Time to discuss gun regulation in the US?

[Underverse]

So, you're saying that if you had a gun, you would run away from a guy shooting? Without a knife you can't have stabbings, without cars you can't have wrecks. Without nukes you can't have nuclear war. Without people you won't have people dying.

You CANNOT ever stop people from doing stuff like this. Sure, you can change the tool, but it still doesn't stop the people from killing loads of people. If there is one thing the human race is good at, it is killing stuff. Kings took over the "world" hundreds and thousands of years ago with swords. Since weapon technology has increased, such types of conquests have steeply declines.

Hell yes I would run away. Why? Because I don't want to get killed, and theres pretty close to a 50/50 chance of that happening.

Without knives, you can't cut your food, and without cars, you can;t have a productive society. Without guns, you, uh...oh right YOU DONT LOSE ANYTHING.

And yes, while you cannot stop murders from happening in our f'd up society, you can still lower the number of casualties. If he had 4 knives instead of 4 guns, he would not have killed 26 people. Weapon technology increasing has lead only to more deaths and more conquests. What do you call WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The list goes on...

So in short, you're wrong. Deal with it.

[Bakis]

22 children stabbed in china sick minded people are going to harm guns or no guns.

No deaths, what would you prefer. 22 scared childrens or 22 dead children.

[Seranthor]

The second amendment states implicitly that arms should be WELL REGULATED. Regulation doesn't mean "take it all away," not in this case. It means education, training, and understanding of what a gun is, can do, and why it should be used. We could also throw a psych evaluation into the mix. We have the right to bear arms, but we also have the much more important need to protect ourselves and our family. It is not just the job of the citizens to protect themselves, but the job of the government. One does not need to make it impossible for a normal, healthy individual to own a gun to help minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of the mentally damaged.

As for the bigger issue at hand, the NRA. The NRA needs to be dissolved by legal force. They are a group that promotes terrorism, gun violence, and needless death in this country, under the guise of the second amendment. They are the largest force protecting the right to bear arms, but they are also the largest force demanding minimal regulation, which goes entirely counter to the concept of arms being well regulated.

Really? lets go ahead and disolve unions by force as well, they are always beating up folks and terrorizing folks that dont agree with them... right?

[Leonard McCoy]

I don't really think it would be feasible to set up and shoot a crossbow in my narrow hallways when it's pitch black.

Like I said, as I am right now, I don't have the capacity to kill someone.

Maybe if I KNEW my life was in danger, and my adrenaline was pumping, it wouldn't even be a choice. I just hope it never comes to that. For my case, at least, it's saved me once. It's good enough.

Do you keep gun loaded at all times or did you pop a clip in when that intruder came? You can keep your cross bow locked and loaded (and your taser equivelant) in case. Again dude their are plenty of NON LETHAL options available for your defense. I agree I don't want you or anybody to have to kill anybody else but guns do that far easier than something like a taser or a crossbow.

[WarFalcon1]

But there is no middle ground.. Either we can have guns, or we can't.. Both of which changes nothing, except prices.

There is a middle ground. As I stated: I would be OK with people who want to own a gun having a nice face to face with the ATF or even local law enforcement to see if they are mentally stable and responsible enough to own a gun. Or maybe a written exam at the police dept and a show you can use the weapon properly at a shooting range? Like we have with Drivers Licenses?

[Soahar]

With gun : 28 people
Without gun : 2-3 people

FACT - gun 20+ people.

So yes - I've looked around, and lack of access to firearms makes killing people a way harder task.

Trying to diagnose and treat someone with mental illness-decent chance of 0 deaths guns or no guns.

Helping the people who need it does more good for society then gun control ever could.

[Deleted]

can you be more specific on the definition of "assault rifle" you are using here? not flaming, there is debate over the term, and i'm interested in your perspective on this

Reqq is a Royal Marine Commando. he knows what the definition means.

[schwarzkopf]

Really

Glad to see you agree.

Yep - the role of the gun is unmistakable.

[koontakent]

I don't understand how the US can think everyone having firearms is going to prevent crimes, considering their crime rate is higher than most other developed countries across the world they still can't think that everyone having a gun is going to defuse a situation.

For instance, a fellow wants in to a store to rob it with a gun, the clerk is going to defend himself with a gun. How is that situation going to end? The robber is going to be like "Oh dear one of us might get hurt, if clearly don't want your money stolen. Have a swell day"

Do your research and statistics will always show that guns cause more violent crimes. Also if you're on of those "They banned hand guns is Chicago and gun crimes went up!" that was the same year that the US reformed how they record all their crimes and started putting them in a national database, not because guns magically stop crime.

[Adam Jensen]

Really? put the gun on the desk w/o the shooter... and the gun can kill 20 people all by itself? Honestly?

You're being obtuse.

Clearly schwarzkopf is referring to a person with a gun committing mass murder vs a person without a gun. Face it, the one without the gun will be far less efficient at killing.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

I think they have usable ranges of upto 15ft, but they're fairly illegal in most places.

Ah, neat to know. Yeah, I know they are illegal mostly everywhere. And that seems to be a point that anti-gun people seem to not notice. every single mass shooting ever in the united states (that I am aware of) has happened in places that it is illegal to what ever degree, to posses that gun Because gun control actually works?

[chadwix]

Its a shame this thread is allowed. Shame on the mods.

[Paranoid Android]

Jack the Ripper, killed how many people? Without a gun. They stopped him when? That's what I thought, didn't seem too hard for him, with just a knife.

Wow another idiotic statement. LOL WOW!!! A serial killer does not do killing in one mass area. OMG WOW!!! Yes peopl like me who are trying to make a reasonable arguement know that murder will always be here, no matter a shooting, stabbing, strangling or whatever. A person who can acquire a high capacity, semi-auto weapon going into a shopping mall, or shoool will kill many.

[aimziepoo]

IN other words, actual statistics mean absolutely nothing to you and you prefer to approach this subject using numbers that you just fabricate.

No, in other words I'm admitting that I do not know for sure but sharing my opinion based on my understanding, douche.

[Krekko]

no we don't need stricter gun control

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

is a town that has mandatory gun ownership in every household and they have not had a murder in 20+ years

Alright but what about the towns where there haven't been murders in 20+ years and there is no mandatory gun ownership?

It's more about living conditions than anything.

Jack the Ripper, killed how many people? Without a gun. They stopped him when? That's what I thought...
Didn't seem too hard for him, with just a knife.

Serial killer is apples to orange to mass murder (single time, location).

You seem to be missing the major point of how say the Virginia Tech Shooter worked and Jack the Ripper worked.

Jack the Ripper didn't go around a single building killing people at a single time going victim to victim to victim. Unless I'm utterly mistaken on my history there.

[Kaneiac]

Do you keep gun loaded at all times or did you pop a clip in when that intruder came? You can keep your cross bow locked and loaded (and your taser equivelant) in case. Again dude their are plenty of NON LETHAL options available for your defense. I agree I don't want you or anybody to have to kill anybody else but guns do that far easier than something like a taser or a crossbow.

Loaded at all times, kept in a place noone but myself knows about.

I really don't know. I've looked into it other options and quite frankly they intimidate me. If I have problems shooting a gun at nothing, I really don't know how my accuracy would be with a taser or a close-quarters combat weapon - to be honest, I haven't done much research on it. Maybe that'll be a good project this weekend.

[Adam Jensen]

Its a shame this thread is allowed. Shame on the mods.

It's a shame we discuss talking points that the rightwing is so firmly against?

[smelltheglove]

Rich will be able to give you the best technical description on how this is done - but essentially the ONLY thing stopping say, an SA80, from firing single and automatic fire is a tiny metal connecting slider. It stops the pin from automatically striking the firing pin with the trigger held down. You switch to auto and it moves the slider out of the way allowing the mechanism to repeat the action until you a) run out of rounds, b) let go of the trigger or c) suffer mechanical failure and stoppage of some kind.

The fix involves removing a small spring and welding said plate in the "off" position and voila you now have a fully automatic weapon.

thank you. do you have any idea on the availability of weapons this easily "fixed" in the states? the media definition of assault rifle is screwy, and im not educated enough to know what is what on guns, lol. basically, im curious about claims of being easy to acquire and convert guns to auto.

[Peacemaker65]

This is so, so true. It always pisses me off when kids claim themselves to be some kind of "hunter" when they wound an animal, causing severe suffering to it before actually killing the poor creature.

Well, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it but do think your opinion should determine my liberties? I know a lot of people that make very accurate kills on small game with semi-auto rifles. In fact, some AR-15's are very accurate and make a good selection for varmint hunting. Nothing wrong with bolt action either but your preference is not binding on others. In fact, the last president we had assassinated was by shooter with a cheap bolt action rifle.

[Violent]

There is a middle ground. As I stated: I would be OK with people who want to own a gun having a nice face to face with the ATF or even local law enforcement to see if they are mentally stable and responsible enough to own a gun. Or maybe a written exam at the police dept and a show you can use the weapon properly at a shooting range? Like we have with Drivers Licenses?

They have tests like that when you go into the military.. Did they still send that one soldier who went and killed innocent families to that country? Yes, as a matter of fact they did! Oh so, what that says is... Your "tests" and your friendly convo with someone from the ATF, solve nothing. Oh you mean everyone who has a drivers license has never used it in an illegal or "wrong" way? Oh they have? Oh damn, so i guess your lil written exam wasn't worth shit then huh?