Gun Control

[fishonjazz]

Sigh. This isn't about gun control. This is about sick individuals using said guns to commit crimes. There are many stories of people using knives and other weapons to kill 20+ people. Should we ban those, as well? While we're at it, just ban absolutely everything that could be used as a weapon.

The difference is that a guns ONLY purpose is weapon, banning knives would mean no more cutting meat, or spreading butter on bread, or box cutters, etc etc.
Banning guns would just mean no more shooting.
(of course its already been established that there are too many guns already in america to get rid of them.)
The whole reason guns exist is for killing..... knives have other purposes besides killing.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah it is a little odd, but definitely legal.... and rightfully so.
It is a senseless tragedy, but gun control does nothing to stop these acts of violence.
The only real answer is to get rid of these gun free zones, so teachers and school officials can act fast in order to save lives.

Ya lets get more guns around kids... great idea. Then what happens when a teacher who is making 30,000 per year and struggling to make ends meet, who just found out his wife is cheating on him and is now going throw a divorce and losing his kids and has to pay child support and alimony and possibly stops taking the prozac due to all the stress..... would you be ok with this teacher having a gun around your child? I wouldnt

 

[fishonjazz]

No, I actually think that the solution to a crazed madman shooting randomly in my classroom is for me to pull out a bigger, badder gun, and also start shooting randomly. Good grief, do you read what you write?

I'm a teacher. I teach. That's what I do. I don't have guns training, and I hardly think the Faculty of Teaching would provide me with any. I also don't think that even you're suggesting that I walk around with a loaded gun while teaching, so presumably I'd have to get the gun, remove the safety(unless you actually want the gun with the safety off in my drawer where the first kid who gets a chance WILL steal it), then turn it on the bad dude.

Now, at this point, the bad dude has had some time to shoot. He doesn't exactly announce himself and chivalrously allow me time to draw my gun. He's probably shot me first if he's got any sense, and he probably does as they plan these things in advance. If he somehow hasn't, he's shot some kids and created enough panic among the rest that I'm much more likely to hit a kid(you know, 30 of them, but one bad dude) than I am to hit him. He's also probably got some sort of an assault rifle, and as was the case with the Joker guy, body armour. I have a clip holding 6 bullets. Unless I am running some sort of an aim-bot, I don't like my odds. Either way, the headlines tomorrow are either "Brave teacher dies in a pointless gunfight with a madman" or "Madman shoots 6 kids. Brave teacher shoots him. Also shoots 5 kids himself."

Look, we can debate gun control and all that, but suggesting we'd be better off if absolutely everyone was armed seems like trolling.

Having teachers carry guns in our schools around our children is the dumbest idea to come from all of this... Complete stupidity

 

[DutchJazzer]

Banning guns would just mean no more shooting.

Good cus history proved:

Banning Alcohol would just mean no more Drinking.
Banning Mariuhana would just mean no more Smoking.
Banning Cocaine Would just mean no more Sniffing.
Banning Murder would just mean no more murdering.
Banning child pornography means no more Sex with children.
Banning Beastilaty means no more sex with animals.
Banning terrorism means no more terror.



yeah as history proves BANNING the symptom of something really works.


When will we learn to attack the cause of something not the symptoms



edit not that I compare pedophelia with alcohol drinking(just used some examples of banned stuff)

 

[fishonjazz]

I disagree that loading people with issues up on antidepressants is "figuring out and helping mental health issues". That's just the modern day version of institutionalizing them. Besides, the issue (in cases like we're discussing) do not start with a disgruntled person. They start with the circumstances that lead to alienation, disenfranchisement, resentment, and ultimately rage. Throw in a media culture that glorifies violence, and it's only a matter of time.

IMO, if we simply started treating each other better incidents like this would nearly cease.

You must have missed the part where i said more people are also getting counseling than ever before.... so if counseling and drugs dont work for mental illness, then what do you suggest?

 

[bigb]

One important thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread (at least I don't recall seeing it):
In this instance, the shooter didn't use his own weapons. So basically, he illegally obtained the guns he used.

