America - Gun Control

[Abraham]

He shot himself after he was shot at the Church by the legal gun owner, and then chased away by the same guy.

Gun laws have nothing to do with this. The shooter was already prohibited from owning guns by law, so what does that say about gun laws?

A: That only law abiding people follow them.

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

He shot himself after he was shot at the Church by the legal gun owner, and then chased away by the same guy.

Gun laws have nothing to do with this. The shooter was already prohibited from owning guns by law, so what does that say about gun laws?

A: That only law abiding people follow them.

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

 

[TCL]

No sudden change or ban is going to be accepted but at least make a start.

First create a register, ask people to register their weapons either online or through their shooting clubs or how ever. Any rifle sold from a certain date must be registered. Any weapon found that is not on the registry will be confiscated and the person in possession fined (the monetary fine is for a period - say two years or what ever, after that make it a criminal offence to be in possession of an unrigistered or automatic weapon, the severity of punishment to be determined) Offer a surrender armistice or buy back for certain types of weapons for a period of time.

Make it a patriotic thing to do to register your weapon, so those crazies can't take away their right to own a weapon.

We here on the forum are not decision makers nor are we seasoned campaigners so you may not get a solution to the problem from the forum posters. But I certainly have read some logical and reasonable posts on how to go about making change.

But good on you for your efforts in your pro stance. But digging your heals and finding reasons why suggestions won't work is only speculation on your part. It's amazing what happens over time. Look at the bible for example over the years it has taken many forms and versions and now no one really knows the truth but still people believe, the tide is turning now and people are walking away from religion. There is a crisis in faith. People are questioning religion and those that preach it who don't displays the morals that they preach.

A small ripple can turn into a tsunami of change. Why knock every suggestion, is it fear of change or is it fear that it may work.

Oh and I believe in God and believe that all firearms should be illigal and only held by police and armed forces.

You're free to possess whatever opinions you like, and scream them from as many rooftops as you like.

I don't think i am digging my heals in about anything to be honest. I am just pointing out that you can bring in all the legislation that you like, but unless it tackles the specific problem we are discussing, it is a waste of time and resources that will not stop an evil person committing an evil act.

We never heard about these types of mass killings on a regular basis in the past, why? It is a prevalence of mental illness, over-prescription of mind altering drugs, a loss of morality and respect for human life? There has to be some common factor that is leading up to this.

Most people's hearts are in the right place, but pretending that legislation will remove 300m guns from the community, and expecting criminals to suddenly obey the law, is naivety.

And i don't want to come across like i am knocking anybody, because i don't have a solution either.

Not yelling from rooftops, just posting in a forum.

You are right you cant stop an evil person from committing an evil act. But you can at least try to limit the damage he or she is going to inflict. There needs to be a step towards control in the US, you cant ban them its in their constitution but you can control, limit and monitor. It may take time, but some changes is needed.

There were mass killings before and if things don't change there still will be, its just that the world had different problems in the past. War, famine, poverty - people were trying to survive. We live in what would comparatively be deemed as good times. We have food, we have shelter and in the western world our biggest problem is what are we going to have dinner, not are we going to have dinner.

Maybe your not digging your heals in but you have knocked most suggestion put forward and state it won't work. I don't think you can remove 300m firearms but some of the suggestions made would be a good start on reducing and monitoring.

I think you make a very good point with respect to mental health and the over prescription of drugs. But what makes one mentally ill person different to another. IMO one must be mentally ill or weak to believe that terrorism in the name of god is OK, just like sitting in a hotel room and firing down on innocents or walking into a church and shooting at the congregation. These are all people with issues. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon himself was quick to dismiss the latest shooting as mental health issue but wanted to bring back the death penalty for the terrorist.

IMO reducing mass killings of this type goes hand in hand with limiting, controlling and monitoring weapons in the public domain. As the thread title suggest its about control not banning.

 

[Munk]

He shot himself after he was shot at the Church by the legal gun owner, and then chased away by the same guy.

Gun laws have nothing to do with this. The shooter was already prohibited from owning guns by law, so what does that say about gun laws?

A: That only law abiding people follow them.

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

If anyone wanted to over here they easily could. Why has no one? thats the million dollar question and it has everything to do with culture.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

If anyone wanted to over here they easily could. Why has no one? thats the million dollar question and it has everything to do with culture.

If you were willing to do so you'd still need some coin to get your hands on an AR15 or similar here illegally.

 

[Munk]

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

If anyone wanted to over here they easily could. Why has no one? thats the million dollar question and it has everything to do with culture.

Willing to be you'd need some coin to get your hands on an AR15 or similar here illegally.

If you were planning a massacre ending in suicide by cop or the like you wouldnt care what it costs.

 

[magpiecol]

No sudden change or ban is going to be accepted but at least make a start.

First create a register, ask people to register their weapons either online or through their shooting clubs or how ever. Any rifle sold from a certain date must be registered. Any weapon found that is not on the registry will be confiscated and the person in possession fined (the monetary fine is for a period - say two years or what ever, after that make it a criminal offence to be in possession of an unrigistered or automatic weapon, the severity of punishment to be determined) Offer a surrender armistice or buy back for certain types of weapons for a period of time.

Make it a patriotic thing to do to register your weapon, so those crazies can't take away their right to own a weapon.

We here on the forum are not decision makers nor are we seasoned campaigners so you may not get a solution to the problem from the forum posters. But I certainly have read some logical and reasonable posts on how to go about making change.

But good on you for your efforts in your pro stance. But digging your heals and finding reasons why suggestions won't work is only speculation on your part. It's amazing what happens over time. Look at the bible for example over the years it has taken many forms and versions and now no one really knows the truth but still people believe, the tide is turning now and people are walking away from religion. There is a crisis in faith. People are questioning religion and those that preach it who don't displays the morals that they preach.

A small ripple can turn into a tsunami of change. Why knock every suggestion, is it fear of change or is it fear that it may work.

Oh and I believe in God and believe that all firearms should be illigal and only held by police and armed forces.

You're free to possess whatever opinions you like, and scream them from as many rooftops as you like.

I don't think i am digging my heals in about anything to be honest. I am just pointing out that you can bring in all the legislation that you like, but unless it tackles the specific problem we are discussing, it is a waste of time and resources that will not stop an evil person committing an evil act.

We never heard about these types of mass killings on a regular basis in the past, why? It is a prevalence of mental illness, over-prescription of mind altering drugs, a loss of morality and respect for human life? There has to be some common factor that is leading up to this.

Most people's hearts are in the right place, but pretending that legislation will remove 300m guns from the community, and expecting criminals to suddenly obey the law, is naivety.

And i don't want to come across like i am knocking anybody, because i don't have a solution either.

Not yelling from rooftops, just posting in a forum.

You are right you cant stop an evil person from committing an evil act. But you can at least try to limit the damage he or she is going to inflict. There needs to be a step towards control in the US, you cant ban them its in their constitution but you can control, limit and monitor. It may take time, but some changes is needed.

There were mass killings before and if things don't change there still will be, its just that the world had different problems in the past. War, famine, poverty - people were trying to survive. We live in what would comparatively be deemed as good times. We have food, we have shelter and in the western world our biggest problem is what are we going to have dinner, not are we going to have dinner.

Maybe your not digging your heals in but you have knocked most suggestion put forward and state it won't work. I don't think you can remove 300m firearms but some of the suggestions made would be a good start on reducing and monitoring.

I think you make a very good point with respect to mental health and the over prescription of drugs. But what makes one mentally ill person different to another. IMO one must be mentally ill or weak to believe that terrorism in the name of god is OK, just like sitting in a hotel room and firing down on innocents or walking into a church and shooting at the congregation. These are all people with issues. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon himself was quick to dismiss the latest shooting as mental health issue but wanted to bring back the death penalty for the terrorist.

IMO reducing mass killings of this type goes hand in hand with limiting, controlling and monitoring weapons in the public domain. As the thread title suggest its about control not banning.

President Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon mentioned the shooters mental health issues because he was being treated for mental illness!!!

He had two failed marriages. Domestic violence against both wives. Smashed his step-sons head in. Was dismissed from the Air-force because of his violence. Was taking very, very strong drugs etc.etc. Mr. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon would probably have called for the death penalty for this loser, but he is already dead!!!!.

Apparently he legally obtained weapons because the Air-force failed to notify the relevant Government data bases ( FBI) about the reason for his dishonourable discharge from the service. Government/ Human error.

If this information was forthcoming, he would not have been able to legally purchase firearms. Buying illegal firearms is a different matter.

PS. I think the death penalty has always been available in America. In some states no. However, federally, it is available. The ISIS loser will find out soon enough.

 

[magpiecol]

This is a disgustingly innacurate post that you should be ashamed to have written. If you possessed any morals you would recant it.

It's 100% factual. You need to look in the mirror and realise what you are happy to condone so long as you can have your guns. Your guns are much more important than human lives including innocent children.

That is your morality. It's not something to be proud of.

God, you people are so far up yourselves that it is not funny. You love the moral high ground. You are so much better and more caring than other people.

