Just amazing how in this "free country," some drugs are illegal, others are legal depending on the money they make for certain industries. Some forms of gambling are legal (lottery), others are illegal (sports, online poker), depending on who can make money off it (the government). The Patriot Act trampled over a couple of amendments. I don't think the forefathers foresaw assault rifles in their future. I'm not saying ban all guns, but for us to not change anything, after yet another senseless act of gun violence is just ignorant and asking for another major gun crime. There's not an easy answer, but the status quo is not working.
Banning guns completely will never happen. I am sure most of us can agree on that and some of us will just have to come to terms with that. I also do not think all guns need to be banned. What does need to be banned? Military weapons. I cannot see why any citizen of this land, that is not serving in the armed forces, needs to have military grade weapons in their home. Why do people have access to semi-automatic, automatic weapons? Hunting rifles are one thing, any senseless untrained man can spray a semi automatic/automatic weapon. Will people be able to access these weapons via black market? Probably. But how many people have the funding to buy on the black market? Who knows, Ive never been in the gun business so can't comment.
Gun ownership in the US is a remnant of being a frontier-oriented society. It's a remnant of being a country formed by active revolt against empire. It's a remnant of a large captive population being continually subdued by a smaller captor population. The reason gun ownership is so widespread in the US and not in other areas of the western world is that the circumstances the US existed in encouraged the ownership of a gun and the government did not try to stand in the way of what was an obvious need. Where we wind up eventually is not clear, but most of the precursors that lead to expansive gun ownership no longer exist. America used to be a horse ownership country also.
You had a good argument going until, the horse ownership comment. Americans used to own horses for work and transportation. They had been replaced by better technology in cars, tractors, and other such equipment. Judging that you seem to be against guns I would think your not suggesting we replace guns with better technology so we can kill more people more quickly. I know people that still feed their family with food they hunted and killed with their guns. It's not a completely out dated way of living and there are a lot of areas in your own state that are more wilderness than urban. I have no issue with gun ownership. If we take guns away from the law abiding public the only people left with them are criminals with bad intents. I do have issues with people who are mentally ill not getting treatment. The answer is not limiting the rights of citizens because of the few, but to find solutions for the actual problem that is going unchecked.
But Obama's coming for your little white babies! The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but we should seriously consider repealing that relic. Owning a gun is no longer an inalienable right and in a modern society, the thread of gun violence is far greater than the threat of tyranny.
The average American owned a horse in 1850 because they had to have a horse. They mostly lived on farms. The grew their own food. My great, great grandfather on the farm in Ohio had a horse for all of the 64 years he worked the farm. He never rode that horse. Once a week the horse would pull the farm wagon into town to take the family to meeting. Once every few weeks the horse would pull the farm wagon to the bigger town over the hill to do the necessary shopping for the farm. The rest of that horses life was devoted to pulling a plow on the numerous fields on the farm. Fast forward to 1950 and most people didn't own a horse. Most people didn't live on farms. Most people didn't manufacture their own food. Times had changed and with them the necessity for horses in society. Yes, tractors and automobiles replaced horses for the roles that the horse played in farming and mobility but the farming role was vanishing before that. The horse just wasn't necessary any more. Right now in America the gun isn't necessary. In fact it is counter-productive, it creates more violence than it solves. There's nothing that a gun can do to protect a person that a taser can't do better. Right down to guaranteeing that when you make the mistake of shooting somebody the results are correctable. Back in 1850 the gun actually had a purpose that a taser couldn't possibly match. Right now it doesn't. And it's really hard to get killed by your own taser. It's impossible for your son to take it and do the horrible things that were done here. That .223 wasn't good for protection. It was good for killing and that's what it was used for.
You say a gun is not necessary. I say you've never had a black bear on your porch. Perhaps you need to travle to some places outside of the big city once and awhile to see how Americans in other places live. Your looking at this from your own narrow view of the world. Are you to tell the Farmer in Nebraska that he can not defend his land from predators like coyotes? What about the hunter who chooses to feed his family on the game he kills, why should his way of life go out because of your desires? How about those still living on the frontier in places like Alaska or the wilderness of Idaho? The USA is not made up of only towns and cities. There is a lot of area in your own state that is covered in wilderness. Since the 1950's we have pulled tons of funding from working with those suffering from mental illness. How is that working out for us? Many of the homeless across the country are mentally ill and from all reports the shooter in this case was as well. Trying to take away guns from those who aquire them leagly is not going to fix the problem only one of the more glamorized forms of it. What is going to cost more money to the US tax payer, trying to enforce gun bans or dealing with the actual problem? Millions of people in the united states own guns. A very small precentage of those act badly with them every year. Millions of people in the united states drink alcohol. A small precentage of them kill people while driving drunk every year. Should we have a ban on alcohol as well? We saw how well prohibition worked in our country. Attepting to remove guns will go the same route. Those who want them will still get them on the black market. More govenrment controll of our lives is not the answer. Helping those who need mental health care is along with taking increased measures to protect our schools.
