretty damn close. http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
George, I like what you say for two reasons: 1. Adding to the penalties for gun crimes does attack the actual problem. Something the current "ban" fanatics are not interested in. 2. It illustrates how added restrictions would not have changed the Sandy Hook attack one bit. Lanza got guns "illegally" which totally skirts any toughened restrictions that would only affect the law abiding folks such as you or me. And the penalties also would not affect him... he had no intention of living through the incident.
Stu, to say that a country (UK) that still has two million or so firearms in the hands of private citizens has forced its citizens to "turn in all their guns" is a monumental stretch. That is no ban at all. Being over 18, licensed and permitted and a "genuine reason" to own doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable in my view. Keep in mind that a "genuine reason" could be hunting, target shooting or just because I want to collect them. Hell in the US you need a license to drive a car and every car and boat needs to be registered. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.....it seems a very small burden when compared to the potential benefit of saving thousands of lives - mostly young lives - per year.....
Yeah you are right on the disagree part. Self defense not legit purpose but collecting (i.e. gun nut) is...providing the local constable decides in your favor...each time you reapply for the same need...with a different constable. It will never happen here and what they are proposing to do won't help anything.
You are very likely correct and it's a tragic outcome for an otherwise civilized society for we will then continue on the track wherein tens of thousands of innocents - mostly youth - will continue to be slaughtered annually......that is not a victory for anyone my friend
Now THAT is a step in the right direction. We would have to consider the over crowding prison populations though. Maybe this opens the door for more open talks on capitol punishment and death sentences being carried out. However, the above statement only covers the criminal portion of the problem. The next thing on the table should deal with mental illness. IF strides are made in these two realms, I would be in favor of 10 round maximum magazines. I have high capacity mags right now because I don't want to waste time at the range reloading. I wouldn't mind loading up 20 mags 10 rounds each for a day at the range rather than 10 mage 20 rounds each. I would encourage restricting gun purchases to people with a carry permit as long as the process is at least as difficult as it is in Texas. People that have obtained carry permits have shown the proficiency to handle a firearm and the psychological aspects of having to pull the trigger. For defensive purposes, there is a 99% probability that a rifle is not going to be put into play. I would be using a handgun and my preparation requires a 9 round mag with at least one backup mag. Limiting handguns to 10 rounds bothers me not.
You have done a lot of whittling on what I have been posting but have not seen your proposal yet. You say it is not to be Europe light yet you attribute the difference in rates purely to gun laws and nothing else...despite other differences such as ACLU, rights of criminals and mentally ill, treatment thereof, breakdown in our societies morals, etc. So just what are your proposals other than to pick at what I say?
Stu, that is just not accurate. I have been interacting with every single person that has posted on the topic. I have not singled you out for your views anymore than you have singled me out...... I have said repeatedly that it is a complex problem requiring a complex solution. I have never once attributed "the difference in rates purely to gun laws and nothing else" but I have said that it seems clear to me based upon the data that our gun laws are likely to be a contributing factor. It is unclear to me how any objective observer can disagree with that statement...... As for my "proposals" here is a very recent suggestion I made in post to Scott just a few short hours ago..... I don't see how that can possibly be controversial....sorry but it just seems to make sense. All I have heard is how this won't work or that won't work or some other excuse for not addressing one of the key factors in the very massive problem that our society is destroying its youth at a rate inconsistent with the rest of the developed world..... as I have said repeatedly, in my view, the political atmosphere is such that if the gun lobby does not put forth credible, politically palatable options, one will be crafted for them without their input and then they will have nobody to blame but themselves.....
I believe Manza was wearing body armor. If so, that might be an conscious indication of a desire to survive. The background check, if properly constructed, could eliminate some of the whackos ( mentally ill for my friends in Cali ). My son does checks here in NJ. He denies a lot of them on various grounds.
Short version. You believe guns are the problem. It sounds like you DO want us to be England. I don't.
George, I don't think many of the "wackos" get permits...at least if they have been treated. . Many of them can pass because they have not had treatment. Screening and treatment is too often voluntary and inadequate...and not mandatory when it should be.
Stu, your words not mine....I will speak for myself thank you very much. I have said repeatedly that I believe that guns are a contributing factor. I have NEVER said that guns are THE problem. I don't think you will find many rational people viewing the facts in any objective manner that can disagree with that statement. I don't want us to be England nor anybody else but I also for damn sure don't want us to be far and away the leader in the category of a society that slaughters its young. I don't believe that that is an impossible problem to solve and still retain our identity, but if we continue to deny the elephant in the room and ignore its very existence, we'll not get far in our quest to solve a massive societal problem......hopefully we can all agree that it is a problem
George, Perhaps the armor was to keep others from stopping him, not to preserve his life? He committed suicide... which is why I said the penalties were no deterrent to him. That may not be correct, but I think it's a pretty good assumption he knew the eventual outcome.
I do not wish to speak for you but I am obviously not hearing you properly. What I am hearing is that you consider the elephant in the room is the fact that our gun laws are deficient compared to the rest of the developed world. We disagree but that's all good and ok. If I hear you properly. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html