Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Flutterguy]

Because that's a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. Both answers are treating the symptom and not the problem.

If the problem is that some people are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed mentally ill individuals then I don't know how you "solve" that problem without taking a knife to the Constitution. This guy didn't purchase these guns. He didn't obtain them legally to begin with. So what do you legislate? Mandatory mental health screening for all citizens?

[Seranthor]

I don't want to flame you or anything, but i just wonder why so many americans see the right to bear arms and free speech as equals? I mean, a weapon is a thing, you don't need it in your daily life. ( as a non cop/army guy etc ...) But freedom of speech, you'd be living in a dictatorship without that. Personally i'd prefer to be able to say what i want instead of pulling a trigger.
I don't want to start a discussion, i'm just wondering :-)

Edit: yay, 100th post! ^^

Because they are side by side in the Bill of rights, Free speech is in the first amendment, right to bear arms is in the 2nd.

just like you say you dont 'need' a weapon, you dont 'need' free speech EITHER. You lose nothing if you have your speech regulated, think about it, you want to save all those kids from the internet bullies and the mean people they go to school with, so, criminalize any speech that goes against societal norms. Criminalize mean speech while you are at it, but, who decides what qualifies as 'mean'? Because you made the girl in class cry, does that mean your speech should be illegal or you should be jailed? Hell no. 'but we need to stop the mean people from hurting someone's feelings, the hurt person might kill themselves or go crazy and kill someone'

Think about it DeadKennedy

[Ausr]

and I agree with everything Pizza just said, I am and will always be for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Stupid people shouldn't have guns, the mentally ill should not have guns, criminals should not have guns. But they are getting them, but the solution isn't to ban them, as is the solution to stopping drunk drivers isn't to ban cars. Guns, cars, cell phones are all tools. they themselves Do not and Can not kill someone.... but, their MISUSE can lead to someone's injury and/or death.

Sandy Hook could have been prevented, not with gun bans or gun legislation, as is the boy DID try and buy a gun, and refused the background check so the sale of the gun was denied. so the CURRENT gun laws DID work, what failed was he was mentally ill, folks knew he had issues and they didn't act fast enough or in the proper way to get him the help he needed.

If the kid was smart, he should've just gone to a gun show and easily bought a semi auto in 10 minutes + ammo.

[Seranthor]

This isn't Call of Duty son, your ammunition in these cases would be concealed and not on hand.

You DO realize that the Sandy Hook shooter spent hours and hours and hours and hours playing Call of Duty... maybe we should ban violent video games. hmmm. I"m sure they were a contributing factor to his derangement and his killing all those kids.

And before you tell me thats silly that video games cant make you kill people I'll tell you go look it up and find me evidence they dont.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 05:39 AM ----------

If the kid was smart, he should've just gone to a gun show and easily bought a semi auto in 10 minutes + ammo.

Why would he have needed to do that... all the guns he used were legally bought and accessible in his home. Meaning that his mother most liekly was NOT a responsible gun owner.

[Goldfingaz]

Because they are side by side in the Bill of rights, Free speech is in the first amendment, right to bear arms is in the 2nd.

just like you say you dont 'need' a weapon, you dont 'need' free speech EITHER. You lose nothing if you have your speech regulated, think about it, you want to save all those kids from the internet bullies and the mean people they go to school with, so, criminalize any speech that goes against societal norms. Criminalize mean speech while you are at it, but, who decides what qualifies as 'mean'? Because you made the girl in class cry, does that mean your speech should be illegal or you should be jailed? Hell no. 'but we need to stop the mean people from hurting someone's feelings, the hurt person might kill themselves or go crazy and kill someone'

Think about it DeadKennedy

Cyber Bullying is illegal. Hate speech is considerred illegal. "Freedom of Speech" actually has it's limits.

@Your comment about my Call of Duty remark: Video games certainly do help desensitization or glorify some acts. So do movies, music and TV programs. There's no doubt about it.

Is it possible that the game made him do it? Sure, however if the gun wasn't there, what was he going to do then?

