Ban guns and/or expand background checks for Muslims?

[Kobuk]

For those who haven't been keeping up with the news, several days ago, two Muslims, a man and his wife, went on a shooting spree in San Bernadino, California and killed 14 people at a Christmas party. According to Police and FBI investigations, both Muslims were radicalised by ISIS teachings and had planned to carry out attacks  with massive amounts of guns, ammunition, and homemade pipe bombs the couple had stored in their car and home.

Here's the main question(s) of this thread:
1. Should increased (and more detailed) background checks be done on Muslims and/or any other suspected radical/extreme people before they are allowed to purchase and carry guns?
2. Should assault style weapons be banned from purchase by Muslims and/or other suspected radical/extreme individuals or groups?

Although numerous legislation by Congress has been proposed to make it tougher for Muslims and/or other radical/extreme individuals and groups from obtaining firearms, such legislation has been either stalled or blocked by various Republicans, Special Interest Groups, and even the NRA (National Rifle Association).

For crying out loud!  After everything that happened in San Bernadino with 14 people getting killed by radical Muslims with assault style weapons, you'd think people would applaud and encourage more checks and gun control for Muslims and/or other suspected extremeist and radical individuals/groups. If the U.S. has a so called "no fly" list for Muslims and other extreme people, then why can't we also have a "no guns" list for suspected Muslims who might be radicalised? I'm not saying that we ban all Muslims from owning a gun, but only those people who are suspected of being radicalised or have had contact with ISIS or other extreme groups. And we don't have to ban all forms of guns from Muslims, but just the so called assault style weapons that can kill mass amounts of people.

And I don't want to bring Donald Trump into this debate thread. But it must be mentioned that if this guy keeps touting his anti-Muslim rhetoric and wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country, we could find ourselves with even more bloodshed on American soil as more Muslims in the U.S. become angrier with his rhetoric and/or could potentially get guns and create more terrorist attacks on American soil. Trump's rhetoric is exacerbating the situation. 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/opinions/trump-isis/index.html

[Jackie]

Neither, these types of people are outliers regardless of how often we all hear about them, and it would only cause further problems and racial/religious tensions.

These radical group members may be mislead and brainwashed, but to be able to justify to themselves the torture and massacre of endless numbers of people, with no discrimination of age or sex or anything other than religion, and not even understand why they are doing it... I have no empathy for them, and I have no sympathy for them.

Each person they kill has nothing, no life, they are just dead, atoms now free to do other things, for nothing meaningful at all.

It's also a shame that our own governments are more than used to writing off so many previously innocent, and now simply finished lives, as "Collateral" Simple statistics to them ; )

[cause the rat]

So how many schools shootings were done by muslims? Honestly, if people would just put some thought behind this stuff......  We need those checks for everyone. It'll keep guns in the hands of my friends. Hopefully out of the hands of idiots.

[Foxpup]

If the U.S. has a so called "no fly" list for Muslims and other extreme people, then why can't we also have a "no guns" list for suspected Muslims who might be radicalised?

Because it violates the first two Constitutional Amendments simultaneously. You can't do that. You have to violate them one at a time, or else people might realise that what you're doing is illegal.

just the so called assault style weapons that can kill mass amounts of people.

Assault style weapons? I didn't realise painting a gun black makes it more dangerous.

But it must be mentioned that if this guy keeps touting his anti-Muslim rhetoric and wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country, we could find ourselves with even more bloodshed on American soil as more Muslims in the U.S. become angrier with his rhetoric and/or could potentially get guns and create more terrorist attacks on American soil.

And finding a different way to make Muslims angrier at the U.S. won't?

[cause the rat]

I believe what's called an assault weapon is one that has a large clip. The gun itself can fire continuously until the clip is emptied. Guess you could paint it any color you want. 

I'm for checking. I'm against banning any kind of riffle. An assault riffle in the hands of a peaceful and sane person is no more dangerous than an icecream cone.

[Foxpup]

I believe what's called an assault weapon is one that has a large clip. The gun itself can fire continuously until the clip is emptied. Guess you could paint it any color you want. 

According to the military, an assault rifle is one that is selectable between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firing modes, ie, what would be considered a light machine gun but for the first option. Both assault rifles and machine guns are illegal in the U.S. without a federal permit.

According to the anti-gun media, an assault rifle is one that is black or otherwise looks "scary". For all their scary looks, they're no different from your average hunting rifle.

[Amducious]

I believe what's called an assault weapon is one that has a large clip. The gun itself can fire continuously until the clip is emptied. Guess you could paint it any color you want. 

According to the military, an assault rifle is one that is selectable between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firing modes, ie, what would be considered a light machine gun but for the first option. Both assault rifles and machine guns are illegal in the U.S. without a federal permit.

