Would you be willing to sacrifice some gun "freedoms" if you thought it could prevent 1 VTech every 10 years?

Question

And I ask this primarily of the "pry my gun out of my cold dead hands" crowd.

Is there anything that would make you willing to compromise with the other side when it comes to gun ownership?

So here it is: Your chance to make your best reasoned, rational response to this question which has been posed so many times, so many different ways in the last 2 days...

Jedi, I agree about the sheep part, but one of the ways in which we are sheep, I submit to you, is in the fact that we let lobbyists determine economic and social realities for us, just because they flash a wad of cash at congress at the right time and place. I'm talking about the NRA, here.

Answer 1

The same crowd that wouldn't drive one mile less a week or turn down their thermostat one degree if they thought it would turn back global warming are the ones who wouldn't want any changes in the law as it stands because they want to keep a gun in their truck rack or a handgun in the sock drawer to shoot their neighbor some night when they are liquored up and get good and mad over where the neighbor sets his garbage can, or parks his car. Which is to say, they are obliviously fine with the law that made this tragedy possible.
As for me, I am for zero accessibility to guns, zero tolerance for gun criminals, gun buybacks, gun confiscations in some cases. Cowards use guns, just the same as they do message boards, to do what they would lack the nerve to do face to face bare-handed. this I honestly believe, and have seen a lot of evidence to confirm.

Answer 2

I'm not one of that crowd necessarily, however I believe we are way past the point of no return when it comes to removing guns from society. Even if today we made guns completely illegal, how many decades would it be before the guns that are out there now were flushed from the system?

Further, there is the question of an imbalance in power. The government and its agents (police, FBI, etc, etc) already have a great deal of power over the common citizen, a power that has been abused from time to time in the past and will likely be abused in the future. Would it be fine if only the police had guns? Only the military?

It is true that guns give any person the ability to take life at a much higher rate than a knife or other handheld weapon...But if you look at societies throughout history, even before guns were available, you will find massacres and bloodbaths far exceeding those rare tragedies we have seen over the past few years.

While I am very much in favor of general gun control, background checks, and restriction of automatic weaponry, I can't see banning firearms as a true solution to the problems at hand. Understanding the underlying stresses that drive students to such acts would provide a much more effective solution, I believe.

Answer 3

If I was convinced that it would make a difference, then I would be willing to make some concessions.

However, people who are intent on going on murderous rampages will NOT let stricter gun control laws stand in their way.

Stricter gun ownership laws simply take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Potential criminals will not let such a minor deterrent hinder them.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be a certain amount of control. I do not want to see people buying guns without background checks... etc.

Answer 4

The gunman in this case broke probably a dozen laws in order to commit this crime, so how in the world would additional laws actually prevent such an occurrence in the future?

In addition, had one or more of the students who encountered the attacker been armed, he may not have killed as many people.

Life is full of trade-offs; solutions don't exist. Gun control laws will only be followed by the law-abiding. Those (particularly criminals) who have an overriding incentive to possess firearms will do so regardless of what laws exist. Gun control laws simply disarm potential victims.

Answer 5

Am pretty much in agreement with all the answers previous to mine. Am not a member of the NRA or a hunter but do not want a minority to be in charge. It is a person's right to bear arms and defend one's self.
We can all scrutinize much better the judges put in power, use one central system to check individuals that shouldn't buy a gun, be better eyes and ears, get involved instead of closing our ears and lock up the guns we have, when not in use.

Answer 6

All the would haves, could haves, should haves still wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not willing to give up any freedoms to prevent this again, we're to much of a nation of sheep as it is.

Answer 7

For a pink haired chick, Scruffy is smart, she hit the nail right on the head...

Anyone willing to committ murder X- 32 is willing to violate minor gun laws. To bad lawmakers have less since than Scruffy; it truly amazes me how politics effect actual law...

Answer 8

i'm a fan of sensible gun control: background checks, liscensing, child safeties, etc... only an idiot wouldn't be. but i don't think that any reasonable amount of gun control can prevent crazy people hell-bent on hurting others from doing it. if they're that far gone, they're not gonna think twice about breaking gun laws. and there's always been a black market for guns.