Here's what I think....as if it matters....

Pro

4277

Parker, CO

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

I've read every post on this thread...many more than once. Some good posts and I think we all agree something needs to be done. I hate the thought of armed officers at our schools. I want my kids to be safe but I don't want them reminded every day that school can be a dangerous place. I think for any plan of action someone can find viable support as to why it won't be effective. But as the POTUS suggested last night...something has to be done. I'm not very found of Obama but I will most likely support him with his pursuit in keeping our children safe at school.

My Race Log

Champion

7821

Brooklyn, NY

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

DirkP - 2012-12-17 10:16 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 9:52 AM The thing is, it doesn’t have to just be one or the other. Re-evaluating our gun laws is not mutually exclusive to recognizing that guns are just part of the problem. When Columbine happened, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “bullying issue”. When the football player killed his gf and himself a couple of weeks ago, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “domestic violence” issue. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, it wasn’t a “gun issue”, it was a “mental health issue”. And when kids are being shot on the streets of LA and Chicago and NYC, it’s not a “gun issue”, it’s a crime/poverty/self-esteem/drug/race/education/whatever issue. But guns are a part of every one of these equations. There can’t be any more pretense about that. The presence of so many guns in our society, and their ready availability to almost anyone who wants one takes these problems, which are systemic in our culture, but which are not unique to the US, and magnifies them to levels that are unique to us. I think harsher penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns and more stringent procedures for licensing and training are a good start. Penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns. The point is that we have to change the way people think about what guns are and what they can do. We’ve gotten too comfortable saying that “guns are just tools, like a hammer or a flashlight”, when they’re clearly not. Fifty years ago, no one thought twice about drinking and driving. No one thought twice about smoking while pregnant or about leaving their swimming pools unattended and unsecured. It is possible to change the way we think about guns. We can find ways to make people more respectful of the responsibility of owning a gun, more cognizant of the dangers they pose.

Alright. Enough already! would also disagree with your point that none of the issues were "gun issues." If that were the case there wouldn't be people 30 seconds after an incident screaming for more gun control.

BTW, I have all of my weapons secured in a 350 pound safe but that won't stop a criminal that wants to get in bad enough. a small torch set would cut through the metal and he would have access. So, are my guns secure enough? Or who decides what's secure? More government?

The gun lobbyists are always the ones saying that Aurora, Columbine, and the other incidents I mentions are not gun issues. I'm glad to see you disagree. Many gun enthusiasts are far too easily (IMO) able to separate the incident from the presence of the gun and to the way in which the gun's presence made a tragic situation worse.

I disagree vehemently with your statement about your gun safe and cutting torches. Or, more to the point, what you’re saying is probably true, but how many meth addicts who break into a home are equipped with cutting torches? None. That’s how many. If the Ocean’s 11 crew wants to steal your guns, there’s no doubt that they can, but the setup you describe would be more than enough to prevent almost anyone from using your guns without your permission. Trouble is, many gun ownders don’t accept the level of responsibility that you have. Requiring more responsibility from gun owners towards properly securing their guns will prevent the overwhelming ,majority of gun thefts and unauthorized use. If the kid from Sandy Hook went to his mom and said, “Mom, I need the Bushmaster, the Glock and the Sig and several hundred rounds of ammo to go run an errand, can you open the 350-lb gun safe that only you have the combination to for me?” maybe what happened on Friday wouldn’t have happened. I doubt that she had the level of security that you had. And unfortunately, you're probably in the small minority of gun owners.

If you still think that’s a pointless and irrelevant argument, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d love to start hearing some solutions from people on your side of the argument instead of “that won’t work!” and predictions of police states. Do you just want to keep shrugging your shoulders every time dozens of people are gunned down and chalk it up to the price of keeping our freedom? I don’t, and I suspect that if you do, you’re part of a rapidly shrinking minority.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-12-17 10:58 AM

My Race Log

Champion

34263

Chicago

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

DirkP - 2012-12-17 10:16 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 9:52 AM The thing is, it doesn’t have to just be one or the other. Re-evaluating our gun laws is not mutually exclusive to recognizing that guns are just part of the problem. When Columbine happened, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “bullying issue”. When the football player killed his gf and himself a couple of weeks ago, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “domestic violence” issue. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, it wasn’t a “gun issue”, it was a “mental health issue”. And when kids are being shot on the streets of LA and Chicago and NYC, it’s not a “gun issue”, it’s a crime/poverty/self-esteem/drug/race/education/whatever issue. But guns are a part of every one of these equations. There can’t be any more pretense about that. The presence of so many guns in our society, and their ready availability to almost anyone who wants one takes these problems, which are systemic in our culture, but which are not unique to the US, and magnifies them to levels that are unique to us. I think harsher penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns and more stringent procedures for licensing and training are a good start. Penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns. The point is that we have to change the way people think about what guns are and what they can do. We’ve gotten too comfortable saying that “guns are just tools, like a hammer or a flashlight”, when they’re clearly not. Fifty years ago, no one thought twice about drinking and driving. No one thought twice about smoking while pregnant or about leaving their swimming pools unattended and unsecured. It is possible to change the way we think about guns. We can find ways to make people more respectful of the responsibility of owning a gun, more cognizant of the dangers they pose.

