United States & Gun Control discussion.

[walra107]

I'm not for a ban of any sort, but the argument about "if not guns, its knives and clubs and fists" doesn't do it for me. You can't tell me that someone is going to inflict as much damage with a knife, or fist, or club as they will with an assault rifle, it's a ridiculous argument. People will commit crime and there will always be violence, but an assault rifle makes it much easier for the perpetrator to inflict maximum damage.

Point and I agree somewhat, I probably should have chosen my way of explaining my view a little better. I certainly agree that an assault rifle inflicts much more damage especially in a shorter amount of time, no debate there, what I am trying to say is that violence is an unfortunate trait of human nature, acts like these have been committed throughout history long before the assault rifle came about. Since the dawn of man, man has committed violent acts. I am not a staunch supporter of either anti gun laws or the second amendment. I feel that it should be a privilege to own a weapon, not a right, but if I have earned that privilege in one way or another I should be able to exercise that privilege by owning a weapon of my choice(short of high grade explosives of course ). I want to be able to "inflict maximum damage" on somebody threatening harm to me or my family.

 

[Rampart]

There is unfortunately not going to be a wealth of reasoned debate on this topic. Opportunistic media, short sighted politicians and severely misinformed groups are going to scream to the heavens. They will work on the approach that if they scream loud and long enough the more reasoned debaters will not be heard. If the true American people want to avoid a real and determined attempt at the rights enshrined in the constitution this may well be the seminal moment.

I sincerely hope common sense and reason win out. The options are unspeakably wrong on so many levels. I am very concerned about this. I am not directly affected but there are ramifications for the entire western world, particularly via the UN and its policy on small arms.

Somehow the idiots that want yet more laws/ restrictions etc to stop those who clearly have no regard for the laws in place need to be educated to that point. Nothing else will work.

 

[Tana]

God, Guts, Guns. Be humble before a higher power, be brave enough to stand up and defend the Constitution of this land, and have the firepower to back it up.
That's my two cents.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Blah-Blah-Blah

Man, I was going to respond with all kinds of deliberate contrast to your lengthy post, but then you went on with this other, and being as intoxicated as I am now…well I really just can’t see the point, you are so damn contradictory to your own posts, well it’s kind of…silly.

“I am all for gun ownership” well, as long as these people don’t have them, and these people don’t carry them, and well these people keep them locked up….and well these people are idiots and they should not have them….blah, blah, blahhh…

Dude! This is exactly why our country (the United States) has a constitution, to keep the flip-floppers, from injecting there “this moment” of reasoning/new laws from affecting the masses. Contrary to modern politics, the constitution is a document that guards against ignorance and intolerance. You cannot say “I am all for civil liberty, but only for these people”, it is either for EVERYONE or not.

Main point I will make before I pass the fuck out, is that whatever (anyone) can dream up as better for A, B and C, will never be good for the whole dam alphabet. Any of you, who feel that limiting one persons liberty (i.e. any person, ignorant, intelligent, mentally ill, or whatever you can come up with), either it be freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, ect, ect… Have a true misunderstanding of what liberty truly is. It is not just to keep government from infringing upon those liberties, but also to keep all of you (and your bright ideas) from infringing on those rights as well.

I shall pass the fuck out now.

 

[Andraste]

It's not about gun control. It's about treatment for the mentally ill and the inability to have teens and adult children committed.

This mom says it all:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Long read but a great perspective.

 

[mrob]

So you believe in one of our rights? Good. But you are OK with it being trampled on to make things possibly a little better? Bad.

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” ​

Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.

 

[CDG]

Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.

So nullifying the 2nd Amendment is the answer? No one ever needs a gun, until they need a gun. Then what? Guns are already banned on school property. Did that stop the Newtown shooting? No, it didn't. Did guns being banned in a theater stop the Aurora shooting? No, it didn't. This is exactly the problem, this ridiculous thought process that somehow arrives at the end state of thinking more gun control is going to fix anything. Your comment about "preventing possible massacres" is ignorant, short-sighted, and designed to make someone attempting to get you to pull your head out of your ass look like they want massacres. You need a better argument.

