As always happens after one of these shootings, there's a lot of talk about making sure the mentally ill won't get guns, but who could really be prevented from getting guns? The shooter of the two TV journalists in Virginia couldn't have been prevented from getting his gun. He had left no official mental health trail and, as a matter of fact, the kind of people who do these shootings and massacres usually avoid mental health diagnosis like the plague. They're paranoid.

Who does seek treatment? Often it's someone suffering from depression, and while depressed people do figure into the statistics as perpetrators, are we going to tell people with such a common condition as depression that they can't buy a gun? Well, simply because you were treated for depression at some time in your life, it doesn't follow that you're depressed today. Likewise, you could be severely depressed today for the very first time in your life and wanting to buy a gun in order to do something about it.

American citizens have the right to buy guns and there's no guarantee that any legislation designed to restrict access to guns would even pass muster in the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to people with no prior criminal history.

My opposition to gun control legislation is that it's a waste of time and will not prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns.

What's really needed is a change to the 2nd Amendment, not to repeal it but to refine and clarify it.

However, even that won't prevent people who want guns from getting them. Even if it did, there are other ways for people to kill large numbers of other people. Poison, suicide vests, and bombs, for example.

Suicide vest ban, anyone? A lot of these mass killers are suicidal. Viewed that way, a vest is probably as good as a gun.

Views: 354

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Suicide vest ban, anyone?

If there isn't already a law against carrying concealed explosives, I'd be surprised.

Just as there are useless laws against carrying concealed guns. Useless because they can only be applied ex post facto in most cases.

What about the RFID tracking device that's built into every gun that's made? Better microwave all your guns to fry their chips before the gubmint comes for 'em. Safety tip: Take the bullets out first.

Or the gun-detecting satellites Obama is developing? Better wrap your guns in aluminum foil to prevent detection. Safety tip: Take 'em out of the foil to microwave 'em. See previous safety tip.

And what about the Constitution, Ralph?

Why is it so wrong to repeal the 2nd amendment?   We no longer need citizen militias.......We have the largest military in the world.....We have a Sheriffs Dept, local  Police Dept, State police, and National Guard and more, to protect the citizenry.......Many gun owners are not even trained properly in their use....Back ground checks are a  joke......Gun Shows sell guns without regard to state laws, and should be banned entirely....True, hunters and people who eat what they kill, could be exempted with a proper license.....Mandatory training and license renewal every few years  should be implemented........Can the average citizen live a normal life without ever owning a gun.....YES!!!!!...I will admit that the rural western states may have to be treated  differently, and that can be worked out...Doing nothing to improve our gun problem is totally unacceptable......IMO

A very intelligent person was explaining why he believes the 2nd amendment is crucial. It allows the civilian population to engage the government in a guerilla war. Also I believe many see the gun as a quick way many suicides by gun..

I would like to amend what I previously stated...The 2d amendment definitely needs to be repealed for the sole reason that Federal law is not suitable  for all 50 states.  Guns and rifles and automatic weapons should be the responsibility of the individual states........This way any rural state  can keep their guns and the more populous eastern states can decide to ban all guns.....Our 2nd amendment declares  all citizens  have the right to bear arms, which is way too broad....The United States  today is a far cry from the Thirteen original states.....Let the States  take control of this matter.....It is a win win...

.We have a Sheriffs Dept, local  Police Dept, State police, and National Guard and more, to protect the citizenry.......Many gun owners are not even trained properly in their use....Back ground checks are a  joke......Gun Shows sell guns without regard to state laws, and should be banned entirely..

There are a few things relevant here, which you might be unaware of.

1) The police have no actual duty to protect you as an individual.  This was established by SCOTUS in Warren v. District of Columbia.

2) Gun shows, or rather, people holding tables at gun shows, are required to follow state laws.  In my state, that means a background check.

3) Background checks are indeed a joke, and even if they weren't, it has been established that the overwhelming majority of criminals don't get their guns by legal means (with, or without, a background check as applicable), so IMHO they are pointless and do nothing but harass law abiding gun owners.  (University of Chicago Crime lab study is the most recent such finding)

4) If you ever do find the shit hitting the fan with a violent attacker, the police will not get there in time (if they even try).  There's an old adage that when seconds count the police are minutes away.  You should be able to have any and all suitable defensive weapons at your disposal.

5) Given that we are talking about criminals here, the only thing an outright gun ban (like you imagine some states should have) would be to deprive the law abiding of tools they could use to defend themselves against violent attack while leaving the criminal armed, since he didn't follow the law.  I see no reason why any sane person would consider this a desirable outcome.

I honestly don't see why any of this changes in any locale.  It's just as imperative that people be able to defend themselves in Manhattan as it is way off the road in some rural area.

Point taken Steve, However, people living in the East have a different mind set than those in the western states, regarding guns.....The gun culture is so different.....You in the west grow up with guns and respect them more as well as know how to use them properly....This is not the case in large cities  in the East.....If some criminal broke in to our homes and had guns, most of us would not be capable of protecting ourselves, even if we had a gun....Unfortunately, most gun injuries are self inflicted, and children are often the casualties...Domestic violence with guns is more common as well as suicides by severely depressed  individuals......Guns are too easily purchased by individuals who are not capable  of using them correctly........I still stand by my statement that guns have no place in urban areas.....

It goes back to that fantasy that an oppressed citizenry could take the government back, which is something most people don't think could even succeed against the by far #1 military in the world.

At the same time, speaking for myself, I don't want to live in a lowest-common-denominator world where my rights are determined by those who abuse them.

When we find a way to control guns that leaves more of them in the hands of law-abiding citizens than the bad buys and crazies. 

I understand your dream of a world without guns, but sit back and think about the failures of the War on Drugs and Prohibition. 


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service