Somethings been bothering about these gun "ban" talks...

[Tyler-Stormrage]

No it wouldn't. Anyone that wants to shoot up a school or government building or anything else for that matter would still have access to any tool they desired to have access to. Just because something becomes illegal does not mean people stop having access to it. Cocaine is illegal. Yet you still see people ODing on the stuff, don't you.

Also, someone earlier made a VERY valid point. Some of the largest mass murders in history were done without the use of guns. Hell, two planes were crashed into two of the tallest structures in the world with only the use of BOX CUTTERS. Should we outlaw box cutters because of 9/11?

Banning automatic weapons does nothing to solve the problem. I mean, think about it this way. Remember Columbine? Tragic, am I right? Where did parents put the blame? Video games. Did we start banning violent video games from being made because of it? Last time I checked, the games only got more graphic and more violent as the years have gone forward. Yet for some crazy reason, there's not a "mass high school shooting of the week" segment on ABC news as a result of that very "necessary" ban.

Crazy people do crazy shit, and there's nothing you're going to do and no law you're going to pass to stop them. Period. The best solution is better security at public schools.

That has been debunked, they used 4 inch-blade utility knives. Lets draw a world of warcraft comparison to what you said, since we are all familiar with the game. Basically, when one class is OP, you're saying, Why even bother nerfing class X, They will still just kill people. Well, no. When you take away the most efficient tool of killing they have, its not gonna happen. Its like saying frost mages would still kill everything if we took away deep freeze and fof.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 01:04 PM ----------

How about this for common sense. Keep everything as legal as it is now. At the same time increase police everywhere. I do mean everywhere, pretend I'm doing the 'every out house, dog house' scene from the fugitive. In malls, pre-schools, theater, colleges, donut shops, gas stations, I mean everywhere. The only change? Increase taxes on all gun products to pay for every bit of spending that has to happen to keep the public safe. This is also the low end of the spectrum, I'd prefer a tax on all gun products that would net a surplus. Keep everything as legal as it is, but make those who buy guns pay to keep the public safe from the small chance that one is used to comit crime. Those with guns already will see no impact on them, unless they by more than they already have. All new gun owners will have a huge impact on public safety, which is all they want anyway.

At that point you'd be creating a police state.

[Fenixdown]

How do you know that?

Because I'm not oblivious? Just because I'm a nice, upstanding, law-abiding citizen doesn't mean Gangsta Goldteeth that lives three doors down from me is. He'll go out to his buddy Pantsbelowknees and say "n*(&a, I give you 350 fo' yo piece", and guess what. Boom. Gangsta Goldteeth now has an illegal weapon.

You do realize that you actually have to have a permit to carry a weapon in the United States, right? Want to know how many people get busted for that a MONTH? Think that little law stops them? NO.

C'mon, man.

[cz75fan]

To everyone saying that banning assault weapons won't reduce murder rates... Come on now.

It won't. They will just murder with a different weapon. This wasn't and hasn't even been THEE argument.

The argument has been that "assault weapons" are not the problem and the numbers show that. The argument has been that this is an excuse to limit the liberties and freedom set by the Second Amendment without being honest about it. This is an argument that even if this does get passed it doesn't address the real issue just as the original did not address the real issue and in the mean time it is only going to punish, limit, and hurt people who were already following the law.

[Felya]

At that point you'd be creating a police state.

Are you saying having guns legal will not prevent a government take over? Isn't that the whole point?

[Stede]

So... you think we should ban all guns, not just assault weapons?

To quote Rahm Emmanuel, liberal extraordinaire, "We have a problem with illegal guns." Our existing criminalization of certain types of weapons is fine. We don't need any more restrictive bans on ownership - at all. We need legislation that will allow us to close the loopholes in the enforcement of the current laws so that we can get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.

Then, we can have a discussion about limiting the capabilities of certain weapons so as to limit the destructiveness of when a law-abiding owner snaps - which is a rare thing. Remember - if Adam Lanza's mom had secured her firearms from her son who she knew to be unstable, none of us would even be having this conversation.

[Purlina]

All illegal guns where at one point legal...


Legal gun owners that sell / lose their guns are partly to blame.

[Felya]

Because I'm not oblivious? Just because I'm a nice, upstanding, law-abiding citizen doesn't mean Gangsta Goldteeth that lives three doors down from me is. He'll go out to his buddy Pantsbelowknees and say "n*(&a, I give you 350 fo' yo piece", and guess what. Boom. Gangsta Goldteeth now has an illegal weapon.

