Political Ramblings

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a mass killing in China where knives was used. I googled knife killings in China and 3 came up with 7 to 20 per incident.

My fear is that we will just slap a bandaid law on guns that makes some happy and feel good and in actuality do nothing effective to deal with violence. It seems that is what we usually do... to our detriment.


I'm beginning think that, of all the issues being addressed, the fundamental one that might most easily be agreed upon, the one to start with, is access to guns. You might add knives to that but everyone need a knife.

The recent massacres, like the ones in the UK, happened because people who should not have guns managed to own or acquire guns in one way or another. The issue doesn't stop with those who have personality disorders. There's a case for teaching teenagers to use guns in a controlled environment but should a 19 year old have a shotgun at home that his young brother can get hold of and take to school? Should a mother have guns at home where her not quite normal son lives? Should someone own a type of gun that he has no legitimate need to possess?

I don't know the detail of US licence laws and they seem to vary greatly from State to State. That might suggest that laws on the subject should be set at Federal level with account taken of local needs. That would enable the whole nation to benefit from background checks, regulations for private sales, minimum ages, a psychological assessment, questions about the purpose to which a gun would be put, checks on storage, registration and, perhaps, other measures. Something along those lines might bring about some agreement between the various representative bodies because they all seem to accept that it's people as well as guns that are the problem.
 
Once they can do as they wish with one bill of right they will do to the next. Look at the Internet and 1st amendment our government wants to regulate it because our founding fathers "couldn't predict the future"
 
I'm beginning think that, of all the issues being addressed, the fundamental one that might most easily be agreed upon, the one to start with, is access to guns. You might add knives to that but everyone need a knife.

The recent massacres, like the ones in the UK, happened because people who should not have guns managed to own or acquire guns in one way or another. The issue doesn't stop with those who have personality disorders. There's a case for teaching teenagers to use guns in a controlled environment but should a 19 year old have a shotgun at home that his young brother can get hold of and take to school? Should a mother have guns at home where her not quite normal son lives? Should someone own a type of gun that he has no legitimate need to possess?

I don't know the detail of US licence laws and they seem to vary greatly from State to State. That might suggest that laws on the subject should be set at Federal level with account taken of local needs. That would enable the whole nation to benefit from background checks, regulations for private sales, minimum ages, a psychological assessment, questions about the purpose to which a gun would be put, checks on storage, registration and, perhaps, other measures. Something along those lines might bring about some agreement between the various representative bodies because they all seem to accept that it's people as well as guns that are the problem.
The problem with that is we also have privacy laws. Now you want to do away with those concerning a persons mental health. Do you think if someone wants to buy a gun to kill a group of people will they put that on the paperwork to buy a gun. The question of the purpose for the gun is how banning guns started in England. Because they decided self defense isn't a reason to have a gun. It's already illegal to let a minor have unsupervised access to a gun, and adults have been charged when it happens.
If you do get a shotgun to protect yourself how will you store it ?

What really gets me is all the rush to do something over these 20 kids that died. Well I'll tell you in the last 2 weeks over 20 kids have died in this country from the flu because they didn't have a flu shot. And in the next 2 weeks 20 more will die and the 2 weeks after that about 20 more. But it seems the 20 kids shot are more important then the 100 kids that will die because they don't have flu shots.
 
Is comparing today's needs with those in the 1700s more relevant than attempting to learn from what is happening elsewhere in the world today? Other countries have or have had similar problems to the ones you have in the US and it's worth comparing if you have an open mind.

Our condition is more akin to South Africa rather than Britain. We have a legacy of two societies living together, which is fine, but when race baiters tell people that other folks are marginalizing and oppressing them, and they believe it, well problems arise.
 
The problem with that is we also have privacy laws. Now you want to do away with those concerning a persons mental health. Do you think if someone wants to buy a gun to kill a group of people will they put that on the paperwork to buy a gun. The question of the purpose for the gun is how banning guns started in England. Because they decided self defense isn't a reason to have a gun. It's already illegal to let a minor have unsupervised access to a gun, and adults have been charged when it happens.
If you do get a shotgun to protect yourself how will you store it ?

What really gets me is all the rush to do something over these 20 kids that died. Well I'll tell you in the last 2 weeks over 20 kids have died in this country from the flu because they didn't have a flu shot. And in the next 2 weeks 20 more will die and the 2 weeks after that about 20 more. But it seems the 20 kids shot are more important then the 100 kids that will die because they don't have flu shots.

I'm with you on privacy. If someone is undergoing psychotherapy, confidentiality is of paramount importance otherwise treatment is unlikely to be successful. However, someone who has been subject to treatment for a mental illness, if not an emotional issue, can be given the option to give authority for his records to be checked or withdraw his application for a licence. Privacy can be maintained or loosened according to the agreement of the applicant. I also accept that the suggestions I made would not be easy to implement. But some measure is better than none and the massacres seem to be happening more frequently now. I don't pretend that any tightening of the law wold be easy.

I don't think its the schools massacre alone, even though its the most horrific one to date. I think that the rise of feeling has come because people feel that this is going too far.

I would keep a shot gun in a proper safe, properly installed, in the bedroom That's where we are most likely to be when someone breaks in. Or we can quickly get upstairs to it.
 
Quote: I think that will keep a lot of people from seeking any mental health treatment. What about people that already have guns and want to see a psychiatrist ? Will the Government come and take away their guns.
I also don't think I should have to give up one right to exercise another right. Does having a gun mean the Government can come in to my house at anytime to see if I have it's stored right ? Is that another right (the need for a warrant to search my house) I have to give up ?
Someone posted a chart today that shows that mass shootings are not going up. I don't know why you keep saying they are. Do you have some study that shows they are ?

The CDC estimates that over 30,000 people will die from the flu in this country this year. Flu shots would reduce that by about 80%. That's 24,000 people, how many will die from guns ?
 
No problem with needles. Use to donate my arms to peoples IV training. I just have no use for flu shots. Other than my Hep C shots I had to get for the FD, I have not had any vaccinations sense I was a baby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom