God Bless America

Topic

New Reply

So sad how far we’ve fallen

6 users thanked author for this post.

CADesertRat, Charlie, WSbobby-p, Myst, Cybertooth, fernlady

Reply | Quote

Replies

So sad guns are still sold freely

4 users thanked author for this post.

BobbyB, dgc-art, duke1949, Andy M

Reply | Quote

“So sad guns are still sold freely”

If someone wants a gun they’ll get it. But to buy a gun there’s a long list of criteria the buyer must meet in order to take it out of the shop.

”In order to buy a gun from a licensed firearm seller [in the USA], a buyer must present a valid driver’s license or ID from the state the sale is taking place in. Then they must fill out a multiple page form (4473) that requires the following information;

Name
Address
Place of Birth
Height
Weight
Sex
Birthdate
Ethnicity
Race
Citizenship
Then the buyer must answer if;

They are the purchaser of the gun
They are under indictment for a felony
They are a convicted felon
They are a fugitive from justice
They are addicted to drugs (incl marijuana)
They have been deemed mentally incapacitated
They have been dishonorably discharged from the military
They have been convicted of domestic battery
After they swear to all that, then the FFL Seller does a background check which will verify most of the information. If the buyer doesn’t have a concealed weapon license, they can’t take possession of the gun until after the 3 day waiting period, not including holidays and weekends.”

Reference link – https://www.quora.com/Why-is-USA-selling-guns-so-freely

MacOS iPadOS and sometimes SOS

6 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, CADesertRat, Mr. Austin, Cybertooth, cyberSAR, WSbobby-p

Reply | Quote

And lets not forget US state licensing laws which can be extremely restrictive.  Without possession of a valid license you can’t legally purchase a firearm.  You don’t even get to the step where a Federal form and its requirements are in force.

 

 

 

5 users thanked author for this post.

Myst, CADesertRat, Mr. Austin, Cybertooth, cyberSAR

Reply | Quote

Yep. Although the ‘waiting’ periods are different in some states. A few are longer.

Human, who sports only naturally-occurring DNA ~ oneironaut ~ broadcaster

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

So sad guns are still sold freely

This is my opinion.

How come every time an act of violence in the US involves a gun, someone suggest that “ease of buying a gun” is the cause of the violence and imply that “more strict laws” would have prevented the violence from occurring? So, following that logic, if suddenly there are no more guns then there will be no more violence? So, I guess we need to ban cars (that were used to run down people in crowds), crop fertilizers (that was used to blow up a building and kill people), knifes (many deaths due to those), etc; and if someone commits an act of violence using a computer (which occurs on a larger scale than guns) we will need to ban computers next? Sound outlandish? Banning these items and guns will NOT stop the acts of violence. Why? These items are tools. Acts of violence originate from a person and will occur no matter what that person choses to use as a tool to enact that violence. Do you really think the person says “I can’t get a gun, so I won’t commit that violent act”?

The solution to these acts of violence is a complex problem that is NOT going to be solved by concentrating on the tools used to carry out the act of violence. Want proof? Just look at places where guns are totally banned. Has that banning stopped all violent acts or has it just changed the tool used to carry out acts?

I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I am anti-violence. I just want to point out that concentrating on guns and spending our efforts/resources in actions against guns (in the US and elsewhere) has not solved the acts of violence problem and maybe our efforts would yield better results looking for different solutions.

HTH, Dana:))

10 users thanked author for this post.

CADesertRat, Donny H, Myst, Mr. Austin, EricB, fernlady, Cybertooth, Charlie, cyberSAR, WSbobby-p

Reply | Quote

I agree with you Drcard:)) with this exception:  I don’t see the need for military styled assault weapons in the hands of the general public.  These weapons were once banned from being sold to the general public, but are back again.  It seems clear what their primary use is under these conditions.  You don’t take an assault weapon with you to “hunt”.  Give that deer a chance.  This is my opinion.

