I’ve been reading alot of articles lately about this subject, articles written from both sides, trying to understand both point of views. This article seems to be the most un-biased article ive read so far. I personally do not believe stricter gun laws are the answer, but this article does shed some light on both sides and has many sourced facts. I understand what troutguy is saying, but dont necessarily agree thats the answer. If i knew that giving up all my guns would save just one massacre, then i would do it in a minute. But in all the research ive done(not just since the Vegas shooting) I havent seen any facts that show that stricter gun laws will prevent such a tragedy. We can all provide 100’s of examples of when law abiding citizens have prevented crime and also when someone has legally purchased firearms and still committed crimes. but i think we can all agree that without a doubt, that its a “people” issue more than its a “law” issue.</font id=“red”>
Proline 201WA
Aloha 24ft pontoon (LooneyToon)
Old Town stern with 7.5 johnson
It always has been a people issue. Then you have people smearing the laws instead of enforcing them.
We have people that take a serial killer and spend millions of tax payers money to try and understand how they think. No man can ever know the the true thoughts of another. The best we can do as a society is instill Morality and enforce punishment for bad behavior.
[/quote]
I said it before, if they didn’t get gun restrictions passed after Sandy Hook with Obama in office for 8 years, then it isn’t ever going to happen. They milked it for all it’s worth and still came up empty. Time to stop feeding the trolls and just ignore the gun grabbers exist. Never going to happen, find something else to spend your time on.
bangstick- I have absolutely no clue what more in depth background checks or stricter laws would entail. I’m not a law maker, nor a social scientist that has studied these issues professionally, so I’m not educated enough from that standpoint to comment. I am saying that if I had to make some sacrifices even to see if something would work, I’d be fine with it. You say with some conviction that stricter laws won’t work. I wish I had your ability to know what laws will and won’t work without passing them.
And if you can’t see the difference between a scenario where 5 people are stabbed to death versus 59 killed and 500+ Injured from firearms, then I’ll admit my loss because I have no arguments that would work with your reasoning. The math says the difference is 54 more people alive and 500 less people injured.
And Geronimo - if you want to blame all the shootings in our country as being evil resulting from the gay and transgender communities becoming more accepted, then I couldn’t have an intelligent conversation with you. That was an incredibly ignorant and uneducated comment. Get outside of whatever bubble you live in and go talk to folks that arent like you. You might just learn something about the people you’re so afraid of and using as a scapegoat.
The reason I asked what entailed “more strict” background checks is because I have worked at varying levels of the firearms industry for quite some time. I’ve seen gun laws and regulations become “more strict” over that time and yet “gun violence” has become no less present in our lives. As I stated earlier, the only entity or “persons” that have been affected by these escalating gun restrictions were/are the law biding gun owners. Don’t take my word for it. Look at gun restrictions for states with cities that
They blame the guns in the cities with high restrictions on neighboring states that have no restrictions. They fail to realize that gang operations will travel to states that allow handguns, and they will steal them from people that have them locked up in their own home, that purchased them legally with strict background checks and then drive them up to NYC and Chicago. What they want is to ban handguns nationwide, and even then it would take 20-30 years to dry up the supply to make a dent, but the civilian casualties would be astronomical after we were disarmed. They just don’t understand the concept of a good guy with a gun deterrent. They never will so it’s not worth trying to argue with them. It’s a system that has worked, and is backed up by stats. Their laws and restrictions have not worked, and is backed up by facts and stats. But who wants to bring facts into this discussion. We are just ignorant rednecks, and I live in a bubble, so I’m going to return to my fry cook line as the taters are starting to burn.
This comment has been circulating lately and I feel it is relevant to this conversation:
“The Unites States is third in murders throughout the world, but if you discount Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C. and New Orleans, the United States drops to fourth from the bottom of that same list. Remove Baltimore and the United States falls even further down the list. Coincidently, these cities have some of the toughest gun laws in the United States.”
Again, how does that not clearly illustrate this is a “people problem” and not a “gun problem”?
Bang stick - Sure, a knife and several handguns likely kills more than 5 people in that scenario. But whatever the killed and injured count is, it would be less than this man having access to the weaponry he used. And less, even though sad, would be better. Since most are so convinced that laws are definitely NOT the issue/answer, and it’s a people issue, then what is the people answer? Someone will say a godless society. Although I’m a Christian, I know and am friends with plenty of folks who are atheists who would never commit any crime involving shootings and murder. So give me more than that.
Geronimo - you made that comment on your own. Using the LGBT community as a reason for the evil that allows shootings like this was ridiculous, and yes, made you sound like an uneducated, bubble living, redneck. Which is a shame, because I wouldn’t know you if I passed you on the street. But like they say, first impressions are lasting impressions.
You seem to be putting the LGBTQ comment in my mouth and keep leaving out the agnostic portion of my statement.
And if being against gender reversal and transgenders, and child pornography, sex with children, or children having sex makes you think I hate the LGBTQ community and your first impression is based on an assumption of who think I am, then by all means carry on.
I’ve clarified my statement since you took it the wrong way. Moving on.
Bang stick - Sure, a knife and several handguns likely kills more than 5 people in that scenario. But whatever the killed and injured count is, it would be less than this man having access to the weaponry he used. And less, even though sad, would be better. Since most are so convinced that laws are definitely NOT the issue/answer, and it’s a people issue, then what is the people answer? Someone will say a godless society. Although I’m a Christian, I know and am friends with plenty of folks who are atheists who would never commit any crime involving shootings and murder. So give me more than that.
Geronimo - you made that comment on your own. Using the LGBT community as a reason for the evil that allows shootings like this was ridiculous, and yes, made you sound like an uneducated, bubble living, redneck. Which is a shame, because I wouldn’t know you if I passed you on the street. But like they say, first impressions are lasting impressions.
Troutguy, you mentioned, (as a gun owner yourself) that if giving up more liberties/rights/freedoms by making more concessions would result in one less gun related crime, it would be worth it (to you) but then you turn around and say that “less” people being killed is acceptable. Why is the number of deaths the “measuring” stick of something’s effectiveness and if that is in fact the measuring stick, why are any deaths acceptable? If limiting/eliminating deaths is the measuring stick for why we look to “make things safer,” why are we debating gun laws? Shouldn’t we be targeting the automobile industry? Or perhaps the medical industry? Each of those industries account for more wrongful deaths than the firearms industry and they do every year.
As far as how to address the “people issue”; actually enforcing existing laws woul
To add to me last three sentences, we’ve all heard so many people use that same rationale when discussing/debating game laws. “We don’t need more laws. We just need better enforcement of the laws we already have.” My question is, if that answer/rationale is relevant for game laws (which are still laws intended to keep people from breaking the law), why is not relevant for gun laws?
The condition of the human heart is ignored far too often. We need to pay more attention to the condition of our hearts
Taking away a person’s means won’t change their motive. They’ll simply find another way to fulfill the desires of their heart
Tweet from Ty Montgomery today. Go Packers!
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Bingo!!!..if firearms weren’t available, how about a bow and arrow with a case of dynamite… dukes of hazard style. End result probably would have been ten fold. Or a barrel bomb dropped behind Lake Murray dam…probably a couple hundred thousand…
“Endeavor to Persevere.
Give,Give… Never Take.”
EC
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people (to include children) and injured over 600 more (again, to include children) and he didn’t squeeze the trigger of a firearm once. Jim Jones was responsible for the deaths of over 900 people (with over 300 being minors/children) and he only pulled a trigger once…and that was on himself.
Point being, and as others have stated, some people possess a darkness inside of them that enables them to be numb to the values of human life. Some go a step further and mentally convince themselves (and sometimes people around them) that there is no other recourse, no other way to “fix” a situation. Some also believe others are so “tainted” and/or inferior that they need to be “cleansed” through death. Ask ISIS about cleansing infidels. Ask non-Serb/Albanians/Bosnian Muslims about Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” (aka genocide).
Sadly, there aren’t “preemptive” or preventative measures (or an instruction manual) to people like this. There isn’t a crystal ball to look into to give us a heads up about these people. No level/degree of “strictness” of a background check and no length of a waiting period will ever be able to stop people like this from doing what they do before they actually do it. I wish there was but in reality, there isn’t. William Jefferson Clinton had a chance to “take out” Osama Bin Laden long before he made his big splash on the world’s stage but at the time, he (OBL) hadn’t “done enough” to warrant pursuit (again, no crystal ball). Next thing you know he’s public enemy #1…AFTER he orchestrated a the largest and deadliest terrorist attack our soil has ever seen. Many security measures changed AFTER the 9/11 attacks. Again, the sad truth of the matter is, the most effective means of combatting these types of horrific events is to learn from them WHEN (after) they happen (history shows that have, do and will continue to happen) and make the best educated decisions humanly possible on potential resolutions. There isn’t an absolute “fix” and as long as sick/evil/de
Am I crazy for getting offended when people say I should have more restrictions on my gun purchases? “Enough is enough, why do we need this in our society!” When we have so many evil people in the world doing things you can’t even repeat, and I’m the target, the problem? It just gets me a little riled up. Just a little bit.
Forgive me though if I stop GAF about your opinion.
Just tired of the constant FB videos that people keep posting about taking the guns. People I thought that were highly intelligent and compassionate, but none of them are talking about the person, just the guns fault, killing our babies.
And I don’t even love guns. Own a few, but that’s it. Carry one when traveling. I just have half of a brain apparently and can see the truth.
Bang stick - Sure, a knife and several handguns likely kills more than 5 people in that scenario. But whatever the killed and injured count is, it would be less than this man having access to the weaponry he used. And less, even though sad, would be better. Since most are so convinced that laws are definitely NOT the issue/answer, and it’s a people issue, then what is the people answer? Someone will say a godless society. Although I’m a Christian, I know and am friends with plenty of folks who are atheists who would never commit any crime involving shootings and murder. So give me more than that.
Geronimo - you made that comment on your own. Using the LGBT community as a reason for the evil that allows shootings like this was ridiculous, and yes, made you sound like an uneducated, bubble living, redneck. Which is a shame, because I wouldn’t know you if I passed you on the street. But like they say, first impressions are lasting impressions.
Troutguy, if a smart Human took it to pondering a mass kill there are way more avenues than rapid firing weapons. Take for instance a fortified Skidder. It goes faster than any human can run and would take an anti tank round to stop it. Just think if one was unloaded near a fair ground and then used to run over people. I could give you several dozen methods beyond guns.
What is needed is prayer and morality back in this country along with actual punishment for wrong doings starting at an early age. I’ll leave religion out for the sake of argument, just have a parent that disciplines his/her kid instead of buying them more toys to shut em up.
I knew this would happen before I posted this. This whole thing is taking a political twist too soon. What needs to happen is have the whole country come together to h