In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Far to many shootings what would you do?
GilWilson1
Member Posts: 182 ✭
So I don't think anyone could disagree that we have too many shootings by deranged individuals.
How would you handle this if you were "in charge".
Curious, because while I think the 2nd was wisely implied to prevent citizens from becoming slaves I do think we should endeavor to explore some options to try and reduce these senseless acts.
What say you? Can we do anything to reduce the numbers? Is removing the gun free barriers going to help?
How would you handle this if you were "in charge".
Curious, because while I think the 2nd was wisely implied to prevent citizens from becoming slaves I do think we should endeavor to explore some options to try and reduce these senseless acts.
What say you? Can we do anything to reduce the numbers? Is removing the gun free barriers going to help?
Comments
If you are operating on the belief that nobody should ever die, you might try to save every life, I don't believe every life deserves saving. Some kill innocent lives and those innocent lives never get a chance to do good. Others abuse and detest the life they were given and are granted many chances to do good, never do, but still allowed the place the innocent never had a chance to occupy. Life is not precious to these morons.
When society at large allows this disregard for innocent, vulnerable, helpless, human life...
no one wants to fund them or for that matter has the funding to meet all the frigging guidelines and medical support that required to baby sit the crazy people or take responsibility which includes all the lawsuits from the PC and liberals for not treating them well enough .
same with prisoners
Sheriff Joe had the best idea tent cities no frills good enough for military way too good for the nut jobs and criminals
also bring back and have televise public hangings carried out with in a week of sentence . no more life sentences
The long term solution is to teach ethics and morality from a very young age. Not the feel-good morality of the left, but a practical common sense morality. IMO they could take lessons from the Jews, a pragmatic common sense philosophy that builds on past experience. The lessons of the old rabbinic religious law - Halakhah is still applicable and Christian ethics aren't really very different. The progressives think they have all the answers, but the reality is there isn't a great deal of difference in society from the distant past and the present. The lessons learned from the past are still applicable.
I talked with a Rabbi about morality, paraphrasing he said loose morals breed disease. One of the main reasons for encouraging fidelity. This was a few years before the AIDS epidemic. In effect, he saw it coming. Hey, I'm a Christian but I can recognize wisdom from any source when I hear it. Made sense to me. Just one example.
1. Shoot the bad guy. Repeatedly if needed
2. Quit making a freaking Rock Star out of the bad guy
The news media is helping feed this monster by giving that 15 minutes of fame to some * that seeks fame.
If you want a guarantee, go to WalMart, buy a toaster. That has a guarantee. Life does not. We will never be able to keep crazy/ evil people from doing crazy/ evil things. But you CAN stop them.
Go look up Bath School Disaster- where an * killed 38 kids and 6 adults, wounded another 58 by blowing up the school. Back in 1927.
This is exactly what needs to be done. We used to have a hospital in our town for the mentally ill. They closed it down because they said it was cruel to keep the mentally ill instutionalized.
Now we have them roaming all over town and it keeps police and fire busy dealing with them.
Since most of these shooters have a mental health history the suggestion of asylums certainly makes for a reasonable argument.
Not in anyway imply taking away guns from citizens, but maybe those who have shown issues in controlling their anger or impulses need to have less access to the tools. That or we stand with NOT INFRINGED in any fashion and even a crazy loon gets to own and purchase any weapon of choice but we just kill them after they commit the act and hope that provides enough stimulus to prevent them. LOL
1. you have the right to own guns, and that right is unlimited and uninfringed, and is a cornerstone of being a free people
2. that right is non-negotiable. changing it is out of the question.
3. there always has been, and always will be, some people killing other people for whatever reason.
4. we're just going to have to take it from there.
of the mass shootings, many would have been reduced or prevented if the victims would have been armed. you may notice practically all of them were unarmed.
of the many gang-related shootings such as drive-bys those were criminal-on-criminal actions. my advice would be to not associate with criminals.
of the other crimes such as robberies, rapes, carjackings, etc we simply need to actually prosecute them, and actually send them to prison, and actually keep them there for the whole time instead of letting them out early. we should see that that would result in less crime, therefore a need for LESS prisons, and LESS backed-up court system, and so on. and if that doesn't work well enough the answer is to increase the penalties, duh.
It sounds reasonable to have some limitations on gun ownership until you remember there is a whole segment of society that believes guns are evil and guns are the problem. Many have given up on an outright ban and instead are eating the elephant one bite at a time. The old saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind.
The saying of the day some years ago was some believe anybody who would want to own a gun is mentally ill. This tack didn't get them very far, so they decided to attack the problem from the bottom up, identify those who are "said" to be mentally ill and forbid them from owning firearms. This tack eventually plays out into anybody who doesn't like guns can point at a gun owner and say he is mentally ill. If you don't believe this just remember the abortion battle, now in many places if a baby is crowning you still have time to kill it, some say even after it is born it's OK to kill it. IMO not giving an inch is the more prudent tack, no matter how persuasive the argument. In many cases, mental illness is subjective (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions).
Yes, and as much as I try to omit the word DEMOCRAT, most of the hatred emanates from their ideologues and front groups.
heh. they haven't either.
And sane people don't kill people, only Nut cases do. So lock up of The Nut Cases... problem solved.
The nutcases will always find a way to kill people. They have ever since the beginning of time. So if you take away all the guns but leave the nutcases on the streets, they'll just grab a couple of ingredients and build a bomb, or find numerous other ways of killing somebody or killing a crowd. Nutcases will always find a way , they have ever since the beginning of time
^^^^^^^^ This
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
There are incremental things that can be done to reduce the numbers of shootings.
Many of these have Individual Liberty restriction ramifications.
Obviously restrictions on firearms, magazine capacity, etc. directly go against not only the Individual Liberty aspect of the 2nd Amendment, but also directly reduce the ability of the common man or a group of common men from resisting the military of a rogue government or the militarized police forces of a rogue government.
Helping people who are struggling with mental issues would help, but the current trend towards extra-Constitutional seizure of a person's firearms via Red Flag (Don't piss of the wife) Laws are prior restraint laws and cannot be squared with Individual Liberty.
The bottom line is that a free society needs to be able to resist the intrusion of government when that government is intruding upon freedom and liberty. Inherent with the ability to resist is being able to arm ourselves to the point where such resistance is credible. This means the common man must have access to weaponry that allows him to credibly resist, and therefore the common man will have the ability to kill a significant number of people if he chooses to do so.
The price of freedom is this risk. I believe it is a price worth paying.
Brad Steele
Yep. Stop glorifying the killers in the media.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Simply put, you cannot lock someone up because of what they might do.