All gun violence is out of control, it's not just mass shootings. The cost to our economy is staggering. Depending on how it's measured it's between $230B and $557B a year. About 300 people a day are shot, homicides, suicides, domestic violence, and unintended shootings. About 100 of them die.
The Declaration of Independence says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's time that the laws of this country support those rights. Maybe the answer is not gun control and maybe it's too late for it anyway. But if they want to keep the gun culture, they must get serious about finding a solution.
And please, no one is Pro-Life, unless they're serious about protecting all lives.
Thanks, Jane S. Yes, it all seems that way to me, too.
I've been attacked before on this and I don't care -- for our judicial system and/or government to purposely declare the death penalty on someone is just a polite way of continuing the murder/s. Legally declaring murder without even the rationale of emotions getting out of control that can happen in the context of some murders. The legal death penalty comes after months of judicial procedures. Two wrongs (killing people) don't make a right to me and, to me, the undeniable truth in the death penalty is that murder is okay. I know of, and have read about, many families of murder victims, NOT wanting the killers murdered.
And, with killing, I'm not talking about military actions/etc and those in the military. I don't like the concept of war at all but I "get" how it's here. And I admire people in the military (and police). They're all doing jobs I very much doubt I could do. Hell, I do, however, find war an insult to human intelligence. Yet, consider the source - - I've been told by many people that they find me a rare person who is myself and I stand up for whan I believe, yet, I have a way of getting along with everyone in spite of major differences. [ That's only on my good days, though- - ha :) ]
Thanks for answering my impulsively-posted question.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at April 12, 2023 2:53 AM MDT
What do you realistically expect this nebulous, theoretical "them" to do? After all, it's easy to sit here and criticize some poorly defined group for not doing something without suggesting a course of action.
Realistically, not a damn thing. The poorly defined group I referred to are the people who want to hang on to their guns. In an ideal world, gun owners would be self-policing. And yes, it's easy to sit here and criticize without suggesting a course of action, because every course of action that I can think of would be rejected by gun owners. My badly worded comment was attempt to say those determined to maintain the status quo on owning guns should be at the forefront of solving the problem of gun violence.
That is mostly correct. But if this is a reaction to my comment, then my meaning still isn't clear to you. I am 100% fine with an civilian possessing a firearm being charged with a felony and serving a mandatory jail sentence. Perhaps those who have a desire to own a gun can work on a solution that keeps guns out of the wrong hands that is less restrictive. They are the ones with skin in the game.
This post was edited by Jane S at April 20, 2023 7:50 PM MDT
Mostly correct? I think of it as more black and white, that people who carry permits and legally own guns are not the problem. And how does charging anyone with a felony solve anything?
And “those who have a desire to own guns” are still a nebulous, poorly defined group. Who exactly do you mean by that and ho are they more responsible for this than the rest of us?
Perhaps you’re barking up the wrong tree and the answers lie more in the realm of psychology and mental health.
Mostly correct means that the definition of gun violence includes suicide and unintentional shootings. Permits are not required to carry a gun in half the country.
As for the rest of your comment, I don't know what you're arguing about. My opinion is that all guns should be banned. That nebulous, poorly defined group is everyone who doesn't agree. I am not going to write an essay, just to satisfy your desire to nitpick.
But banning any or all guns won’t solve the problem of gun violence, and neither will you saying that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is responsible for solving it. No nitpicking.
So this thread goes around and around bouncing off the walls, only to wind up back at square one with nothing resolved.
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at April 20, 2023 8:43 PM MDT
The description in the box under my question I believe will always be the status quo, so no worries.
Like I posted elsewhere, this is a topic I believe I'm incapable of just talking about in a detached manner, so, I'll stop. (I'm just trying to acknowledge to people who posted that I've seen the posts.)
I posted the question after hearing about another shooting. I was upset. And whether criminals do the killing or not, nothing will change in my opinion.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at April 20, 2023 10:32 PM MDT
When the Founding Fathers set forth the Second Amendment, I seriously doubt they had could envision the carnage that is occurring on a daily basis today. I cannot think of one good reason (or even a not-so-good) reason why anyone outside of law enforcement and the military should be able to buy a rapid-fire weapon. If someone wants the thrill of shooting an automatic rifle or handgun, they should have to join a shooting range and use it only at the range and leave it there when they are done.
And even the definition of "automatic weapons" is not definitively clear. from what I read.
From what I read, automatic weapons are seemingly legal in many places of the USA and were "grandfathered" in for those owning them before the Hughes Amendment was enacted. If people had them before the amendment, then they were okay.
I'm not in a state of mind to probably ever unemotionally discuss this topic in a composed and detached manner. I posted the question when emotional. Again, I was emotional when I posted the question. The topic is difficult for me and for now I choose not to keep dwelling on the topic.
Again, we'll disagree. The admittedly sarcastic description up there in the box under my posted question remains what I still observe and hear.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at April 20, 2023 10:33 PM MDT
The definition of "automatic weapon" is clear. A firearm where to fire multiple bullets the only thing needed to do is pull the trigger and hold it down until you are ready to stop firing bullets....this is a "fully-automatic weapon" (a machine gun) these are illegal and have been for nearly a century. (Yes, you can spend an absorbent amount of money to get one legally....tax stamp, extensive back ground check, and likely over $50k for the gun but for the vast majority of people they cannot get on legally)
Now a firearm that you squeeze the trigger and 1 bullet is discharged. Then to fire a 2nd bullet you have release the trigger and then squeeze it again....this is a semi-automatic firearm. These are available in every size and type of firearm, from hand gun to shot gun to rifles from most if not all calipers (size of bullet) These are not illegal.
But taking my gun or my access to a gun is not saving anyone, except maybe a criminal who being shot in self defense.
We need to start taking gun violence seriously. If someone commits a violent crime w(you rob someone using a gun, you threaten someone with a gun etc) with a gun there should automatically be 5yrs added to their sentence....no parole, no pleading down lower than prison time, no early release. If you are arrested for a violent crime with a gun, you should not even be eligible for bail.
Note....this should only be for violent crimes not self defense, or an accident etc.
This post was edited by my2cents at April 20, 2023 8:25 PM MDT
When the Second Amendment was written, the state of the art in personal small arms was the musket. About as accurate as a pitched baseball and didn't have much greater effective range. Most people shot and killed by them during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and even the Civil War actually survived being hit (a mimie ball is pretty small), but died from infected wounds. The modern Howitzers that can deal death wholesale from hundreds of yards away had not been imagined. And forget this nonsense about arming oneself against a "tyrannical government" - you do know that the government has Abrams tanks, right? You're bringing guns to a tank fight. Also, when the Second was written, the US couldn't afford to employ and equip a regular army - it needed to be able to call upon irregulars, State militias with their own equipment. Today the United States has the best funded and equipped military on the planet. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defence of a free State ..." - that's the bit everyone forgets. Since the draft was abolished, a well regulated militia means the National Guard and nobody else. If you're not in the National Guard, the Second doesn't apply to you any more.
Jane S 