Irresponsible gun owners (Page 8)

We'll agree to disagree.  I agree we need to look at gun legislation.  But I also believe the discussion needs to be rational. 

While the easy culprit in this horrific event is to pooint at the guns and say..."see all 'those' types of guns should be outlawed" because if no one had "those" types of guns everyone would still be alive.

It would be just as easy to say: "Lanza had serious mental issues and if we had mandatory reporting of all individuals with mental health issues and they were institutionalized, Lanza wouldn't have been on the street and everyone would still be alive."

I peronsally dont' agree with either approach, both seem reactionary to me.  They are knee jerk reactions to a horrific situation.  Knee jerk reactions, as it applies to creating new laws, are seldom worthwhile, at leat in my experience.

The only reaction this county has for most things is a knee jerk one.

And how in your proposal would you accomplish this?  On the day that the semi-auto ban went into effect would all previously lawfully owned semi-auto handguns have to be turned over to the government? 

In your proposal would the simple possession of a semi-auto firearm be illegal, regardless of when it was purchased and under what circumstances?

...additionally another factor, what about the hundreds or even thousands of acts of violence that our children are subjected to on a daily basis in the media, TV, Movies, vidoe games.

Are these a factor?  are we talking about restricting the portrayal of these acts of violence.  That is having the government say what can and cannot be depicted in the media? 

Is somehow, one Amendment to the constitution more sacrosanct than another?  While people are calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment bacause of this tragedy, why aren't we calling for serious curtailments of the 1st Amendment to deal with the depiction of acts of violence, or the 4th Amendment, searches and seizures to allow for more rapid police responce to search anyone the feel may be a danger, or how about curtailing Due Process Rights and requiring the institutionalization of anyone we feel may be mentall ill without due process just to protect us "just in case they go-off", or how about curtailing our privacy rights, requiring family members and doctors to report to the government anyone that they know, or have reason to believe my be dangerous?

You see this issue is HUGE!  It's not just about guns.  The prior assault weapons didn't stop mass shootings, that's a fact.  Thus knee jerk, reactionary legislation will be ineffective.

The reality is, that as horrific as this event was, we need to step back, let time pass, so that we, as a nation can explore this issue in a rational manner.  If we are serious about getting to the bottom of the issue then we owe it to those in whose memories we envoke to do it right.  To do it thoughtfully.  To do it effectively.

That takes rationality, not emotionality.

Irrational proposals with (less than) 0% chance of happening are pointless.  This does not help the situation.

Because we all know that when the government made pot illegal that all the pot was handed over.

if I have a concern for their safety I am OBLIGATED to detain them - so yes.

Yeah the quote got all messed up, thanks for the clarification.

I agree that both extremes are unacceptable.  And honestly I'm willing to concede on my side as well.  I see no reason for the need to have 20-30 round magazines. 

I read "that's a start" as "this is the first step, the second is to get rid of ALL guns".  And that's just never going to happen.  Holding this position is futile (as is the "we should arm EVERYONE argument")

What's hunting got to do with it? The right to hunt is mentioned nowhere.

And that is good for you... but the Constitution does not define what is and what isn't an acceptable "reason". Semi-autos are acceptable small arms of our time which is exactly what the framers intended the citizenry to be armed with. Semi-autos have been around for a 100 years. This is nothing new. Entire wars have been fought with muskets, bolt actions and revolvers.

So a revolver and speed loaders would be OK?

This is an enormously complex problem. Guns and gun ownership are part of our national culture, for better and for worse. Part of the problem is the guns - i.e. do people really believe there is a 'right' to 30 round magazines? What for?? But banning new guns isn't a realistic solution. It's multidimensional: education, safety, personal responsibility, cultural, legal, health, etc. Either address all of those or keep pretending warm and fuzzy new laws will really change anything.

Now you have to have a battery to let you work the gun.  Nobody would buy that.

That'd be like a car that never went over the speed limit.

Actually my comment on revolvers and speed loaders was a counter to your argument of banning all semi-automatic weapons. Someone experienced with a speed loader could reload just as quickly as changing a magazine.

But I had already suggested that the best solution is to start chipping away at the problem right now. e.g. if guns were kept locked up when not carried or someone wasn't home, 10-15% less guns would be stolen and end up on the street. Fewer kids would accidentally be shot.

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.

You lie.

Sorry, continue with your point...

The argument that the founders didn't envision semi-automatic weapons is a red hering, unless you are willing to expand that Constitutional exception to all Amendments.  Are You?  Did the founders envision the inernet?  Did the founders envision widely accessable pornography?  The answer is clearly "no."  So does that mean that the 1st Amendment freedom of speech should be curtailed in those realms?

Additionally, you object to a developlmentally disabled man could aquire two of these guns.  Well, again, I don't want the facts to get in the way of the argument, but he didn't legally aquire these guns.  They weren't his, they were his mothers.  By definition they were stolen guns.

Additionally, doesn't your argument go more towards looking at how we treat mental illness than gun restrictions?

I agree completely and I'll also add that we have to look at the issues that are leading to the social isolation of the people committing these crimes.  Many, if not most of these shootings are done by kids or young adults who are social outcasts for one reason or another.

We've always had bullies, and social outcasts, but now those same kids become more and more isolated in virtual worlds where they kill thousands of virtual people every night.  Then when something snaps and they become suicidal there's an instant way to media glorified infamy.

Actually you can.  The regulator keeps it at 253.  They've gotten it to 268.  And it does comply.  It's fully street legal in the US and they've sold a number of them here.

Regardless the point stands.

So your solution to the problem is to ban all semi auto weapons.  Give a turn in date and any of these guns possessed after that date would be illegal?

So who would comply with this law?  Those that would comply would only be those that currently legally possess/purchased their firearms.  Those taht posses illegal firearms certainly wouldn't turn them in, because they have demonstrated that they will not comply with gun laws by their prior illegal possession of firearms.

So, this law will only effect a percentage of legally possessed firearms owners.  There will also be a percentage of legal firearms owners that would not comply with the law.  The result would be that you had now made previously law abiding citizens, who were exercising a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT felons.  I emphasize the Right portion because this isn't like violating a legeslativly created law. 

Remember, the guns obtained in this incident were not legally obtained by the shooter.

There is a cultural component to this situation that we have to look at if we are being serious.  There are countries that actually have higher per capita gun ownership rates but have lower gun violence rates.  I believe this demonstrates that guns and guns alone are not the problem.

How about baning acts of violence in video games, TV and movies?  Or is this too much of an infringment upon Constitutional rights?  If it is, why is that right saccrosanct and not the 2nd Amndment right.