Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD 146 Replies latest jw friends

  • freemindfade
    do you really think that people would start killing people with trucks and explosives in the same numbers that they do now with guns?

    If your INTENT is to kill, you will find a way. Knife, truck, explosive, improvised firearm, whatever...

    "hey I really want to kill a bunch of people, but aww shucks I can't get a gun, guess I'll just be a peaceful law-abiding citizen."

    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

  • Still Totally ADD
    Still Totally ADD

    What about the victims of shootings? I understand the reasoning on both sides of this debate but no one has talk about the victims. How are they going to be compensated for what happen to them? Are they just victims of a broken system that just wants to serve their own interest.

    Already the big gun companies are making big money on this tragedy with their stock going up. Congress has a bill before them to make it alright to buy silencers. NRA keeps screaming to their followers the government is going to take our guns away. All this is going on while the very rich get even richer on this tragedy. But the victims get nothing except a moment of silence from the President and others.

    I can see no justice in any of this. I am not and i repeat not anti-gun. But how is this problem going to be solved when no one will listen to each other. For me it's the victims of all this that should be considered not how gun companies can make more money.

    I stated this earlier one this thread why don't we make it where all gun owners must have insurance on their guns. No insurance no guns. If a gun hurts someone a least the victims get some compensation. Just like what we do with our cars. Want to drive you have to have insurance. It is not the total solution but it is a start in helping victims. Think about it. Still Totally ADD

  • _Morpheus

    Sigh... i sit here and tell myself i wont be drawn into this , that its a bottomless hole of no win scenarios... yet here i am...

    how are the victims going to be compensated?

    for better or worse the killer killed himself so there are no direct answers to be had and no trial to provide a sense of closure. Are they entittled to money from.... someone? The shooters estate perhaps. But the manufacture of the firearm....? Do you sue toyota if someone kills you in a prius? Were the makers of pressure cookers sued after the boston marathon? Did boeing pay damages after 9/11?

    over and over we look to take someones money to make others feel better. Mostly ourselves, thinking that giving someone someone elses money is a good thing.

    This is more handwringing and trying to give meaning to violence that has no meaning. His motovations will become clearer in days and weeks. That wont solve anything but it will help some find closure eventually.

    As for insurance... again, if this jackass bought firearms illegally do you realy think he would have insured himself??? Does anyone think these things through or do we so obsessively feel the need to react that ANYTHING, even pointless wheel spining, feels better than accepting the truth....

  • cobweb
    If your INTENT is to kill, you will find a way. Knife, truck, explosive, improvised firearm, whatever...

    Yeah I agreed that was true. In these mass killing situations a home made explosive or truck could also bring about great loss of life. In actuality these running down by truck deaths and bomb deaths only happen when Muslim terrorists want to do something spectacular, its not something that occurs otherwise.But I was referring more to the day to day gun deaths that add up. In Western Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada, intentional homocide is much less than the US. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    That includes gun homicide as well as by other means. I can't say that greater number of homicides in the USA are caused by the easier access to guns but I think its likely. Couldn't you at least have the same gun laws in the USA that Canada has? Its not that onerous but seems to make a big difference.

    Here is a cut and paste from http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/10/22/numbers-how-canadas-gun-laws-compare-ours:

    Waiting period to purchase a gun:

    • Canada requires a 60-day waiting period.
    • There is no federally mandated waiting period in the U.S. Residents can receive a gun after a background check.

    Largest mass shootings:

    • Canada’s largest mass shooting was in 1989, when 25-year-old Marc Lepine killed 14 people at Montreal's École Polytechnique.
    • The U.S. has had 160 mass shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013, CNN reports from a study released by the FBI. The largest U.S. shooting was at Virginia Tech in 2007, when 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. In 2012, twenty children and seven adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    License and registration requirements:

    • To own a gun in Canada, residents must take a safety course and pass both a written and a practical exam. The license expires in five years. Residents have to register restricted firearms, such as handguns and automatic weapons, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Canadian Firearms Program.
    • In the U.S., license and registration laws vary from states to state, often with no such requirements. There is no mandatory course or exam.

