Originally Posted by Snowolf
And this is why the problem persists! It seems both sides of this argument are so polarized and adamant that their view is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong.
Thunderchunky, it is attitudes like yours that caused me to quit the NRA! I first joined as a result of their hunter safety program that was a requirement in Montana to get a hunting license as a minor. They do some good work, but I got sick of their bull headed nimbyism and refusal to be proactive in assisting in the drafting of even the most reasonable of gun regulations. They conduct skewed surveys and create slanted "documentaries" to bolster their agenda and all the while refuse to come to the table and discuss.
You keep saying the same NRA talking points and repeat them over and over and over again and don't even come up for air long enought have even objectively read the material that Bones provided. You guys on that side only know one strategy, yell NO the loudest and when any data or opinion challenges your position, stick your fingers in your ears and yell, " la la la la la I can't hear you!".
You keep regurgitating the same talking point of "gun bans don't work" but they absolutely do! Fully automatic machine guns have been all but outlawed in this country and with all of these rampages, these nuts are not stealing fully automatic weapons to commit these acts. The reason is obvious; they are very difficult to aquire. After Columbine, Clinton signed the assault weapons ban and while the overall crime rates may have gone up, mass shootings involving these weapons went down. Since Bush repealed the assault weapons ban, we have seen more mass shootings with assault weapons than ever; even though the oversleep murder rates are dropping. Gun restriction absolutely does have an effect!
Now on the flip side, we have the "ban all guns" crowd who are just as bull headed and refuse to admit that guns have a legal, legitimate function in American society. Their refusal to respect people's views about hunting and personal protection alienates sensible moderates just as much as the "gun nuts" do.
A sensible balance can be achieved in reasonable gun control that both sides can live with if they would just shut up long enough to be objective and look at other's ideas and sit down at the table and compromise. I am a gun owner and support gun ownership. I believe sane, law abiding citizens who are trained and licensed to pack absolutely are a big deterrent to crimes like this. I think school administrators should have gun training from local law enforcement and should be armed. A teacher or principal or janitor trsined and armed COULD have maybe dropped this sick mother fucker sooner and even if it only saved 1 life, its worth it.
It is true that in a lot of situations, an armed civilian isn't going to change the outcome like in the Aurora shooting. But, given a choice between a slim chance and no chance, I'm voting for slim chance.
Having said that, there is no need for these fucking AK-47's, AR-15's and others with high capacity, rapid reload magazines for any purpose. No, banning them won't stop someone from using a 6 shot revolver to kill but until we solve the root cause, let's try to limit the amount of damage these freaks can do. If the assault weapons ban was reinstated, I honestly believe it will reduce the frequency that these types of guns are used in crimes like this. If all it does is stop one mass shooting, or result in 10 dead instead of 30, it is worth it. Not a solution, but it is a step.
We absolutely can become a more sensible nation without totally giving up our gun heritage, but that change will never come about by demogogues on the polar extremes of the issue tossing out their talking points and trying to outshout each other. It is going to come from us moderates who respect the positions of both sides and work to compromise and strike a balance. Unfortunately in our political climate of extremism and pokarization, no one is more hated than the moderate who seems to piss off both sides!
Those facts are from the FBI and the the police organizations in the cities that had those bans. In no way is that biased. I am not against gun regulation. I live in the state with THE strictest gun laws. I think it is is perfectly fine with the exception of a few things. Banning certain types of weapons isn't the answer if you wanna talk about gun control. Making it harder to get them is the right answer. It allows the good people to get them and those who wish to do harm not to. It keeps our rights intact while still putting a temporary fix for these shootings.
Also, when I was referring to the crime, I was referring to everything except mass shooting like this. I have no idea how I was "plugging my ears to his idea." They were wrong. Clinton himself recognized his law didn't work. Strict gun controls are put into place and crime doesn't change, and if it does it goes up. What more to it is there. It doesn't work. It's facts. I hate the NRA they are ignorant. I am with you.
I read his links. Half of them didn't work and the rest were babbling about nothing. I look at the facts. Gun control laws put into place in America. Crime didn't go down. Someone tells me they worked and should be put back into place. Those are people who ignore the facts and plug their ears in order to deny the truth.
Why put laws into place that don't haven't worked theoretically, or empirically?