Whats with the shootings?

To expand on regulation:

If I want a gun, I need to pass a background check, and that gun may only cost a few bucks. I then can shoot at people from hundreds of yards away and possibly escape without anyone knowing I did it.

If I want stronger medication for a headache I need to make an appointment with a Doctor. He'll ask me a bunch of questions and try to determine if I really need the medication, or there is another way of solving my headaches. He'll then write a prescription. If I don't have insurance, I'll need to pay him a good chunk of change, and the meds will need to bought from a registered pharmacy, and I can only get exactly what he prescribed. When I run out, I need to go through the process over again.

Millions of people take those medications without harm, just as millions of people owns guns without harm. Why is the process so different for say...ammunition?

How do you implement such regulation? No idea. Would it be impossible to ask every gun owner a series of questions about his mindset? Yep. How could you profile potential murders if they aren't criminals?

I dunno, one place to start would be in those who attack equality. Making hateful statements? Lose your right to guns. You still have your freedom of speech, but your being an ass. How's that any different from someone who a drunk losing their license? Or someone who punched a kid in college now being labeled a violent offender, and no longer able to purchase a gun. Too me, words can be as much an indicator of someone's intent as their actions.

Quotes 1, 2 & 5 are Thomas Jefferson. #3 is Walter Williams. #4 John Sharp Williams with attribution to TJ beginning around 1950 (TJ did write a similar sentiment, but not that quote, in a letter in 1807)..

PHeller said: You can still have them, if your not a racist, violent, drunk.

Big issues to tackle.

Racist: freedom of speech
Violent: judges will deem those violent incapable of owning a weapon.
Drunk: do you mean alcoholic? Its a felony to possess a firearm while deemed intoxicated by any law enforcement officer.

In reply to PHeller:

Then I ask you good sir what is your answer for fixing this particular pickle that we seem to find ourselves in? Obviously at this point something is not working because we are seeing a great nation fall before our very eyes.

To be clear I posted those Jefferson quotes because they are every bit as relevant today as they were in his time. I am not saying that we should revert back to the exact government we had two centuries ago because as you pointed out things have indeed changed. However we should not simply dismiss the spirit and ideas that our founding fathers fought for as quickly as we seem to do in todays age. To me it seems that many would prefer living in the servitude of the state than to take a chance of being something great. Instead of sitting and waiting for the state to come to your aid why not get up and solve the issue yourself? Why not get others to join you and make a change for the better? You may fail but at least you tried to change the things. You tried to help the people around you instead of sitting passively by allowing your fate and their to be dictated.

N Sperlo wrote: Drunk: do you mean alcoholic? Its a felony to possess a firearm while deemed intoxicated by any law enforcement officer.

Lots of drunks own guns, but because they don't carry them around with them, its perfectly ok.

This fellow in Milwaukee was known to be a drunk, was hateful, angry, and unstable.

How do we deal with someone like that?

How does the unaware Sikh Temple prepare for someone like that?

PHeller wrote: I'm not asking for a ban on guns, I'm asking for more regulation. You can still have them, if your not a racist, violent, drunk.

I'm not racist, but believe in racial stereotypes.....what does that make me?

The problem is, all of that is subjective as to who is doing the review. I don't see people killing each other mainly due to racism(edit, well not here). Violent tendacies are generally already in trouble with the law before they're old enough to legally purchase firearms(as in, even violent misdemenors aren't able to purchase them), and drunk......well, that depends on ones self control to put down the bottle.

The answer is to, obviously, mobilize the National Guard. You guys want us patrolling your communities with M4's,SAW's, 240B's and the like! Hell, nothing says "I'm safe" quite like seeing ma duece riding around!

Based on my local news, the problem in the South isn't crazies shooting (although we just had a bad one in Tuscaloosa), it is little kids killing each other or themselves with Daddy's gun. It is insane how much this happens.

Is a gun safety course and maybe a trigger lock too much to ask for?

N Sperlo wrote: Point is, I was wrong. To this day, I think I'm right.

The mark of a zealot in the making!

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Fanatical? No. Uncompromising? Yes. We'll call your statement a half truth.

Otto Maddox wrote: Is a gun safety course and maybe a trigger lock too much to ask for?

Many states require a safety course to get a carry permit. Almost every new firearm I have purchased has come with a trigger lock. Even with the few I've sold, trigger locks were sold with them. This is an issue of common sense and bad parenting.

PHeller wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: Drunk: do you mean alcoholic? Its a felony to possess a firearm while deemed intoxicated by any law enforcement officer.

Lots of drunks own guns, but because they don't carry them around with them, its perfectly ok. This fellow in Milwaukee was known to be a drunk, was hateful, angry, and unstable. How do we deal with someone like that?

He obviously isn't that violent because he hadn't committed a felony. You can't take away someones right to protect themselves because their an shiny happy person.

Sperlo,

He's got all kinds of ways to protect himself. He can wear a kevlar vest, carry mace, stun gun, and baseball bat.

Using "protection" as a reasoning for shiny happy people to have guns is a bad argument.

Even using "the ability to protect oneself against the oppressiveness of government" is a bit of a stretch, as community owned guns, such as those owned by a gun club, would be a perfect way to arm the populace while keeping crazies from shooting up peaceful places of worship.

rotard wrote: The answer is to, obviously, mobilize the National Guard. You guys want us patrolling your communities with M4's,SAW's, 240B's and the like! Hell, nothing says "I'm safe" quite like seeing ma duece riding around!

That is the absolute last thing myself or anyone that lives around me would want. Though I would like to play with the ma deuce please.

In Chicago, mostly the Englewood neighborhood, the problem is gangs doing drive-bys and killing bystanders - usually pre-teen kids. Perhaps body armor in smaller sizes or more training firing from a mobile platform? There is the unthinkable - turn the berkeley-tards in, but you'd have to deal with a little retribution from their pals. We could pull their firearm owner's cards... oh, never mind.

In reply to PHeller:

They are all inadequate. A vest just prevents some damage and covers some. I'm wearing one right now and when I'm off work, its just not adequate for civilian life. Mace and tazers are made to get away. That is all. A non-lethal defense. There is a reason certain guns are called, "the great equalizer."

In addition, armor piercing rounds aren't hard to get.

An AK47 round can hit me in the vest, probably not potentate it, but will still likely kill me.

Armor piercing 9mm will penetrate without a problem.

PHeller, what happened when the assault rifle ban went out of force in 2004?

oldtin wrote: Perhaps body armor in smaller sizes or more training firing from a mobile platform?

Give all the kids guns and the good kids body armor. That would work until the bad kids steal the good kids body armor, and then you need to give the good bigger guns.

Or...we could raise taxes to cover the costs of moving the good kids to safer neighborhoods, or raise taxes on the rich to employ more police. Heaven forbid we raise taxes to benefit society.

rebelgtp wrote:

rotard wrote: The answer is to, obviously, mobilize the National Guard. You guys want us patrolling your communities with M4's,SAW's, 240B's and the like! Hell, nothing says "I'm safe" quite like seeing ma duece riding around!

That is the absolute last thing myself or anyone that lives around me would want. Though I would like to play with the ma deuce please.

Would bribing the guy with the 240 bravo be a bit wrong? I really want a BAR, but I'd settle with the 240.....

Taxes... We got that thread locked months ago..

Funny how we can easily answer the question of "What is the meaning of life?"

but we can't answer the question of taxes, gun control, and gay marriage.

Otto Maddox wrote: Based on my local news, the problem in the South isn't crazies shooting (although we just had a bad one in Tuscaloosa), it is little kids killing each other or themselves with Daddy's gun. It is insane how much this happens. Is a gun safety course and maybe a trigger lock too much to ask for?

I STRONGLY believe that a mandatory gun safety class should be taught. Matter of fact, it should be taught in schools. Oh, is that too much to ask for? Teaching our kids to be killers? No. Instructing our children how to operate a dangerous machine? Yes. Drivers education is no different. Honestly, it's not. Both machines are powerful and deadly if not used in the correct manner. Sure you can say guns are made to kill. I have 5 guns and have only killed pests (rats, rattlesnakes, racoons, skunks, put down animals). I have never killed a human being (with a gun ). Firearm safety should be a class taught to everyone just as Drivers Education is, the simple matter of knowing how to properly and safely handle a weapon doesn't make you a killer. If makes you educated on how the weapon works and how to safely store, load, unload, and use the weapon.

If I had any confidence that Chicago, my suburban or federal level politicians could effectively administer the existing funds we, the people grant them, I might consider additional funds for the sake of progressing the community. Time and time again, and at practically every level, the elected officials have squandered funds, used them for personal gain and generally provided every reason to not trust them or grant them even more resources.

edit. In KY, we had gun safety taught in 3rd grade. Haven't shot anything I wasn't supposed to.

In reply to PHeller:

The meaning of life? berkeley YOU! THATS THE MEANING OF LIFE!

PHeller wrote: Give all the kids guns and the good kids body armor. That would work until the bad kids steal the good kids body armor, and then you need to give the good bigger guns. Or...we could raise taxes to cover the costs of moving the good kids to safer neighborhoods, or raise taxes on the rich to employ more police. Heaven forbid we raise taxes to benefit society.

I really hope that was sarcasm....

The simple answer is, you quit fearing what the media wants you to. You should go about your life as normal and not be afraid. If your number comes up, it could be anything that kills you.

Edit: Can we all give a ! to the last post on page 5......please.