[obdigore]

Because they are side by side in the Bill of rights, Free speech is in the first amendment, right to bear arms is in the 2nd.

just like you say you dont 'need' a weapon, you dont 'need' free speech EITHER. You lose nothing if you have your speech regulated, think about it, you want to save all those kids from the internet bullies and the mean people they go to school with, so, criminalize any speech that goes against societal norms. Criminalize mean speech while you are at it, but, who decides what qualifies as 'mean'? Because you made the girl in class cry, does that mean your speech should be illegal or you should be jailed? Hell no. 'but we need to stop the mean people from hurting someone's feelings, the hurt person might kill themselves or go crazy and kill someone'

Think about it DeadKennedy

Again, there is no 'right to bear arms' before 2008 and Justice Scalia. The Second Amendment ensures the Federal Government shall not prevent states from being able to raise and train militia. It was NEVER intended to prevent the states or smaller (cities/counties) municipalities from enacting and enforcing rules for what is acceptable in their domain. In fact the Supreme Court found that the federal government had the right to ban weapons that 'have no bearing or use in a state militia'. (I paraphrased there, I've already put this info in the thread three times with links).

Also, the Second Amendment is intended to ensure that there never be a need for a standing army, which we have. If we get rid of the standing military then I'm perfectly for every citizen between 18 and 40 having training to the level of reservists which would include firearms and tactics training, at which point responsible gun ownership (Kind of like how they do it in Sweden and Isreal, those laws that a lot of the pro-firearms groups say we should emulate) becomes second nature.

[Seranthor]

Cyber Bullying is illegal. Hate speech is considerred illegal. "Freedom of Speech" actually has it's limits.

@Your comment about my Call of Duty remark: Video games certainly do help desensitization or glorify some acts. So do movies, music and TV programs. There's no doubt about it.

Is it possible that the game made him do it? Sure, however if the gun wasn't there, what was he going to do then?

and yet that speech is still compelling folks to kill themselves... so the limits aren't enough, yes? all the laws about drugs and drunk driving, and folks are still dying to them, so the laws aren't enough, make more, right?

I'm not against reasonable limits, I'm against stupid, reckless, knee-jerk, ill-informed, illogical, anise limits

[Goldfingaz]

and yet that speech is still compelling folks to kill themselves... so the limits aren't enough, yes? all the laws about drugs and drunk driving, and folks are still dying to them, so the laws aren't enough, make more, right?

I'm not against reasonable limits, I'm against stupid, reckless, knee-jerk, ill-informed, illogical, anise limits

All of the limit options I gave were very logical, you just went off the deep end. You only need weapons to hunt with, and the same weapons CAN and have been used for defending your home. That's what people want, weapons to hunt with and weapons to defend themselves with.

Yes, people are still killing themselves because of Bullies, yes Drunk Drivers are killing people and themselves, however in America you have a Police Force who can deal with those things as best they can, as well as any defending you may need in public.

There will always be killers out there. However, what would you prefer? Allowing these Murderer's to gain possession of easily concealable weapons to go and kill your children and their friends? Or trying to make it as hard as possible for someone to get said weapon and cause them to do nothing, or at most kill 1-2 people, which could have easily been 10+?

I personally am not trying to take away all gun rights, I'm simply trying to say "Hey, putting a fair limit on this stuff is the way to go.".

Hunting Rifles and Shotguns, you do not need anything more than that to protect or provide food your family.

[PizzaSHARK]

If the problem is that some people are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed mentally ill individuals then I don't know how you "solve" that problem without taking a knife to the Constitution. This guy didn't purchase these guns. He didn't obtain them legally to begin with. So what do you legislate? Mandatory mental health screening for all citizens?

More readily available care for people with mental disease, and a push to help educate the populace at large about mental diseases and the warning signs. Depression is not "just a bad mood," and there are several warning signs that are fairly easy to notice if you actually listen to what the person is saying (and what they aren't.)

If the kid was smart, he should've just gone to a gun show and easily bought a semi auto in 10 minutes + ammo.

You are wholly ignorant of the subject at hand. Please take some time to educate yourself on gun laws and procedures in America before making more comments like this one.

[Seranthor]

All of the limit options I gave were very logical, you just went off the deep end. You only need weapons to hunt with, and the same weapons CAN and have been used for defending your home. That's what people want, weapons to hunt with and weapons to defend themselves with.

