there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
We already do, which makes the click your heels and wish them all away positions of some posters that much more laughable.
Yet the "we have so many so why even bother to consider trying something" is the flip side of the same coin.
You're right you couldn't simply eliminate them but you could over time improve the situation. It would take a lifetime but if we had the desire to, maybe we could leave the place better off for the next generation.
For example I'll use the hypothetical that there was a consensus that we should do away with all semi-auto weapons.
You have a target date to where they were no longer be legal to manufacture or sold in this country. Sure there would be millions out there and more people would rush to buy more and hoard them. You obviously can't confiscate them so anyone who owns one can keep it but he can't sell it. Then you add a small tax on all ammo to where their would be a fund created that would offer to buy and destroy any of those weapons for a premium from anyone who wants to sell one. Allow individuals and corporations the ability to make a tax deductible contribution to the fund. Any gun of that category involved in a crime would of course be confiscated and destroyed. People who owned them would guard and secure them more rigidly over time because they would become more valuable and irreplaceable as time passed and more were taken out of the circulation. I'm also sure smarter people than me could even offer more ideas that would work. These ideas are just throwing things out as examples.
Would this get rid of them all? Of course not but would it make a difference between now and fifty or seventy five years from now? I have to believe it would. Not only would there be a decrease in those guns the gun culture itself would likely to have been altered as new enthusiast who bought single action guns and who's skill sets and the sports and hobbies that go along with them would be altered in that direction.
You're right we can't wish them away but because of that to throw up our hands and say nothing can be done moving forward which might improve safety in any degree is just as simplistic a view.
If they are ingrained and removal wouldn't solve the issue anyway Â
I still think it's more or equally (in)effective to go after things that may influence people's usage of guns: ban reportings of shootings/shooter identities; ban or severely age restrict violent video games and movies, monitor more closely and restrict people diagnosed with mental disabilities; re-structure schools and malls to provide more cohesive social groupings, etc. Look for the reasons people use guns to commit violent acts and work on resolving those and then guns or no, shootings may (or may not) decrease.
1)Individual people have too many guns. How many guns are too many? Who determines that? Also, since the overwhelming majority of gun owners, to include people who own quite a few guns, don't commit any crimes, how much of a driver of violence is this?
2)Safe weapons handling training is fine by me. The Marines drilled the 4 rules of weapon safety into my head permanently. However, accidental discharges caused by negligent weapons handling is a tiny, tiny slice of firearm deaths. It's not going to accomplish what you're purporting.
3)Of course people with malevolent intentions shouldn't have access to firearms. How do we identify those people? While anyone who commits mass murder can be said to have some kind of mental health problem, because a human being doesn't massacre other human beings without one, the causes are not so easily identifiable. So far, in the case of the Oregon asshole, I've seen specific mention of depression and Aspergers, yet millions and millions of people suffering those conditions would never hurt a fly. People who have been adjudicated mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental hospital are already forbidden from purchasing firearms. So do you ban anyone who takes anti-depressants? Anyone seeing a shrink? How do you draw the line?
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
While there is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a constitutional right to manufacture and sell arms.
Somehow make it unprofitable or even illegal (probably not possible) to manufacture and sell arms, most likely by repealing liability protection they currently enjoy. And then wait a long long time.
They exist in large numbers in the United States and are a right. People should deal in facts, not hyperbole.
I would start with your idea about buy backs, particularly targeting handguns in urban areas - you know, the what and where of most of the deaths related to guns. Quite frankly, it's more than a little unseemly that people made this an issue when white kids in schools (college or elementary) started getting killed, but I digress.
1. Federal funding for buy backs.
2. Marginal increases in tax rates on both guns and ammunition
3. Close the gun show "loophole" - it won't do anything, but will shut some people up
4. Expand the scope of items in the background check that can prevent a purchase - they did this with domestic violence - perhaps to includes being charged with a felony (though lifted after some period).
5. Legalize marijuana on a nationwide basis
6. Criminal liability for the improper storage of a weapon used in the commission of a crime
I would also strip away the useless laws related to the cosmetic appearance of guns - most of the state bans on assault weapons are horseshit appeals to ignorance.
I would probably keep the magazine limitations in place - useless, but will shut people up, which has some utility.
But to repeat it, my point isn't about the exact line but to point out even if the line were that restrictive people would still have the right to own guns, shoot them, hunt with the, and defend their homes with them. Nobody would have lost that right.
You can kind of separate anti-gun positions into three categories:
1. Opposing the citizen's basic right to own a gun that enables that person to defend himself from reasonable, credible threats that actually happen, such as home invasions. Very few people hold this opposition.
2. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own the type of gun required to defend himself from unreasonable, extreme, unlikely threats, like 10 armed people invading your house simultaneously. More people hold this opposition.
3. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own a gun based purely on it being Fucking Awesome, especially while the citizen falsely presents this desire as being based on the first two needs instead. Even more people hold this opposition.
The NRA will argue that the 2nd and 3rd oppositions are just as unreasonable and unconstitutional as the 1st.
Why do all of your posts on this topic descend into nonsensical attempts at divining what 300 million other people are thinking?
I have this futile determination to find a few hardcore gun advocates who are honest enough to admit that ultimately, they just really like guns.
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
If you do believe that mass killings are more common now than ever before, why is there little interest in why we seem to have more and more people who enthusiastically murder as many strangers as possible? Again, a gun is only a tool. To quote Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann, it is a hard heart that kills. Why is this happening? On that note, I thought the piece below musing on the similarities between American mass killers and ISIS volunteers was interesting. Link - ( New Window )
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, you asked for an answer from someone "who thinks guns are a great idea." I don't think anyone here qualifies as such a person. Apparently, no one simply "thinks guns are a great idea." Everyone who has them wishes they didn't need them, but alas, they do, and so they reluctantly own them.
I have a deer rifle, a shotgun and a .22 rifle. I think it is great to be able to get outdoors and enjoy nature when occasionally hunting. I like to be able to provide some healthy tasty venison for my family which they all enjoy. I like to be able to take my son or daughter along for a walk through the woods and occasionally sitting in spots patiently when hunting. You can have some terrific conversations with a child when slowing down and siting outdoors.
I keep them put away and the ammo locked separately in a secure box. While I guess I could defend our home with one to tell the truth it would take me too long to find the box in the closet and even get to it to do anything. While I don't judge anyone who does I personally don't own a gun to be able to shoot another person so I don't have any prepared for the possibility.
some say disarm completely, you imply arming everyone (who pass some initial tests/checks) is a better idea. One of the ideas doesn't put guns in the hands of MANY people who are incredibly dim-witted/make poor decisions/have anger issues/are mentally unstable--even though never before diagnosed.
if my answers frighten you, then cease asking scary questions Â
But they are already age restricted. This will also be more and more difficult to enforce as people are now moving towards downloading games instead of physically purchasing them.
It's a red herring though as violent video games really aren't a cause of these mass shootings IMO.
I don't know how much of a dent restricting the media's ability to identify reporters would make in these shootings, and that comes with its own litany of constitutional questions, but I do feel it would have an impact to some extent.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
Well, I guess that would turn up the folks that are up to no good with illegal firearms. But if they had them legally, that wouldn't do much. And a lot of the tragedies we see come from legally purchased guns that perhaps arent even carried until someone snaps. I'm not sure how effective it would be.
And does that plan scale to 300 million americans? Am I gonna get stopped and frisked? Or will that law of the land perhaps not get applied evenly? How effective would it be at preventing an event like the one that started this thread?
Does the second amendment really trump the 4th, too? Valid question. Why should 100% of us give up our rights to not be subject to random searches to protect the rights of 30% of folks who own guns? Seems to me like a big cost with a questionable return.
But, if I were in congress, I might agree to this if folks agreed to taxes/buy back.
If there were a way to stop glamorizing these assholes, I think that would help. Many of them write in their notes or journals or whatever of admiration for prior mass killers and a desire to be remembered and famous as they are. How do you do that with a free press and the internet, though? I think the idea of avoiding using the names of killers in news covering such events is smart. I've seen a fair bit of it in blogs, actually - referring to such incidents by the location they occurred in rather than by the monsters who commit them. That's not going to keep the name from being out there, though.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
IOW, you don't want to violate the Constitution?
I don't think gun restrictions violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to have loose restrictions on guns.
Personally, I also think that the Constitution should be amended and updated with the times. I don't think that many of the original reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution are valid today, and the amendment did not take into account the technological advances that have made guns even more deadly than they were in the late 1700s.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
RE: if my answers frighten you, then cease asking scary questions Â
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
It seems that most of these mass killers are males who are mad at society due to being friendless, lonely, and rejected by women.
Graphics have improved considerably, but the leap in graphics from 2005-2015 is not as big as the leap from 1995-2005. It's kind of immaterial though, as I don't see much evidence, if any, that video games have anything to do with these mass shootings.
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
the gun freaks and 2nd Amendment Patriots have won and they will keep on laughing at you because they know they win this argument
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
I think what Headhunter is saying is that the amount of guns already in our country and the extent to which they are part of the fabric of our society means that "gun supporters" have won. Everything else past this point is merely damage control.
Maybe long term they haven't "won", but this is a tangled web that could potentially take generations to unravel.