Alright. Enough already! Securing my guns better or be penalized? How about we actually start penalizing the thieves? In Connecticut this wouldn't have solved the problem but how many others would have been solved if our jails weren't Club Med's? There is no one that can dispute that many criminals have it better in jail than they have it outside the walls. They get good meals, they really don't have to work for any reason (if they don't what's going to happen to them?), their housing is paid for, they receive top notch medical care and the list could go on an on.

The problem I have with more laws is that the ones breaking them DON'T CARE!!!! You make another Clinton library full of new laws and the criminals will still NOT CARE.

Start truly penalizing these criminals! Put them in jails with no air conditioning, no weights or color TV's, give then canned foods to eat or MRE's. Make them "make big one's out of little one's!" Make them do hard labor! Make the prison system a place they DO NOT want to go back to. Make it painful for them.

I would also disagree with your point that none of the issues were "gun issues." If that were the case there wouldn't be people 30 seconds after an incident screaming for more gun control.

BTW, I have all of my weapons secured in a 350 pound safe but that won't stop a criminal that wants to get in bad enough. a small torch set would cut through the metal and he would have access. So, are my guns secure enough? Or who decides what's secure? More government?

Having a 350-pound safe is an acceptable deterrent. If criminals take the time to break into your house, torch your safe and steal your guns, then you'd be absolved of any crimes committed with those weapons. If they broke into your house and took the guns you had sitting on the counter or hidden in the shoebox behind your winter coats, then you'd be liable because, as a responsible gun owner, you weren't responsible in your handling or safe-keeping of your weapon. If your friend was visiting with his/her kid and picked a gun up off the kitchen table and shoots himself or someone else, then you'd be responsible. If that gun is locked away, then that wouldn't happen.

No infringement upon your Second Amendment rights to own a gun or even carry a gun. It's just requiring you to use good judgment and be a responsible gun owner. You seem pretty intelligent and understand common sense, since you already have a secure safe to store your weapons, so I don't see why you have a problem with this.

Sure, a criminal may kill 50 people with a gun, but at least it won't be YOUR gun.

My Race Log

Champion

7821

Brooklyn, NY

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

Left Brain - 2012-12-16 9:16 PM

I don't think our founding fathers could come close to comprehending our multi-media society. I don't think they could begin to imagine the weaponry available to our citizens. Still, they had it right. "The People" must always have the most power. .

If by "power", you mean "military power", I think that ship has sailed.

I bet that even if you took a large city with lenient gun laws, like Phoenix or Houston, the entire armed citizenry of that city wouldn't even be able to mount a significant defense against the local police force and National Guard. The idea that looser gun laws enable the People to rise up against an unjust government, or unseat a despotic tyrant is a pipe dream. Even if you armed every person in a major city with weapons that were available to the average citizen, a couple of Abrams tank divisions and a few hundred Predator drones would put an end to the uprising in no time. You wouldn't even have to put infantry on the ground except to mop up. This isn't Syria.

My Race Log

Elite

5145

Cleveland

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-16 10:31 PM I don't think there's a solution...at all.

Of course there isn't.

Murder is already illegal... lotta good that did to stop this. Making guns illegal just means that you'd be able to charge them with another felony after-the-fact.

It's hard for people to accept, but people just don't like to face the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop, predict, prevent, or even inhibit this type of act. NOTHING. Every single one of us is powerless to do anything at all about it.... but, that isn't politically useful, or very reassuring to the worried masses, so that isn't what we're going to hear regardless of how much truth is there.

When one deranged whacko gets it inside their head that they are going to do something, there is no way to know unless they tell someone about it. Not being able to get "legally obtained" guns won't deter them. Having cops at every school..... might be a deterrent. Most likely it'll just be a hole we throw money into and the whack jobs will just hit malls or a day care.... or, a theater. Or the cops will simply be the first target and the attacker will have the cop's complacency on his side. All you'd accomplish, at best, is to shift where something happens. Maybe.