Yes, people are still killing themselves because of Bullies, yes Drunk Drivers are killing people and themselves, however in America you have a Police Force who can deal with those things as best they can, as well as any defending you may need in public.

There will always be killers out there. However, what would you prefer? Allowing these Murderer's to gain possession of easily concealable weapons to go and kill your children and their friends? Or trying to make it as hard as possible for someone to get said weapon and cause them to do nothing, or at most kill 1-2 people, which could have easily been 10+?

I personally am not trying to take away all gun rights, I'm simply trying to say "Hey, putting a fair limit on this stuff is the way to go.".

Hunting Rifles and Shotguns, you do not need anything more than that to protect or provide food your family.

the limits you created were reasonable to YOU, not to ME, but you are welcome to try again.
Ponder, sir, would the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or the Iraq war of happened if folks had actually thought about them? Probably not, each and every one of those things was a stupid, reckless, knee-jerk reaction. Think God damn it. It's our society, culture and our fucking refusal to see the real problem which causes this same shit to happen over and over again. If it was the gun that was the problem we'd have had problems with mass shootings for hundreds of years, why are they happening now? Easy as fuck to answer, because the shooters know they can do what the fuck they want, when the fuck they want it and no one will say boo shit to them. When you teach folks that there are little to no consequences for their actions then they dont care, and do as they please.

Think about this a minute... if you knew, that if you commited a gun crim that you were going to spend 20 years in a shit hole for it, would you do it? Fuck no.; Do you think that if they started locking up DUI folks for longer terms on a mandatory basis that 32,000 people a year would die to drunk drivers? Hell no.

You want to stop crazy people from getting guns and shooting up place... Easy, prevent the crazies from being loose in the general public... institutionalize them, track them, watch them... something... But you say 'you cant do that, it infringes their rights'. Question, infringe the rights of everyone or infringe the rights of a handful, which do you chose? Then you'll say, 'but we dont know they are disturbed' and I'll say 'then you need to make people's medical records available to the government so they can see who's crazy and who's not' again, you aren't infringing on anyone, because you are doing it in the interest of public safety, right?

[Flutterguy]

More readily available care for people with mental disease, and a push to help educate the populace at large about mental diseases and the warning signs. Depression is not "just a bad mood," and there are several warning signs that are fairly easy to notice if you actually listen to what the person is saying (and what they aren't.)



You are wholly ignorant of the subject at hand. Please take some time to educate yourself on gun laws and procedures in America before making more comments like this one.

This particular family had all the financial means available to seek therapy, mental healthcare whatever. They didn't. So again, what do you legislate?

Depression largely does not lead to violent outbursts either especially of this nature.

[Goldfingaz]

the limits you created were reasonable to YOU, not to ME, but you are welcome to try again.
Ponder, sir, would the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or the Iraq war of happened if folks had actually thought about them? Probably not, each and every one of those things was a stupid, reckless, knee-jerk reaction. Think God damn it. It's our society, culture and our fucking refusal to see the real problem which causes this same shit to happen over and over again. If it was the gun that was the problem we'd have had problems with mass shootings for hundreds of years, why are they happening now? Easy as fuck to answer, because the shooters know they can do what the fuck they want, when the fuck they want it and no one will say boo shit to them. When you teach folks that there are little to no consequences for their actions then they dont care, and do as they please.

Think about this a minute... if you knew, that if you commited a gun crim that you were going to spend 20 years in a shit hole for it, would you do it? Fuck no.; Do you think that if they started locking up DUI folks for longer terms on a mandatory basis that 32,000 people a year would die to drunk drivers? Hell no.

You want to stop crazy people from getting guns and shooting up place... Easy, prevent the crazies from being loose in the general public... institutionalize them, track them, watch them... something... But you say 'you cant do that, it infringes their rights'. Question, infringe the rights of everyone or infringe the rights of a handful, which do you chose? Then you'll say, 'but we dont know they are disturbed' and I'll say 'then you need to make people's medical records available to the government so they can see who's crazy and who's not' again, you aren't infringing on anyone, because you are doing it in the interest of public safety, right?

Alright I get your point of view now. "Don't infringe my rights, just other people's lives.". Instead of fair treatment to people who may have disabilities your answer is to "lock them away" (Essentially) rather than "Lets get rid of some of these guns that are a little excessive"

What you're saying is "People with disabilities are worth less than these guns.".

