[Pacificus]

Hello all, I woke up this morning to news of yet another mass shooting on unarmed citizens, this time in Charleston,SC. This pattern of crazy or damaged people carrying out these senseless and hateful acts has gone on long enough. We as legal gun owners must be at the forefront of changing our laws or finding a credible way to prevent these damaged people from at the least being able to purchase a firearm.

I am not claiming that I know what to do to stop these deadly acts. But I am hoping that through some discussion we can find some ideas better than the current ones. No one person will be able to come up with a quick fix to a problem this complex. It will take us all. All of us Americans that cherish out rights.

As a legal gun owner I do not want my guns taken away or stringent laws to be created out if fear. But it is crystal clear that something needs to be done to stop these lunatics from acquiring a gun. Also something needs to be done so that our 2nd Amendment is not eliminated altogether.

We as legal firearm owners must not shut down or ignore every discussion that involves changes to firearm laws that aim to stop these horrible acts. We will never be able to stop them all but that doesn't mean we can't try. I believe that if any single group of people is obligated to do something to prevent these mass shootings, it would be us the "Gun Enthusiast's".

I say us because if it wasn't for us legal gun owners, the 2nd Amendment would have been abolished by now.

A few ideas I've heard are stronger background checks that show former phycological problems or ailments. (A new database would have to be created I think).This I believe is a strong idea but it's worries me because who is the one that makes the choice as far as who is mentally fit and who isn't.

Phycological tests have been suggested to be given to a person buying firearm but this still is not a full proof idea because we are all different in different ways. I oppose this idea because the government shouldn't be able to "test your mental aptitude" unless there is a previous history of mental illness.

I find myself at a dead end of legitimate ideas to make these mass shootings stop or at least decrease. So instead of calling me a "gun control hippie" or a "liberal gun grabbing ***" please help us be a part of the solution and not the problem.
We need all the help we can get people.

What are your thoughts on some ways or steps we can take or suggest to law makers to at the very least make these mass shootings decrease in their frequency and body count.

 

[MikeG]

Interesting as this is your first post on the forum. Will be keeping a close eye on it as gun-control trolls show up on the forum from time to time (not just a problem here but have heard from admins/mods on other forums). I hope you aren't one but if you are, your stay here will be short.

My suggestion would be to stop giving mentally ill people medications that have side effects of homicide, suicide, and/or violent behaviors.

Funny how no one mentions banning cars when a drunk runs into a crowd and kills a bunch of people? Happened here not too long back. No one mentions banning airplanes when a pilot deliberately crashes one and kills every one else aboard. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. If you are so near-sighted and shallow as to propose more gun control, then I feel sad for you.

Note that this problem rarely existed before we started drugging the mentally ill with 'medications' that have unknown and unpredictable effects on the human psyche.

Also, to tie medical data to any sort of gun buying would require a major re-write of the medical privacy laws in this country.

Last thing, one of our mods from England can point out that the mass shooting in Scotland many years ago was done by a licensed gun owner, whom the police had given permission to have firearms. So even that isn't foolproof.

That would be my opinion.

 

[nvshooter]

You want to stop violence?

You want to stop the kind of violence we see in Chicago every weekend and in Baltimore, as of late? Well, when I was a kid in the '60s and early '70s, my dad would take off his belt and lay it with considerable swiftness and appreciable force across my bare backside. That got my attention. Made learning the lesson he was teaching very easy to grasp at that moment, and to retain for later implementation as I grew up. I caught a chicken coop on fire at about six years old. I think it was 1962 or '63. The coop was attached to another building. The fire department came and put it out. Then my dad lit up my bare assets with his belt. I never again set a chicken coop on fire. Never played with matches again. The immediacy of the lesson was appreciated, and what that belt taught me has been retained for the fifty years since. I got plenty of belt leather across my tokhus as a kid. I must have benefited from the whippins' I got. I ain't never smoked dope and I ain't never been arrested. We can't give a kid a whuppin', anymore. That's "child abuse." I have an eight-letter word for that krapp. Starts with "B" and ends with "t." There's a "u" and an "i" in there, too...

 

[Cheezywan]

I sure wish that someone could have returned fire on that coward! Can't know about how it went down though. 2nd amendment to the constitution is not about owning a firearm. Is about bearing one against an enemy ( foreign or domestic ).
I wonder how you would have dealt with this Pacificas? If you had been there?
Cheezywan

 

[Bong Son Buck]

The problem that we, as a country now find ourselves, is a complex social and cultural problem that cannot be fully addressed without stirring up someone's oatmeal! By that, I mean that circumstances that have led up to this sorry state, are of a political nature, and are better discussed in town hall meetings etc. To throw it around here is "preaching to the choir", so as long as parents can't discipline their kids and schools are obliged to dance to "big brothers" tune, NOTHING WILL GET DONE! Core values should, and MUST be taught at home and in the local community!

 

[opus]

Sadly, not much can be done. Both parents teaching their children respect comes to mind. It has been so long since people have had to work to survive. No strife or wars to deal with they take everything for granted. No need to help around the farm with chores. Nothing to take responsibility for. Irresponsible violence in virtually every movie or show they watch with no repercussions. I could go on and on. The times they are a changing for sure.

Again, sadly, I don't know the answer

 

[Bong Son Buck]

That much is true, but the one thing lacking in ALL of these situations is SELF RESPECT! Without it, how can a person respect others?

 

[kdub]

Steve Ducey, a host on "Fox and Friends" TV, this morning, asked what would have happened if someone in the Bible study group had also been armed. Sounds like a great question to me.

 

[opus]

Steve Ducey, a host on "Fox and Friends" TV, this morning, asked what would have happened if someone in the Bible study group had also been armed. Sounds like a great question to me.

I don't remember who first said it: "An armed society is a polite society"

 

[Tnhunter]

Not sure what to do when someone already under arrest X2 is given a handgun as a present, some two months ago. Sounds like a recipe for disaster, and hopefully that person, his father, is dealt with properly.
Think about it, two arrests in 6 months rewarded with the gift of a .45?
Simply this man's opinion, of course.

 

[Coffinhauler]

I don't remember who first said it: "An armed society is a polite society"

I don't know either but I have seen it several time in Col. Cooper's books.

 

[Walt45]

Interesting tags in this thread...

 

[nvshooter]

2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not about owning a firearm. It's about bearing one against an enemy (foreign or domestic).

The Second Amendment is most certainly about owning a firearm. You must be able to own one before you can bear it against an enemy. The Right is codified for just that purpose-- to make it illegal for the government to take our guns so that we cannot remove a corrupt government by force if that need should obtain. The several States also retain the Right to raise armed militias of the common People. This is to allow us to assemble into a force that can oppose a corrupt government. I never knew King George III, but I doubt he'd want an armed American People out there, ready to take him down if he got too corrupt. What we have now no doubt feels the same way...

 

[MikeG]

After re-reading the new member's post, I am pretty sure this is an anti-gun troll. Fits the pattern we have had before. Call to arms (so to speak) to "do something" and cast about random platitudes instead of anything specific. Have any of our members who visit other forums noticed new posts that look like this? If so, please let us know.

Noticed he hasn't been back and don't expect him / her to.

 

[nvshooter]

Reagan lead the nation through the 1983 Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks. George H. W. Bush lead the nation through the 1991 Gulf War. His successor "lead" the nation through the 1995 bombing at the Murrah Building. George W. Bush lead the nation through the 2001 World Trade Center disaster. Neither Reagan, George H. W. Bush nor George W. Bush saw that the solution to their respective crisis was to reduce our Constitutional Freedoms. Can't say as much for the other two occupants of my White House since 1981, both of whose names I cannot bring myself to utter...

 

[MontyF]

I usually don't respond to threads like this. Checking out the OP's screen name and the call for more legislation does sound like a person with anti-gun sentiment. The only thing missing is, "We have to do it for the kids".

 

[MikeG]

Yup. From California too, at least from the IP address. I think that's all we need to know....

 

[opus]

You gotta admit he did stimulate some discussion, probably not the kind he had in mind though.

BTW nice catch Mike,

 

[Leanwolf]

PACIFICA - " ... Also something needs to be done so that our 2nd Amendment is not eliminated altogether. ..."

By doing "something" so not all the Second Amendment is eliminated means it that after "doing something," the Second would read, "... the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed except... and except, ... and except, ... and except..., and except ..." ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The Bill of Rights is a bill of Rights, not a bill of government granted privileges.

L.W.

 

[chevwilliam]

Interesting as this is your first post on the forum. Will be keeping a close eye on it as gun-control trolls show up on the forum from time to time (not just a problem here but have heard from admins/mods on other forums). I hope you aren't one but if you are, your stay here will be short.

My suggestion would be to stop giving mentally ill people medications that have side effects of homicide, suicide, and/or violent behaviors.

Funny how no one mentions banning cars when a drunk runs into a crowd and kills a bunch of people? Happened here not too long back. No one mentions banning airplanes when a pilot deliberately crashes one and kills every one else aboard. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. If you are so near-sighted and shallow as to propose more gun control, then I feel sad for you.

Note that this problem rarely existed before we started drugging the mentally ill with 'medications' that have unknown and unpredictable effects on the human psyche.

Also, to tie medical data to any sort of gun buying would require a major re-write of the medical privacy laws in this country.

Last thing, one of our mods from England can point out that the mass shooting in Scotland many years ago was done by a licensed gun owner, whom the police had given permission to have firearms. So even that isn't foolproof.

That would be my opinion.

Mike G;
Mental "Health" has been taken out of Controlled environments of Mental hospitals and put on the General Population without Any concern for either the patient or the public "caregivers" that are Drafted to 'monitor' the Prescribed treatments. Except Adults may not Be Forced to Take Their Medications when NOT in Official Custody.

The prescription of these Psychotropic Drugs is done with out Continuing and Continuous Monitoring for Effects on the patient. The Prescribing 'Medical Professional' now includes School Administrations but Who looks for the Resulting effects?

If a a patient Commits a Crime then the Police and Jail Personnel are forced to deal with the treatments but Where is their Mental Treatment Certifications?

Just My Rant on this Subject.

Best Regards,
Chev. William