[Reiver]

Originally Posted by MrChip72

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

"Thou shalt not kill"

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Reiver

"Thou shalt not kill"

That law was carved in stone, the constitution was written on paper with built in methods to update it as requirements changed - like slavery, women voting, etc, etc, etc.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I agree with most of your post. I would 100% agree with a universal background check that included mental health considerations.

I don’t think mental health is the problem, but it contributes.

I agree that mental health (behavioral health, to use the more "in" term) should be a consideration, but--just what diagnoses would we include in that "consideration"?

The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) lists over 300 separate diagnoses of possible behavioral health issues, everything from alien hand disorder to Alice in Wonderland syndrome to...whatever, and many of those have levels of severity within each separate diagnosis. In other words it is a slippery slope, one that has to be navigated with extreme care. It would (or should) be preceded by a great deal of education on the issue not only for the legislators who would conceivably be deciding on the issue but also on the part of the people who vote for those legislators.

But politics in America are less and less about knowledge and reason, and more and more about emotion (even hysteria) so I don't hold out much hope for that.

[Bay Kid]

People kill people. Without guns they will just find other ways to kill. Our society has lost all respect.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

Actually, it IS debatable. Just because the media calls the weapon of choice in mass murders an "AR-15" does not mean it really is one. Now, you may say I am getting picky when I say that the weapons were sometimes, much like an AR-15 but not one. They are semi-automatic. However, so is most of the pistols used in murders today. A semi-automatic pistol is capable of doing just as much damage in close quarters as a semi-automatic rifle, .....and many of today's pistols are capable of using a 30 round (bullets) magazine.
You say that in one particular incident, a "good guy with a gun" did not stop the bad guy with a gun from shooting a bunch of children. Duh! How many million potential victims WERE saved by good guys with guns? You can't say because no one seems to care. Did you ever consider that maybe soft targets are just that, easy targets where laws prohibit possession of a gun on the property? I do not suggest that teachers carry guns. I do suggest that any teacher with a CCW permit, should be able to carry. If you do not trust the teacher to carry a pocket gun while working, how do you trust a teacher to take care of your children for most of the day? I do not suggest that guns are the answer to mass shootings. I do suggest that taking guns away is not the answer. What would you rather have, a young person building a bomb and taking it to school? How about an explosive vest?
No, most mass shootings are not being committed using an AR-15. That is an incorrect statement. These weapons LOOK LIKE military weapons, but there are a lot of them that "look like." I have a 22cal rifle that "looks like" a military weapon and has a 50 round magazine. Am I a threat? I've owned firearms for 60 years and never/NEVER use one criminally. None of my guns have left my control and none of them have gone on a mass shooting binge.
Someone said there are over 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. It would be interesting to know how many have been used illegally.
We do not have a gun problem in the U.S. We have a people problem. We have a mentally deficient people problem. And there is no way to eliminate that problem. All we can do is protect against that problem and the only/ONLY way to do that is to make soft targets into HARD targets. Put a tall fence around public schools with an armed guard checking folks through a gate. Just that simple and inexpensive procedure will likely eliminate almost all mass shootings in schools. Security cameras can also supplement the children's protection.
If you feel that getting rid of guns will make the children safer then I guess you feel the same way about eliminating our military to make us less likely to be invaded by another country. After all, we can't go to war without weapons, right?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MrChip72

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

The short answer is our Founding Fathers and their ancestors lived through terrible hardships and injustices done by the British Empire.

They were heavily taxed.

They were forced to house British soldiers. That means the government forced you to give up your bedroom, feed the soldier, clean his clothes, etc. and you had no choice. That government would send people to your home with no warrant and search your house just on their impulse.

They could be arrested on the street without a warrant and searched without probable cause.

They were not judged by a jury of their peers but a magistrate who may or may not allow you to speak on your behalf.

The list goes on. The 55 delegates who wrote our Constitution were far more educated than we are today. They studied every form of government mankind had ever produced and attempted to design a government that would not end in tyranny over the people. They valued individual Rights and sought to protect them. The result is our Constitutional Republic, an experiment that had never been done before.

As Benjamin Franklin said when asked "Doctor Franklin, what kind of government will we have?". His response, "A Republic if you can keep it.".

For those of us who study the Constitution and watch what is going on in our country there is great concern that Franklin's warning is coming to pass. I am hugely concerned the average American has little to no knowledge of our Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The things I read from people in forums seems indicative of that.

We are a nation of laws. The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It should not be taken lightly nor ignored as "it's old". We need to educate the masses once again so the wrongs of the past are not repeated. If we allow Mob Rule to overtake Minority Rights we will lose our Freedom and it will take another Revolution to get it back.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well then by all means, let's put guns into the hands of teachers in classrooms filled with children. Because they'll do a much better job of hitting their target (and not an unintended victim) than the police will.

/sarcasm

Tell me you know nothing about shooting a gun without telling me you know nothing about shooting a gun...