First of all, I do have coyotes, fishercats and other predators living around me. I've had a cat go missing alongside several woodchucks and a skunk and known there was something out there in the woods taking down animals. So the idea that I don't understand the needs of people in specific circumstances is not true. There are some people who need a rifle to manage the wildlife around them. That number is vanishingly small compared to the number of people who own guns just for recreational purposes. Of the 300,000,000 guns in the US a very small number of them are actually necessary. Advocating for anybody to be able to own a gun based on the number of people who actually need one for day to day life is just ridiculous.
Did anyone else happen to look up Ryan Lanka immediately after his name was dropped? I did,and I mean minutes. There was a Ryan Lanka in Hoboken originally from Newtown ft,but he looked nothing like the one they show you on tv.this was a military looking light skin black man on the profile just add it the pile of shit that doesn't add up. Just wanted to see if anyone else saw it,cause it was gone Friday night
..... and attepmting to remove all guns because of a few people is just as ridiculous. Again, many of the people who drink kill people afterwards every year. Should we ban alcohol? Basing your reaction to the problem based on the few punishes the many who own guns leaglly and do no wrong with them. Your combating mental illness,lax security and preparedness at schools by punishing law abiding citizens. That seems like the best answer? Perhaps we should combat rape by removing all signs of sex from music, advertising, television and movies. Women should also be made to cover themself from head to toe becasue seeing a womans skin may set off a would be rapist. Sounds like a reasonable soultion, right?
I don't think anybody is suggesting removing all guns. I think the suggestion is removing most of them. That is what makes sense. We still have horses that are necessary. Not for very many people but for a few that actually need to travel where there are no roads.
I'm all for gun controll. There is no need for automatic or semi atuomatic weapons. On that note, horses are still legal for all to own. Not everyone that owns a horse does so out of need. Many keep them simply to ride or compete in games. Some citys may restict ownership in thier area, but it is still legal to own a horse and keep it elsewhere. In your senario you make guys legal for some, but not all. Who is the group of people that gets to decide which person get to own a gun and which does not? Why are we attempting to restrict the rights of the many due to the wrongs of the few? Your treating the symptom not the cause.
Why do people not get to own Stinger missiles? We're discriminating against the vast majority of people who would only use them recreationally to shoot down target balloons vs the few who would use them for their primary purpose. It's hard to see if you're a gun rights advocate but there is no hard and fast line on what is good for society and what is not. That line is always shifting and in some cases a shift is not obvious until it is upon us.
I don't believe that banning firearms is the answer but something has to be done to at least limit access to them. There are certain states, like Arizona for example, where you don't even need a license or state permit to buy a firearm. I believe every person who intends to buy a firearm should undergo at least a background check and psychiatric evaluation. Then, there are weapons that are totally unnecessary for home protection. Does one really need a semi-automatic AR-15 type rifle to kill a bear or a coyote? I am pretty sure that a shotgun should do the job just as well. Same thing with handguns - an 8 or 10 round magazine should be more than enough to protect your home.
Where in the 2nd amendment do they mention the right to own a gun, automatic weapon, large amo clip or armor piercing amo? The right to regulate is clear. There is something between nothing and nuclear weapons.
---ABC News Poll: 54% of Americans support stricter gun control laws ---Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to propose a bill to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons
i didnt know u were a wildlife efficienado.. seriously - i would advocate a country wide public ban on all automatic weapons - no advertising, buying/selling, and/or use. i am very much an advocate of everyone having the right to own a single manual firearm for protection of self and family - and for wildlife endeavors
again like it seems most people here agree on, no need for assault weapons of automatic nature to be available to the public, i frankly think it's that simple as far as the gun control part of this probelm goes (as well as possibly limiting the capacity of ammo any weapons available to the public can carry..although again i know shit about guns). I still think the more important issue is the mental illness diagnosis and treatment. apparently there are too many fucking psycopathic ass holes running around that ought to be in a mental institution. Broadening the autism spectrum definitions has had the effect of trying to make people fit into society that have no chance of ever fitting in...with sometimes dire consequences. I'm not saying autistic children need to be locked up, but our society needs to do a better job of avoiding using these benign autistic diagnoses for much more sinister problems. It seems today any abnormal activity is misdiagnosed as some type of autistic disorder, which to me is a problem. Again I think the combination of the mother having weapons (i read today she was one of those end of the world preppers, but given the media's accuracy, I will wait for another source before believing that) and the son apparently having aspergers syndrome, and I'm sure some other undiagnosed psychotic ailment, was a deadly one.
