Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Kobuk on December 19, 2012, 01:44:21 pm
-
As all of us are aware, Several days ago, a 20 year old walked into an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. and shot to death 20 children and 6 adults, including his own mother and himself. Reports indicated he carried 2 handguns and an assault rifle, all belonging to his mother.
Now major news outlets and various politicians as well as the public are calling for more gun control.
What can or should be done, if anything, to curb the amount of gun violence? Should gun control be more stricter? If so, then how?
-
Thats a really hard question because if sombody wants a gun in my country they get a licence but gun crime still happens because criminals mostly use stolen guns.
-
The plan.
-Limit what kind of a weapons a person can legaly own, operate and/or carry bassed on licences that require significgan tests of profidiency maturity.
- Strict laws about weapon and ammo storarge.
- No guns for criminals, mentaly retarded and mental unstable.
People will always kill each other, but that's no reason to make it hardeer for them.
-
Thats a really hard question because if sombody wants a gun in my country they get a licence but gun crime still happens because criminals mostly use stolen guns.
This! If only the criminals followed the rules and didn't take things that belong to other people/they aren't allowed to have! D:
-
I think that emotions are way too high right now for the general public to legitimately deal with this, but they still insist on voicing those emotional opinions to lawmakers, who are in turn pressured to make (most likely) new laws that may not even work.
I'm sure there could be some changes made, but I don't think I'd go with anything like an "assault weapons ban". I put that in quotes because in reality, any gun, knife, club, and rock could be an assault weapon, which shows you how much our government knows. I'm also of the belief that if criminals know that law abiding citizens are unable to adequately arm themselves, then they will be able to more easily commit crimes. All they need to do is find someone weaker than them and they essentially win. I've heard of studies from other developed countries (England specifically years ago) that have very restrictive gun laws that make it hard for anyone to legally own one and violent crimes are still getting out of control.
When it comes to people like those doing the mass shootings, all they will do is find other ways to do it. Remember, Timmothy McVey (SP?) blew up that federal building in Oklahoma City with a rental truck and fertilizer. Both easily attainable to anyone, even those with suspicious backgrounds that would prevent them from passing the background check for a gun. Should we ban the sale of those items now?
I think this is largely a cultural issue with several contributing factors. Current gun laws that restrict where you can carry, parents not paying attention to what their kids are playing on the computer and disciplining them when they act up (also largely thanks to government not allowing them to do so properly IMHO), not getting proper treatment for mental issues, and a general "everyone is special" mentality that we've been taught lately. Imposing more gun laws won't fix any of those underlying issues and these people will still come out of the woodworks here and there regardless. Unfortunately, as with any major issue, no one wants to do what is needed because it's [whiney]toooo haaaarrrrddd[/whiney]. Instead they want government to pass some law that doesn't address the root cause of the issues so they can have an easy false sense of security.
-
One thing that will soon complicate gun policy is 3D printing. 3D printing, for those who don't know, is a developing technology that is capable of taking a wide variety of base materials (some accept plastic, metal, and other physical materials; others used in the medical industry accept cell cultures and biological materials) and assembling them into a physical form through arbitrary digital schematics. It's only somewhat available right now, but it's already capable of printing
functional guns several functional parts of a gun (*edited, see Foxpup's post below*).
Given its extreme utility for the general public (the technology will eventually be able to produce a significant portion of things that mass production produces today), I suspect the technology of 3D printing will become widespread within 5-15 years. A tangential consequence of that is that it would be about as easy for the average family to acquire a gun as it would be for them to acquire a coffee mug once that happens. This would obsolete many of the gun policies in existence today, especially those which operate by hindering or tying conditions to the distribution of guns. Unfortunately, making a new policy with respect to guns that would safeguard both rights and public safety in such an environment would be tremendously difficult; it would make the issue of gun control today look considerably less complex in comparison.
-
The only thing that I have been saying is that there should be a mental exam before you are allowed to buy a gun. Have the state police conduct it and give you a certificate that says you are allowed to purchase a gun. If you do not present this to a gun shop then you are not allowed to buy a gun. Simple, yes?
However! In the latest case the gun was not his, but his mother's. So even if she was deemed stable enough to have a weapon her son would not have been and he could have gotten his hands on it anyways. So then we need to look at this and take it even farther. Perhaps an entire family should be examined and if one person fails then that family should not be able to own, because of this special case. Or your children must be at least 18, in order for a parent to own a gun, which I personally would not agree to since my reason to own a weapon is to protect my family. It's way too involved to even start on, really. And flat out banning guns will do more harm than good.
But there will always be ways around restrictions. How many bombings have there been? With home made bombs? More than a few, yet those chemicals are still available for purchase. Knives, kitchen knives, can kill, yet they are in every home goods store. Crossbows, compound hunting bows, BB guns, paintball guns (with frozen paint and high velocity) can kill! There is no way to completely protect others from those who wish to do harm. Look at the criminals in prison. How many have created shanks out of the most trivial everyday items? There was one who made a spear out of paper and a shank from a toothbrush! And they both did a good amount of damage. They get their hands on razor blades somehow. They are incredibly resourceful. If a person wants to kill another they will, no matter the means.
"I'm also of the belief that if criminals know that law abiding citizens are unable to adequately arm themselves, then they will be able to more easily commit crimes. All they need to do is find someone weaker than them and they essentially win."
I completely agree with this statement from Narei. What do these lawmakers think they are doing by putting so many restrictions on weapons? They are only endangering us law abiding citizens even more! It is very frustrating when you hear people who think banning all guns will solve all the problems... Because it simply will only create easier targets for criminals. Why not just hand them all of our money?
-
Did you all here about the school attack in China that happened on the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Those kids were all very young as well and more than 20 people were stabbed. The difference between this and Connecticut? No one was stabbed fatally.
-
Did you all here about the school attack in China that happened on the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Those kids were all very young as well and more than 20 people were stabbed. The difference between this and Connecticut? No one was stabbed fatally.
No. The difference is that it's America and we focus on the bad that happens in our own country... We heard about the tsunami last year, but then it went quiet. We are STILL hearing about hurricane Sandy. Plus, it is the news stations. They have their own agenda and FOX tends to like to stir the political pot even more.
