Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Captainplanet]

ridiculous. utterly ridiculous. seeing as many prominent figures of state LOVE to promote gun use and gun ownership. unless you think thats some conspiracy in the form of reverse psychology.


hence why it would NEVER happen. and you still haven't answered my question.


because it's convenience over how strongly they want the legislation passed or for that matter how many agree with it. and the last points you have to clarify, i don't know what you are talking about.

ridiculous. utterly ridiculous. seeing as many prominent figures of state LOVE to promote gun use and gun ownership. unless you think thats some conspiracy in the form of reverse psychology.


hence why it would NEVER happen. and you still haven't answered my question.


because it's convenience over how strongly they want the legislation passed or for that matter how many agree with it. and the last points you have to clarify, i don't know what you are talking about.

Then let me illuminate, as it were. The new "assault" weapons ban would ban about 120 weapons by name (majority of which are guns that many people have already, getting them on a $200 stamp would get them a lot of money) and also ban features such as magazines above 10 rounds in capacity and pistol grips and other stuff. Existing ones have to be grandfathered in (as in paid and registered, fingerprints, photos and all) which is the whole tax stamp thing, while new manufacture is of course banned and nationally 10 rounds is the limit. Existing magazines and banned guns will be destroyed even if they are grandfathered and payed for- they cannot be traded for money or given to a family member if you die or something.

^ Background stuff, or something to remember as you read this next bit: Looking at the census bureau and some FBI studies, national deaths by violent crimes were ~18000 in 2007 (stays in that range generally, so it would be fairly close to last year's rate). 12000 of those were with a gun, which is what worries the anti gunners (even though deaths by car accidents and drug use/activities total almost 80000, guns are negligible compared to that). Now per FBI studies, 90% of reported violent crimes were done with a pistol, a handgun, a gat, if you will. 90%, meaning these rifles they are going after are not even used in any major way in the vast majority of shootings. That is because pistols are easy to conceal and VERY available, on the order of at least 7 pistols per rifle in this country. That makes them a favorite of criminals because they are cheap, available, and any legislation that targets pistols would fall much harder than any long gun legislation, since you simply cannot keep track of them all. Rifles not being the issue and pistols too hard to control, they go for the rifles, things like AR's, AK's, Ruger mini 14's, M1A's, M1 Garands, guns which alot of people own, because compared to pistols, they are easier to make a law for.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 06:58 AM ----------

hence why there will never be a ban on guns or the govmnt knocking on your door for em. A) legislators would never let that pass to begin with. B) like its in their best interest to guarantee an armed rebellion against them. i know some people think politicians are dumb, but they aren't that dumb, even less so when they are in favor of your possession of fire arms.

They must know that, I doubt they are stupid enough to think for a second this would be effective, even in an LSD-laced best case scenario dream. Then why is it being pushed this far if they know that?

[Seranthor]

If you don't believe in banning guns you hate children.

Nooo way are gun control advocates are using dead children to push their agenda

Never let a good crisis go to waste... you've had a constant drumbeat of democrats demanding the exploitation of this tragedy to overreach...

http://www.examiner.com/article/demo...et-gun-control

Democratic lawmaker: Obama must 'exploit' murdered children to get gun control

Now... lets talk about who's exploiting what... shall we?

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:02 AM ----------

Why do Americans talk about a 200 year old political manifesto as if it descended from heaven on a cloud? The opinions of the founding fathers are no more relevant than those of people alive today.

Less in fact. For one thing, they're 200 years out of date. For another, they're dead.

Aren't you the guy from that country that banned guns and violent crime in EVERY catagory went up 30-55%? except murder and that dropped by what? 70 murders a year?

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:03 AM ----------

But guns are directly attached to their testis.

That's why they are acting like that about it.

So when you cant argue the facts, you turn to insults?

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:06 AM ----------

*snip*

There is a procedure for that... Congress passes the law... the senate passes it... the president signs it and submits it to the states for ratification. you need 75% of the states to vote in favor of it to ratify...

However, I dont see anyone attempting that, what I DO see is folks trying to circumvent that process. Meaning either they are unwilling to do it the legal way.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:11 AM ----------

No, a tool has a practical purpose for creation. A car is an automobile for transport. A gun is for killing.

And guns are protected in a well-regulated militia. If I remember correctly, those militia were ran by local governments, were they not?





