a reply to: face23785
Heres the thing...
Both the young people who are currently screaming at congress to force some kind of change, to keep people safe from lunatics who have access to
firearms, and those saying that the second amendment must not be infringed are correct. It does not matter a damn how the editing works out, or indeed
how underinformed about the facts some people may be, or indeed how close they are to the fallout of desperately tragic events. Nor does it matter how
seriously others take the rights enshrined in the constitution.
The kids who have been protesting, Hogg included, are absolutely right to be angry with congress, and with their local governments too. But they are
wrong to be angry that there is not tighter restriction on gun possession, with regard to what can be owned, how big a magazine is, or any of that
malarkey. The second amendment advocates are absolutely right that the ownership of firearms, in order to be effective in the role it was designed
for, must not be heavily regulated, and must permit people who are capable of responsible ownership, to possess whatever weaponry and sundry
attachments are desired in that role. But they are wrong that no legislation ought to be changed at the federal or state levels, in order to make gun
possession a viable option for the population.
Both groups largely fail to engage in any seriousness with the notion that while the greater population, regardless of financial status or social
standing otherwise measured should be able to possess arms for their defense without greater justification than the fact they have a right to do so,
there ARE people in the US who should NOT be permitted to even walk out of the house on their own, leave alone walk about armed, or keep arms in their
homes. There are people in the US, who, if prevented from putting their hands on a rifle or a pistol, would build a bomb, or several of them, from
components which are unregulated by any law, and difficult to track to a source. There are people in the United States who would, if forced to do so,
adopt slower, quieter means of killing, become blitz attackers, rather than noisy, suicide by cop types such as we see these days. There are those who
could do in a few hours, without being detected, using a pair of framing hammers, what would take five minutes and cause such a panic that the police
would be on them in minutes.
The people who would just as happily beat, stab people to death slowly, or blow them up, are the very same people, not different ones, to those who
want to use guns to slay soft, civilian targets who have done them no harm. There is no difference at all between a crazy person with a knife, and a
crazy person with a gun. Both are dangerous, neither can be reasoned with. The ONLY difference, is that a crazy person with a gun will kill rooms full
of people, all at once, in the blink of an eye, rather than being forced to act more slowly and deliberately, with a quieter, necessarily stealthier
approach, using a less potent machine to do their work with.
The answer therefore, is not to remove the guns. If you do that, all you get is a pile of bodies which grows more slowly, not a pile which is smaller
in total. You merely force people to adopt slower tactics, use different tools to achieve the same terror, over a more prolonged period. That is the
ONLY effect of removing the firearm from the equation.
The ACTUAL problem is not that guns exist on the streets of America. Even if it WERE the problem, that problem is unsolvable anyway, because the guns
that are known to the authorities outnumber the actual population by orders of magnitude, AND do not take into account guns which have been created
outside of an actual firearms manufacturing plant, by dedicated enthusiasts all over the country, nor does it take into account the number of mass
produced guns that are present in the country, but not in any system anywhere. Even if it were the issue, guns are too prevalent and numerous to be
controlled in number effectively by any legislation, nor can their possession by individual people be prevented, if the people in question are
permitted to be part of wider society.
You CAN expect a significant decline in mass shootings, by removing people who are dangerously unwell mentally, from regular society for as long as
they pose a threat. I am sure many members here remember the shooting of Gabby Giffords, in 2011. Six people died, eighteen including Giffords were
shot, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire with a pistol, on a gathering in Tuscon Arizona. It was only after this individual had been assessed with
regard to their readiness to stand trial, that they were found upon first time of asking, to be mentally unfit to stand trial. Forced medication was
applied while he was in custody, with the intention of MAKING him fit to stand trial...
If a person is not fit to stand trial for an act they might commit with a weapon, then they are not fit to possess it. It stands to reason, I think.
If this is the case, and any logical examination of the statement as it stands will attest to as much, then surely it is necessary to ensure that the
psychological state of a person intending to purchase and possess a firearm, be examined in depth, before they receive their weapons? Jared Lee
Loughner was not of sound mind for YEARS before he enacted the crimes which saw him incarcerated, put Gabby Giffords and others in hospital, caused
the deaths of six people including a federal judge. An effective and properly maintained, properly funded and equipped mental health system would have
identified him before the fact, without question, and removed him to a safe place, for his sake and others. Its not that seriously disturbed people
should not be permitted gun ownership. Thats beyond doubt at this point... but they should not be wandering about in the regular community AT ALL,
armed or not, and as long as they are, you will continue to see these aberrant behaviours and their consequences.