Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dfl, Dec 16, 2012.
Banning the sale of high capacity magazines and assault weapons means only the bad guys will have them. They tried to ban booze in the '20's and that didn't work. People merely went underground. They have tried to ban drugs but that doesn't deter drug users and sellers from getting and selling them. And arming a few teachers/administrators in a school will not stop mass killings. They have been happening for centuries. I can't imagine some of the people I work with with a gun in their hands.
Education and vigilance is the key and if I were an administrator and had a teacher gathering students together to play violent video games, there would be one less teacher on my staff and it would be a justifiable, for cause firing. All school districts have strict codes of conduct that are to be followed. Promoting violence of any kind would be a violation of these codes and the trust that is placed in a teacher's hands.
By the way, there are laws prohibiting the sale of rocket launchers and automatic weapons in certain places without a proper permit but that fails to stop people from acquiring and using them. The shooter in question used legally obtained and registered weapons. They just weren't his.
I just replaced an old heat pump with a new one. I had to get a "Mechanical Permit". So, the inspector comes out and now says I need to install "Carbon Monoxide" detecters in my home in front of each bedroom. (I guess the new State Law requiring them goes into effect in January.) I have no problem with this, but find it quite interesting, especially for the companies that manufacture them. What a "sweet deal" for them! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So, I think having a PERMIT for a gunsafe in your home would be a great thing for ALL gun owners. And just think, the money to be made for those private corporations manufacturing those! (Now if we could just get them to pay their fair share of taxes, it might help fund mental illness care!) But, if it saves lives.... Of course, if you think this "infringes" on your gun rights, then you are the guy that doesn't get Building Permits anyway.
People ignore it but requiring a gun safe "permit" or proof of a gun safe before firearm sale would do so much more than any type of ban or legislature on actual manufacturing of magazines or weapons.
Gun safes are a partial solution at best. Gun safes are where you keep the extra guns that are not active to keep them from being stolen. The guns you keep in your night stand, glove compartment, and jacket pocket aren't in the gun safe.
Well, think of it this way. Perhaps if the guys mother that owned the guns had them in a gun safe, this tragedy may have been prevented. That's good enough for me (that's not considering she may have bought them for him in the first place, who knows...).
the guns you keep in your night stand, glove compartment, or jacket pocket aren't 30 round assault rifles either. Unless you have really big pockets.
I was going to try to refrain from any further comment on either of these gun threads, but this statement just cracked me up.
Speyfisher, next time your doctor recommends medical treatment, make sure you ask if it was developed by anyone associated with the Harvard Medical School - there's a pretty good chance it will, since it is one of the world's premier research medical institutes - and if it is, tell him you don't believe it will work, because it came from "such a liberal institution."
And the 47 faculty or alumni of Harvard who have been awarded Nobel Prizes? I suppose they should all be given back, because you can't "believe anything coming from such a liberal institution as Harvard."
Our country wouldn't be the world leader in science today, as well as all of the downstream ramifications of that fact, if it weren't for Harvard and all of the other "liberal" universities that have followed in its footsteps.
I'm afraid your quote has to go right up there as one of the most amazingly stupid comments I've ever read on WFF.
Guys, the thread ask for thought through proposals that would keep this kind of thing from happening again. There's been one or two. Lets hear some more. Give it some thought. What could/might work.
The data simply doesn't support this, firearms and alcohol are very different. By your logic criminals would be running around with fully automatic weapons, they are not. The fact is people are smuggling weapons OUT of the united states. And that most shootings happen with firearms attained legally. While an assault weapons ban is kinda silly (they don't really ban assault weapons), banning high capacity magazines makes a lot of sense.
Phsycotic teenagers certainly aren't gonna go out of their way to smuggle illegal weapons into the country, and guess what, if they are illegal you have a much better chance of stopping someone.
We are talking about lone gunmen who think they are in halo 4 or call of duty, not an organized crime syndicate. Obviously professional criminals are gonna be professional criminals, but 20 year old white kids who got made fun of too much? Probably not.
When's the last time a crime syndicate walked into a school/mall/movie theatre and murdered a shitload of innocent children/people? Maybe the valentine's day massacre during prohibition?
Its not like people are physically addicted to using guns to murder a bunch of people. Comparing guns to drugs is insane (especially say, weed). I don't think anyone here thinks you shouldn't be able to go to the gun range and shoot the shit out of some paper or cans or whatever. But there's no reason anyone needs 50 shots outside of a shooting range, unless they plan to kill a bunch of people.
yup I agree... seriously if a bear is breaking into my cabin, I want my shotgun NOW
And its hard to take the 30 seconds before you leave the house to lock it up?
First of all, the Supreme Court has no power to "change" any provision in the constitution or to declare it unconsitutional (that would be kind of an oxymoron - an unconstitutional constitution?). It's power is to determine whether laws or actions made or taken by other branches of government are or are not constitutional.