According to the anti-gun media, an assault rifle is one that is black or otherwise looks "scary". For all their scary looks, they're no different from your average hunting rifle.

Cause a "clip" is the incorrect term it's a "magazine". People don't realize that AKs we buy here (or atleast most of them)in the U.S are no longer "Automatic Kalashnikovs" they're just a standard semi-auto type rilfe. Also AR-15s are no different, just semi-auto rifles. Lol you can buy a SKS which is a carbine type rifle which fires the same 7.62x39 round as the AK, yet it's semi-auto(guess it doesn't look "scary" as Foxpup said). You can also buy a Savage Axis which fires a .223/5.56 round same as the AR-15. So basically if you give something a tactical look it's immediately more powerful. (I'm just adding on more to what you said Foxpup)

Here in C.A it's a 15 round magazine limit. Other states have different laws.

[9141702]

I suppose the most difficult part of this whole situation is, what exactly can be done when there are already so many firearms in circulation? The problem with trying to implement any additional gun control laws NOW, is that it'll be nothing more than "doing something for the sake of doing something, to appease the public".

You could change the law mirror the UK's firearms legislation overnight, and I can almost guarantee nothing would change. The sheer volume of gear out in the wild makes it almost impossible to track everything and everyone, and of course we have the problem that only honest people obey the law to begin with. Criminals over here seem to have no trouble acquiring a firearm when they need one... I know someone who knows someone who is currently mid-way through a 10 year jail term for possessing an AK, and they've been illegal here since pretty much forever. Thankfully he's not doing a 25 to life term for shooting someone with it, so that's something.

As an outside observer, I think the US has gone too far down one path to easily change. Banning anything is almost completely meaningless unless you can round up and permanently export every single one of them. I've yet to see one instance where making something illegal stopped it from happening.


It's times like this I consider myself very lucky to live in a part of the UK where I could defend my home with little more than a pointy stick and harsh language if I needed to!

[Old Rabbit]

Background checks are good to help find people who maybe mentally disturbed or have
a criminal background. But most of those who are out to do mass murder aren't likely to
be stopped by gun laws. Might slow them down a bit, but laws generally have little affect
on those out to commit crimes.

Many shootings are done due to passion by people who are likely law abiding and mentally
sound. This is the risk we have when a loaded gun is handy at home or on our person.. It
also causes deaths by accident.. I think if we are going to have guns they should be made
safe when not used,  locked up with the amunition in a seperate place.  If you wish to have
a collectioin on display put them unloaded in a room that is always locked up.

If we feel the need to have one for self defense it should be unloaded to give one time to
think about what they are doing in the process. Few people are trained well enough to
use a weopon properly. They are more likely to hurt themselves or someone they love
than a criminal. Sometimes the criminal ends up with the gun.

The media likes to say there is more gun violence in American than other places. But
I have a friend who lives in south america who keeps a gun for portection. Her son keeps
on in his car to defend agains carjacking and being robbed.. Locally a person returned from
a trip to another country where he was nearly killed by a criminal with a gun. So it's a
world problem too.

As long as there are desperate people there will be gun violence. We need to treat the
reasons for misuse of weapons, because we arn't going to be rid of them.

[9141702]

Old Rabbit, sadly treating the socio-economic root causes of gun violence is a hell of a lot harder than banning high-capacity magazines or "black" weapons  That's not to say it's impossible, but it would need such a dramatic shakeup of society that I think it might take 100 years or more to implement. Perhaps we'll get there one day.

[Old Rabbit]

Old Rabbit, sadly treating the socio-economic root causes of gun violence is a hell of a lot harder than banning high-capacity magazines or "black" weapons  That's not to say it's impossible, but it would need such a dramatic shakeup of society that I think it might take 100 years or more to implement. Perhaps we'll get there one day.

I agree that restricting high capacity clips and guns is good idea in the short term.
But I do think addressing the cause is the best way to reduce violence over all. People
have started mass shooting for a reason, and we need to deal with that too..

I really don't see any reason to have a gun that has more than a 6 shot capacity. If a hunter
can't kill an animal with a shot or two, I doubt if they should be hunting in the first place.
Not taking the time to have a good view for a clean shot. means you may only injure the
animal or shoot something you may wish you hadn't.

We see police using 16 shots to stop someone, it seems rather excessive to me. Why
not give them machine guns if it takes that much to stop someone.

For home defense I think shotguns are best. The shot isn't as likely to
go through the wall of your neigbors house when you miss. I kind of
imagine it would get the attention of an invader a bit quicker than a
hand gun. At least it would me.  I personally would rather not have a
gun for home defense. They will likely cause one more trouble than not.

