So Very Sad....

[Muddy River]

19 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

And one more post, for now, on the subject.  Regardless of what the Second Amendment actually means (that's a separate debate), why should we have the RIGHT to own guns such as the AR15? Further, why should that right extend to keeping it in your home, with no regulations on how it is kept and no regulations on ongoing training?

I'm going to attempt to answer your question to the best of my ability.  In a functional sense, the AR15 is no different than any other fire arm; one trigger pull= one bullet down range.  There is literally no functional difference between an AR15, and any other semi-automatic weapon, like a Browning 1911 hand gun, or a Remmington Model 1100 shotgun.  So, there is no reason to ban the AR15 unless you are going to ban everything else as well.  Most gun owners feel that once the AR15 is banned, it won't be long for the rest. 

I will not pretend to know what the answer is, but I am fearful my rights will be infringed upon because of a few really bad apples.  And I do not think that is fair.

I will add this though, in 2010, the ATF referred over 4700 cases for prosecution, where people tried to purchase guns illegally.  44 of those cases were prosecuted, and 13 people were punished.  There are laws in place, but there obviously isn't any enforcement.  Why do we think we will enforce new laws, when no one is enforcing the old ones.

[rico]

I get the mental health aspect, but does anybody think that our youth have bad moral values?  Another aspect to look at.

[BGleas]

18 minutes ago, rico said:

I get the mental health aspect, but does anybody think that our youth have bad moral values?  Another aspect to look at.

Not sure if you read my entire post, but that’s what I was alluding to in the part about our kids being exposed to violence and sex in music, movies, online and in video game earlier and earlier. The things kids are exposed to at a younger and younger age these days is sometimes appalling.

I also believe my generation (I have elementary age kids) are the worst parents. Our kids lives have been completely over-engineered to the point that kids these days don’t even know how to play. I have pretty well adjusted, normal kids, but even my kids have no idea how to just go outside and ride their bikes in search of kids to play with. They need to be entertained almost all the time. Everything is an arranged “play date”. 

Imagine growing up in a world where you don’t know what “it’s not on right now”even means. Kids growing up today have always had on-demand. They can watch any show at any time. Imagine what that does to you? Nearly everything you want is always available whenever you want it. I call my kids the “on-demand”generation. 

This is why I get frustrated that gun laws (which I think are necessary) takes up so much of this conversation. The cause of all these shootings go so, so much deeper. 

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

100% agree with the point about health care.  No one in our country should be unable to get the mental health care they need, yet here we are with millions of Americans that don't have access to the care they need.  Even those that do have insurance often get mental health care cut off as soon as they hit a certain threshold of recovery as deemed by the insurance companies, not the health care providers.  

I'd be interested in hearing from those that think no restrictions should be placed on guns would be willing to guarantee everyone had the proper mental health care coverage?  

Agree. I’d even go more on the pharma side too. Admittedly I don’t the accuracy of this so probably shouldn’t even share it, but I saw a video that claimed every kid that had conducted a mass school shooting in the last X (can’t remember exactly the time frame) Year’s was either on at least one type of anti-depressant pharmaceutical or within the withdrawal timeframe of having been on at least one. 

The video had family members of the kids saying their kids definitely suffered from some level of depression but that once they went on meds they began having suicidal/violent tendencies. Once that would happen docs would put them on more drugs to try and counteract the original drugs and so on and so fourth. 

Weve got a major mental health problem and major pharmaceutical problem. Companies are making billions off of pharma drugs, and peddling these things to doctors. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, rico said:

I get the mental health aspect, but does anybody think that our youth have bad moral values?  Another aspect to look at.

Morals are certainly worth looking at. I would question how we look at morals, though. What is your view of good and bad morals?

[rico]

8 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Morals are certainly worth looking at. I would question how we look at morals, though. What is your view of good and bad morals?

When I grew up I honored my Mother and Father(and still do to this day), I respected my elders, taught to say "yes ma'am" and "no sir", always opened the door for a woman, and valued a human life.  That is for starters.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Morals are certainly worth looking at. I would question how we look at morals, though. What is your view of good and bad morals?

Sorry to butt into this conversation and not sorry to add this to the conversation. When you have groups like the ACLU and others trying to take God and religion out of schools or virtually everything, how do you expect morals to be a priority in a kid's' life?

