I just don't get the gun mentality in the US. Not at all. It completely baffles me that a reaction to an incident such as this isn't a renewed conversation on the banning of weapons but a statement that you should carry your gun at all times. Don't they get that if guns were banned then there wouldn't be as many criminals with them either.
And you could order guns in the mail at one point....wtf!
Don't they get that if guns were banned then there wouldn't be as many criminals with them either.
False logic. A criminal can always find a way of getting a gun, no matter how strict the regulations are. I hate to say it, but it's one thing to ban guns in a place like England or another island nation, but the US is just too damn big with too many miles of borders to keep them all out. :(
Canada is a big nation with big borders. We don't have America's problem with shootings. Our tight gun regulations work for us.
If it is tougher to get guns fewer people have them. Remember many crimes are crimes of passion or the moment not planned in advance (i.e. a gun will be used if it is already there but the gun would not have been involved if pre-planning and a lot of effort had been required in advance to get a gun). Also a big problem with America's laxness with guns is that when police find weaponry on citizens in the US they are under most circumstances not allowed to confiscate it. Harsher rules allowing confiscation would mean fewer guns in general and fewer on people who will commit crimes.
Canada is a HUGE nation with 1/10 the population of the US - it's a false equivalency, :(.
According to Rachel Maddow last night, the US has 90 guns for every 100 people. Trying to stop people from owning them at this point is a big case of closing the barn door after the horse has already left, :(.
At this point, all we can really do is try to educate the population on responsible gun ownership and have waiting periods to try and prevent 'crimes of passion'.
Someone else in this post had the idea of requiring gun safety classes in order to purchase a gun, something that I have no issue with. I took a gun safety class voluntarily when I bought my first guns at 18 and despite many hours on the range I still wouldn't feel comfortable carrying it out (or even keeping it loaded in my home) without significantly more training.
What NEEDS to happen is that if you want to buy a firearm, along with going through RIGOROUS background checks that cannot be skipped simply because you go to a gun show, you have to go through at least a week's worth of training similar to what police officers or military go through (or prove that you have been taught proper handling techniques - like keeping your finger off the trigger, Glenn - and how to properly treat and handle a weapon, since a lot of people grew up in houses with firearms and were taught properly). Before I even go to HANDLE an M-16, I went through a week of classes that familiarized me with the weapon, drilled the weapons safety rules into my brain (seriously, that was in 2000 and I can still recite them from memory), and TAUGHT ME RESPECT FOR THE WEAPON AND HOW TO USE IT. THAT is one of our biggest problems; people regard them as fucking toys
( ... )
I don't feel total gun banning would work, nor do I feel it's necessary (and no, I'm not a trigger happy moron simply because I think that). I also think what we have now is woefully inadequate.
We need to do better about that "well-regulated" part that the 2nd Amendment talks about. Better education, like you say, is one thing we should be doing to help. You have to get a license and pass a test to drive a car; owning a firearm certainly shouldn't be any different. Banning assault weapons is another. If someone can explain to me why they need an AK-47 for home defence or for hunting... *shakes head* We're guaranteed the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean any arms, any time, any way you want.
Completely, completely agreed. I may think AK-47s are fun to fire, but I have absolutely no desire - or NEED, anyone who says otherwise is full of it - to own one. Just like I like going to a range to fire a .50 cal, but I don't want to own one.
Honestly, I think the 2nd Amendment is in DIRE need of updating or clarification, cause as it stands now, anyone can interpret it any way they want and that's half of what's causing the huuuuuuge divide here, IMO.
yes! I'd be more than comfortable people owning guns knowing they had training to use them along with ensuring their background was thoroughly checked.
Gunshows seem to be a problem too, I'll never forget an episode of Arrested Development where they point out you can bypass waiting for a gun by purchasing them at gun shows.
Of course gun laws won't change--when even a fairly substantial section of the liberal/progressive community views gun ownership/gun rights as A Good Thing you're not going to see substantial action to better regulate gun ownership. We have a federal judge dead and a Congress member fighting for her life and the only legislative noise being made is a proposal to ban high-capacity magazines.
O_o I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying that the prevailing US attitude toward guns/gun availability/gun rights/gun culture cuts across party lines and because of that it's hard to tighten gun laws unless tragedies of this nature happen.
Many in the US believe the situation would have been safer if more people on the scene had had guns.
So... carrying a gun will automatically make you safer if someone jumps out in front of you and shoots you in the head? Yes, it might have lessened the impact if he'd been shot at the scene, but idg how you can see a massacre perpetuated with a gun and think 'people should have more of them!'
Yeah, that's seriously a fucking ridiculous idea. WOOHOO HAIL OF BULLETS.
And that's assuming that people would have instantly GONE FOR their weapons anyway, which most people WILL NOT DO UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO DO SO. For example, I probably would not have though to grab a handgun even if I had been wearing one, but my SO probably would have, given his MUCH more extensive weapons training.
Oh no, there will be a change in the gun law. A Republican Representative wants to make it illegal to have a gun within 1000 feet of a government official.
Agreed. And even if it does get passed, it's not like a person with the intent of shooting a government official will be like "Oh, there's a law that makes it illegal for me to have a gun within 1000 feet of them so I can't shoot them anymore."
Comments 44
And you could order guns in the mail at one point....wtf!
Reply
False logic. A criminal can always find a way of getting a gun, no matter how strict the regulations are. I hate to say it, but it's one thing to ban guns in a place like England or another island nation, but the US is just too damn big with too many miles of borders to keep them all out. :(
Reply
If it is tougher to get guns fewer people have them. Remember many crimes are crimes of passion or the moment not planned in advance (i.e. a gun will be used if it is already there but the gun would not have been involved if pre-planning and a lot of effort had been required in advance to get a gun). Also a big problem with America's laxness with guns is that when police find weaponry on citizens in the US they are under most circumstances not allowed to confiscate it. Harsher rules allowing confiscation would mean fewer guns in general and fewer on people who will commit crimes.
Reply
According to Rachel Maddow last night, the US has 90 guns for every 100 people. Trying to stop people from owning them at this point is a big case of closing the barn door after the horse has already left, :(.
At this point, all we can really do is try to educate the population on responsible gun ownership and have waiting periods to try and prevent 'crimes of passion'.
Someone else in this post had the idea of requiring gun safety classes in order to purchase a gun, something that I have no issue with. I took a gun safety class voluntarily when I bought my first guns at 18 and despite many hours on the range I still wouldn't feel comfortable carrying it out (or even keeping it loaded in my home) without significantly more training.
Reply
Reply
We need to do better about that "well-regulated" part that the 2nd Amendment talks about. Better education, like you say, is one thing we should be doing to help. You have to get a license and pass a test to drive a car; owning a firearm certainly shouldn't be any different. Banning assault weapons is another. If someone can explain to me why they need an AK-47 for home defence or for hunting... *shakes head* We're guaranteed the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean any arms, any time, any way you want.
Reply
Honestly, I think the 2nd Amendment is in DIRE need of updating or clarification, cause as it stands now, anyone can interpret it any way they want and that's half of what's causing the huuuuuuge divide here, IMO.
Reply
Gunshows seem to be a problem too, I'll never forget an episode of Arrested Development where they point out you can bypass waiting for a gun by purchasing them at gun shows.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I am admittedly a little sensitive on this topic.
Reply
So... carrying a gun will automatically make you safer if someone jumps out in front of you and shoots you in the head? Yes, it might have lessened the impact if he'd been shot at the scene, but idg how you can see a massacre perpetuated with a gun and think 'people should have more of them!'
Reply
And that's assuming that people would have instantly GONE FOR their weapons anyway, which most people WILL NOT DO UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO DO SO. For example, I probably would not have though to grab a handgun even if I had been wearing one, but my SO probably would have, given his MUCH more extensive weapons training.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment