Gun Control won't stop mass shootings

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/forme...-admits-gun-control-wont-stop-mass-shootings/

Yup, coulda saved you the grief. We've been saying that all along!

 

I don't think he's saying that Gun control won't work, just that there are bigger fish that they have to fry first before getting down to this. That fish being people have trust in the federal government, which is true. We need to respect the government, before we can trust it with our liberties.

 

The right gun regulations could prevent mass shootings.

It should be illegal for someone to be able to buy/possess a firearm if they are taking controlled substances, unless their doctor signs an affidavit attesting to their patient being safe to possess a firearm.

It should be required under Federal law that if a doctor thinks a patient may be a danger to himself or others, he reports it to the NICS system to prevent the patient from buying a firearm.

If all guns were registered, we could temporarily take away firearms from dangerous individuals until they were well.

But the USA doesn't want many of these laws, as we prefer freedom over human life.

 

I'm quite certain he said that the anti-gun proposals wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shooters from doing what they did. So why not look at the shooter instead of the gun? Our point exactly.

 

Because there's a bigger issue at play here. You can have these things, but if no one is going to respect the law, it's pointless.
"The most attention on gun control comes after mass shootings – just look at the post-Newtown push and the brief attention paid to the issue after the Memorial Day weekend shootings in Isla Vista, Calif. Yet virtually none of the solutions gun-control groups are pushing would have prevented any of the massacres that capture public attention.

“Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/16/gun-control-advocate-snowden-obamacare-hurt-our-cause/

 

the right gun control could prevent mentally unstable people from purchasing or even possessing a firearm after purchase, but the USA doesn't want these as they would be seen as violating privacy and infringing upon freedom.

 

No it can't Not even total gun prohibition

Riiiight a gun hating doctor signs off on an affidavit, LOL ask those citizens in states with may issue permitting that relies on a Sheriff of the anti-gun persuasion how that works for a constitutional right hehehehehe WOW

Riiiight no due process so doctors get all the say......bad move

No you couldn't

No we don't and that's a total misrepresentation of what we prefer.

 

So, as usual, the answer is that the US is simply a much more violent society than Western Europe, Australia, in effect, most of the industrial world. I, for one, am unwilling to accept that. There has to be a reasonable set of laws that limit access of weapons to those most likely to use them, an educational process to teach anger control - anything other than a continuation of being an embarrassment in the civilized world. Are we genetically inferior to the rest of the civilized world? Culturally? Morally? Why do our violence statistics rival those of the drug states?

 

And not respecting the law has been an issue since the beginning of mankind so if bad people will not respect the law and the government isn't available to protect every citizen from them at all times I guess that leaves self reliance.

A starting point for the anti-gun to begin their logical discussion and not their emotional discussion.

It's not a messaging problem, it's a direction problem as in wrong direction.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/16/gun-control-advocate-snowden-obamacare-hurt-our-cause/

- - - Updated - - -

No it couldn't. So your so called solutions only infringe on those who don't commit mass shootings.....good call

 

And thus we come to an even larger problem. I walk to the store, get food, pay, leave store and go home. I didn't need a gun to protect myself, we're a stable country. We're not going to encounter a criminal every time we step outside, and yet we feel like we are. This is a problem we need to address before we even begin talking about the government's role in this.

I think they already do.

So even though a majority of Americans support some gun control, that's heading in the wrong direction?

 

How many more do you need? Murder is already against the law, shooting someone without cause is against the law, straw purchases are already against the law, purchasing a gun with a criminal record is against the law, lying on a gun purchase form is already against the law. What more do you want? I note that England and Australia have more restrictive laws than us yet they still have gun violence. I also note that despite the laws on the books federal prosecutors don't exactly trip over themselves to charge criminals.

There is a plethora of laws already on the books that limit access to those who would use them illegally but I ask, who would get to decide who the them is that are most likely to use them you speak of? Courts send people to anger control classes all the time for things like DV but like an alcoholic you really can't fix someone who doesn't want fixing right? You might be embarrassed about our ability to defend ourselves and our understanding that self preservation and self reliance are cornerstones of our founding fathers but I'm not. The rest of your comments are emotional baggage.

 

Yes, freedom is more important than human life.

Also, none of the above has been seriously suggested by Congress. The only things they've seriously suggested--Universal background checks, would not have stopped most of the mass shootings that inspired them to consider the law.

- - - Updated - - -

Historically, mental illness is used as a way to take away people's rights.

 

Our violence statistics come nowhere close to the drug states, or even the non-drug states of South America. We are at the high side for industrialized countries, but nowhere near the top of the list for violence.

Just using murder stats as a proxy for violence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Our murder rate is 4.8 per 100k. The highest murder rate is Honduras which is about 90.1 per 100k. Colombia is 30.8. Mexico is 21.5.

We are genetically different than most of the Western world. Also, the big problem we have is in entrenched criminal syndicates (aka gangs).

The other thing is that we have a much lower murder rate than we've had any time since 1963. Life in the U.S. is actually less violent than it was 20 yrs ago (1994).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

 

It is already illegal for people to go on mass shooting sprees, yet they still do. If passing laws were the answer, the problem would have already been solved. Making it illegal to possess a firearm does not prevent criminals from possessing firearms.

In what way will making it illegal to possess a firearm actually KEEP them from possessing a firearm?

In what way will being in the NICS database keep them from possessing a firearm? It only keeps them from buying a new one at walmart.

It is a fair bet that someone who is likely to use a gun to commit a crime is not likely to register it first. When you figure out a way to register all guns, please let us know.

IMO, none of the things you suggest will prevent, or even mitigate the possibility of future mass shootings.

 

An example that freedom is more important than human life: Our country has sent many a soldier overseas to give their lives to protect our freedoms. Most countries do the same.

 

I would say rather that there is a price to freedom; that greater freedom requires a higher price.

We sacrifice rights in order to be able to live together peacefully. Loss of rights and acceptance of obligations is the price of civilization.

 

Gun control will not work in any place where large groups of people are morally debased and are not controlled by effective judicial control.

Areas of North America with strictest gun control laws are also the most dangerous: Chicago, Washington DC, Stockton, CA----and of course the entire countries of Haiti and Mexico.

Anyplace the sterotypical gang culture exists in any strength, the gun laws, whatever they are will not be paid much attention---unless harsh punishments are carried out on a routine basis.

I am always amused at how the Western, Liberal Britons and Aussies, think their anti-gun culture makes them so safe. Placed in the wilds of Africa, their same ideology is quickly leveled to the ground, as South Africa is one of the most dangerous places in the world to live. South Africa will look about like Zimbabwe in 50 years.

English-style gun control laws allow the few Whites left alive there to be killed and beaten with impunity.

 

No firearm regulations will prevent a mass shooting. They know how to either make an improvised weapon because the information is readily out there, or they know how to obtain a firearm regardless of what laws there are.

No, the purpose of ANY firearm control is to disarm the populace so the can not defend themselves against tyrannical control freaks.

 

So you're saying we should all learn to live with mass school shootings? Surrender to guns. Take a valium and send the kiddies off to school with their lunch buckets? Maybe give the kiddies a valium, too, so they won't be afraid to get on the bus. Good suggestions, all of 'em.

 

I say you already have by making them gun free zones.

 

Exactly! Remember what happened in Beslan in 04?

 

Even that teensy-weensy measure made the NRA choke. Say, what do the good folks at the NRA have against 6-year olds? They don't even make challenging targets.

 

That teensy weensy measure is why crazy shooters go to your favored gun free zones then off themselves when they are presented with opposition later. What do the good liberals have against 6 year olds to say they should not be protected unless they are some politicians kids?

 

I think if you looked at the issued you'd find there are more liberals in favor of putting armed guards in schools than conservatives in favor of paying for it. Cons don't even want to pay for books or teachers or janitors.

 

Hahahahaha! What a short memory you have. When the NRA suggested it the 'good liberals' just about shat themselves.