Or you take the rock from the kid that threw it and punish them. Now that would require adult action directed at the individual doing the throwing.
I guess when it makes you feel better and you don't have to man up and face the individual throwing the rock, its easier to be anonymous and punish all. There by removing any personal responsibility from the person doing wrong.
The Clinton Assault Weapons ban lasted from 1994-2004.
North Hollywood occurred in 1997.
Columbine occurred in 1999.
Both of these events occurred during the last AWB. Only an idiot would believe that a ban for legal and law abiding gun owners does anything to take the weapons from criminals.
Some years ago, folks figured out that it wasn't the cars that were the problem with DWI, it was the drunk drivers. As a result, we have a plethora of laws dealing with drunk drivers. We didn't take away everyone's cars.
Of course, even though drunk drivers aren't supposed to drive (at least under certain circumstances), they still do, and such drivers sometimes rack up another DWI even while they're waiting for the court date for a previous such charge.
So maybe we should take away everyone's cars. That would take care of the DWI problem, wouldn't it?
I don't have a problem (for the most part) with having some restrictions to some gun-related items, and I even question why someone needs an AR-15, large magazines, etc., but I think it's BS that we're restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because of those who break the laws.
What's the problem with enforcing the laws we have now? Imagine how many lives we could save enforcing laws that already exist. The school shootings cited (and a number not cited) would be prevented, DWI fatalities would cease to exist, drug-related deaths...
But was that individual responsible?Quote:
In most of those cases, the original purchase of the weapon was legal.
In most cases, the vast majority of guns purchased are used and used legally by their rightful owner. Lets punish them.
And what of the hundreds of laws already in place: Age limits, background checks, waiting periods, registration to name just a few?Quote:
The current knee jerk reaction is to dismiss any type of firearm restriction as unnecessary.
This article details the difficulties of gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household....
You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.
One of things that strike most visitors to Israel is the number of guns they see people carrying everywhere. But most people don’t realize that Israel’s gun laws are both stricter and very different from those in the U.S.
Personal weapons are more difficult to come by in Israel. A lot of vetting is done by the government, the police, a doctor, and the gun range that must train and test the potential gun owner before they, too, sign their approval. And the Israeli government prefers to limit gun licenses to those with army experience, if possible.
Even then, one normally is permitted to only own one gun, and a limited amount of ammunition (although one can buy as many bullets as one wishes at the gun range). Some admittedly feel that the single gun limit, is too restrictive.
A spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told the New York Daily News that this was simply wrong. “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” he said. “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years.” The spokesperson added, “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion.”
I believe the facts about gun ownership in Israel is probably not what you want to embrace for this nation.Quote:
Israeli guns laws, it turns out, are much stricter than America’s gun laws. This may help explain why Israeli gun ownership is just one thirteenth of what it is in the U.S. To bring that number into focus, it would likely be even lower if not for mandatory military service, which means Israelis are more likely to be familiar with guns. Israel’s unique security challenges and its periodic bouts with terrorism would also seem to bolster an NRA-style case for allowing more privately owned guns so that more citizens can defend themselves. And yet, there are far fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, and far less gun crime.
I know people don't like hypotheticals.
But for those that believe having armed guards everywhere is the right thing to do....when a mass murder occurs (again) at a place with armed security....is the answer still having armed security?
I read, with as much amusement as frustration, that the city of New York won't say a word about the mental health care failure when it comes to background checks and gun ownership, but make it a front page issue when it comes to pushing people in front of the subway.....
Of course there is Chicago, some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, pushing over 500 murders.....yep, gun restrictions are the answer.
To be honest, there really is no grandstanding. Grant it, I don't agree with bones or scfire, but I don't take it personal nor do they. How I know that, logical arguments and points that I need to read, research and counter. Honest debate is what solves issues.
Other than the families, there are very few people that know what this community is going through other than us in the fire/EMS service.
@SPFDRun: Don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all opposed to the discussion/debate over gun laws, etc. And yes, that's the whole purpose of having an online discussion forum, for those in the fire service or elsewhere. My thing is that this particular thread was created to acknowledge the tragedy that befell those victims in Newtown (children and adults) and allowed us to pay our preverbial respects online.
However, people instead have used this thread topic as a spring board to argue over gun laws, with almost no mention of the children or the specifics of the Newtown event whatsoever. In my opinion, that is grandstanding, and that trivializes the intent of this thread.
Again, I'm not opposed to the discussion at all. Just saying that it should have been a separate thread. If it weren't for the title of the thread, someone reading pages 2 through 10 would have absolutely no idea what this thread was originally created for. I know we get off topic from time to time, but I put that admonition on page one for a reason.
As for "if it saves one life": What if it costs a life? We can be certain that disarming law abiding citizens will cost lives, but we cannot prove it will save a single life.