After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Do any of you want to reduce the number of gun related crimes? Or do any of you wanna get rid of guns entirely?

Maybe you all want both?

Trying to stop the NRA and gun culture is an uphill battle that will be met with heavy resistance; most posters in this thread are well aware of this fact. This is how it goes, time after time.

Could there be ways to reduce the issue of mass killing and violence without going after guns only? I think so.

Nikolas Cruz was posting on the internet that he wanted to be the next school shooter. Nobody in law enforcement took it seriously. Early signs should be taken seriously. One thing many of these shooters had in common, was that they were chemically dependent on psychotropic drugs and anti-depressants. If you take these drugs for too long, they can have serious consequences. If a patient misses a day on these medications too frequently, there can be even worse consequences. 66% of people on anti-depressants do not suffer depression at all. So why the hell are we allowing psychiatrists to over-medicate their patients?

I think people of the left right and center can find common ground with having bitter opinions toward big pharma. Big pharma, unlike gun ownership, is not defended by the bill of rights. It'll be an easier battle to fight.

Now I'm not saying it will stop all mass violence, shootings, stabbings, and murder. But it will reduce the number of people having psychotic episodes from chemical imbalances.

 

I have payed attention to this subject in almost all topics on here over the years and rarely see someone argue this. Pretty much never.

 

How many mass shootings did we have in the days of muskets?

Which was also the days during which the Second Amendment was ratified...

 

Lots. The Civil War for example

 

A tyrannical government. Not cops or governments doing their jobs. However, if we weren't armed, if we disagreed with the government, how hard do you think it would be to make us disappear if we couldn't take a stance to defend ourselves when they come through our doors? History shows us that when the government takes our weapons, and they become tyrannical (think Hitler), the population will have little choice. Either comply or be executed.

And P.S. In the real world there are neighborhoods that cops won't even go into, because the main population of perpetrators are armed and dangerous.

 

Are you seriously trying to convince me that a war and mass shootings are the same thing?

 

I've thought about another approach. Doesn't affect any of the NRAs strict code of who can own guns. Establish a tax on any firearm purchased of X%. That tax is to specifically pay for the fortification of schools across America. Raising the cost of the guns doesn't prevent a gun sale, and the cost have climbed steadily for years, and they keep buying. So they won't stop buying (although they will bitch). And it pays for some of these efforts to help protect the kids.

I also hope that the youth movement underway places about 3,000,000 kids in plain site in Washington. They are all soon to be new voters. That might get the right attention.

 

Don't confuse mass shootings with the constitutional purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was to allow citizens to protect themselves. Civilian based mass shootings always was and still is a crime.

 

Where in the Constitution does it protect the right to buy and sell firearms?

 

If war ever comes to the shores, citizens deserve a means of personal defense.

 

Yes they had credible reason to believe he was a threat. Concerned citizens reporting such, social media postings, etc. Very much a case of probable cause.

I won't be surprised to hear eventually that since about 2011ish they have been told that their surveillance of citizens had to be scaled back. And if they didn't they would lose funding to operate as they were used to. That can be put forth as the reason why they couldn't act on it they simply didn't have the resources to. We'll see.

 

I'll agree this is a loophole we need to close. Pre-owned firearms can be sold by private individuals to anyone that pays the asking price. Big problem. Needs to be fixed. If I'm a private citizen and I wish to purchase a gun, there needs to be a database that a private seller must access and verify that the buyer has in fact passed the proper background checks. Otherwise we send them both to jail.

 

Yes think 9-11. Nobody stopped them and nobody knew who or where the next attack could have come from. Gun sales surged immediately after 9-11.

We are still at war with a largely hard to identify enemy. We hope they aren't already here, but as 9-11 showed they had been here for years preparing for the attacks.

 

Stricter gun laws can and should be implemented.

I think there should be restrictions on who can own a gun, who can buy a gun, and how the licensing works for using, carrying, and transporting a gun.
What else can we address?

 

Implementing heavier punishments for those found to be in violation.

 

You've pulled my original question so far into the woods that it can't find it's way back home. So we'll stop here

Not really the point I was trying to make.

In some (perhaps even most) jurisdictions, it isn't illegal to be high. It is not a crime to be wasted on an illegal substance. However, buying and selling (and possessing) illegal substances is a crime. So while the 2nd Amendment protects ownership of a firearm, it doesn't mention anything about buying or selling them. Technically, we could criminalize the selling of firearms and not be in violation of our own Constitution. Though, the vague and odd wording suggests these firearms are only for a--and I can't stress the importance of the next two words enough--well-regulated militia.

 

Pharmaceuticals

 

Do you think that it's appropriate to punish misdemeanor offenders?

How so? I find that meds are effective if the person wants to take them. If someone won't take their meds then it doesn't work at all.

 

That's a really good idea, but I think the judicial branch of the government would find that it isn't constitutional and would cite the intention of the founding fathers etc. It would be nice if we had more support for something like that in Congress.