Discussion in 'Water Cooler' started by OROD, Oct 3, 2017.
In your rush you missed one important point - murder is already illegal in all 50.
But not really enforced, nor does anyone really try to enforce it, nor do most people appear to think it should be.
Moreover, it's just a traffic offense. The penalty is a ticket. There are few laws regarding gun use where you will get off so lightly if you violate them. Especially in certain states ( you know who you are ).
Perhaps we should try confiscation and impounding of your phone, and arrest and prosecution for at least a serious misdemeanor for texting while driving. A fine is a means to generate revenue for the state, not a punishment and not a deterrent either.
So I'm just trying to put some ideas out as food for thought. Not challenge your statements..sort of..
-Rights of all citizens are the highest priority. That sounds good. But that cuts both ways. Freedom includes responsibility, and because we are simply imperfect beings...it leaves it open for abuse. Life is simply unfair. The rights in America are spelled out in your constitution.
-Statistically, firearms deaths...mass shootings or intentional use of a firearm are a miniscule % in the overall picture. If we are really worried about "stupid" deaths, we should be concentrating collective efforts where the most deaths occur, and where it can truly be effective. In reality, firearms deaths are a fraction of a % in this listing per the CDC.
-Nothing is perfect. Even with the media (which has an amazing 20/20 hindsight) pointing out there were "warning signs" it doesn't mean each and every shooter will be spotted and every event stopped. 1)We rarely hear about the events stopped in the media. So it gives the impression none or very few are. 2)Because events are so rare, yet statistically they will still happen, there is a point where you simply live with that average. That sounds awful and mean...and in no way do I want it to be that. But if we take another less charged issue like "lightning strikes" we can educate, we can have monitoring and warnings in place...but it will never completely stamp the problem out. Thats as far as I think the analogy holds. With over 300 million people in America, you cannot statistically expect an issue to be completely wiped out 100%.
Historically, the rate of gun related deaths/injuries has dropped dramatically. Its dropped to less than 1% of the rate 100 years ago. (Not including wars or armed conflicts btw. I'm not trying to scewer or mislead results.) Another example are workplace deaths. We can educate, prepare, ensure safety is part of the environment at a workplace....but with 300 million people...statistically there are going to be people that die. The goal can be zero...but in reality though politically incorrect...it will never be met.
Wonderful and level-headed post, thank you for it!
Food for thought - a fix probably not - but perhaps a fair step in a positive direction. Found this on line months ago and am sharing it here. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...federal-semi-automatic-firearm-license-218072
This reads more as an opinion piece...and very light on any statistical information to validate his "plan." I could see why all sides would dislike it...it makes everyone feel like they've "lost" on the issue.
In Canada, to obtain an Firearm, you need a "PAL". Thats your license (similar to a drivers license) to get a firearm. There are three categories...non restricted (most rifles and shot guns), restricted (pistols and most assault rifles) and prohibited (limited to military, and often movie companies to use military style weapons on set. Civilians cannot get prohibited.) Licenses are relatively easy to get. Take the course, pass the test, the background check, etc. Why am I saying this? The problem? Its never enough.... anti gun lobbyists are in a way much like pro gun lobbyists. They have an agenda based on a philosophy. So as perhaps simple or practical ideas are put forth...they are usually just the first stepping stones to something else.
And you know, if I were trying to write a persuasive argument aimed at those who resist gun control, I would start by claiming to be an ex-military gun-owning, gun-loving Second Amendment supporter. Hey, I'm one of you and I believe as you do but this one thing would be OK.
Cool idea... to be followed by Federal License to free speech, then Federal License to breathe.
If he were being that blatant of a liar and a manipulator, then likely someone would have checked into his actual back ground and called him on it because the facts of his actual life would not match the statements he made about himself in the article. It's was written back in April, so he may indeed be who he says he is. Also the reason the Vegas's shooter was able to amass a small arsenal without any one picking up on it, and questioning his motives for all of the weaponry, is because there in reality is no central Federal Registry, so because he had the money he worked around the system and bought his weapons from all over the country, thus avoiding showing up on the radar until he was ready to make his move. In the end he was apparently an insane man with enough money to outfit his mad intent, yet aware enough to escape detection until he decided to go out in his demented version of a blaze of notoriety. Licensing may not have prevented him, but in the end you can't stop what you can't detect, and licensing may have helped to mitigate that. In the end he knew enough about existing gun laws to play the current system against itself, so all you can do is try to improve the system, by creating a more well regulated militia.
I've read some of his other writings. He says those things over and over, while also---when his audience is less conservative, that he's a progressive who hopes that "his side", eg gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters, "lose" the fight in the end. That gun control ( actually gun prohibition ) wins out.
And your faith in the fact-checking abilities of "someone" is touching, but even if it's the case the people reading his work may not be reading that of the fact-checkers and may never get the word that he's a fraud ( if he is ). I conjure with the names of Bernie Madoff, Sasha Baron Cohen, and a multitude of other frauds who went undiscovered for a long time. You know the saying: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and those are good enough odds for anyone".
Separate names with a comma.