    Background checks:

    • Canada requires a background check that focuses on mental health and addiction. Agents are requiredto inform an applicant’s spouse or family before granting a license.
    • The U.S. requires a federal background check for all those buying guns from licensed dealers but does not require one in private transactions such as at gun shows.
  • _Morpheus

    For god sake stop repeating what you dont know. Gun shows REQUIRE back round checks. I have been to dozens and they ALL, no matter what state you live in, no matter what state the show is in, they ALL REQUIRE BACK ROUND CHECKS.

    What dosent require a “check” per say is a private sale.. except it does. However there is no way to verify that the check was done... example: freemind wants to sell me a 9mm handgun. If a dealer was doing the sale, be it at a store or at a gun show, there are inventory checks and regulatory rules that mandate the checks and legal penalties that easily enforced if not done.. z however freemind is just selling to me. Its easy to trade a little money and its done. If i never commit a crime with it then nobody would ever know the sale took place, unlike the sale taking place at a retail shop or show.

  • LV101

    Still Totally Add - maybe the victims' families can sue the shooter's estate (wouldn't ever be enough money in one's estate) or the company that sponsors the music concert - maybe the county of Clark or city of LV where the event is held - attorneys and people can sue anyone they want but whether they recover monies for their loss is dependent on the laws, juries, etc.

    Death happens all the time and sometimes humans are in the wrong place/wrong time, unfortunately. I'm sure their burial expenses and any hospital/medical will be covered from the charities set up - some families wouldn't be able to afford burials and all the expenses associated w/them. I don't think there's any amt. of money that could compensate for the loss of a child, parent, sibling -- any family member.

    Many hotels are providing free rooms/counseling and I've heard a couple of airlines are offering free flights for families to come to LV if their loved ones were a victim in this horrific massacre.

    No other city in the world has the security and 'eyes in the sky' like LV -- not that it helped in this freak shooting.

  • Still Totally ADD
    Still Totally ADD

    Morpheus according to the news the guns was legally purchase. I am just trying to throw out a idea to help others who are victims. No you do not sue Toyota for a car accident but with insurance you will get compensated. It may be bottomless hole when it comes to this discussion but there has to be a rational discussion on this if we can help this problem.

    No this is not handwringing all I trying to do is find a solution instead of trying to hold a position that is either right or wrong. Again I find it interesting the discussion was all about guns and little regard for the victims. As a X-cult member my thinking abilities are starting to work. This is how I learn. Still Totally ADD

  • LV101

    I understand you're comparing it to vehicle insurance coverage and a good point. Some people have umbrella policies that might cover them if they're firearm went off - maybe one's homeowner's insurance. I don't know but there must be cases where people have litigated gun shots - accidental or intentional. Maybe a civil suit like Nicole Simpson's family has against the killer OJ?

    I can imagine the losers that would not keep up their gun insurance premiums. Many people drive around without auto insurance thus the law allowing one's own auto insurance to protect them.

  • freemindfade

    Somehow we don't like to hold individuals accountable, it needs to be something else to blame.


  • konceptual99


    I don't think knee jerk reactions would work and I am under no illusions that even if all guns were banned there would not be a significant time for the access to weapons to really decrease but I don't think that is an argument to do nothing and accept the status quo.

    I do think that properly restricting access to assult rifles and automatic weapons would be a start. There really is no reason for your average citizen to own them.

    What really needs to change however is the culture of gun ownership as a right over all other rights. Just because nutters can appropriate many everyday objects to kill and main does not mean that you do feck all about those devices designed to do that job.

    Sometimes we have to accept that reducing the risk of harm to innocents by a very small minority of evil doers does mean that the large number of responsible people have to have their rights and opportunities constrained.

Share this