Being 20 something in the 70's was far more fun than being 70 something in the insane 20's

4 users thanked author for this post.

WSbobby-p, RetiredGeek, fernlady, JC Zorkoff

Reply | Quote

I also agree with Drcard, however, I don’t agree with Charlie.  What was the purpose of the second amendment?  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The primary reason for this amendment was not for hunting.  It was for citizens’ defense against foreign invasion and federal overreach, to general safety and protection of life, liberty, and property.  If, God forbid, citizens were to face foreign invaders or tyrannical government forces armed to the teeth, sticks and stones aren’t going to provide much of a defense.

Drcard is right, guns are only a tool, we need to dig down and find what is the real underlying issue for these acts of violence.  In my opinion, we need to take a hard look at the gaming industry.  I don’t know how many times I’ve read of these acts of violence occurring, and upon investigation, it is found the perpetrator was a gamer.  Unstable individuals don’t have the ability to differentiate between make-believe and reality.  They become some so ingrained to their make-believe environment, that they can’t understand that in real life, if you kill someone, they don’t get another life.  It’s game over.  If you get killed, you don’t have multiple lives.  It’s game over.  Real life isn’t Jumanji.  If we believe that as a society, we need to incorporate some kind of “control” to curtail these acts, this is the place to start.

1 user thanked author for this post.

CADesertRat

Reply | Quote

Whenever the argument is made that “something is not needed” to justify government regulation I am deeply concerned.

This is an extremely slippery slope.

Do we “need” automobiles that can exceed 15 mph?  Think how many lives could be saved, horrible injuries avoided and property damage eliminated.  What a wonderful goal.  What a completely unworkable way to live.

Do we need air conditioning?  How much power should we be allowed to use? Really? I’m sure you don’t really “need” air conditioning.

And the list of social engineering objectives that could turn into regulation based on this thinking could be endless.

No thank you!!

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

111 degrees last week where I live.  Honey I NEED air conditioning.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

4 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, SueW, WSbobby-p, TechTango

Reply | Quote

That’s exactly the point!

Of course its possible that some zealot could argue that the world survived before the advent of air conditioning.  So therefore its not actually necessary.

Life decisions shouldn’t be left to social engineering experiments pushed into regulations.

Reply | Quote

EricB wrote:

Of course its possible that some zealot could argue that the world survived before the advent of air conditioning. So therefore its not actually necessary.

Not to minimize our current climate issues, I grew up without air conditioning.  My parents didn’t have air conditioning until after I returned from my tour of duty in the USAF.  They had an attic fan, a large, quite-running fan that pulled air through a vent in the ceiling and exhausted it through the attic.

It served the dual purpose of creating an artificial breeze coming in through opened doors/windows, and blowing hot air out of the attic.  It was quite comfortable here in central Florida, where temps and humidity tend to run pretty high.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

In my youth I also lived without air conditioning.  In apartment buildings and later in a house with an ineffective attic fan.

Obviously I survived.  But it sure was nice when A/C made its debut in my life.

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote

Does this discussion really belong in a ASKWOODY forum?  Really nothing to do with PCs, MACs, Windows or any other “TECH” subject.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Andy M, NaNoNyMouse

Reply | Quote

It’s the “Outside the Box” Forum. (Almost) anything goes.

5 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, TechTango, WSbobby-p, Mr. Austin, fernlady

Reply | Quote

The key word is “almost”.  The question is: does this topic belong here?  I guess as the “manager”, you are one of the people who can make that decision.

1 user thanked author for this post.

NaNoNyMouse

Reply | Quote

sheldon wrote:

The question is: does this topic belong here?

There is no AskWoody requirement for you to read or participate in this thread.  Feel free to ignore it.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

4 users thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin, Charlie, WSbobby-p, fernlady

Reply | Quote

At a basic level enacted laws serve two purposes.  The first purpose is to define criminal acts and the punishments for committing them.  It is a painful truth that this aspect of law only functions to protect society after the fact if violators are identified, apprehended, convicted and sentenced accordingly.  The second purpose of law is to provide a deterrent to criminal behavior.  It is perhaps more painful that in the world we live in today deterrence is a scarce commodity.