People who defend the Constitution as if it were sacred and just are as bad as slaveholders, sexists, homophobes and racists. It's a document designed to be changed. The 2nd amendment is an anachronistic murder-supporting polity from the 17th century, unfit and unneeded in the modern era.

Really? slave-holding, sexist, homophobic racists for supporting the law that governs our country? Really? Funny you'd chose those words... but of course you wont be sanctioned for it. And exposing your dishonest hypocrisy isn't worth the infraction that I'd get tagged with.

I DARE you to tell your principal and school board the same thing...

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:14 AM ----------

Killing is always wrong. It's just sometimes the lesser of two evils. Encouraging killing humans as being a "fine thing" is pure evil and borderline sociopathic.

Really? Killing is wrong, then what do you say to your Hamas buddies that drug that guy down the street behind the motorcycles until he was dead? I guess you've changed your position about Hamas rockets flying into Israel and killing folks... and you've changed your position about folks boarding buses and blowing themselves up to kill Israelis, hmm?

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:17 AM ----------

I don't think any sane human is calm when people are defending death devices based on ridiculously old and unneeded philosophies and supporting the deaths of thousands upon thousands of humans annually for it, all on a non-evidence based and entirely theoretical situation which hasn't occurred.



Errr, what? Iceland, Monaco, San Marino?

Then ring up your Senators, be sure you accuse Sen. Scott of those things you accuse the supporters of the Constitution... I'm Certain he'll invite you to DC for dinner.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:21 AM ----------

Serious question and I apologize if it has already been dealt with... but humour me..

Why do you think you need automatic and semi-auto weapons?

Because you dont grasp that 'need' isn't relevant in the discussion. A fair and just law should be blind to need, color, gender, social class.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 01:26 AM ----------

You said human therefore it is valid. Goalposts etc. /acertainposter

Gun still didn't KILL anyone... the goalposts are still in the same damn place...

[Mancowski]

Guns are not the problem in the US. it's the people. Banning guns will indeed make it harder for crazies to get them. But they will just find other ways t kill poeople on a mass scale.

Banning guns will only divide this country. And cause further resentment. Education is the ONLY way to lower violence in our society.

And people stating that their country have a lower rate because they have these bans. Are also 1/10th the population or less. The more people you have, the more imbalanced people there will be. The problem is and will always be with people who are mentally ill. And not getting the help they need.

Banning guns will only slow these killings until they find other ways easier

[Captainplanet]

Guns are not the problem in the US. it's the people. Banning guns will indeed make it harder for crazies to get them. But they will just find other ways t kill poeople on a mass scale.

Banning guns will only divide this country. And cause further resentment. Education is the ONLY way to lower violence in our society.

And people stating that their country have a lower rate because they have these bans. Are also 1/10th the population or less. The more people you have, the more imbalanced people there will be. The problem is and will always be with people who are mentally ill. And not getting the help they need.

Banning guns will only slow these killings until they find other ways easier

Funny thing is most of Europe's violent crime rate (maybe gun crime be going up with it) has been on the rise ever since they have received thousands and thousands of middle eastern immigrants. Because of that there is alot of friction within the populace, and new laws are passed to prevent "racist" action and the media is not helping either. Sound familiar? its happened in the US also.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I get the feeling Seran doesn't actually care about debating gun control, he just likes to insult people and push his stance on others because that's what being "right" is all about. Being right about something no matter what facts are logic are presented before you. I think, based on recent political events, we need to redefine "compromise" as "The other side needs to meet my terms unconditionally or I'm going to toss insults and throw a temper tantrum."

[Seranthor]

I get the feeling Seran doesn't actually care about debating gun control, he just likes to insult people and push his stance on others because that's what being "right" is all about. Being right about something no matter what facts are logic are presented before you. I think, based on recent political events, we need to redefine "compromise" as "The other side needs to meet my terms unconditionally or I'm going to toss insults and throw a temper tantrum."

I'm open to debate, I bet if you'd paid attention even the slightest you'd actually find me quite reasonable. However, there are many that just get a kick out of flaming and insulting the other side... I'm simply pointing them out.

So I'll ask YOU Sir, IF the CT authorities hadn't blocked Adam Lanza's commitment to the mental facility, how many of those people would have died?

How many would have died in Aurora if the medical professional that he TOLD he wanted to kill people would have actually acted instead of spacing it off?

Hmm? You want to stop the mass shootings, then solve the problem. The gun isn't the problem, its the mentally unstable person holding it. Get them the help they need and you wont have mass shootings.

Failure to solve the problem and continuing to pick at the methods will continue to result in mass shootings and more people dying.

But thats what you want, all the guns banned, dont you?

[TooMuch]

I'm open to debate, I bet if you'd paid attention even the slightest you'd actually find me quite reasonable. However, there are many that just get a kick out of flaming and insulting the other side... I'm simply pointing them out.

So I'll ask YOU Sir, IF the CT authorities hadn't blocked Adam Lanza's commitment to the mental facility, how many of those people would have died?

How many would have died in Aurora if the medical professional that he TOLD he wanted to kill people would have actually acted instead of spacing it off?

Hmm? You want to stop the mass shootings, then solve the problem. The gun isn't the problem, its the mentally unstable person holding it. Get them the help they need and you wont have mass shootings.

Failure to solve the problem and continuing to pick at the methods will continue to result in mass shootings and more people dying.

But thats what you want, all the guns banned, dont you?

Funny how you don't debate at all. You don't read what people say, even post things that are a reply to something meant differently etc etc. You put words in peoples mouths which were not there in the original post at all. I don't call that debating, I don't call it a discussion. I can only agree with Aleros.

[Sky High]

Then let me illuminate, as it were. The new "assault" weapons ban would ban about 120 weapons by name (majority of which are guns that many people have already, getting them on a $200 stamp would get them a lot of money) and also ban features such as magazines above 10 rounds in capacity and pistol grips and other stuff. Existing ones have to be grandfathered in (as in paid and registered, fingerprints, photos and all) which is the whole tax stamp thing, while new manufacture is of course banned and nationally 10 rounds is the limit. Existing magazines and banned guns will be destroyed even if they are grandfathered and payed for- they cannot be traded for money or given to a family member if you die or something.

i personally have no problem getting rid of guns. i see them not as a tool for safety but of killing which is what they are. however to ban something like guns only opens up a whole new can of worms in the form of underground markets.

Looking at the census bureau and some FBI studies, national deaths by violent crimes were ~18000 in 2007 (stays in that range generally, so it would be fairly close to last year's rate). 12000 of those were with a gun, which is what worries the anti gunners (even though deaths by car accidents and drug use/activities total almost 80000, guns are negligible compared to that).

dont compare murders to personal negligence/accidents.

Now per FBI studies, 90% of reported violent crimes were done with a pistol, a handgun, a gat, if you will. 90%, meaning these rifles they are going after are not even used in any major way in the vast majority of shootings. That is because pistols are easy to conceal and VERY available, on the order of at least 7 pistols per rifle in this country. That makes them a favorite of criminals because they are cheap, available, and any legislation that targets pistols would fall much harder than any long gun legislation, since you simply cannot keep track of them all. Rifles not being the issue and pistols too hard to control, they go for the rifles, things like AR's, AK's, Ruger mini 14's, M1A's, M1 Garands, guns which alot of people own, because compared to pistols, they are easier to make a law for.

that's why I'm not for banning guns but better regulation. bans on anything do jack shit in the real world.

Then why is it being pushed this far if they know that?

knee jerk reactions. people want something to be done. so do I, but not in the form of bans.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I've never denied that properly addressing the root of the problem would ultimately solve the woes and ills of humanity, as well as senseless murders and violence. Indeed, if we knew the human psyche so well we could create the perfect paradise where every murder or crime is stopped before it can potentially happen, such is the perfect paradise created by Orwell's book "1948". Minority Report also comes to mind.

But alas, if it were so easy to create such a paradise, I imagine we would have done so already. But then stopping crimes before they were committed would be against the constitution, for one cannot be punished or imprisoned or have their rights infringed in any way until they have committed a crime. To be punished based on a thought or potential action, or even a mental state is in itself the antithesis of freedom. Thus the constitution and the idea of "Freedom" in and of itself is what enables crime and prevents us from stopping it before it happens! Maybe addressing the root of the problem isn't as easy as it seems? Most mentally unstable people do not wish to be detained in a mental hospital and thus it would be against their will.

Hmmm, conundrum. But if you want a world that addresses crime before it happens, you should get right on that. In the mean time, those of us living in reality will be looking for ways to mitigate the damage.

