Unfortunately I think there's a lot of truth in what you say.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

Sadly, I think we've been moving in that direction for at least a couple decades now.

Even though Bot's statistics point out that homicides are at quite a low level now historically, the 24/7 news cycle sensationalizes every occurrence such that it appears to the average person that the world outside their front door has turned into a free for all killing zone.

Add to that your observation, that today's populace believes their lives should be a guaranteed "zero risk" existence from cradle to grave, in every aspect.

Back in the 90's, John Stossel (with ABC at the time) hosted a program called "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death", covering many topics in our society that were cause celebs, from the environment to the current topic.

He presented the following hypothetical to the panel of guests, representing a cross-section of groups and society at the time - "I have a new fuel I want to put on the market. It's clean burning, we already have the technology and infrastructure in place to handle it, it's relatively cheap, and this country already has an abundance of it - that could drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help our economy. The downside is it's highly flammable, colorless and odorless, and on average you could expect 100 people per year to be killed from mistakes and accidents occurring while using it."

"My question to you is, do the benefits this fuel would give to the country as a whole outweigh the potential accidents and cost of human life? How many say NO, that 100 lives is too high a price to pay?"

Nearly every member of the panel held up their hands.

"How about if we could reduce that to 10 lives, how many still say NO?"

This time about 2/3 of the panel held up their hands.

"How about if we could reduce that to just one person, how many would still say NO, that even one life is still too high a price to pay for the benefits our country would receive from this fuel?"

About a 1/3 of the panel still held up their hands.

Mr Stossel then explained, "In that case, you had best call your utility and tell them to shut off you gas service, becasuse you believe it's too dangerous to use - because that's exactly the fuel I've been describing, and the numbers of deaths that occur each year from it's use - natural gas."

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

on the sensationalism, we agree, but I don't think that when a whole bunch of kids in a school are shot, and that its a recurring theme, that the boiled down response shouldn't be "***** happens, we need to toughen up".

your arguement is basically that these types of mass shooting tragedies are simply the breaks of the game, I think thats not the right way to look at it.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Bull****. You completely misunderstood the point.

The argument being that when taking into account the two factors I mentioned, instead of a reasoned rational discussion and response to events such as this, we're even more likely, as a country, to have an emotional knee-jerk response that does nothing to address the problem, or even makes matters worse.

For example, as one poster already mentioned, the Patriot Act in response to 9/11.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

so you think that armed teachers is a rational reaction? how about armored desks, and military training for all teaching staff?

how about brain scans for the whole population? does that sound like reasoned rational discussion? whats more reasoned and rational, evading the 2nd amendment issues at all and finding new ways to bring more weapons in as a threadbare sense of security, or actually discussing the differences between then and now, and how amendments can easily stand to be altered to reflect a much bigger country with different problems these days?

Totally agree on the patriot act.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

I'm going way out on a limb here. Nothing is going to change that will make a substantial difference. Democrat pols know that a serious effort towards restricting access to firearms will queer their chances in '14.
Not saying that's good. Just saying.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

here is what I see. I see gun control legislation not having much to do with affecting violent crime with illegal weapons, but ironically, it may certainly have an effect on these types of mass shootings using stolen legally owned weapons by suburbanites.

The argument can be made that these kids can find an illegal weapon, but thats easier said than done, let alone a socially awkward kid who fears and hates the world and is from a nice, happy middle class area.

I use Australian information as an example. They modified their gun control laws, rounded up huge numbers of guns, but not even half of the total number, but the most likely to be used in these types of crimes, and boom, not a single incident for over a decade of this type.

We on the other hand are screaming that the only solution to gun violence, is more gun violence, and arming teachers, ect ect. Just doesn't make sense to me at all, and moves us toward a ID check police state "for the protection of our kids".

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Every person's perception is their own reality. I don't have a need for guns and I don't own any, though I go to skeet shooting and target practice when it's available. I wouldn't want to mess with the 2nd amendment, especially when the new laws are unenforceable. It would be window dressing. But I get the general feeling that's what the general populace wants to hear - placebos, and not a call to personal responsibility. I wonder what is the NRA's view on how Switzerland implements gun control?

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

a call to personal responsibility does what? how does that protect against a nutjob like in this situation?

I also have no need or desire to own weapons anymore. I stand to inherit a couple historic firearms, but I would happily surrender them if I believed that surrendering them would make it less likely that these types of atrocities can continue, which I do.

What drives me nuts is the spirit of no compromise, no discussion. As shown in this thread, when logical facts and examples of gun control effects on murder rates in other countries is demonstrated, the response is always that more guns are indeed the answer, not less. Same old story, different year.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

The country is flooded with firearms. They last indefinitely and more are being produced every day. Here and elsewhere, in factories and in private 1-man shops. Those are facts. We have seen gun bans that do nothing. We only need to look at Prohibition in the 1930's for a similar scenario of worthless laws. So controlling the supply is a nonstarter. Personal responsibility and getting a line on potential wackos would be the logical direction to go. Some form of mandatory gun safety school should be required for everyone, and that venue would also provide an opportunity to weed out some of society's sick people who need help. The trouble right now is the people who are flying under the radar who desperately need help but they are not getting it. Just one gun or any weapon in that person's hands spells disaster.

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

on this we agree, but many of the compromises on the table are not discussing limiting weapons ownership, but placing restrictions and methods of tracking them, and even small changes are rejected, meaning that the flooded situation will continue as it has without even an attempt, and who knows, the next one could be the crazy relative jplinville described breaking into his house, taking his gun, and shooting a bunch of people.

Any effect would be a good effect, even in you completely halted the manufacture of certain types of guns and cut off selling them to people, thats something that could be done. There are a million ways we could do something to improve control and regulation.

I personally think that things like no waiting period gun show sales should be forbidden, and ammunition should not be saleable without demostrated proof of gun ownership in that exact caliber.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

note to self:

Arguing with Mr. Dropnosky is a complete waste of time and should not be continued because he believes, without any substantive data, that random acts of violence against unarmed civilians will go down if he introduces legislation to control the supply side of the weapons.

This is despite ample evidence that very tight handgun laws in NY and CT do not prevent these occurrences.

FWIW, I'm not a second amendment RWNJ and couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky legislates the automatic handgun out of existence. I cannot carry one anyway due the laws of this state.

About two miles from here a DB with an illegal handgun walked into a pharmacy on a Sunday morning and executed the pharmacist, a young woman at the register, and two customers because he needed some crystal meth. Ask Mr. Dropnosky how his new laws worked out for those folks.

At least 4 dead in Medford pharmacy shooting - NYPOST.com

The crazy relative would have to travel nearly 300 miles to get to my house...no chance of that happening.

As for demonstratable proof of ownership of a certain caliber gun, are you suggesting that you show up at the place of ammunition sale with your firearm?? That begging for more problems...

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

Go ahead and write your will to transfer the guns to the police. That way they will not come into your possession. The cops will either melt them down or sell them to their officers for $5 each.

If more people would turn their guns into the police, the streets would be much safer. Only LEOs need guns. And a safer world, is what we are all after, right?

The big point I was making that everyone seems to not be able to read, is that of all these mass shooting issues, the majority of the guns used were legally registered weapons from relatives or friends of the shooters that were stolen.

Stands to reason, that with those rounded up, you might see a difference in weapon accessibility for a suburbanite shooter, and either a change or heart, or a change in tactics. Would he still be able to kill people if he desires? Sure, what I advocate, is making it slightly less easy

I doubt the guns I would get would be of much use, two are japanese officer pistols, and the other a 45, but I would still be willing to turn them in, just the same.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.