Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Kasierith]

Obviously they don't keep the guns in a box while in use on the person, if that's where you were going. Keeping them in a button combination safe for easy access to the person with the combination should be fairly standard when the owner is home or isn't carrying the weapon.

Sounds like something that you would have to strongly enforce to actually have it happen, which would require government inside supervision of every gun-holding household.

[Matchu]

Look at the full statistics, not just gun statistics. How many people were killed with knives? How many women were raped, comparatively. What is the actual CRIME RATE, not the firearms crime rate. Cause yes, a place that allows firearms is going to have more firearm related crimes than one that does not, but what is the overall crime rate? Is overall crime reduced, or increased, for places where firearms are banned. England, Wales, and Australia are all TOP of the list for overall violent crime rate, and they ban guns. Mexico is also highly ranked, they have much stricter gun control laws than we do.

From my Scotland data, "The 95 homicide cases recorded in 2010-11 resulted in the death of 97 victims" with "In 2010-11, 61 homicide victims were killed by a sharp instrument, accounting for 63 per cent of all homicide victims recorded.". "The number of violent crimes (non-sexual crimes of violence) recorded by the police increased by 2 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11, to a total of 11,438.".

Also, look at the annual statistics for firearm related murders vs cases where a firearm was used in self-defense. Here's a hint-the number of self-defense cases are far, far higher, they just aren't "newsworthy".

Probably because a lot of "self-defence" cases, people don't die. A lot of homicide cases, people do. People dying is a bad thing.

[Aviney]

I'll just leave this right here.

I don't care if he's British. He's right.

[Adamas102]

They take advantage of the innocent who are not armed and in the full knowledge no one will oppose them in a gun free zone. That’s why these tragedies always happen in a school, shopping mall or a college campus. Where an assailant believes there is no one armed or capable of killing them is where they will strike.

Right, because fatal shooting sprees have never happened in military bases or police stations. Oh, wait...

[Jackielope]

How do you enforce the "locked in gun cabinets" aspect?

Education. Teach people that it's in their best interests to keep a weapon locked up when it's stored. I don't know how difficult that would be considering that the people who keep their weapons out where children can get to them probably aren't responsible enough to realize "Hey, my child can get a hold of this lethal weapon and shoot it off at who knows what. I'd better make sure he can't."

[Kulanae]

In which case there's nothing more the woman could have done. If the guy was willing to do unspeakable stuff to get the combo then chances are he'd be willing to go through other illegal means to acquire a weapon. The next failing in that line for the shooting was the lack of security at the school when the children were in it, which is rather large I think. The article said the security didn't tighten until 9:30 which is absolutely stupid if the kids are in there before that.

I assume you mean some sort of armed guard? And what if he goes crazy?

The world is not safe. The question is how much you want to spend for the illusion of safety. Osama didn't attack the WTC to kill people. He attacked it to get the US to spend money. We reacted with two wars and the TSA which has an annual budget of $8.1 billion. How much safer are you on a plane?

Freedom is the only safety you have. That is why hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to defend it.

[Gothicshark]

People are so quick to blame a material object for the user's crime. Why people do this I will never understand. If you heavily regulate guns, or ban them, it only becomes a bandage, and does not stop the criminal, only impedes them. Restrict guns, they will move to different tools. Now it is not so much literal warfare that government will wage on their citizens, as much as stripping rights, and economic slavery ( see the Federal Reserve).

How did George Washington get the British to leave them alone? He shot them?
How did Ghandi get his message across? By the shooting of, and deaths of his people.
How do the people in 3rd world countries put their governments back in their place? They shoot them.

Everyone that I have met that is against guns didn't grow up with them, knows little to nothing about them, and has never shot a gun.

God forbid you're able to take care of yourself. Why the hell should the government do everything for you?
I for one do not want a nanny-state government. A government big enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take from you everything.

People keep dodging the the most important statistic in this argument. That is, how many times have guns protected, or prevent crimes? The most important statistic is the one that is sadly not recorded.

For every person that has been killed or wounded in a shooting, there is a story of how the gun has saved lives. But don't forget, good news, doesn't make good news.

Hello again, I'm back.

Let me touch on a few points.

I was raised to go hunting, I learned to shot when I was 9 years old, I had my own hunting riffle by 13. My father maintained a fairly large arsenal of military grade weapons in the house. I use to help with the cleaning and maintenance on a regular basis.

I joined the Marine Corps when I was 18, I got hurt during the Gulf war, and left after 3 years of service. I have fired a weapon during war time.

