At least 20 people killed in shooting at Texas church
- Thread starter knight1fox3
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Why does it have to be more legislation, instead of different legislation? Even if it is more, I agree that the Second Amendment is the hinge on which all of this rests. As long as that is still in place, and the NRA exists with its current goals remaining as such, gun control will never seriously be pursued in the U.S.
I think what Australia was able to do is amazing. I really, really, really wish the U.S. had already done the same thing. But good grief, it doesn't seem to matter how many people die via gun shots (whether it be suicide, homicide, self-defense, what have you). Congress just doesn't seem to be able to effectively do anything.
I mean, seriously, what happened with outlawing the bumpers? Did that ever actually become law? Even when members of Congress are hurt, nothing gets done. Even when the president of the country is assassinated via a gun, nothing gets done. I am not saying I'm giving up on the hope of gun control in the future, but I just don't know what on earth it will take to convince all the people in this country that less accessibility to guns (whether by outlawing at the extreme end, or by creating stricter guidelines on who can purchase what and how many of what, vs. the existing laws being followed) is in every way going to make for a safer society on the whole. Does it take every single person being directly or indirectly affected by gun violence? I certainly hope not. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.
Yes, if a person wants to get access to one or many guns, they will find a way to do so. But if it is just generally harder to get said guns, I simply cannot see how that would more dangerous.
I think what Australia was able to do is amazing. I really, really, really wish the U.S. had already done the same thing. But good grief, it doesn't seem to matter how many people die via gun shots (whether it be suicide, homicide, self-defense, what have you). Congress just doesn't seem to be able to effectively do anything.
I mean, seriously, what happened with outlawing the bumpers? Did that ever actually become law? Even when members of Congress are hurt, nothing gets done. Even when the president of the country is assassinated via a gun, nothing gets done. I am not saying I'm giving up on the hope of gun control in the future, but I just don't know what on earth it will take to convince all the people in this country that less accessibility to guns (whether by outlawing at the extreme end, or by creating stricter guidelines on who can purchase what and how many of what, vs. the existing laws being followed) is in every way going to make for a safer society on the whole. Does it take every single person being directly or indirectly affected by gun violence? I certainly hope not. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.
Yes, if a person wants to get access to one or many guns, they will find a way to do so. But if it is just generally harder to get said guns, I simply cannot see how that would more dangerous.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Oh, we're changing the subject to talk about alcohol? What about it, use? Abuse? Binge drinking? Underage drinking? Drinking and driving? Those are worthy topics too.
Last edited by a moderator:
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Gun control is not the only issue that is pressing in this country. It's just one we get reminded of over and over again, every time there is another mass shooting.
Yes, there are things that kill more people than guns. But does that mean we should forget about gun control entirely?
Yes, there are things that kill more people than guns. But does that mean we should forget about gun control entirely?
I think the answer to the 2nd Amendment is to legalize everything - flamethrowers, 50 caliber crew-served machine guns, 20mm automatic Gatling cannons, howitzers, tanks, and nuclear weapons. Why not? How can we protect ourselves against our government, per the 2nd amendment, unless we can arm ourselves at an equivalent level?
If we do that, the absurdity of the NRA's stance will probably run off most of their own members. Because this exposes the fallacy in their logic: they clearly support SOME level of restriction, otherwise all of these things would be in our hands already. So if they support SOME level of restriction, then they are obligated to discuss and negotiate what that level of restriction is. I grew up in a gun and NRA household in the 70s and 80s, went to gun shows, etc. and AR-15s were extremely uncommon. Most NRA members I grew up knowing were pretty much primarily thinking about the bolt-action hunting rifles they owned when you would discuss the right to own weapons. That and basic handguns and shotguns. It was only in the late 80s and onward that they became the paramilitary nuts that we have now, and gun shops transitioned from selling primarily hunting weapons and basic self-defence guns like pistols, into these militia armories that they are now.
If we do that, the absurdity of the NRA's stance will probably run off most of their own members. Because this exposes the fallacy in their logic: they clearly support SOME level of restriction, otherwise all of these things would be in our hands already. So if they support SOME level of restriction, then they are obligated to discuss and negotiate what that level of restriction is. I grew up in a gun and NRA household in the 70s and 80s, went to gun shows, etc. and AR-15s were extremely uncommon. Most NRA members I grew up knowing were pretty much primarily thinking about the bolt-action hunting rifles they owned when you would discuss the right to own weapons. That and basic handguns and shotguns. It was only in the late 80s and onward that they became the paramilitary nuts that we have now, and gun shops transitioned from selling primarily hunting weapons and basic self-defence guns like pistols, into these militia armories that they are now.
Dexman PE PMP
Internationally PMP'n his PE-ness
I never said ban. I'm talking top-down restructuring of the gun laws. Obviously the laws in place are not effective, un-enforceable, and/or impractical.
We need to change our thinking from "I have it now prove why I shouldn't" to "I would like one, let me demonstrate why I should be allowed one". The only way for that change to happen is to eliminate the natural born "right" to own one.
Have buy-back programs to help remove this surplus of weaponry from the general public. Limit the amount of guns individuals can own. Limit the amount of weapons retailers can sell. This isn't about punishing the law-abiding citizens, it's about reducing the overall pool of weapons available.