Load of garbage.

Back to the basement.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I think we can take the high moral ground. We can face the issue whereas the pro-death by guns supporters can't. Another dead kid - oh let's go and pray isn't showing any morals at all.

I'm waiting for someone like you to play the race card.

:crazy

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Good to see you are still supporting that sinking ship of a presidency Col.

 

[earl]

It's 100% factual. You need to look in the mirror and realise what you are happy to condone so long as you can have your guns. Your guns are much more important than human lives including innocent children.

That is your morality. It's not something to be proud of.

God, you people are so far up yourselves that it is not funny. You love the moral high ground. You are so much better and more caring than other people.

Load of garbage.

Back to the basement.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I think we can take the high moral ground. We can face the issue whereas the pro-death by guns supporters can't. Another dead kid - oh let's go and pray isn't showing any morals at all.

I'm waiting for someone like you to play the race card.

:crazy

It's got nothing to do with race and that isn't my go. It's just clear that you and others care more about your guns than young kids getting killed.

It's hard to face that but that is honestly how you feel. It is crazy but you can't tell some people.

 

[innsaneink]

You acknowledge that it probably wont work for decades… and its debatable whether it would work at all considering the number of legal guns in circulation and the ublimitef supply of illegal guns being imported into the country daily.

So thinking realisticaly, i am sure you understand why no politician would seriously consider trampling on the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners for a plan that may work in 50 years time, but may not.

Good on you for caring about this and trying to come up with a solution to a terrible problem, but the magnitude is not something that can be fixed by legislation.

Your ban might be one piece of the puzzle, its possible. But something more than just banning guns is needed. I dont have an answer, seems like noone does at this point. And i dont think its a cop put to admit as much.

Saying that a problem is too hard so we won't try is kind of the definition of a cop out…

Measures could be taken that would be likely to improve the situation but strong action would be political suicide given the current attitudes of the voter base. So if someone wanted to make change they would need to change the attitude of the voter base and sadly that would involve (amongst other things) seizing upon these mass shooting tragedies to make a political point - your guns are not making this society a safer one.

You then need to start by making small changes. Making strong moves too early would lead to alienation of the voter base and political death. Make small legislative changes that _should_ be accepted by a majority of voters. There will be resistance to those changes from the most strident of gun activists. Seize upon that resistance to create a schism. Make more moderate voters see the strident supporters as dangerous and unreasonable.

Once those steps have been taken leave it alone for a while, because the strident activists will be running a hard ticket: "this is just the first step - they're trying to take all our guns away!" Leaving it alone for a while will erode their credit and lead to their views being marginalised. Wait until a situation arises that generates more will for change (i.e. another tragedy). If the polls are there then make more changes - not drastic ones that will alienate moderates, but changes that can clearly be linked to and justified by whatever tragedy generated the impetus.

Continue that for a while and the mentality will slowly change from ever expanding gun rights to an attitude where gun rights are accepted as needing to exist in harmony with public safety.

That is at least a very general plan for changing attitudes. Might work, might not but I'd rather see them try than throw their hands up in despair. As for access and supply, nobody is going to care if there is an extreme crackdown on the illegal import of firearms. Not even strident gun activists are going to stand up for people engaged in illegal importation. I imagine most such imports come from the south, so dedicate more funds to policing the borders (there is always political will for that in the south) and introduce massive penalties.

Then you have to address all the guns already available. Start with a buy back of certain types of firearms. Stay away from amnesties early in the piece. Amnesties only come about when something is going to be made illegal and if they go making significant categories of firearms illegal too soon then political death will follow.

After a time they could introduce an excise on sales to help pay for the buy backs. The message would be that rights are not being taken away, just that there are costs that go with rights that jeopardise public health. Make a start, put some basic mechanisms in place that can be expanded upon when the opportunities arise. Change the momentum and inflict a few defeats on the NRA. Defeating them will erode their political power, which is predominantly based on perception.

The problems with mass gun ownership extend beyond these mass shootings, they just happen to be the events that generate the most political will towards change because they involve so many innocent victims. Strung out junkie offenders over there are more likely to assume that home owners will be armed with guns and so are more likely to arm themselves with guns (which are cheap and readily accessible). Guns are not cheap nor readily accessible here and strung out junkies rarely have the wherewithal to access them, plus they have less need to "defend" themselves against home owners. Less dead home owners and less strung out junkies is the result which is good on both counts, particularly because the junkies are often kids that have made a few bad choices. Then there's the kids who, instead of just having a punch up, go shooting each other up. The stupid kids thrill killing with guns. The DV offenders. There are many categories of people who are made more dangerous by access to guns and their likely victims are rarely any safer by virtue of their "right" to arm themselves...

I just don't think any society where the prevailing mentality of the citizens is that they are prepared to arm themselves in order to kill their fellow citizens should they feel the need arise is ever going to be a particularly safe one and I hope a majority of Americans will one day come to that same view ... they probably won't, but I can live in hope.

Good post Nelson.
No surprise its been completely ignored.

:deadhorse:

 

[Munk]

Actually, i wrote a long reply to Nelsons post both agreeing with it and adding some more information. It was deleted for some reason.

 

[Abraham]

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

Funny? I'd say fortunate.

 

[Harvey]

He shot himself after he was shot at the Church by the legal gun owner, and then chased away by the same guy.

Gun laws have nothing to do with this. The shooter was already prohibited from owning guns by law, so what does that say about gun laws?

A: That only law abiding people follow them.

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

He was banned from owning a gun, but what about his wife and others that he lived in. He might have not been able to legally own a gun, but he had access to one

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Actually, i wrote a long reply to Nelsons post both agreeing with it and adding some more information. It was deleted for some reason.

It wasn't deleted. Any posts that are moderated appear to the mod team still. There have been no deleted posts by either users or the mod team since Nelson's post.

Maybe you didn't post it properly? I've done that a handful of times myself. My favourite trick is to hit the Preview button instead of submit and then skip onto another topic.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

He shot himself after he was shot at the Church by the legal gun owner, and then chased away by the same guy.

Gun laws have nothing to do with this. The shooter was already prohibited from owning guns by law, so what does that say about gun laws?

A: That only law abiding people follow them.

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

He was banned from owning a gun, but what about his wife and others that he lived in. He might have not been able to legally own a gun, but he had access to one

He did purchase the weapon, there was a SNAFU with the Air Force and his bad conduct discharge and the grounds for it (domestic violence,) being relayed to the FBI to go on their criminal background system. He snuck through the system and was still able to purchase the weapons "legally" despite having convictions that should have disqualified him.

If the due diligence was done by the USAF, a gun control law would have prevented him from purchasing the rifles he used to murder people. I do concede however it wouldn't have been hard for him to circumvent the law and source an illegal firearm or thieve a gun from a family member etc and still commit the murders.

 

[Tigerdon]

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

Funny? I'd say fortunate.

Really ????
\
\
\
\
I think we all know GNR is using the word "funny" as Ironic..not the '"haHa" meaning.

 

[Abraham]

Funny how no one in our country who was banned from having a gun has managed to kill 30 people.

Funny? I'd say fortunate.

Really ????
\
\
\
\
I think we all know GNR is using the word "funny" as Ironic..not the '"haHa" meaning.

I know the context he used the word.

Its not ironic this hasn't happened in Australia.

We have just been lucky so far, that's all. There is literally nothing to stop this happening tomorrow anywhere in this country.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

I know the context he used the word.

Its not ironic this hasn't happened in Australia.

We have just been lucky so far, that's all. There is literally nothing to stop this happening tomorrow anywhere in this country.

Kudos for standing for libertarians on this forum :wahoo:
The Austrian school (Menger, Mises, Hayek etc.), present libertarian economics the best (IMHO :smiley: ), see von Mises's brilliant destruction of planned/centrelised economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoFi0Q1zmb8

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Then why is the answer more guns. Didn't do anybody in that Church much good.

Nobody in the Church was armed. Only the bad guy. The one who was banned by law from owning guns, but didn't pay attention to gun control laws and shot people anyway.

He was banned from owning a gun, but what about his wife and others that he lived in. He might have not been able to legally own a gun, but he had access to one

He did purchase the weapon, there was a SNAFU with the Air Force and his bad conduct discharge and the grounds for it (domestic violence,) being relayed to the FBI to go on their criminal background system. He snuck through the system and was still able to purchase the weapons "legally" despite having convictions that should have disqualified him.

If the due diligence was done by the USAF, a gun control law would have prevented him from purchasing the rifles he used to murder people. I do concede however it wouldn't have been hard for him to circumvent the law and source an illegal firearm or thieve a gun from a family member etc and still commit the murders.

One of the problems the 'stop the guns' crowd has is statistics. Countries like Israel, Switzerland, Czech Republic, have similar policies on buying weapons (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic)
However, number of homicides, and shooting incidents in the above countries, is below countries like Australia where we have stringent gun control.
While it is true that USA has one of the highest number of gun homicides, this is in 90%+ due to their biggest cities, where the Dems are in power and where they already have very stringent gun control.
Please explain?