Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

More Thoughts & Prayers


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Jason said:

We have seen significant limits of weapons since it was written. When the Bill of Rights was ratified ordinary citizens had the same weapons as the military. Today you can't own those weapons unless you have special permits from the ATF.

Im fine with that... im simply stating that the definition of well regulated is wide open to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

https://nypost.com/2018/02/27/mom-kills-son-crashing-car-in-4th-dwi-cops/

another child killed by alcohol.

I'm sure they will be marching

Yeah that was a big story here for a day or two. The sheer amount of DUIs in this state are beyond absurd. It seems ingrained in the culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...now that I've lobbed a couple of grenades (speaking of arms...should those also be legal or not for private citizens?...but I digress...), let me delve into how I really feel about this whole argument.

 

 

Cruz, Paddock, Kelley (Sutherland Springs), Roof (Charleston), Lanza (Sandy Hook), Holmes (Aurora), and many others guilty of committing these mass murders did so with guns that were obtained legally. In Lanza's case, IIRC, he got the guns from his mom. That's a problem.

To say that no laws would have prevented these crimes is patently false. If they didn't have access to guns such as AR-15s, they would not have been able to cause the level of carnage they did. Might they have chosen other methods of killing? Sure. But they probably would not have had the ability to do as much damage. If there was a law banning assault or military-style weapons (or whatever you want to call them), or limiting the capacity of magazines, things probably end up differently.

Without going into whether there were warning signs and whether the FBI fucked up in Cruz's case, there is another issue at play here. Even if there are warning signs, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED UNTIL THE TRIGGER WAS PULLED.

This goes toward another thought that I have regarding these situations: all people are law-abiding--until they are not. And, in this country, they are presumed innocent, which is the way it should be. This leads to a tragic truth about our society: if we allow everyone who has yet to commit a crime to have access to these types of weapons, some of them WILL inevitably commit crimes, but we can't prosecute someone Minority Report-style, before they have done so.

Now, with some of these perpetrators, there were "obvious" signs--mainly dealing with mental health and/or posts on social media. Unfortunately, mental health research and assistance is underfunded and those who suffer from it are stigmatized, making it less likely that those who have mental health issues will seek assistance. And we can't forcibly commit anyone (unless a close family member has the ability to do it) to a mental institution. So we, as a society or government, cannot take legal action (except in certain narrowly-defined cases) against someone for just saying something that is off or considered a general threat. So, even though there were warning signs in this guy's (Cruz') case, there may not have been more that could have been done by the FBI or ATF.

So, how to proceed? I don't think that throwing our hands in the air and declaring "nothing can be done" is a viable option. There are things that can be done.

1) Prohibit sale of clips that hold more than ten rounds (I'd like to make it even lower, but I believe that to be a non-starter).

2) Prohibit manufacture and sale of all guns that are (or can be reasonably modified into) semi-auto.

3) Background checks on ALL gun purchases/transfers. No exceptions.

4) Not sure how this can be implemented, but have part of the background check include some type of mental health evaluation.

5) All gun owners must have insurance for all guns in their possession.

6) All gun owners must have licensing and gun safety training.

7) We must find a way to fund research into cures for certain types of mental illness, along with ways to correctly diagnose and treat them.

8) Federal funding of research into causes of gun violence must be restored.

I'm sure nobody wants to see any more kids die. For that matter, I'm sure we don't want to see any more adults killed just because they want to be entertained or go to church. Proclaiming that nothing can be done does a disservice to our society. Enforcement of current laws is obviously not enough, because current laws were wholly inadequate to prevent these events from occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

But we don't need to put common place measures in place, like limiting the amount of alcohol you can purchase or mandating breathalyzers be installed in death machines ... errrrrr ... I mean vehicles.

 

 

There should be a damn breathalyzer installed on every vehicle licensed to drive on public roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RallyMo said:

There should be a damn breathalyzer installed on every vehicle licensed to drive on public roads.

 

Yeah.  It will be a nice temporary placebo to make people feel good until they realize it doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem.  Kind of like banning bump stocks.  But at least politicians will get to say they did something.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jason said:

In order for a firearm to properly work it has to have ammunition just like it needs a trigger and hammer. No, there is no right to ammo specifically so that's why things like armor piercing and incendiary projectiles are not legal without special permits. Making it so unaffordable that the average shooter can't operate their firearm is and infringement. I carry a firearm so I shoot a lot (at least 200 rounds each time I go out) so I can be proficient with my gun. The higher the price off ammo the less I can practice with it. I think it's better for everyone for gun owners to be proficient. 

So now it's not only about needing a gun for protection? That's what everyone brings up in a 2A argument

It's always like that, say you don't think there shouldn't be a 2A, people say but how about I going to protect myself? Ok fine so we will give you your guns but make only a reasonable amount of ammo available for protection, people will say but how am I going to go hunting? Ok we make only a reasonable amount of ammo available for hunting. No, but how am I going to go to the shooting range 4 times a week? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Yeah.  It will be a nice temporary placebo to make people feel good until they realize it doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem.  Kind of like banning bump stocks.  But at least politicians will get to say they did something.

 

 

I dunno, I just did a simple Google for stats on breathalyzer interlock impact and it seems pretty encouraging to me, honestly.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160317185010.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...