And you quit drinking the Hannity-aid. What I posted stands. The people I know have never flown on air force 1. They've had no contact with obama. They've never appeared with him, etc, etc, etc. The NAA is a home-grown organization. I know some of them. They're good people, and a lot of them are pro-gun. Their lives were shattered, and they want to make something good out of the situation, to try to avoid future tragedies. That's a lot more than anyone can say for what you're doing with your I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else (sic) posts. So sure, some parading has happened. I'm not talking about that. If people like you want to imply that *anyone* with a voice out of Newtown is part of an Obama conspiracy, you're just choosing to believe that, and it's sad. There's a lot, lot more to see and learn in the world than what the NRA, Hannity, Obama, et alia, anyone with their agenda want to feed you. Give your fellow citizens an ounce of credit and you'd make huge progress in life. God bless the poeple I've met from Newtown. Incredible people.
And again, you missed the point. The goal is to reduce gun violence in general. Notice that I didn't mention "one of the last several school shootings". Notice I didn't even mention "school". You seem interested in fixing the last attack. That's not anyone else's goal.
For those opposed to background checks, I'll pose the same question I suggested politicians should answer: 1. Do you think gun violence is a problem in this country? 2. If so, what do you think should/can be done to help reduce it? I'm fine with people opposing the proposed solutions - but I would like to hear their better solutions.
This is the thing that liberals don't understand.. Gun violence does not exist. Only people violence. knives (as seen in lone star college), bombs (okc, unibomber), poisons (jim jones,etc), firearms (CT and aurora), fire (waco), and airplanes (9/11) doesn't matter what the tool is, a nut is going to find a way to do his/her evil. You can regulate evil or crazy. This is a fact.. so I ask, what is the left trying to do to solve the REAL issue here? Or do they even understand that crazies or nuts don't follow their laws and the only ones affected are law abiding citizens?
Interesting. So you think if WW2 was fought with fists, the death totals would be the same? You think if Bin Laden had access to nukes instead of an airplane, the death total would be the same? People are going to be violent, as you said. One "real issue" that can be addresses is the amount of damage one person can do based on the power of the tools they have available to them.
I don't need Hannity to make my assessments. I rarely even watch tv. (outside of Rockets games) That's great you feel in touch to knowing newtown peoples..and I'm sure they are good folks but that doesn't mean that they aren't being paraded around by the administration for their agenda. and to people assuming which way I lean.. I voted for obama the first time..
you know more people have been killed by hammers/blunt objects then any other "assault weapon" in the history of mankind. Where do you draw the line and make people responsible for their actions instead of the tool they used? I am not the criminal.. you are going after the wrong guy.. go after the criminals first if you want to cut down killings/crime. Sounds logical to me but that would be actual work. How has de-arming worked for south chicago, nyc, or dc? It hasn't.. made things worse and it makes everyone in those areas perfect targets for criminals.
1. yes, gun violence is a problem in this country. But if we are going to simplify issues, there are bigger problems than gun violence. That said, I don't think we need to ignore the issue. 2. Mag caps, assault weapon bans, and background checks isn't going to significantly drop gun violence. If mass shootings could have been swept under the rug from the beginning, many of those looking for media glory would have just shot themselves instead of trying to outdo the reigning champion. These mass shootings will continue and they will only get worse. The most common issue in gun violence, whether its mass shootings, drug related or accidental shootings, is the ease of access. A person has a 2nd amendment right to own a gun. They do not have the right to loosely leave guns around. It bothers me when I walk into someones house and they have plenty of guns and ammo easily accessible. Or leaving guns in the car and never giving second thought to them getting stolen. Criminals are going to find a means to use violence. While we shouldn't ignore them getting ahold of weapons, we shouldn't focus all of our attention on this issue. There are simply too many other gun related incidents in which innocent people get hurt.
Totally agree with this, and the statistics overwhelmingly support your statement. But what do we do about it? And since I have, above, defended some Newtown people I've met, I would like to also add that I don't really approve of the following: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/mother-of-sandy-hook-victim-delivers-white-house-weekly-address/ I don't think some of the parents aligning themselves with Obama, and Obama in turn using their grief, helps us move forward rationally in the gun conversation. It is exactly the kind of "parading" that other posters noted above. As heart-rending as stories of a six-year-old boy can be, we can't say that boy is more tragic than any of the other thousands who died via gun violence, the majority of whom did not die in similar situations. (i.e. most die due to accidents or handgun-mediated one-on-one violence.)