 

[fishonjazz]

Good cus history proved:

Banning Alcohol would just mean no more Drinking.
Banning Mariuhana would just mean no more Smoking.
Banning Cocaine Would just mean no more Sniffing.
Banning Murder would just mean no more murdering.
Banning child pornography means no more Sex with children.
Banning Beastilaty means no more sex with animals.
Banning terrorism means no more terror.



yeah as history proves BANNING the symptom of something really works.


When will we learn to attack the cause of something not the symptoms



edit not that I compare pedophelia with alcohol drinking(just used some examples of banned stuff)

I guess i shouldnt have said banning guns would mean no more shooting.... what i meant was that if all guns were gone, like had never existed, then there would be no more shooting.... basically a guns only function is to kill, while all the other means of murder have other uses.
Knives are used for more than just killing, cars are used for more than just killing, the ingredients in bombs, ropes for hanging, etc etc all have more uses than just killing.

Basically the perfect solution would be to not have any guns even available, however i know that is impossible so once again there is no answer on how to stop this kind of thing from happening... **** happens and we are all ****ed

 

[DutchJazzer]

One important thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread (at least I don't recall seeing it):
In this instance, the shooter didn't use his own weapons. So basically, he illegally obtained the guns he used.

Great catch.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

In the case of a minor or unqualified person using a fire arm, I think the person who gave that assailant the fire arm should be held accountable for any consequences.

Certain military-grade assault weapons should be banned for those who do not have an occupational need to have one.

I don't think you can ban all guns rifles or handguns, however, and that would be an overreaction. It would be like banning automobiles because of a relatively small number of drunk drivers.

My 2 cents. I don't own a weapon.

 

[fishonjazz]

In the case of a minor or unqualified person using a fire arm, I think the person who gave that assailant the fire arm should be held accountable for any consequences.

Certain military-grade assault weapons should be banned for those who do not have an occupational need to have one.

I don't think you can ban all guns rifles or handguns, however, and that would be an overreaction. It would be like banning automobiles because of a relatively small number of drunk drivers.

My 2 cents. I don't own a weapon.

Good post, im down with all of that.

 

[larryselbows]

I agree with Gyp's post a little while back where he said we need more extensive psychiatric background checks on people.

 

[Scat]

I agree with Gyp's post a little while back where he said we need more extensive psychiatric background checks on people.

That'll stop people who are trying to acquire a gun through retail channels. It wouldn't have helped with the CT shooting however. The shooter tried to buy a gun legally in the days just prior to the shooting but was refused so he used his mother's guns.

Nor would it help with guns purchased like this...

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=2...he=1&viewSelect=list&viewNumResults=12&sort=5

... no background check needed.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I agree with Gyp's post a little while back where he said we need more extensive psychiatric background checks on people.

it still wouldnt have stopped this shooting.
His mother might have passed the pscyh test.
so it doesnt matter what the shooters psych test was

 

[larryselbows]

That'll stop people who are trying to acquire a gun through retail channels. It wouldn't have helped with the CT shooting however. The shooter tried to buy a gun legally in the days just prior to the shooting but was refused so he used his mother's guns.

Nor would it help with guns purchased like this...

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=2...he=1&viewSelect=list&viewNumResults=12&sort=5

... no background check needed.

it still wouldnt have stopped this shooting.
His mother might have passed the pscyh test.
so it doesnt matter what the shooters psych test was

You guys make good points and you're probably right, it wouldn't have stopped the Newtowne shooting. I hate to say it though, it seems more and more like nothing but resolute gun control could have stopped this shooting.

 

[larryselbows]

You guys make good points and you're probably right, it wouldn't have stopped the Newtowne shooting. I hate to say it though, it seems more and more like nothing but resolute gun control could have stopped this shooting.

... or maybe we just chalk it up to "**** happens" and just leave things as they are. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with either option.

 

[babe]

I guess i shouldnt have said banning guns would mean no more shooting.... what i meant was that if all guns were gone, like had never existed, then there would be no more shooting.... basically a guns only function is to kill, while all the other means of murder have other uses.
Knives are used for more than just killing, cars are used for more than just killing, the ingredients in bombs, ropes for hanging, etc etc all have more uses than just killing.

