Gun Control

[Will]

What it says. Should the US bring in stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting?

[Scav]

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

[Will]

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.

[Dogma]

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.

[MAGGIO]

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"

[Scav]

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

[Will]

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.

[MAGGIO]

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.

[Scav]

I know it won't, which is why the Virginia techs, ct, columbines and Apollo's will keep recurring.

[Will]

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.