I feel that something needs to be done.

[jaron3]

I know that I don't have many posts to my name and I am not an eloquent writer like many of you on here but I find myself reading your posts and ,most of the time, not responding because my thoughts were already posted by someone else. I'm probably going to get slammed for this but I do love a good discussion so here goes. These recent shootings have brought something up to the front of my mind. I'm all for the right to bear arms and the 2A. However, I feel that there are people in this country that have no business having access to guns of any kind. I realize that the guns themselves, reguardless of what type, are not the problem. The problem lies in the person that is holding those guns. I realize that all shootings cannot be stopped. Let's face it. If a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it. But there have been many shootings in the last few years where the shooter obtained the guns that they have used legally. And these shooters also have something else going on. Of course they were mentally unstable but some of them were self-committed to hospitals for psycological help. Others have displayed other fringe tendancies. Maybe a lengthy criminal past but no "major" offences. I know a guy who's a paranoid scitzophrenic(sp) and has a 357. He is medicated but sometimes stops taking his medication because he doesn't like the way it makes him feel. I feel that these types of people need to be put into what I would call a high risk group. This group would be prohibited from owning guns. I'm not wanting to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Far from it. But these killings can not just be explained away as random anymore. There's too many consistencies. Do I think I have all the answers? Hell no. So please let me hear your thoughts. Thanks for reading.

[gnbrotz]

So if someone is taking medication, or not taking it (but you think they should be), they're not "law-abiding citizens"?

I'm completely disgusted by your suggestion.

The sooner people realize there is no foolproof way from stopping someone determined to commit violent acts the better. In the mean time, stay the hell away from interfering with my right to protect myself from an unpredictable threat.

[pirateron]

Someone who is mentally unstable can own guns, but someone who did something stupid when they were in their late teens (who hasn't) and served some time can't?

I'd rather have a gun in the hands of my 40 something friend, who served his time and has been a law abiding citizen for the last 20 years than some psyco who doesn't like the way his meds make him feel (normal?).

Problem is, where do you draw the line? Obviously, violent offenders shouldn't have guns legally (illegally seems to work fine for them). But, who do you rob constitutional rights from? Should mentally ill be banned from speaking their mind? How about those with a history of speaking about conspiracy theories? Lets ban them from freely talking. When you discuss the removal of one right guaranteed by the Constitution, you risk losing any or all other rights. If you ban one segmant of the population, it makes it easier to expand that ban to other demographics.









**** disclaimer**** This is just my opinion, not meant to be condescending or demeaning if contrary to others opinions on this subject.

[Kaos]

It all comes down to personal responsibility. If the person you know isn't responsible enough to handle his medication then that's his issue to worry about and not yours and certainly not mine.

It's a slippery slope when you start targeting people like this.

Let's lay out a scenario - let's say a man loses his wife and kids in a car accident and is prescribed some anti-depressants initially to help him out. If there was a law stating anyone ever on medication for such things was now prohibited it would be OK that he'd be done forever owning guns because his family died.

No thanks.

[jahwarrior72]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

So if someone is taking medication, or not taking it (but you think they should be), they're not "law-abiding citizens"?

I'm completely disgusted by your suggestion.

The sooner people realize there is no foolproof way from stopping someone determined to commit violent acts the better. In the mean time, stay the hell away from interfering with my right to protect myself from an unpredictable threat.

thank you for beating me to it, Greg. that was a lot more diplomatic than i could have managed.

[P-11 shooter]

Thanks for taking the time to post thought you knew weren't going to go over well.


I understand how these shootings can make someone feel powerless and start searching for any answer they can find to try to stop them. That being said you can't just start taking guns away from people for trivial reasons because they fit some kind of "profile"

Alot of people fit all kinds of profiles and it doesn't mean you should deny them of their rights when they haven't done anything. Not only is it wrong, it's un-constitutional. It truly is sad when someone that is legally allowed to obtain guns snaps and does something horrific but that's no excuse to punish everybody.

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument but it really is what we're talking about. It won't do anything to stop shooters and would alienate and outrage the people who have done absolutely wrong and were profiled buy an out of control government. It's just a bad idea all around. More gun control won't stop these shootings. More armed citizens may. If nothing else these people are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and if they start getting taken out the shooter before they can get a high body count it may dissuade others from trying it.

We need to allow licensed students to carry on campus. We need to offer free training to licensed citizens (like PA's great motorcycle course). We need to stop stigmitizing people for carrying firearms and get more people interested in defending themselves. And we need to stay valiant.

What we don't need is "profiling" people who have committed no crimes.


Your idea is absolutely terrible, but I'll rep you for having the balls to speak up. Please don't go away and continue to speak your mind. You may get flamed here and there but this is a discussion forum and it wouldn't be very good discussions if we all agreed with each other all the time.

[xxthe_beastxx]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

We need to offer free training to licensed citizens (like PA's great motorcycle course).

Not free. When I took the course, they told us that this is paid for by the additional cost added for the Class M put on your drivers license. I think that only costs an additional $4.00 every 4 years, but still not free.

I guess it would be free for anyone that did not walk away with a motorcycle license endorsement on their license. See, there is a reward for failure.....LOL

[Frenchy]

First off, you will find if you separate your thoughts into paragraphs, people will enjoy reading much more and the comments will differ/

Second, there are free spell checkers out there and they work well, you might get the wrong word in there if it is spelled right, but that is excusable.

Originally Posted by jaron3

I know that I don't have many posts to my name and I am not an eloquent writer like many of you on here but I find myself reading your posts and ,most of the time, not responding because my thoughts were already posted by someone else.

Seeing a newbie here has never surprised me that they say every thing has already been said, some of us do a lot of writing here.

Originally Posted by jaron3

I'm probably going to get slammed for this but I do love a good discussion so here goes.

A good discussion never gets slammed, debated yes, but not slammed, trooling and or inflammatory posts get slammed.

Originally Posted by jaron3

These recent shootings have brought something up to the front of my mind. I'm all for the right to bear arms and the 2A. However, I feel that there are people in this country that have no business having access to guns of any kind.

You are allowed to your opinions, I am allowed to mine, Anytime a police officer gets shot at, has to shoot some one, they get a few months of “Administrative” duty. This is because they have a mental condition natural to most humans called “doubt” and second guessing. They visit with a psychologist, some times take meds, and some day can resume their function as an armed police…

Originally Posted by jaron3

I realize that the guns themselves, reguardless of what type, are not the problem. The problem lies in the person that is holding those guns. I realize that all shootings cannot be stopped. Let's face it. If a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it. But there have been many shootings in the last few years where the shooter obtained the guns that they have used legally.

The problem with citizens is that the therapy is not free to us, and most times people will not admit to having a problem. This being said, the guy who loses his job, home, spouse… finds out his parents are dying, might take it with a different level of pains, and without the help the outcome may be very different.

So it is more a social problem then a personal problem, this being said we all have deceits and reasons to feel blue from time to time, some people have a better social network and that can help in curing their blues.

Originally Posted by jaron3

And these shooters also have something else going on. Of course they were mentally unstable but some of them were self-committed to hospitals for psycological help. Others have displayed other fringe tendancies.

Exactly what I just explained, and some of us have a social network that greatly helps remove this problem, I have a few members on here, If I had a problem I can reach out to and as friends they would help out.

Originally Posted by jaron3

Maybe a lengthy criminal past but no "major" offences. I know a guy who's a paranoid scitzophrenic(sp) and has a 357. He is medicated but sometimes stops taking his medication because he doesn't like the way it makes him feel.

As odd as it may seem, meds some times enhance how people feel, problems like Bi-polar and Schizophrenia are problems some one picks up in youth, proper therapy can greatly reduce them. Most ladies who had an abortion in their youths grow to be Bi-polar. Child abuse victims grow to have mental health problems..

Originally Posted by jaron3

I feel that these types of people need to be put into what I would call a high risk group. This group would be prohibited from owning guns.

Some perhaps, many can or could be helped greatly by therapy and or even strong “real” friendships with a social group that deals with their problem… Alcoholics anonymous: Is a prime example for people who drink too much or do not know when to stop for their own good or the good of the people around them. We do have a few ex Drunks Sorry Alcoholics who know they can no longer drink here

Originally Posted by jaron3

I'm not wanting to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Far from it. But these killings can not just be explained away as random anymore. There's too many consistencies. Do I think I have all the answers? Hell no. So please let me hear your thoughts. Thanks for reading.

Like I said, the problem is a social problem, most of it could be eliminated by a strong Social network, Unfortunately, the most popular social network is church and many are strictly against this now, Other networks are so taboo that people do not want to be associated with them.

Teaching people to get past their social taboos is probably the best answer I could give you. The Phrase, God will lead you THROUGH the fires not around them, is some thing I strongly believe in.

[TaePo]

Instead of spanking you, let me take the bull by the horns.

Did you ever think that maybe the problem is that if everyone carried, the 'crazies' or disenfranchised amongst us would not last very long?

Maybe they kill or wound 2-3 people then they go down in a hail of bullets by people on the scene.

You will be amazed that even crazy people (I would dare say a majority) don't want that outcome. They may wish to suicide by proxy but they want to hurt as many others as possible to make a statement or for vengeance, whatever. The point being, even they would realize after a few cases that it isn't worth doing it that way. The people refuse to be terrorized, and the people fight back quickly.

Just sayin'.

Is the criminal (or crazy) to blame for getting away with it, or are we sheeple to blame for allowing it to go on, and on and on? I include us gun owners as sheeple until such time we can convince the others to take the responsibility. Then we would all be sheep dogs and no longer sheeple.

(Please note I am not speaking of vigilantism, I am talking about immediate self defense use of force)

[armabill]

If you would read again where and to whom these shootings have happened to, you'll see that the victims were all unarmed.

Taking away the tool for self defense is not going to solve the problem. As mentioned before, it's a social problem.

If more guns were in the hands of good, honest people, then those with evil ideas would most likely think twice about what they are going to do.