View Full Version : Gun Control
What it says. Should the US bring in stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting?
No. No use anyway. Unless the government bans specific types of guns like full automatic weapons and assault rifles and makes handing them in (for a refund) mandatory and refusing to do so a federal offence. Ak47 assault rifles are illegal in the us now. But if you bought it prior to a certain date (I believe 1984) you van still keep them and use them.......silly...just stimulates making weapon caches
No. No use anyway. Unless the government bans specific types of guns like full automatic weapons and assault rifles and makes handing them in (for a refund) mandatory and refusing to do so a federal offence. Ak47 assault rifles are illegal in the us now. But if you bought it prior to a certain date (I believe 1984) you van still keep them and use them.......silly...just stimulates making weapon caches
Though a law like that would (literally) have a lot of people up in arms.
No. No use anyway. Unless the government bans specific types of guns like full automatic weapons and assault rifles and makes handing them in (for a refund) mandatory and refusing to do so a federal offence. Ak47 assault rifles are illegal in the us now. But if you bought it prior to a certain date (I believe 1984) you van still keep them and use them.......silly...just stimulates making weapon caches
I have to agree with this one. I am a gun owner and I own more than one gun and more than one type of gun. I just don't see any reason for assault type weapons being in the hands of the public and being of firing potential.
I invite someone to give me 3 good reasons for the public (civilians) to own military type weapons.
I can certainly go along with an assault weapons ban, although I don't see how in the world you will ever get them out of the people's hands that don't want to give them up.
i agree, who needs a rocket launcher?, but I think that people don't want to see ANY of their rights taken away or limited. I am also for taxing sugar and high calorie drinks and food but many people say that it will start with certain types of food, then lead to more and more government control. I don't think the argument is against what type of guns, but bigger government.
I am what many would consider super liberal, but I just don't see how gun control can stop these type of crimes that are occurring in "white suburbia". If we were talking gang wars in the big city I could understand but that type of stuff doesnt make national news.
(although extremely sad) instances like what just happened in CT, and the movie theater earlier in the year, and what happened in VT a few years ago are like lightning strike. The odds are so slim that prevention is almost impossible. The national media makes us forget all to often when they attempt to scare us to death that we are are a nation of 350,000,000. 6.5 children under 14yo die each day from cancer, and 6 children under 15yo die each day in auto accidents, NO DAILY NEWS COVERAGE on that stuff. Over 100,000 ALCOHOL related deaths occur each year, and NO ONE does shit about it or even really cares. In our country there are much bigger fish to fry then "what type of gun you have"
All very true maggio, on the other hand no guns in public hands like in the UK or the Netherlands makes the likelyhood of the scale of massacre like CT very tiny indeed. Does it prevent criminals from getting them? No. But these kind of crimes are not committed by criminals but by psychiatric cases. In the us though gun ownership is so prolific that gun control measures will have little to no effect. The stats are pretty scary though... 9000 gun related deaths per 100k pop in the us vs 450 here
I have to agree with this one. I am a gun owner and I own more than one gun and more than one type of gun. I just don't see any reason for assault type weapons being in the hands of the public and being of firing potential.
I invite someone to give me 3 good reasons for the public (civilians) to own military type weapons.
I can certainly go along with an assault weapons ban, although I don't see how in the world you will ever get them out of the people's hands that don't want to give them up.
The intention of the second amendment wasn't to let people carry weapons purely for self defense or target shooting or hunting. It was to allow the people of the US to resist the government if it ever got out of control. At the time, muskets were the cutting edge of weapons technology, so an armed militia force would have a good chance at resisting regular troops. Nowadays, we have fully automatic weapons, tanks etc, so in order for the second amendment to be relevant, people have to be able to obtain
the equipment to bring down the government, or at the very least make it almost impossible for it to go full police state. The less effective the weapons in the hands of the people, the harder this is.
no guns is just unrealistic in the US as it is part of our constitution and that will not change. there are not enough studies in the world that are going to convince a majority of US citizens to go for zero guns.
I know it won't, which is why the Virginia techs, ct, columbines and Apollo's will keep recurring.
I know it won't, which is why the Virginia techs, ct, columbines and Apollo's will keep recurring.
There's more to it than simply banning guns though. Even in the UK we still get shooting sprees. They aren't common, admittedly but they still happen.
MellonColly
12-18-2012, 16:03
I think a 2 prong attack is needed here.
1. Ban assault rifles
2. Increase funding for Mental Health organizations ( I say organizations here to cover just about anything to do with mental health)
This is grossly underfunded and lets say they can help a few more people per year that would have otherwise lashed out violently. I don't see why anyone here is worried about money. I saw someone say (not here but on tv) "but at what cost". Now to me this is just stupid. You can't put a cost on a human life. I don't care if it takes 20,000 or 200,000. If the kid isn't going to walk into some school and shoot 26 innocent people I don't think the cost should matter one bit.
