Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Step 1 : make sure all health database on mental health patient are connected
Step 2: check that the buyer is not on the list
Step 3: add a waiting period
Step 4: add a gun license where you have to go thru real training, get insurance coverage, and have an inspection at home showing the safe for the gun and ammo (bonus : you need additional people hired for this, which can be paid by the license cost, thus reducing joblessness and add the cost burden on the gun owner). Think driving license, driving schooling, regular mandated check on the car (iow gun safe inspection), car insurance, but for gun.
Step 5: Enforce regular schooling

It will not help in ALL case, and it might not have helped in this case but it would cut in some cases from the past years, and it would certainly cut in the (IIRC) hundred of children which are wounded or die in gun accident each years. And since it does not forbid gun carrying, CCW, gun owning, or forbid specific type of guns, neither does it forbid gun to specific persons, and just make sure training and safe keeping, NRA can get a hike.
 
Susheel said:
I am not sure what a waiting period is supposed to achieve with regard to guns. However, I can't see any reason why mandatory background checks and licensing/permits cannot be implemented. It may not solve the problem entirely, but it may, in some way limit the crazies from gaining access to guns.

But, I am not American. So what do I know?
Click to expand...

In case of people planning a murder the waiting period is not supposed to do much (well except the case you want an immediate revenge).

In case of suicide , on the other hand it is supposed to help a lot.

IOW : it helps in case of impulsive actions.
 
Classic mistake by the victims - letting whitey into the bible study without searching him for weapons.
 
Ziggurat said:
And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.
Click to expand...
Absolutely scary post. Without a gun women are defenseless? Logically wrong. Statistically (real world) wrong. And, worst of all, attitude wrong. The attitude that having a gun creates safety. It does not. But it does lead to the kind of society we have: shoot 'em up.

Disgusting.
 
Ziggurat said:
And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.
Click to expand...
What do you think happens here in the UK to women under threat of domestic violence? Perhaps they report the threat to the police, who in the course of their normal duties don't carry guns either.
 
Craig B said:
What do you think happens here in the UK to women under threat of domestic violence? Perhaps they report the threat to the police, who in the course of their normal duties don't carry guns either.
Click to expand...

And the police do what? Babysit the woman 24/7 indefinitely? Go arrest the loser if they have enough evidence and hope he cools off while in jail? Take a report and follow up later?

As someone paid by the government to carry a gun and enforce the law I can vouch that the gun helps. But, you do need the training and the mindset to use it if necessary. If guns didn't solve certain problems so well police wouldn't carry them.
 
rommelrommel said:
And the police do what? Babysit the woman 24/7 indefinitely? Go arrest the loser if they have enough evidence and hope he cools off while in jail? Take a report and follow up later?
Click to expand...
Probably it depends on the circumstances of the case. Here is an article on police responses to domestic violence in Scotland. Advising women to go away and arm themselves is not one of the measures described.

What happens in the USA? Women who feel threatened carry a gun 24/7, and never sleep or relax their vigilance? Would-be abusers don't respond by carrying guns themselves? Are women to bump off their partners if they feel threatened? Does this eliminate or even reduce the incidence of domestic violence in the USA? Perhaps not
Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men report being physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. In the United States, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44.
Click to expand...
I suspect the figures are lower than that here, though I can't find a comparable datum.

Even more remarkable is the suggestion made by a NRA board member
Board member Charles Cotton ... posted a comment online blaming the pastor killed in the South Carolina shooting, Clementa Pinckney, for the death of his eight congregants.
Cotton ... pointed out on a Texas gun forum that Pinckney was a state senator who had voted against a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without permits.

“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”
Click to expand...
So, get ready for a shoot-out before you go to Church? Wow!

Do you have a view on Cotton's remarks? Or can you distinguish them from your own ideas on the proper conduct for women threatened by domestic violence?
 
rommelrommel said:
As someone paid by the government to carry a gun and enforce the law I can vouch that the gun helps. But, you do need the training and the mindset to use it if necessary. If guns didn't solve certain problems so well police wouldn't carry them.
Click to expand...

To be fair though, we pay the police to seek out just those "certain problems." This is why other government officials are not typically armed.
 
logger said:
Which proposed gun laws would have stopped this?
Click to expand...

Any gun law which made it impossible for a 21 year old or his father to walk into a shop and buy a gun.

Sure, it is always possible to get a gun if you really want, but having to go to outlaws to buy it does hold most people off.

Hans
 
Ziggurat said:
Roof purchased the gun in April. It was more than a month before he murdered those people. How long a wait period do you think would have worked? Even if it had been, say, a 3 month waiting period, why should we believe he wouldn't have just waited, rather than giving up on his plan?
Click to expand...

No, you will either have to face a total gun ban or live with cases like this.

And lastly, why do you want poor women under threat of domestic violence to be unable to defend themselves? Because that's what a waiting period does: it renders them defenseless.
Click to expand...

Shooting the abuser is hardly a good solution. You want them to end in jail, on top of all their other proeblems?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
We've been over this before. The statistics show that owning a gun doesn't help protect women from domestic violence. In fact, owning a gun makes a woman more likely to be shot in a domestic violence situation.
Click to expand...

Or by the police after it is used in self defense.
 
rommelrommel said:
And the police do what? Babysit the woman 24/7 indefinitely? Go arrest the loser if they have enough evidence and hope he cools off while in jail? Take a report and follow up later?

As someone paid by the government to carry a gun and enforce the law I can vouch that the gun helps. But, you do need the training and the mindset to use it if necessary. If guns didn't solve certain problems so well police wouldn't carry them.
Click to expand...

And if prayer didn't work, people wouldn't do it...
 
SezMe said:
Absolutely scary post. Without a gun women are defenseless? Logically wrong. Statistically (real world) wrong. And, worst of all, attitude wrong. The attitude that having a gun creates safety. It does not. But it does lead to the kind of society we have: shoot 'em up.
.
Click to expand...

So why let police carry?
 
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Guns last for many years, bullets are consumables.

It may take many, many years, but if ammunition becomes harder to get hold of, perhaps eventually guns will become less prevalent.

Just out of curiousity, are bullets given a 'use by date'? Or if you found some ammunition that was, say, 70 years old, would you feel safe handling it or attempting to use it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom