Multiple deaths, including children, at Connecticut school shooting

Your points are good ones.

Are we just trying to address mass shootings or gun violence overall? Can we live with Chicago but not with Sandy Hook? The answer might be "yes."

 

Sadly, I don't think we are ever going to be 100% without the Sandy Hooks and Virginia Techs of the world...and no amount of gun control will ever prevent an insane person from doing massive damage if they put their demented minds to it. This is a lot like the health insurance problem...it would be nice if something could be done to rectify the problem, but doing something just to "do something" is not any kind of an answer. Look at Obamacare (hate to drag this into the conversation, but it kind of proves the point I am trying to make). Obamacare will now add $6 trillion to the deficit according to the CBO. It has already bent the cost curve up. It's already a massive failure, and it has not been completely implemented yet. But, according to some, doing nothing was not an option. Something HAD to be done...well, something was done, and it's shaping up to be a debacle.

We need a responsible law that addresses mental health as well as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We don't need to do something that probably will not make one bit of difference, will cost a ton of money and will add more layers of government...just because "something has to be done" in response to Sandy Hook.

 

What law do you suggest to address mental health?

 

Although I am completely on board with you that "something" is better than "nothing" is a terrible policy argument, but your Obamacare claim is misleading. First of all, that $6.2 trillion figure is over 75 years. Second, assumes the cost-containment provisions would be eliminated. A big if.

 

I always get a laugh somebody posts something like you just did, but then won't explain themselves.

In Heller, SCOTUS wrote "'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." Given the number of accidental shootings in the USA, I'd say a lot of my fellow gun owners don't have proper discipline and/or training.

 

That's an entirely different argument. I was just using Obamacare to make the point about the "something" is better than "nothing" approach to legislating.

 

And, correction: I meant I'm on board that "something" is not necessarily better than "nothing."

This is the Dooley_Womack argument from the Political Thread - i.e. essentially that good intentions justify poor policy.

 

But Inky is trained & disciplined, so don't come looking to take any of his 75 guns.

 

Yes, I am.

And if one of the requirements of owning a firearm is determined to be mandatory completion of safety courses, I'd gladly take said classes.

 

That cracked me up.

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/10/gabby-giffords-husband-buys-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-arizona-gun-shop-54866

A site that is clearly taking a specific vent on the gun issue posted this, and a die-hard Republican friend of mine passed it along on Facebook.

I have to say, I am not happy to see Mark Kelly holding or buying the AR-15. In truth, I am a little mystified by him doing it. Anybody bothered by this -- regardless of his reasons, and considering recent events. My Republican friend went on a "hypocracy of it all" rant (which I can understand....even if he overdid it).

Thoughts.......?

 

I don't get it. Was he buying it to prove some point?

Regardless, I give as much weight to Mark Kelly's opinion before the purchase as I do after it: Not much.