Whether you think it's ludicrous or not, facts are facts.
Whether you think it's ludicrous or not, facts are facts.
As for the child deaths, I can't speak for your area. I do know that around me there has been lots of educational programs, lots of family services, lots of media time spent on child care.
I hope I'm misunderstanding your point on weapons.
If I'm following you correctly, the breaking of laws in the shooter's preparation for a mass shooting event was addressed in my post and should be part of the overall discussion on "gun control". As I stated, anybody in the chain of events that facilitated the illegal possession of a firearm should be strongly prosecuted and punished with real consequences that hopefully would discourage others from doing the same in the future. The mere fact that some may resort to illegal routes to obtain the needed weapons really isn't a reason to not impose sensible regulations that could at least make it more difficult to get those weapons and possibly deter other people's efforts.Quote:
Not to mention it fails to address the numerous state and federal laws broken to even get to the point of actually perpetuating the end result.
I'm not sure what you mean by an assault rifle ban being an "uneducated reaction". Are you referring to not knowing the technical definition of what an "assault rifle" is? Are you referring to the "non-epidemic"? Something else?Quote:
Let me make this perfectly clear, I am in no way discounting or ignoring those individuals who have been affected in a way I will never know by these horrible tragedies. But if you want an honest discussion with relevant results, then you must include the hard data and statistics. Not the media hype or talking head politicians trying to get their name in print in time for the next election. An "assault rifle" ban is a perfect example of an uneducated reaction. First, the media and politicians keep bastardizing the definition of an "assault rifle" for nothing more than the purpose of fear mongering. Then add the fact that less than 350 people where killed by ALL rifles, including the media's version of an assault rifle. Not to diminish the hurt of the families of those killed by a rifle, but is 350 people an epidemic?
So until you remove the emotion and grandstanding and include actual data and facts, you won't have any type of solution.
I agree that any discussion has to include all relevant information and statistics. If emotion and grandstanding are to not be part of the discussion, then I think the issue of "gun control" has to be considered on it's own merits. This would include understanding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right to own any specific type of firearm and not trying to compare the number of gun deaths to deaths by any other cause in order to insinuate that gun violence isn't that big of a deal (comparatively). This would also include answering tough questions like, is it appropriate for a civilian to own and possess military style weapons even if they aren't being used for mass shootings in epidemic proportion? Does a civilian have a legitimate need for high capacity magazines?
The fact is this is a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted approach to achieve any sort of "success". "Fixing" the shortcomings of our criminal justice system has to be a priority. "Fixing" the mental health system has to be a priority. While doing both of these things will probably provide positive results, the job would be incomplete and we can do better.
There's one part of the equation that has to be addressed also and that is the access to the weapons used in these tragic incidents. While a ban would in all likelihood not be able to guarantee there are no more of these incidents, I don't believe that it would be entirely fruitless either.
It's been reported that there was a significant spike in sales of the weapons that could be on that "ban list" in the wake of Sandy Hook. It wasn't the first time this happened. If a ban had already been in place, then that spike in sales of those specific weapons would not have taken place as it did.
If a ban were to be put in place for weapons like the AR-15 and high capacity magazines, then it would reasonably follow that gun dealers would no longer be selling them to the public (at least legally). If the gun dealers aren't selling the product, then the manufacturers would stop production of the product.
The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.
Will it make a huge difference? I don't know for sure, but it has to be part of any serious discussion.
My point is how it relates to guns. Gun advocates wrap themselves in the platitudes of what the Founders wrote. While not realizing or ignoring how they applied the 2nd Amendment much differently than those writings.
I doubt many gun advocates would embrace the Founders if they were running for office today based upon that application of policy.
How did Chicago fair with some of the strictest, if not the strictest gun control laws in the nation?
All the more proof of the fact it is not the gun, style of the gun, or capacity of the magazine. But irrefutable proof that it is the criminal element using it as just another tool for evil.
So tell me again how various gun bans and magazine restrictions are going to help?
Why is there a discussion about what went on over 300 years ago? Yes we need to look into the past. We need to look to determine what we as a society did wrong. Our ancestors were dead wrong to have slaves. PERIOD, END STORY!!!! We learned from it and changed it. (and frankly are still learning from it)
Now, using the Black Panthers as a talking point is not appropriate in talking about gun control. First, did anyone try and take them away from them? No but they did try to tell them they couldn't have them. If it would have been a mob of hundreds of anger white people with firearms would they have been harassed? Of course they would have. Any group would still have that same issue today. On the point of where was the NRA, well they did not become the organization we know as the NRA until 1989-1990. Yes they have been a group since the early 1870's but at that time it was to better our Militias(Military) as marksmen. They slowly evolved into the NRA of today and prior to say the early 80's didn't have any clout to do anything. Would they have? Hard to say but probably not, but again that is past and we have learned from the past. Would they today, absolutely.
I really do not believe it is a republican, democrat, conservative, liberal thing. The politician see it as a reelection tool.
I respect everyone's opinions on this matter. If you do not believe someone should own firearms then don't own firearms. I look at it differently. I look at the countries that do not allow citizens to own firearms and the histories they have. (I will not go into details it can be looked up).
It is amazing how this one sentence....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
is causing so much turmoil. It looks pretty clear to me.
And come on, does anyone really think that firearms are the biggest problem we have in this country? Of course it isn't but it is an easy target.
All this debate, due to the tragedies, has done is cause firearms sales to sky rocket. I went to try and buy a Sig a week ago and the gun shop was completely sold out. He would not even let me order one because there where already so many prepaid orders he did not even have a clue when one would become available. I will not buy one used unless its someone I know. I prefer to know where the gun has been and what it has done.