As the Bible says, we reap what we sow. Most everything discussed in this thread can be traced back to America pulling away from any moral compass provided by religion 

[mrflynn03]

6 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I brought up a couple of the middle compromises in my first post of substance in this thread then was proceeded to be attacked by the Pro-Gun side for suggesting that MAYBE we should look into banning the sale of AR15s in addition to the middle.  If the Pro-Gun side was serious about compromise when people like me bring up things about background checks, mental health screenings and mandatory wait periods they'd jump on that so as to table the gun discussion.  

The NRA has shown no interest in any compromise and those regurgitating their talking points haven't either.  

Ok, you mention compromise then say you were attacked for suggesting a ban. And you are surprised?  A compromise means both sides giving something up. Would you be willing to agree to national concealed carry reciprocity in exchange for a ban on ar15 sales?  You might be able to ban new sales at some point in the future but I will tell you what is out there is out there and that is how it id. 

Also, even though the NRA has alot of money they represent a portion of gun owners. Ever heard of second amendment foundation? Pro gun people have their grass roots orgs too.

[hoosierBGH]

For anyone who is on the fence about firearms and firearms ownership or who is maybe leaning one way or the other but still has an open mind, I would be happy to answer any questions on the subject via PM as fully as possible or direct you to someone who can if I am unable to do so.

Additionally, for anyone in central or southern Indiana or who has plans to travel to the area, who is not a felon, and who is interested in a little hands on experience with some firearms, I am willing to meet at a convenient shooting range and will provide basic firearms safety instruction, a variety of firearms to try, and ammunition.  

[Hoosierhoopster]

16 hours ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Sorry to butt into this conversation and not sorry to add this to the conversation. When you have groups like the ACLU and others trying to take God and religion out of schools or virtually everything, how do you expect morals to be a priority in a kid's' life?

As the Bible says, we reap what we sow. Most everything discussed in this thread can be traced back to America pulling away from any moral compass provided by religion 

Entirely different conversation, but our country is founded on separation of church and state. That is actually a central tenant of our nation. This is besides the fact that the religion you're talking about is Christianity, that is, favoring one religion over others. This is not a church state, you don't get to push church in school. For that, you have Sunday school, churches themselves, etc.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Entirely different conversation, but our country is founded on separation of church and state. That is actually a central tenant of our nation. This is besides the fact that the religion you're talking about is Christianity, that is, favoring one religion over others. This is not a church state, you don't get to push church in school. For that, you have Sunday school, churches themselves, etc.

Kindly disagree. The conversation was about morals. As more and more parents are negligent in teaching their kids morals, or worse yet, don't have any themselves, it is left up to the schools and teachers to try to instill them in kids today. 

Sorry that you feel that is viewed as "pushing church". How about believing in a higher being, something bigger than yourself. 

Society''s problems, including the"mental illnesses" that lead to things like this shooting can be attributed to lack of faith/morals/religion or whatever you want to call it.

IMO

[KoB2011]

16 hours ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Sorry to butt into this conversation and not sorry to add this to the conversation. When you have groups like the ACLU and others trying to take God and religion out of schools or virtually everything, how do you expect morals to be a priority in a kid's' life?

As the Bible says, we reap what we sow. Most everything discussed in this thread can be traced back to America pulling away from any moral compass provided by religion 

Am I tracking correctly that you think our moral compass comes from the Bible?

[KoB2011]

11 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Kindly disagree. The conversation was about morals. As more and more parents are negligent in teaching their kids morals, or worse yet, don't have any themselves, it is left up to the schools and teachers to try to instill them in kids today. 

Sorry that you feel that is viewed as "pushing church". How about believing in a higher being, something bigger than yourself. 

Society''s problems, including the"mental illnesses" that lead to things like this shooting can be attributed to lack of faith/morals/religion or whatever you want to call it.

IMO

Faith and morals are two completely unrelated concepts. I would even argue one contradicts the other but that's a separate discussion. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

18 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Kindly disagree. The conversation was about morals. As more and more parents are negligent in teaching their kids morals, or worse yet, don't have any themselves, it is left up to the schools and teachers to try to instill them in kids today. 

Sorry that you feel that is viewed as "pushing church". How about believing in a higher being, something bigger than yourself. 