1. I believe most of the idiots with guns need to learn proper care and storage of their weapons.
2. 30,000 people a year die from Guns in the United States.
3. 10,000 people a year die by murder with a firearm in the US.
4. Many nations have civilian owned fire arms, but all of the 1st world nations require a education and a license to own one.
5. The liberal agenda is not the banning of guns it is the regulation of these tools used to kill.
6. Never has a gun been used to save a life, guns are used to take life. Now insuring freedom, destroying evil through war is a good thing, but these are not cases of civilians taking up arms. These are cases of Militarizes and Militias doing battle.

[PizzaSHARK]

Alright.

Michigan again. In 2010, there were 558 homicides. Of these, 413 were firearm related, 43 were "knives or cutting instruments" and 71 were "other weapons". All numbers taken from this table.

If you're looking to compare to the earlier Scotland data, Michigan has a population of around 9.8 million.

I'm not sure why you're acting like I'm saying the US has a lower murder rate, or a similar murder rate, to other first-world countries. I'm not.

I'll just leave this right here.

I don't care if he's British. He's right.

No, he's not. They're - again - using faulty logic. There are more guns in the US, therefore there will be more gun-related violent crimes in the US. No one with any sense of logic or reasoning would contest this. It doesn't mean that guns are the reason that there is more violent crime, just that they're involved. This kind of information is, at best, irrelevant.

Second, an AR-15 is not an "assault rifle." It's not even a selective-fire weapon.

It's just typical fear mongering by media outlets, directed at people who would rather rely on the news to tell them what to think rather than think for themselves.

[Vyragosa]

I don't care if criminals have guns, I care that crazies have guns.

Wake up USA, protect your kids from your own misinterpretation of your constitution.

Wake up USA, GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE.

Guns don't kill people, it's the person who shoot the guns that kills WITH the gun. If tomorrow a freak enters a mall with a butter knife and kill 10 people by cutting their throat will you say that knife needs to be prohibited as well? you said it first CRAZIES have guns. I have lots of friends and family that have guns in the US and Canada and they never killed anyone, besides deer and mooses they where hunting. When you walk to the gun shop the gun isn't killing you is it? When it falls into wrong hands it can be dangerous as any other thing the human being will touch. Look cars, they are use to drive right? Put that in the hands of someone who's drunk and hit someone? What happens? Blame the car? Maybe make the rule more severe yes but prohibition will make it way worst.

[Daffyduck]

And how are you going to word that law to make it Constitutional? You really want a law that can tell someone what they need to do with their own possessions in their own home?

I'm not really worried about the constitution or how it is worded as long as it stops some emo kid getting hold of his moms/dads assault rifle and heading down to the nearest public location to blow off some rounds.

Will laws like this stop all shootings? Of course not, but they will limit them.

[Daimon]

Cocaine is outlawed right? so that violates my freedom if i want to consume, according to that logic cocaine should be legal, the same for nuclear weapons, or gas zarin, or you name it. How can you not see that free access to almost any type of weapons is not the solution, is putting devices that can kill or harm many people simultaneously in the hands of mentally disturbed ppl. Criminals don't massacre kids in school, mental ppl do, soo.... limit their access to big weapons, plain and simple. How that violates any more rights than not been able to buy cocaine for example, be real. No need to have semi-automatic guns free access to everybody, period.

---------- Post added 2012-12-15 at 03:49 AM ----------

Guns don't kill people, it's the person who shoot the guns that kills WITH the gun. If tomorrow a freak enters a mall with a butter knife and kill 10 people by cutting their throat will you say that knife needs to be prohibited as well? you said it first CRAZIES have guns. I have lots of friends and family that have guns in the US and Canada and they never killed anyone, besides deer and mooses they where hunting. When you walk to the gun shop the gun isn't killing you is it? When it falls into wrong hands it can be dangerous as any other thing the human being will touch. Look cars, they are use to drive right? Put that in the hands of someone who's drunk and hit someone? What happens? Blame the car?

I can guarantee you almost 100% that if a guy enters a mall with a butter knife trying to kill 10, he might kill 1 with luck before its stopped, if he enters with a semiauto rifle, he can kill 20 in the first 2min with ease... get your facts straight.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm not really worried about the constitution or how it is worded

And the rest of your post can be safely ignored.

This, right here, is indicating that you aren't thinking. You're reacting based off of emotion, and that's bad. Well, it's bad as far as making or reviewing laws goes, anyway.

Justice and law-making needs to be done with a cool head and logic, not through moralizing or emotional responses.

[Aviney]

No, he's not. They're - again - using faulty logic. There are more guns in the US, therefore there will be more gun-related violent crimes in the US. No one with any sense of logic or reasoning would contest this. It doesn't mean that guns are the reason that there is more violent crime, just that they're involved. This kind of information is, at best, irrelevant.

