|
|
Post by qbeaver on May 25, 2022 21:24:59 GMT -8
What can we do? No one wants to see this ever happen to any child. If the only way people got guns was through a trackable source and we could know if they had bad intentions and prevent them from aquiring that weapon,all of us would agree to that if it was simply a background check would be fine. That isn't realistic. It won't solve the problem imo. you got responses but here’s a piece. Solving a problem some is better than none. Just because you make it better doesn’t mean you failed. This is an argument used constantly in politics over the last 30 years to kill bills. It’s a fallacy that things are all or nothing. Yeah in reality things usually change in degrees and in democractic politics it’s the only way things work, compromise. Maybe I'm looking for a solution,and there simply isn't one. Reducing these senseless acts may be all we can expect when you can only control so much. These are human beings and if someone wants to do something,they will do it. We just need to make it more difficult to acquire weapons to prevent some of these horrific events. |
|
|
|
Post by fishwrapper on May 25, 2022 21:26:50 GMT -8
Honestly, when I look back on my life, I bet I could have done more. The trouble with this topic is that since Reagan got shot - which started the modern movement of "gun control" legislation, the NRA's rhetoric and political spending have been insane, and the the wedges they have driven into the electorate have come to define the gap between the two political parties. Folks spend more time articulating their side of the problem rather than articulating the problem itself. I'm not "anti-gun" but I am anti-shooting-people, and scenes like yesterday WILL be repeated unless we start hitting the brakes. We don't have to slam them on, but we need to at least start tapping them a little bit, because we're out of control.
Polls suggest that the vast majority - I've heard 90% recently, but usually they indicate high-80% - of the US voting population agrees that mandatory background checks make sense. They don't prevent anyone from owning a gun; they just prevent them from picking up their arsenal as an impulse buy after they have a very bad day. Well, not true. Background checks do prevent some people from purchasing guns - those who shouldn't own them! But that's neither here nor there. SB554 in Oregon was huge - but that made Oregon only the 12th state to have a law that mandates you store you firearms if there are kids around.
I have heard from many responsible gun owners arguments along the line that you can't (or shouldn't have to) legislate common sense; that such a law is unneeded. Well, we have a law that says to not drive into pedestrians in crosswalks - but that seems like legislated common sense.
We have an odd gun culture in this nation. We also lag behind only Greenland in per capita suicides by gun in the world. That's insane. And not doing anything...almost ten years since Sandy Hook...not doing anything to reduce our gun death rate is even more insane.
Would a Texas, or even federal version of SB554 have prevented yesterday? Come on: that's a hard "Nope." But it would prevent someone getting killed along the way, and the fact that it wouldn't have prevented yesterday doesn't make it a bad idea. It just doesn't address the root access issue that made yesterday happen. Would background checks and mandatory insurance have prevented yesterday? Maybe, and there are a number of events since Sandy Hook that would have been stymied by such laws. Yet we do nothing.
Baby steps would be preferable to no steps at all.
