Killing Spree in AL

[vlad321]

mrstickball said:

Mise said:

mrstickball said:
Mise, I think you forget that the idea of an armed society would stem from the idea that the responsible would own guns, and not the irresponsible, nor those that didn't want to carry. You can argue increased domestic violence, and mental health, but if you only allowed smart, intelligent, responsible citizens to carry guns, you would skirt the problems you brought up.

That's another problem: There is no system that ensures only "good guys/gals" can have guns, or that the "good people" won't eventually turn into "bad people". There's no guarantee that someone who can ie. pass a marksmanship, gun maintenance and psychological exam on the day he gets his license isn't just putting up a facade, doesn't have latent/invisible mental issues, won't encounter a mind-crushing event later in his life etc. Constant surveillance would be a massive resource drain and a legal shitstorm, and wouldn't really solve these issues either. Plus, when the majority owns firearms, it also lowers the threshold of using those firearms, hence the criminal/domestic issues.

If you want to ban dangerous things, then I think that, if we start with guns, we should not finish until the world has banned fatty foods, driving, smoking, hard drugs, and drinking. It's only rational that if you ban guns due to crime and health, that you not finish until the items that cause even higher numbers of deaths are removed, too.

So you can't help one without helping everything else, cause it wouldn't be fair otherwise? That's just silly.

Besides, I wasn't advocating a total ban on guns. If anything, gun ownership outside the military and police should be restricted to hobbyists: If you belong to a local marksmanship society for six months, for instance, and pass all the necessary tests, you would be granted a license to purchase a limited number of registered firearms - and the license would have to be renewed every 1-2 years or so. Bullet control wouldn't hurt, either.

1. That's why in America we have something called a 'background check'. What happens is that every time someone attempts to purchase a gun, a comprehensive check of their personal background is done to ensure that he doesn't have the issues you describe to pop up afterwards. There is no one-and-done system in place for gun ownership in America. If you are competent now, and become incompetent later, your privledges are revoked, and usually for life.

2. Look at death rates in America due to tobbaco, firearms, alcohol, and driving. Of the 3, which are the least dangerous to the general US populace? Which one is the most restricted? I don't disagree with the notion that gun owners need to be very responsible, and have checks in place to assure it, but if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. What is one day responsible measures can easily be used by the gun lobby to merely grab everyones weapon (as was such with hurricane Katrina, and firearms being confiscated in the NOLA area).

 

In all honesty, if background checks were so comprehensive, shit liek this wouldn't be happening. Unless by comprehensive you mean someone who just sits at a counter stamping ACCEPTED.

Also, the people that die from smoking chose that themselves, and driving is a very integral part of US culture, unlike in the EU. If you don't have a car you are extremely limited in your entire life. Somehow not owning a gun hasn't stopped me from working, socializing, and overall living my life so far.