Also, here is a site (http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence09-10.html) with shootings and bombings in schools in the U.S. This particular page is for 2009 to 2010. Why didn't we hear about any of these incidents? Because there were no mass casualties. There were guns involved, but they weren't "tragedies" in the eyes of the news. Plus, just recently the second amendment has come under heavy attack by anti gun people. Two years ago it was not this bad.
-
There is no doubt that the media has great swaying influence on the American public, but that is not the debate right now.
The point I was making was that, yes, if guns were banned that would not stop these kinds of attacks. However, the success rate of these attacks could be quelled. I agree with what you said about having a complete background check (look up what they do in Japan). But automatic, even semiautomatic weapons...all you have to do is pull a trigger. It's too easy.
-
One thing that will soon complicate gun policy is 3D printing. 3D printing, for those who don't know, is a developing technology that is capable of taking a wide variety of base materials (some accept plastic, metal, and other physical materials; others used in the medical industry accept cell cultures and biological materials) and assembling them into a physical form through arbitrary digital schematics. It's only somewhat available right now, but it's already capable of printing functional guns.
Actually, it's not even close. No 3D printer currently available is capable of processing materials strong enough to withstand the heat and pressure of a gunshot, so only a few gun parts can be made this way (in particular, the barrel and upper receiver and a few other parts can't be made with a 3D printer). The rest of the gun's components have to be obtained separately, however, in America at least, there are currently no restrictions on the sale of most gun parts. You can print the frame of a gun, then just buy the parts you can't print. You never have to show that you legally own the gun you're buying parts for. :o
Of course, eventually 3D printing will be able to produce the entire gun, but given the current state of the technology, this "loophole" could easily be closed right now.
-
Actually, it's not even close. No 3D printer currently available is capable of processing materials strong enough to withstand the heat and pressure of a gunshot, so only a few gun parts can be made this way (in particular, the barrel and upper receiver and a few other parts can't be made with a 3D printer).
(*rereads the article he read before his previous post, then facepalms*) Yeah, you're right. It turns out I read the article too quickly and missed the critical word "parts" and/or falsely assumed that if you could print parts for a gun, you could print all of the parts for a gun. I edited my post accordingly; thanks for the erratum.
-
The point I was making was that, yes, if guns were banned that would not stop these kinds of attacks. However, the success rate of these attacks could be quelled. I agree with what you said about having a complete background check (look up what they do in Japan). But automatic, even semiautomatic weapons...all you have to do is pull a trigger. It's too easy.
That's the thing about criminals. They have a twisted mind and it will always be too easy for them. They are some of the most ingenious people. They will make a weapon out of anything they can get their hands on, no matter if we supply the materials or not. And it is really simple, if you understand the mechanics of a gun, to switch it from semi automatic to automatic. We could destroy all weapons, knives, bows, guns, and they would still find a way to kill. Here is a list of 25 ways to kill with barehands (http://listverse.com/2007/11/11/25-methods-for-killing-with-your-bare-hands/). I actually know about most of these. A hit to the temple, throat, and nose are very easy during a fight. The point is, it is very easy to kill an opponent even without a weapon of any sort.
-
That's the thing about criminals. They have a twisted mind and it will always be too easy for them. They are some of the most ingenious people. They will make a weapon out of anything they can get their hands on, no matter if we supply the materials or not. And it is really simple, if you understand the mechanics of a gun, to switch it from semi automatic to automatic. We could destroy all weapons, knives, bows, guns, and they would still find a way to kill. Here is a list of 25 ways to kill with barehands (http://listverse.com/2007/11/11/25-methods-for-killing-with-your-bare-hands/). I actually know about most of these. A hit to the temple, throat, and nose are very easy during a fight. The point is, it is very easy to kill an opponent even without a weapon of any sort.
Yes that's true, but I'm going to bring up the example in China again. China has strict gun laws, and the criminal still found a way to attack a school. However, no one was fatally stabbed.
-
They are some of the most ingenious people. They will make a weapon out of anything they can get their hands on, no matter if we supply the materials or not. And it is really simple, if you understand the mechanics of a gun, to switch it from semi automatic to automatic. We could destroy all weapons, knives, bows, guns, and they would still find a way to kill.
That's making an awful lot of assumptions.
"They are some of the most ingenious people"
Really? What's your basis for saying that? I imagine that may well be true for a few, but the vast majority are ~not~ some of the most ingenious people. XD
"They will make a weapon out of anything they can get their hands on, no matter if we supply the materials or not."
Assuming they have the knowledge and skills to, it would still in most cases be nowhere near as effective as a manufactured firearm. In fact, in first world countries I don't think I've ever heard of killing sprees with improvised weapons because the perpetrator couldn't get a hold of any real guns.
"And it is really simple, if you understand the mechanics of a gun, to switch it from semi automatic to automatic."
~If~ you understand the mechanics of a gun, which I'm guessing most don't. Besides which, if Semi Automatic guns were also banned or more restricted, that point would make little difference.
"We could destroy all weapons, knives, bows, guns, and they would still find a way to kill."
No, they wouldn't. I imagine only a portion would still try, and a much smaller portion would succeed.
You're painting them like some Hollywood aliens, where they're all identical and use their superior intellect to ensure the destruction of humanity at all costs. It's ridiculous XD
-
It's a lot easier to kill someone/slaughter a crowd from a distance with a gun than with a knife or otherwise improvised weapon. In this school shooting, the kid got his mum's guns. Were guns restricted, I doubt such a kid would have been able to procure anything to kill anyone with. Yes, he could've gone in with fists blazing, but I doubt he would have caused as much damage. And I think it's a bit farfetched to say he would've just made a fertiliser bomb instead.
Surely if just a small number of massacres are prevented, that'd be a success?
Maybe it's just because I come from a land with gun laws, where guns are restricted to people who prove they are decent enough to have them, but I think the laws a good idea. Responsible people, hunters, hobbyists, etc. can still get their precious guns but they at least have to prove they're not idiots and they can't have semi/automatic ones that I know of. I don't hear about rampages all that often, what do happen are mostly gang wars in Sydney, which of course are going to happen no matter what you do. But here in the wonderful land of victoria we have the courtesy to stab/beat/kick etc. people which makes mass killings a heck of a lot harder.
BUT by having EVERYONE with guns, on the off chance that someone else has a gun, just means there's an awful lot more guns out there that some unstable person can get a hold of without a whole lot of thought.
-
That's the thing about criminals....
