Acts20.com

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1

The only thing the gun laws did was reduce suicides in people over a certain age?And you mean to tell me that, contrary to the NRA's rabid beliefs, rampant murder didn't break out because of it being harder to get a gun?See what I mean? The point I am trying to get to is this: IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THESE MASS KILLINGS?

Re: Skinny...let me get this straight

The point I'm trying to make is an answer to your question: Will stricter gun laws reduce violence, crime, and mass murder in this county? The answer is No. Do you understand that?Is there anything we can do to prevent mass killings? Not in terms of laws, etc.It is nearly impossible to prevent a person from getting something they want. Alcohol was illegal to make, sell, etc. in this country, at one time. People got it. Weed is illegal in my state...people get it. Pass all the laws you want.....if someone wants a gun, they will get it.Make firearms illegal. Confiscate every gun in the country. Make it illegal to make guns. Stop the import of firearms..... Do whatever you want: People will still get guns and will still have the potential for mass killings.Its not a gun problem Aaron...its a people proble

Aaron, if you have an idea, propose it, and be specific.

Suicide is violence, isn't it? THAT was at least reduced.In other words, assuming this is a valid study, nothing got worse...and somethings got better with gun control?Hmmmm.... That would seem to be an argument FOR more gun control, wouldn't it?Again, I am NOT for taking away guns. I have guns myself. I am thinking, though, that surely SOMETHING can and ought to be done to reduce the ability to inflict MASS casualties with guns. We cannot stop every idea or idiot. But consider this thought problem: If everyone had a personal nuke, would we be more safe...or less safe? Now, if everyone had a butcher knife or baseball bat, would we be more safe...or less safe?Whatever that principle may be, perhaps we can apply it to guns? It would be no less a tragedy if someone killed three people with a knife...but at least it wouldn't be 10, 11, 12, 13...20...etc. with a gun. Again, we see that gun control DID reduce violence (suicide) and did NOT, apparently, embolden criminals.

This is a very serious problem, mass killings. CAn it be stopped? It is sorta like interpreting scripture. With experts, learned men and women cannot agree on certain scripture.I think there are nuts in the NRA and there are some very wise people. I know there are intelligent folk on the 'Ban Guns' side along with NUTS. I wish there was an answer. I cannot see an answer to mass killings. There are too many killings that is for sure. Remember Sampson done some killing with the jawbone of an ass. (wasn't it?)I am afraid of gun control myself, and I abhor the mass killings. In the USA IT IS MOSTLY GUNS used, but in Africa it was machetes before guns were introduced, Simpler to kill, but still the primitive ways are reverted to when the gun is not available. Naturally I am old, ex military, white southern male, so I lean to No Gun Control. ... Sorta like our Prez said, 'the red necks'. ... hugging their guns and churches sorta contradictory looking from a liberal point of view I guess. .. Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/

Re: Skinny Bishop

Aaron, you literally all over the place with your argument. Arguing that decreased suicide is proof that gun control works is a serious stretch. What about the places where crime INCREASES in the face of stricter gun laws?Let me ask you a point blank question: What do you want? Say you have a blank check for gun control. What do you do?Don't say, Make guns less accessible. That is not an answer.You initiated this discussion with Gun control is not evil. Tell me what you want

I was hoping to crowd-source this, thinking that some might have good ideas on it. I don't know that mine make a bit more sense than anyone else's, but going on the assumption that doing something is better than doing nothing, let's proceed.Anyone who owns more than three guns has to undergo more extensive background checks. (The recent mass killers tend to have at least a small arsenal.)As in Canada, single-shot, low-caliber guns might have less requirements than semi-automatics and/or large caliber guns (this is the sort of rapid fire I was talking about; I know that automatics are not easily available). There is a significant wait period for ALL guns, and an even longer wait period for larger guns.You cannot buy guns or ammunition without your ID being associated with that purchase. Only if you have already passed a background check to own a gun can you purchase ammunition. You cannot buy ammunition for a gun you do not own or have registered.I don't know that a single one of these would do a better job. All I know is that whatever we are doing NOW is not working. A single Sandy Hook is almost more than we can bear. And the truth is that if more people were so inclined, it could happen again and again and again. If the answer is MORE GUNS, I'd be happy to go with that. But that doesn't seem to be the answer. In fact, it seems to ensure that the bad guys have easier access.How do we make it HARDER for bad guys to get guns? That seems to be a key. Also, since there is apparently no clear profile (although it does seem that many of them are young white men who feel excluded in some way), how do we make sure that the most vulnerable minds do not have access to such things?Again, I am just making these proposals up on the fly. Just as a starting place. We should know that something is wrong when a Sandy Hook can take place. When a parent cannot even have an open casket funeral for their beloved child because of the damage done.