2 users thanked author for this post.

WSbobby-p, Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

Drcard:)) wrote:

and if someone commits an act of violence using a computer (which occurs on a larger scale than guns) we will need to ban computers next?

@DrCard:)) I agree. I have participated in the world for a long, long time. About this I favor my rule of thumb, “Follow the money and the force” (not the power. True power never needs coercion or subterfuge).

It is clear that many of the most heinous mass-murderers, and their hired thugs, can be owners, or part owners in massive ‘social’ media companies.

This very month Ask Woody Plus featured a brilliant article by Brian Livingston on social media, “Social-media apps are killing our kids. Do adults care?” And that article is all about computing. I’d say that article is a great place to start if one wants to saving lives. And the discussion in this thread sets healthy boundaries about what is fair to discuss.

Guns in the US are *highly* regulated. My good, highly intelligent friends who have lived in other nations, including Spain, Portugal, and China, have sometimes opined to me that a big reason why the US citizenry has held together is that lots of us own, and know how to use firearms.

And those very simple statements don’t reach into the annual thousands of iatrogenic disablements or deaths from behemoth, transnational, soulless medical companies which frequently and regularly buy their way out of criminal liability like it’s simply a cost of doing business.

Human, who sports only naturally-occurring DNA ~ oneironaut ~ broadcaster

Reply | Quote

Donny H wrote:

In my opinion, we need to take a hard look at the gaming industry. I don’t know how many times I’ve read of these acts of violence occurring, and upon investigation, it is found the perpetrator was a gamer.

“There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association”

Full link to APA position (as at 2020): Here

1 user thanked author for this post.

Andy M

Reply | Quote

If one follows the money and the force, one might likely conclude that the APA is bought and paid for by Mega pHarma. However, that does not mean that violent vids or video games do not contribute to deaths or disablements.

Something that usually goes missing from most American’s thought is, “What are the personal values expressed within the creation of any game, or video, or movie, or cultural phenomenon.”

Human, who sports only naturally-occurring DNA ~ oneironaut ~ broadcaster

Reply | Quote

PK, Feel free to delete this thread, and my account. Thank you.

Reply | Quote

The leading cause of death for American residents between the ages of 1 and 19 is gun violence.

Don’t take my word for it; the information is available online.  Note particularly the age range.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

3 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, WSbobby-p, NaNoNyMouse

Reply | Quote

Please don’t. This is EXACTLY what I don’t want.  We can have CIVIL and meaningful discourse.  This was and is a horrific event that I feel was brought upon us by social media being a drug to our society.  We can all agree that words should never bring us to one dead, two gravely injured and nearly a repeat of 1968.

 

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

3 users thanked author for this post.

Lars220, WSbobby-p, cyberSAR

Reply | Quote

Thank you! I will think about it. And thank you PK for your earlier message! I’m just reallly saddened at how so many dissed my heartfelt comment. So be it I guess.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Lars220

Reply | Quote

cyberSAR please do not leave AskWoody because your input is greatly appreciated.

Amazing Truths Revealed: Link to Simply Magnificent AskWoody Knowledge Bases

4 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, PKCano, Bob99, Susan Bradley

Reply | Quote

Your sentiment was not lost or ignored.  Not a day goes by without me being grateful that I was born in the USA and enjoy the freedoms that are our birthright! And I hope that those who have migrated to the USA and become citizens feel the same way about their adopted country.

1 user thanked author for this post.

WSbobby-p

Reply | Quote

Donny H wrote:

we need to dig down and find what is the real underlying issue for these acts of violence

In the words of Michael Moore, “guns don’t kill people, Americans do”.

cheers, Paul

2 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, NaNoNyMouse

Reply | Quote

Haters are always gonna hate no matter who, what or where.
It’s human nature to destroy what is incomprehensible.
‘The dark side clouds everything..’
sad indeed..

Windows - commercial by definition and now function...

Reply | Quote

EricB wrote:

Not a day goes by without me being grateful that I was born in the

Insert name of stable first world country here.

cheers, Paul

2 users thanked author for this post.

b, NaNoNyMouse

Reply | Quote

Paul T wrote:

Insert name of stable first world country here.

Since you are obviously confused I’ll spell it out for you — United States of America.

 

Reply | Quote

One thought maybe lost in discussion is that the shooter was neither the purchaser nor owner of the assault weapon used for the shooting.

Maybe hindsight should lead to the wisdom of foresight.

What obligations exist (legal, moral, ethical) for the possessor of firearms to secure their access from others? I am led to believe that not every jurisdiction requires those weapons to be kept in a locked safe or vault of some sort.

It is not clear to me whether the shooter had been given permission to take the weapon or took it without permission because not locked away.

1 user thanked author for this post.

WSbobby-p

Reply | Quote

castiel wrote:

One thought maybe lost in discussion is that the shooter was neither the purchaser nor owner of the assault weapon used for the shooting. Maybe hindsight should lead to the wisdom of foresight.

Appears to be another situation where strict gun laws won’t help at all.

castiel wrote:

It is not clear to me whether the shooter had been given permission to take the weapon or took it without permission because not locked away.

In articles I have read, the father (legal owner of the gun) gave the son permission to take the gun to go target practice; which the son had done before with no ill effects.

It is interesting that the shooter is yet another that fits the criteria of a shooter…loner, outsider not accepted by his peer group, bullied, and the act is a way to get revenge and “show them that he is somebody important”… their way to get the revenge and attention that think they deserve. They think this is their only solution to feeling better. IMO, detection and help for these misguided souls would be a better deterrent than passing new gun control laws. We should be seeking ways to stop bullying and peer group ostracizing individuals, which appears to be what is creating these killers.

HTH, Dana:))

Reply | Quote

Drcard:)) wrote:

IMO, detection and help for these misguided souls would be a better deterrent than passing new gun control laws.

Exactly the point I was making earlier.  Laws on the books don’t stop bad people from doing bad things.

1 user thanked author for this post.

WSbobby-p

Reply | Quote

It does if the weapon is not available in the first place. Unfortunately it’s too late for the US to fix that issue.

cheers, Paul

3 users thanked author for this post.

BATcher, NaNoNyMouse, Fred

Reply | Quote

@Paul-T :  so meaning:  “God Bless America” is a wish to help this set right?

* _ ... _ *

Reply | Quote

Wishing achieves nothing, acting does – except when it’s already too late…

cheers, Paul

1 user thanked author for this post.

wavy

Reply | Quote

I am unable to think of this tragedy in abstract terms. To me, there is no one single solution that solves the gun violence problem. There are multiple components none of which should be dismissed purely on ideology.

In this particular instance, I believe if the proper security had been in place, the shooter would not have gotten to the point he did. No way should this have happened.

I also am thinking of what must surely be running through that father’s mind. Would he be wishing he could trade away his entire firearm collection to have his son back alive? To have the husband and father who died shielding his family back alive? To have those wounded back unharmed?

I can only conjecture based on my own life experiences. I know enough to say I don’t know enough. But maybe I can imagine the sorrow and hurt in the aftermath of what needlessly took place. Never take the personal component out of the equation in a search for solutions.

It’s just how I feel.

Reply | Quote

The waves of violence resulting in senseless death and injury that we have seen in modern times are incomprehensible.  I’ll digress a moment to observe that even when such violence has not resulted in death it is often reported by the media that the victim(s) sustained “non life-threatening injuries”.  That such damage can be horrific and completely change the lives of victims and their families forever is completely downplayed and understated.

I don’t have the answers.  But I’ll also observe that for any problem, no matter how complex, challenging or difficult it may be, there is always a solution that is simple, direct, and wrong.

Reply | Quote