12-18-2012, 01:40 PM
(12-18-2012, 01:05 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I have no problem with Six or Maggot or Jim or HarleyGuy having guns in their home for self-defense or hunting.
I have a problem with people who look at the Massacre at the elementary school and say, 'Fuck you. We're not changing anything.'
I understand what you're saying. I've read the thread and am not one who is confused in thinking that you ever suggested a full ban on private citizens owning guns.
As for your problem, I've read the posts and have only interpreted one as saying, "Fuck you. We're not changing anything." (I responded to that one.)
For example, the suggestion that more restrictions on the guns themselves is not a solution and rather more focus and controls should be placed on who has access to them (and treating the mentally ill) is reasonable, imo.
The suggestion that much better security and possibly arming teachers rather than restricting guns themselves is also reasonable. It's a valid point that criminally minded and violently-obsessed individuals are gonna still be driven to get guns no matter what, so those who are vulnerable to spree killings need to be proactively prepared to defend themselves.
Also some merit in further profiling these spree killers (lifestyle, brain scan, etc...) for commonalities between them and determining if there are consistent predicators that can be used to identify them in advance, imo. That would also involve implementing a public awareness campaign about what people should do if they suspect that someone is plotting something. Reports show that all of the school spree killers who have been studied (excluding Lanza, still under investigation) gave hints/clues to others, but the others didn't know how to interpret the bizarre statements/actions or what to do about it - didn't want to seem like over-reactors or snitches.
Could banning assault-type firearms help too? Maybe, imo, to the extent that it could reduce the amount of fatalities for those spree killers who would only choose a gun as a weapon and who only give themselves a certain amount of time to hit as many targets as possible and then stop. But, that would matter only if the killer hadn't gotten their hands on an older assault-type rifle post-ban, of which there are plenty floating around.
I also understand the rationale that limiting new ownership of certain types of guns would make legitimate gun owners feel outmatched by criminals using illegal means to acquire higher gun power on the black market.
I don't think any of those suggestions and opinions signify a "go fuck yourselves" ideology.
Personally, I think it's a gonna take a combination of changes to see a real reduction in gun violence. JMO...