Guns

[sue_nami]

I know this is a real big question to discuss in a forum like this but What do ya think abut the presidents plan for getting a grip on gun violence? Any suggestins as what we need to do? Ya have to admit we have a problem, RIGHT?

[rockerrick]

Hmmmm , don't want the SS hunting me down , so no comment on plans . If someone were to walk into a crowded theatre , and chain the doors shut , and begin stabbing people with a #2 pencil , would you want the #2 pencil banned ?

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by rockerrick

If someone were to walk into a crowded theatre , and chain the doors shut , and begin stabbing people with a #2 pencil , would you want the #2 pencil banned ?

Lame

[VictoriaLyn]

They can make all the rules/laws they want...Wont make s difference...last time.I checked bad guys dont follow.the.rules..

[rockerrick]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

Lame

Speaking of lame , take a good look in the mirror ! Contribute something besides your weak ass nothing comment ! You can form sentences , and you're not retarded right ?

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by VictoriaLyn

They can make all the rules/laws they want...Wont make s difference...last time.I checked bad guys dont follow.the.rules..

Soooooooo why have any laws at all then????

[rockerrick]

Good Question ? Laws are made to raise revenue !

[RALPHEY BOY]

Obama is just pandering to the Liberal Vote,

[NastyCanasta]

Not as easy to find, but here's the details on this plan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...iveSummary.pdf

For the most part, I agree with most of it. We already know the ban and magazine limits won't make any difference from the 1994-2004 ban, it's naive to think it would work better a second time. I suspect there will be another ban though, so hassle your legislators to at least make sure it once again has an expiration date. Besides, there are so many "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines already out there it wouldn't help... can't put that genie back in the bottle.

I have no issue with requiring background checks for ALL sales. I *should* know if the person I might be selling a used gun to has the legal right to have it. Granted, they will still probably get one from another source but at least it didn't come from me. The background check system should have more info on who's a nut job, spouse beater, etc...

I don't know if violent video games and movies warps our kids. Probably not, but I have no issue with HONEST AND UNBIASED research to find out for sure. Getting that "honest and unbiased" part done is the bitch....

How about a tax break for the purchase of gun safes? Income tax credit? No local/state sales tax? GOOD gun safes are freaking expensive and that might be an incentive for someone who's on the fence about buying one. I don't have one but I am going to buy one once I get my tax refund to protect them from fire and theft.

Not widely popular but how about we kick all of the pot smokers out of prison and use that space to house the wackos? Obviously some staff retraining would be necessary and I'm OK with my tax dollars going towards that. How about we make the old saying "lock 'em up and throw away the key" a reality for real criminals and the seriously mentally disturbed?

[northaustincouple74]

Irregardless of what side of the political fence you fall on as rational adults we can all agree that you simply can not stop every one-off situation from occurring. Now that doesn’t mean you don’t try to mitigate risk. So lets take a look at the current administrations plan as I understand it.

1. Limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. So instead of buying two clips you buy four. Was any issue solved ?
2. Ban assault rifles. When did gangs, drug dealers, ex-felons, etc make gun purchases legally to begin with? Was any issue solved?
3. More stringent background checks. That makes sense to me...maybe a few fringe folks are weeded out.
4. Anti-bulling campaign. That also makes sense to me.
   
   

So the plan is a mixed bag with the biggest focus being placed on limiting the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens and lip service being paid to the last two measures I mentioned which could actually be useful. What I see this as is a simple knee jerk reaction to a very unfortunate situation. Rather then trying to make it more difficulty and expensive for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms legally why not consider a different approach.

1. Why not consider a campaign to increase the number of concealed carry members who actively carry? How many atrocities could be stopped or lessened if more good Samaritans spent time at the range to become proficient with there chosen tool of self defense?
2. Why not consider placing an undercover “air marshal” of sorts in each school? Don’t we owe it to our children to provide some measure of protection?

