# Should There Be Tougher Gun Laws?



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 14, 2012)

First the mass shooting at an oregon mall and now this? http://gbatemp.net/threads/connecticut-school-shooting.339189/ I'm usually not one to post my own opinions about news stories and stuff but this is serious, i want to hear everyones opinions on this. do you think there should be tougher gun laws? 2 mass shootings in one week...1 week!!! what the hell is going on in this world? and we cant forget about the kansas chiefs and jordan davis shooting either  its sad.


----------



## Wizerzak (Dec 14, 2012)

I just posted in the other thread but that'll probably soon be deleted for somehow being off-topic. So I'll post it here anyway.

You guys are missing the point about gun control. I believe that the main factor with this is the fact that guns are SO easily accessible in the US and that anyone can quite easily just decide to shoot someone and make it happen within such a short space of time.

I mean, if I wanted to, I can gradually stockpile explosive material and detonate a large bomb in a city centre, but that requires time, planning and forward thinking. The same thing here in the UK (due to our strict gun laws), I cannot easily obtain a gun from my house or a friend.

Now anyone can have a few moments of madness, depression or a bad day, (as the majority of these 'killers' are NOT hell-bent criminals) and when guns are so easily to hand as they are in the US it is VERY easy to forget all sense of right and wrong, think "screw the consequences, what do I have to lose?" and simply go out and murder people, often taking your own life afterwards. If the gun laws are tightened these situations would undoubtedly drastically drop in numbers, the only few that remain would be from truly disturbed people or terrorists that plan weeks, months (or even years) in advance for some political or similar gain.


----------



## Tom (Dec 14, 2012)

It's sad yes, but I don't think that would stop it, it's every humans natural right to bear arms


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 14, 2012)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Guns just make it totally effortless and easy to disassociate from the action.  Y'all can keep your guns.  Just stop giving them to psycho/sociopaths...

And just to point out, the vast majority of guns deaths involve weapons that were obtained *legally*


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

I only partially agree with Wizerzak. Gun control should be enhanced, but in the sense of annual psychological tests for gun owners as well as a more selective gun license distribution. I find it ridiculous that guns in the U.S can be simply picked up at K-Mart - the constitutional right for owning guns applies, but only when the future owner is responsible, mentally stable and is able to make sure that neither children nor burglars will have access to it. It's also a matter of what kind of guns are put on the market - let's face it, you don't need fully-automatic assault rifles for self-defense and you don't need a SPAS-12 for hunting - combat firearms like those should not be available for purchase by civilians without sufficient licenses (for example when said civilians run a shooting range or when they're required for some sort of sport events).

With the degree of firearm saturation we're seeing in the U.S, even in the event of totally banning the sale of firearms, people would still get their hands on some relatively easily - prohibition is never a good idea. What needs to be implemented is education concerning guns, their use and appropriate behaviour when facing attackers wielding them. Constitution aside, the U.S is no longer "Wild West" and the country cannot go on following the same laws that were put in place when its citizens were under an actual threat, be it in form of indians or other parties.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 14, 2012)

tom10122 said:


> It's sad yes, but I don't think that would stop it, it's every humans natural right to bear arms


Guns aren't really a natural right to own, it's a privileged. We are allowed to own guns, but that also means that we can lose that right at any time.

We need to regulate the amount of guns we have flowing this country. They have been become far to readily available to just anyone anywhere. We've gone way beyond protection and hunting into plain obsession at this point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

tom10122 said:


> It's sad yes, but I don't think that would stop it, it's every humans natural right to bear arms


Guns are not natural, therefore, owning them cannot be a natural right. You have a natural right for freedom (political, religious etc.), life (breathing, eating, sleeping etc.) and self-defense, and self-defense on its own does not entail bearing firearms.


----------



## AlanJohn (Dec 14, 2012)

You don't need guns to kill people. I.E some guy in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.
This isn't a problem with laws or restrictions, this is a problem with human nature. We can't fix it with regulations.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

AlanJohn said:


> You don't need guns to kill people. I.E some guy in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.
> This isn't a problem with laws or restrictions, this is a problem with human nature. We can't fix it with regulations.


In a lot of ways I agree, focus should be put on educating the next generation, however some restrictions should be put on current gun owners as well to minimize risks until the nation is "grown up" enough to bear arms normally.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 14, 2012)

Like I have said before. Whether or not you want to admit it, war and killing is in human nature, as far back as we can detect.
Like it or not, as much as you want to think otherwise, we are animals. Smart animals, mostly civilized animals, but animals all the same.


You can take away guns. Hell, you can find a way to get rid of every gun and bullet in this country. People will still find a way to kill other people. There will always be a method. There will always be a reason. If someone wants another human being dead, they certainly don't need a gun to do it. That just happens to be the easiest way to take someone out of this world.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Like I have said before. Whether or not you want to admit it, war and killing is in human nature, as far back as we can detect.
> Like it or not, as much as you want to think otherwise, we are animals. Smart animals, mostly civilized animals, but animals all the same.
> 
> 
> You can take away guns. Hell, you can find a way to get rid of every gun and bullet in this country. People will still find a way to kill other people. There will always be a method. There will always be a reason. If someone wants another human being dead, they certainly don't need a gun to do it. That just happens to be the easiest way to take someone out of this world.