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MrChip72

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

Like our immigration laws that require a visa or some other vetting before entering our country? Or, about how the Constitution requires EVERY voter to be an American Citizen? Sure, why have the law if we are not going to enforce it, right? Maybe law enforcement would deter many of the crimes committed in our country. Instead of enforcing the laws of our land, folks would rather just change the laws to conform to THEIR standards.

[nn0wheremann]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.

Well, somewhere there must be found a balance between your right tho keep and bear arms in order that you can well regulate the militia, and my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, and of course our mutual, if conflicted, expectations appurtenant to those Constitutional rights. At the present time, your second amendment rights trump my fourth amendment rights, so I’ll just have to duck and cover. Kevlar tee shirts, anyone?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by nn0wheremann

Well, somewhere there must be found a balance between your right tho keep and bear arms in order that you can well regulate the militia, and my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, and of course our mutual, if conflicted, expectations appurtenant to those Constitutional rights. At the present time, your second amendment rights trump my fourth amendment rights, so I’ll just have to duck and cover. Kevlar tee shirts, anyone?

Just to be clear, your Fourth Amendment Rights protect you from the Federal government. Beyond that you look at your state Constitution, state laws and federal laws.

I think what you're trying to say is somehow the Second Amendment is impeding your security of your body and the security of your belongings. The Constitution protects your right to self defense with the Second Amendment as confirmed by the SCOTUS in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen, among others.

[frose]

very political shut it down!!!!!

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Like our immigration laws that require a visa or some other vetting before entering our country? Or, about how the Constitution requires EVERY voter to be an American Citizen? Sure, why have the law if we are not going to enforce it, right? Maybe law enforcement would deter many of the crimes committed in our country. Instead of enforcing the laws of our land, folks would rather just change the laws to conform to THEIR standards.

Bee-eye-en-gee-oh!!!!

[Byte1]

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.

Instead of protecting the children, use them as a device to ban guns. Instead of securing the schools, go out and take everyone else's right to own firearms.
Since someone is under 21 committing a crime, then make the legal age of ownership 21 or above. Disregard the fact that we have had millions of young men, aged 16-21 serve our country honorably.
We do not believe that young people should be trusted, yet we send them off to war so that the rest of us don't have to go. We send them off to war and then tell them that when they get back, they cannot have a beer with an "adult." Send them to war and train them to use firearms, and then tell them that they cannot purchase a firearm in order to hunt when they come back. They can't be trusted in society because they are too immature to be trusted with our citizen's safety.
Like I said before and will continue to say it, to protect the children we must defend them from evil. To protect them from evil, we must fortify their schools when we are not there to protect them. You cannot predict and punish a crime that has not occurred. There is no "Minority Report" where we can arrest someone before they commit an act of violence. Good people have mental problems too. The type of weapon does not matter when it comes to violence, period.
What is so hard about installing a ten foot fence around a public school and placing an armed guard of police officer there to check those the enter? What is really so bad or awful about allowing school employees that have CCW to carry a pocket pistol that is never seen and never removed from their pocket? How much would it cost to install cameras in the schools?
Or, is it just more convenient for certain folks to blame all violence on guns so that they can ban them because they don't like them and do not want anyone else to own them?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by frose

very political shut it down!!!!!

I disagree. Discussing Freedom, Liberty, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, etc. is not political. That is the very foundation of the American way of life. Being patriotic and proud of your country is not political. That's life.

[rsimpson]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.

Instead of protecting the children, use them as a device to ban guns. Instead of securing the schools, go out and take everyone else's right to own firearms.
Since someone is under 21 committing a crime, then make the legal age of ownership 21 or above. Disregard the fact that we have had millions of young men, aged 16-21 serve our country honorably.
We do not believe that young people should be trusted, yet we send them off to war so that the rest of us don't have to go. We send them off to war and then tell them that when they get back, they cannot have a beer with an "adult." Send them to war and train them to use firearms, and then tell them that they cannot purchase a firearm in order to hunt when they come back. They can't be trusted in society because they are too immature to be trusted with our citizen's safety.
Like I said before and will continue to say it, to protect the children we must defend them from evil. To protect them from evil, we must fortify their schools when we are not there to protect them. You cannot predict and punish a crime that has not occurred. There is no "Minority Report" where we can arrest someone before they commit an act of violence. Good people have mental problems too. The type of weapon does not matter when it comes to violence, period.
What is so hard about installing a ten foot fence around a public school and placing an armed guard of police officer there to check those the enter? What is really so bad or awful about allowing school employees that have CCW to carry a pocket pistol that is never seen and never removed from their pocket? How much would it cost to install cameras in the schools?
Or, is it just more convenient for certain folks to blame all violence on guns so that they can ban them because they don't like them and do not want anyone else to own them?

May I borrow this for future reasonable discussions? Thanks in Advance.