To paraphrase something circulating on facebook right now: More than anything, what we need is a change in how these things are reported. Stop telling us the names of the jackwads doing this stuff. Stop sensationalizing it. Stop giving 15 minutes of fame to the wrong people. Stop giving these people an idea to do anything other than quietly off themselves in their parent's basement.

My Race Log

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

KeriKadi - 2012-12-17 8:03 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-16 9:16 PM

I don't think our founding fathers could come close to comprehending our multi-media society. I don't think they could begin to imagine the weaponry available to our citizens. Still, they had it right. "The People" must always have the most power. It is up to us to put in place the protections to ensure that Sandyhook doesn't happen again. Teachers want to teach......Police Officers want to protect. Let's do that in the immediate aftermath, while some idiot plans a copycat.

We can work on the rest.....but get used to the biggest and best armed society in the history of the world.....it's not going away. I'm sorry, it's not.

It could also be said our foundering fathers couldn't come close to comprehending a semi-automatic or fast fire hand gun either. Their idea of weaponry was MUCH different from what is available today.

This is just pattently wrong. Firearms 200 years ago were most certainly the most lethal weapon they could own at that time. Swords were still usefull for heavens sake. Weapons of war and better ways of killing people have been evolving since man has been around. We won our independence by killing British. they most assuredly knew what it was about.

And just like Brock pointed out... they had no idea of porn over the internet, or violent video games or drones doing surveillence either... does that mean we should repeal the 1st and 4th Amendment too?

My Race Log

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

jsnowash - 2012-12-17 9:25 AM

velocomp - 2012-12-17 8:13 AM

First off, I don't have the answer. But I did have a trying time with my in-laws and parents this weekend, and it was interesting to hear the different perspectives. My father is a Child Psychiatrist. My father in-law was a competitive shooter and makes holsters and leather goods. (Great combo for this discussion).

My father keeps talking about how we need to improve the mental health system, but admits that one problem, is that even when a person is identified as mentally ill and could pose a danger, there is nothing we can do unless they have proved "TO BE" a danger. Of course this is too late.

My father in-law keeps talking about the fact that the people that responsibly own guns are not the problem, and that the assault weapons are actually not the problem. If you take away one stick, they bad people will just choose another.

Both provide true facts. The problem is neither can provide an answer to the problem that is not financially destructive to our society. You can not start a war on guns, when compared to the war on drugs, you have even a less likely chance of success. And you can not start a war on mental health, when labeling people is not PC.

I lean to the side that at some point we will have to make some tough choices and many people will be upset by those choices. It may mean that a group of people will feel like their rights are being taken from them, but in the end it will make our society better and safer. (Now you choose the group)

I will say my wife had an interesting idea. Why not provide opportunities for the service men and women coming back from the wars and those leaving the military (of course having checked their well being) to provide security in the schools. We hear there are no jobs for them, and it could provide them an opportunity to continue to serve and possibly find interest in education. They would not be put there strictly as security, but would be involved throughout the school, maybe finding skills or interests that they could persue as a career later on. Kind of a security/career/internship.

O.k. rant off.

The problem with your father-in-law's argument is that an assault weapon is a much bigger stick that can do a lot more damage in a lot less time than most other sticks that might be available... And it seems to me all to easy for someone to get their hands on one. IMO the hurdle to ownership of any kind of assault weapon should be very high. Gun control does not equal gun elimination. There has to be a sensible middle ground, and in my mind, we begin by, at the very lease, severely limiting access to high powered rapid fire assault weapons. Imagine that the biggest "stick" the Sandyhook shooter could have gained access too was a basic handgun. You can imagine there might still be some fatalities had he made it into the school with a stick of that size, but I think it's highly likely the body count would have been much, much, lower. We're not allowed to drive formula one race cars on public streets -- that doesn't mean the government is coming to take away all of our cars... In my mind, the same argument could be made for high powered weaponry vs pistols & hunting rifles.

Good grief, WV was done with a pistol. The recent mall shooting was with a AR-15, 2 dead.

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

Left Brain - 2012-12-17 8:38 AM

We already had an "assault weapon" ban. It did nothing to lessen crime, or shootings. In fact, when it came up for renewal there was no support on either side of the isle. In short, it was useless.

Here are two examples of why an assault weapons ban makes little to no sense in my opinion.

I would be curious if anyone can explain the positive benefits of "gun free zones" or "zero tolerance areas"?

My Race Log

Sensei

Sin City

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

This entire thing just makes me frustrated and anxious and basically nauseus. First, the event itself and killing of kids and young adults is just sickening.

Then I watch the news/talk shows and you get (a lot of the times), the anti gun side with almost a pompus, self rightous attitude that don't let the pro 2A guys even talk. Or when they do, roll their eyes or interupt (Peirce Morgan is what I reference from last night and after Aurora).

Then the 2A guys sort of sit there and waffle and can't really answer. But seriously, how DO you answer when someone is shoving 20 dead kids in your face killed with a gun. But a person giving ANY argement, even if it's well thought out, justifying firearms, will come across as monster when it's 24 hours after 20 kindergartners are executed.

Then of course in my house. I'm pro, the wife is anti - so I just nod and agree and try to keep the house peacfull!

Then any suggested solution gets shot down by the opposition, and NO solution is the result. Or meaningless band-aid type that makes everyone "happy" but does nothing.

My Race Log

Sensei

Sin City

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

crusevegas - 2012-12-17 9:21 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-17 8:38 AM

We already had an "assault weapon" ban. It did nothing to lessen crime, or shootings. In fact, when it came up for renewal there was no support on either side of the isle. In short, it was useless.

Here are two examples of why an assault weapons ban makes little to no sense in my opinion.

I would be curious if anyone can explain the positive benefits of "gun free zones" or "zero tolerance areas"?

It's people that don't KNOW guns that propose these laws, IMO.

One looks hella scary to them (or to ME, cool!) and the other looks like a tool/hunting device.

But the same exact gun.

My Race Log

Sensei

Sin City

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

powerman - 2012-12-17 9:12 AM

KeriKadi - 2012-12-17 8:03 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-16 9:16 PM

I don't think our founding fathers could come close to comprehending our multi-media society. I don't think they could begin to imagine the weaponry available to our citizens. Still, they had it right. "The People" must always have the most power. It is up to us to put in place the protections to ensure that Sandyhook doesn't happen again. Teachers want to teach......Police Officers want to protect. Let's do that in the immediate aftermath, while some idiot plans a copycat.

We can work on the rest.....but get used to the biggest and best armed society in the history of the world.....it's not going away. I'm sorry, it's not.

It could also be said our foundering fathers couldn't come close to comprehending a semi-automatic or fast fire hand gun either. Their idea of weaponry was MUCH different from what is available today.

This is just pattently wrong. Firearms 200 years ago were most certainly the most lethal weapon they could own at that time. Swords were still usefull for heavens sake. Weapons of war and better ways of killing people have been evolving since man has been around. We won our independence by killing British. they most assuredly knew what it was about.

And just like Brock pointed out... they had no idea of porn over the internet, or violent video games or drones doing surveillence either... does that mean we should repeal the 1st and 4th Amendment too?

Right or wrong, I really don't look at 2A as a "gun" amendment. It was put in place that the people should be able to stand up to the goverment. The government should actually fear the people. That the people would have the ability to stand up against tyrany. Obviously, based on the control the British had over the people and could basically just control them with no real fear of uprising. The colonies needed to "make due" with what they had to fight from under the rule and the founders planned ahead for that.

If the government fought with stick, so could the people. Swords with swords, or guns with guns.

(Yeah, I know someone will say "then we should be able to have guided bombs and tanks like the governemt" - and I guess I don't have an answer to that).

Again, right or wrong, I think the idea was to empower the people to be able to fight back and the right bare arms, not specifically "guns". Maybe I'm reading my spin on it and just dumb.

My Race Log

Master

2083

Houston, TX

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

crusevegas - 2012-12-17 11:21 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-17 8:38 AM

We already had an "assault weapon" ban. It did nothing to lessen crime, or shootings. In fact, when it came up for renewal there was no support on either side of the isle. In short, it was useless.

Here are two examples of why an assault weapons ban makes little to no sense in my opinion.

I would be curious if anyone can explain the positive benefits of "gun free zones" or "zero tolerance areas"?

So are you saying that every assault rifle styled gun has a hunting style counterpart or just giving exceptions to the general case?

yes, you can machine stocks and build your own if you so choose.

My Race Log

Pro

4353

Wallingford, PA

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

TriRSquared - 2012-12-17 11:32 AM

jsnowash - 2012-12-17 11:25 AM

The problem with your father-in-law's argument is that an assault weapon is a much bigger stick that can do a lot more damage in a lot less time than most other sticks that might be available...

The weapon used in CT was not an assault weapon. In fact outside of police or the military assault weapons do not (for the most part) exist in the hands of civilians. People really need to understand the difference between assault weapons, riles, semi automatic and automatic before making their arguments. It's not just you. Lots of people do not understand the differences.

We're not allowed to drive formula one race cars on public streets -- that doesn't mean the government is coming to take away all of our cars... In my mind, the same argument could be made for high powered weaponry vs pistols & hunting rifles.

This same argument came up in another thread. I'll say what I said there: I can buy a Bugatti Veyron that will do 253 mph (faster than an F1 car) and drive it on public roads. Just because you feel something is not safe does not mean that it cannot be used safely.