That's entirely correct. The only problem with guns is that they make the process simply "too easy", plus they do not require direct confrontation. There's a psychological difference between shooting someone and stabbing someone in the gut, as minute as it may be. "Unauthorized" people should not have access to guns, that said, circulation of guns should not be impeded at the same time, as they're a weapon as any other. It's a difficult reform to implement, especially in a country with such rich gun bearing tradition. Any new gun ownership legislature introduced with the intention to limit access will be met with a wave of criticism and protests and it requires several generations to re-shape what the nation thinks about guns and how they're percieved. Let's face it - the "need" for high-caliber or automatic weapons has vanished - the U.S is no longer under constant threat of internal conflicts of military nature. Outside of sports guns, hunting guns and small-caliber semi-automatic self-defense handguns, not a whole lot of firearms are necessary for the average Joe.


----------



## Eerpow (Dec 14, 2012)

AlanJohn said:


> You don't need guns to kill people. I.E some guy in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.
> This isn't a problem with laws or restrictions, this is a problem with human nature. We can't fix it with regulations.


It takes a lot more mentally to slice someone with a knife than it takes to pull a trigger and as already mentioned, high accessibility to firearms shortens the process of planning and actually committing a murder. In the heat of things when the mind enters a brief state of insanity anything can happen, building or illegally getting hold of a firearm will take time and bring up thoughts of reconsideration, so is it really a coincidence that the US, a country with a high crime rate also has a high firearms per citizen ratio?

I must say that I still can't answer that one with 100% confidence myself.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 14, 2012)

yes, the laws should be a lot tougher. to the point where pretty much only policemen and similar jobs should be able to carry them at all. end of story.

OR

at the very least, there should be a plethora of tests and requirements to own a gun in the first place. gun-law tests, psychological evaluations, morale evaluation, the need to retake those every 4 years. something like that.


----------



## dickfour (Dec 14, 2012)

More people are killed by the wheel every year than anything else. I think we should have more strict wheel laws. Maybe we should ban the wheel outright


----------



## Valwin (Dec 14, 2012)

Gun control is already too much the good people cant get gun only the criminals can if someone would have a gun in the school they could have kill that maniac


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Gun control is already too much the good people cant get gun only the criminals can if someone would have a gun in the school they could have kill that maniac


Fighting fire with fire only works on paper - if the school was better secured, the attacker wouldn't even enter it with a firearm to begin with. Moreover, the attacker has the upper-hand - it's a suprise attack after all.


----------



## Depravo (Dec 14, 2012)

> If your response to calls for gun control is “Should we get rid of cars too?” the answer is, for you, yes. You should not have a gun or car.


 
- Rob Delaney


----------



## Valwin (Dec 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Fighting fire with fire only works on paper - if the school was better secured, the attacker wouldn't even enter it with a firearm to begin with. Moreover, the attacker has the upper-hand - it's a suprise attack after all.


 
i saw a video of 2 people  that went to assault a jewelry store  and wan of the costumers takes a gun out and the two thief are stop right there


----------



## dickfour (Dec 14, 2012)

There's never going to be a law that's going to bam criminals from getting gun the only people who are going effected are the people who would never break laws in the first place. All more gun laws will do is create a bigger black market and put more guns in criminal hands. The best thing in this situation would have been if someone who worked at the school had a carry permit then this whole massacre could have been stopped


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

Valwin said:


> i saw a video of 2 people that went to assault a jewelry store and wan of the costumers takes a gun out and the two thief are stop right there


A jewelery store is not really vastly populated, unlike a school. It's all about the conditions.


----------



## dickfour (Dec 14, 2012)

And what if there were no guns? Does anyone think that the lack of a gun could have stopped this person from carrying out this mass killing? What's he going to say "oh can't get a gun guess I can't kill people" or is he going to build a fertilizer bomb and blow up the whole school? You can also kill 27 people with a knife or a car. It's been done but no one seems to be in favor of banning cooking knives


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

dickfour said:


> And what if there were no guns? Does anyone think that the lack of a gun could have stopped this person from carrying out this massive? What's he going to say "oh can't get a gun guess I can kill people" or is he going to buold a fertilizer bomb and blow up the whole school? You can also kill 27 people with a knife or a car. It's been done but no one seems to be in favor of banning cooking knives


Banning firearms is retarded - prohibition never goes well. What matters is that only authorized, responsible parties should get their hands on firearms. You can only drive if you have a driving license - you should only be able to purchase firearms if you have a license as well. Thing is, license-related legislature cannot be too lenient - there are certain requirements for a driver's license, a gun-related license should have steep requirements as well.