Basically the perfect solution would be to not have any guns even available, however i know that is impossible so once again there is no answer on how to stop this kind of thing from happening... **** happens and we are all ****ed

there's an old saw. . . . I mean hammer. . . . that goes. . . . "If the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. . . . "

In a nuclear age the focus on guns is anachronistic, just as moral preaching is in our day of global Nietzschian mass culture.

the shooters are victims of their times, and nobody but God can save us from them.

and by that I mean belief by the mass of society in a higher being and a mass conviction once again in a basic form of personal virtue and accountability.

Dostoyevsky wrote volumes on this theme, and was a popular author whose writing was all along this theme. . . in Russia. . . . before the Bolsheviks took over, and for a hundred years the Russians have not generally understood him, even with the advantage of reading him in their own Russian language. . . .

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

It wasn't meant as much to be the strongest example as I could find as it was to make Thriller look like the moron that he is. 20 years ago, most states wouldn't have allowed the guy to carry.

And I think you are being far too confident in the ability to use testing, training, and examinations to determine whether people would be safe or unsafe gun carriers. If you think mental exams would have stopped any of the school shooters from owning, I'll bet you're wrong -- most of these people are quite mentally sound. On the other side of the coin, many cops have frozen or acted unpredictably when situations arose, despite extensive training. The lines between "professional" and "joe schmoe" aren't as clear as you're making them out to be.

As far the off-duty officer in this example, he later served 90 days for failing to control his "gun" with two separate minors, and resigned amid harassment claims from others at work as well as "use of excessive force" in on-duty situations. So if "makes good decisions" or "uses good judgment" or "exhibits control" or "doesn't lose temper" or "good guy" is among your criteria for ownership or carrying, he probably should have been eliminated.

As for other "strong" examples, use the internets. There are plenty. They don't get as much pub or don't stick in your memory as much because generally dozens of people don't die. It's impossible to know what would have happened at Trolley Square had Hammond not been there, but reports indicate between a minute and 1:15 between the time he got involved and the time help arrived. Not too hard to imagine what an armed man in a crowded mall could do in that time.

I don't really have a dog in the fight with your packing argument with Thriller so I'll trust you there. However, I stand by my mental health evaluations/references comments. I don't expect it to stop gun violence. Obviously. I'd have to be insanely naive to think so. But like any tighter regulations we have in society, it may be a deterrent and prevent a situation like we had in AZ where that silly **** was quite obviously as looney as a toon and never should have had one. With no mental health evaluation/references in place, Loughner was able to buy a gun just six weeks earlier. However, the morning of the shooting, a freakin' Walmart clerk had enough common sense not to sell him ammo because the dude just seemed off.

Yes, there will be many situations where these jerkoffs will find a gun regardless. But not in every case. There will be instances where some frustrated **** wants to fly off the handle and get a gun, won't be able to because he'll fail the mental health/references stage of the process, by which time he'll have cooled off anyway and wonder what the hell he was ever thinking to begin with. Or where, a major red flag may come up, like it very likely may have in Loughner's case, and in essence, homicides can be prevented.

Listen, some people just go to gun ranges. But at the end of the day, a gun is designed for one purpose. To kill or at least severely injure. I don't think it's asking a lot to make sure that people who purchase such WEAPONS are not crazy ****s.

 

[moevillini]

From The New York Times:

A Mother, a Gun Enthusiast and the First Victim

Nancy Lanza loved guns, and it was one from her collection that was apparently used to take her life Friday, when her son went on a shooting rampage.

https://nyti.ms/SvmWX9

https://nyti.ms/SvmWX9

apparently the mom was quite proud of her gun collection and frequently took her sons to shooting ranges near their home

 

[Stoked]

Now there have been two shootings in Alabama, 1 at the Excalibur in Vegas and 1 at Fort Hood TX since the CT school shooting. They have left 6-8 more people dead.

Jesus Christ. Also the cops arrested a teen in OK that was plotting to bomb and shoot people at his school the same day as the CT shooting.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Now there have been two shootings in Alabama, 1 at the Excalibur in Vegas and 1 at Fort Hood TX since the CT school shooting. They have left 6-8 more people dead.

Jesus Christ. Also the cops arrested a teen in OK that was plotting to bomb and shoot people at his school the same day as the CT shooting.

Not sure what the laws currently are like but maybe all of this will result in much harsher jail time for crazy, gun wielding ****s.