|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 14, 2014 18:35:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Jan 15, 2014 14:32:41 GMT -6
Right, because gun control would've stopped this.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 15, 2014 17:00:52 GMT -6
FB,
Have you considered that there are already too many guns in the US, and like pornography, there's no solution at this point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 15, 2014 17:05:29 GMT -6
Right, because gun control would've stopped this. Would this be controlled by the lame-ass, nearly toothless regulation that is the most that ever passes in our gun-obsessed society? No, of course not. We're not even talking about real regulation in the US. It is undeniable fact that countries with tighter control of weapons and ammunition have fewer shootings of this nature. The sort of regulation that is necessary would be of the type that would dramatically and significantly reduce the number of guns in public circulation, control availability of ammunition and punish failure to secure one's weapon as a felony. Here's one example of the sort of regulation that would make a difference: The owner of a gun whose unsecured weapon and ammunition is used in a violent crime shall be indictable as a felonious accessory to such crime, punishable by no less than 1 year in jail and a $10,000 fine (and no more than 5 years/$50,000). |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 15, 2014 17:15:04 GMT -6
FB, Have you considered that there are already too many guns in the US, and like pornography, there's no solution at this point? I'm sure CCC would be totally willing to say that no legal action should be taken to curtail pornography at this point. Not. We need to start dismantling our rapid gun culture. Only an idiot (or several tens million idiots) can say that the free for all on private weaponry is not a major factor in the surplus of per capita violence in the US compared to in other nations. |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 15, 2014 19:09:47 GMT -6
Another factor that I think encourages more such shootings is the extensive media coverage they get.
Announce over local media that a school lockdown has occurred and instruct parents where to go to find their children when that is necessary.
And then, the media agree not to report further what occurred. We don't really need to know.
Squelch the publicity, and fewer people would find shooting up a school or mall an appealing prospect. No fame, just consequences.
(Admittedly, this proposal is unrealistic, but the extent to which these are publicized has gone beyond excessive. Is anything much done beyond wallowing in each latest exclusive gory detail? No. And that's a substantial reason why they keep occurring.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 15, 2014 19:30:28 GMT -6
Another factor that I think encourages more such shootings is the extensive media coverage they get. Announce over local media that a school lockdown has occurred and instruct parents where to go to find their children when that is necessary. And then, the media agree not to report further what occurred. We don't really need to know. Squelch the publicity, and fewer people would find shooting up a school or mall an appealing prospect. No fame, just consequences. (Admittedly, this proposal is unrealistic, but the extent to which these are publicized has gone beyond excessive. Is anything much done beyond wallowing in each latest exclusive gory detail? No. And that's a substantial reason why they keep occurring.) Clearly there is no one factor that makes our society more violent than others, but gun libertarians have surprisingly few qualms about advocating the squelching of other freedoms in order that gun access have no restrictions whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 16, 2014 5:16:42 GMT -6
I'm hardly a libertarian where U.S. gun ownership is concerned. Way back when James Brady was so badly injured, I argued for the English and Canadian systems as significantly better than our own.
That's why I say **another** factor we need to curb is that of every gory detail being aired before anyone has a clue how accurate any such is. That is both inexcusably irresponsible journalism as well as encouragement to the next misfit attention-seeker.
The level of media discretion that concealed JFK's womanizing while he was President would do much to reduce the appeal of grabbing an available gun and going on a rampage. Also, as we discussed after Sandy Hook, far more resources for suitably addressing mental health issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Jan 16, 2014 7:07:47 GMT -6
Let's ban violent television and video games too, so that kids don't have access to this stuff....
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 16, 2014 9:00:52 GMT -6
Let's ban violent television and video games too, so that kids don't have access to this stuff.... Let's ban pictures and statues of dead people nailed to a cross. Kids become desensitized from looking at that sort of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 9:33:29 GMT -6
Let's ban violent television and video games too, so that kids don't have access to this stuff.... Absolutely. All rights and liberties have limits, except of course the freedom to keep and bear arms, which should never be regulated in any way, shape or form. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 11:08:00 GMT -6
Let's ban violent television and video games too, so that kids don't have access to this stuff.... Absolutely. All rights and liberties have limits, except of course the freedom to keep and bear arms, which should never be regulated in any way, shape or form. Logical faux-pas here F.B. (exaggeration). I agree with you by and large on this issue, so I'm only pointing out your hyperbole because it is uncharacteristic of your argument style. More specifically, I know that you know that the 2nd Amendment has limits, but I read the above as an over-stated indictment of the 2nd Amendment crowd as being comprised of a bunch of wild-assed maniacs who do not think the 2nd should not have limits. That characterization would only be true of the lunatic fringe, who gobble up inordinate amounts of press of course. The rank and file gun-owner crowd (about 1/2 the population of the US I would guess) is perfectly OK with reasonable gun ownership restrictions. I agree with Dot too, although I'm afraid that it is asking a lot for the media to self-censor this type of juicy story. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 11:19:48 GMT -6
Absolutely. All rights and liberties have limits, except of course the freedom to keep and bear arms, which should never be regulated in any way, shape or form. Logical faux-pas here F.B. (exaggeration). I agree with you by and large on this issue, so I'm only pointing out your hyperbole because it is uncharacteristic of your argument style. Ha! Since when? More specifically, I know that you know that the 2nd Amendment has limits, but I read the above as an over-stated indictment of the 2nd Amendment crowd as being comprised of a bunch of wild-assed maniacs who do not think the 2nd should not have limits. That characterization would only be true of the lunatic fringe, who gobble up inordinate amounts of press of course. The rank and file gun-owner crowd (about 1/2 the population of the US I would guess) is perfectly OK with reasonable gun ownership restrictions. I agree with Dot too, although I'm afraid that it is asking a lot for the media to self-censor this type of juicy story. Jim If you don't like the news, just reign in the media. Ostrich, meet sand. I know you're not advocating legal restrictions on the press, but it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare. |
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Jan 16, 2014 11:25:43 GMT -6
There are multitudes of gun control laws on the state, federal, and local level. There are about 271 federal gun laws alone, so FB is just fantasizing again about no regulation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 11:32:35 GMT -6
Logical faux-pas here F.B. (exaggeration). I agree with you by and large on this issue, so I'm only pointing out your hyperbole because it is uncharacteristic of your argument style. Ha! Since when? More specifically, I know that you know that the 2nd Amendment has limits, but I read the above as an over-stated indictment of the 2nd Amendment crowd as being comprised of a bunch of wild-assed maniacs who do not think the 2nd should not have limits. That characterization would only be true of the lunatic fringe, who gobble up inordinate amounts of press of course. The rank and file gun-owner crowd (about 1/2 the population of the US I would guess) is perfectly OK with reasonable gun ownership restrictions. I agree with Dot too, although I'm afraid that it is asking a lot for the media to self-censor this type of juicy story. Jim If you don't like the news, just reign in the media. Ostrich, meet sand. I know you're not advocating legal restrictions on the press, but it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare. You missed our point. (Me and Dot's) We think that the hyper coverage of these events helps to breed more events. What motivates school shooters? Revenge, bullying, video games, mental illness... Who the hell knows. Getting a big splash in the press seemed to be part of the motivation for at least the Columbine killers. I do not want to censor the media. Quite the opposite. Therefore, I don't even have the slightest idea what this line means: "it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare." Maybe you can explain. |
|
