The father of one of the six college students killed in California during the Isla Vista shootings has repeated his call for stricter gun laws and condemned the US government and "powerful gun lobby" for failing to enact change. More: theguardian.com.

Yes No, it's good now No, it should be less strict see voting resultssaving...
6 opinions, 2 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
2 votes
Jun 14, 2015

California has some of the most restrictive gun-control laws on the books as it is, and still failed to stop the shooting.

The red-flags regarding mental health were flown, seen, and called into the police regarding the incident in question. Still, the police did not prevent it, and it almost doesn't matter why they did not.

Trying to stop a premeditated act by a human via a static defense like the Law simply will not work because, as we have seen, those with the determination to die in order to cause great destruction will plan around these laws until it's time to act.

Edit: Just to add, there is no clear evidence that gun control or legal gun ownership contribute significantly to overall violent crime rates either way. That fact raises a question as to why some politicians so desperately want to strip firearms from the population.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
Jun 14, 2015

What's really disgusting is how much the anti-gun people will cry about how many people die by firearms every year, especially in these mass shooting, which if you look at the numbers claim a pathetically small number of lives. Most "gun deaths" are suicides, and if you discount those, the next largest number are those involved in the gun trade, usually the result of gang violence. I feel sorry for those lives lost to mass shooters, but the numbers just aren't very high, and there's much more important problems to tackle.

If you really want to stop people dying senseless deaths, here's the things that need to be fixed:
1) stop the stupid drug war. It's killing huge numbers of people, ruining lives, and costing a fortune, with our country having 10 times the incarceration rate of other western countries.
2) institute universal healthcare, including mental healthcare.
3) build the SkyTran system so people don't need cars so much and can commute and travel in automated pods. Driving deaths are one of the biggest killers of people in our country, and it's worse when you consider that cars kill everyone equally, unlike age-related diseases like heart disease which mainly kill older people who've already had decades of life.
4) tax the 0.01% and institute real regulation on industries so that the middle class is strengthened and people aren't stressed out all the time.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No, it should be less strict.
0 votes,
Jun 14, 2015

Really.

1. So you have problem with drugs that can cause addiction when they are tried the first time? Unless you plan on giving them away, you're still going to have crime and incarceration of people trying to support their habits. I would agree we need more focus on the "drug war".

2. Have you ever seen universal healthcare? I have and it's in the US, it's call Indian Health Services, and once you see it you'll never want to be part of it, but if you think it's still a good idea, here's some advice from many people who have used it, "Don't get sick after June." That because that's when the money runs out, you see government healthcare is always rationed and those with the money can afford any and all the healthcare they want.

3. The SkyTran system MIGHT work in a populated area, but it won't work for 90% of the US. I live in the midwest and trust me it can be miles between houses much less towns so I don't think you can afford the cost of $10 million per mile when you're going to serve less then 10,000. I live 90 miles from the first city of any size, so just going from my town to that city would cost 900 million to build and that would service (if you count all the small towns and surrounding area) of less then a 50,000 people give or take and they would still have to drive to my town.

4. the top .01% that's the top .0001 of federal tax payers, I'm assuming you mean the top 1% who already pay 30.2 percent of the tax bill. How much more do you want them to pay? You can look up the numbers if you wish the IRS publishes them. But there are many "tax payers" who pay no federal tax or get more back than they "paid" in. Even if you took all their money (top 1%) the government would have spent it all before 5 months were up. What we need to do is shut down a LOT of programs and learn to live withing our means.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Jun 14, 2015

The last mass murderer killed 3 of his victims with a knife. Had he not had a knife or a gun, all he would have had to do was drive his car into a crowd of people crossing the street. This young man's parents reported their son as a potential problem. The police interviewed them but took no further steps and this isn't the first time this has happened. Laws need to be changed so that potentially dangerous mental patients can be held for evaluation. It isn't the guns, the knives, or the cars. Its the lack of ability to deal with mental illness.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Jun 14, 2015

I think the only way that stricter gun control laws could have had an effect on this incident is if the law banned gun purchases/ownership for everyone who ever had any kind of treatment for any mental health problem. Such a law would be unfair to people who have been treated and healed of mental health problems, it may in the long run cause more people to hesitate to receive mental health care, particularly if they enjoy the sport of hunting, and such a law would not have prevented the stabbings and the people being run over with a car that were also associated with this incident.

I sympathize with the parents of those slain, but I also recognize that when one's child dies, there is a natural tendency toward anger and irrationality. If I had a son or daughter who died in this incident, I'd probably want to ban knives and cars as well as guns. But we cannot make laws based on the anger and grief of the victims. Laws should be carefully thought out and ALL of the parties who could potentially be affected by the law, both now and in future generations, must be taken into consideration.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 14, 2015

States have the right to regulate the buying and selling of Guns. The Feds also have a law for everything intrusive in our daily lives. We have more gun laws on the books at present. All that is required; Is acting DA's And Asst States attorneys start handling cases that these laws are a part of. This will eliminate a lot of the drama that is being bantered about. Mental Health in most mass shootings plays a significant role. Guns And Mental Illness do not mix.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 14, 2015

Unless by gun control, you mean reducing (deescalating) the paramilitary stance and the militarization of certain California law enforcement agencies (read: police), then no... no more infringement on the Constitutional right of the citizens to bear arms...

No...more...

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 14, 2015

More laws to curtail the rights of lawful gun owners has very little effects for those who care little about observing the law to begin with. We are the victims of our own freedom; the only choice we have to make is do we want to keep our freedoms or do we want to eliminate them so that we feel "safe"? The only true way we can eliminate gun violence is to treat gun violence not like a law enforcement issue but a national security issue, suspend habeus corpus and all constitutional rights and send in armed security/military into those areas where gun violence is prevalent. The cops know who are the criminals but the thing that stops their arrest is the US Constitution and that "little thing" called "due process" and probable cause. Is that what we want to surrender so that we "feel safe"? I do not and here's why: besides that fact that I am a "lawful gun owner", I know that despite all the sensational news stories, gun violence is actually in decline. It is one political party which wants us unarmed so that we are even more dependent on government services. I prefer to defend myself first and call the cops later after I have neutralized the threat; this is preferably far better than waiting for them to come "save me"!

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: