05-25-2022, 06:29 PM
(05-25-2022, 04:57 AM)grampahol Wrote: Simple solution most people ain't gonna like, but they get to keep their guns for the most part.. mandatory liability insurance for all firearms owned.. Failure to keep insurance current gets them confiscated, but it also makes you liable for any and all injuries or death when someone gets harmed or killed without just cause.. Makes sense to me..
Aside from being blatantly unconstitutional you mean?
Quote:The rights of unfettered gun ownership simply cannot supersede the rights of children to attend school safely.
Children do attend school safely. You're more likely to get struck by lightning than to be involved in a mass shooting event like this.
Quote:Think about it.. You can't legally drive a car without insurance..Why would you be allowed to own guns without it? Insurance companies get to make the killing instead of irresponsible gun owners..
Driving a car is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Quote:Also make it mandatory that all firearms be registered.. No exceptions.. You can't drive an unregistered uninsured car..
It doesn't make guns any less safe in and of themselves, but it eliminates a lot of the bullsh*t arguments and debates..
Aside from it being against the law it wouldn't have done a single thing to stop this shooting, Parkland, Sand Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech or any of the other mass shootings. If you're really fired up to do something then try focusing on solutions that would actually have an impact on the issue at hand.
(05-25-2022, 09:55 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Pretty sure it was Fred a while back once pointed out that there were more gun owners in the 1970s as well as much easier access to guns back then as there is today. But there weren't any mass shootings like what we have seen from Columbine in 1999 thru very recently.
Who said it is irrelevant, the fact that it's 100% incorrect is. Not only are there far more guns, and gun owners, now than in the 70's there were absolutely mass shootings throughout US history. University of Texas, McDonalds in Killeen, and the St. Valentines Day Massacre to name three just off the top of my head.
Quote:However murder/manslaughter began to rise in the 1970s thru the early 1990s, but then have descended since then to some of the lowest rates since the 1960s.
Indeed, all the while the number of guns and gun owners steadily rose. It's almost like correlation does not equal causation.
Quote:So it seems to be a paradox of some kind happening. Mass shootings have been happening since 1999 (1966 had the tower mass shooter in Texas), but murder rates (per 100,000 people) have been pretty low actually in the same time period compared to the 1970s thru the 1990s.
It's not just one thing. Some of it is social media. Some of it is the notoriety these shooters have received. Some of it is just plan copy cats.
(05-25-2022, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because that would be unconstitutional.
Here's the thing, and all of the posts quoted here have led to this point. Solutions enacted without restraint or rules are easy. If you suspended constitutional protections law enforcement could cut crime dramatically in less than a month. We know who the worst criminals are, we know where they live and we know who they associate with. We just can't, at the time, prove they've committed a new crime to the point that we can arrest them. You want to live in a far safer world (not you btw, I know your answer to what's coming), it can be provided to you. The real question is how much are you willing to sacrifice to obtain that safety? Now, for people who don't own a gun getting rid of them is of no consequence, they aren't losing anything. Of course, a large number of those people became gun owners during the pandemic and the riots of the past two years due to law enforcement being handcuffed by the government; city, county, state and federal. So what you're comfortable giving up now you may regret down the road, because once you lose a right you're never, ever, getting it back.
There is a mechanism for amending the Constitution. If the 2A is so outdated that it needs to be removed then make that move. If you'd like something less drastic then propose something that would actually affect the problem you're claiming to want to solve. I'll close by pointing out that many of the people clamoring to "do something" are the same people that want law enforcement removed from schools. Not exactly a consistent position.
