Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
I really don't understand this argument
I've heard a lot of people say we shouldn't enact stricter regulations because "gun control laws won't prevent another shooting because criminals will find guns anyway." That argument really makes no sense to me because then I guess we shouldn't have any laws because criminals will break the law anyway. Laws don't eradicate crimes altogether but they do act as a deterrent and if stricter gun control prevents even just one person from committing such a heinous crime as a mass shooting then it has to be worth it. Those lives saved must be worth it.
Re: I really don't understand this argument
Welcome to the contradictory nature of much of the pro-gun side of the debate.
The UO thread on my BMB has largely turned (on this topic) to getting uneasy over the sudden clamor for "BAN ALL ZE GUNS!"
Which no one is saying...
Details, details.
Oh, and anti-politicization. Because as we've seen after such incidents as Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora, the Sikh Temple, if we don't talk about it right away, we'll all still remember our outrage once the next big media event happens.
Oh, wait.
Laws are not created to prevent crimes from taking place, but rather, to make sure there is a cost to committing them.
Isn't there a big debate to be had over whether laws are preventative or punitive?
Isn't there a second big debate to be had on why, when it comes to guns, we think the legal system is a useless waste of time but we delight in legislating everything else from drugs to what a woman can do with her own body?
Girl, don't get me started. I may be a die hard conservative but the one area I can be considered liberal is when it comes to the criminal justice system and the rights of those formerly incarcerated.
I also find some irony in that liberals staunchly defend a women's right to choose but then want to limit an individual right to bear arms.
And don't get me wrong...I hate guns with a passion. My DH is a former military man and we do have one handgun in the house...and I detest it with everything I have.
Note that most liberals are also fans of limiting a woman's right to choose. Very few people are proponents of, say, late-term abortions.
No, abort all the babies and take away all the guns. That's my new liberal line. I like it. FFS.
I have several liberal pro choice friends who will defend a woman's right to choose to their death....but do not support late term abortions. Most of them say it becomes a grey area when the fetus is viable.
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack...
Really? In both cases they want to give women autonomy over their own bodies - in the abortion case it's about choosing not to be pregnant, and in the gun control case its about choosing not to get shot by some crazy with a gun.
Why do you let your husband keep a gun in your house if you don't want it there?
All I said is that I hate guns, I don't care if DH has one, I just don't share his enthusiasm and have no desire to go to a shooting range, etc. It also helps that the gun is packed away in the basement and we don't have any ammunition.
Gun control doesn't give us freedom from getting shot by some crazy with a gun. Where there is a will, there is a way and even if guns were totally outlawed the "bad guys" would still find a way to get their hands on a gun.
You're right. Which is exactly why we should make it as easy as possible for them. --Waitwut?
Well this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe guns are the real issue. It is a deeper issue than that, whether it be mental illness or extreme religious/political views it isn't all about the guns.
Take, for example the 9/11 attacks, the perpetrators did not use guns. They used box cutters and a commercial airplanes. Timothy McVey didn't use a gun he used ammonium nitrate and motor-racing fuel.
The mentality of people like this also needs to be explored and not just a knee jerk reaction for gun control which, I don't believe, will really solve the problem.
No, gun control won't completely solve the issue. Obviously there are other aspects that need to be explored - I think everyone seems to agree that we have shitty mental health care in this country and it's actually really hard for many people to get the help they need.
However, gun control is part of the problem. How one can deny that, I'll never understand. We've got to start somewhere, right? Making guns harder to get, making people go through training before even being able to handle a gun at a store (I think someone wrote this is something they do in Canada), along with other required safety measures will surely save some lives. It will. You can't deny that.
I think you misunderstand me. I also think that there are deeper issues - our society is inherently more violent. The true causes of America's violence will take generations to solve, if ever.
In fact, I would not be surprised if we had a higher percentage of people that want to commit mass murder than our OECD counterparts, which again is why we should make it as easy as possible to obtain mass killing machines. --Waitwut?
Exactamundo! Gun control is definitely part of the problem -- why we can't all get on board with that, I will never understand. Yes, there are other factors that need to be addressed and they should be addressed but we must address the gun factor. It's like if you have a problem with your car - it won't run and it's because your engine is broken and there are several things happening at once/causing the engine failure. You don't just avoid or ignore one of the major things that's not making it work. You work on all of it to fix it.
Well I was in 4th grade when Columbine happened so this is something I feel I've very much grown up with. VA Tech happened 4 months before I started college... in Virginia. Plenty of people at my school, even at my freshman orientation, knew people who were students at Tech, knew people whose friends had died there. I'm tired of that mentality for me, and hate that right when I decided to bring another life into this world, even elementary schools can't be counted on to be a safe environment.
I also don't understand how we think we're more inherently violent. Other countries have access to the exact same movies, games, etc. I think we see more violence because we don't restrict the means with which to cause it as much as most other places, I really do. Don't places without guns everywhere still see plenty of violent crime, but ultimately less murder?
I also think you can't compare 9/11 or OKC with anything to do with guns. Guns are impulsive. Guns are accessible. It takes time and planning and a whole different breed of crazy to hijack airplanes or bomb a building. How many US gun deaths a year are the result of domestic disputes that got out of hand and ended in a fit of passion and rage? Bombs aren't like that. By their nature they really can't be.
Unrelated to that, but has anyone here been to the OKC bombing memorial? I was there a few months ago and it is the most heart-wrenchingly moving thing I've ever experienced. Amazingly put together.
Precisely my point. Just as you'll be hard-pressed to find a lot of pro-choice liberals who support late term and partial birth abortions, I think you'd also find a lot of avid gun supporters who draw a line somewhere, be it with assault weapons or fully automatic weapons or somewhere else. Very few things exist without limitations at all, and I think these are the types of issues where most people agree that limitations are a good thing, even if they can't agree what those limitations should be.
ok, now i feel extremely old.
I totally agree. Other countries have crazy people, people in other countries see violent movies. We are the only industrialized country that gives people the technology and capability to carry out such widespread bloodshed and it must stop. I loved this article from the new york times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/collins-looking-for-america.html?_r=0
I am not saying we need to have a gun free for all. There should be limitations. I don't have a problem banning assault rifles, I don't have a problem with background check, waiting periods or mandatory training. I simply think there is more to the story than gun control. I also fear knee jerk reaction legislation which is hastily passed in response to a horrific event.
We, as a society, are given a constitutional right to bear arms and I don't want all people to pay the price for the sins of others. I believe that most (not all) people who own guns are responsible, law abiding citizens - they should not have their right to bear arms taken away.
I give up. I completely and utterly give up.
How many different ways can the idea of restrictions be discussed without the "other side" interpreting as the "right to bear arms taken away"? THIS right here is why no productive conversation can come of this. Why is it flucking punishment to allow someone to own a hunting rifle and a handgun but not a military-grade assault rifle?
We are given a constitutional right to free speech; this does not give me the right to libel, slander, or yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say "right to bear any form of arm ever invented." You have no right to bear nuclear weapons or hand grenades or land mines.
This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific event; it is a cumulative reaction to dozens of horrific events. Dozens of horrific events that no one has done anything about.
You want to see a knee-jerk reaction, look up Australia and the Port Arthur Massacre. Incredibly knee-jerk reaction.
And yet in 16 years since, Australia has never seen another comparable incident.
Lexi is my personal hero. ILY, girl.
Lexi, I agree with what you are saying. And YOU may not want to completely do away with guns but there are some people who are crying for that.
As far as the knee jerk reaction, yes any legislation that if passed in the next few weeks would be a reaction to the most recent horrific events.
All I am saying is that I would like to see some time taken to consider all the causes of these types of horrific events and what is the BEST course of action that will truly have an impact in keeping these things from happening in the future. Basically, I would rather wait and come up with helpful legislation versus passing bad legislation right now which may not really help in the long run.
I love this! I'm using this!!
It's a GIRL!
It's okay; another day, another debate, and I know you'll all go back to crushing on Geraldo.
And how many more innocent lives must be lost before we take any action? It can take years to analyze "all the causes". People have been analyzing them since Columbine in 1999 and before. You'd rather wait longer...really? We've already waited too long -- too many lives have been lost. Shame on all of us. How many more of these events have to occur before we finally wake up.