Gun control discussion

[blue]

I can expound my response if the previous wasnt sufficient, Pom or sasvermont. Just let me know where I was insufficient.

[pomtzu]

I can expound my response if the previous wasnt sufficient, Pom or sasvermont. Just let me know where I was insufficient.

There you go again - you just can't drop it. However, I'm dropping it, as it really isn't worth my time.

[blue]

Thank you Pom for letting me know my response was sufficient.

[Lady's Human]

To get back on topic....

Finally a statement of fact about the issue from Vice President Biden:

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

That being the case, let's try just for a moment enforcing the laws currently on the books, eliminating the barriers against including psychological information in NICS checks, and move on without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[lizbud]

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

The same could be said about traffic offenses, shoplifting, cheating on your income taxes, harrassing your next door neighbor or deciding to hold a party right in the middle
of downtown traffic.

We will never completely stop people from doing any dumb thing they think up to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it unlawful. Think about it. We can't NOT ACT
just because some people will break the law anyway.

Just because the constitution allows citizens to buy a weapon doesn't mean they can purchase ANY type of weapon their little hearts desire. Would you like your neighbor to have
a cannon in his front yard? Having limits can be a good thing.

[Lady's Human]

The same could be said about traffic offenses, shoplifting, cheating on your income taxes, harrassing your next door neighbor or deciding to hold a party right in the middle
of downtown traffic.

We will never completely stop people from doing any dumb thing they think up to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it unlawful. Think about it. We can't NOT ACT
just because some people will break the law anyway.

Just because the constitution allows citizens to buy a weapon doesn't mean they can purchase ANY type of weapon their little hearts desire. Would you like your neighbor to have
a cannon in his front yard? Having limits can be a good thing.

A cannon? No problem. As long as the requisite legalities are taken care of, no issues whatsoever.

The examples you list are examples of people breaking existing laws. There's no constitutional right to do any of the things listed. However, there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right. There are already limits on that right that have been enacted in law and adjudicated as appropriate limits. There is no need for further limits, despite the fearmongering by the media. Had psychiatric conditions been a limiting reason to restrict access to firearms, most of the recent events wouldn't have occurred, however, the right to patient privacy is evidently more important than a truly effective NICS system.

[RICHARD]

A cannon? No problem. As long as the requisite legalities are taken care of, no issues whatsoever.

The examples you list are examples of people breaking existing laws. There's no constitutional right to do any of the things listed. However, there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right. There are already limits on that right that have been enacted in law and adjudicated as appropriate limits. There is no need for further limits, despite the fearmongering by the media. Had psychiatric conditions been a limiting reason to restrict access to firearms, most of the recent events wouldn't have occurred, however, the right to patient privacy is evidently more important than a truly effective NICS system.

http://carbide-cannons.carbidecannon.org/

----------------

Just had a discussion about Sandy Hook versus Aurora (versus Columbine/VA Tech and every other mass) shooting.

I guess some high school kids being shot wasn't as bad as a theater full of people, but a school full of kids gets people to 'act'?

I find it kinda strange that we refuse to put the same price on every life.

------------------

The Diane Feinstein gun act is exactly that, an act.

It's a stupid, minimalist approach (Can you say pretend) to a the existing gun laws.

I had a great laugh about DF going after a gun with a folding stock.

What?

WIH does a folding butt stock have to do with the lethality of a gun?
If you decide carry 12 ten round magazines how is that different than carrying 4 thirty round mags?
Does a foregrip on a gun make it deadlier?

You'd have to ask her, I really don't have an answer.

[cassiesmom]

To get back on topic....

Finally a statement of fact about the issue from Vice President Biden:

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

That being the case, let's try just for a moment enforcing the laws currently on the books, eliminating the barriers against including psychological information in NICS checks, and move on without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Dear VP Biden: Have you paid any attention to what's happened in Chicago this week? A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you, as the head of the task force, think that nothing you might do will help -- what does that say to America? Do your best to at least try to come up with something. Meanwhile, if you could help those charged with enforcing the current laws to do their jobs better, that would be a good start. Especially here in Chicago where the people are doing the shooting are at risk of ending up dead or imprisoned. Please listen to all the pastors and mothers and other people who are saying that something must change.

[Karen]

Dear VP Biden: Have you paid any attention to what's happened in Chicago this week? A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you, as the head of the task force, think that nothing you might do will help -- what does that say to America? Do your best to at least try to come up with something. Meanwhile, if you could help those charged with enforcing the current laws to do their jobs better, that would be a good start. Especially here in Chicago where the people are doing the shooting are at risk of ending up dead or imprisoned. Please listen to all the pastors and mothers and other people who are saying that something must change.

I feel sorry for the mothers and families of Chicago (and everywhere) whose lives are marred by this violence. But I doubt the guns involved were purchased legally, or the perpetrators have any fear of repercussions from using them illegally. More needs to change in the culture of these neighborhoods - wherever they are - than any law will fix, no matter how far-reaching and specific. Serious, long-term work needs to be done addressing the causes of the violence, which is more to the heart of the matter than the guns by which it gets expressed.

I do think we also need to address the mental health aspect of this, in most "school shootings" cases that make the news, there were red flags raised about the mental health of the eventual shooter, but because of patient privacy laws, nothing was done. But targeting the weapons themselves is far simpler and politically more newsworthy than addressing that difficult, complex, legally and ethically difficult issue of mental health.

[Lady's Human]

CM, if the inanimate objects were the heart of the problem, then there would be far more violent deaths in, for instance, rural areas of upstate New York than there are in Chicago, as firearms are far more prevalent in rural areas than they are in cities.

Most people have them, no one, frankly, cares. As stated earlier in the thread they are simply a part of the landscape.

It's not the firearms, it's the people. You could address the tools all day long, but unless you do something about the root cause of the violence then nothing will change.

[cassiesmom]

A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There have now been two arrests in this case, which has made the national news. Two gang members were arrested. It's thought that Hadiya and the group of kids she was with were mis-identified by the shooters as members of a rival gang. The CPD Superintendent attributed the arrests to "good police work".

So, again, nothing changes. Two more young African American men will probably go to prison for a long time for this. But it's not likely to decrease the overall incidence of gun violence related to gang membership in Chicago. Could someone please do something to get the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I know that in the past white people have looked the other way when the perps and the victims are non-white. This case is different, though. Everyone is saying something must change immediately if not sooner.

[Lady's Human]

Sadly, the political will to make significant change in the "gangsta" culture just doesn't exist.

It's not something that DC can toss together a piece of legislation, trot out to the Rose Garden for a presser and a signing ceremony, and be done.

Therefore, it isn't going to happen.