A mind intent on committing an atrocity will not be deterred by any means, including gun control (case in point, Anders Breivik).
The whole world's talking about it... figured we might as well be also.
Into the crevasse!
"Climb down Lemon, Climb down"
When I was younger I was very anti-gun. as I've become older, as far as guns are are concerned I've moved slightly more towards the middle of the pack.
I don't know what the solution is, but as a society of intelligent people there has to be some viable solution to prevent events like this from occurring that doesn't involve the extremes of either:
- Taking all guns from the American populace
- or having every single adult walk around armed 24/7
As someone who carries a gun daily, and is fully submersed in my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, I'm a bit biased.
But without retyping, click through this RGM thread and you'll see my position on the topic: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/view...?f=6&t=1220084
Any specific questions, I'd be glad to discuss with (and within) reason
my least favorite thing to hear/read is when someone says "please tell me who uses a semi-automatic rifle to hunt".
first, in this particular incident, the rifle was found in the car, not used to murder the children inside the school.
second, in no way is the second amendment about hunting or even defending yourself against other citizens.
this attack happened in a state with some of the more restrictive gun control laws in the nation. bing said it best.
i don't know how you were able to post on the realgm thread. i can't argue/debate that issue because opponents don't start on logical ground. what part of "infringe" do people not understand. the common argument is the founders never imagined ar's etc. bullshit. there were cannons when they wrote the constitution. you could blow up and entire school with a cannon. it doesn't say "small arms" "for hunting" or anything of the like. it doesn't exclude cannons. the reason for the 2nd amendment is for the citizens to reject a tyrannical government. period.
if you don't like it and want to change it, there are clear rules on how to do it. it is called a constitutional amendment. it is extremely difficult to do, for a reason.
the common argument against you in that thread was something to the effect of "making it harder to obtain one, limiting ammo, preventing mentally unstable from getting them, requiring yearly checkups etc" the last two are absolutely a violation of your right to privacy. the first ones, although sounding good, effectively prevent people from obtaining weapons. this kid had some form of autism. imagine if that was a condition that prevented you from owning a gun. everyday the medical world "discovers" a new form of autism. how easy would it be to get the majority of the population diagnosed with some form of autism? after a car accident you could easily be diagnosed PTSD, does that mean you have to give up your right to own guns? see how this stuff gets applied?
also, these things piss me off from a media standpoint (they always make me a combo of sad and mad that is hard to describe) in that i have to bite my tongue when these talking heads expose their ignorance of guns.
The main issue is the complete lack of knowledge on guns. Since Clinton, the propaganda machine has been in full force to vilify and demonize all sorts of firearms. It starts with banning evil looking rifles and is a downhill slope from there. The only real thing you can do is educate people and/or get them to shoot a little bit with you so they learn "Hey, this thing can be used for sport as well as defense!"
Exactly. Automatic weapons. Machine guns. "Assault" rifles.
all terms used to propagandize and destroy the only thing in the Constitution that is keeping us free. No surprise that we started losing all of our freedoms about the same time we started getting strict on guns