Almalieque wrote:
The problem with your analysis is that you're focusing on reacting the crime as opposed to preventing the crime.
I think we can do both. The problem really is that there's very little data to support the idea that limits on carry (especially concealed carry) short of a full elimination of our 2nd amendment will reduce the total number of shootings, while there's lots of data that supports the idea that such limits do result in greater statistical fatalities/injuries when shootings do occur. Yet, limiting carry (and ownership) rights is the first (and often only) solution proposed by some people in response to shootings like this.
You're creating an either/or situation where none has to exist. There are tons of other social factors we can look at that cause these sorts of shooting events to occur, and which we could look into in an attempt to reduce their occurrence rate. I just think that some people put their anti-gun agenda ahead of the real problem here. Every solution is "fewer guns" in their minds. That's a problem.
Quote:
The store that sold this Soldier the firearm is the same store who sold the previous firearm in the previous Ft. Hood shooting. Is it the store owner's fault? No, but we should definitely look at the process of how the firearms are being sold FIRST, then look at potentially reacting to those who still break the system. This is opposed to the other way around as you propose.
I'm not sure what the "other way around" you're talking about is. Was there anything specifically about the conditions of the firearm purchase that you think we could change? I haven't been following this shooting that closely, so I'm honestly not aware of the details in this regard. Did this guy have a history of mental illness? Anything that the store owner could have clued in on? Anything we could remotely tie legislation to?
Cause barring that, we're left with the broad "just make it harder for everyone to own/use/carry a firearm". Which isn't really a solution IMO. Presumably, the guy who's fixated on killing a bunch of people in some kind of blaze of glory thing, is going to be far more willing to go through whatever hoops to obtain a gun (including going around any legal obstacles if needed), while the guy who thinks "maybe I'll buy a gun for home protection, just in case" is far more likely to be prevented from doing so by additional obstacles. So are we really helping the problem? Or just using it to pursue an agenda?
Edited, Apr 4th 2014 5:13pm by gbaji