|
|
|
|
JFC
May 25, 2022 21:37:35 GMT -8
Post by irimi on May 25, 2022 21:37:35 GMT -8
So many things to point out there... Your argument has now become (more) absurd and off the rails. I wonder... when is the last time he has taken an actual driving test? Betting it was over 40 years. But, of course there were far less cars/drivers. You'd think such a guy would volunteer to take one every few years. Times have changed! Ridiculous? Yep. But, not in relation to his posts! Of course, if you keep changing the target and leaving out other aspects previously mentioned it sounds better. 2004, in Osaka. Very difficult test, too, not like the American test. Actually failed it. And had to take it again. I turned on the windshield wipers instead of the turn signal, as the sides are switched over there. I’ve taken the written exam in 2000 in Ohio and in 2005, to get an Oregon license. But I would fully support regular testing and physical checks to be a licensed driver. Driving is a privilege. And cars have become safer and safer. But guns have become more efficient at killing. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver1989 on May 25, 2022 21:37:36 GMT -8
I don't understand this. A week ago (?) someone went into a grocery store and started killing random people. Yesterday, someone took a weapon of war to an elementary school and started slaughtering children. Yet we have posters here, whom I would probably like if we met in person, who say there's nothing we can do. Another person said compared to Honderous, our problem isn't that big. Today I read that cars kill more people. Ive read others that say the 2nd amendment prevents us from trying to fix this problem. I understand a US Senator is so in love with his job and the money from the NRA, that he/she will try to do anything to not stop the slaughter of children. But you, why do you say there is nothing we can do? Why do you try to rationalize this behavior. I urge you to imagine what a nine-year-old's body looks like after being shot a dozen times by an AR rifle. Think about that tonight when you are quiet and having a moment with God. You anti bill of rights ideologues are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. Instead of chastising firearms owners who post on Benny's House, about their complicity in your gun culture fantasy world. Why don't you make sure these three people who have been in politics forever, hear your solution to the problem. 1) Biden is in the White House & he was a big proponent of the 1994 Crime Bill. It shouldn't be a problem for him to a sign a gun ban bill. 2) Pelosi is Speaker of the House, she's A San Francisco Democrat, so getting tough on gun owners won't be a problem for her. 3) Schumer is Senate Majority Leader & has been campaigning against 2nd Amendment Rights his whole life. Looks like you have a trifecta for s%#tting on the Constitution, which will be all sorted out in the November Midterm Elections. Good luck, you'll need it. |
|
|
|
Post by fishwrapper on May 25, 2022 21:39:55 GMT -8
INSURANCE Think about this as an idea: if you own a firearm, you have to have a rider on your homeowner's insurance to cover the liability if your firearm causes damage.
It's not just an idea - this year the city of San Jose implemented that requirement, and it will take effect in August. It's not perfect, but it's a start. A lot of homeowners policies already offer property and liability options for firearms owners; not everyone pays for those extras.
San Jose went a step further: folks in San Jose who own firearms will have to pay $25 into a gun harm reduction fund, which creates a pool of money to fund a nonprofit to work on preventing gun violence. (This is separate from the insurance requirement, but attached in the same legislation.)
Back to the insurance program, though...want to keep your premiums down? Prove your own and use a gun safe, instead of a the drawer in the nightstand. Lower premiums can also be an incentive to promote recurring firearms safety training, or even awareness issues. At work if we show we're doing certain things to promote healthier lifestyles (diet, exercise, don't smoke, etc.) we get a discount on our health insurance. Same thing: show a greater responsibility as a gun owner, pay lower premiums.
|
|
|
|
JFC
May 25, 2022 21:48:19 GMT -8
Post by irimi on May 25, 2022 21:48:19 GMT -8
We start by getting rid of assault rifles, often used in such shootings. We require gun owners to license and register each gun. We do more training and education and testing for gun owners. Will it stop all school shootings? We gotta try. I don't disagree we need to try to do something,but it's a tremendously complex issue. The law abiding citizens will jump through the hoops to do what they need to do. It's the others who concern me. There is no way of knowing who is safe to acquire weapons. There are red flags all the time of individuals who are of concern to do something sickening like this. There are just so many ways to acquire a weapon legally or not. There are probably 500 million guns in this country. I'm for trying something,but somewhat pessimistic of the results. The first steps are the hardest. As you see here, few are open to talking about real change. We need momentum. Then we need to move forward with meaningful steps. There is not one fix. We will need many small steps, so pessimism is OK. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 25, 2022 21:49:54 GMT -8
I don't understand this. A week ago (?) someone went into a grocery store and started killing random people. Yesterday, someone took a weapon of war to an elementary school and started slaughtering children. Yet we have posters here, whom I would probably like if we met in person, who say there's nothing we can do. Another person said compared to Honderous, our problem isn't that big. Today I read that cars kill more people. Ive read others that say the 2nd amendment prevents us from trying to fix this problem. I understand a US Senator is so in love with his job and the money from the NRA, that he/she will try to do anything to not stop the slaughter of children. But you, why do you say there is nothing we can do? Why do you try to rationalize this behavior. I urge you to imagine what a nine-year-old's body looks like after being shot a dozen times by an AR rifle. Think about that tonight when you are quiet and having a moment with God. You anti bill of rights ideologues are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. Instead of chastising firearms owners who post on Benny's House, about their complicity in your gun culture fantasy world. Why don't you make sure these three people who have been in politics forever, hear your solution to the problem. 1) Biden is in the White House & he was a big proponent of the 1994 Crime Bill. It shouldn't be a problem for him to a sign a gun ban bill. 2) Pelosi is Speaker of the House, she's A San Francisco Democrat, so getting tough on gun owners won't be a problem for her. 3) Schumer is Senate Majority Leader & has been campaigning against 2nd Amendment Rights his whole life. Looks like you have a trifecta for s%#tting on the Constitution, which will be all sorted out in the November Midterm Elections. Good luck, you'll need it. trash post. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 25, 2022 21:59:28 GMT -8
Post by irimi on May 25, 2022 21:59:28 GMT -8
I don't understand this. A week ago (?) someone went into a grocery store and started killing random people. Yesterday, someone took a weapon of war to an elementary school and started slaughtering children. Yet we have posters here, whom I would probably like if we met in person, who say there's nothing we can do. Another person said compared to Honderous, our problem isn't that big. Today I read that cars kill more people. Ive read others that say the 2nd amendment prevents us from trying to fix this problem. I understand a US Senator is so in love with his job and the money from the NRA, that he/she will try to do anything to not stop the slaughter of children. But you, why do you say there is nothing we can do? Why do you try to rationalize this behavior. I urge you to imagine what a nine-year-old's body looks like after being shot a dozen times by an AR rifle. Think about that tonight when you are quiet and having a moment with God. You anti bill of rights ideologues are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. Instead of chastising firearms owners who post on Benny's House, about their complicity in your gun culture fantasy world. Why don't you make sure these three people who have been in politics forever, hear your solution to the problem. 1) Biden is in the White House & he was a big proponent of the 1994 Crime Bill. It shouldn't be a problem for him to a sign a gun ban bill. 2) Pelosi is Speaker of the House, she's A San Francisco Democrat, so getting tough on gun owners won't be a problem for her. 3) Schumer is Senate Majority Leader & has been campaigning against 2nd Amendment Rights his whole life. Looks like you have a trifecta for s%#tting on the Constitution, which will be all sorted out in the November Midterm Elections. Good luck, you'll need it. Let’s look at the Second Amendment briefly. When it was conceived, guns were very different from today. So did the Framers believe that it is our right to own and bear arms equivalent to what a standing army might carry? It’s a good question because we didn’t have a standing army at the time. In lieu of an army, militias were formed from the citizenry, so naturally, the citizens would need weapons. But these days, our taxes pay for a standing army…a great one. So why do you need a gun? Oh, but what about if we need to rebel against our own government? Well, have you seen the weapons that the government owns? Real recourse comes through discussion and protests. Rule of law. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 26, 2022 5:40:46 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by nuclearbeaver on May 26, 2022 5:40:46 GMT -8
You anti bill of rights ideologues are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. Instead of chastising firearms owners who post on Benny's House, about their complicity in your gun culture fantasy world. Why don't you make sure these three people who have been in politics forever, hear your solution to the problem. 1) Biden is in the White House & he was a big proponent of the 1994 Crime Bill. It shouldn't be a problem for him to a sign a gun ban bill. 2) Pelosi is Speaker of the House, she's A San Francisco Democrat, so getting tough on gun owners won't be a problem for her. 3) Schumer is Senate Majority Leader & has been campaigning against 2nd Amendment Rights his whole life. Looks like you have a trifecta for s%#tting on the Constitution, which will be all sorted out in the November Midterm Elections. Good luck, you'll need it. Let’s look at the Second Amendment briefly. When it was conceived, guns were very different from today. So did the Framers believe that it is our right to own and bear arms equivalent to what a standing army might carry? It’s a good question because we didn’t have a standing army at the time. In lieu of an army, militias were formed from the