Also, while the idea of a firearm free world is tantalizing, especially seeing how well other countries get along without guns, I also realize that fear of a tyrannical government and other boogeymen, along with a raging gun fetish is something that is deeply ingrained in American culture. I'm a realist, and know that trying to go down that path now would only inflict more harm than good.

[Eomar]

You take away the 2nd amendment and you only take away guns from good law abiding citizens. News Flash: Criminals do not follow laws.

[obdigore]

You take away the 2nd amendment and you only take away guns from good law abiding citizens. News Flash: Criminals do not follow laws.

This is still poorly thought out tripe.

[Deleted]

You take away the 2nd amendment and you only take away guns from good law abiding citizens. News Flash: Criminals do not follow laws.

News Flash: Everybody is a good law abiding citizen until they snap. You act like people are born criminals.

[Cthulhu 2020]

News Flash: Everybody is a good law abiding citizen until they snap. You act like people are born criminals.

Haven't you heard? Real life is like video games, there are clearly defined good guys and bad guys, and there's no gray area or side switching.

[Captainplanet]

i personally have no problem getting rid of guns. i see them not as a tool for safety but of killing which is what they are. however to ban something like guns only opens up a whole new can of worms in the form of underground markets.


dont compare murders to personal negligence/accidents.

even if they end up with more dead? a life is a life


that's why I'm not for banning guns but better regulation. bans on anything do jack shit in the real world.

in this case the people need to be regulated better, not the guns, they are ONLY an inanimate object.

knee jerk reactions. people want something to be done. so do I, but not in the form of bans.

that can be negotiated, obviously, but I do not remember them being so different. If they are regulated, then anything illegal under the law will become very profitable for criminals IE north hollywood shootout in 1995(i think), during which the two perps illegally acquired/modified an AK47 with a drum magazine and what looked like an HK21 LMG since it had a box. both were full auto and had magazine capacities of at least 75 rounds, regardless of the 10 round limit california has had since forever and the super illegal full auto guns. point is, regulations or bans have NO bearing on criminals, so thats why this is moot and any compromise will be voided as soon as some crim gets his hands on a beta magazine for an AR and shoots up a food court at a mall, then stricter regulations will be called for which will do absolutely squat to solve the problem.

[Pengalor]

that's why I'm not for banning guns but better regulation. bans on anything do jack shit in the real world.

Regulations don't either....look at the widespread abuse of the medical marijuana system.

[lakhesis]

From a non-American's point of view reading the US news coverage of the gun regulation discussion is freaking weird. The American love-hate thing for guns is just bizarre from an outsider's perspective. A speech on "Why I need an assault weapon" would get you laughed off the platform most places outside the US & the third world.

The really depressing bit is the way the NRA tries to shift it over onto video games, which does have the potential to affect people outside the US & is a ludicrously obvious red herring tactic which might actually fly due to the nature of the current entrenched interests. Lots of ban-everythingers, lots of we-love-guns, not many we-love-games.

[Pengalor]

This is still poorly thought out tripe.

Where is he wrong? The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn't follow a law so what makes you think dedicated criminals will follow these laws?

[Mandible]

i dont mind regulation....i welcome regulation when people start talking about banning guns period.....thats when i take issue. i agree guns need to be regulated....they DO NOT need to be banned. banning guns will not stop the criminals.

They won´t stop criminals by regulating guns either. If people want a specific firearm they will get it, so once again its an attempt to stop / lower cases such as the school shootings which has been "law abiding" citizens commiting the crimes and not people with previous crimes on their record . Regulating would mean fx. making it alot harder or impossible for people with mental illness or criminal record to get a gun from a legal store - unless said store looked past checking on things.

[obdigore]

Where is he wrong? The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn't follow a law so what makes you think dedicated criminals will follow these laws?

/yawn. Try reading the thread. There is plenty of back and forth over that statement numerous times, with plenty of evidence that a ban would mean less guns in the hands of everyone, including (shockingly) criminals.

[Pengalor]

News Flash: Everybody is a good law abiding citizen until they snap. You act like people are born criminals.

Wat. There is a massive amount of premeditated crime, that's not 'snapping'. A 'snap' is when a crime of passion happens. Consistent mental illness is what causes premeditated crime. Also, statistically speaking, upbringing and environment play a huge part in whether someone can become a criminal, many times it's a long process and a specific kind of view on life, not a 'snap'.