Colorado shooting: People want gun control in their mind, not in actions

The shooting rampage in Colorado during Dark Knight Rises was supposed to be another reason for tighther gun control. Yet the recent survey suggests people may agree with the idea but when it comes to actual actions, they back up. Although the majority of respondents predicted gun control will become an important issue this year, only 39% thought the Colorado shootings could have been avoided if stricter gun control laws were in place.
When asked if there should be a law banning all assault weapons but allowing hunting weapons to still be legal, 41% said yes and 40% said no.

The full results are here http://www.instant.ly/blog/2012/07/...ontrol-and-security-measures-still-unpopular/

People just don't complicate their lives with more security checks, yet the consequences may be tragic.

 

.... and what gun control would have stopped the shooting?

 

Well, guess we gonna have to put up with more shootings...

Poll: Views on gun laws don't change after Aurora
Jul 30, 2012 - Americans remain divided on the issue of gun control vs. gun rights, more than a week after 12 people died in the July 20 massacre at a Colorado movie theater.

 

According to reports, the AR-15 jammed shortly after the shooting started. Most of the mayhem was caused by a shotgun and a handgun, neither of which would be affected by bans on so called "assault weapons".

 

Facts have little or nothing to do with feel good legislation by politicians out to make political hay, not improve anyone's life.

 

A mandatory firearms licensing process including a psychological assessment maybe?

 

It is complete nonsense. I live in a country where guns are not within a persons rights, and we still get shot with both registered, and unregistered weapons. The law is only for honest people. Just like a door lock, is only for an honest person. If someone wants in bad enough, they usually come through the window, not the locked door.

 

lol The mentally unstable are already barred from acquiring firearms.

 

From legal forms of acquiring said firearm, what about all the illegal ways of acquiring one?

 

Right there is the problem with your argument.

How do you control illegal means of obtaining a firearm? It is already a crime. It is also a crime to kill people. Illegal? Yeah. Not much you can do about that.

 

It's not a problem with my argument, it's the actual problem. The point of the OP is that people want to ban guns, or trim off the Constitution, and either way doesn't work. There is no preventative measure to be taken. What needs to be done is the toughening of the laws, to make the crime, let alone the punishment be enough to make people not want the punishment, therefore not commit the crime.

 

People go to prison for years for possession of drugs.

Yet, drugs are still a huge question.

So I don't see how your argument holds up in light of reality and world that we live in.

 

Yes, prison is such a horrible punishment...not

 

Then what would you suggest without violating basic human rights?

 

Why would I want to protect the basic human rights of someone who violates a persons basic human rights? "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

 

Right. You just said you wanted to make the gun laws stricter and impose punishments that would convince people not to break the law.

So lets say someone has 11 imported parts in their semiautomatic, what punishment are they facing since prison is too light?

 

What crime is committed, since the weapon has 11 imported parts?

If you want a prison that works, it's not going to have Internet, it's not going to have TV, it's not going to have air conditioning, it's not going to have luxuries. If people on minimum wage can't have all the above, neither will people in jail. You will earn your rights in jail. If you want a run, outside, you will earn it. If you're a smoker, you will earn the privilege to smoke. You will also put back into the community, since you took from it. Hard labour! Failure to comply will result in longer sentence, until you learn to comply with your punishment. Prisoners will also be required to earn/work their stay, in the facility, so it is not a tax payers burden. my opinion, and I know of a place where this is currently in operation, and has a 98% non return rate.

 

It seems what we want is for "all of us to get along".

Well, it ain't gonna happen. Not until we all get enlightened. Again, ain't gonna happen.

There are quite a few examples where making more laws causes more problems! And even 'causes the invention of even more sinister ways of committing crime!

I would like to dis-invent the portion in our head that wants confrontation and aggression. Until then, give a fighting chance.

 

It seems what we want is for "all of us to get along".

Well, it ain't gonna happen. Not until we all get enlightened. Again, ain't gonna happen.

There are quite a few examples where making more laws causes more problems! And even 'causes the invention of even more sinister ways of committing crime!

I would like to dis-invent the portion in our head that wants confrontation and aggression. Until then, give a fighting chance.

 

Violation of the 1989 Import ban.

All of that seems to be geared more towards punishment than rehabilitation.

 

I would know of the 1989 import ban, why?

And you know what? Since there is a 98% non-return rate, I would say its perfect compared to the current system...

 

You claim that gun laws should have punishments so strict that no one will be willing to break them. That is a bit silly. However, that is beside the point. If you claim that violation of gun laws should be so tough that no one will ever break them. then I hope you know exactly what those gun laws are. How would you like to be sentenced to hard labor because you have one too many parts in your imported semi-automatic? Or because you took down a Thompson Encore rifle and assembled the pistol in the wrong order?

Are you sure you know enough about the subject to be making such harsh judgements?

I was unaware that prisons were required to make money. Wait, they are not.

 

I know the gun laws related to my country, which would be Canada. Maybe you should pay attention.

Where did I say prisons currently require to make money? I said they have a 98% non-return rate, as in people who have served their time, 98% don't go back, as in rehibilitated...again pay attention...

 

My apologies, I have no interest in discussing Canadian gun laws.

 

I didn't bring them into discussion, I mearly asked why I would know if the 1989 import ban, which should have prompted you to check where I was from. Since this is a world wide forum.