1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.

So what needs to happen.....

Discussion in 'The Vapor Lounge' started by lwien, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    .....to lessen the amount of carnage and lessen the frequency of shootings like what happened in Connecticut. Here's my list:

    Put additional funding into our mental health care system so that mental health care can be more accessable, even to those that can't afford it.

    Right now, the law states that if someone is over the age of 18 (could be 21, I don't know), a person cannot be forced beyond their will, for a mental evaluation and subsequent treatment unless he has either harmed someone else or him/herself. This needs to change. If a person is deemed by a therapist to be at risk for harming himself or others, that person can be put into treatment regardless of age even if that person refuses treatment.

    I've heard varying statistics that somewhere between 40 to 70% of guns that are sold, are done so without any background checks whatsoever, primarily from guns purchased at gun shows. This loophole needs to be plugged right away. ALL guns sold, regardless from where they are sold, should have a mandatory background check for both felonies as well as mental health records. This should also apply to all ammunition as well as body armor. A comprehensive computer system at all establishments that sells such products should be tied into a national registry so that this check should be as quick, easy and as painless as possible. The same background checks should be done at shooting ranges as well.

    Guns, ammunition and body armor cannot be sold over the internet.

    Assault weapon ban should immediately go back into affect, as well as a ban on extended capacity magazines.

    All guns should be secure and locked up. If a gun is procured from an unlocked source and a crime is committed with that gun, the gun owner who did not lock up his/her guns is held liable for any damage or bodily harm that could ensue equal to at least half of the sentence of the person person that committed the crime. If a gun is sold without a background check, the same rules apply.

    If a crime, ANY crime, is committed with a firearm, a mandatory 30 year sentence will be applied.

    I have no doubt that there are things that could be added here, and I also have no doubt that some of you may disagree with my above recommendations, so..............let's have at it and discuss.
     
    FrogBoy138 and Vicki like this.
  2. Vicki

    Vicki The Bionic Woman

    Messages:
    5,659

    I agree with all your suggestions. Especially the part of your post that I bolded.
     
  3. PAZ

    PAZ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
  4. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    ^^ It's that old saying. A picture is worth a thousand words. Good find..........
     
  5. PAZ

    PAZ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
    I remember reading about the Columbine shooting and there was an interesting article about how one of the biggest problems is the media itself. The media makes the shooter famous, it's all the talk on every media station for a week and everyone remembers the name. How many people remember the name of a victim in the Columbine shooting, as opposed to the shooter itself?

    I'll try to find the article later, busy at the moment.
     
    Fully Melted likes this.
  6. thesoloman

    thesoloman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    603
    Location:
    Temecula
  7. PAZ

    PAZ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
    Found a few things, this is Carlie Brooker perspective (different incident).



    And this is the article I was talking about before.

    "Roger Ebert (the movie critic) made the same point in his review of the movie 'Elephant'[1] :
    Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
    The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
    In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy"
     
    Puffers likes this.
  8. OhTheAgony

    OhTheAgony here for the chicks

    Messages:
    2,906
    Location:
    The Flatlands
    I'm sorry, but as someone living in a country where firearms are mostly prohibited to civilians I'm not sure what good banning an extended magazine or just a certain kind of weapon could do. Imo it just means that the wrong doer needs to change mags more often or pull the trigger more often, big deal, they still have a gun :shrug:

    In the end it will come down to just this: you guys will have to choose between the freedom to carry weapons or live in a society where you don't have to be afraid to be shot. I just don't think it's possible to have it both ways. Of course, with all the guns that are already in circulation it'll probably be impossible to make them all disappear complete, especially withing a decent time-frame.

    Just for the record: I love guns and I do believe in the right to defend yourself. I've been shooting airguns with my dad since I was 6 or so and I was a sharpshooter in the army when I was on active duty. I wish I could still shoot and maintain guns because it always was a fun and challenging hobby to me, but the demands and rules they have over here just make me not wanting to own a gun because you have to jump through so many hoops just to get one and keep it at your own house that it takes all the fun out of it. Plus you'd only be allowed to fire it at the range so why bother, I can just as well rent a gun to do that.