More to the point, there's a lot of places in the constitution where the word "shall" is used. Look at the 1st Amendment. Congress (and state and local governments) have enacted many laws throughout our history that relate to religion, speech, the right to assemble, etc. Sometimes they are struck down and sometimes they are not. Why is that? Because these sorts of provisions in the bill of rights are not read as absolutes - they're bounded by reason. Many "gun rights advocates" try to suggest the 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition on the regulation of the possession and carrying of firearms, but even the current Supremes have not said that. Here's what the majority said in the 2008 case that makes "gun rights advocates" go weak in the knees (District of Columbia v. Heller):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the [Second] Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (my emphasis)
Heller specifically only addressed a total ban on handguns and a requirement to keep all lawful firearms in the home dissassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Other than saying don't bother challenging laws prohibiting possession by felons or mentally ill or carrying of firearms in "sensitive places", who really knows where the current members of the Supreme Court think the boundaries are drawn? But I read that underlined language to suggest that there may be some weapons that the Supreme Court would agree cannot be possessed, let alone carried in public. Ultimately the constitution means what a majority of the members of the Supreme Court at any given time think it means (seriously, this latest group has pissed on stare decisis), so even current boundaries (whatever the hell they are) could change.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
The apocalypse is nigh!
On the other hand, countries like the UK, Japan, Australia and more have implemented varying degrees of gun restrictions and have not suffered fascist calamity. In fact, they're all very pleasant to live in and visit. Moving on...
The issue at hand is access to firearms, not the right to have them. Gun control reform needs to happen in such a way that holds gun owners entirely responsible for the firearms they own. LEO's and military are held responsible for their firearms, and there's no reason a civilian shouldn't be also. Full registration of all firearms needs to be mandatory. Gun safes need to be mandatory if you have more than a weapon or two immediately available for self defense. If a firearm is taken without your permission or stolen from your house then you are responsible for that. Fines should be levied and your ability to purchase firearms taken away. If someone literally broke into your gun safe or took the whole thing, that might be a different issue. Gun safe permits should be physically verified by local law enforcement (read, a LEO comes to your house to make sure you have one and that it's properly installed). Maybe there could be an exception for a hunting rifle or two that are stored in such a way that they can't be fired. But if you're a collector or just want an arsenal, you're made to follow laws that ensure your weapons are secure. Laws to purchase a firearm have to be standardized across the country. Proper training, taking a class on proper storage and general education about firearm laws need to be mandatory for purchase. Background checks already happen, but a method to prove a person mentally sound to possess a firearm needs to happen.
If we as a nation get serious about stopping mass shootings by unstable people, then laws like described above have to happen. And that's about it. I'm not about denying anyone having the guns they want. I want to be able to purchase when I want. But, it's glaringly apparent that what we have now is not working. We have a paradigm that views guns too much like toys, therefore a lot of people treat them so. It's going to take a lot of painful "other people in your shit" to change that, but the result will be worth the pain.
Q: You know what is missing in this whole scenario? A: Parents.
Q: What parent lets their 12 year old play Call of Duty? A: Most of them.
Games have age ratings for a reasons. Most of these parents would flip out if the caught Jimmy looking at Playboy.com but will let lil' Jimmy camp out for hours on a COD Server and snipe guys for XP.
The only solution is that some incompetent govt dbag can dictate every action or behavior in an American citizen's life and home.
Did not you say we as American citizens we need to negotiate our 200 plus year old constitutional rights with ignorant govt bureaucrats ?
You know when I visited Treblinka, Dachau in the 1990's to see where my relatives were tortured and murdered by well meaning govt bureaucrats that was the last thought in my head.When I went with my wife to Siberia to see dilapidated Soviet labor camps where her grandfathers were both tortured and killed the last thought in both are heads is we need to give govt bureaucrats more control over our lives.
You are neglecting to mention the fact that every scenario you mentioned was during a time and place when guns alone could have defended the victims in question, we are far past the point where guns alone can defend against a tyrannical government.
If the government wanted to eradicate certain people in our country all the guns in the world couldn't stop them from smart bombing your ass from a thousand miles away.
Just because someone put a bunch of outdated info together doesn't mean it relates to the world we live in today.
You're missing the point, most of these shootings aren't done by kids playing online games before the recommended ages. Most massacres aren't done by kids that still live with their parents. The point is to collect live real time data to define imminent threats on high risk males. Most boys play some form of war games, most of them grow out of it. It's the kids and adults that don't you'd want to watch...
Why would I flip out if my kid wants to check out naked babes? Seems like a good opportunity for a discussion about fake boobs and photoshop. Better that than I find him shooting his buddy's guns unsupervised...