citizenry, so naturally, the citizens would need weapons. But these days, our taxes pay for a standing army…a great one. So why do you need a gun? Oh, but what about if we need to rebel against our own government? Well, have you seen the weapons that the government owns? Real recourse comes through discussion and protests. Rule of law. Gotta wonder why what a bunch of dudes in high heels 250 years ago matter. They couldn’t even program a VCR guys, I doubt they are going to give us guidance from the grave on high capacity semi auto assault rifles. Since they were people in power they probably would have only wanted that firepower in the hands of people they would protect their power and ideas. In fact That’s exactly what they did. The amendment only applied to white male landowners at the time. As amusing the idea is of the founding fathers arming their slaves and women with glocks to protect their rights I have my doubts they would be interested in that sort of impropriety. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on May 26, 2022 5:58:45 GMT -8
I don't disagree we need to try to do something,but it's a tremendously complex issue. The law abiding citizens will jump through the hoops to do what they need to do. It's the others who concern me. There is no way of knowing who is safe to acquire weapons. There are red flags all the time of individuals who are of concern to do something sickening like this. There are just so many ways to acquire a weapon legally or not. There are probably 500 million guns in this country. I'm for trying something,but somewhat pessimistic of the results. The first steps are the hardest. As you see here, few are open to talking about real change. We need momentum. Then we need to move forward with meaningful steps. There is not one fix. We will need many small steps, so pessimism is OK. You might find more willing to talk about change if you don’t start by comparing them to “the good slave owners,” and they are all culpable in the shooting. |
|
|
|
JFC
May 26, 2022 6:28:02 GMT -8
Post by irimi on May 26, 2022 6:28:02 GMT -8
The first steps are the hardest. As you see here, few are open to talking about real change. We need momentum. Then we need to move forward with meaningful steps. There is not one fix. We will need many small steps, so pessimism is OK. You might find more willing to talk about change if you don’t start by comparing them to “the good slave owners,” and they are all culpable in the shooting. No doubt. But how many gun advocates vote for candidates who promise gun control in their campaign? How many gun owners write their legislators for gun control laws? How many want change? How many say, “well, it happens in other countries, too”? How many say “I’m a good gun owner—it’s only the psychos that do things like this”? How many say “nothing can be done”? And so on. The comparison was to elicit this. In the novel, Stowe writes if all slaveholders were bad, slavery would’ve been abolished long ago. But the system was held in place because some deemed themselves good slaveholders. I find it to be an interesting, if inexact, comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on May 26, 2022 7:29:44 GMT -8
If we want to inact legislation about stricter legislation about assault rifles,I'm fine with that. It seems as if many of these horrific acts are done using assault rifles. Most gun owners that I know own hunting rifles and/or pistols for protection. Rural people who hunt to feed their families or want the security of owning a gun to protect their families. Inacting more strict gun laws about assault rifles may bring down the numbers and the conversations we have in the future after these senseless acts. From the start of time,humans have used weapons against each other. As I've said before,this is a very complex issue. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country own weapons,and cherish that right...they are safe,store their weapons properly,and teach others about gun safety. This problem won't go away of school shootings...less of them would be progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on May 26, 2022 7:38:55 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure there are longstanding laws on the books that make murder illegal. Sadly, I don't think some human behavior can be legislated away. Our culture is messed up and not in a good way.  |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 26, 2022 7:39:27 GMT -8
This 18 year old murderer legally purchased 2 assault rifles and 375 rounds of ammo.
In a state where the governor is promoting more gun purchases. He actually wants more guns available to everyone, with no restrictions. So it's his policy that allowed this to happen.
On top of it, the police waited to intervene until the shooting stopped (reportedly). The "good guys with guns" refused to stop the bad guy with guns. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
JFC
May 26, 2022 9:04:40 GMT -8
Post by qbeaver on May 26, 2022 9:04:40 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure there are longstanding laws on the books that make murder illegal. Sadly, I don't think some human behavior can be legislated away. Our culture is messed up and not in a good way.  I don't have any percentages,but I'm not sure some people who commit these acts expect to survive the incident. They don't see the consequences of their actions whether they expect to survive. My point is there is no deterrent for murder. If someone Is at the point where they are committing murder,do you think they value their own lives? I would doubt it...pure speculation. |
|
