Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874499 wrote:For starters, we should closely study the evolution of gun control in Australia. I would guess this has been mentioned on this forum in the past. But there you have a heterogeneous society that took extreme measures to pass regulations on ownership and use, along with amnesties and other programs to collect guns in circulation. Maybe that could serve as a model or at least a starting point for us.

Heterogeneous is quite the stretch when comparing Australia to the US. The Australia option is never going to happen. If that was brought to the table, the Democrats might never win an election again. Obama didn't bring that option to the table and he turned out to be the best gun salesman (and NRA membership recruiter) of all time.

QuakerOats;1874501 wrote:Interesting; some want more government, when more God is the solution.

More God? Seriously?
Outside of the golden rule, I really don't see God helping.

QuakerOats;1874501 wrote:... more God is the solution.

Which one? I prefer Zeus.

ptown_trojans_1;1874504 wrote:More God? Seriously?
Outside of the golden rule, I really don't see God helping.

Hard to promote that when we are systematically tossing Him aside. But I figured some on here would go nuts about the post.


Carry on ................with the gun control notion and an even bigger Nanny state.

QuakerOats;1874507 wrote:Hard to promote that when we are systematically tossing Him aside. But I figured some on here would go nuts about the post.


Carry on ................with the gun control notion and an even bigger Nanny state.

While I'm not a big proponent of mass gun control, I highly doubt magic sky man is an answer to anything resembling an actual problem. I mean, if people are going to ignore actual laws that we have about shooting and killing, I doubt saying, "But..but..the bible says...." is going to cause them to do an about-face and be good citizens.

justincredible;1874505 wrote:Which one? I prefer Zeus.

I'll go with the assistant coach of the Mavs.

justincredible;1874505 wrote:Which one? I prefer Zeus.

Nyarlathotep.

QuakerOats;1874507 wrote:Hard to promote that when we are systematically tossing Him aside. But I figured some on here would go nuts about the post.


Carry on ................with the gun control notion and an even bigger Nanny state.

I'm not advocating anything. I don't know if more gun control would have stopped this in any way.
All I was saying is as a civil society, the fact we are willing to just live with this leaves me with an uneasy feeling.

Also, come on man with the God stuff. Using language you use, don't stuff your religion and your views down our throats.

ptown_trojans_1;1874512 wrote:I'm not advocating anything. I don't know if more gun control would have stopped this in any way.
All I was saying is as a civil society, the fact we are willing to just live with this leaves me with an uneasy feeling.

This is an emotional argument. Nobody is ok with people killing other people. Just because people believe more laws isn't the answer does not mean they are ok with any gun crime. I think there are solutions out there that don't involve laws against guns.

like_that;1874513 wrote:This is an emotional argument. Nobody is ok with people killing other people. Just because people believe more laws isn't the answer does not mean they are ok with any gun crime. I think there are solutions out there that don't involve laws against guns.

Sure, but then when it comes to either enforcing existing laws or actually policies that would prevent or at least slow down these from happening again,they never arrive.
We are all in a vicious cycle. You mention this all the time. We always go into our respective corners and argue our policies until we move on to the next tragedy.
There may be solutions out there, but I highly doubt we see any of them, thus we just live with this happening and accept it.

I hate getting into a lot of political talk, it's not like people will change their minds.

Personally, I just don't understand how Americans think that legislating much actually will change things? It was brought up earlier about Prohibition. Drinking and driving is illegal, and people still get caught MULTIPLE times. Murder is illegal, that doesn't stop anyone. Heck, on a minor scale, no one really appreciates being cheated on and families being torn apart...but, that hasn't really changed the US divorce (or single parent) numbers.

The only thing that will change the issues that plague American is a change of heart and mind. It's not something that can be legislated. Unfortunately, it's not like it'll change anytime really. I wish I had a solution to the problem, but I don't. I grew up around guns, had zero issues or violence around. Never grew up in a violent culture. America has a bit of a violent culture, has nothing to do with being a "gun-loving society."

While our murder rate is higher than similar developed countries, our violent crime rate is lower than many too. Twice as likely to be victim of violent crime in England than here. I work for Europeans and have worked with them for years. It is remarkable the difference in the "violent mentality" that is seen here more than there -- at least in my experiences with European people.

ptown_trojans_1;1874512 wrote:I'm not advocating anything. I don't know if more gun control would have stopped this in any way.
All I was saying is as a civil society, the fact we are willing to just live with this leaves me with an uneasy feeling.