No, you're crazy and once again insulting the families of Newtown incident. Please have a little more decency. There's no rule on the board that says you have to have some decency, but it would just be better for everyone if you did. One of the members of this board who knows a family member of the Newtown shooting has already confirmed (as have other family members of the shooting many many times) that they aren't coached, brought out by politicians or other groups. You are calling them liars, and it's disgusting. The fact that their tragedy and the Newtown families own initiated activism is helping to inspire Obama to help get their message out there isn't a case of them being paraded around (which would indicate it was an objective all along, and these people were brought out and tricked or lead like sheep into supporting the already existing plan). In this case despite shootings in CO. and AZ. and several others, the president wasn't inspired to put this much effort in doing something about the mass shootings by what happened in Newtown and the work these families have done on their own. That's how govt. should work, and it's a case of the people who've been affected taking an active role and got some leaders including the President to join them. That's almost the opposite of what you're claiming is happening. It's fine if you disagree with all these families who suffered in the Newtown incident. But you don't have to be insulting to them by acting like they were all just sitting at home grieving and doing nothing when some politicians knocked on their door and talked them into being poster children for the politicians cause. Please show us that those that disagree can have a little more class.
I agree with the most common issue in gun violence. But it seems this legislation (rightly or wrongly) isn't targeted at gun violence in general but the specific issues of mass shootings within gun violence. As for your point #2. Yes ownership wasn't outlawed but production was. However, the guns and high capacity Mag become more scarce and hard to get hold of them less production of them that exists. It's still effective in reducing Assault weapons and high capacity magazines especially over the long haul.
Yes, and it took a whole lot more attacks and a whole lot more time, and there were also a whole lot more survivors. That's the point - less potency of the weapon = less carnage. It's the reason we don't allow people to own nukes. We already hold murderers who use guns responsible for their actions. The idea is to reduce their ability to commit those actions - putting someone in jail after the fact doesn't help the dead victim. Except a lot of these people aren't criminals until after they've shot someone. Of course - doing it in one locality doesn't matter if people can get guns 100 miles away.
Thanks for the response - I think this is a good line of discussion to start with. I agree ease of access is a critical component. Background checks are theoretically one line of attack on that, but what are some other ways we can make it more difficult?
What I really find sad is how people are so defensive about everyone can own something in a way no one else can find out... and this item's only use is to injure/kill people in a brutal, efficient manner. And be able to use it to injure/kill multiple people, cause fear in people, and quickly enough so that police or bystander cannot help stop the deed. What's even odder is that pro-gun people bring up scenarios where they need to have guns, where they need to defend themselves. But to do so successfully, it has to be a situation where (A)they are good people who only wish to save themselves or family and (B)the other side doesn't have the guns. Both of which make gun registration help bring about the above situation. So if you're against gun registration, are you not a good person? Or do you like to spread chaos by letting bad people gain easy access to guns?
How about the onus is on you to show why a broken system than has failed in newtown, Aurora, and VTech should be expanded. The NICs system has huge glowing examples of being a complete failure. For #2 like I said before, if the VTech aftermath was addressed logically, the two actions might have been mental health and school security. Those actions might have prevented deaths in Newtown, unlike additional gun control.
In order to take steps to fix the system that is "broken". If it failed one of the reasons could be because it didn't do enough, so doing more would be a step in getting a fix.
The families don't have to be involved for their names to be invoked. Which they are at every single turn to support measures that would not have changed the events at all. Call my words offensive all you want as I find it offensive that the current political fight doesn't address the course of events at all. I guess you don't know the shooter didn't buy the weapons but stole them and then killed the owner. The issue wasn't background checks. Your assault weapon "fact" at the end is asinine. CT has had an 'assault weapon' ban in place since 1994 and it did nothing. Columbine was 5 years into the national AWB. So when you say something like "weapons ban would have prevented the Newtown shooting" how can anyone believe you have a shred of credibility on this issue?
You realize the current fight isn't about changing the NICs system? It is just expanding a failed system. I am totally in favor of improving NICS, but that isn't the proposal. Politicians don't want to do hard work. They don't want to start programs that help people. They just want to pass laws and point to that as "work". If they created mental health programs or school security initiatives they could be attacked for over spending and government waste for years. Much easier to just strip rights and not change the probability of the tragedy happening again at all.
You're right the families have taken on the larger issue. But that's still different than them being paraded around. Some of what they are proposing might well have been effective in preventing Newtown as I mention below. An event that affected them inspired their activism on the issue. It wasn't a politician that came talked them into it. It was the families that inspired the politicians. For you to dismiss them as if they are merely a tool when they are in fact the engine is insulting to them. Well the fact that the AWB didn't prevent ownership as has been talked about in this thread in the first place is why we can't point to single incidents and say it didn't work. However, as I pointed out in an earlier thread stopping production makes them harder to come by. I understand that the shooter didn't purchase the weapons. But if the weapons were out of production they may not have been around for the shooter to steal them in the first place. Sorry, but that makes perfect sense even though it goes against the point you're trying to make.
The background checks don't solve all the problems. But they don't hurt, don't infringe anyone's second amendment rights and are a step in the right direction. Will it improve things? I believe it will. Will it solve the whole problem? Absolutely not. In addition an assault weapons ban that banned large capacity magazines certainly would have saved lives at Newtown, at AZ. etc. http://www.ctmirror.org/story/19592/newtown-families-want-strict-ban-large-ammo-magazines