Divine Intervention
12-18-2012, 16:13
i read somewhere that all these shootings happen in gun free zones? something to think about. anyway, i would start thinking about moving country once the US government starts taking your weapons away - you know whats gonna happen soon down the line! problem is no where in the world to move :(
we have liquidations in the underworld every few months or so, but odds of getting shot innocently are very very slim here. even in the underworld people are warned in advance by police, and when shot it is usually done more or less professionaly. with thus far no bystanders being killed.
we´ve had 1 spree so far, killing 6, injuring 17 with a total of around 100 shots fired by a 24 year old gun club member. does that mean there are no shootings? of course not...there have been 500 or so of them this year, but as long as gangs / criminals off each other, so much the better for society.
You know, I am not seeing this thing being an easy fix in any way. My entire take on this is form that of an old conservative type so bear with me. This has been coming for a long time. I don't mean this incident, but the behavior that allowed these things to happen. The entire values system has changed over the last 40 or so years.
I have a lot to say on this, but not till I get enough time to continue writing.
I am cooking the Mrs' dinner.
the shooting in CT has nothing to do with gun control IMO. There was some mental health issues, and there most likely were some red flags ingnored or kept behind closed doors. normal people dont wake up one day and do things like this.
The economy is 24 hours round, and with human nature allways wanting to improve ones own standards more and more couples are both working instead of just one, to make end's meet or have more spending cash. Children see less and less of their parents with every generation and the task of raising them is pushed more and more in to the hands of the schools. kids are becomming more individualistic and egocentered in the process. underpayed, overworked teachers see their tasks expanded without proper resources and time to manage it. Schools these days have to do so much parenting to bring them up to the level that kids had before when they came to school that they hardly get to the things they were setup in the first place.... teach. this might work out decently enough for large parts of the children population, but a lot of kids are lost along the way. There is a reason so many kids are diagnosed with socialemotional / psychilogical disorders like ADHD, PDD-Nos and god knows what else. does this mean that they all end up like spree shooters? no of course not, but i think it would be in everybodies best interest if folks starting shifting their focus away from their work / carreer a bit and did some more parenting of their own, with decent youthcare and mental healthcare to help both the kids and most importantly the parents cope.
the shooting in CT has nothing to do with gun control IMO. There was some mental health issues, and there most likely were some red flags ingnored or kept behind closed doors. normal people dont wake up one day and do things like this.
i dont see this as a mental health issue at all.
not saying that the people who do these things are sane.
but think about it a crazy guy goes into a place and says bang that is not gonna hurt anybody.
however if you make a weapon/gun avaliable to him well completely diffrent story wouldnt you agree?
a ban on guns would be in the better intrest of the us if the population actually wants to avoid these kind of things from happening, if not well you choose to have weapons and thus you choose to have these kind of things happen every now and again....
not that i think there will be any change of course.
The economy is 24 hours round, and with human nature allways wanting to improve ones own standards more and more couples are both working instead of just one, to make end's meet or have more spending cash. Children see less and less of their parents with every generation and the task of raising them is pushed more and more in to the hands of the schools. kids are becomming more individualistic and egocentered in the process. underpayed, overworked teachers see their tasks expanded without proper resources and time to manage it. Schools these days have to do so much parenting to bring them up to the level that kids had before when they came to school that they hardly get to the things they were setup in the first place.... teach. this might work out decently enough for large parts of the children population, but a lot of kids are lost along the way. There is a reason so many kids are diagnosed with socialemotional / psychilogical disorders like ADHD, PDD-Nos and god knows what else. does this mean that they all end up like spree shooters? no of course not, but i think it would be in everybody's best interest if folks starting shifting their focus away from their work / carreer a bit and did some more parenting of their own, with decent youthcare and mental healthcare to help both the kids and most importantly the parents cope.
Exactly, although I would add that the divorce rate in this country is horrendous. 75% of the time after a divorce, that dad is just gone. Selfishness takes over and too bad so sad...
Single women, no matter how hard they try, 9 times out of 10, cannot raise boys to be men. They are busy trying to support the household and most of those kids are left to fend for themselves and raise them selves with whatever guidance they get from school or worse yet tv. .I for one, REFUSED to leave my kids welfare to their mother alone. There is not one thing a liberal art major female could raise my sons to be the men the are now and the men I expected them to be. I had to be there to help and take that on. Too many divorce the kids when they divorced their wives and that is just wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think my ex wife is a great one, but she could not do it alone and she admits that and even complimented me on seeing that they turned out to be well adjusted young men.