 

[AWP]

I've done it twice already and don't feel like taking a few hours to do it a third time, but corrolate the FBI's own violent crime statistics with states and their gun laws for the last 3-5 years. I'll give everyone a hint though: states with CCW or open carry friendly policies have lower violent crime rates than states that do not.

 

[Scotth]

It looks like Fienstein is going to re-intoduce the ASW ban next week. The problem I had with what she said was there is still 900 models not covered by the ASW. If your arguing that having the guns is the problem but your solution is to leave 900 models still available what kind of solution are you really offering? After Columbine we had a mall shooting in Minnesota were the perp used a shotgun and handgun.

I think there a reasonable things you can do that don't limit access. Closing the gun show loop hole could be one of those and tougher penalties and actual enforcement for straw purchasing. Make a mandatory minimum penalty of straw purchasing of like 5 years per incident.

 

[Ex3]

It's not about gun control. It's about treatment for the mentally ill and the inability to have teens and adult children committed.

This mom says it all:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Long read but a great perspective.

This story is heartbreaking. I can't imagine how this woman must feel.

If the CT shooter was anything remotely like the writer's son, why in God's name did his mother think it was a good idea to keep guns in their house? If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to those guns, he might still have found a way to lashed out, it's true. He was sick and needed help. But I doubt that 26 people would be dead today.

 

[Chopstick]

Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.

Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too? Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.

 

[Rampart]

Preventing possible massacres is more than a little better. Let's be real. This is not the 18th or 19th century anymore. The United States is not a little child state like it was in the past. People are not living isolated from main streets and society like they were in the past. We also have LE professionals doing a great job everyday to help maintain law and order. There just isn't a big enough threat to our day-to-day lives for most people to feel compelled to own a gun. And while that quote is great, it's not exactly practical.

Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on TIMELY LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.

I suggest you (Or anyone advancing the more laws argument) get an accurate list from the local LE professionals in CT of exactly how many laws in total were broken in this tragic and despicable act. Kindly list each one for us and explain why it did not prevent the act. They did not so how will more laws achieve this? Then explain how any new laws will succeed where these have failed. I say (so will any LEO you ask) they will not as the perpetrators of such crimes do not give consideration to the consequences of the law thus rendering any and all law ineffective against such actions.
You need to face up to the reality of the situation. If your argument was able to hold any water the Law (ignored by the offenders) and local PD (on scene after the fact) would have prevented the various school massacres giving rise to this thread. Please explain exactly how and why the Law and LE professionals did not meet the performance expectations you say remove the need for gun ownership at CT for example.

Ask your local PD how many gun crimes are committed with legal firearms by licensed owners versus crime committed by illegal possession/ illegal firearms. Then again explain how more laws will stop this.

The offender was not legally in possession of the weapons. He committed murder in the process of obtaining the weaponry (which shows exactly how premeditated this was and how ineffectual law is) and this alone demonstrates the total folly of trying to argue your case.

No one knows what the next hour, day month or year may bring. We each have a responsibility created by those who won our current freedoms, to future generations to ensure freedom is neither wrested from us or eroded piecemeal so it is continued intact for all who come after us.

This is no time to take a lazy quick fix approach, which any honest person knows will not work, just to make it appear something is being done and possibly make yourself feel as though you have been useful.

This is a time for logic, reason and actual facing up to the real truths. This means finding political will and means to deal with the underlying social and health issues which give rise to the situation in the first place. This will not only address "gun crime" but also a vast array of other violent offending and social mayhem.

 

[JBS]

Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too? Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.

Well said.

More Americans die in alcohol related automobile accidents in one year than every American who died in 10 years of the Vietnam War.

 

[mrob]

Is it practical to bring back prohibition and ban cars too? Think of all the drunk driving massacres that would be prevented.

Unlike cars, guns are not critical to the functioning of our economy. The 2nd amendment is never going to go away, but I still think there is a lot of room for us to cut down on violent gun crime and the number of mass shooting incidences. How that is accomplished, I'm open to all ideas, but when I look at other countries that have strict gun control laws and relatively low rates of violent crime I'm more inclined to think that solution is more credible than simply arming more people.

 

[Rampart]

Unlike cars, guns are not critical to the functioning of our economy. The 2nd amendment is never going to go away, but I still think there is a lot of room for us to cut down on violent gun crime and the number of mass shooting incidences. How that is accomplished, I'm open to all ideas, but when I look at other countries that have strict gun control laws and relatively low rates of violent crime I'm more inclined to think that solution is more credible than simply arming more people.

Where do you get your information from. In the UK for example gun crime went up after the handgun ban. Yemen has very liberal gun laws and low violent crime.

Please be very careful not to be emotive and select violent crime statistic in place of gun crime statistics.

 

[Chopstick]

The way our government is going I could see them banning cars and forcing everyone to take public transit. Why not? You cant get a Big Gulp in NYC. But you can smoke pot in Colorado and Washington. Go figure.
I just was reading this article from 2008. I think this should seriously be explored for all schools.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html

"When you make schools gun-free zones, it's like inviting people to come in and take advantage," Thweatt told FOXNews.com.
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and must use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

 

[Ex3]

Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on TIMELY LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.

Just to show I'm not an anti-gun nut, I basically agree with this statement.

I live in Manhattan, I also have a house in a rural part of upstate NY. If a bad guy comes sniffing around and I call 911 up here, I'm sure it'd be at least 15 or 20 mins to get a response just because I'm in the middle of nowhere. So I have a double barral shotgun that is hidden and has a trigger lock. And thanks to Marauder06 and pardus, I now have a shooting range on the property, too. :)

On the other hand, in Manhattan, if I call 911, I'd get a response from the NYPD in seconds. The way I see it, having a gun in the city would cause more harm than good, at least in the hands of someone like me who isn't proficient like most of you are. And I think a majority of gun owners in this country are much more like me than all you professionals on this board.

 

[Chopstick]

How many seconds would you get the response?

 

[Ex3]

How many seconds would you get the response?

90 give or take. I've called 911 for others twice in the past.

 

[mrob]

Sorry, this is clearly not an accurate statement. There are a great many people who live in rural and similar areas who will never be able to rely on TIMELY LE assistance when faced with violent offending. You need read victim and witness statements to see most violent crime is well and truly over long before any LEO is able to be on scene. Reliance on LE professionals is for prevention is a mythical idea at best even in the biggest cities.

Ask your local PD how many gun crimes are committed with legal firearms by licensed owners versus crime committed by illegal possession/ illegal firearms. Then again explain how more laws will stop this.

The offender was not legally in possession of the weapons. He committed murder in the process of obtaining the weaponry (which shows exactly how premeditated this was and how ineffectual law is) and this alone demonstrates the total folly of trying to argue your case.

You are right, there are a great number of people who live in rural areas who might not be close enough to LE to receive any assistance in a timely manner. So let them own a pistol, or shotgun, or rifle, but is an AR-15/any assault rifle absolutely necessary for the majority of people to defend themselves and their home? I mean does anyone really need one? Does anyone really need hi-cap or drum magazines?

And come on... It's not like he had to go to great lengths to get the weapons. His own mom had them. Why did his mom have two pistols and an AR anyways? Newtown is not exactly known for its high crime rate. I live several towns away. Most of this area is relatively safe with very low murder rates/violent crime. He was able to get the weapons so easily because the mom was able to get the weapons easily when she probably had no business in owning an assault rifle and two other guns in the first place.