I don't know your posting style well so I'm uncertain how much of the above text is an emotional result of the recent tragedy instead of who you really are. Today, you have made numerous bullheaded and short posts which ignore quality responses like this one. They give the overall impression of someone who is immature and insincere for discussion of this topic. That is a shame sadly since a firearms enthusiast like you could provide quality input into what is a contentious issue. I'd like to finally read something longer than two sentences, backed by reasonable arguments. Gun control does not mean taking away your right of self defense or protecting your family from a home invasion. For someone aware of the NRA's influence on Congress, you are surprisingly ignorant and/or naive of how legislation is created, particularly how often tragedies have been used. Since much legislation is a response to an event, who determines what is the appropriate time to discuss the problem? It could be argued that events like yesterday makes it requisite for lawmakers to pass something quickly to protect from copycats and what not. Like geeimsobored remarked, it seems pro-gun Americans only think in extremes. Some measures to curb the status quo like psychological evaluation, improved background checks, and a limited waiting period should not be such a bad thing. Most gun owners purchase and use their weapons legally and responsibly; what I proposed should not affect them at all. Lastly, if more Americans were registered to vote, if they showed up to the polls on election day, then the NRA would not be the obstacle it is today. This country would be very different if most of its citizens did their civic duty.
It's too soon to be using this tragedy to push personal politics.... besides why guns? Every time a drunk driver kills someone we don't go and ban alcohol or ban cars.
Tell that to the Brits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom With every new restriction, there were assurances it would be the last, but it never was. Same in other Western Nations. One gun ban always leads to another. But if I thought banning AR would be the end of it, I might go along with it, but it won't end there. Pols like Bloomberg won't rest until no one can own a firearm anywhere unless they jump through so many hoops that it will look abnormal for anyone to bother doing so. So while I have zero interest in semi auto rifles, I know that after they are banned, next will come semi auto pistols, and then all pistols, just like in other nations where this issue has played out.
You don't need an assault rifle...ever. I know you can kill just as well with any other gun but lets start with taking those out of the Dicks/Academy stores. If you want to hunt, fine there are guns for that. If you want to protect yourself, fine there are guns for that. An assualt rifle does neither. It's an offensive, mass killing weapon.
Politicizing a tragedy (I.e. blame game) is different from critically thinking about things like mental health and weapons access. It is time we started taking mental health more seriously in this country. It should be as normalized as routine physical checkups and in no way taboo or shameful. Adding to that, such factors should weigh heavily in background checks for weapons purchases. Assault weapons and explosive ordinances have no place in civil society. If you want access to such things, join a standing, organized militia in conjunction with either local, state, or federal government. Its time to bring both of these issues into the 21st century in America.
Your example backfired on you because since the uk banned guns gun crime is very rare and gun rated deaths also rare. This is a country where gun control has seemingly worked. Why aren't we trying to follow their lead?!?
Because guns are too important to too many American's. When I was talking to my coworkers the first thing they were saying is how is Obama going to use this to "get my guns." The gun culture is too strong in America. There are nearly as many guns as people and if you tried to take it from them the only way you are going to do it for some is through "my cold dead hands." And there are a lot of folks who think like that. These are Directors and VPs of companies who feel like this. Statistically gun death are way down there when compared to other causes of death. It just isn't worth the effort politically.
psychoanalysis control.. New rule: every born citizen of America will get deep evaluation from the time till Adulthood....
I know a little about guns, and own three of them, and intend on getting more soon. I don't want to regulate them. I do want guns to be regulated, and would like that to be done by the United States, not me. I think some of the regulations on guns currently aren't helpful, and aren't effective. I also know that in the Giffords case more people were shot because of the extended clip the shooter used than would have died if they'd been regulated. I know in the CO. movie shooting, one of the guns the shooter had was an assault rifle. Neither of those are necessities to have for hunting or self defense. It's fine for you to disagree.
But innocents are still brutalized in England, and I place high value on the right to defend myself, which is something much easier to do with a pistol than bare hands. And public safety should not trump constitutional rights. Remember that the loathsome Patriot Act was sold to the American people as a way to make society safer.
Unfortunately we probably need to start scaling back regulation towards guns, liquor and gambling just from an economic standpoint. I don't know how much more honest money we can make out of banking, real estate or manufacturing.
This kid who did the shooting was smart enough to where no one could peg him. I bet there are plenty like him who would fall through the cracks.
the constitutional right, according to pro-gunners, allows one to be safe. but then you say public safety should not trump constitutional rights. So which one do you want? Do you want being less safe with guns. Or being more safe without guns? You can't be a hypocrite when you say guns make you safer when it is the opposite.
Not effective laws. Pretty much any fool can by a gun fairly easily. And why do you need an assault rifle? You planning on attacking a subdivision or something?