Okay, it's possible I might not have used the correct terminology, but according to this source, the CT gunman was carrying a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle (apparently you can pick one up at your local Wal-Mart) and two semi-automatic handguns. Whether I have the terminology correct or not, my point is that I personally don't see the need for any private citizen to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Many will disagree, I'm sure. I'm not arguing that these weapons "can't" be used safely. I'm arguing that they're too dangerous in the wrong hands, and right now it's way to easy for the wrong hands to get ahold of them. IMO, it may be time to consider limiting their access in the interest of broader public safety. They could, for example, still be legal to use in specially licensed shooting ranges, but not for private ownership.

My Race Log

Champion

7821

Brooklyn, NY

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

cgregg - 2012-12-17 11:10 AM

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-16 10:31 PM I don't think there's a solution...at all.

Of course there isn't.

It's hard for people to accept, but people just don't like to face the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop, predict, prevent, or even inhibit this type of act. NOTHING. .

Well, if you’re pro-gun, you’d better hope that’s not true. Because if the gun lobby continues to dig in their heels and refuses to come to the table with some concrete suggestions and reasonable compromises that can stem the tide of these kinds of tragedies, the chorus of voices who want to start banning guns is going to get louder and louder until the politicians have no choice but to listen. I’m not saying that’s going to happen in the next six months, but if the pace of these mass shootings continues at the rate it seems to be happening now, it’s going to happen eventually. People want solutions, and if the gun lobby can’t or won’t take the lead on presenting ideas, if they just say, “there’s no solution, there’s nothing we can do…” over and over again, then the decision will be made without them. They’d be wise to put aside their “From my cold dead hands” rhetoric for a while and start trying to be the voice of compromise and solutions.

My Race Log

Veteran

698

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

KeriKadi - 2012-12-17 7:06 AM

Somebody on FB posted the pic of the Israeli teacher with the gun slung over her shoulder. I doubt any of us want that. My thoughts are that if the gun is close enough to you that you could use it in an emergency it is too easily accessible for someone to take it from you.

A few points.

First, teachers in Israel do not teach in class with a rifle at the ready. They will have a rifle slung over the shoulder during class trip, but unfortunately that has been proven to be a necessity. There will also probably be one or two armed adults accompanying the class.

Second, while someone is trying to take said weapon, those standing by would not be watching and taking bets who will win.

Not to say that I am in favor of arming the teachers. As I mentioned before, I think that the defenses should be in place before the shooter can reach the class.

Member

143

Oklahoma City, OK

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

cgregg - 2012-12-17 11:10 AM

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-16 10:31 PM I don't think there's a solution...at all.

Of course there isn't.

Murder is already illegal... lotta good that did to stop this. Making guns illegal just means that you'd be able to charge them with another felony after-the-fact.

It's hard for people to accept, but people just don't like to face the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop, predict, prevent, or even inhibit this type of act. NOTHING. Every single one of us is powerless to do anything at all about it.... but, that isn't politically useful, or very reassuring to the worried masses, so that isn't what we're going to hear regardless of how much truth is there.

When one deranged whacko gets it inside their head that they are going to do something, there is no way to know unless they tell someone about it. Not being able to get "legally obtained" guns won't deter them. Having cops at every school..... might be a deterrent. Most likely it'll just be a hole we throw money into and the whack jobs will just hit malls or a day care.... or, a theater. Or the cops will simply be the first target and the attacker will have the cop's complacency on his side. All you'd accomplish, at best, is to shift where something happens. Maybe.

To paraphrase something circulating on facebook right now: More than anything, what we need is a change in how these things are reported. Stop telling us the names of the jackwads doing this stuff. Stop sensationalizing it. Stop giving 15 minutes of fame to the wrong people. Stop giving these people an idea to do anything other than quietly off themselves in their parent's basement.

This is the sad, horrific, infuriating TRUTH! Evil is, and always will be, among us.

The question we now face is the same question we asked after 9/11 & Columbine. "How many freedoms are we willing to trade for security?"

Or to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both."

Sensei

Sin City

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 9:37 AM

cgregg - 2012-12-17 11:10 AM

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-16 10:31 PM I don't think there's a solution...at all.

Of course there isn't.

It's hard for people to accept, but people just don't like to face the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop, predict, prevent, or even inhibit this type of act. NOTHING. .