    On the other hand I am also really glad I live in a society where you don't have to be afraid to get shot by a random ill-minded person or when you cut someone off in traffic by accident. I'm also really glad I live in a country where the cops aren't overly aggressive because they don't have to worry about getting shot every time they pull a car over or stop someone.

    Over here you have to keep your gun in bolted down safe if you do finally manage to get through the paper work and practical as well as psychological tests needed to get a license, and if you want to keep your ammo at home too you'll need another safe to keep that in. The police can come by your house to check this randomly (usually once a year on average), and if anything isn't how it's supposed to be your guns and license will be taken away from you instantly. Firing pins have to be removed for transportation if you don't have a lockable case to transport it in, and the ammo and gun can never be in the same container. Before they even let you take an exam you have to show you're responsible with a firearm by going to a club or range to shoot weekly for half a year at least I believe, and if you stop shooting on a regular bases your license also will be taken away from you as well. Shooting is only done at the range in my country, it's illegal to do it anywhere else. I am not a big fan of these rules personally, but seeing what is going on in a country without such rules I can see why people are in favor for them.

    It's a tough one, I realize that. And if people want to do bad things they'll find a way to it anyway. In 2009 some crazy guy decided to assassinate our royal family for instance. His murder weapon of choice was a Suzuki Swift & the location of choice was a parade in honor of the queens birthday. The idiot never even made it to the royalty, but managed to injure 17 people and kill 8 innocent bystanders while trying to ram his way through the audience to get to the parade.

    But I do think it's a fact that the threshold to actually go from planning to acting is a lot smaller with the availability of a tool so easily at hand, just look at your yearly suicides by guns alone for instance.
     
  9. Stu

    Stu Maconheiro Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Southeast of Disorder
    My father is a lifetime member of the NRA, and I have always had a lot of guns. My dad taught me to treat any attack on the 2nd amendent as the beginning of a slippery slope of gun control, and should be fought at all costs. That has been my mindset for all of my 46 years on the planet.

    However I'm beginning to question the slippery slope argument as I cannot justify the need for assault weapons or magazines that hold 100 shells. They serve no purpose other than their designed purpose... to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

    I'm willing to give a little and accept the fact that those things should be banned for the general public. Just don't mess with my small arms and hunting rifles and shotguns, and I'm willing to admit that we've gone too far in defense of the 2nd amendment.

    :peace:
     
  10. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    I would have "liked" that 10 times if I could. :tup:

    I don't think that there's anything in my original post that slights the spirit of the 2nd amendment one iota, eh?

    Slippery slope arguments. Man, the only way you can buy into a slippery slope argument, no matter what it's about, is if you feel that there is at least a medium possibility that what is at the end of that slippery slope really exists. That's were I part ways with most of them.
     
    Stu likes this.
  11. madnezz344

    madnezz344 live free and live elevated :}

    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    KUSHIFORNIA :}
    Random acts of violence are unpredictable. The best approach is to be prepared. Have a plan of some sort. This year's wave of chaos should serve us all as situations we can prepare for.
     
  12. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    I don't think that some of them are unpredictable. With some major changes in our mental health care system, I think we can become more cognizant of the possibilities and stop some of those possibilities before they ever came to fruition.

    While preparedness is always wise, I think there also needs to be a more pro-active effort to help stop some of them from ever happening, and worst case scenario, is that if it does happen, that we could possibly lessen the carnage.

    These random acts of violence is happening a lot more frequently, and there are things we can do to minimize them. We'll never stop it totally, but we sure as fuck can slow it down.
     
    madnezz344 likes this.
  13. crawdad

    crawdad floatin

    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    potano territory
    my list is short, simple, and long term: love. the more you love the less you hate. it works in individual relationships (mostly) and certainly with self. perfect? nope. however rules mean nothing, look at how we get around it...it provides little beyond making us to believe that all is well, its not. maybe it prevents something along the way and helps to make up for lazy parenting, but ultimately its a just a curtain to cover all that distracts from our "reality of perfection" we have built for ourselves....and for future generations to deal with. how to get there? no idea other attempting to be infectious about loving life, i decided to start with my kids and see where it goes. :peace:
     
    c3p_null, smokum and thesoloman like this.
  14. ShipDit

    ShipDit 1%

    Messages:
    1,065
    Location:
    The great Mid West Wasteland
    Maybe if we diverted some of the billions we spend of the failed "war on drugs", we could afford to,like,fight crime. Maybe we could use some of that money to put metal detectors in schools. How the fuck did that scumbag get an assault rifle into a school in the first place?
    I hate to say this,I really do....but if we as a society cannot protect our most innocent and vulnerable members,(our children) then we as a society have failed.
    I pray something good comes from this horrific act,and I'm not talking about politicians crying crocodile tears to further their own agendas.
    The system is broke. Has been for decades. What will it take to fix it?
    I think I'll make more time to spend with my grandson. I can't even comprehend what those parents are going through....but this is the first time in a long time I've cried while watching the news.
     
    Stu likes this.
  15. JCat

    JCat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    Ontario
    I would ask the question why anyone should be able to get their hands on an assault rifle? Last I checked assault rifles had no other purpose than to kill people so why the general population can buy and sell them is beyond me ...
     
    happyTrails likes this.
  16. onox

    onox Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    I agreed with the OP up until the assault weapon ban. Especially the mental health part, and how you should have to have a background check and mental health eval to buy a firearm. But an assault weapon ban is not practical... We tried it in 1994 for ten years, and it didn't appreciably reduce gun crime. Columbine did happen in the middle of the ban, remember. The "assault weapon" (political term, not a gun term) ban basically amounts to banning scary looking guns -- other than the large magazine, the actual functionality of "assault weapons" is just the same as normal rifles, and not the same as the military counterparts. And if a ban did go into effect, considering that there are 270 million firearms legally out there in the US, they can't confiscate them all. Practically, these guns will just be grandfathered and would be legally traded (much like fully automatic weapons made before 1986 are able to be traded today).

    The whole second amendment issue is another one entirely. Some people say that the founding fathers never could have envisioned the guns we have today, and did not intend for them to be covered. I disagree... The founding fathers had just been through a war with Britain over government tyranny. I think they realized that tyranny can happen anywhere, and put the second amendment in so citizens could protect themselves against an illegal government crackdown if it did happen. Basically, the way I think of it is, if Syria happened here would you want guns? And what kind of guns would you want? That's another reason I don't feel "assault weapons" should be banned.
     
    t-dub, Puffers and ShipDit like this.
  17. PAZ

    PAZ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
    I'm from Canada, so i'm just trying to grasp american understanding of owning a gun. The most common reply I get is 'it's for self defense', but really, is it necessary? What scenario of owning a gun would actually be a plausible reason?

    I'm not trying to bash the gun law, simply trying to understand why people are for it.
     
  18. kushcabbage

    kushcabbage vapor nerd

    Messages:
    1,008
    Location:
    cloud 9
    One of the main reasons is when myself, my family or property is under threat I have my god and country given right to defend myself with deadly force. The day someone tries to rob my house or terrorize my family will be the day they will be filled with hollow point fragments on my property (and husky bites lol) I also carry my handgun in public to defend myself or anyone that needs it. My friends are police officers and firemen who all belive the same thing. The response time of 911 to get the police (who have guns) is 8 min. The response time of one average honest citizen to react in a life or death situation is around 5 seconds. Because the legal and mental health systems are not working propertly it should be more difficult for someone to purchase firearms, and after be required to pass a mental state exam. The details will be decided soon I'm sure.. The sad thing is that the horric acts that happened with assualt rifles could just have happened with hand guns. Never the less only Seal teams should carry around 30 round extended clips for ar-15's even thought my good friend owns the same setup, another a bugarian ak-47. Good thing they are also service men.
     