----------



## Tom (Dec 14, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Actually
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms in the US is only for a Militia, if you are not part of a Militia, then you you have right to bear arms.
> ...


You are American right? It's in the our constitution, the second amendment. It "protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms"


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 14, 2012)

People will find ways to obtain guns.

It's not that difficult so outlawing guns is unnecessary.
There will always be a couple of maniacs that go around and start mass shooting people.
It's how the world is unfortunately.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 14, 2012)

tom10122 said:


> You are American right? It's in the our constitution, the second amendment. It "protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms"


Yes I am American, but looking at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Text
It seems to only apply to a Militia, I could be reading that wrong and if I am, I apologize.

But with that said, I am going to agree with Foxi4 on this one. There no point banning them since that doesn't work, but there needs to be more regulates on them and apply a licencing for them and testing to make sure less guns get into the wrong hands. As well more gun safety education. It won't stop gun problems, but it will at least bring it down a notch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2012)

tom10122 said:


> You are American right? It's in the our constitution, the second amendment. It "protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms"


It's funny how you adamantly protect outdated legislature rather than your native tongue, American English.

My point being, this legislature was prepared in turbulent times when Americans were under an actual threat of annexation and/or internal turmoil - this threat is now non-existant. Outdated legislature needs to be revised. Moreover, a _right_ to bear arms is not infringed upon if said right is _regulated_. By your definition, we should release all prisoners from prisons regardless of their crimes because they have a right to freedom.



The Catboy said:


> Yes I am American, but looking at this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Text
> It seems to only apply to a Militia, I could be reading that wrong and if I am, I apologize.


 
It's for both militia and individual use, and there's nothing wrong with that. What needs to be adjusted are the laws regulating said right.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> t's for both militia and individual use, and there's nothing wrong with that. What needs to be adjusted are the laws regulating said right.


Ah, I have been reading that wrong, thank you for correcting me . Either way, we as a country really need to update the Constitution, at this point it really doesn't quite reflect our current nation anymore.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 15, 2012)

I certainly agree that we need stricter gun control laws in place. It's *not* about banning guns outright - it's about ensuring that only people fit to handle guns are able to purchase them (to fullest extent that the government can ensure that, anyway).

However, that alone isn't enough. While all too many seem eager to shred our social services, that would be a serious mistake. We need to find those mentally unstable enough to commit an atrocity like this one and reach out to them; we need to make sure they get the treatment they need. Leave them to their own devices, leave families with nowhere to turn to, and you're asking for tragedy.

We also need to cut down on the wild sensationalism these stories receive from the media. These killers, more often than not, are after the glamour and glitz; they all want to be the next Harris and Klebold. When we form media parades around these massacres, we are giving those responsible exactly what they wanted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I certainly agree that we need stricter gun control laws in place. It's *not* about banning guns outright - it's about ensuring that only people fit to handle guns are able to purchase them (to fullest extent that the government can ensure that, anyway).
> 
> However, that alone isn't enough. While all too many seem eager to shred our social services, that would be a serious mistake. We need to find those mentally unstable enough to commit an atrocity like this one and reach out to them; we need to make sure they get the treatment they need. Leave them to their own devices, leave families with nowhere to turn to, and you're asking for tragedy.
> 
> We also need to cut down on the wild sensationalism these stories receive from the media. These killers, more often than not, are after the glamour and glitz; they all want to be the next Harris and Klebold. When we form media parades around these massacres, we are giving those responsible exactly what they wanted.


I couldn't have worded it any better, so I "Quote for Truth" - you're getting a well-deserved Like.


----------



## InuYasha (Dec 15, 2012)

While in theory there should be tougher laws but if you really think about it most mass killings the gunman kills themselves anyway...


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." -- William S. Bourroughs 


Edit:




The Catboy said:


> Yes I am American, but looking at this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#Text
> It seems to only apply to a Militia, I could be reading that wrong and if I am, I apologize.
> .


 


The Supreme Court says it is an individual right - D.C. v. Heller in 2008 and in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." -- William S. Bourroughs


Who says anything about "taking away guns from the people who didn't do it"? We're talking about introducing policy of gun ownership control that would prevent tragedies from happening by monitoring the mental state as well as abilities and preparation of those who own guns as well as those who wish to own them.