No, that's perfect logic. More guns in the US means more gun-related violent crimes. That's the point. The NRA and the gun fanatics will have you believe that more guns = less crime. That's simply not the truth. Try to explain how Japan has such a low gun-related crime rate compared to the US. It comes down to the fact that there are less guns. Now, how could having less guns in the US be a bad thing? Because gun-related crimes would drop?

I can guarantee you almost 100% that if a guy enters a mall with a butter knife trying to kill 10, he might kill 1 with luck before its stopped, if he enters with a semiauto rifle, he can kill 20 in the first 2min with ease... get your facts straight.

This is the whole point. Sure, knives are dangerous too, but if someone tries to kill several people in a public place with a knife, they could somewhat easily be stopped before they moved onto a second or third or 28th victim. However, someone with even a handgun, with having plenty of ammunition, could kill 10, 15, or 27 people with ease before people even realize what's going on.

[Gothicshark]

Also like to say, I am pretty right minded on both things but whoever made a reference to the gun show loophole is right. That shit needs to stop.

I grew up around hunting and have a few shotguns for duck season and some deer rifles but I honestly do not see the need to own any type of AR weapon. Handgun for personal defense I can kind of understand if you live in a bad area or whatever. But also notice that these shootings tend to happen in what must of us rednecks in the south/midwest would call extremely blue states. So it would appear to me its not the hicks that are the problem.

I'm going to agree with you, never had a problem with guns or gun ownership until I moved to Los Angeles and saw how City born Republicans handle a gun. They littler treat them like toys, they do not dissemble them properly for cleaning or storage. they leave the ammo in the magazine and the magazine in the weapon.

I'm for gun control and the education and licensing of firearms because most people are stupid.

[Jackielope]

Sounds like something that you would have to strongly enforce to actually have it happen, which would require government inside supervision of every gun-holding household.

Or educating people about the issues of not keeping a gun locked up, plus requiring them to buy a safe for the gun in the first place. After making sure they know what's going on there's really not much else reasonably possible to do. Further enforcement might be handling like seat belt laws where the cop can't pull someone over just because he doesn't see a seat belt, but can write a ticket if he's there for other business and knows the person wasn't wearing a seat belt.

I'm only claiming it's an idea that might be worth looking at. I don't have the knowledge necessary to say for sure that it'd work or be worth actually putting into practice, but I'm pretty certain no one in this thread or probably even MMO-Champ does either.

[Kulanae]

I'm not really worried about the constitution or how it is worded as long as it stops some emo kid getting hold of his moms/dads assault rifle and heading down to the nearest public location to blow off some rounds.

Will laws like this stop all shootings? Of course not, but they will limit them.

You should be worried about the Constitution. It is the foundation of liberty in our country.

[Vyragosa]

Cocaine is outlawed right? so that violates my freedom if i want to consume, according to that logic cocaine should be legal, the same for nuclear weapons, or gas zarin, or you name it. How can you not see that free access to almost any type of weapons is not the solution, is putting devices that can kill or harm many people simultaneously in the hands of mentally disturbed ppl. Criminals don't massacre kids in school, mental ppl do, soo.... limit their access to big weapons, plain and simple. How that violates any more rights than not been able to buy cocaine for example, be real. No need to have semi-automatic guns free access to everybody, period.

---------- Post added 2012-12-15 at 03:49 AM ----------



I can guarantee you almost 100% that if a guy enters a mall with a butter knife trying to kill 10, he might kill 1 with luck before its stopped, if he enters with a semiauto rifle, he can kill 20 in the first 2min with ease... get your facts straight.

Point taken, but yes the gun kills faster but again it's the person holding the gun that makes the difference. My point is that anything can be deadly at some extend in the wrong hands and like I said a more SEVERE law for it but prohibition will make it worst.

btw love your signature

[Doylez]

Guns don't kill people, it's the person who shoot the guns that kills WITH the gun. If tomorrow a freak enters a mall with a butter knife and kill 10 people by cutting their throat will you say that knife needs to be prohibited as well?

If the only purpose of a knife was to kill people then yes, they should be banned as well.

[Grax]

I find it sickening that anyone would try to push their agenda in the wake of a horrific event like what happened in Connecticut today.

It was one crazy, sick person that caused the deaths of those children. That's all.

agreed. congratulations on building a soapbox with 20 dead children and 6 dead adults.

at least let them bury the bodies.

[Matchu]

You should be worried about the Constitution. It is the foundation of liberty in our country.

It's also over 200 years old. A written embodiment of the law of the land? Sounds good. The idea that it is somehow untouchable and immutable? Sounds bad.

I know someone's about to shout "there's 27 Amendments damn it". Yes, good. But really it's the first 10 (and perhaps the wording of the document) that really causes tension. And the idea that you can never, ever alter those 10 seems odd.