You know, this is the sort of thing that always bothers me in debates about gun laws. You can't just put everything into categories of "criminals" and "law abiding citizens". This ignores that there is a huge amount of grey area.
-
There was much faulty reporting on this tragedy. Many were led to believe the killer actually used the M-4 style rifle in the school. The fact is Connecticutt ranks 5th in the country for tough gun laws.
He was a coward. He attacked the most vulnerable people he could find, stopping only when the good guys were swarming in. The attack also occured one week before the Mayan "end of the world."
He used a Sig Sauer pistol and a Glock pistol--the same as used by many law enforcement agencies. He was a psychotic. Why should legimate gun owners give up freedom because of what a psychotic person does? Why should this impact licensed concealed carry? Why are all these shootings happening in "gun free zones"?
-
Why should legimate gun owners give up freedom because of what a psychotic person does? Why should this impact licensed concealed carry? Why are all these shootings happening in "gun free zones"?
If it would make the situation safer, then it is reasonable.
It should if the changes involve a more rigorous background check, or rather more mental qualifications.
"All these shootings?"
-
i readin the news paper that americas most used muder weapon is the baseball bat.....try put restrictions on them!
-
i readin the news paper that americas most used muder weapon is the baseball bat.....try put restrictions on them!
Whether or not that is true, a baseball bat is intended to be used in baseball. A gun is intended to be used to injure and/or kill easily. That is why there are restrictions on them.
-
Why should legimate gun owners give up freedom because of what a psychotic person does? Why should this impact licensed concealed carry? Why are all these shootings happening in "gun free zones"?
If it would make the situation safer, then it is reasonable.
It should if the changes involve a more rigorous background check, or rather more mental qualifications.
"All these shootings?"
If one were to view a Form 4473, the form one must fill out when affecting a firearms purchase in the United States, one may find that those judged to be mentally defective may not apply, nor those with (misdemeanor) domestic violence background, nor felons, nor illegal aliens. Persons under 21 years of age may not purchase handguns (nor handgun ammunition). Plus the purchase must be cleared by the FBI. This would not have applied to the monster of Newtown as he stole the guns used in the massacre.
-
If one were to view a Form 4473, the form one must fill out when affecting a firearms purchase in the United States, one may find that those judged to be mentally defective may not apply, nor those with (misdemeanor) domestic violence background, nor felons, nor illegal aliens. Persons under 21 years of age may not purchase handguns (nor handgun ammunition). Plus the purchase must be cleared by the FBI. This would not have applied to the monster of Newtown as he stole the guns used in the massacre.
He stole the guns from his mother, which is not as difficult as stealing them from someone else. And it may be wishful thinking, but if there are less guns, wouldn't it be more difficult to steal them?
-
The latest story is a lawyer is now wanting to sue the state for not keeping the kids safe. That's going overboard IMHO, but guess I shouldn't be surprised. How can you be held liable for not preventing something so heinous? As much as I feel for the victims, I hope this suit isn't allowed to go through.
-
Avoid the flawed conclustion "They can steal guns so we shouldn't even try to regulate them"
If these evil man have to steal their weapons there is a chance they will fail in that attemp or will be caught for that crime.
He stole the guns from his mother, which is not as difficult as stealing them from someone else. And it may be wishful thinking, but if there are less guns, wouldn't it be more difficult to steal them?
I don't think the problemem is the ammount of guns, but how they are stored. If those guns were locked up in a proper gun safe instead of laying about, it would be alot harder for him to shoot his mom. If she could have made a stuggle or caught him breaking into the safe, things might have been alot better.
-
I don't think the problemem is the ammount of guns, but how they are stored. If those guns were locked up in a proper gun safe instead of laying about, it would be alot harder for him to shoot his mom. If she could have made a stuggle or caught him breaking into the safe, things might have been alot better.
But still, the amount of guns does have an effect. Why not focus on both of these problems then?
On another note, if there had been no guns in his house in the first place, he would not have as easily obtained them.
-
You never know, and he could have easily obtained something else just as, if not more, destructive.
-
You never know, and he could have easily obtained something else just as, if not more, destructive.
That's a possibility, but nothing comes to mind. What do you think he could have obtained that easily?
-
the baseball bat comes to mind, simple but dangerous. also fertilizer bomb,nail bomb...these are esaly made/obtained
-
Yeah, I was just going to say, remember the OKC bombing? All legal and easily obtainable materials in a standard rental truck.
-
Yeah, I was just going to say, remember the OKC bombing? All legal and easily obtainable materials in a standard rental truck.
I think it's safe to say that we will all come up with more creative ways of killing each other with household items. However, cleaning supplies are made to clean. Guns are made to injure and kill. That's what this debate concerns.
-
In the hands of lawful people, guns are one of the best tools against armed and/or dangerous criminals. Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm. They don't care what something was designed for. So in that respect, there isn't much difference between guns and other weapons like bats, knives, bombs, etc.
-
In the hands of lawful people, guns are one of the best tools against armed and/or dangerous criminals. Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm. They don't care what something was designed for. So in that respect, there isn't much difference between guns and other weapons like bats, knives, bombs, etc.
hes right,a knife is for cooking but some peole will use it as a mugging tool,a hammer is for constuction but some people will use it for breaking into cars.
-
Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm.
No they can't. They can be dangerous, but just as lethal as guns? ~Really?~ The fact someone could kill using things like a knife or a hammer doesn't change the fact that guns are the very best tool, designed specifically for the job. Attacking someone with a knife is a hell of a lot more complicated and risky (and easier to fight back against) than someone who only has to point and squeeze a trigger from a distance.
-
Then lets take guns out completely. In today's society, it's probably easier than ever to cause mass casualties with a few well crafted items. And you can get those without background checks, waiting periods, or stealing if you're someone not allowed to own a gun. Heck, an argument could be made that it's easier because you stay under the radar. I think guns are the weapon of choice in these events because they are intimidating, and "hands on."
Not to say video games lead to this, but I'll use them to put it into something we can more easily relate to. Say you need to clear a building of the enemy soldiers. Sure, you could simply toss in a grenade and take them all out without worry, but it's more fun and more of an adrenalin rush to go in guns playing and taking them down with your AK-47. I think that's the kind of thing going through these shooters' heads.
As to people attacking with bats and knives, I'd rather have a gun than to have to face someone stronger and better armed than me in hand to hand combat.
-
Would it surpised anyone that "assault weapons" are already prohibited in Conn.? You would not know that, given the way the media report these kind of events. In the days leading up to passage of the Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban, it was typical of the major networks to show full-auto guns in operation, then report that they ought to be banned. They were already banned by NFA 1930, which requires the owners of such guns to submit paperwork, obtain permission of the sheriff or local police chief, and pay a $200 excise tax on each machinegun. If the law officer says "no" then you go around him and set up a corporation.
With that in mind: Why would it be expected that owners of military-looking semi-auto-only firearms submit to a similar process? Just convert each to full-auto/select fire. The politicians may run their re-elections on taking these weapons of war off the streets, when in fact they've only increased the number of machine guns in private hands.
-
Instead of focusing on whether or not certain items are as lethal as guns or not, lets take a look at the facts. Let's compare the US with Australia, the UK, and Japan.
Gun Laws in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Current_Australian_firearm_laws)
Gun Laws in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom) (more concise) (http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk/general/gunlaw.htm)
Gun Laws in Japan (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html)
Concise comparison of gun laws in the US, Australia, the UK, and Japan, as well as select other countries (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/12/gun-policy.html)
The total firearm-related death rate in the US per 100,000 people is 10.2. For Australia, it's 1.05. For the UK, it's 0.25. For Japan, it's 0.07. See table. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
Here is a chart displaying gun deaths vs gun ownership. Clearly there is a trend.
(http://mark.reid.name/images/figures/deaths-vs-guns.png)
courtesy Mark Reid - read the full analysis (http://mark.reid.name/iem/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html)
And here is another table comparing gun murders and ownership. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. There are almost as many guns as there are people. The US also has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the world.
Now, let's take a look at just intentional homicide rates, regardless of whether they were committed with firearms.
The US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people. For the UK, it's 1.2. For Australia, it's 1.0. For Japan, it's 0.4.
So yes, a killer might still be able to use knives and household-made bombs to murder. But from the results, we can see that it is still less effective to do so.
-
A gun or any other type of item is only "lethal" depending on how it's used against someone. ;)
-
A gun can be used at a distance, semi/automatic weapons can kill many in a very short space of time, even a handgun can kill quite a few in the right hands. A knife or hammer or whatever's around, not so much. Unless you're an expert knife thrower, you'd have a very hard time doing as much massacring with a knife as a gun. As for explosives, I'm fairly sure some places (Might even be a lot of places) limit the amount of fertiliser one person can buy at once, and they take ID for big purchases of it too. But it takes a lot more brain power to make a dangerous bomb and plant it somewhere discreetly than to wander into a crowded place and pull a trigger. Yeah, you can probably find all manner of instruction on the internet on how to make a bomb, but it still takes some mental capability to pull it off. Any unstable kid and their mum can pull a little lever on a lump of death.
And while you say anything can be lethal, that's not enough to make everything a weapon to everyone. I'm as feeble as a noodle, I have difficulty stabbing vegetables, let alone people, I could never bludgeon someone with a piece of wood or the like and a good breath of wind is enough to knock me over, but even someone as small and flimsy as me could shoot someone dead if they were so inclined.
I also doubt I could wrap my head around making a bomb or find the patience to learn how to, and I like to believe I'm not stupid.
I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.
-
I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.
That's the misconception. There is strong evidence suggesting that it's places like gun free zones and locations where they are heavily restricted/banned that you should be most concerned that someone else will have a gun. Bans only remove people's ability to defend themselve with one if they would otherwise choose to. Criminals are more likely to target people/places without guns than where people may have one to defend themselves.
@ Mylo
Even the author of that graph says it's not to be taken too seriously due to the source material (Wikipedia) and that it was only an amateur undertaking. One thing I'd like to see is a comparison of gun related deaths vs population density, as well as compared to gun laws in effect. The graph you posted did country wide, which isn't a good way to compare a vast and varied place like the U.S. to other countries, most of which are much smaller and even in population and even cultures for that matter. In the U.S., you have places like Washington D.C. and Chicago with very high gun crime rates but very restrictive laws on guns, and places like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, etc with lax gun laws, high gun ownership, and low crime rates. The closest I found graph wise was this one linked from your post:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-axDzyCIAEvpzB.png:large)
But even that doesn't fully account for everything. Take Illinois and New York. Both states have very densly populated areas and very rural areas. Both with different gun control laws that vary city by city in some instances. So while they look relatively normal on the graph, a place like Chicago with "low ownership rates" (which had one of, if not the highest gun crime rates in history last year despite control laws and quotes used because criminals often don't legally own the guns they use in the first place) is offset by the large rural population with more ownership and less crime. I did come across an article found at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/) that talked about some research that delved more in to this sort of thing and also crime rates before and after right to carry laws were inacted and how bans didn't work. Two of the more notable quotes from it were:
The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.
That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun.
And from the study the article is about:
...large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.
There are also other things to consider, such as culture, that would be almost impossible to put into real perspective. Like the Japan argument. They have next to no gun crime, but look at what they have to give up in liberty for it.
-
I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.
That's the misconception. There is strong evidence suggesting that it's places like gun free zones and locations where they are heavily restricted/banned that you should be most concerned that someone else will have a gun. Bans only remove people's ability to defend themselve with one if they would otherwise choose to. Criminals are more likely to target people/places without guns than where people may have one to defend themselves.
Not a misconception in Australia. I can honestly say that I have not ONCE felt worried that someone might shoot me here. "Criminals" (The way it's being said in this thread makes it seem like you should know who's going to be one from birth) aren't rampant on our streets with guns blazing every year, we don't have major school shootings, we had a loon once and upped the gunlaws and that seemed to work very well in Aus. So whoever these criminals targeting my country because of its laws are, they're doing a terrible job. As for your gun law-ier states, they're still pretty lax (The mother still had a gun, if she could have one, chances are someone else at the school could have too) and people who wanted could probably just meander to another state to pick up a gun, right? Also, these instances aren't really chosen for their location being less occupied by gun-carriers, but for personal ANGRY reasons. Had this kid been in another state with less gun laws, I dare say he still would have gone nutty.