That's why I was curious when it was last studied Â
The last I hear it ever seriously mentioned was back when Tipper Gore was pushing the idea. But I agree I don't think it turns any average child into a killer but I do wonder about a child with emotional and mental problems playing some newer games over and over if it may not have some affect.
it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing Â
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
RE: it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing Â
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
Popular opinion one way or the other seems to be very regional. I will say that I've seen MANY more 2nd amendment supporters in my area, which is NYC/Central NJ, than I recall growing up. Or maybe people are just far more vocal about it...
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
I haven't ever read where some boys watch a movie over and over for hours at a time for long period of times like some do with gaming.
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
I wasn't really trying to separate them; I think they're all part of the same thing. And I also don't think that there is any evidence to support whether it would help or not. Just like with the gun control measures. It's whatever anybody feels would help (or not) and what is the right (or wrong) thing to do.
it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing
Greg from LI : 4:20 pm : link : reply
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
In sheer number of people it is overwhelmingly popular. Less than half the population owns guns and even Fox News showed a poll last month that showed 77% wanted some form of gun control.
You can argue constitutional rights, the joys of owning a gun or whatever, but to act as if that stance is popular is the true delusion.
RE: it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing Â
I can remember watching Red Dawn over and over and over when I was a kid. When you're 8-9-10 years old, nothing beats imagining yourself as a guerilla warrior fighting off the Russkies.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
Yet the "we have so many so why even bother to consider trying something" is the flip side of the same coin.
You're right you couldn't simply eliminate them but you could over time improve the situation. It would take a lifetime but if we had the desire to, maybe we could leave the place better off for the next generation.
For example I'll use the hypothetical that there was a consensus that we should do away with all semi-auto weapons.
You have a target date to where they were no longer be legal to manufacture or sold in this country. Sure there would be millions out there and more people would rush to buy more and hoard them. You obviously can't confiscate them so anyone who owns one can keep it but he can't sell it. Then you add a small tax on all ammo to where their would be a fund created that would offer to buy and destroy any of those weapons for a premium from anyone who wants to sell one. Allow individuals and corporations the ability to make a tax deductible contribution to the fund. Any gun of that category involved in a crime would of course be confiscated and destroyed. People who owned them would guard and secure them more rigidly over time because they would become more valuable and irreplaceable as time passed and more were taken out of the circulation. I'm also sure smarter people than me could even offer more ideas that would work. These ideas are just throwing things out as examples.
Would this get rid of them all? Of course not but would it make a difference between now and fifty or seventy five years from now? I have to believe it would. Not only would there be a decrease in those guns the gun culture itself would likely to have been altered as new enthusiast who bought single action guns and who's skill sets and the sports and hobbies that go along with them would be altered in that direction.
You're right we can't wish them away but because of that to throw up our hands and say nothing can be done moving forward which might improve safety in any degree is just as simplistic a view.
2)Safe weapons handling training is fine by me. The Marines drilled the 4 rules of weapon safety into my head permanently. However, accidental discharges caused by negligent weapons handling is a tiny, tiny slice of firearm deaths. It's not going to accomplish what you're purporting.
3)Of course people with malevolent intentions shouldn't have access to firearms. How do we identify those people? While anyone who commits mass murder can be said to have some kind of mental health problem, because a human being doesn't massacre other human beings without one, the causes are not so easily identifiable. So far, in the case of the Oregon asshole, I've seen specific mention of depression and Aspergers, yet millions and millions of people suffering those conditions would never hurt a fly. People who have been adjudicated mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental hospital are already forbidden from purchasing firearms. So do you ban anyone who takes anti-depressants? Anyone seeing a shrink? How do you draw the line?
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
I think the only possible solution lies here.
While there is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a constitutional right to manufacture and sell arms.
Somehow make it unprofitable or even illegal (probably not possible) to manufacture and sell arms, most likely by repealing liability protection they currently enjoy. And then wait a long long time.
Admittedly a very long shot.
I would start with your idea about buy backs, particularly targeting handguns in urban areas - you know, the what and where of most of the deaths related to guns. Quite frankly, it's more than a little unseemly that people made this an issue when white kids in schools (college or elementary) started getting killed, but I digress.
1. Federal funding for buy backs.
2. Marginal increases in tax rates on both guns and ammunition
3. Close the gun show "loophole" - it won't do anything, but will shut some people up
4. Expand the scope of items in the background check that can prevent a purchase - they did this with domestic violence - perhaps to includes being charged with a felony (though lifted after some period).
5. Legalize marijuana on a nationwide basis
6. Criminal liability for the improper storage of a weapon used in the commission of a crime
I would also strip away the useless laws related to the cosmetic appearance of guns - most of the state bans on assault weapons are horseshit appeals to ignorance.