From an accountability standpoint, make gun owners carry insurance for anything/everything that happens with the weapon they purchase until it is legally sold to another. If it's stolen, they're still on the hook for it.
We need to change our thinking from "I have it now prove why I shouldn't" to "I would like one, let me demonstrate why I should be allowed one". The only way for that change to happen is to eliminate the natural born "right" to own one.
Have buy-back programs to help remove this surplus of weaponry from the general public. Limit the amount of guns individuals can own. Limit the amount of weapons retailers can sell. This isn't about punishing the law-abiding citizens, it's about reducing the overall pool of weapons available.
From an accountability standpoint, make gun owners carry insurance for anything/everything that happens with the weapon they purchase until it is legally sold to another. If it's stolen, they're still on the hook for it.
Road Guy
Well-known member
How about the folks that run the cities with the highest crime rates - Detroit, chiRaq,LA, etc, actually do something to reduce the amount of existing felons illegally owning guns and see what effect it has on crime? This can be done without new laws. Basically "do your job".
Enforce the existing laws on the books...get some results, then come talk... because anything being proposed is just going to impact the majority 99% that are not doing anything illegal with their firearms...
Enforce the existing laws on the books...get some results, then come talk... because anything being proposed is just going to impact the majority 99% that are not doing anything illegal with their firearms...
Yeah but seriously, why stop at semi-auto assault rifles? Let's let people own fully auto and belt-fed machine guns. Grenades. And why can we be trusted with semi-auto assault rifles, but not be trusted with ricin or sarin gas dispensers? Those would be far more effective at protecting against both personal attack and overreaching government.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
That's a great start! Yes, why don't people enforce the laws and regulations as they are now? That's a question that seems to be a no-brainer.
But I think @Dexman PE PMP makes very strong and good points. These two in particular:
And for the record, this is an incorrect statement. Every single human being who ran towards that incident when logic tells you to do otherwise was a hero that day. Not just for the obvious either, but because they saw things that day. Things that WILL haunt them if not for the rest of their lives, for a long time. I know. I've experienced it too. But they ran in to help, regardless. The training prepares them for the save, not the salvage. No amount of training prepares them for what they saw.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
So why not put efforts toward limiting the amount of people who have to become such heroes by such acts of terror?
So what's the difference between "big government" limiting the amount of people who ahve to become heroes (as stated by leggo) and the "government in place" doing their job? I don't get it.
Unless you agree that everyone should be able to carry around mustard gas and flamethrowers, then you must agree that there is a line SOMEWHERE that has to be drawn in what "arms" may be carried. Are you against discussing where that line should be drawn?
Unless you agree that everyone should be able to carry around mustard gas and flamethrowers, then you must agree that there is a line SOMEWHERE that has to be drawn in what "arms" may be carried. Are you against discussing where that line should be drawn?
knight1fox3
Jedi MASTER & Friend of Capt. Solo
Have to set the record straight on this one because I tend to hear people make this argument frequently without actually looking at the facts. And usually they also immediately assume that a model like this that works for that particular region is automatically going to work in a completely different region such as the US.
Australia has had mass-shooting incidents, its just not as prevalent in US media and therefore most are uninformed in that regard. In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville. In 2014, one in Hunt, and again in 2014 one in Wedderburn (which was a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood). But let’s dig deep into numbers rather than just reading headlines. Australia only has 23 million people living in it (with a large amount of those very very spread out). But let’s just stick to quantity and not density. The United States has nearly 14 times as many people, at nearly 320 million. So if you compare apples to apples, if Australia had as many people as the United States and the ratio of mass killings to total populace remained the same, Australia would have 42 mass killings compared to 29 in the United States. That is 13 more! It is also worth noting that I am currently unaware of any study that directly links the gun restrictions in Australia with a corresponding decline in mass shootings.
I'm not suggesting that nothing be done or the issue be ignored. But let's not blindly adopt one model that works in one region and assume that will be a good fit in this region. I agree with some of the posts above that we first start by better enforcing some of the laws that are already currently in place to remove weapons from criminals and their corresponding illegal activities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Road Guy
Well-known member
We have the lines, but the big cities that generate crime would rather spend their time and money being sanctuary cities and making cops the bad guys....
Until the gun grabbers show me they can do something about the crime they indirectly create then I am not willing to have much of a discussion.
Until the gun grabbers show me they can do something about the crime they indirectly create then I am not willing to have much of a discussion.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Again, I don't think being a sanctuary city has much to do with gun control. Except that perhaps sanctuary cities have a population that might support gun control on the whole? But that is purely my own speculation.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
I'm not saying that what was done in Australia would work exactly the same if implemented in exactly the same way in the U.S. That's absurd, for the exact reasons you stated. If it works in one place, one cannot depend on it working in the same way in a different place.
That being said, I can still admire a certain type of policy in another country, can I not?
Additionally, I agree with Dex. We need to fundamentally change our thinking. There are certainly reasons to have one, or maybe a few. Hunting, military, police force, be the prime reasons that come to my mind. But really, why shouldn't people have to prove that there is a need for owning one?
If the government can somehow figure out a way to reduce the number of guns out on the streets of the entire country (I'm not talking about just the cities that are associated with high rates of crime, which are easy to just jump to and blame for having said high crime), and help to take guns out of the hands of people who are not likely to use them responsibly, please explain to me how this is a bad idea.