Also, I believe there are more, and better ways to defend yourself and the population than with with a gun. Were I to pull one out at someone who pulled a gun on me, I'm sure as heck that it'd make the chance of them shooting me first a lot more likely. HOWEVER, with our TERRIBLY SOCIALIST/sarcasm free mental health services and decent checks on people buying guns (I'll have it known that I live 5 minutes from the biggest gun store in the country, we still have guns here), by being sensible (Not wandering into dark alleys at night in seedy areas, traveling in herds, going to reputable areas, not provoking anyone who may be dangerous etc) and by being decent and trusting enough of each other we seem to get by just fine in this country. Yes homicides and other crimes still happen, they always will, but as far as I can tell our gun laws have made this country a lot safer.
Unfortunately it's so ingrained in American society that you NEED a gun because the gun companies got their advertising so right that I doubt there's any way to fix the problem over there. :P Everyone already has a gun, so IMO it's too late but that doesn't mean that the govt. should just sit back and wait for everyone to kill each other, does it? Gun laws alone aren't going to be enough, but it's a step.
-
In the US, the soft drink industry is far larger than the firearms industry. Even the mayor of NYC has taken aim at Big Pop.
Actually, one doesn't see advertising for guns on network television here in the US, unless it's during an outdoor/hunting/shooting program on cable. Programs like Sons of Guns and others are quite popular.
The National Rifle Association produces public service announcements, but the networks don't air them, so stringent is their anti-gun bias. The only gun ads I've seen are from local gun shops. The only time I've heard gun-oriented ads on radio is during Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, which is only on for a few hours on Sunday. Crimson Trace laser sights being one such ad.
The NRA is constantly villified, yet they signed up another 100,000 new members in 18 days. They recently polled more favorably than the President.
AR-15-type modern sporting rifles are flying out the door as quickly as they can be assembled. Ammunition is commanding premium prices in certain calibres and the FBI is processing record numbers of gun purchases.
Many folks have taken to heart the maxim that it is better to have power and not need it than to need power and not have it.
-
There's more to advertising than TV. A lot more. Most of it has absolutely nothing to do with TV
Many folks have taken to heart the maxim that it is better to have power and not need it than to need power and not have it.
That right there. And your constitution, and the media about having guns banned causing a spike in sales. That's all part of it. Gun companies don't need TV or other conventional advertising. They barely have to spend a penny on it, since they already seem to have it in everyone's heads that a gun is necessary.
Why not go out and buy a less destructive means of self protection? There are plenty out there. Why does it have to be a gun?
-
I think part of the current difference of opinions is due to geography. Australia is pretty much isolated from other countries, whereas the United States has two countries immediately boardering it. I think this makes a good case for "What works in one place may not work in another."
Lets say we pass laws that reduce the number of legal guns in both countries, either by confiscation or prohibitive restrictions. In Australia, it would be pretty hard to smuggle them in, right? The only way to get them into the country would be by water or air. Both of which are easy to patrol. Smugglers could try shipping containers, but that would be pretty tough if their security scans are anything like what we have. The only other option would be to manufacture them yourself, which would be near impossible to do and make it anything practical.
Now take the U.S. We have major problems with our sourthern boarder with Mexico, and it's a lot easier to smuggle in guns (and drugs too) to the U.S. The biggest causes of gun violence here is drug and gang related. We don't have tons of mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook. As I pointed out, the city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws, but one of the highest gun crime murder rates. That already demonstrates that it's not legal gun owners committing crimes and is one part of the arguement that having more laws will only disarm the law abiding public and not the criminals. You spread those kinds of laws into a nationwide ban, and the gang bangers and drug runners will get their guns from Mexico. Considering our history with the southern boarder, it is not a far fetched outcome. So that's the other reason why more gun laws wouldn't make us much safer.
So now what about these mass shootings? I've already made the point that these people would likely find other, potentially more dangerous ways to cause harm. I stick to that, even more now after thinking about it. In most of these cases, the shooter(s) plan these things out way in advance. It's rarely a "heat of the moment" case. They spend their time collecting said guns and ammo, trying to stay under the radar, and waiting for the right time to act. And then there's ones like the Colorado theater shooter that also went to the effort of boobytrapping his apartment with explosives to cause even more destruction after he was stopped (which thankfully was discovered before anything was set off). If they are spending that much time to get the guns and ammo, why would it be beyond reason to expect them to find other ways if those guns and ammo weren't available?
So going back to what I quoted earlier:
I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.
Perhaps that is more or less true in your country, but not in ours. Some places maybe, but certainly not the big cities where most crimes happen.
-
...That already demonstrates that it's not legal gun owners committing crimes and is one part of the arguement that having more laws will only disarm the law abiding public and not the criminals.
yeah... because there is absolutely no overlap between those two groups. [/sarcasm] You know, if you didn't use this sort of fallacious language, I might take your argument more seriously.
Also, I may be mistaken, but I've never heard of any problem with guns being smuggled into the US from Mexico. From my understanding the problem is usually the other way around.
-
In the grand scheme of things, there is very little overlap. Have you heard about a rash of legal gun owners going out and murdering people (self defense aside, of course)? I haven't. There are bigger fish to fry right now.
Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.
-
In the grand scheme of things, there is very little overlap. Have you heard about a rash of legal gun owners going out and murdering people (self defense aside, of course)? I haven't. There are bigger fish to fry right now.
You're equivocating. "law abiding citizen" and "legal gun owner" are not equivalent. In fact, the two are not even related; the fact that someone legally owns a gun says little to nothing about whether or not they otherwise abide by the law. My complaint is with how just about every pro-gun argument I've heard acts like the only people who break the law are those that do it habitually. This is so far from true as to make such arguments seem completely dishonest to me, particularly when this flaw is pointed out but they still keep going back to these same arguments.
Note: I'm not even necessarily anti-gun. I'm actually not sure where I stand on these issues, but I -hate- dishonest arguments.
Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.
Currently, there are problems with guns being smuggled from the US into Mexico. Clearly for this to be the case, there must be a demand for guns in Mexico that is not met by guns manufactured there. Therefore, I'd say your scenario sounds a bit far fetched.
-
Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.
Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>
-
Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.
Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>
I said when the supply of guns in the U.S. dries up. Then getting them from outside the country becomes the viable option.
-
Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.
Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>
I said when the supply of guns in the U.S. dries up. Then getting them from outside the country becomes the viable option.
It's also a harder option. Surely squeezing the supply is a good thing? And if there is a problem with guns being smuggled from the US ~to~ mexico, they don't have a massive supply to smuggle back in themselves, do they? Pretty sure Canada has stricter gun laws than the US too. At the very least, it becomes more expensive to get them illegally.
-
If we didn't have guns here, I would expect some to come from or through Mexico if the demand is there. But if you think squeezing the supply is a good thing, ask the British about that. From the article I linked several posts ago, it also talked about their handgun ban:
Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.
According to the article, that ban went into effect as a result of a mass shooting.
-
I just read this on my local news website here in southeastern Wisconsin tonight. I am shocked as well as against this proposal to put armed citizens in schools. >:(
SHOREWOOD - Lawmaker Don Pridemore is backing a controversial proposal.
It would allow citizens to arm themselves and volunteer at schools in hopes of preventing a Newtown-type attack in the future.
"I just think that's sending out the wrong message to kids," parent Shalanna Wright says.
Wright is the mother of a 2nd grader at Lake Bluff Elementary School in Shorewood. She says this isn't the way to improve school safety.
"I just think that guns teach kids the wrong message, especially in school," Wright says.
Pridemore will challenge state Superintendent Tony Evers in the upcoming spring election. He says allowing armed current and former police officers to volunteer their time protecting schools could prevent another incident like what happened in Newtown.
"If the school system had that ability and has the force available, people will think twice," Pridemore says.
"I believe it is [the solution], but it's a local decision," Pridemore says.
The images of Newtown still haunt parent Karina Rangel.
"It was just devastating, just thinking like it could have been my daughter," Rangel says.
She says Pridemore's idea would make her daughter's school safer.
"It would just be another resource where you know your kids are safe and stuff," Rangel says.
Pridemore would also support allowing teachers and administrators to arm themsevles with guns. He's in the process of getting input from several school districts.
-
I don't see the problem with this. Former law enforcement already has lots of training and experience with those kinds of situations. We plan to home school for now, but here's my reasoning for anyone that thinks putting armed guards in schools sends the wrong message to the kids:
We have police that patrol the streets, ready to respond as quickly as possible to threats. There is little as valuable as our kids and this keeps protection close at hand. It's also been shown that once these deranged killers have their "bubble" popped by an opposing force (i.e. cops or armed civilians firing back), they give up or end their own life a lot of the time. They look for the unarmed and gun free zones. It's fish in a barrel to them. Armed guards in a school is likely to stop a shooting before it happens.
I'm a little more cautious about arming the teachers, or anyone else without a law enforcement or military background. I'm ok with the idea, so long as they undergo thorough background checks, are properly trained on how to recognize and deal with situations (much like cops would go through, not some 30 minute lecture), and are certified capable with their weapon and regularly go to a gun range to practice. Obviously letting Jim Bob Redneck loose with a pistol and no marksmanship training/accountability would be a horrible idea.
-
I just read this on my local news website here in southeastern Wisconsin tonight. I am shocked as well as against this proposal to put armed citizens in schools. >:(
I don't understand why you would have a problem with Administrators, teachers, and police officers having access to firearms in schools. All teachers, administrators, and police officers are background checked anyways. If they want to have the means to protect themselves from attack, why would you deny them that? Most mass shooters are not trained, or honestly very proficient with, accurate with, or informed about firearms. A single person who knows what they're doing could be more than a match for them. Especially if the person is a cop, a veteran, or grew up in a family with a lot of veterans around.
If they want to volunteer their time for free to protect a school? Why not?
-
I'm tired of people using the argument that without guns, people can still kill with knives and whatever, or "Oh, we can make a bomb out of supermarket products....let's just ban those then!" and therefore, no law banning guns should be introduced. It's ridiculous. Why do you think guns were invented in the first place? Great massacres occurred throughout history without guns or even somewhat modern weapons. People can still commit mass murders without guns. Heck, people can commit mass murders with their bare hands if they know how. But the way some people talk about it, it's like, "Well, murders will take place anyway, and therefore there is no point in trying to make it harder." "We can't do anything...it's just too hard." My gosh, if we had that logic for anything throughout history, who or what would we have to look up to?
That was just a paragraph about the same lazy arguments I hear all the time regarding guns. I am not denouncing pro-gun people's other completely valid worries and reasons, just the overused lazy arguments.
Gun control is more than just banning guns. It's a balance between rules and law, regulations, culture, geography, and many other factors. Yes, Chicago's gun laws don't seem to work. What do you expect? It's a city with miles of accessible, non-patrolled surface area where guns can slip through. Of course it's not going to work. There are ways to fix it of course...just a matter of who actually wants to pursue them. Japan, a country with less than a handful of gun murders a year and some of the strictest gun control in the world, is a small island nation with a culture that places somewhat more trust in the police than other countries. Gun laws help, but geography and culture help more to make these particular laws effective.
-
I just read this on my local news website here in southeastern Wisconsin tonight. I am shocked as well as against this proposal to put armed citizens in schools. >:(
SHOREWOOD - Lawmaker Don Pridemore is backing a controversial proposal.
It would allow citizens to arm themselves and volunteer at schools in hopes of preventing a Newtown-type attack in the future.
"I just think that's sending out the wrong message to kids," parent Shalanna Wright says.
Wright is the mother of a 2nd grader at Lake Bluff Elementary School in Shorewood. She says this isn't the way to improve school safety.
"I just think that guns teach kids the wrong message, especially in school," Wright says.
Pridemore will challenge state Superintendent Tony Evers in the upcoming spring election. He says allowing armed current and former police officers to volunteer their time protecting schools could prevent another incident like what happened in Newtown.
"If the school system had that ability and has the force available, people will think twice," Pridemore says.
"I believe it is [the solution], but it's a local decision," Pridemore says.
The images of Newtown still haunt parent Karina Rangel.
"It was just devastating, just thinking like it could have been my daughter," Rangel says.
She says Pridemore's idea would make her daughter's school safer.
"It would just be another resource where you know your kids are safe and stuff," Rangel says.
Pridemore would also support allowing teachers and administrators to arm themsevles with guns. He's in the process of getting input from several school districts.
i see no problem, we have student resource officers in highschools
-
If they lock doors on a school to keep intruders out. Why not
use doors that a normal firearm can't compromise. Most metal
doors used in commercial buildings with protected locks would
have kept him out.
They don't have to look like a bank vault. But tempered glass
doors offer little protection.
Guns are available around the world. Even if the public of this country
would agree to throw all their guns away. Criminals wouldn't have
any trouble getting them. We can't get rid of drugs so why think
we can do the same with guns.
We can only try to keep them from those who might use
them to hurt others
People who plan to kill other people outside the law are usually
mentally disturbed. We mist treat the disease to reduce the
violence. Or it will continue with what ever tool is available.
-
look, one side thinks that less guns equals less gun crime
the other side says that people will kill anyway, in my honest opinion the real issue here isn't the guns
metal detectors, they've done it in some schools, it works, and it is a hell of a lot easier than convincing the nation that we need to take away their weapons
-
I like Israel's approach: arm the teachers. Nobody is going to shoot up a school where they know they'll get lit up the moment they try to hurt anyone.
-
If we didn't have guns here, I would expect some to come from or through Mexico if the demand is there. But if you think squeezing the supply is a good thing, ask the British about that. From the article I linked several posts ago, it also talked about their handgun ban:
Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.
According to the article, that ban went into effect as a result of a mass shooting.
It's rather peculiar because during the mass shooting that the ban was based on, The weapon used was an assault rifle, so banning handguns seems strange to me. Forgive me if I am misinformed.
-
I agree witht the thought of Police Officer statement- One hundred Percent. The current Rent-a-Cops, while good at stopping targets with knifes- something that happens every once in a while around here- don't even get issued Tazers. I think that having a trained Police Officer with a gun would be a godsend, especially in inner cities, where nobody would be scared of that Baton-wielding rentacop. Even out HERE no one is.
-
Professor John Lott makes compelling debate in favor of firearms ownership in his book More Guns=Less Crime. A certain adjunct professor/future President refused to discuss the subject with Prof. Lott.
In my own hometown a man was beaten to death with a golf club. Perhaps he could have dialed 911, then endured 5-10 minutes of beating, waiting for law enforcement. I doubt anyone would be willing to put up with that and be maimed or comatized, if not killed. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
-
So recently I have been watching a lot of videos on YouTube about gun control and wanted your opinions on it. Personally I think we have enough laws in place controlling firearms. You hear about all these people talking about 'assault weapons' and how we should ban anything that isn't used for hunting or sport, sadly these people are very uneducated, because the definition of assault rifle is a firearm that can be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic and is primarily used for warfare, you need a Federal Firearms License to obtain a fully automatic weapon, these are incredibly hard to get, lastly a strictly semi-automatic firearm is not considered an assault rifle. It is not an assault weapon, it is a firearm.
Also, some people say guns kill people, if that was true then cars make people drive drunk. People kill people, a firearm is just a shortcut, plus 99% of the people that go on these shooting massacres or at least try to aren't right in the head and about half of these people steal these weapons as well. Statistically hammers kill more people per year on average than guns, so are we going to ban hammers now?
Lastly, an law put into place that affects the 2nd amendment in any way shape or form is an unconstitutional law, therefore it is not a law.
So what are your thoughts?
-
Personally, I don't like guns. At all. I understand their "necessity", but at the same time, there's no real need for people to have them aside from hunting. I'm not really a fan of hunting either, but I get that a lot of people like it, and I accept that. So you give people hunting rifles after they apply and you check them and what not. That part I'm fine with. But it's when you get into all the hand guns, and the assault rifles that I start having a problem.
You hear about all these people talking about 'assault weapons' and how we should ban anything that isn't used for hunting or sport, sadly these people are very uneducated, because the definition of assault rifle is a firearm that can be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic and is primarily used for warfare, you need a Federal Firearms License to obtain a fully automatic weapon, these are incredibly hard to get, lastly a strictly semi-automatic firearm is not considered an assault rifle. It is not an assault weapon, it is a firearm.
I understand the difference between a rifle used for hunting and for killing people, but my question is just why is it that you need them in the first place?
People kill people, a firearm is just a shortcut, plus 99% of the people that go on these shooting massacres or at least try to aren't right in the head and about half of these people steal these weapons as well.
It's true that most of the people that go on shooting sprees are crazy. But the debate comes in when you ask yourself, what if they didn't have a gun. What if instead all they had was a knife, or some other kind of non firearm weapon. Sure they'd still probably try to kill, but it's a lot harder to stab up a school than it is to shoot it up. It's still a tragedy sure, but until we find out how to cure all the different mental disorders, it's unfortunately more about mitigating the problem than it is totally avoiding it.
Statistically hammers kill more people per year on average than guns, so are we going to ban hammers now?
You need to check this. From what I've researched about this, it's only counting people killed by rifles. It doesn't take into account any other type of gun.
All in all, I think that it's not a good to keep guns around. There's no need for people to have them.
-
Flatout442: I've merged your topic "your opinions on gun control" (starting at post number 62) with this one as they are discussing the same topic.
-
Flatout442: I've merged your topic "your opinions on gun control" (starting at post number 62) with this one as they are discussing the same topic.
Hey its fine, only 2 hours of research and typing wasted...
-
Personally, I don't like guns. At all. I understand their "necessity", but at the same time, there's no real need for people to have them aside from hunting. I'm not really a fan of hunting either, but I get that a lot of people like it, and I accept that. So you give people hunting rifles after they apply and you check them and what not. That part I'm fine with. But it's when you get into all the hand guns, and the assault rifles that I start having a problem.
I see what you mean, but at the same guns were created for sport. You then proceeded to mention assault rifles, these kinds of rifles are only mean't for warfare but that doesn't you can get your hands on them, the Aurora shooting (about 10 miles from where I live) gunman used a Remington 870 pump shotgun and an AR-15 sport rifle, the AR is a civilian version of the famous M16-A2 assault rifle. So basically guns are fun when used properly, when something like Aurora happens you have to look at the shooters mental state and how they obtained the weapon, in that case he obtained them legally.
You hear about all these people talking about 'assault weapons' and how we should ban anything that isn't used for hunting or sport, sadly these people are very uneducated, because the definition of assault rifle is a firearm that can be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic and is primarily used for warfare, you need a Federal Firearms License to obtain a fully automatic weapon, these are incredibly hard to get, lastly a strictly semi-automatic firearm is not considered an assault rifle. It is not an assault weapon, it is a firearm.
I understand the difference between a rifle used for hunting and for killing people, but my question is just why is it that you need them in the first place?