What you're saying is a Soldier who fought for your Country and your rights who is now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should no longer have rights.

You sir, are what is wrong with this world. You can not think beyond yourself. Locking PEOPLE away is NOT the answer. Getting rid of excessive guns is. You do not need anything more than a Hunting Rifle or Shotgun to hunt, target shoot, or defend your family with.

My discussions with you are over as you clearly do not care about people, you simply care about yourself. Pathetic.

[PizzaSHARK]

This particular family had all the financial means available to seek therapy, mental healthcare whatever. They didn't. So again, what do you legislate?

You don't. You just try to get the knowledge and the tools and the therapists out there. You can't force people to receive treatment. But you CAN make a psychological exam part of the requirement for gun ownership, if you really feel we need to legislate this.

Depression largely does not lead to violent outbursts either especially of this nature.

Of course not. But it can. And it did. Do you really think Sandy Hook would've happened if the kid's (kid? the dude was fucking 20, you should be a fucking adult by that point) mom had paid attention and understood depression? Don't you think she would've wanted to help her son, help him get the help he needed to have a happy, normal life?

[obdigore]

You don't. You just try to get the knowledge and the tools and the therapists out there. You can't force people to receive treatment. But you CAN make a psychological exam part of the requirement for gun ownership, if you really feel we need to legislate this.



Of course not. But it can. And it did. Do you really think Sandy Hook would've happened if the kid's (kid? the dude was fucking 20, you should be a fucking adult by that point) mom had paid attention and understood depression? Don't you think she would've wanted to help her son, help him get the help he needed to have a happy, normal life?

You also need to address both the social stigma and hiring stigma against people with mental disorders, to prevent the fear of coming forward.

[Adamas102]

the limits you created were reasonable to YOU, not to ME, but you are welcome to try again.

Why were they not reasonable to you?

Ponder, sir, would the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or the Iraq war of happened if folks had actually thought about them? Probably not, each and every one of those things was a stupid, reckless, knee-jerk reaction. Think God damn it. It's our society, culture and our fucking refusal to see the real problem which causes this same shit to happen over and over again. If it was the gun that was the problem we'd have had problems with mass shootings for hundreds of years, why are they happening now? Easy as fuck to answer, because the shooters know they can do what the fuck they want, when the fuck they want it and no one will say boo shit to them. When you teach folks that there are little to no consequences for their actions then they dont care, and do as they please.

Uh, what? Are you saying that people who go on killing sprees do so thinking that nothing will happen to them?

Think about this a minute... if you knew, that if you commited a gun crim that you were going to spend 20 years in a shit hole for it, would you do it? Fuck no.; Do you think that if they started locking up DUI folks for longer terms on a mandatory basis that 32,000 people a year would die to drunk drivers? Hell no.

So what are you saying? Give all potentially deadly crimes mandatory life sentences? Hell, even the death penalty doesn't deter as much as people would like. Fact is, people don't commit crimes because they think the penalties are too lax. They either do it because they think they can get away with it or because they just aren't thinking about the consequences at all (crimes of passion or people who feel like they have nothing to lose). The issue with having readily available guns means that situations are too often escalated to a deadly level.

You want to stop crazy people from getting guns and shooting up place... Easy, prevent the crazies from being loose in the general public... institutionalize them, track them, watch them... something... But you say 'you cant do that, it infringes their rights'. Question, infringe the rights of everyone or infringe the rights of a handful, which do you chose? Then you'll say, 'but we dont know they are disturbed' and I'll say 'then you need to make people's medical records available to the government so they can see who's crazy and who's not' again, you aren't infringing on anyone, because you are doing it in the interest of public safety, right?

I can tell you're being sarcastic here, but you're still missing the mark. Putting limits on people in the interest of public safety is NOT a bad thing. You seem to be comparing the revocation rights with the limiting of rights. They are not the same thing. Allowing you to buy a hunting rifle but not a semi-automatic AR-15 with a 30 round magazine does not mean that you have lost your right to bear arms and it is certainly not on the same level as depriving people of their right to privacy.

[Baracuda]

You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.

Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.

It's like the people writing and supporting this bill don't really understand what guns are or how they work, they've only read Wikipedia and editorials.



I am attacking your position and argument as being silly and pointless. I'm not making personal attacks. You should read more carefully, because there's a difference.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 04:46 AM ----------



Banning guns in America is ridiculous. It'll never happen; it's like locking the barn after the horse got out. I agree with better regulation and mandatory training and re-testing, but a ban of any kind?

Absolutely ludicrous.

Assault weapons that is...

[Deleted]

Cyber Bullying is illegal. Hate speech is considerred illegal. "Freedom of Speech" actually has it's limits.

@Your comment about my Call of Duty remark: Video games certainly do help desensitization or glorify some acts. So do movies, music and TV programs. There's no doubt about it.

Is it possible that the game made him do it? Sure, however if the gun wasn't there, what was he going to do then?

Now I understood why our specie was so violent in middle age . And bronze age and stone age.
Probably they were playing a lot of computergames.

. Putting limits on people in the interest of public safety is NOT a bad thing. You seem to be comparing the revocation rights with the limiting of rights.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

Thomas Jefferson , American Founding Father,and the third President of the United States

[Seranthor]

Alright I get your point of view now. "Don't infringe my rights, just other people's lives.". Instead of fair treatment to people who may have disabilities your answer is to "lock them away" (Essentially) rather than "Lets get rid of some of these guns that are a little excessive"

What you're saying is "People with disabilities are worth less than these guns.".

What you're saying is a Soldier who fought for your Country and your rights who is now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should no longer have rights.

You sir, are what is wrong with this world. You can not think beyond yourself. Locking PEOPLE away is NOT the answer. Getting rid of excessive guns is. You do not need anything more than a Hunting Rifle or Shotgun to hunt, target shoot, or defend your family with.

My discussions with you are over as you clearly do not care about people, you simply care about yourself. Pathetic.

Dont you fucking straw man me... I HAVE PTSD... my mother is fucking alive because after her rape her sons convinced her to get a concealed carry permit, and guess what... the next asshat that tried to rape my 4ft 11in, 73 year old mother got a rude awakening.

Your holier than thou attitude is MORE than a little excessive... bring your guns are bad bullshit argument to those that have never been a crime victim.

Sir, you have your rights to free speech, free assembly and all the other rights you enjoy and willfully SPIT ON because of people LIKE me that had the fucking balls to stand up and say 'I'll go, I'll defend the rights of others'. Telling me that I think about myself is to admit you know not a damn thing about me or my life or anything else. So, until which time you chose to stop insulting me for my position and fucking apologize then I refuse to acknowledge your existence.

[Deleted]

From the FBI crime stats:

	Homicides	Homicides
	(Firearms)	(Rifles)
1992	12,580	706
1993	13,212	757
1994	12,775	724
1995	11,282	654
1996	8,594	546
1997	10,729	638
1998	9,257	548
1999	8,480	400
2000	8,661	411
2001	8,719	389
2002	9,528	488
2003	9,659	392
2004	9,385	403
2005	10,158	445
2006	10,177	436
2007	10,129	453
2008	9,528	380
2009	9,199	351
2010	8,874	367
2011	8,583	323

This shows an overall declining trend in gun-related homicides over the past 20 years, and also shows that homicides by rifle only account for ~5% of total gun-related homicides. Handguns generally account for ~80%.

And these numbers don't even take into account the fact that the population of the US has grown over 20% from ~255 million to ~311 million in this time frame, so the gun-crime rate is on an even more noticeable decline.

Still plenty to work on though you'd admit.

[Seranthor]

Still plenty to work on though you'd admit.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...factsheet.html

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion

EVERY DAMN DAY, 30 people. Tell me Sir, 26 died last week to a gunman, since that time ~150 have died to drunk drivers... Why?

400 more will die before New Years, Why?

Explain this to me please... why are the lives of the victims of drunk drivers less valuable to you?

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 06:48 AM ----------

Now I understood why our specie was so violent in middle age . And bronze age and stone age.
Probably they were playing a lot of computergames.






"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither."

Thomas Jefferson , American Founding Father,and the third President of the United States

Actually, vandam, the quote is from Benjamin Franklin and goes 'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' And its as relevant now as it was 225+ years ago when it was said.