Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The second amendment makes that not the answer on two fronts legally nor reasonable for a few reasons.
I went pig hunting with an SKS (the Chinese AK knockoff) capable of full auto, once. It was fun. But absolutely unnecessary.It seems as if you don't realize what an AK-47 is. It's a Soviet model assault rifle. It can switch between semi-automatic and full automatic fire at, well, the flick of a switch. AK-47s sold to civilians are not capable of full auto, making them similar to any other sporting rifle. I have never heard of a hunter legally hunting an animal with a weapon capable of fully automatic fire.
Same way it works in the rest of the developed world. Not to mention mere posesion of a fire arm doesn't confer invulnerability against criminals.A question to those who believe the second amendment should be repealed:
How do you propose to keep the populace safe from criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means?
Edited to add: I'm not attempting to bait anyone in order to ridicule them. I'm genuinely interested in an answer. As you provide answers, I will follow up with other questions. Where an idea has merit, I'll certainly consider it.
I must've misunderstood your other post I quoted. Mea culpa. Hunting with a full auto is absolutely unnecessary.I went pig hunting with an SKS (the Chinese AK knockoff) capable of full auto, once. It was fun. But absolutely unnecessary.
Same way it works in the rest of the developed world. Not to mention mere posesion of a fire arm doesn't confer invulnerability against criminals.
Perhaps but most of them are imbalanced too!
What does that even mean?
In Australia it was already done.
People are plenty safe in countries where guns are banned. In fact most of them have decisively lower murder rates (though this does not seem strongly related to firearm proliferation).A question to those who believe the second amendment should be repealed:
How do you propose to keep the populace safe from criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means?
Edited to add: I'm not attempting to bait anyone in order to ridicule them. I'm genuinely interested in an answer. As you provide answers, I will follow up with other questions. Where an idea has merit, I'll certainly consider it.
We can prevent mass shooting through gun control. Countries like Australia show it can be done and have a dramatic effect. The question is it worth the trade off of freedom and national security. My answer is no, but people differ on this.What can we do to prevent another mass shooting? Nothing short of Gestapo and SS style monitoring and control of all citizens 24/7 and turning the US into a full-fledged police state. Even that won't guarantee a zero percent possibility of mass shootings.
You can't get rid of firearms. Nevermind should, you can't do it. Outlaw them, and outlaws will ignore the law. Attempt to confiscate them, and you'll be deadlocked in legal battles. Even if you change the laws, you'll need people with guns to confiscate guns from other people, and you will have a civil war on your hands. When the war is over, you'll have a lot of dead people, and the living people you don't want having guns will still have them.
If anyone challenges the above statements, I invite you to propose ways around any of those hurdles.
At best, you can only minimize risk. I would agree with those who say we need a better mental healthcare system, but that won't rid us of gun violence. The keyword in that phrase--gun violence--is violence. It is true that if you somehow took away all guns from citizens, they would resort to other means of violence.
Of 12,523 homicides in 2013 examined by the FBI, 8,454 (67.5%) were committed with firearms. The remaining 4,069 were done with a non-firearm method, save for a possible 850 (0.07%) where the weapon was not indicated (source). Firearms are certainly a popular weapon for homicide, but far from the only weapon.
Most of the non-firearm weapons used in homicides have other uses. Some murders are committed with hammers, baseball bats, and other blunt instruments. Some are committed with rope, available in multiple varieties at your local hardware store. Even murders committed with explosives may be committed with blasting materials used in mining or demolition.
Shall we then outlaw all potential weapons? Of course not. You wouldn't allow your arms to be removed, and there are so many potential weapons in any given location, we would never get it all, not to mention we'd never submit to the removal of those objects just because they pose a potential threat. The fact is, we need hammers and bats and rope and explosives.
We also need firearms, because firearms exist. Outlaws will get them, so it is necessary for lawful citizens to meet that threat with equal or superior force. We build our military on the idea that where those who wish to do us harm obtain a weapon, we will obtain a better weapon, and train more proficiently with it. We need people to stand in our defense.
We could make it so only the police and the military own firearms, but are we willing to live in a police state? Do we want soldiers and law enforcement on every corner just in case? Even then, that still doesn't eliminate the fact that an outlaw motivated to obtain a firearm will get one, and authorities may or may not intervene before the outlaw can use their gun.
By now it's clear no venue is safe from an attack. Schools, churches, clubs, sporting arenas, and military bases have all been the scene of attacks. That, and more. In most cases, those shootings occurred in places where the legal carry of a firearm was restricted or prohibited. Even on a military base where guns were readily available, they were not readily available enough to prevent an attack.
If you can't get rid of guns, and outlaws will obtain them, how do we defend ourselves? I would point you back to how we establish our military. The enemy obtains a weapon, so we obtain a better weapon, and train more proficiently with it. Those who do not wish to carry firearms are, in the event of an attack, protected by those who do carry firearms. If your house is invaded, you call the police, who come armed and willing to protect you.
We need less fear of weaponry, and a more sensible approach to defense. People need to face reality that in a world with guns, the possibility exists to either carry a firearm and defend with it, or be defended by those who do carry them. In events like Las Vegas, I don't see where handguns would have helped. It was an exception to a rule that most shooters are in close proximity to their victims.
No solution will be perfect, but we can even the odds. I once saw a man carrying a rifle after the D.C. Beltway attacks. In the event of a long range attack, a rifle is a sensible weapon for defense. In most cases, a handgun would suffice to eliminate a threat. Some shooters, if not all, would think twice before attacking a group if they know or reasonably suspect there will be returned fire.
In short, yes, we should seek to improve mental healthcare, to crack down on illegal firearm sales, and to pray for God to work to intervene, but since firearms will always be a constant, we should structure our laws and public spaces to allow firearms. We should not disarm the intended victims of attacks for fear they will be attacked, but allow them the freedom to respond to attacks in self-defense.
What can we do to prevent another mass shooting? Nothing short of Gestapo and SS style monitoring and control of all citizens 24/7 and turning the US into a full-fledged police state. Even that won't guarantee a zero percent possibility of mass shootings.
Putting things in perspective - there are tens of millions of firearm owners in the US. 99.999% do not go on shooting sprees. Ideally, 100% is best. But, we live in the real world, where nothing is absolutely 100% perfect. 99.999% isn't perfect, but it is the best that one could hope for.So you're saying we resign ourselves to the reality that mass shootings is just something we live with?
We have lived with them for well over 100 years. School shootings for example, can be found in news articles preserved from the 1850s. A young kid using his revolver to blow away a bully in California is one of the earliest ones I found.So you're saying we resign ourselves to the reality that mass shootings is just something we live with?
Don't confuse "finds more meaning" with "didn't understand them in the first place". Be willing to learn if you don't understand. That's what we're here for.
And don't forget the large number of Evangelical Christians who have put their support behind candidates who are bought and paid for by the GUN LOBBY.
And a gun in the home is more likely to be used to hurt someone in the family or used for suicide than it will be used to "protect one's self".
Remember some of us on the Left are the only ones who are willing to openly quote Jesus when it comes to guns. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
A question to those who believe the second amendment should be repealed:
How do you propose to keep the populace safe from criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means?
Edited to add: I'm not attempting to bait anyone in order to ridicule them. I'm genuinely interested in an answer. As you provide answers, I will follow up with other questions. Where an idea has merit, I'll certainly consider it.
Which if you study American history, you should know that it's the result of the American revolution. Better start inventing a time machine then.Yes, I'm well aware of your second amendment. I'm also well aware that it's part of the problem.
Does that mean access to a firearm is really only a risk factor for people showing clear signs of mental illness?
No, because suicides are often impulsive, meaning that there’s a very short time between the decision and the action. Seventy-five percent of suicides occur in the home, and many are also fueled by alcohol, which decreases inhibitions and increases impulsivity. With or without mental illness, someone could be sitting at home, going through a crisis. For kids, that tends to be an emotional or a relationship crisis, for adults it’s often a financial or marital crisis, and for older adults, it happens to be medical problems, especially dementia.
Very fine, your quoting Jesus. Do you also quote what he said after the situation changed?
Luke 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?