Society''s problems, including the"mental illnesses" that lead to things like this shooting can be attributed to lack of faith/morals/religion or whatever you want to call it.

IMO

Jerry, no offense intended and I know people can feel strongly about church values, but there really isn't a basis to disagree that we live in a country founded on the separation of church and state, it's central to the Constitution itself. 

Now you ask me about how about believing in a higher being? No problem, and worship in church, not school. Separately, do you really believe mental illness is attributable to a lack of faith? That's completely unsupportable. Mental illness is a mental, and medical, condition.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Jerry, no offense intended and I know people can feel strongly about church values, but there really isn't a basis to disagree that we live in a country founded on the separation of church and state, it's central to the Constitution itself. 

Now you ask me about how about believing in a higher being? No problem, and worship in church, not school. Separately, do you really believe mental illness is attributable to a lack of faith? That's completely unsupportable. Mental illness is a mental, and medical, condition.

Nope, I am saying that there are situations where mental illness is used as an excuse for some of these behaviors, when there really isn't any. 

I believe that a person grounded in a religion is going to have a much better chance of being grounded morally. I also believe that schools are where a lot of kids are getting whatever guidance or moral compass they are going to get, in today's society. I also didn't say that schools should force people to worship. I do think that organizations have gone overboard in not allowing things as simple as having a Christmas program in school due to fears it may exclude or offend. I also believe that if kids want to meet at school, voluntarily, not in class time to pray or have a Bible/Torah/Koran study, they should be able to do so. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

19 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

Nope, I am saying that there are situations where mental illness is used as an excuse for some of these behaviors, when there really isn't any. 

I believe that a person grounded in a religion is going to have a much better chance of being grounded morally. I also believe that schools are where a lot of kids are getting whatever guidance or moral compass they are going to get, in today's society. I also didn't say that schools should force people to worship. I do think that organizations have gone overboard in not allowing things as simple as having a Christmas program in school due to fears it may exclude or offend. I also believe that if kids want to meet at school, voluntarily, not in class time to pray or have a Bible/Torah/Koran study, they should be able to do so. 

Whether a school program is secular or non-secular, in a grey area, can be a matter of interpretation. But then you have extremes, like when Kansas public schools started teaching creationism. Morals come from lots of sources, including one's parents (hopefully). Bottom line, church and state are separate, and different religions preach different ideas including, arguably, "morals." 

You started this dialogue with an attack on the "ACLU and others" for trying "to take God and religion out of schools." It's not the ACLU, God and religion are a matter for the church, not public schools.

[BobSaccamanno]

Wow, I had no idea this discussion was going on.  Random catch-up on my part:

1.  I have hunters in my family. I went out when I was a kid, and I did not like the blood, watching the animal suffer, etc.  I had older generation folks tell me to toughen up and that stung my ego, but hunting myself is not my instinct.  I am not morally judging anyone, as I eat meat so there is an inherent conflict.  At the end of the day, I personally do not wish to be part of hunting.  

2.  Times may have changed, but no one was using semi-automatic or automatic weapons to hunt.  It was the old fashioned way, which would be particularly true in mind if this is sport.  I'd argue you don't need an AR-15 to hunt.  

3.  There are mass shootings with random victims and there are targeted murders.  When we grieve as a nation watching children get shot up, there is of course a natural inclination to pounce on semi-automatic and automatic weapons.  I am not against Widowed Aunt Imo Jean having a pistol for security or Uncle Ralph having a shotgun for hunting.  The objection is with the semi or automatic weaponry that can hurt many in a flurry.  It's not just children but also the Vegas shooter.  Lots of innocent life in a hurry is the problem.  

4.  If a few hunters have to hunt without rapid fire AR-15's so be it.

5.  Read the Second Amendment.  It opens with "well regulated."  I have seen the NRA argue that militia is any single person having a gun at home.  While that strains credulity, I will stick to well regulated to say that we need safer gun laws, even if a few hunters are inconvenienced.  It's not just "regulated."  It's "well regulated."  Right now, we have piss poor regulation.  An 18 year old can buy guns, let alone semi-automatic weapons?  They can't even rent a car until they are 25.  There is a certain level of maturity that you need, and I'd put the age at 25.

6.  If your face is getting hot because you want to jump to the military having 18 year olds, you answered your own question.  They are in the military and have been trained and sensitized to the use and you're in exigent circumstances, i.e., military training or conflict.  That's totally different than nephew Judd who flunked geometry and can't get a girlfriend but is entitled to get a semi-automatic weapon. Give me a break.

7.  No one on this side of the argument would ever say no one is entitled to a gun.  There is value to the second amendment.  Certainly, defending yourself is a factor.  Licensed hunting is fair game.  But, semi-automatic weapons killing innocents is too big of a crime against society to allow it for what extremely limited benefit there would be for hunters.

8. The NRA is over-rated.  The gun manufacturers have conned the NRA membership by pushing their buttons on buzz words like freedom.  But, the NRA is outnumbered and their extremist views will get them skewered in time.  Because, you can always mock and ridicule the extremists, and that is what they are.  

9.    As for religion, to each their own.  That's literally what our country is founded on.  Anyone who uses religion as a moral foundation should be respected IMO.  But, we should recognize that you can have morals outside the Church or religious beliefs.  People can be morally grounded for a variety of reasons.

10.  I have young children and I am middle-aged.  But, I would agree that, when I was growing up, my parents' generation seemed like "real adults."  I don't know, maybe it's just perspective of a child.  But I do not see the same level of maturity as a whole now.  Frankly, it may be an illusion because of social media and how it is easier to be "in your face" about everything now.  

 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

 

I believe that a person grounded in a religion is going to have a much better chance of being grounded morally. I also believe that schools are where a lot of kids are getting whatever guidance or moral compass they are going to get, in today's society. I also didn't say that schools should force people to worship. I do think that organizations have gone overboard in not allowing things as simple as having a Christmas program in school due to fears it may exclude or offend. I also believe that if kids want to meet at school, voluntarily, not in class time to pray or have a Bible/Torah/Koran study, they should be able to do so. 

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want but you would be hard pressed to find data supporting your claim. There are plenty of examples where having devout faith actually leads to immoral actions; these example are real world as well as being plainly described in the holy books themselves. 

As far as kids being allowed to organize privately, they already can do that. It would be a massive violation of the First Amendment for any school to prevent that from happening. 

[Muddy River]

4 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

3.  There are mass shootings with random victims and there are targeted murders.  When we grieve as a nation watching children get shot up, there is of course a natural inclination to pounce on semi-automatic and automatic weapons.  I am not against Widowed Aunt Imo Jean having a pistol for security or Uncle Ralph having a shotgun for hunting.  The objection is with the semi or automatic weaponry that can hurt many in a flurry.  It's not just children but also the Vegas shooter.  Lots of innocent life in a hurry is the problem.  

4.  If a few hunters have to hunt without rapid fire AR-15's so be it.

 

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation here.  First, none of the school shootings, or mass shootings in general were committed by someone with an automatic fire arm.  They are far too expensive, and highly regulated for the average person, let alone the average crazy, so let's leave that where it is and move on.  Is Uncle Ralph's shotgun a Remington 1100, or any of the other hundreds of semi-automatic shotguns today?  Could Aunt Jean be shooting a 1911, or a Beretta 92 or a Glock?  All of those are semi-automatic as well.  The Browning BAR (No, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, It's Browning Auto loading Rifle, and it is a semi-automatic) is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the world today.  Are you for banning all of that?  They are the same as the AR 15. The AR is not a rapid fire weapon.

I get it, people who don't have guns or care to have guns will jump at the easiest answer, because it affects them the least.  That's why when people ask if we should ban cars because of drunk drivers, it seems ridiculous.  Everyone has a car, and no one wants to lose it because of a few idiots.  We feel the same about firearms.  As you are on an  IU message board, would you be in favor of eliminating college and pro sports?  Every year people are diagnosed with brain injuries and every year players from high school on up drop dead on the field or court of play, yet we play on.  Shouldn't we ban that, aren't those kids just as important as the kids in the school shootings, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?  See, it's a lot harder  when something that you enjoy is threatened, but much easier when you have no interest.

And, the day we allow the government to decide what we do and do not need, is probably the day I check  out.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

57 minutes ago, Muddy River said:

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation here.  First, none of the school shootings, or mass shootings in general were committed by someone with an automatic fire arm.  They are far too expensive, and highly regulated for the average person, let alone the average crazy, so let's leave that where it is and move on.  Is Uncle Ralph's shotgun a Remington 1100, or any of the other hundreds of semi-automatic shotguns today?  Could Aunt Jean be shooting a 1911, or a Beretta 92 or a Glock?  All of those are semi-automatic as well.  The Browning BAR (No, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, It's Browning Auto loading Rifle, and it is a semi-automatic) is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the world today.  Are you for banning all of that?  They are the same as the AR 15. The AR is not a rapid fire weapon.

I get it, people who don't have guns or care to have guns will jump at the easiest answer, because it affects them the least.  That's why when people ask if we should ban cars because of drunk drivers, it seems ridiculous.  Everyone has a car, and no one wants to lose it because of a few idiots.  We feel the same about firearms.  As you are on an  IU message board, would you be in favor of eliminating college and pro sports?  Every year people are diagnosed with brain injuries and every year players from high school on up drop dead on the field or court of play, yet we play on.  Shouldn't we ban that, aren't those kids just as important as the kids in the school shootings, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?  See, it's a lot harder  when something that you enjoy is threatened, but much easier when you have no interest.

And, the day we allow the government to decide what we do and do not need, is probably the day I check  out.

You actually have to pass a test to drive a car. 

[Muddy River]

2 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

You actually have to pass a test to drive a car. 

So, with all I said that is your response?  What exactly is your point, that people who have lost loved ones should take solace that the drunk behind the wheel passed a test at some point in time?  The Florida shooter trained with the ROTC, he completed the Federal Firearms Paperwork, and he passed an FBI background check,  The Vegas shooter also passed a background check. Sometimes drunks kill people with cars, and sometimes crazy's kill people with guns.  Let's ban guns and cars to keep people safe.

Did the drunk that killed Edwin Jackson and his driver pass a test?

[Hoosierhoopster]

4 hours ago, Muddy River said:

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation here.  First, none of the school shootings, or mass shootings in general were committed by someone with an automatic fire arm.  They are far too expensive, and highly regulated for the average person, let alone the average crazy, so let's leave that where it is and move on.  Is Uncle Ralph's shotgun a Remington 1100, or any of the other hundreds of semi-automatic shotguns today?  Could Aunt Jean be shooting a 1911, or a Beretta 92 or a Glock?  All of those are semi-automatic as well.  The Browning BAR (No, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, It's Browning Auto loading Rifle, and it is a semi-automatic) is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the world today.  Are you for banning all of that?  They are the same as the AR 15. The AR is not a rapid fire weapon.

I get it, people who don't have guns or care to have guns will jump at the easiest answer, because it affects them the least.  That's why when people ask if we should ban cars because of drunk drivers, it seems ridiculous.  Everyone has a car, and no one wants to lose it because of a few idiots.  We feel the same about firearms.  As you are on an  IU message board, would you be in favor of eliminating college and pro sports?  Every year people are diagnosed with brain injuries and every year players from high school on up drop dead on the field or court of play, yet we play on.  Shouldn't we ban that, aren't those kids just as important as the kids in the school shootings, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?  See, it's a lot harder  when something that you enjoy is threatened, but much easier when you have no interest.

And, the day we allow the government to decide what we do and do not need, is probably the day I check  out.

Do you really think that the availability, and adaptability of these weapons, repeatedly used in mass shootings so that numerous people can be killed quickly, is not a major problem that needs to be addressed? Is having the ability to buy this kind of weapon so important to you personally that you can just shake your head at the ongoing public debate over multiple mass school shootings  and what regulations might help limit the problem?

I'm trying, as a mod, not to get too invested in this discussion, it's a discussion for you guys and as a mod I shouldn't get too involved. I'll throw out a few points and questions and try to stay mostly in the background. I'm sure it will lead someone to flip out and call me ignorant or God forbid a spreader of ignorance, I mean I'm so unread and stupid and all. But whatever, it's a good discussion to have.

So as to misinformation, the AR 15 is a semi-automatic, highly customizeable (can add high capacity magazines or drums, forward trigger grips, etc.), rifle that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger or faster when customized. It's the civilian version of the M16. There are more powerful semi-automatics available and out there. But it's a high capacity semi-automatic rifle that, itself or as a AR-15 style rifle, has been used now in numerous mass shootings. These include, among many others:

• Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
• June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
• Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
• June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
• Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
• June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
• Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
• Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
• Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

 How is this not a problem? Of course there should be  reasonable regulation to make this ridiculous situation safer. But no it's not all about the AR-15, no I'm not focusing on the AR-15, and yes there are other guns involved and accessible including more powerful guns. To focus on the AR-15, taking the extreme position that the government is coming to take away one's Second Amendment right to bear arms because there's real discussion that something has to be done to regulate the ease of access to these weapons including to kids under the age of 21, etc., is to slant the issue to fit a message -- the oh no big government is going to take away my rights argument, while ignoring the problem.

So how do gun deaths in the U.S. compare to other countries? 

Multiple reported studies show that you are 10 times as likely to be killed by a gun in the U.S. than in any other developed country. Or "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide   is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said."

There are countless other similar statistics and it's just absurd to argue that the ready availability of these weapons isn't part of the problem. Of course it is. For example, "The review of 2010 World Health Organization data also revealed that despite having a similar rate of nonlethal crimes as those countries, the United States has a much higher rate of deadly violence, mostly due to the higher rate of gun-related murders."The idea that focusing on mental health itself, depression, etc. without gun regulation, is some kind of panacea is a completely empty argument, and of course it's backed by the NRA and gun lobby, to move the topic to mental health and away from guns. Guess what, the rest of the world has the same or similar mental health issues, but the rates of murder, and mass murder, are much lower because of the lack of availability of guns, and  more particularly the ready availability of semi-automatic high capacity weapons that clearly can be and are being used to kill large groups of people quickly. The U.S., of course, has the most firearms per capita in the world. That's not going to change, but the types of weapons that are available to the general public, including kids under 21, should be regulated. 

And back to government and the "framers," the whole concept of the Second Amendment anyway is about regulation --

"The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government."

Good grief, that's why we have a Constitution. 

[rico]

11 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

You actually have to pass a test to drive a car. 

No you don't.

[BobSaccamanno]

13 hours ago, Muddy River said:

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation here.  First, none of the school shootings, or mass shootings in general were committed by someone with an automatic fire arm.  They are far too expensive, and highly regulated for the average person, let alone the average crazy, so let's leave that where it is and move on.  Is Uncle Ralph's shotgun a Remington 1100, or any of the other hundreds of semi-automatic shotguns today?  Could Aunt Jean be shooting a 1911, or a Beretta 92 or a Glock?  All of those are semi-automatic as well.  The Browning BAR (No, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, It's Browning Auto loading Rifle, and it is a semi-automatic) is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the world today.  Are you for banning all of that?  They are the same as the AR 15. The AR is not a rapid fire weapon.

I get it, people who don't have guns or care to have guns will jump at the easiest answer, because it affects them the least.  That's why when people ask if we should ban cars because of drunk drivers, it seems ridiculous.  Everyone has a car, and no one wants to lose it because of a few idiots.  We feel the same about firearms.  As you are on an  IU message board, would you be in favor of eliminating college and pro sports?  Every year people are diagnosed with brain injuries and every year players from high school on up drop dead on the field or court of play, yet we play on.  Shouldn't we ban that, aren't those kids just as important as the kids in the school shootings, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?  See, it's a lot harder  when something that you enjoy is threatened, but much easier when you have no interest.

And, the day we allow the government to decide what we do and do not need, is probably the day I check  out.

Your move seems to be to parse what people say to make false claims of misinformation.  I made it very clear that I do not think you’re making a responsible choice by advocating for acceptance of semi and automatic weapons.  Not when there is a risk of innocent people being slaughtered due to nothing they did except be born into a society that allows instruments of warfare to be in the hands of regular folks when our Constitution expressly recognizes the seriousness of even the weaponry of their time by requiring them to be “well regulated.”

You can hunt without a semi automatic weapon.  It may be more fitting of “sport” that way, anyway.  

[rico]

43 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

 

You can hunt without a semi automatic weapon.  It may be more fitting of “sport” that way, anyway.  

Now I would concur with that as a "gun guy".  I mentioned above that me and Dad have them for groundhogs.  But we don't view them as game....we view them as a pest that destroy our crops.  We don't "hunt" coyotes although some people would view them as a pest.