I would probably keep the magazine limitations in place - useless, but will shut people up, which has some utility.
Quote:
In comment 12536595 steve in ky said:
Quote:
But to repeat it, my point isn't about the exact line but to point out even if the line were that restrictive people would still have the right to own guns, shoot them, hunt with the, and defend their homes with them. Nobody would have lost that right.
You can kind of separate anti-gun positions into three categories:
1. Opposing the citizen's basic right to own a gun that enables that person to defend himself from reasonable, credible threats that actually happen, such as home invasions. Very few people hold this opposition.
2. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own the type of gun required to defend himself from unreasonable, extreme, unlikely threats, like 10 armed people invading your house simultaneously. More people hold this opposition.
3. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own a gun based purely on it being Fucking Awesome, especially while the citizen falsely presents this desire as being based on the first two needs instead. Even more people hold this opposition.
The NRA will argue that the 2nd and 3rd oppositions are just as unreasonable and unconstitutional as the 1st.
Why do all of your posts on this topic descend into nonsensical attempts at divining what 300 million other people are thinking?
I have this futile determination to find a few hardcore gun advocates who are honest enough to admit that ultimately, they just really like guns.
Quote:
In comment 12536778 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12536797 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
In comment 12536778 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, you asked for an answer from someone "who thinks guns are a great idea." I don't think anyone here qualifies as such a person. Apparently, no one simply "thinks guns are a great idea." Everyone who has them wishes they didn't need them, but alas, they do, and so they reluctantly own them.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I keep them put away and the ammo locked separately in a secure box. While I guess I could defend our home with one to tell the truth it would take me too long to find the box in the closet and even get to it to do anything. While I don't judge anyone who does I personally don't own a gun to be able to shoot another person so I don't have any prepared for the possibility.
Once that utility became a secondary reason for using them, they ceased to be even a good idea.
It's a red herring though as violent video games really aren't a cause of these mass shootings IMO.
I don't know how much of a dent restricting the media's ability to identify reporters would make in these shootings, and that comes with its own litany of constitutional questions, but I do feel it would have an impact to some extent.
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
Well, I guess that would turn up the folks that are up to no good with illegal firearms. But if they had them legally, that wouldn't do much. And a lot of the tragedies we see come from legally purchased guns that perhaps arent even carried until someone snaps. I'm not sure how effective it would be.
And does that plan scale to 300 million americans? Am I gonna get stopped and frisked? Or will that law of the land perhaps not get applied evenly? How effective would it be at preventing an event like the one that started this thread?
Does the second amendment really trump the 4th, too? Valid question. Why should 100% of us give up our rights to not be subject to random searches to protect the rights of 30% of folks who own guns? Seems to me like a big cost with a questionable return.
But, if I were in congress, I might agree to this if folks agreed to taxes/buy back.
Quote:
In comment 12536885 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
Quote:
In comment 12536916 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12536885 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
IOW, you don't want to violate the Constitution?
I don't think gun restrictions violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to have loose restrictions on guns.
Personally, I also think that the Constitution should be amended and updated with the times. I don't think that many of the original reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution are valid today, and the amendment did not take into account the technological advances that have made guns even more deadly than they were in the late 1700s.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
I'm gonna take a shit.
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
It seems that most of these mass killers are males who are mad at society due to being friendless, lonely, and rejected by women.
Graphics have improved considerably, but the leap in graphics from 2005-2015 is not as big as the leap from 1995-2005. It's kind of immaterial though, as I don't see much evidence, if any, that video games have anything to do with these mass shootings.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
Quote:
the gun freaks and 2nd Amendment Patriots have won and they will keep on laughing at you because they know they win this argument
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
I think what Headhunter is saying is that the amount of guns already in our country and the extent to which they are part of the fabric of our society means that "gun supporters" have won. Everything else past this point is merely damage control.
Maybe long term they haven't "won", but this is a tangled web that could potentially take generations to unravel.
Quote:
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
Popular opinion one way or the other seems to be very regional. I will say that I've seen MANY more 2nd amendment supporters in my area, which is NYC/Central NJ, than I recall growing up. Or maybe people are just far more vocal about it...
Quote:
In comment 12536959 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
I haven't ever read where some boys watch a movie over and over for hours at a time for long period of times like some do with gaming.
Quote:
In comment 12536959 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
Greg from LI : 4:20 pm : link : reply
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
In sheer number of people it is overwhelmingly popular. Less than half the population owns guns and even Fox News showed a poll last month that showed 77% wanted some form of gun control.
You can argue constitutional rights, the joys of owning a gun or whatever, but to act as if that stance is popular is the true delusion.
That's one argument I (unfortunately) can not make. I agree with you.