I'll give you an example - where I live, to own a gun you need to pass a psychological test at any of the certified psychlogist offices, a psychological, theoretical and practical test at the P.D (including actual weapon handling, maintenance etc.) and, if applies, present factual evidence that a weapon you wish to own is required by you for:

Self-defense purposes, in which case you need to present an actual situation you find life-threatening - a court statement in relation to some kind of a previous offense you were the victim of speeds up the process, but isn't necessary. If your request is accepted, you may be permitted to bear small semi-automatic guns.
Proof of being a part of a hunting-related organisation, as well as a result of a membership test performed in said organisation. If your request is accepted, you may be permitted to bear larger, hunting-related weaponry, rifles and shotguns included.
Proof of being a part of a marksmanship organisation and proof of taking part in competitions on a national level within a given marksmanship-related sport. If your request is accepted, you may bear arms with sport-related purposes within designated areas.
All those still require you to take psychological tests each 5 years. You are also required to have two safes in your house, both mounted within walls to prevent them from being burglarized. One is for ammunition, and another, in another room is dedicated for the guns themselves. In certain circumstances, guns may be kept outside of the safe (self-defense).
Now, this isn't ideal - I think that the regulations are slightly too harsh, but honestly, I'm 23 years old and I don't remember a single shooting incident occurring in a Polish school. Ever. In Poland, you don't just "own a gun", you actually earn it.


----------



## Wizerzak (Dec 15, 2012)

dickfour said:


> And what if there were no guns? Does anyone think that the lack of a gun could have stopped this person from carrying out this mass killing? What's he going to say "oh can't get a gun guess I can't kill people" or is he going to build a fertilizer bomb and blow up the whole school? You can also kill 27 people with a knife or a car. It's been done but no one seems to be in favor of banning cooking knives


You obviously didn't read my post (1st reply).


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 15, 2012)

Wizerzak said:


> You obviously didn't read my post (1st reply).


 


No i read it, sorry bro i get sidetracked alot sometimes but yeah i totally agree with you.

I think we can and cant live without guns, udderly it must be the circle of life i guess.

Did i read it wrong or is the killer now adam lanza? Abc news had said it was ryan lanza for hours at first, cbs news had corrected there version of the story and turns out the brother is not dead after all too btw.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I only partially agree with Wizerzak. Gun control should be enhanced, but in the sense of annual psychological tests for gun owners as well as a more selective gun license distribution.* I find it ridiculous that guns in the U.S can be simply picked up at K-Mart* - the constitutional right for owning guns applies, but only when the future owner is responsible, mentally stable and is able to make sure that neither children nor burglars will have access to it. It's also a matter of what kind of guns are put on the market - let's face it, you don't need fully-automatic assault rifles for self-defense and you don't need a SPAS-12 for hunting - combat firearms like those should not be available for purchase by civilians without sufficient licenses (for example when said civilians run a shooting range or when they're required for some sort of sport events).
> 
> With the degree of firearm saturation we're seeing in the U.S, even in the event of totally banning the sale of firearms, people would still get their hands on some relatively easily - prohibition is never a good idea. What needs to be implemented is education concerning guns, their use and appropriate behaviour when facing attackers wielding them. Constitution aside, the U.S is no longer "Wild West" and the country cannot go on following the same laws that were put in place when its citizens were under an actual threat, be it in form of indians or other parties.


Whoa whoa whoa, They SELL guns at K-mart??? 
(I live in Canada, hence the question)


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

gamefan5 said:


> Whoa whoa whoa, They SELL guns at K-mart???
> (I live in Canada, hence the question)


They used to, and from what I'm reading online, they still do in some areas, although they promised to "phase out" this section of their stores. That's besides the point though, I used the store name in a metaphorical sense - what I actually meant was that "gun store" should not be associated with "supermarket" under any circumstances - these are not groceries, these are weapons and should be sold only at specialized, high-security stores.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> They used to, and from what I'm reading online, they still do in some areas, although they promised to "phase out" this section of their stores. That's besides the point though, I used the store name in a metaphorical sense - what I actually meant was that "gun store" should not be associated with "supermarket" under any circumstances - *these are not groceries, these are weapons and should be sold only at specialized, high-security stores.*


No argument here, but if i get this right, they can be found in other type of stores that doesn't have that much security?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

gamefan5 said:


> No argument here, but if i get this right, they can be found in other type of stores that doesn't have that much security?


Very much so - I used K-Mart's name due to its infamy in the subject, really. It was merely an example. 







Taken at Wal-Mart. Recipe for disaster.


Acquire ammunition beforehand, enter the store.
Ask the clerk to "test drive" a rifle.
...
Massacre!
What is this I don't even.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Very much so - I used K-Mart's name due to its infamy in the subject, really. It was merely an example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
WTF??? O.O


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 15, 2012)

I don't know how US laws work, but I think it would be good to have more rigids rule about firearms.

First, one have to know how to use a gun, otherwise he/she could kill a person by accident. I've even heard stories about people shooting themselves by accident.
Second, every person that intend to buy a gun must be registered. When you have a car, you must register the car. Why not do the same for firearms?
Third, the person must be checked to see if he/she is mentally healthy, doesn't have depression, etc...


