Free Allegiance Forums

People everywhere can make a big mess, Cowtown. It doesn't have to be with guns:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/as...n-in-china.html

Most people in remote little country-type towns will own guns.
Most people in densely populated big cities, will not.
But those who do own guns, will likely own multiple.
Even being from a small farming town where most own guns, the majority of people I've known in my life haven't even ever touched one.

In Southern California, for instance, almost nobody owns or has even touched a firearm - as a result of the highly paranoid gun laws resulting from all the gang violence among minority groups.
Yet, the gangs will still of course all have firearms. Everyone else, will not. Gun control does not, can not, will not work in reality in America, anytime in the near future.
It's too deeply involved in our culture/the intended function of our system.

There is no right answer to this question... just flavors of wrong.

iirc there's a higher firearms per capita ratio in Canada vs. the US. However our gun crimes rate is tiny in comparison.

imo this partly has to do with the climate - its too cold in -40 degree weather to perform a drive by shooting. You'd have to wear giant bear mitts and that would render the trigger more or less inoperable.

My solution to the States is to sign on with the Kyoto accord and convince China/Russia to stop being environmental douchebags. (mostly joking)

Re: gun owners tending to own multiple guns - totally true.

My shooting coach owns something in the neighbourhood of 150 firearms. I have like.. gun purchasing plans set up each tailor purposed for what its doing. After getting some serious coaching on it and attending some lectures WRT operational shooting I even want to sell off what I have (which is pretty good) then re-spec.

Malicious Wraith wrote:QUOTE (Malicious Wraith @ Dec 16 2012, 04:23 PM) There is no right answer to this question... just flavors of wrong.

Not sure that is the case, tbh. The answer boils down to the same as it always is, ie to counter a bad man with a gun then you need a good man with one.

Banning guns will not work because there are too many of them, and would probably end up being entirely counterproductive because all the loons and the criminals would be the last people to turn theirs in. Banning guns from certain areas doesnt work (as we have just seen), and extra security measures (metal detectors etc) are fine at identifying problems but rubbish at trying to sort them out. A partial ban of some weapons wont work because they will always end up using "legal" weapons like hunting rifles and shotguns.

Fixing the social model inside american schools so that it doesnt generate these types of people in anything like the numbers they are now might do more, though I am at a loss to explain how that might be done (and in any case that wouldnt stop the people who flip out when they get fired / get divorced / when their football team loses).

So basically the only option you are left with is having someone close enough and well armed enough to try to stop things.

Hellsyng wrote:QUOTE (Hellsyng @ Dec 15 2012, 10:25 PM) My personal opinion on the gun control problem is this:
1. Anyone who tries to acquire a firearm should have to undergo a rigorous mental health screening (this should also factor in their family).
2. Anyone who passes the mental health screening should have to take a mandatory class in operating the firearm effectively.
3. Anyone who does the two above should get a tax deduction (or something similar) based on being mentally sane and adding to the collective safety of the country.
4. The guns themselves need to be kept under tighter control as well (I haven't really thought of a solution for this though).

none of these things would have effectively prevented this incident

one constant in all of these incidents is that a family knows something is deeply wrong with one of their members but is unwilling or unable to help them

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Dec 16 2012, 03:45 PM) none of these things would have effectively prevented this incident

one constant in all of these incidents is that a family knows something is deeply wrong with one of their members but is unwilling or unable to help them

Hence the mental health evaluation including family? But you're right, none of my ideas explicitly stop someone going to an elementary school and killing a bunch of children, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be helpful.

oh please, there are lots of nutzos who would pass those kinds of tests. It's not like a cancer screening (and even those aren't 100%).

i think you're missing the point that there are people all over the world like that, yet we are the ones who get this all the time. The common whacko + easy to access guns =...?