Guns were first widely used for hunting during the 1820s-1850s during the time of the mountain man so they could get food while living harsh climates without venturing far. Why guns might you ask, because they were easier to use than bow and arrow. Guns were never intended to kill or harm people, but over the past 150 years or so some people created some versions of firearms for warfare, because they were easier to kill people with than swords.
People kill people, a firearm is just a shortcut, plus 99% of the people that go on these shooting massacres or at least try to aren't right in the head and about half of these people steal these weapons as well.
It's true that most of the people that go on shooting sprees are crazy. But the debate comes in when you ask yourself, what if they didn't have a gun. What if instead all they had was a knife, or some other kind of non firearm weapon. Sure they'd still probably try to kill, but it's a lot harder to stab up a school than it is to shoot it up. It's still a tragedy sure, but until we find out how to cure all the different mental disorders, it's unfortunately more about mitigating the problem than it is totally avoiding it.
The day Sandy Hook happened, there was a man in China who stabbed 27 people, 26 of them children, I believe 20 died (I think, don't take my word for it.) Knifes are just as deadly when you use them to kill, and knifes are really easy to get, I have 6.
Statistically hammers kill more people per year on average than guns, so are we going to ban hammers now?
You need to check this. From what I've researched about this, it's only counting people killed by rifles. It doesn't take into account any other type of gun.
But still isn't that crazy?
All in all, I think that it's not a good to keep guns around. There's no need for people to have them.
-
Feel the need to add my thoughts...
I'm not gonna sugarcoat my opinion. The way I see it, all gun control does is keep guns away from good honest people. I know a lot of people say good people have no need for guns but really a gun I simply a tool, an inanimate object. A gun is unable to tell right from wrong, all it knows is that when you pull the trigger, a bullet will be sent flying in the direction you are pointing it in, it's not of capable of seeing the object or person it's going through. Sandy Hook really does sadden me but I think of it this way...what if one of the teachers had a gun? There would have probably been a lot less dead people...
One story I like to tell about how guns can keep people safe...this kid in Texas who was 14 at the time I believe, he heard an intruder come in, rushed his three younger siblings upstairs and stood at the top of the stairs with his dad's rifle. He gave the guy a fair warning, but he kept going and the kid shot the man. The newscasters were worried that he was gonna be scarred for life over it...don't you think he would have been scarred worse if he saw his younger siblings hurt right in front of him when he could have stopped him?
As crazy as this may sound, i'd rather my daughter have a gun than a cell phone because if she gets cornered by some creep who wants to do awful things to her a cell phone won't do a thing for her if the nearest police office is 20 something blocks away. If it were me cornered and I had the option of shooting my attacker, I would without qualm because i'd rather stand before twelve of my peers than be carried by six of my friends if you catch my meaning.
then I hear a lot about 'if only we could get rid of all the guns' Personally, the world would be a much better place if guns weren't invented but alas they were and this is the world we live in...
Another point I feel necessary to make...begins with the definition of insanity. Which I believe was doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.
Mao Zedong took away guns......see the number of people who died during his reign
Adolf Hitler took away guns......see the holocaust and world war II
Joseph Stalin took away guns......see how many died in his wake
Pol Pot took away guns.......see the Khmer rouge
America tries to take guns from her people.......you fill in the blank...
I do believe in certain precautions such as background checks but gun control has been taken to completely ridiculous levels. For example the "SAFE" act, it is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed desperately. Why? well according to the second amendment we the people have the right to form a militia in the event of tyrannical government which it sadly looks like we're getting close to...And check the examples above, there would be nothing standing in the government's way, nothing! What few guns the "SAFE" act does allow would not be sufficient to form a militia. You can't have a militia with knives and baseball bats, you just can't. Good people do in fact have reasons to own guns. I'm not trying to force anyone's arm into owning a gun but don't go trouncing all over the second amendment.
I guess that's all I have to say for now...
-
Mao Zedong took away guns......see the number of people who died during his reign
Adolf Hitler took away guns......see the holocaust and world war II
Joseph Stalin took away guns......see how many died in his wake
Pol Pot took away guns.......see the Khmer rouge
America tries to take guns from her people.......you fill in the blank...
Just pointing out that this comparison doesn't work...your pattern breaks in America:
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Democratic nation takes away guns. Bad things happen.
-
Oh and as for the title of this thread....I suppose it was not the last straw after all.
-
Just pointing out that this comparison doesn't work...your pattern breaks in America:
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Dictator took away guns. Bad things happen.
Democratic nation takes away guns. Bad things happen.
"Dictator" and "democratic nation" are not mutually exclusive. The Weimar Republic was, in fact, a democratic nation at the time of the 1932 federal elections, in which the Nazi Party gained the relative majority in the parliament, without which Hitler could never have achieved power.
-
America is not a democracy, it's a republic. But they're similar.
-
The U.S. is a democracy in that we vote for our representatives in government. They
make the laws. If we don't like the laws we should tell them. If they won't listen to us
we vote for someone to replace them. So if you want to keep the right to have arms
you best vote for those who support your belief.
If the people were voting to make laws, there would be alot of descrimation and bad laws
due to alot of people voting emotionally and not intelligently. That's not counting those who
would use propaganda to convince the public to pass laws benefiting them.
Besides most people wouldn't have the time to be knowledgeable enough to vote
on all of the hundreds of laws, rules, and budgets that would need to be on the ballot.
Heck even our representatives are not always informed enough to vote properly.
-
Heck even our representatives are not always informed enough to vote properly.
Especially concerning areas where due to advances in science and technology, the old ways of governing simply can not be applied the same way. (for example, with the internet)
-
One thing I am very tired of is people protesting restricting the use of assult rifles by claiming they are needed for home defence. A shotgun is easier to use, causes less collateral damage (regarding anything outside of your house) and a heck of lot more unnerving when they go off.
I'm certianly not against guns, I'm actauly for them, but I wish people would give some better reasons to keep the darn things.
Sorry for the bad spelling, on an iPod.
-
...but I wish people would give some better reasons to keep the damn things.
Wow so much this.
-
Most people lie through their teeth when it comes to saying Assault Weapons are used for home defense in a civilian environment.
I would imagine, for most former soldiers, having one in their home is more for nostalgic reasons than anything else.
This said, I personally believe it should be a right to be able to keep yourself armed, unless you prove that you cannot handle it yourself. Besides, placing restrictions on weaponry is less effective due to it being a 'feel-good' measure; Criminals, terrorists, and insurgents don't follow laws.