The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

O god not one of you people....
Please tell me what personal benefit a political figure has in promoting gun control? People push "agendas" when its suits them personally. Like promoting big oil companies etc. A political figure advocating gun control has no personal gain... Their reasons are for the benefit of the society as a whole. I'm not sure I can say the same for some gun rights activists.

 

What also irks me is now it seems like after every mass shooting conservatives and gun rights activists go on some sort of preemptive strike blabbering stupid comments such as "O no not another mass shooting. Watch the liberal media push their agenda for gun control now." I've seen these sort of comments the day of the Conn mass shooting on Fox news, Facebook etc. Please tell me which person seems more credible and is not pushing an "agenda".

Person A "Another mass shooting? We need to do something about this. Maybe a ban on assault rifles can do some help."

Person B "Another mass shooting? Damn now those liberals are going to harp about more gun control."

Look, you can believe that more gun control will not do anything to help solve these mass shooting incidents. But saying that gun control activists push their agenda at inappropriate times is flat out wrong. When a tragedy like this happens it is perfectly reasonable to try to find a way to help prevent these tragedies from happening again. People advocating gun control are not pushing some liberal agenda. They just want don't want these mass shootings anymore. You can believe their idea is wrong but their heart is in the right place. Questioning their motives is silly. Their is no personal benefit to more gun control. Gun rights activists are looking worse and worse after each one of these incidents occur. It seems to me all they care about is holding on to their toys.

 

Why wasn't this guy in a mental institute to begin with??? Help me understand, How does someone get tested to be in a place like that???

 

This is where the concern should be in the first place. Good job at asking the right questions first. We need more people like you

 

No history of violence, no parental concern, no "obvious" signs.

I am a huge advocate of committing more resources to mental health issues.

With that said, picking out an individual like Adam Lanza is nigh impossible without resorting to forced mental health tests, and forced detainment for people characterized as mentally ill.

In either case, you can attack the problem both ways; making sure people don't have these thoughts in the first place, and making sure people who have these thoughts than find it hard to act on them. Support for mental health complements restricting weapons from the mentally ill.

 

You keep on bringing up banning alcohol and tobacco as some sort misdirection. Look we are well aware of the dangers of alcohol and tobacco which is why we highly regulate those. Most of us are not talking about banning guns completely but about greater regulation. People like myself believe that high capacity magazines should be banned just like we accept that absinthe is banned. That doesn't mean all guns or all alcohol are banned.

You keep on bringing up a red herring that we are talking about banning and then going off about banning alcohol and tobacco and stick with the status quo on guns. The status quo is what is wrong and why people like James Holmes, Cho, Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza can get hold of guns with high capacity and rapid fire capability.

Yes we have checks but consider again that Holmes, Cho and Loughner all legally bought the guns they used. How good are those checks if people with known mental issues are getting hold of these weapons?

Next consider that Adam Lanza's mother grew up shooting and gave all indications of being a responsible gun owner yet her mentally ill son got hold of those guns, shot her and then proceeded to massacre those kids. Seriously you are better than this and should know that there is something very wrong with the status quo when guns with extended magazines and rapid fire can be obtained even by the mentally ill. Further as a responsible gun owner it is people like you who should be leading the charge on sensible regulation on guns. Rather than stonewalling change, throwing up red herrings, blathering on about the 2nd Amendment you should be looking to improve the situation before people really start talking about bans.

 

Yes that is exactly my point. The 2nd Amendment allows for restrictions. Gun ownership and use is not an absolute right.

 

Most of us here are not saying all guns should be banned but that there should be greater regulation on the type of guns, type of magazines and also who can buy them.

To head off Roxran et al's red herring again we should regulate them just like we regulate alcohol, tobacco cars and a variety of things.

 

Get rid of Assault Rifles.

 

Start with public schooling... As soon as a child step foot in school get them tested early and all through their years to high school and beyond... Again most of their lives are spent in school anyways, monitor their behavior/conduct/attitude/how the react towards other, question them about life at home/personal matters and so forth... I don't see why something like this wasn't implemented in schools to begin with?
Take it step by step, and we will see some progress soon...

 

I'm all in favor of that.

 

If guns are "regulated" as loosely as alcohol and tobacco is, you'd have much, much less control of guns than you do now...
But if you appreciate ATF forms, background checks, and regulation of use then you would accept that significant gun control is already in effect.
Stop gun abuse not gun use. VanityHalfBlack may not share my views on gun rights but I appreciate he is recognizing the logical thinking with examining how to stop gun abuse rather than gun use as a starting point. I don't agree with infringing gun rights, but that is the better way to approach the issue. . .

 

http://gawker.com/5968680/executive...-teachers-would-have-stopped-newtown-shooting

More Clint Eastwood wetdreams from the gun lobby.

These people are in-freaking-sane.

 

They will justify what ever to keep their toys. And what else is an assault rifle other than a toy for gun owners? It definitely isn't for self defense since that would be overkill... The only thing I can conclude is for personal enjoyment.... hence a toy to these people.

 

This is the nut of the problem regarding this incredible, obscene tragedy. If semi-automatic weapons were regulated tomorrow, it would take years, decades to get them all out of the hands of Americans. I have no doubt of that. A more pertinent issue is what you point out in your post. Why didn't this woman have her weapons safely locked up? Was she mad? How could she assume that someone wouldn't get access to them? As it turned out, it was her own son, and she paid the ultimate price. That doesn't help those children, it doesn't help those teachers, and it certainly doesn't help the grieving parents and relatives.

At the very least, there should be a law requiring that firearms of all types be kept under lock and key, with severe penalities for not doing so. Those that I know who have collections of firearms do exactly that, spending hundreds of dollars on safes to hold their collections when they aren't in use hunting, going to a shooting range, or simply cleaning them. I can't imagine that those who support firearm possession would object to a law requiring that they be kept safely locked up when not in use. Some well publicized prosecutions of a parent who's son is arrested for holding up a 7/11 with that parent's pistol would cause a light bulb to go off among those who don't bother keeping their firearms safe, in my opinion. It's at least one step we could take. Not a large step, admittedly, but a step in the right direction.

 

Really? Consider that there are still dry counties in Texas would you agree to municipalities outright banning of guns? Would you agree to banning of several types of guns like we do with alcohol such as absinthe and moonshine? Would you agree to municipalities suing gun manufacturers over their products? Would you agree to the extent of bans on possession of guns like we do with smoking? With most states having concealed and carry laws you can carry a gun much more places than you can have a cigarette. If you agree with those then we can talk about guns being as regulated as tobacco and alcohol.

Let me ask you a few other things. WOuld you agree to registration of all firearms like we do with cars? Would you agree to licensing and testing of anyone wanting to own and use a gun like we do with driving?

And why aren't those background checks preventing the mentally ill from legally buying those guns like Loughner, Cho and Holmes did? Why is there still a gun show loophole regarding background checks?

How are you going to stop abuse of guns without strengthening the current system that allows the mentally ill to get those guns?

Honestly do you have anything to add other than to ramble on about alcohol and tobacco while defending the status quo on regulation?

 

Obama in Newtown...

Yes.

 

Many teachers have no appeal for guns and should not be forced/pressured to use them- Dumb statement there I agree, but we should have it mandatory to have a min. Of two well armed resource officers on site no matter what at each school...that I would be in favor of.

 

By the way, all 31 pro-gun senators refuse to appear on Meet the Press today. Cowards.

 

ROXRAN, where is the money to do that? Hell, in Texas, schools are struggling to keep class sizes at a reasonable level. Perhaps the schools could afford to do what you suggest if the teachers are tasked with doing the job that janitors do, like they would have the time. I don't see that as a possible "solution" unless taxes were raised to pay for it. Good luck with that!