You cannot legislate morality under any circumstances, it must be taught by the parents. There is no way in hell would I want my kids or any other kids raised by an education system controlled by the government.
An assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, and it usually has a pistol grip; sometimes it also has certain other features such as a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug. Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns.
"Assault weapon" is not a technical term. The meaning of the term is set by various laws that limit or prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. These laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as some state and local laws. Each of these laws defines the term in a slightly different way.
Assault weapons are often confused with assault rifles. The two are similar in appearance but different in function. Since an assault weapon is semi-automatic, it fires one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled. Assault rifles are actual military weapons that generally are either fully-automatic, i.e. they fire multiple rounds continuously when the trigger is pulled, or burst capable, i.e. they fire a burst of several rounds when the trigger is pulled.
Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate as part of the arguments of gun politics in the United States.
You have semi automatic hunting rifles and just about every handgun I have ever seen does the same thing, fire with each trigger pull. It isn't like these are military grade weapons. They are really just semi automatic rifles with fancy handles and easy load clips.
ranger2112
01-24-2013, 10:58
In a perfect world, weapons of this nature would not be needed. Problem is, without the ability to arm oneself, you are open to danger. Danger from criminals, the insane, evil and perhaps even your own government. The right to bear arms is not a negotiable concept. It is an inherit right that is ours and our forefathers simply pinned it into the constitution as a matter of fact. If you take away that right, you take away everything. What I mean is simple. If you destroy ONE right, then none have meaning. you may as well say you cannot have air, food or water. Taking away one freedom is a path to totally stripping all freedoms. It becomes too easy. what next? Freedom of religion? It is too dangerous for us to have different religions as most wars are fought about whose god is better. Make everyone believe the same and POOF! you cut out most wars. Free speech? Well that has to go too. People with different opinions start the bulk of the rest of the wars that religion didnt cause. If we all think and say the same things then POOF! there goes another chunk of wars. Wake up America, our thinly held on to rights are being torn away.
Well that was a silly post.
Your country has tanks, nuclear bombs, robots and you say if you have a revolver you are safe from the government. Ok!
A robber jumps you in the street. No worries! You have a semi-automatic pistol and you will defend yourself. Oops, the robber has a gun too. No worries! You are faster and you kill him/her. Noone takes your wallet.
By the way, I think this "should you be able to buy weapons from supermarkets" is a totally dumb thing to argue about. It's not a real problem, it's like gay marriage - a pseudo problem.
Satan666
01-26-2013, 04:49
In a perfect world, weapons of this nature would not be needed. Problem is, without the ability to arm oneself, you are open to danger. Danger from criminals, the insane, evil and perhaps even your own government. The right to bear arms is not a negotiable concept. It is an inherit right that is ours and our forefathers simply pinned it into the constitution as a matter of fact. If you take away that right, you take away everything. What I mean is simple. If you destroy ONE right, then none have meaning. you may as well say you cannot have air, food or water. Taking away one freedom is a path to totally stripping all freedoms. It becomes too easy. what next? Freedom of religion? It is too dangerous for us to have different religions as most wars are fought about whose god is better. Make everyone believe the same and POOF! you cut out most wars. Free speech? Well that has to go too. People with different opinions start the bulk of the rest of the wars that religion didnt cause. If we all think and say the same things then POOF! there goes another chunk of wars. Wake up America, our thinly held on to rights are being torn away.
Yes I agree that if you take one right away that it makes people wonder if the other rights are important enough to stay standing. But you other right we are forgetting is the victims of these shootings (both mass and criminal shootings). They all had the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By neglecting the fact there are weapons that can cause massive damage in a short amount of time (in other words lots of death and injury) we are saying that the criminals have more of a right to kill then the victims have to live. And I will give the argument that if someone good was allowed to be armed and stop the person from turning a shooting to a mass shooting then that would be worth having everyone armed just as well. This in theory does hold ground, like the saying goes: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. But then how can we spot the good ones from the bad? How would we say random 25 year old man walking down the street is a well adjusted responsible gun owner and not just someone on the way to kill someone or a gang member? I admit i am a pessimist and I look for the worst and hope for the best.
I look at a situation from 11 months ago, Trayvon Martin in Florida. The Owner of the gun by all accounts was a good person and responsible. He saw what he though to be a suspicous person and called 911 and reported it. When the person on the line told him to no engage and if he wanted to just keep an eye on Trayvon he did the opposite. Taking the law into his hand he ran up and confronted the young man with led to a struggle and the eventual shot to the chest. At this moment they haven't ruled officially what will happen but information (whether true or just someone creating things) is that the shooter was racist against black people and that he had talked to whoever claimed it about his dislike of the entire race.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.