You do realize that you actually have to have a permit to carry a weapon in the United States, right? Want to know how many people get busted for that a MONTH? Think that little law stops them? NO.

C'mon, man.

You watch too many movies. Why wouldn't the gangster with the gun, not put it to the head of the other and just take the 350? Even if the guy selling the gun is too dumb to just take the money, why wouldn't the guy who bought the gun just use it to take the money back? Are they both just stupid?

[Kolgarth]

1. There is no reason for any member of the public to own an assault rifle period, there is no logical argument you can make to justify that.
2. There is no reason for the public to own handguns.
3. All the countries that don't allow assault rifle's and handguns have drastically lower gun crimes, so your argument that the removal of them will make you all vulnerable to criminals doesn't hold up.
4. If gun control went into effect does not mean that murder rates will stay the same and that people will just find another way to commit the crime, that is just a stupid train of thought as this has been proven the opposite in countries that have implemented gun control or bans.
5. It is very easy to pull a trigger and kill someone or multiple people because shooting someone is very impersonal, you are distanced...it takes MUCH more to kill someone using a knife.
6. The huge difference in gun related deaths between the US and other countries statistically prove all the above pro gun arguments are false.

[cz75fan]

All illegal guns where at one point legal...


Legal gun owners that sell / lose their guns are partly to blame.

I'd agree that it's most likely well over 50% of that blame.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 12:21 PM ----------

1. There is no reason for any member of the public to own an assault rifle period, there is no logical argument you can make to justify that.
2. There is no reason for the public to own handguns.
3. All the countries that don't allow assault rifle's and handguns have drastically lower gun crimes, so your argument that the removal of them will make you all vulnerable to criminals doesn't hold up.
4. If gun control went into effect does not mean that murder rates will stay the same and that people will just find another way to commit the crime, that is just a stupid train of thought as this has been proven the opposite in countries that have implemented gun control or bans.
5. It is very easy to pull a trigger and kill someone or multiple people because shooting someone is very impersonal, you are distanced...it takes MUCH more to kill someone using a knife.
6. The huge difference in gun related deaths between the US and other countries statistically prove all the above pro gun arguments are false.

1. Yes there is. You just have to argue against logic by creating an illogical argument. You've completed that.

2. Yes there is. Please refer to point 1.

3. No one has argued this beyond the anti-gun movement.

4. This is sometimes true over a long enough course of time. However, we have the 2nd Amendment and thus it is pointless to discuss.

5. This is subjective and conjecture. It is arguably easier to kill a few (being 1 or 2) in the heat of the moment. It is rationally not easier to go on a killing spree if the implication of easier being used is referred to mentality, which you're making. (No found support for your claim)

6. What gun arguments?

[Deleted]

Increasing taxes on guns would actually solve some of the problems without having to make bans and rewrite the constitution. Though I doubt the republican congress with all their NRA support would ever support such as a tax.

[cz75fan]

Increasing taxes on guns would actually solve some of the problems without having to make bans and rewrite the constitution. Though I doubt the republican congress with all their NRA support would ever support such as a tax.

Which problems? I can't come up with any problems this would "solve."

[Deleted]

Which problems? I can't come up with any problems this would "solve."

Higher price on guns = fewer guns = less shootings = fewer mass shootings.

Note: I didn't say it would completely eliminate the problems.

[Felya]

Which problems? I can't come up with any problems this would "solve."

The tax would pay for increased police and other measure to prevent crime. It would have a direct impact on solving the problem with gun violence, by spending it on preventive measures.

[skrump]

[B][U]I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

So let me explain why it is exactly that assault weapons are needed.

Let's assume at some point in the future we have to exercise the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment for their intended purpose and we go to war against our own government to overthrow it, Just how you think we are going to do that without having comparable firearms to that of a U.S foot-soldier.

Now I myself firmly believe that we as a society should of already overthrown our Government, get rid of the two party system and all the dead weight in the senate, and even go as far as tossing out the law/tax books and starting completely fresh.

So yeah it is kind of my hope that the masses get on board to overthrow our corrupt tyrannical political structure in favor of something that works in these modern times, and I want them to have the necessary weaponry to do so as it will minimize rebel causalities and quite possibly be the only thing that would stop the military from declaring martial law to circumvent mass rebellion.

"edit" Personally I think we should be more worried about easily concealable guns and I would create a law banning all guns with less than a 10 inch distance between the trigger and the tip of the barrel.
"would mean the complete ban of all handguns as they serve no special purpose in comparison with larger guns."

[Felya]

Higher price on guns = fewer guns = less shootings = fewer mass shootings.

Note: I didn't say it would completely eliminate the problems.

That's a side effect as well. But, I think directly paying to implement things like more gun safety education, increased security and things that greater minds than mine can come up with. It's funding for all of it...

[schwank05]

Between myself, my Dad and My late Grandfather we have around 10 Guns. Most are some form of shotgun, we have 3 22-caliber rifles. I love to shoot trap, and also like hunting. So are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to own something that has been in my family for 4 generations? If so Good luck, if they try an all out ban on guns it will not happen. Why because people are not going to just willingly give up their guns that they paid for, unless there is going to be monetary compensation. But even then what if like me they have been handed down through generations?

[Purlina]

So let me explain why it is exactly that assault weapons are needed.

Let's assume at some point in the future we have to exercise the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment for their intended purpose and we go to war against our own government to overthrow it, Just how you think we are going to do that without having comparable firearms to that of a U.S foot-soldier.

Now I myself firmly believe that we as a society should of already overthrown our Government, get rid of the two party system and all the dead weight in the senate, and even go as far as tossing out the law/tax books and starting completely fresh.

So yeah it is kind of my hope that the masses get on board to overthrow our corrupt tyrannical political structure in favor of something that works in these modern times, and I want them to have the necessary weaponry to do so as it will minimize rebel causalities and quite possibly be the only thing that would stop the military from declaring martial law to circumvent mass rebellion.

Then won't we need tanks, jets, battleships, and submarines...?

[Kujako]

Between myself, my Dad and My late Grandfather we have around 10 Guns. Most are some form of shotgun, we have 3 22-caliber rifles. I love to shoot trap, and also like hunting. So are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to own something that has been in my family for 4 generations? If so Good luck, if they try an all out ban on guns it will not happen. Why because people are not going to just willingly give up their guns that they paid for, unless there is going to be monetary compensation. But even then what if like me they have been handed down through generations?

I dont see anyone (other then trolls & crazies) talking about banning 22cal rifles. But that's also kind of the point. You somehow manage to hunt with a 22, yet people are saying you need a 7.76mm rifle with a 10 round capacity to take down a deer. I'm in California where the gun laws are the most strict, yet I have a 22cal AR-7 in my earth quake kit in case of a big disaster so I can go hunting in the hills around Marin County.

What is being discussed, is where the reasonable limitation on the 2nd amendment should be. Remember, it was only in 2008 that the 2nd amendment was deemed to cover hand gun ownership in ones home. Everyone, no matter how outspoken, thinks the 2nd amendment should have limitations. I should not be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in my garage for "deer hunting". Likewise, there are already a lot of laws that should be enforced, but the NRA is dead set against them being acted on. For example, it is illegal in many states for an excon or person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others to buy ammo. But the NRA pushed through legislation making it illegal to check when someone buys bullets. So the laws are unenforced.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Then won't we need tanks, jets, battleships, and submarines...?

Not quite. It wouldn't be a stand up war. More likely guerrilla warfare would be the case, targeting government installations (of course there would be the rednecks who think they could stand up to tanks, but they probably would die off quickly).

The bad part is, the only cure for guerrilla warfare is collective punishment. Depending on what happens, it either cows them or just pisses off more people. Either way isn't good.

Of course, this is purely hypothetical. I do hope indeed that people won't have to go for what the second amendment truly stands for.

[goobernoob]

I dont see anyone (other then trolls & crazies) talking about banning 22cal rifles. But that's also kind of the point. You somehow manage to hunt with a 22, yet people are saying you need a 7.76mm rifle with a 10 round capacity to take down a deer. I'm in California where the gun laws are the most strict, yet I have a 22cal AR-7 in my earth quake kit in case of a big disaster so I can go hunting in the hills around Marin County.

What is being discussed, is where the reasonable limitation on the 2nd amendment should be. Remember, it was only in 2008 that the 2nd amendment was deemed to cover hand gun ownership in ones home. Everyone, no matter how outspoken, thinks the 2nd amendment should have limitations. I should not be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in my garage for "deer hunting". Likewise, there are already a lot of laws that should be enforced, but the NRA is dead set against them being acted on. For example, it is illegal in many states for an excon or person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others to buy ammo. But the NRA pushed through legislation making it illegal to check when someone buys bullets. So the laws are unenforced.

Any rim fire round is illegal to hunt deer with, considered inhumane due to being under-powered. I hope you were joking, that rifle is for shooting rabbits and squirrels.