the pointlessness of gun control in USA
 

theres so much strong opinion that comes out of this horror. its true that the USA would have fewer dead people if it had no guns, like china, where 22 children survived a knife attack on the same day.

but guns cannot be banned unless the 2nd amendment is overturned. for this & cultural reasons, there will always be guns-a-plenty in america.

it will be at least a generation before the emerging demographic changes seen in the presidential election turn the culture in congress to where gun control & legalizing pot will pass. When gen X is old & gen Y is middle aged, the republican ideology will be gone, & things will truly change.

But until then it will be up to people themselves how to best protect themselves from an emerging trend of antisocial nerds that are melting down & punishing innocents out of revenge for all their social struggles. gun control will not stop a motivated nutty nerd.

carry on.

Just post in another of the 15,000 fucking threads on the front page. This is stupid. Sorry, some people died. This shit happens daily all around the world. Yes, I feel fuckin bad, oh well. Get the fuck over it.

Pray for the families, send them some flowers, jerk em off. Nothing will bring their fucking dead kids back. They will get the fuck over it and mover on, they have no choice.

Talk about cumshots please , sick of gun threads

No one is talking about banning guns. You fail to see the difference between gun control and gun bans.

In very simple terms, we need to keep firearms out of the hands of people who can do damage with them. You look over the vast majority of these cases and you'll see one common theme - mental illness issues. We have the right to bear arms, but that right can be taken away - for example, we do not allow felons to own fire arms. Simple enough. Now, we need to expand this to anyone with mental issues.

I know what you will all say - But the gun owner didn't have mental illness, her son did. (Her son, the shooter, had some kind of personality disorder.) Again, very simple - if you have someone living in your house who has any kind of mental illness problems AND OR anger management problems, you are banned from owning any firearms.

???

no? they're not???

yes, very simple and so logical.

what happens when your kid's mentally disturbed friend comes round your house, steals your guns and shoots up our school.?


solution: ban mental kids from going to other houses?

Thank you its not all or nothing.

Yep because that happens so many times. These people tend to be loners so not alot of friends. Then if they have a friend, the friend would have to have a gun and they would have to know where the friend keeps it.

Not that it applies in this case, but a thorough mental examination should go along with firearm background checks.

No, it's not all or nothing. We have the right to bear arms, but we restrict felons from owning firearms.

There is a huge difference between a visitor in a house and someone who lives there. A visitor to a house would most likely not know there was firearms in the house, no less where they are and how to access them.

do you really think profiling for crazies is gonna change anything? these shooters are not really giving out signals what they're planning. most mentally ill people dont shoot people either. nobody can say when a person can snap. people who've never been crazy, but their lives came apart, snap & kill their estranged loved ones, happens every day. can't profile for this. can't look at a depressed person & say this ones gonna blow.

Again, we have to apply common sense here.

In this case, the shooter tried to buy a firearm on his own and was denied. If his mother was restricted from owning firearms this might not have ever happened.

The only other options I see is banning all assault rifles. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

suppositions on what woulda prevented it are based on what? his uncle was a cop. maybe if mama had no guns, he woulda killed his uncle instead. maybe he kills his friends dad. it really doesnt matter. it was illegal for him to have the guns, but he got em.

even if they pass an assault weapons ban, it will be as useless as the 94 law. guns will be changed just enough to pass the law. & killers will just pick a new legalized bushmaster that does the same fucking thing.

short of gun bans, gun control cant do shit. IMO.

The reason we have the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from government tyranny. It's not for hunting or sports so just get that out of your brain washed heads. The first thing dictators do is disarm the public.

anyone here remember bringing guns to school? schools even had gun clubs. There were no problems then.

The problem lies some where else.

You can carry a golf club every where, but if you start swinging it around and threatening people with it that's a crime. Don't blame the object for the problem.

actually the second amendment is a fossil. a relic of its time, written when farmboys running out to lineup constituted the national defense.

today, the public cannot defend itself whatsoever from the police state. the police will fuck you & any so called militia right up the ass with patriot act violations. call you enemy combatant, make your constitutional rights disappear.

the problem is not a law issue at all; motivated people break every law ever written. The problem is the emergence of mal-adjusted dorks who are losing their screws. People are clammoring for laws & checks to find these people, but they are near impossible to stop without them slipping up. there is no easy answer. i dont profess to have one. except people should decide for themselves if they should pack heat given their situation.

You don't have to ban guns.. You simply have to make sure the wrong people don't have them. There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of responsible citizens it's the irresponsible ones that cause most of the problems but fixing that goes way beyond just control.

Want to fix the gun problems in the US that's cool but it's bigger than just guns.

1) Give strict jail sentences for felons that are caught with a gun, not just ones that use a gun while committing a crime. If they committed a violent crime then they forfeit their gun ownership for life. If they committed a non violent crime then after X amount of time they should be able to get a gun permit for home defense only but if caught with gun off their own property then result back to strict sentence.

This is half the problem with ex-cons in this country, once they do their time they are usually marked for life so there is little reason for them to no return to a life of crime because most can never advance past due to society not being willing to give them another chance.

2) This ties into what I said before.. but education is a must. I'm not talking about gun education, but rather making sure anyone that wants it's including those felons sitting in jail have access to a proper education that can get them a "real" job.

Kids shouldn't be going into debt for tens or even a hundred thousand plus just to get an education. They should have the ability to get a state funded college degree or get access to trade school training that gives them the training to get a decent skilled labor job.

This same thing should be offered to felons. You are never going to solve our gun problems by just strict law enforcement, you have to change the reasons people turn to guns to commit crimes. Most inner city gun violence is because of a bigger problem of lack of ability for those people to do anything worthwhile with their lives.

As a country we then have to provide them with those jobs.. Again a much bigger issue than just guns.

3) Health care.. We simply can not fix the problems of this country with out making sure people have access to affordable health care. It's one of the core things that keeps this country from advancing.

4) Licences & background checks for all guns. Every gun not just handguns should require a license & background check. A unlicensed gun should be treated just like one that has it's serial number filed off and dealt with using once again strict penalties.

Part of this means that you must be a US citizen to own a gun in the US, if caught with a gun then you get deported. You put the time & effort into becoming a responsible citizen then you can carry a gun. This of course leads into the bigger issues of illegal immigration.

It's not about the guns or what types of guns people have access to, but it's more about who is getting their hands on them and the other problems that we face as a society. Start fixing those other problems and address gun ownership in a responsible way and we will start to see gun crime go down in this country.

The funny thing is no one cares about fixing the real problems..

The problem is in this country.. half the things I listed will get me labeled as a hardcore socialist and the other half labeled as a hardcore conservative. This is the real problem that faces this country is the inability for both political parties to look to each side and accept that both sides have some ideas that will help fix our problems and to work together on a middle ground solution.

An alternate approach would be this.

Dont try to control gun sales, instead pass laws with severe penalties on gun mishandling.

In this case, the mother was shot, so could not be prosecuted, but, if people have accidents with guns, threaten with guns, commit misdemeanors and other crimes with guns, allow minors unsupervised access to guns, do not keep guns properly locked, or in any way commit the common gun mishandling problems that cause accidents or crimes, they could legally, and constitutionally, be severly fined, jailed, and punished.

There is no constitutional protection for bad gun handling.

I was reading an analysis of the drug war failure the other day, and a part fo the article caught my eye. A police chief noticed thru statistical analysis that people who had minor gun crime incidents on their records were usuallythe same people that went on to commit worse gun crimes - by telling his police tyo watch those people, and watch for minor gun offenses and follow up on them, he reduced crimes in general by some fairly astonishing percentage.

Here's that article - too long to read - so a few snippets...

This has to do with typical gun crime, but, I think it also applies to gun incidents, gun accidents, and threats using guns.

http://nymag.com/news/features/war-o...ex5.html#print

�We are fishing with a net,� Bealefeld started to say publicly, �and we need to be fishing with a spear.�

The spear he found was gun priors. Encoded in Baltimore?s murder records was a singularly interesting piece of data: Over half of the murderers in his city had previously been arrested for a handgun violation. The universe of offenders in Baltimore with prior gun convictions was very small, and most of them were serious criminals. Focusing on them seemed plausible. The commissioner did not publicly declare the war on drugs a failure, though he believes that to be the case, or petition the legislature to decriminalize possession. �We just deemphasized it,� he says.


---

Quietly, in experiments in a few influential police departments around the country, a new set of tools for policing is being tested, as cops have come to realize that violence tends to be driven not by neighborhoods but by small and identifiable populations of exceptional individuals. Working with arrest records on the crime-ridden far West Side of Chicago, a young Yale sociologist named Andrew Papachristos discovered that he could create a social map of violence (including only people who were arrested together with other members of the network) that encompassed just 4 percent of the people in the neighborhood but virtually all of the murderers and murder victims. Each time you �co-offended? with another member of the network, it turned out, you grew 25 percent more likely to be murdered. The universe of the violent and the vulnerable, Papachristos found, was far tinier than the universe of people involved in drugs, or in gangs; it was a small circle of people who all knew one another.

----

Bealefeld didn?t have any of this information when he started in Baltimore. All he had was his list of criminals with gun priors. So his department created a registry and required each beat cop in the city to check biweekly with every local gun offender to remind them they were being watched. The state parole and probation department was overwhelmed by the mass of drug offenders, so Bealefeld asked if instead of monitoring everyone closely, they could just pay attention to a hundred gun offenders. (They could.) Other commissioners had sent out departmental commendations when cops seized large quantities of drugs, but Bealefeld stopped doing that and started sending out letters only when gun offenders were brought in.

It worked. In 2011, Bealefeld?s last full year, his department made only 65,000 arrests, down 43,000 from the figure before he took over. The cops weren?t letting serious crime go - murders were down sharply over the same period, from 269 to 196. Many of the missing arrests were for low-level drug crime. What happened was a kind of reset, a replacement of drug-war policing with another mentality that was more risky but more precise. Perhaps, as Bealefeld worries, the new mindset won?t last. But for the moment, it has meant 43,000 people last year who weren?t locked up, who didn?t have a conviction on their record, who were not subjected to the inherent brutality of the system. The message he had wanted to get across to his officers, Bealefeld says, was �that it?s always okay to go after bad guys with guns rather than guys smoking weed.�

that would prevent many gfy'ers from owning guns. thatss not freedom!

it doesn't really matter if only a small percentage of mentally ill people actually use guns or violence. fact is they are not stable and rely on medications that most do not like to take to be "normal". there is no reason to give unstable people guns. there is such a huge amount of mental illness that goes undiagnosed, the ones who have actually been diagnosed just shouldn't own guns. it would at least cut down risk.