That’s a felony right there. But hey, aren’t laws supposed to stop illegal shit like this? you can buy a long rifle, that’s not fully automatic if you are not a resident of the state, but its illegal to buy a pistol or fully automatic rifle out of state anywhere.
Not only that, if you have a license that belongs to a state that has draconian firearm laws (ie California), out of state dealers will either
not sell
not sell
because the firearm can be traced back to them in the event you get caught transporting, handling, or storing the fully assembled firearm at your house. That is a felony offense for the dealer. And they would get fined, lose their AFT/DOJ licenses and face jail time.
It would be great, but for those who do know it would be a huge loss, and its not something I or others would willingly accept, even if the consequences are grim. you should also know the first rule to any revolution.
**1) You don’t advocate it or push it until the people are willing to do so. **
@ The Furious One
Switzerland says hello!!! The issue isn’t the volume of firearms available, but the social and economic factors. Banning firearms completly ignores and circumvents responsiblity from society to adress these bigger issues.
I am a man who demands proof. You don’t show proof, you should shut the fuck up because all you’re doing is crying wolf. You’re a journalist? Do the leg work. It’s part of the job requirements.
I don’t know why everything is bold. I can’t fix it lol (oh good, it fixed itself).
Anyway, maybe “great” shouldn’t be taken literally. You’re right- it wouldn’t be great. Besides, people know it’s hopeless (and of course violence isn’t great anyway). Do you really think the government is at all scared of citizens with guns, even high powered assault rifles? Of course not. They’re selling them to us!! They’re not exactly worried about an armed uprising. They have sonic weapons, they have heat rays, they can send a robot to kill you while they sit on their couches, they’re invading countries with rocket launchers and anti air technology, and the occupy movement proved that they have a police force willing to violently repress their fellow citizens.
Do you really think the second amendment gives citizens any kind of leverage over the government? That’s a weak argument imo. Again, I think you know that I’m all for sweeping societal change re: mental health care (specifically, making the need for mental health care very small), but surely there must be some way to figure out some kind of helpful gun control in the meantime. You think there’s literally nothing at all that can be done in that area?
BAH! Both of you are spoiled children with your “explosives” and your “ballistic capabilities”. Back in my day, all we had were sharp rocks tied to sticks for close-in fighting, rounded rocks for throwing, indiscriminate predators that were just as likely to go after us as they were for the other cavemen, and the occasional lucky random lightning bolt. Young 'uns these days thing they were the first to do EVERYTHING…
My heart, thoughts and prayers go out to the family affected by this tragedy. I am watching a newscasts and they are saying how the shooter never made eye contact and was odd. They also go on to say that he has a mild case of autism. So my question is that are they trying to say that he was not aware the loading a gun, aiming it at a target and pulling the trigger could end en bodily harm or death? I understand that they are trying to make sense of this, but is it so far fetched that maybe he just wanted to do an evil thing? But as a parent of a two year of, this is really saddening. I am so hurt that children were targeted. Such a terrible thing to have happen.
The riot’s were pretty strange. A man was shot dead by Police after he apparently drew a gun on them, So people in a town went a bit crazy, and then London went crazy for no reason at all other than violence. Police hauled ass and it was done with. Our country has it’s share of disgusting arsehole bastards. And yeah, This country is somewhat racist, but it’s all Hush Hush political correctness.
Obviously the death of a child is more tragic given the lack of time they have had to enjoy and experience all life has to offer. However, killing a woman is in no way any different than killing a man, both are equally reprehensible acts, to think otherwise is to be bitch made.
Also where are these “unwritten rules” applied in the U.S.? Throughout history the countless deaths that occur annually show people who are willing to murder a group usually don’t make a distinction between man, woman, or child whether they are the target or just get caught in the crossfire.
Definitely agree, however, your post still does not provide any tangible solution to greatly minimize the threat of violence against the public. In fact you along with everyone else in this thread seem to only be able to indicate what doesn’t work without hinting at what does which brings me to my next point.
The way I look at it it’s a catch 22. The more guns are restricted and regulated for the harder it is for law abiding citizens to obtain a weapon. However those willing to obtain a gun illegally and who are probably more prone to irresponsible use of firearms are not affected at all by such policies, leaving innocent people more defenseless and more unable to exercise the second amendment. On the other hand the average armed person in the U.S. is 20 times more likely to kill so handing Johnny Appleseed and his whole family an AK47 probably won’t lead to less violence either.
I really do not know the answer but I do believe such horrific incidents like this shooting are the price we Americans are complicit in paying for the freedom we have. Any society that emphasizes personal freedom will contain amongst them at least a few who take advantage of that freedom to infringe the rights of others and take all of them away.
What laws specifically do you believe are not enforced as well as they should be? As a political science major I’m embarrassed to admit I’m more ill informed on the subject of gun control than I should be.
If only this video had more hits than Gangnam Style we might be on to something here. I’m surprised there isn’t a coalition or some kind of interest group comprised of psychologists against the media’s influence on violent offenders.
Is Oliver Stone the best we can do?
When you say it you’re being retarded, when rsigley says it he gets POTY (and rightly so).
Don’t listen to AP he like many on SRK think the appropriate counter to logic is to hurl random flamebait around.
(your av did make you look like an asshole though).
The government is afraid of its population. All government fear their citizens, this isn’t tin foil hat conspiracy theory. This is a fact. The first and most pressing issue any government deals with is control.
As for your gun control, there are solutions. Making it harder to acquire firearms in general seems to be the most popular one, but it doesn’t address the issue of shooting for fun. Many people like to go out and shoot, and why should they be penalized for others stupidity? Its ridiculous and unfair. All states have laws where felons cannot legally purchase firearms, and in some states, even after years of good behavior, they are still denied that privilege.
I’ve said this on other threads, but a viable solution isn’t making it hard to get firearms like they do in European countries. THat doesn’t address the issue and is a band aid solution to make idiots feel safe. The issue with mental health screenings is that who gets to decide who is mentally sane? But its defiantly a step in the right direction where unstable people are identified and denied the owner ship of these tools and helped. You can regulate what types of weapons are sold to the public, for example, restricting the purchase of Assault firearms or Small machine guns (Military Tier Weapons), limiting who gets to carry pistols in public, enforce training and safety classes for every firearm purchased (powerful tool imo because it requires the buyer to invest time), and limiting the market to Semi-Automatic and Semi-Automatic Sub machine firearms while limiting the amount of catriges per magazine. That way, if i want a god damn HK-416, I can get one, but have it limitied to Semi Automaitc and 10 rounds per go.
But installing European pussy laws is so toxic and counter productive when looking at it from a holistic perspective.
@o I’m use to saying the exact same thing someone else says in this site and getting insulted. That’s srk way.
So is the general consensus that mental health is definitely something that needs to be addressed? (Even AP seems to agree…being a brat is probably classified as something else though)
Obviously I’m not devising a legal solution here. (And not because I don’t think there is one, but because I don’t have the kind of expertise necessary to make any serious suggestions in that regard. We have people here who are much more law-savvy who might be willing to chime in.) What I can do is suggest public advocacy as a non-legislative way of actively solving at least a portion of the problem.
Consider this: in 2004, a gunman killed the guitarist Dimebag Darrell and three fans as well as wounding seven others at a concert in Ohio. The gun he had used was given to him as a gift by his mother years before. In the intervening time, the gunman had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. His mother knew about the diagnosis, and also knew that he still had the gun. Furthermore, the gunman was a former Marine–trained to shoot and kill efficiently and without remorse. Despite all that, it never occurred to his mother that he might be dangerous and that he shouldn’t have the gun. She simply did not think it was that big a deal, that the danger it posed was minor enough not to be a worry. Needless to say, she was wrong, and if she’d thought differently then her son and his four murder victims would still be alive.
This sort of apathy/lack of concern, to me, is similar to the apathy and lack of concern surrounding drunk driving as late as the 1970s. Nobody, neither cops nor politicians nor citizens, took it seriously as a dangerous behavior. Fast forward to the early 1980s when MADD starts up, and a lot of that changed, and nothing more importantly than people’s attitudes. People started talking openly about it and started to recognize that it was a potential danger worth acting on. Sure, laws were passed and educational programs were implemented and stuff like that, but on the much smaller scale, drunken partiers started staying over at each other’s houses or taking their friends’ keys away instead of just having everybody try to make it home safely on their own. It’s those little changes on the level of personal interaction, that new willingness to have the potentially awkward conversation, that matters just as much as big stuff like new laws.
That’s why I brought up MADD in this context. Their organization is by no means a perfect model, but they accomplished something massive in simply changing the way we think about an issue that they felt was important.
The whole gun control thing is kind of an odd discussion to be having right now, because I’m not sure it actually applies to this situation.
We’re not talking about making it easier for some guy to rob a liquor store in a bad neighborhood. We’re talking about a guy who decided it would be a good idea to get an assault rifle and go shoot a bunch of innocent children, or, in other words, someone who’s completely fucking nuts. While Timothy McVeigh seems like an extreme example because crimes of that type and magnitude are relatively rare in the US, we’re talking about a person who was fairly committed to the idea of killing people, and who was probably willing to deal with various inconveniences.
The only thing that would really have been an impediment here is the ego of the killer- if the stories about mass shootings or whatever other media touched him so much that he decided that is the only way he’d go about killing people in his fantasy situation.
edit: that is, assuming the postulations are true, and seeing other spree shooters influences those who are prone to becoming them; it could just be a common idea among all of said group of psychos who knows what guns are.
The only part of this statement that is true is that the kid was completely nuts.
(1) An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Its military and police cousin, the m16 is. In order to be an assault rifle said firearm needs to have either or both a 3 round burst/ full auto mode. A ruger mini 14 and many other long guns shoot the same ammo as an AR and are semi auto, yet no one labels them as assault rifles because they are not m16 replicas.
(2) The AR-15 was found in the dead shooters truck and was not used in the mass murder. He used 9mm pistols.
