Real issue behind school shootings and gun control

Again, I think this entire debate turns into a hot mess when both sides want no compromise to get anything done. I'd also rather be an idealist who wants children to go to school without fear of being slaughtered than sit around and say that it's unavoidable.

 

^
I second that.

 

Don't think that's been said by anyone at all, at least not in this thread.

 

I saw this.

Again, I would totally love to compromise with republicans to get bipartisan common sense gun laws in the works. One side is willing to so far, the other refuses to budge.

 

Honestly, it's clear that the system that we have now is not working. I think that's the "inconvenient truth" that many conservatives (and even some liberal) people are overlooking. In the past few weeks, there have been more than a few school shootings. In just this week alone, there were two shootings on a college campus.

The true "idealists" are the ones that want things to continue on exactly the way that they are now, and hope that things improve themselves.

I think that it's common sense that change does not happen overnight, but if there is some change, that means that change can slowly start happening. With recent news, that would be a small success.

 

Yup, and that doesn't at all say that I am not in favor of some sensible gun laws.

I'm simply saying that people should have realistic expectations of how much gun violence can be reduced if new laws were passed with the massive amount already in the hands of people. Gun restrictions that reduce or eliminate new gun purchases will do nothing to get rid of guns that have already been purchased. That's just reality.

With how dysfunctional Congress is, nothing is going to get passed. The NRA is a big problem, too.

 

As impartially as I can say so, that's probably not true. Neither side is compromising. The Dems say they are willing only because they are introducing "less more restrictive" laws. Instead of registration, they want "universal background checks" which is another name for the same thing. The right has acknowledged that they don't want to move on gun laws.

Personally, I just want what was mentioned already in terms of social change-- a fix at the root of the issue rather than availability of weapons. If somebody wants to kill, they will find a way. But we root out the desire to kill, and we don't need to infringe on anybody's freedom.

 

There are multiple things wrong with this line of argument. Let's start with the "but the founding fathers!" argument - They also gave white people the "right" to African slaves and the upper class the ability to dominate government. They need to be questioned, and they need to be treated as flawed, corrupt people who set up laws to benefit them, not as the creators of perfect laws. They are not a defence for their own laws. You cannot defend the law with legal arguments, the status-quo with the status-quo.

Animal culls happen in countries with gun controls. In Australia, the government culls kangaroos and employs people to kill foxes and so on. Private gun ownership doesn't need to be involved. I do not see that as a convincing reason to allow shootings to go on.

As for "what has happened to human dignity and liberties?" - The same lobbies and parties who oppose gun regulation are the ones who support draconian government, massive business tax breaks, and a corrupt and essentially useless legal system and law enforcement. They are inseparable and I find it hard to believe that gun ownership is a freedom that offsets the rest of the system; I do not see in any way how guns are an expression of freedom in the first place. The "right" possess tools with the only purpose of killing and the "right" to kill are directly contradictory to the right to life and safety.

 

In regards to animal culls. When you're outside the city limits and there's an animal attacking your livestock, unless you have a firearm of some sort, you're up a shit creek. Dog doing it? Animal control doesn't work outside city limits.

Wildlife? Wildlife service pretty much says to shoot pest animals unless it's something protected. In which case, that's the only time they're going to get involved.

 

Not really. It's extremely easy to pull the trigger quite rapidly.

---------- Post added 23rd Jan 2014 at 06:25 AM ----------

Let's start off with "the right to defend yourself and your home." Guns aren't the only thing that can protect yourself. You could invest in a stun gun. They're just as efficient as a gun, except they only incapacitate the intruder. Also, what about an alarm system? They automatically call the police when your house it broken into.

Also, if you don't want guns to be in the hands of a mentally ill person, they that's what a gun restriction is for. Honestly, if you have a clean record, then why hate all the restrictions?

 

One could argue that the right to have said tools is directly tied to the right to life and safety, especially if as you claim, law enforcement is essentially useless. It's interesting that in countries with strict gun control there seems to be much higher rates of contact crime.

 

I fully agree.

 

Ignoring for the moment the impracticality of having a whole cadre of psychologists to perform "relevant examinations", whatever that might mean in practical terms, there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and little to stop a "deranged" person from breaking through a glass patio door and stealing a gun from a "certified-safe gun owner". The original Sandy Hill shooter stole the guns he used from his mother, then killed her, then went to shoot up the school. Most states DO already have background checks, age limits, and strict laws for concealed carrying of weapons; felony convictions or mental problem histories usually prevent obtaining a concealed carry permit. Open carry laws vary from one state to the next, within the limitations of the US Constitution.

What it boils down to is that hundreds of millions of people who have guns do NOT go shoot up schools with them, or rob banks, or anything else illegal with them. Shooting up schools is already illegal in all 50 states, as is robbing banks, and people. Making something "illegal-er" is not going to stop someone who is intent on killing, and it is not going to stop them from getting whatever tools they need to do it. It would nice if it were that simple and there were no unintended side effects or consequences of trying to keep weapons away from the few and the crazy, but it likely can never be done. The only thing that can stop a determined Bad Guy with a gun, is a Good Guy with a gun; we call them "armed guards". Like it or not.

---------- Post added 23rd Jan 2014 at 11:32 AM ----------

The history of the police "protecting" gays rather than assaulting them goes all the way back to the "Stonewall Inn" incident; it isn't pretty. It isn't going to get any prettier with the cops dressing up like soldiers going into combat, and the "us vs them" mentality which goes with that kind of paramilitary training.

 

One common theme that seems to go along with these mass shootings is that they occur in gun free zones. My concealed weapons instructor used the phrase "target rich environment" when talking about these so called safe zones.

 

If you're a member of the criminal classes then the phrase "gun free zone" just means "easy pickings". All they do is prevent idiots who would have taken a gun to school from firing it to solve an argument and give the NRA another reason to use when peddling their "we need more guns" shtick after a shooting.

If you want to actually do something about school shootings then you need to tighten up gun ownership laws.

 

How exactly will more laws help? Criminals don't obey the law to begin with.