Well, if you’re pro-gun, you’d better hope that’s not true. Because if the gun lobby continues to dig in their heels and refuses to come to the table with some concrete suggestions and reasonable compromises that can stem the tide of these kinds of tragedies, the chorus of voices who want to start banning guns is going to get louder and louder until the politicians have no choice but to listen. I’m not saying that’s going to happen in the next six months, but if the pace of these mass shootings continues at the rate it seems to be happening now, it’s going to happen eventually. People want solutions, and if the gun lobby can’t or won’t take the lead on presenting ideas, if they just say, “there’s no solution, there’s nothing we can do…” over and over again, then the decision will be made without them. They’d be wise to put aside their “From my cold dead hands” rhetoric for a while and start trying to be the voice of compromise and solutions.

It may take 200 more years, but I think that it's going that way anyway. (some argue with me). I want to believe society will strive to be more tolerable.

There is already a chorus of voices against racism, allowing same sex marraiges, against drunk driving, against smoking.

All of those things were alive and well 50 years ago and I like the THINK, people are evolving and "seeing the light".

If things like this keep happening, people will eventually look at gun owners with such a negative stigma (just like you look at smokers or racist/anti gay groups) that they may phase themeselves out? Owning guns may seem cool, like smoking used to, but people MAY see the light and hopefully, the world becomes an enlightened/peacful enough place people will look back and think that having devices around basically designed for killing (whether it be for animals or people) seems crazy?

BUT, it won't happen in our lifetime. Or our kids, or our grandkids.

My Race Log

Master

3486

Fort Wayne

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 11:57 AM

DirkP - 2012-12-17 10:16 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 9:52 AM The thing is, it doesn’t have to just be one or the other. Re-evaluating our gun laws is not mutually exclusive to recognizing that guns are just part of the problem. When Columbine happened, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “bullying issue”. When the football player killed his gf and himself a couple of weeks ago, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “domestic violence” issue. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, it wasn’t a “gun issue”, it was a “mental health issue”. And when kids are being shot on the streets of LA and Chicago and NYC, it’s not a “gun issue”, it’s a crime/poverty/self-esteem/drug/race/education/whatever issue. But guns are a part of every one of these equations. There can’t be any more pretense about that. The presence of so many guns in our society, and their ready availability to almost anyone who wants one takes these problems, which are systemic in our culture, but which are not unique to the US, and magnifies them to levels that are unique to us. I think harsher penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns and more stringent procedures for licensing and training are a good start. Penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns. The point is that we have to change the way people think about what guns are and what they can do. We’ve gotten too comfortable saying that “guns are just tools, like a hammer or a flashlight”, when they’re clearly not. Fifty years ago, no one thought twice about drinking and driving. No one thought twice about smoking while pregnant or about leaving their swimming pools unattended and unsecured. It is possible to change the way we think about guns. We can find ways to make people more respectful of the responsibility of owning a gun, more cognizant of the dangers they pose.

Alright. Enough already! would also disagree with your point that none of the issues were "gun issues." If that were the case there wouldn't be people 30 seconds after an incident screaming for more gun control.

BTW, I have all of my weapons secured in a 350 pound safe but that won't stop a criminal that wants to get in bad enough. a small torch set would cut through the metal and he would have access. So, are my guns secure enough? Or who decides what's secure? More government?

If you still think that’s a pointless and irrelevant argument, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’d love to start hearing some solutions from people on your side of the argument instead of “that won’t work!” and predictions of police states. Do you just want to keep shrugging your shoulders every time dozens of people are gunned down and chalk it up to the price of keeping our freedom? I don’t, and I suspect that if you do, you’re part of a rapidly shrinking minority.

Banning "Assault weapons" or any kind of other weapon is not going to change the minds and hearts of people. Frankly that's where the problem lies. I cannot say that the mother of the deranged murderer in Connecticut did her job as a mother properly or improperly with any kind of certainty but my guess would be that she failed in some aspects. It is likely that she allowed her son to commit himself to a totally antisocial behavior that allowed him to disassociate himself from society and emotion. He, IMO, had simply no reason or moral code to connect with the pain he might be causing anyone. I think there are medical/mental reasons for this but I also believe that there are other reasons as well.

Personally I think first shooter games on computers, etc. are a part of the problem if parents won't police this activity. If kids are allowed to disconnect from their surroundings, I believe, they disconnect from any social acceptability's as well.

My point? I am reaching to what I believe are the root causes of the problem rather than a symptomatic problem. Please don't confuse that I think this is the case in every issue but I think you can look at most of the incidents and see fairly clearly that things started within the home.

Moral: Teach your kids right from wrong. Bad and good. Spend time with them and not as much on your own hobbies. Love your kids and prove it to them with actions and discipline and not "best friendship."

mr2tony - 2012-12-17 12:04 PM

DirkP - 2012-12-17 10:16 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 9:52 AM The thing is, it doesn’t have to just be one or the other. Re-evaluating our gun laws is not mutually exclusive to recognizing that guns are just part of the problem. When Columbine happened, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “bullying issue”. When the football player killed his gf and himself a couple of weeks ago, it wasn’t a “gun issue” it was a “domestic violence” issue. In Aurora and Sandy Hook, it wasn’t a “gun issue”, it was a “mental health issue”. And when kids are being shot on the streets of LA and Chicago and NYC, it’s not a “gun issue”, it’s a crime/poverty/self-esteem/drug/race/education/whatever issue. But guns are a part of every one of these equations. There can’t be any more pretense about that. The presence of so many guns in our society, and their ready availability to almost anyone who wants one takes these problems, which are systemic in our culture, but which are not unique to the US, and magnifies them to levels that are unique to us. I think harsher penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns and more stringent procedures for licensing and training are a good start. Penalties for gun owners who fail to properly secure their guns. The point is that we have to change the way people think about what guns are and what they can do. We’ve gotten too comfortable saying that “guns are just tools, like a hammer or a flashlight”, when they’re clearly not. Fifty years ago, no one thought twice about drinking and driving. No one thought twice about smoking while pregnant or about leaving their swimming pools unattended and unsecured. It is possible to change the way we think about guns. We can find ways to make people more respectful of the responsibility of owning a gun, more cognizant of the dangers they pose.

Alright. Enough already! Securing my guns better or be penalized? How about we actually start penalizing the thieves? In Connecticut this wouldn't have solved the problem but how many others would have been solved if our jails weren't Club Med's? There is no one that can dispute that many criminals have it better in jail than they have it outside the walls. They get good meals, they really don't have to work for any reason (if they don't what's going to happen to them?), their housing is paid for, they receive top notch medical care and the list could go on an on.

The problem I have with more laws is that the ones breaking them DON'T CARE!!!! You make another Clinton library full of new laws and the criminals will still NOT CARE.

Start truly penalizing these criminals! Put them in jails with no air conditioning, no weights or color TV's, give then canned foods to eat or MRE's. Make them "make big one's out of little one's!" Make them do hard labor! Make the prison system a place they DO NOT want to go back to. Make it painful for them.

I would also disagree with your point that none of the issues were "gun issues." If that were the case there wouldn't be people 30 seconds after an incident screaming for more gun control.

BTW, I have all of my weapons secured in a 350 pound safe but that won't stop a criminal that wants to get in bad enough. a small torch set would cut through the metal and he would have access. So, are my guns secure enough? Or who decides what's secure? More government?

Having a 350-pound safe is an acceptable deterrent. If criminals take the time to break into your house, torch your safe and steal your guns, then you'd be absolved of any crimes committed with those weapons. If they broke into your house and took the guns you had sitting on the counter or hidden in the shoebox behind your winter coats, then you'd be liable because, as a responsible gun owner, you weren't responsible in your handling or safe-keeping of your weapon. If your friend was visiting with his/her kid and picked a gun up off the kitchen table and shoots himself or someone else, then you'd be responsible. If that gun is locked away, then that wouldn't happen. No infringement upon your Second Amendment rights to own a gun or even carry a gun. It's just requiring you to use good judgment and be a responsible gun owner. You seem pretty intelligent and understand common sense, since you already have a secure safe to store your weapons, so I don't see why you have a problem with this. Sure, a criminal may kill 50 people with a gun, but at least it won't be YOUR gun.

The points you make are true, I feel, about the securement of my weapons. However, I simply don't trust the government or the court systems to make the right decisions. The easiest and best example of the court system is the McDonalds coffee incident how long ago. The courts are being used for political point making rather than law and justice.

I will stand by my statement to jmk about the root causes of our societal demise. I have 2 daughters and I have spent a lot of time with them, teaching them to love and honor the individuals in this society, to treat them as they would like to be treated, that every life is valuable regardless of appearance, health problems, etc.................... I have told them when they have been wrong and disciplined them for wrongful acts. And yes when they were younger I spanked them and told them I loved them and held them in my arms crying with them, because I hated that this was the punishment I thought necessary. Today my 19 and 17 YO daughters kiss me in front of their friends and boyfriends, tell me they love me in front of whomever might be present and demonstrate kindness to those around them that aren't of the "in" crowds. Is this way most kids and adults appear to most of us today? I personally don't think so.

My Race Log

Sensei

Sin City

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

cgregg - 2012-12-17 9:10 AM

To paraphrase something circulating on facebook right now: More than anything, what we need is a change in how these things are reported. Stop telling us the names of the jackwads doing this stuff. Stop sensationalizing it. Stop giving 15 minutes of fame to the wrong people. Stop giving these people an idea to do anything other than quietly off themselves in their parent's basement.