Someone mentioned banning #2 pencils and that is the type of logic this administration has chosen to follow. Google school stabbings in China. One recent incident involved over 30 children stabbed, another 18. The simple fact of the matter is that sick people will always find a way to commit mayhem. The enactment of more laws will not and cannot prevent that. What it boils down to is a personal choice of what we are each comfortable doing to protect ourselves and our families. I am not a fan of limiting law abiding citizens options in terms of tools for self defense.

[unagi]

From what I understand, in China, no children died. There is a very big difference between semiautomatic weapons and other dangerous items (cars, knives, #2 pencils, etc.) and that is in their efficiency at killing many people in a short time.

There has not been one verified case of an armed Good Samaritan stopping a shooter.

Police in every school? Virginia Tech had a whole police department.

We have traffic laws. I think they have helped reduce auto fatalities. Should we get rid of those because people still break them?

[northaustincouple74]

Unagi,

Careful with blanket statements.
Armed Good Samaritans Rescue Man After Gunpoint Robbery: They ‘Protected Me When I Couldn’t Protect Myself’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/armed-good-samaritans-rescue-man-after-gunpoint-robbery-they-protected-me-when-i-couldnt-protect-myself/
This occurred just 3 days ago in Houston.
The choice is yours...defenseless victim or unassuming guy capable of repelling attackers.

[unagi]

Not a blanket statement. I was referring to shooters:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mass-shootings

That incident could have gone either way in Houston. The man was already robbed. Those two decided to go after the robber and start exchanging fire. Any thought to where those stray bullets might have landed? Could have killed someone in the street or in a building near the shooting. A good trade off for a wallet, cell phone and a car?

[northaustincouple74]

I agree, few if any mass shooting have been stopped by armed good Samaritans. Why is that do you think? Could one factor be that there is such a small percentage of armed citizens who actually do carry on a regular basis? Couple that with the fact that these mass shootings occur so far and few between whats the probability that an armed citizen is in place at one of these shootings? If we had a greater percentage of armed citizens the likelihood of intervention and prevention would statistically be higher.
I believe the Swiss have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. Could that be partially contributed to the fact that every adult male is issued an assault rifle? Most criminals are looking for easy targets. It stands to reason that with an increase in armed citizens it would give pause to some of these criminal activities. The alternative certainly hasn’t helped.

[frustr8d]

Originally Posted by sue_nami

I know this is a real big question to discuss in a forum like this but What do ya think abut the presidents plan for getting a grip on gun violence? Any suggestins as what we need to do? Ya have to admit we have a problem, RIGHT?

We definitely have problems. First and foremost in my mind is the growing poverty problem that feeds the violence, gun or otherwise. Still an interesting question on a board for a group of folks that move a LOT of money around for services of questionable legality.

So, I look at it as gun violence being a symptom. Politics is all about treating the symptoms and appeasing your constituents in order to keep your job and pension. I'm not going to fault Obama for not having a solution, but I will fault everyone for not addressing the underlying issue. We have a few generations now of people walking around with expectations that can never be met. They aren't going to make the kind of money or live the types of lives they were led to believe(by their parents, themselves, or just media in general). After a while all those dashed hopes based on unrealistic expectations leads to devaluing one's own life, and once that happens the lives of others don't carry much weight either. Some people have enough inhibitions through years of social indoctrination to keep all the disappointment and anger in check, some don't. It's complicated, but in some ways simple. As populations grow more and more dense the odds of any one person going off the rails increases, and the likely-hood of serious damage does as well. Yeah, it could be with a gun, or chemicals, or...choose your weapon. Didn't a group of people use jumbo jets a while back? Just wait until a disgruntled person with tractor-trailer rig takes out a school bus or three on purpose. One of these days a few hackers are going to shut down the whole freakin' country too. Either scenario will be met with evangelical fervor in the political arena, and nothing meaningful will come of it(except of course your personal freedoms will be trampled on, again). Gun's are just the paraphernalia, a prop for a scene. Maybe they make it easier, or maybe they amp up the total damage but the real problem, the thing that flips the switch in someone's head lies elsewhere.