A taser or pepper spray should allow one the time to escape, and perhaps
not have to worry about being sued by an injured burgler.

[Foxpup]

I really don't see any reason to have a gun that has more than a 6 shot capacity. If a hunter
can't kill an animal with a shot or two, I doubt if they should be hunting in the first place.

There are other reasons to own a gun besides hunting (and hunting isn't even mentioned in the Second Ammendment). For example:

We see police using 16 shots to stop someone, it seems rather excessive to me. Why
not give them machine guns if it takes that much to stop someone.

Why not indeed? A gunshot wound is rarely fatal, and even a fatal wound rarely kill quickly. To quickly incapacitate someone by shooting them requires many more hits than most people think. This is the reason cops switched from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols in the first place: everyone who says "6 shots is enough to kill anything" has been watching too many movies.

For home defense I think shotguns are best. The shot isn't as likely to
go through the wall of your neigbors house when you miss. I kind of
imagine it would get the attention of an invader a bit quicker than a
hand gun. At least it would me.

But you also need to get the attention of the police, which means you're going to need a free hand to operate a phone. It would also be helpful to be able to open and close doors, use light switches, and so on. Handguns are far more practical in that respect.

I personally would rather not have a
gun for home defense. They will likely cause one more trouble than not.

And so they will, if the owner knows nothing about gunfighting.

A taser or pepper spray should allow one the time to escape, and perhaps
not have to worry about being sued by an injured burgler.

If you don't want to worry about being sued, learn about self-defence law. You are allowed to use lethal force against anyone threatening you with a weapon, and in some states (including Missouri), against anyone trespassing in your home while you're present. But it will significantly hurt your case if there is evidence that you didn't believe yourself to be in real danger. Evidence such as the fact that you used less-lethal force where lethal force was warranted. It gets especially bad if your attacker dies from their injuries (there's a reason Tasers and such are called "less-lethal" and not "non-lethal"). There's a word for killing someone when you "only" meant to hurt them because you didn't really want to kill them: the word is "manslaughter". Whoops.

In self-defence law, you're allowed to use either as much force as necessary to stop your attacker or none at all. There's nothing in between.

[Amducious]

Ok just to clear things up for people who keep using the term clips for guns incorrectly. Here's a pic for you to understand the correct terminology for these two very different things.  http://imgur.com/a/8HYFQ . Also I think this link brings up so good points on why high capacity magazines are a pro and a con.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/robert-farago/three-reasons-not-to-ban-high-capacity-magazines/

Also Foxpup brought up some good points too.

[Old Rabbit]

I do feel if people want to own firearms for self defense, they really should get
training in how to use them. A good traning course should be required. Not just
a quick trip to a shooting range. Some handguns are dangerous to the user if you
don't know how to use them other then pulling the trigger.

The training could enclude learning the law for using weopons for defense. It
is easier to shoot a hole in a target than to point the thing at a human and
fire it. To stand there and look at them after. Even trained police and solders
can get sick after a firefight is over.

I am not against firearms in general, just how people misuse them.

As I said we need to deal with the reason people kill, not just
the weopons they use. Those they will beg, barrow or steal.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

As per magazine capacity restrictions. One expert put it this way: If a gay guy was being attacked by five baddies, would ten rounds be enough for him to prevail?


There are those in this country who say we cannot deport 11 million illegal aliens, but are certain they can confiscate millions of firearms.

[Literate Lycan]

I'm going to dodge the messy issue of gun "control" which others have written of here (I think that's a topic for a separate debate thread). I'll just say I concur with Old Rabbit and that's it. I'd like to get back to the original question of whether or not we can impose special rules on gun ownership for Muslims.

My answer is no. It's unconstitutional.

Let's remember that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving citizens, not terrorists. Let's also remember that most terrorists, or those who fit the description of terrorists, in this country are not Muslim. Timothy McVeigh, for example. The Unabomber. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook school shooting). Charles Whitman (University of Texas at Austin shootings in 1966). Bombings at the Los Angeles Times in 1910 (by a trade unionist), Wall Street in 1920 (unknown), and a school in Bath Township, Michigan in 1927 (a deranged farmer).

We can't single out those of the Muslim faith for special scrutiny or restrictions. If we do, then shouldn't we go after the Baptists as well? After all, there's the Westboro Baptist group...

[Old Rabbit]

Admittedly the debate did get off topic a bit.  The news media in some cases has
given the public a somewhat poor discription of the muslim people. There are
extreemists in every religion, and they can be dangerous. But pointing to
any one people and saying they are bad because of the actions of a few is wrong.

We don't do it to those of other major religions and shouldn't do it to Islamic people.

If an muslim american wants a gun they should be checked just as anyone else would be.
Then allowed to have one if approved.