To be honest, THIS time around, I chose not to listen. But I was torn.

If I don't listen, am I burying my head in the sand? Ignoring it? I STILL don't know the name of the shooter, or seen a picture of him. That's because I don't have CNN on 24/7, stick to my recordings, and sports. Saw Obama's speach because it interupted the game.

So I'm tying to NOT make famous/nitorous the shooter by not watching, but also feel like I should be informed and up to date. I like to stay informed and current so it's a personal battle.

The whole media thing as also a contridiction to me sometimes. The times I DID watch CNN, they would be very solomn and respectufull reporting on the event. THEN, some high energy cell phone commercial would come on trying to have us switch to Verizon or Sprint or what-not.

I understand that they have to pay their bills, and it's about ratings and money - but it strikes me as odd and a bit tactless.

My Race Log

Elite

6387

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

Kido - 2012-12-17 10:35 AM

powerman - 2012-12-17 9:12 AM

KeriKadi - 2012-12-17 8:03 AM

Left Brain - 2012-12-16 9:16 PM

I don't think our founding fathers could come close to comprehending our multi-media society. I don't think they could begin to imagine the weaponry available to our citizens. Still, they had it right. "The People" must always have the most power. It is up to us to put in place the protections to ensure that Sandyhook doesn't happen again. Teachers want to teach......Police Officers want to protect. Let's do that in the immediate aftermath, while some idiot plans a copycat.

We can work on the rest.....but get used to the biggest and best armed society in the history of the world.....it's not going away. I'm sorry, it's not.

It could also be said our foundering fathers couldn't come close to comprehending a semi-automatic or fast fire hand gun either. Their idea of weaponry was MUCH different from what is available today.

This is just pattently wrong. Firearms 200 years ago were most certainly the most lethal weapon they could own at that time. Swords were still usefull for heavens sake. Weapons of war and better ways of killing people have been evolving since man has been around. We won our independence by killing British. they most assuredly knew what it was about.

And just like Brock pointed out... they had no idea of porn over the internet, or violent video games or drones doing surveillence either... does that mean we should repeal the 1st and 4th Amendment too?

Right or wrong, I really don't look at 2A as a "gun" amendment. It was put in place that the people should be able to stand up to the goverment. The government should actually fear the people. That the people would have the ability to stand up against tyrany. Obviously, based on the control the British had over the people and could basically just control them with no real fear of uprising. The colonies needed to "make due" with what they had to fight from under the rule and the founders planned ahead for that.

If the government fought with stick, so could the people. Swords with swords, or guns with guns.

(Yeah, I know someone will say "then we should be able to have guided bombs and tanks like the governemt" - and I guess I don't have an answer to that).

Again, right or wrong, I think the idea was to empower the people to be able to fight back and the right bare arms, not specifically "guns". Maybe I'm reading my spin on it and just dumb.

I agree, and I do have an answer to that. No I can't have a tank, any more than I could have a cannon 200 years ago.... simply because as a common man I could not afford to have it. Those were weapons of standing armies: forts, cannons, wagons, frigates, war ships. The common man could not afford to have those then any more than we can afford those today. The common man could afford personal arms and they were expected to come with those and use them. I can't afford a rocket launcher no matter how cool it might be. Shooting a $100K is not possible for me... and it is not a weapon the common man needs... that is a weapon a standing army needs.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-17 11:37 AM

cgregg - 2012-12-17 11:10 AM

ChineseDemocracy - 2012-12-16 10:31 PM I don't think there's a solution...at all.

Of course there isn't.

It's hard for people to accept, but people just don't like to face the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to stop, predict, prevent, or even inhibit this type of act. NOTHING. .

Well, if you’re pro-gun, you’d better hope that’s not true. Because if the gun lobby continues to dig in their heels and refuses to come to the table with some concrete suggestions and reasonable compromises that can stem the tide of these kinds of tragedies, the chorus of voices who want to start banning guns is going to get louder and louder until the politicians have no choice but to listen. I’m not saying that’s going to happen in the next six months, but if the pace of these mass shootings continues at the rate it seems to be happening now, it’s going to happen eventually. People want solutions, and if the gun lobby can’t or won’t take the lead on presenting ideas, if they just say, “there’s no solution, there’s nothing we can do…” over and over again, then the decision will be made without them. They’d be wise to put aside their “From my cold dead hands” rhetoric for a while and start trying to be the voice of compromise and solutions.

Let's say a gun ban was voted for and took place. In your view, how does that look? How is it enforced? How are the existing 400,000,000+ guns currently in private ownership taken from their owners?

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Here's what I think....as if it matters....

powerman - 2012-12-17 12:00 PM