Also, come on man with the God stuff. Using language you use, don't stuff your religion and your views down our throats.

You've used "willing" at least twice, I think it's more a matter of "able". The idea that the government can shield us from all evil is simply not realistic.

ptown_trojans_1;1874512 wrote:I'm not advocating anything. I don't know if more gun control would have stopped this in any way.
All I was saying is as a civil society, the fact we are willing to just live with this leaves me with an uneasy feeling.

Also, come on man with the God stuff. Using language you use, don't stuff your religion and your views down our throats.

I was hardly stuffing it down anyone's throat. It was a mere observation; but the historic correlations are rather undeniable.

OSH;1874516 wrote:The only thing that will change the issues that plague American is a change of heart and mind. It's not something that can be legislated. Unfortunately, it's not like it'll change anytime really.

True.

queencitybuckeye;1874510 wrote:I'll go with the assistant coach of the Mavs.

We need him more than ever right now.

like_that;1874502 wrote:Heterogeneous is quite the stretch when comparing Australia to the US. The Australia option is never going to happen. If that was brought to the table, the Democrats might never win an election again. Obama didn't bring that option to the table and he turned out to be the best gun salesman (and NRA membership recruiter) of all time.

Maybe it will or maybe it won't happen here. All I'm pointing out is that you have a westernized country with a demographic closer to the US then Japan, for instance. Somehow, they have taken measures to make gun violence and mass shootings a small percentage of what they were - all in 20 years time. Maybe this isn't the model that could work for us, but Jesus, we need to start somewhere. Why can't we acknowledge that the rest of the modern world has somehow managed to minimize his stuff and that we might possibly be able to learn something from how they did / do it in an attempt to address our problem.

QuakerOats;1874517 wrote:I was hardly stuffing it down anyone's throat. It was a mere observation; but the historic correlations are rather undeniable.

The correlation to guns in circulation is rather undeniable too.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874524 wrote:The correlation to guns in circulation is rather undeniable too.

Perhaps, but I can't think of a solution to that problem that doesn't involve shredding the 4th amendment. Way too expensive.

The fabric of democracy is always fragile everywhere because it depends on the will of citizens to protect it, and when they become scared, when it becomes dangerous for them to defend it, it can go very quickly.

Margaret Atwood, writer and poet

queencitybuckeye;1874527 wrote:Perhaps, but I can't think of a solution to that problem that doesn't involve shredding the 4th amendment. Way too expensive.

It would be pretty bloody, as well.

QuakerOats;1874529 wrote:

The fabric of democracy is always fragile everywhere because it depends on the will of citizens to protect it, and when they become scared, when it becomes dangerous for them to defend it, it can go very quickly.

Margaret Atwood, writer and poet

No one's suggesting ending democracy. It's looking for a way to reduce the formidable danger firearm violence poses. We want to be free, sure. But we are willing to establish some constraints to our freedom in order to make our society more beneficial. Laws that prevent citizens from owning certain things or doing certain things because they put others at risk are part of civilized society since the beginning.

You obviously pay little regard to the benefits of gun ownership, not just for personal defense but for holding tyranny at bay. The far greater good is served because of gun ownership, than otherwise. Please, see the entire picture.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874531 wrote:No one's suggesting ending democracy. It's looking for a way to reduce the formidable danger firearm violence poses. We want to be free, sure. But we are willing to establish some constraints to our freedom in order to make our society more beneficial. Laws that prevent citizens from owning certain things or doing certain things because they put others at risk are part of civilized society since the beginning.

"We" are willing to accept no change to our natural rights concerning our person or property for perceived safety. I owe you only non-aggression.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874531 wrote: But we are willing to establish some constraints to our freedom in order to make our society more beneficial. Laws that prevent citizens from owning certain things or doing certain things because they put others at risk are part of civilized society since the beginning.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874531 wrote:No one's suggesting ending democracy. It's looking for a way to reduce the formidable danger firearm violence poses. We want to be free, sure. But we are willing to establish some constraints to our freedom in order to make our society more beneficial. Laws that prevent citizens from owning certain things or doing certain things because they put others at risk are part of civilized society since the beginning.

Here you go. Best of luck.

https://www.facebook.com/Repeal-the-Second-Amendment-371249309570118/