Community >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,275


There was another mass shooting that happened not too long ago, and after the horror that was the Vegas tragedy, I do think that something needs to be done. I don't think that it's possible to prevent all of this, and I think that we'll always have gun violence and some mass shootings. BUT, there are ways to decrease this.
When Hillary was running (Her second time.) against Bernie, she came up with this ABSURD idea to sue the gun manufacturers and the dealers, and to hold them responsible for gun violence and mass shootings (This was in response to a lawsuit that was filed by the families of Sandy Hook victims.). It is really absurd (I mean, you don't go after Budweiser for Drunk Driving deaths, or Honda for vehicular manslaughter, do you?), but it might actually have some merit. Maybe if guns were better regulated or harder to obtain legally, this stuff wouldn't happen. I don't know, but I'm actually starting to kind of see her point. It's not going to happen anytime soon, but maybe we do need some more gun laws.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Kev Agent of The Shadow


Location: Fair Oaks CA aka Rivendell
Member Since: Tue Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 2,500


Trouble is their product works exactly as designed and advertised, it is not defective in any way.

The only way this gets resolved is with a Constitutional Amendment.




KATS latest read: Kull - The Cat and the Skull by David Lapham & Gabriel Guzman
Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,931



    Quote:
    There was another mass shooting that happened not too long ago, and after the horror that was the Vegas tragedy, I do think that something needs to be done. I don't think that it's possible to prevent all of this, and I think that we'll always have gun violence and some mass shootings. BUT, there are ways to decrease this.
    When Hillary was running (Her second time.) against Bernie, she came up with this ABSURD idea to sue the gun manufacturers and the dealers, and to hold them responsible for gun violence and mass shootings (This was in response to a lawsuit that was filed by the families of Sandy Hook victims.). It is really absurd (I mean, you don't go after Budweiser for Drunk Driving deaths, or Honda for vehicular manslaughter, do you?), but it might actually have some merit. Maybe if guns were better regulated or harder to obtain legally, this stuff wouldn't happen. I don't know, but I'm actually starting to kind of see her point. It's not going to happen anytime soon, but maybe we do need some more gun laws.


...and the pharmaceutical companies that kill far more every year would make a better target imo.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Dragon Red


Member Since: Fri Jul 05, 2013
Posts: 1,075


You need to get rid of the right to bear arms for a start.

Second, you need to ban the sale of military grade weapons to ordinary folks. If they want to play with military guns, join the military.

Third, what weapons you do sell should be subject to the same or similar control as what Japan has.

Fourth, confiscate the high end military weapons that some people have.

Unfortunately, to clean up that mess, it will get worse before it gets better.

Oh! And Fifth, sue the NRA instead of the gun companies and dealers. They are the ones that want everybody to have guns.






Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,275


I think that she was just saying that to appeal to people who were are anti-gun and or who are just fed up with gun violence (I guess that would include most people.). Pandering! She wasn't saying this when she ran against Obama. But she might have a point, as guns are pretty much designed to be made to kill or cause bodily harm. That's pretty much the purpose of them, so it's different than knives, cars or alcohol. Although she should have just come out and SAID that she's for ending gun manufacturing or for making drugs illegal, because if you go after the gun MANUFACTURERS (Who, by the way, don't sell to the public.), that's pretty much what's going to happen. Also, who makes guns for the cops? Duh!


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,931


It's in our core belief system, its integral to how we formed and broke away from the British and comes from a view that we should be ready to rise up and over throw our government if it becomes so out of line another revolution is needed.

They are never going to just be able to make such fast blanket changes to our nature. It has to occur organically and over time. One persons Facism is another persons Freedom, and sometimes it just depends on what side of the issue you agree with whom is which.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,604


is that has become a defining identity issue for many. Meaning, there are a vocal minority that will accept nothing that regulates guns and others are more open. Meaning the vocal group will win more times than not.

More sadly, we have sort of lost the discussion on gun violence and guns to the NRA's narrative that is highly selective and very modern. They do not have an originalist view on guns as interrupted by the courts for the previous 200 years. This was through "activist judges" ironically. This means everybody is starting from different areas of law, political ideology and history. Meaning it is a mess.

We also do not have a great idea on what measures work better than others. There are many reasons for this but most of it wraps up into ideology. We do not know as much as we should on the effectiveness of various measures or how to improve them.


Would holding gun manufacturers responsible change much? I think it would be hard to enforce. They could get out of things with saying we just make them. And that is a fair enough point.


That said, I find the total rejection of expanded background checks, banning things that make weapons near full auto and restricting guns to certain groups of people should be seriously considered, but never really will be. Sadly. They still would not fix everything, there are already a ton of guns in the US market, but at least it is something.


I find the direction that gun violence prevention has started to take is support of vigilantes. Hoping somebody with a guy will stop it and that is the end of the story. That is pathetic. It is hoping for somebody to be a hero and get lucky. I am not opposed to concealed and carry if somebody wants to do it, but I do think that more should be done with it. Some states just give them to you with next to know training. Seems like this should be standardized.

Letting the states sort things out shows how a patchwork system has such limitations. It is great that state A has harsh gun laws, but does that matter if you can go to neighboring state B and buy them without a question or much less hastle? Pick something and that is the way.

There is not magic bullet to fix this. Given the US culture about guns the best we can really do is attempt to minimize it. But even that is frustrating because the political will to do that is basically zero.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software