Point Washington Shooters Amongst Us

[LuciferSam]

Gun ownership extremists?? They are simply exercising their Constitutional right to own arms. Just like Women voting. Just like Civil Rights for all. It is right there in the U.S. Constitution. And when has Common Sense recently come into play in this country?

I understand, but if the constitution were amended with respect to gun rights, then your constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership would change accordingly. Right now the constitution is just plain wrong and until it is rectified through the legal system, we have to accept the fact that it allows for irrational misguided behavior, and live with the tragic consequences that often result. You say it's "right there", and I'm saying let's change it so that it's no longer "right there".

 

[LuciferSam]

Any amendment in this area is probably unenforceable at the start. However, if you really wanted to cover all the bases:
1. No guns allowed of any kind.
2. No knives over 3" either.
3. No violent DVD's allowed where any explosives, skin, shooting, sex, mental illness, or visual stimulation is evident.
4. No Nitrogen base fertilizer products allowed. No liquid propane gas allowed. No gas grills allowed. No backyard gardens allowed.
5. No violent movies allowed at all, cable, satellite or theater.
6. No fireworks allowed.
7. No vehicle over 30MPH allowed.

If you are going to LEGISLATE common sense, you are going to be very disappointed with your position.
Nobody can pass an enforceable law to prevent what happened in Connecticut this week. It makes good fodder for the Nightly News, but the base problem is the individual who does the killing. Pass a law to prevent individuals like him.

Obviously you are changing the subject in a vain attempt to distract from the main issue at hand. Weak, very, very weak.

 

[Zebraspots]

Many other countries have successfully refined their gun policies to reduce violence yet still allow widespread gun ownership.

You trust the government to regulate and control many things, why are guns so different?

 

[happy2Bme]

I'm not against guns or gun ownership, and I know that regulating them will not stop extremists, or anyone for that matter, from getting one if they truly want one. But, as Andy A said above, give animals (kids, women, and others with lesser forms of weaponry) a chance. Our military needs automatic weapons, as do our police. Why? Because they often face multiple threats from multiple sources so need a weapon that can quickly react to multiple targets (and the random dipstick that unfortunately found a way to get an automatic weapon). True hunters, and those who feel the need to protect themselves from the pervasive threats of our society, do not need an automatic weapon; they need training on how to properly and safely utilize and store their weapon, and how to consistently draw a bead on their prey/"threat" to kill/wound the same, as appropriate (see Zebraspots 2-shot concept above). We'll never be able to keep a determined, mentally ill/PO'd/sociopathic individual from creating mayhem with any weapon should they so choose, but at least we can limit their ability to randomly harm large quanties of the defenseless by limiting their ability to easily get their hands on automatic weapons. It is unconcionable that any human could be so selfish and ignorant that they see their right to an automatic weapon as more important than protecting those who have no means to protect themselves.

 

[ComputerWorks]

Whether automatic guns are banned or all guns are banned, that will not stop these sick people like in Newtown from killing! If all guns were banned, these sick people would adapt, they may create bombs and do even more damage.

I think what needs to happen is something on the realm of this; once a person is diagnosed as a psychopath or rather some form of mental illness, that individual and his/her entire family needs to have all weapons removed from that home, just like a recovering alcoholic needs all alcohol removed from their home or a drug addict drying out needs the drugs removed etc. Furthermore, just like someone on probation, the sick individual needs to check in with a professional, it should be documented and if they don't show, they are in violation and a warrant is put out. In all these cases I hear about, in the end they always say, "there were signs".

With that said, do you think, if he had no weapons at his disposal, he was turned down for buying one because of his medical records, if he never shot a gun because he never would have been allowed in a gun range based on his condition, if his mother did not have guns, AND if he was regularly checking in with a professional that can read a person like a book, that this and other similar shootings would have happened?

I know this may sound far fetched, as well as who would fund this, etc, etc, but for right now off the top of my head, its just a thought vs. what I'm hearing elsewhere bashing and bickering.

 

[Jdarg]

Even if one "sick" individual didn't have easy access to guns, it would be an improvement over how easy it is for everyone to get one now.

I feel sick that so many people feel they have a right to own as many killing machines as they can get, and that some of them can mow down an entire classroom of kids. Saying our problem is that we have removed God from the classroom is the root of all evil is ridiculous. Creating a society where violence and guns are common and everywhere is the problem.

 

[LuciferSam]

Whether automatic guns are banned or all guns are banned, that will not stop these sick people like in Newtown from killing! If all guns were banned, these sick people would adapt, they may create bombs and do even more damage.

I think what needs to happen is something on the realm of this; once a person is diagnosed as a psychopath or rather some form of mental illness, that individual and his/her entire family needs to have all weapons removed from that home, just like a recovering alcoholic needs all alcohol removed from their home or a drug addict drying out needs the drugs removed etc. Furthermore, just like someone on probation, the sick individual needs to check in with a professional, it should be documented and if they don't show, they are in violation and a warrant is put out. In all these cases I hear about, in the end they always say, "there were signs".

With that said, do you think, if he had no weapons at his disposal, he was turned down for buying one because of his medical records, if he never shot a gun because he never would have been allowed in a gun range based on his condition, if his mother did not have guns, AND if he was regularly checking in with a professional that can read a person like a book, that this and other similar shootings would have happened?

I know this may sound far fetched, as well as who would fund this, etc, etc, but for right now off the top of my head, its just a thought vs. what I'm hearing elsewhere bashing and bickering.

Your bomb rationalization is ridiculous beyond description. That's like saying body armor is useless because then shooters will just go for the head shot. Does the whole idea of risk reduction mean nothing to you or what? Interesting you should bring up explosives too, because sales of large quantities of fertilizer are watched more closely than sales of large quantities of ammunition.

 

[beachmouse]

Just a reminder that the not so fine Republican legislators in Tallahassee have effectively banned local government from any form of additional gun regulation in counties and other municipalities in the state.

 

[UofL]

Founding fathers did not foresee assault weapons nor mass quantities of ammunition in one home. This gun cultures not what they had in mind. There is no reason for private citizens to have the arsenals that they do.
Guns are created for one reason - to harm. Rocks, knives, bats, glass, anything can be used to harm but their original use is something else. Why you want to have these guns?
A couple of weeks ago, a man is leaving a gun show, buckles his son in the back seat of the truck, then places the gun on the console. Unfortunately it still had one bullet left it, and discharges and kills his son.
I just don't get this love and obsession with guns.
Near me, the local stores are selling out of guns. Geez.....
Merry Christmas:-(
Ellen

 

[Jdarg]

Founding fathers did not foresee assault weapons nor mass quantities of ammunition in one home. This gun cultures not what they had in mind. There is no reason for private citizens to have the arsenals that they do.
Guns are created for one reason - to harm. Rocks, knives, bats, glass, anything can be used to harm but their original use is something else. Why you want to have these guns?
A couple of weeks ago, a man is leaving a gun show, buckles his son in the back seat of the truck, then places the gun on the console. Unfortunately it still had one bullet left it, and discharges and kills his son.
I just don't get this love and obsession with guns.
Near me, the local stores are selling out of guns. Geez.....
Merry Christmas:-(
Ellen

Ellen, I'm with you. I have never understood the gun thing. I'm OK with a few rifles for hunting, maybe a handgun for self protection, but the crazy have-to-have-as-many-guns-as-possible-because-it's-my- 2nd amendment right- I will never understand. It seems backwards and ignorant. Guns are killing machines, and should not be glorified in any way.