    ShipDit likes this.
  19. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    Well, PAZ, there ya go. ^^ Spoken like a true American........... lol !!
     
  20. Stu

    Stu Maconheiro Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,514
    Location:
    Southeast of Disorder
    The 2nd amendment states:

    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.

    So try to understand that this is the lens that us Americans use when discussing this issue. "The government can't fuck with us so easily if everyone has guns." As Onox eloquently stated, I think the founding fathers were taking into consideration the "Syria" scenario.

    Of course we live in different times and with different weapons now, some 200 years later. So what to do?

    As a people, do we insist on the purity of the founders intent? Or do we take into consideration the changes of the past two centures vis á vis technology, sociology, politics....

    I guess I think of it like this: Do I fear a Bashaar al Assad-like dictator to turn United States government weapons on us Americans looking for "freedom"? Or do I fear more slaughters of innocents that seems to be occuring on an all-too-regular basis?

    Which one of these two possibilites seems more likely? And am I willing to bet the lives of any future victims in potential future senseless acts of violence in order to keep 200+ year-old strategies alive?

    :peace:
     
    lwien likes this.
  21. onox

    onox Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    I admit that it's not likely that a full blown war will erupt here like in Syria. But the government attacking people is not unheard of (Kent State is one example). I also do have another reason, in that my house was robbed by five people with various weapons, including a handgun and a shotgun (back when I did not own a gun, and used to be anti-gun). We were lucky in that the police weren't far away, but had the police not come soon enough, things could have gone badly.

    I think that criminals are going to get guns no matter what. And I think law-abiding citizens should be able to have guns; even carry them. There have been many instances that I know of that involve a citizen with a concealed weapon stopping violence (or more violence) from happening. In a Smith's store near my work, a guy bought a knife and just started stabbing people. A man with a concealed weapon pulled his gun and forced the criminal to the ground.

    I think the most important thing is to make sure that guns can't get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. The gun show loophole should definitely be closed. I think they should require every gun transaction to be done at an FFL dealer, complete with background checks (and requiring copies of mental health records). I'd also tossed around an idea to make sure you don't have any mentally ill people/felons living in your house before you could store a gun there, but I'm not sure how it would be enforced.
     
  22. lwien

    lwien Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Location:
    Arcadia, California
    Well said, Stu.

    To me, believing in the pure intent of the 2nd Amendment is kind of like believing that the Earth was created in 7 days, for both of these ideas made perfect sense for the times that they were written in, no longer makes sense today, at least for some of us.
     
    Stu likes this.
  23. PAZ

    PAZ Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    277
    See I thought the burglary point would be brought up, as it would be one of the most common argument for it. At least in my view, the burglar would also be armed as well because firearms are so readily available. He realizes he's committing a crime, and if he picks an unlikely time when people are home, at least to me i'd rather have both sides not having guns compared to the flipside.

    I don't agree with this statement about criminals having guns. At least not the petty thiefs and burglars. While I do see that guns can prevent a crime, I personally feel like more often then not, they escalate a crime.
     
  24. NoddingDonkey

    NoddingDonkey Oil, Glass & I'm a bit of an ass

    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    On an oil rig somewhere
    posted before reading clearly, oops
     
  25. happyTrails

    happyTrails phishpanicjam

    Messages:
    151
    When I was in school the Cold War was explained to me like this; Russia holds a book over our head about to thump us, we grab 2 books, they grab 3, and so on until we had enough nukes to where people were scared that the world could end at any second. and it could have. We live in a society that is desensitized to how quickly things spiral out of control. It takes a tragedy to look around and say, "hey, what the fuck are we doing and how did we get here?" Gun advocates have their rights, but fundamentally they base their "need for self defense" on fear. While their is certainly a lot in this world to fear, it is a shame we have gotten to this level. No easy answers for sure. I guess we can read the back of our MFLBoxs and wish it were so. Fear certainly limits and negatively impacts the choices we make, but in some cases it is a healthy and self preserving force. :peace:
     
    crawdad likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors