Another school shooting (3 Viewers)

[glock]

How would you rate the compliance of CT's gun registration mandate?

How would you rate law enforcement's compliance in enforcing this registration mandate?

I have no idea. I answered your question about enforcement though- if the law is written correctly, enforcement won't be necessary in most instances- you'll have voluntary compliance.

That's my point... No... you won't. Look into CT's registration compliance.

Tens of thousands of gun owners are saying "F off"

All but 2 sheriffs departments have stated they refuse to enforcement

It's a flop... and a foreshadowing of what to expect on a national level. You thing the nice well mannered folks in CT are being uncooperative? Wait till you try to pass this in the south and midwest

It's a non starter... EVEN IF You can get the political capital to make it law on a national level, It will never be complied with or enforced.

I love that. Perhaps they would like to look for other work while others sworn to protect and serve enforce the law?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

But again, I really really hate discussing gun registration in this thread, because it implies that I believe it would have an impact on school shootings and it WILL NOT. And President Obama is being disingenuous by suggesting that it will.

It depresses me that reasonable people can never seem to have a reasonable discussion or debate about this issue. We always have to react emotionally to horrific scenes. I believe in gun registration, but if and when it finally happens it will probably be for all of the wrong reasons- an emotional response by the public to some REALLY horrible event, and a hopeless belief that this will solve the problem once and for all.

You know what also won't have any effect on reducing school shootings? Doing nothing.

You keep repeating this. What do you suggest will help with this problem? I want to do something, but I don't know what. Do you?

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, it would not.

If it takes a billion dollar (and that is probably on the low end of the cost scale) National Registry program and at the end of the year all it saves is 3 lives--that is not a good return on your investment.

I don't own a gun-probably never will, but think about it this way, approximately 250 kids die every year in bicycle accidents. So we are going to create a billion dollar program that when you purchase a kids bike, you get a personal human representative that goes along with it. Every time your kid rides that bike, this person goes along and just hovers over them. Makes sure their helmet is on, pads on. Just makes sure they never crash or go out into traffic. Well, guess what, we just stopped all those kids from dying in bike accidents and it only took 10 billion dollars. Would that be a worthwhile expense? I mean we saved 250 kids.

Can you give me a figure on how much a human life is worth to you, then?

This isn't a matter of what a human life is worth. It is a matter of what is realistic. We live in a scary place. We have a planet that at any given moment could be crushed by a comet and it is game over. We drive to work and could be killed by a distracted person. We come into work and could be stabbed to death by a co-worker. We could have a heart attack because we were too addicted to donuts. Sometimes we can't control everything. I am a father and like i said, I don't own a gun, but I understand there are certain things in this life beyond our control. Just doing something to say, we did something is not productive and just throwing money at something is not the answer.

I mean again another example, a recent study showed that between 210,000 and 400,000 people die each year due to preventable medical mistakes in hospitals. So in just 10 days more people die due to this than in all the gun related homicides in a year. 10 days!! Do we see a screaming headline at CNN "Breaking news--another 1,100 killed today due to doctor mistakes?" No, because it doesn't advance an agenda and get ratings. I mean why not spend billions and billions on a project to fix this? It would save millions of lives (which would include way more children that are ever shot) in just a couple years vs. a few 10s of thousand. IMO, this would be a good cause to spend billions and billions of dollars on.

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

 

[StrikeS2k]

How would you rate the compliance of CT's gun registration mandate?

How would you rate law enforcement's compliance in enforcing this registration mandate?

I have no idea. I answered your question about enforcement though- if the law is written correctly, enforcement won't be necessary in most instances- you'll have voluntary compliance.

That's my point... No... you won't. Look into CT's registration compliance.

Tens of thousands of gun owners are saying "F off"

All but 2 sheriffs departments have stated they refuse to enforcement

It's a flop... and a foreshadowing of what to expect on a national level. You thing the nice well mannered folks in CT are being uncooperative? Wait till you try to pass this in the south and midwest

It's a non starter... EVEN IF You can get the political capital to make it law on a national level, It will never be complied with or enforced.

I love that. Perhaps they would like to look for other work while others sworn to protect and serve enforce the law?

They're just emulating Obama.

 

[General Malaise]

But again, I really really hate discussing gun registration in this thread, because it implies that I believe it would have an impact on school shootings and it WILL NOT. And President Obama is being disingenuous by suggesting that it will.

It depresses me that reasonable people can never seem to have a reasonable discussion or debate about this issue. We always have to react emotionally to horrific scenes. I believe in gun registration, but if and when it finally happens it will probably be for all of the wrong reasons- an emotional response by the public to some REALLY horrible event, and a hopeless belief that this will solve the problem once and for all.

You know what also won't have any effect on reducing school shootings? Doing nothing.

You keep repeating this. What do you suggest will help with this problem? I want to do something, but I don't know what. Do you?

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, it would not.

If it takes a billion dollar (and that is probably on the low end of the cost scale) National Registry program and at the end of the year all it saves is 3 lives--that is not a good return on your investment.

I don't own a gun-probably never will, but think about it this way, approximately 250 kids die every year in bicycle accidents. So we are going to create a billion dollar program that when you purchase a kids bike, you get a personal human representative that goes along with it. Every time your kid rides that bike, this person goes along and just hovers over them. Makes sure their helmet is on, pads on. Just makes sure they never crash or go out into traffic. Well, guess what, we just stopped all those kids from dying in bike accidents and it only took 10 billion dollars. Would that be a worthwhile expense? I mean we saved 250 kids.

Can you give me a figure on how much a human life is worth to you, then?

This isn't a matter of what a human life is worth. It is a matter of what is realistic. We live in a scary place. We have a planet that at any given moment could be crushed by a comet and it is game over. We drive to work and could be killed by a distracted person. We come into work and could be stabbed to death by a co-worker. We could have a heart attack because we were too addicted to donuts. Sometimes we can't control everything. I am a father and like i said, I don't own a gun, but I understand there are certain things in this life beyond our control. Just doing something to say, we did something is not productive and just throwing money at something is not the answer.

I mean again another example, a recent study showed that between 210,000 and 400,000 people die each year due to preventable medical mistakes in hospitals. So in just 10 days more people die due to this than in all the gun related homicides in a year. 10 days!! Do we see a screaming headline at CNN "Breaking news--another 1,100 killed today due to doctor mistakes?" No, because it doesn't advance an agenda and get ratings. I mean why not spend billions and billions on a project to fix this? It would save millions of lives (which would include way more children that are ever shot) in just a couple years vs. a few 10s of thousand. IMO, this would be a good cause to spend billions and billions of dollars on.

Yes, we CERTAINLY don't want to waste money in this country....

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush's re-election insures that more federal money will flow to abstinence education that precludes discussion of birth control, even as the administration awaits evidence that the approach gets kids to refrain from sex.

Congress last weekend included more than $131 million for abstinence programs in a $388 billion spending bill, an increase of $30 million but about $100 million less than Bush requested. Meanwhile, a national evaluation of abstinence programs has been delayed, with a final report not expected until 2006.

 

[Courtjester]

Oh, I know there is probably some scientist getting a 5 million dollar grant to study the mating habits of some obscure field mouse somewhere. There is waste everywhere.

My point is if we are going to be doing the "What about the Children" mantra, then lets go after a big problem that could save hundreds of thousands of kids vs the 250 killed in school shootings.

I don't have a dog in the fight because I can't see a situation where I would want to own a gun.

 

[jonessed]

It was only a matter of time before it became Bush's fault .

 

[NCCommish]

StrikeS2k is a guy I agree with very rarely, but he has continually pointed out that gun violence has actually gone down in this country. As horrible as these stories are, we have to keep in mind that they are anecdotes, they are rare, they are not reflective of our culture, and that we can't overreact with draconian measures that will not really solve anything. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

They are not rare in comparison to any other first world country. Not even close.

 

[[icon]]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

 

[NCCommish]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Oh bull####. Legislation is written to keep guns selling. Just like the NRA wants.

 

[[icon]]

The next person that creates another horrible analogy for registering guns should be perma-banned.

But I had to register for a Kroger card to save 99 cents on Milk....

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

 

[Run It Up]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Oh, I know there is probably some scientist getting a 5 million dollar grant to study the mating habits of some obscure field mouse somewhere. There is waste everywhere.

My point is if we are going to be doing the "What about the Children" mantra, then lets go after a big problem that could save hundreds of thousands of kids vs the 250 killed in school shootings.

I don't have a dog in the fight because I can't see a situation where I would want to own a gun.

Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to save those 250 kids, too.

 

[tjnc09]

They released pictures of the Oregon shooter. I was surprised by how normal he looks. Is that bad? I guess you really never know what people are thinking.

 

[[icon]]

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Oh bull####. Legislation is written to keep guns selling. Just like the NRA wants.

Now who sounds like the conspiracy nut

 

[Doug B]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

 

[[icon]]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

An emotional knee jerk response is going with a "I CAN'T PROVE THIS BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL HELP BUT WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND DO NOTHING!!!"

 

[General Malaise]

They released pictures of the Oregon shooter. I was surprised by how normal he looks. Is that bad? I guess you really never know what people are thinking.

Probably why his parents didn't feel a need to properly lock up their assault rifles, ammunition, grenades, flame throwers or anything else they need to hunt for food or protect their family in food starved, scary dangerous Oregon.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

 

[Doug B]

They released pictures of the Oregon shooter. I was surprised by how normal he looks. Is that bad? I guess you really never know what people are thinking.

This is a very good, but often unsaid point when considering the "mental health" angle of the broader debate: the mentally-unstable perpetrators can not be reliably identified in advance.

 

[[icon]]

Oh, I know there is probably some scientist getting a 5 million dollar grant to study the mating habits of some obscure field mouse somewhere. There is waste everywhere.

My point is if we are going to be doing the "What about the Children" mantra, then lets go after a big problem that could save hundreds of thousands of kids vs the 250 killed in school shootings.

I don't have a dog in the fight because I can't see a situation where I would want to own a gun.

Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to save those 250 kids, too.

At what cost.

Stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime is foolish in any capacity. Ever played whac-a-mole? Push down guns (which will never be effective) and up comes explosives. Crazy people are going to do crazy ####.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

An emotional knee jerk response is going with a "I CAN'T PROVE THIS BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL HELP BUT WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND DO NOTHING!!!"

I can't prove that we need regulations on what is in our food, namely because I don't have a lab in my house, but can you see how we need to have regulations making sure what we eat is safe? Is that an emotional knee-jerk reaction to want to eat food that won't kill me?

 

[[icon]]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

 

[StrikeS2k]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

 

[[icon]]

I can't prove that we need regulations on what is in our food, namely because I don't have a lab in my house, but can you see how we need to have regulations making sure what we eat is safe? Is that an emotional knee-jerk reaction to want to eat food that won't kill me?

And the new leader of stupid analogies goes to....

 

[[icon]]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

BUT AT LEAST WE'RE DOING SOMETHING!

 

[Doug B]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

 

[StrikeS2k]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

BUT AT LEAST WE'RE DOING SOMETHING!

I almost put that at the end of my post.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

 

[StrikeS2k]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

You're totally entitled to your opinion. I haven't said differently have I? But some of us may not find the argument compelling without something to back it up. That's OUR option, just as yours is to keep spouting off opinions without backing them up. That's how this whole discussion thing works.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Not really. I'm just bringing a counterpoint. Completely preventable? Obviously not. Do I think we need additional legislation to try to curb an expanding problem? Absolutely.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

An emotional knee jerk response is going with a "I CAN'T PROVE THIS BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL HELP BUT WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND DO NOTHING!!!"

I don't know what the costs of this program will be but for sure that should be figured out in the gun registrations. You want to own a gun? Several guns? You can pay for that cost too. Not free anymore. Life sucks.

I had to pay to get my dog registered, you can register your gun.

 

[General Malaise]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

An emotional knee jerk response is going with a "I CAN'T PROVE THIS BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL HELP BUT WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND DO NOTHING!!!"

I don't know what the costs of this program will be but for sure that should be figured out in the gun registrations. You want to own a gun? Several guns? You can pay for that cost too. Not free anymore. Life sucks.

I had to pay to get my dog registered, you can register your gun.

This would disenfranchise the poor and the minorities. Why do you hate them?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

You're totally entitled to your opinion. I haven't said differently have I? But some of us may not find the argument compelling without something to back it up. That's OUR option, just as yours is to keep spouting off opinions without backing them up. That's how this whole discussion thing works.

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

 

[General Malaise]

Let's start with a gun registry, and go from there. If it stopped one person from going on a rampage, that would be better than doing nothing, would it not?

No, I personally don't think spending billions of dollars and adding to existing beaurocratic bloat while inconveniencing (and potentially harassing) millions of law abiding citizens. Not when there are much lower hanging fruit in countless other areas that hold much higher chances of success of saving lives... at a much lower cost and inconvenience to citizens.

You know what's an inconvenience to me? Gun violence.

Also, I really could give two ####s about whether or not it's an inconvenience to you.

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Yeah, watching years and years of school shootings, averaging one a week is an emotional knee-jerk response. If I have an opinion on it in 5 years is that too soon for you? How about 10?

An emotional knee jerk response is going with a "I CAN'T PROVE THIS BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL HELP BUT WE CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND DO NOTHING!!!"

I don't know what the costs of this program will be but for sure that should be figured out in the gun registrations. You want to own a gun? Several guns? You can pay for that cost too. Not free anymore. Life sucks.

I had to pay to get my dog registered, you can register your gun.

This would disenfranchise the poor and the minorities. Why do you hate them?

Hey, if you can't afford to buy and register an AK-47, don't buy an AK-47.

 

[Doug B]

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

Part of what people are saying is that the guns are already out there. Registered, unregistered, stolen, traded on the black market, etc.

Institute national registration with draconian teeth right now, and the situation is little changed. I do think that some effect on general gun violence can be had -- some "crime of passion" and "I'm PO'd right now!" deaths can be curtailed. But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

 

[StrikeS2k]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

You're totally entitled to your opinion. I haven't said differently have I? But some of us may not find the argument compelling without something to back it up. That's OUR option, just as yours is to keep spouting off opinions without backing them up. That's how this whole discussion thing works.

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

Part of what people are saying is that the guns are already out there. Registered, unregistered, stolen, traded on the black market, etc.

Institute national registration with draconian teeth right now, and the situation is little changed. I do think that some effect on general gun violence can be had -- some "crime of passion" and "I'm PO'd right now!" deaths can be curtailed. But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

In China they use knives. If we're going to ban guns we should ban knives at the same time before they take over as the killing method of choice in the U.S.

 

[[icon]]

I had to pay to get my dog registered, you can register your gun.

We referring to the constitutionally protected right to own a dog?

 

[General Malaise]

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

Part of what people are saying is that the guns are already out there. Registered, unregistered, stolen, traded on the black market, etc.

Institute national registration with draconian teeth right now, and the situation is little changed. I do think that some effect on general gun violence can be had -- some "crime of passion" and "I'm PO'd right now!" deaths can be curtailed. But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

 

[timschochet]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

 

[[icon]]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

 

[General Malaise]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

 

[[icon]]

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

I'm all for requiring people to be 18 or 21 to buy ammunition.

How many rounds of ammunition is too many? I will frequently shoot 50-100 rounds taking target practice at a nearby range on a lunch break.

 

[General Malaise]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

Why don't you stop rhetorically asking the question and let us know? We're curious.

 

[NCCommish]

Well thankfully legislation favors taking a more measured, well-thought out approach...and seems set on avoiding emotional knee-jerk reactions thus far.

Oh bull####. Legislation is written to keep guns selling. Just like the NRA wants.

Now who sounds like the conspiracy nut

Your naivete is cute.

 

[General Malaise]

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

I'm all for requiring people to be 18 or 21 to buy ammunition.

How many rounds of ammunition is too many? I will frequently shoot 50-100 rounds taking target practice at a nearby range on a lunch break.

Then how about the ammunition is available for purchase and use at the range? Why do you need to buy them at a different site than the site you plan to shoot them?

 

[NCCommish]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloy’s criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticut’s gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport — the state’s three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

 

[timschochet]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

Yes. And if you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of notable school shootings there.