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

gamefan5 said:


> WTF??? O.O


Nevermind, I see the clerk - he's just blurred, probably moving fast. That said, still - a bit too "friendly", methinks. That kind of a test drive should not be acceptable in a supermarket full of people - in a dedicated gunstore it's a different story entirely. If they want to test drive guns, they should have a dedicated, enclosed area for that, not just hand them over like morons.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Yes I am American, but looking at this
> Whoa whoa whoa, They SELL guns at K-mart???
> (I live in Canada, hence the question)


 
Yes, they sell guns at K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and other such retailers. But nobody buys a gun from an FFL or licensed retailer without a NICS background check. If you go to Wal-Mart to buy a gun you will be NICS checked before you're allowed to buy it, and then they carry your gun for you, in the box, escorting you out of the store.

Gun sales didn't always used to be this way. The first gun I ever used for hunting was my grandfather's bolt-action 12 gauge shotgun -- he bought it mail-order from the Sears-Roebuck catalog back in the 1930's when he was still in high school.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Nevermind, I see the clerk - he's just blurred, probably moving fast. That said, still - a bit too "friendly", methinks. That kind of a test drive should not be acceptable in a supermarket full of people - in a dedicated gunstore it's a different story entirely. If they want to test drive guns, they should have a dedicated, enclosed area for that, not just hand them over like morons.


I'll be deadly honest. I cannot conprehend the fact that firearms are so widely spread and easily accessible to anymore


----------



## Valwin (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Very much so - I used K-Mart's name due to its infamy in the subject, really. It was merely an example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
the clerk is in front


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> the clerk is in front


Yeah, he's blurred so I didn't see him on first glance - I corrected myself later on. That said, he can still whack the clerk with the butt of the gun, load up on previously-prepared ammunition and shoot away - nothing's stopping him and before security reacts, you'll have first casualties. Testing weapons should be performed in high-security, enclosed spaces - away from the supermarket proper, not in the middle of it. It's common sense.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Who says anything about "taking away guns from the people who didn't do it"? We're talking about introducing policy of gun ownership control that would prevent tragedies from happening by monitoring the mental state as well as abilities and preparation of those who own guns as well as those who wish to own them.


 

It is against the law in the U.S. for anyone who's been adjudicated as mentally ill or mentally defective to own a firearm. Problem is, in this case it was the shooter's mother who bought the guns. She bought them, and registered them, legally. What she didn't do was secure/lock them away from her autistic, mentally disturbed son. The older brother of the shooter has already stated to the press today that his brother's personality disorder was a known issue, and presumably he was receiving treatment for it. But in the society we have these days, its politically incorrect to treat a crazy person as a crazy person. Even now that he has done all this murder, people want to blame the weapon(s) he used.

I guess I agree with you to the extent of saying that people known to have a serious personality / affective disorder of this type should absolutely not have access to firearms ... but where I may disagree is that this must be accomplished by infringing upon the rights and lives of those who do not present a danger. Crazy people should be in an asylum, not walking around in public with the hope that their meds will keep them from snapping.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, he's blurred so I didn't see him on first glance - I corrected myself later on. That said, he can still whack the clerk with the butt of the gun, load up on previously-prepared ammunition and shoot away - nothing's stopping him and before security reacts, you'll have first casualties. Testing weapons should be performed in high-security, enclosed spaces - away from the supermarket proper, not in the middle of it. It's common sense.


 
yea cuz we all can load a riffle so fast have you ever try ? people there are ready for it

you scenario is really weak dude


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> It is against the law in the U.S. for anyone who's been adjudicated as mentally ill or mentally defective to own a firearm. Problem is, in this case it was the shooter's mother who bought the guns. She bought them, and registered them, legally. What she didn't do was secure/lock them away from her autistic, mentally disturbed son.


This is precisely the problem - background checks as well as actual storage regulations should be in place. Were the guns securely stored, a child would not be able to access them. You don't leave bleach out in the open, fearing that a child, mentally handicapped or not, would drink it - a gun is even moreso dangerous, so why was it in the open? This is not responsible ownership and it should be penalized - this is why periodical checks performed by the authorities should be in place.



> I guess I agree with you to the extent of saying that people known to have a serious personality / affective disorder of this type should absolutely not have access to firearms ... but where I may disagree is that this must be accomplished by infringing upon the rights and lives of those who do not present a danger. Crazy people should be in an asylum, not walking around in public with the hope that their meds will keep them from snapping.


Depends on the degree of their handicap, really - it's all relative, we cannot just isolate them if they do not pose a threat under normal circumstances. Even if he was crazy and even if he would've become violent anyways, he would do far less damage with a knife than with a gun - that much we can agree on. Guns need to be stored in a safe fashion, ESPECIALLY when the gun owner is also taking care of a potentially unstable individual.



Valwin said:


> yea cuz we all can load a riffle so fast have you ever try ? people there are ready for it
> 
> you scenario is really weak dude


Depending on the type of the shotgun it's anywhere between sliding a shell under the bolt and cocking or "breaking" it by the handle and sliding it directly into the compartment - it's really not as time-consuming as you think it is and takes very little expertise - non-tactical weapons are idiot-proof.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Depending on the type of the shotgun it's anywhere between sliding a shell under the bolt and cocking or "breaking" it by the handle and sliding it directly into the compartment - it's really not as time-consuming as you think it is and takes very little expertise - non-tactical weapons are idiot-proof.


 

I can only give you my experience, but I have had a couple rifles handed to me at Wal-Mart to see if they "fit" me (length of pull, heft, etc), and it was always a display model, out of the display case, and it had a trigger lock on it. If you say you want to buy the gun, they get a new one from the back of the store, still in the box, and walk you out with it. 







Now, I have been in a few gun shops and pawn shops where I've been handed a gun to inspect with no trigger lock, no block in the action ... so assuming I had the correct ammo on my person, nothing to keep me from proceeding to load that weapon  .... except for the loaded .357 revolver on the hip of the guy running the shop.


----------



## Sly 3 4 me (Dec 15, 2012)

Interesting tidbit that amassed the 25,000 signatures and then some in a matter of hours, now at 58,000.






At least this one is more reasonable than constructing a giant statue of Master Chef, which has since been taken down from the petition area, obviously.


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

doesn't matter if gun control is stricter. where there is a will there is a way.... hell just in my bf's family i know of at least 4 unregistered guns (guns passed down after death)


----------



## Wombo Combo (Dec 15, 2012)

No I need to protect myself and my family from assholes who murder/rob/rape/assault others.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 15, 2012)

Wombo Combo said:


> No I need to protect myself and my family from assholes who murder/rob/rape/assault others.


 
Don't you know? If you ban guns, they just magically go away.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Dec 15, 2012)

Laws. Huh. SMH at the frivolity of this. I think I said it here [somewhere, in a thread so far buried under] before: Laws don't stop/prevent bad shit from happening. Laws are there to punish the people the 'law enforcement' can catch [and prove that the person broke the law and blah de blah blah blah... it's a long, complicated process] for doing bad things.

Laws can't change the fact that 'some' humans have retrograde mental progressions sometimes. Like that quote from psycho goes: "we all go a little mad sometimes". There is no law, anywhere, at any period in human history that can even attempt to change that, or even punish it sufficiently.

Like prob 2/3 of the tempers in this thread have pointed out: "humans kill humans". I mean, sure, guns are guns are guns, but in the first place, people invented guns for one reason: to kill [or at least seriously harm, as was prob the case for the earliest muskets]. People make these damn things, because people, I'm sorry to say, are sick fucks. We've gotten somewhat better at the whole "live and let live" thing, but we'll never get away from the fact that we, as a species, sometimes lose control.

I mean, we haven't even started on those other people who actually do these things on a daily basis.


----------



## naved.islam14 (Dec 15, 2012)

There are 7 billion people in this world, God is helping us to reduce it.


----------



## gloweyjoey (Dec 15, 2012)

I just wanted to point out that gun control laws in the US vary from state to state. The laws are not the same across the country, and even then within some states, some counties have their own gun control laws. Where I live I cannot go to K-mart and buy a gun. There are even instances where certain types of firearms that are used in shootings in one state cannot be purchased in other states.

Saying that someone In the US can go into K-mart and simply pick up a gun is like saying anyone in the US can go to a hospital and get an abortion, or get medical cannabis or even get married if you're gay. Theses things are determined at the state level.

This issues then falls into the category of states being able to govern themselves which is part of that document that everyone just likes to throw around the 2nd part of. (in case you don't know I'm talking about the 10th amendment)


----------



## emigre (Dec 15, 2012)

sanoblue said:


> hell just in my bf's family i know of at least 4 unregistered guns (guns passed down after death)


 
I don't know where to start with this. I'm certainly pro-gun control but for those who want to own a firearm than they should show responsibility and comply with the law. Not stocking up on firearms. That's fucking irresponsible. Firearms are dangerous and if citizens and legally own one than there needs to regulation where both regulators (the state) and regulated (the gun owners) need to display responsibility and co-operation with each other.


----------



## Ethevion (Dec 15, 2012)

I definitely support strict rules for fire arms, but it wont solve the problem. Here in Canada, where we can't have guns, there are shootings that happen.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

emigre said:


> I don't know where to start with this. I'm certainly pro-gun control but for those who want to own a firearm than they should show responsibility and comply with the law. Not stocking up on firearms. That's fucking irresponsible. Firearms are dangerous and if citizens and legally own one than there needs to regulation where both regulators (the state) and regulated (the gun owners) need to display responsibility and co-operation with each other.


 

Sorry, but there's nothing 'fucking irresponsible' about owning 4 firearms. They are tools. Inanimate objects. They are only "dangerous" in the hands of dangerous (or dangerously negligent) people. And as tools, they each serve a different purpose. You don't hunt squirrel with a .308 Winchester, and you don't hunt deer with a .22lr. For hunting birds, you need a shotgun. And if you like shooting at paper targets as a sport, you need a specialized target rifle that'd be useless for any kind of hunting at all. That's four different firearms, and I haven't even discussed self-defense.


----------



## emigre (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sorry, but there's nothing 'fucking irresponsible' about owning 4 firearms. They are tools. Inanimate objects. They are only "dangerous" in the hands of dangerous (or dangerously negligent) people. And as tools, they each serve a different purpose. You don't hunt squirrel with a .308 Winchester, and you don't hunt deer with a .22lr. For hunting birds, you need a shotgun. And if you like shooting at paper targets as a sport, you need a specialized target rifle that'd be useless for any kind of hunting at all. That's four different firearms, and I haven't even discussed self-defense.


 
You forgot a key word ,"unregistered." That's my issue with that. You have firearms which aren't registered whatever the purpose than that's irresponsible.


----------



## McHaggis (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> *Banning firearms is retarded - prohibition never goes well*. What matters is that only authorized, responsible parties should get their hands on firearms. You can only drive if you have a driving license - you should only be able to purchase firearms if you have a license as well. Thing is, license-related legislature cannot be too lenient - there are certain requirements for a driver's license, a gun-related license should have steep requirements as well.


Except in the UK where prohibition worked really well... so I guess some might argue that not banning firearms is retarded.  Sure, I can agree that guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands, but making it harder for them to fall into anyone's hands makes it harder for them to fall into the wrong hands.  However, I would say that an immediate outright ban would probably not be a good idea.

I'm obviously not from the USA so their politics don't apply to me, but tragedies like this--the third major gun attack in the USA in 2012--affect us too. To all those people comparing guns to knives, what are you smoking? A gun can kill much easier from distance, a knife is easier to protect from. Someone with a knife can defend against someone else with a knife, they can't defend against someone with a gun. How often do you hear of major knife attacks? Is it more than 3 times in a year?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

McHaggis said:


> How often do you hear of major knife attacks? Is it more than 3 times in a year?


...in Cardiff? Every other night. 

...seriously though, the UK gained sort of an infamy when it comes to late-night knifing, so not that great of an argument on your part.


----------



## emigre (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ...in Cardiff? Every other night.
> 
> ...seriously though, the UK gained sort of an infamy when it comes to late-night knifing, so not that great of an argument on your part.


 
The knife crime malarky was subjected to hyperbole. There was a number of knifings in a relatively short time which made people and the media get all hysteric. In terms of statistical analysis the number wasn't all that concerning.

RE Cardiff: Cardif are still experiencing evolution so give them some time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

emigre said:


> The knife crime malarky was subjected to hyperbole. There was a number of knifings in a relatively short time which made people and the media get all hysteric. In terms of statistical analysis the number wasn't all that concerning.
> 
> RE Cardiff: Cardif are still experiencing evolution so give them some time.


I know, my girlfriend lives near Cardiff and I often visit the area - it's charming, I love spending time in Wales. That said, it's not necessarily safe at night. 

Hysteric or not, the media were indeed interested in the series of knifings in the UK, so the "infamy" post isn't exactly incorrect.


----------



## emigre (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hysteric or not, the media was indeed interested in the series of knifings in the UK, so the "infamy" post isn't exactly incorrect.


 
The same media which has proven itself to irresponsible and misleading with a Government inquiry stating there is a need for complete overhaul for media regulation?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

emigre said:


> The same media which has proven itself to irresponsible and misleading with a Government inquiry stating there is a need for complete overhaul for media regulation?


Oh blimey, I've opened the Pandora's Box! Let's not talk about the media, old chap! 

That said, "media" that is far more interested in stalking a price while he's having fun with prostitutes rather than following the concurrent EuroCrisis situation is sort of dodgy.  Honestly, who in the UK gives two f*cks about whom does Prince Harry _chee-kee-wow-wah-bang-bang_? I'm yet to meet a person that is.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 15, 2012)

It wouldn't change much. For example, certain drugs are illegal. But what do you know, they're still there.


----------



## NightsOwl (Dec 15, 2012)

I think they really should be a bit stricter. I understand the need of a firearm for self protection in case of a robbery... but any smart robber would have a gun anyway. So it's kind of redundant..


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Dec 15, 2012)

In my country, possession of serviceable weapons with lethal capabilities are prohibited and you can get hanged, even if you do not possess appropriate ammunition for that weapon (Which would possibly render it useless).

The possession of live or blank ammunition, or *empty casings* of spent rounds, are also prohibited and you can spend a long part of your life in the slammer if you're caught. Or hanged. Or both.

Now I understand that correlation does not imply causation, but I'll just say that my country is one of the safest cities in the world to live in.

Should guns be banned? In my opinion, yes. But that's because I've been brought up in a gun-free city all my life so my opinion may be biased in that respect.


----------



## McHaggis (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> ...in Cardiff? Every other night.
> 
> ...seriously though, the UK gained sort of an infamy when it comes to late-night knifing, so not that great of an argument on your part.


Knifing someone outside a nightclub isn't the same thing, but fair enough I'll put it another way; a mad man has a knife and 5 people run away from him. How many die or are seriously injured? Replace the knife with a gun with a full clip... how many now? My point was that they can't really be compared.

I'm all for banning guns because limiting the number of accessible weapons in the world can only be a good thing.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

AlanJohn said:


> You don't need guns to kill people. I.E some guy in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.
> This isn't a problem with laws or restrictions, this is a problem with human nature. We can't fix it with regulations.


And all 22 survived, a very similar to the number lying dead when someone did the exact same thing with guns.


----------



## air2004 (Dec 15, 2012)

Gun laws wont stop a non law abiding citizen. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and only 2 groups of people will have them. The criminals and the cops , and sometimes even the cops are criminals.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

Well there aren't hundreds of criminals running around terrorising the unarmed populace with guns here. 

It's not a particularly difficult equation to work out, the US is a country where guns are cheap and easily obtainable and mental health care is expensive and extremely difficult to obtain. The result can't come as a surprise to anyone.



dickfour said:


> And what if there were no guns? Does anyone think that the lack of a gun could have stopped this person from carrying out this mass killing? What's he going to say "oh can't get a gun guess I can't kill people" or is he going to build a fertilizer bomb and blow up the whole school? You can also kill 27 people with a knife or a car. It's been done but no one seems to be in favor of banning cooking knives



Would you like to give some examples of killings carried out on this scale with those items? Someone tried the same thing with a knife in China, attacked 22 of them, none dead. Someone went on a multiple hour rampage in a van in Wales, injuries but only 1 fatality. The Columbine killers attempted to blow up their school, resulting in 0 fatalities and if they didn't have guns that's where it would have ended. 

These events happen because of extremists who insist mental health care isn't a right but owning guns is.



Foxi4 said:


> ...Yeah, that's still pretty illegal, mate. I'm pretty sure that the registration becomes invalid once the owner dies - the next owner may get said weapons as inheritence, but still has to register them under his/her name - do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm to a great extent unfamiliar with the lenient U.S gun ownership laws.


no... registration happens at the purchase of a gun.... once its passed down its just that passed down.... the link is the serial number to the dead and their blood tie to the family... aside from that its open game sadly....



sanoblue said:


> no... registration happens at the purchase of a gun.... once its passed down its just that passed down.... the link is the serial number to the dead and their blood tie to the family... aside from that its open game sadly....


much less correct me if im wrong.... but arnt guns of a certain age dont need registering? cause i know u can pawn old ass guns like civil war rifles without the registration......


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 15, 2012)

dickfour said:


> More people are killed by the wheel every year than anything else. I think we should have more strict wheel laws. Maybe we should ban the wheel outright


 
i guess by wheel you mean car accidents, and yes, american drivers licence tests are a joke too.


----------



## McHaggis (Dec 15, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> It wouldn't change much. For example, certain drugs are illegal. But what do you know, they're still there.


What a weak, irrelevant argument.  If those drugs were legal, their would be so many more people off their tits and overdosing.  Laws are never going to stop something, but they do make a difference as a deterrent.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

dickfour said:


> More people are killed by the wheel every year than anything else. I think we should have more strict wheel laws. Maybe we should ban the wheel outright


Except "the wheel" wasn't designed for the specific purpose of ending life(whether hunting, murder, or self-defense).  When you upgrade your car, you get better gas mileage or more horsepower.  When you upgrade your gun, it is more effective at *killing*.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

McHaggis said:


> Knifing someone outside a nightclub isn't the same thing, but fair enough I'll put it another way; a mad man has a knife and 5 people run away from him. How many die or are seriously injured? Replace the knife with a gun with a full clip... how many now? My point was that they can't really be compared.
> 
> I'm all for banning guns because limiting the number of accessible weapons in the world can only be a good thing.


Honestly, I was just pulling your chain and poking a hole in your argument for the sake of it. I think I already stated that guns are infinitely more dangerous in the hands of a maniac than knives - what I was saying was that banning them entirely doesn't make the problem go poof. In this day and age, anyone with access to everyday cleaning chemicals and the internet or even a library is capable of constructing home-made explosives, heck, an adamant psycho will kill someone with a spoon if needs be. Guns themselves are not the problem, but we have to work towards keeping those who could use them in a malicious fashion away from them.


----------



## Wizerzak (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Honestly, I was just pulling your chain and poking a hole in your argument for the sake of it. I think I already stated that guns are infinitely more dangerous in the hands of a maniac than knives - what I was saying was that banning them entirely doesn't make the problem go poof. In this day and age, anyone with access to everyday cleaning chemicals and the internet or even a library is capable of constructing home-made explosives, heck, an adamant psycho will kill someone with a spoon if needs be. Guns themselves are not the problem, but we have to work towards keeping those who could use them in a malicious fashion away from them.


Which is exactly why I made my point. Very few of these gun attacks are 'adamant psychos' that actual plan in advance. You just have to have a bad day and think that there's nothing worth left living for and it becomes VERY easy in the US to just pick up your gun lying in your living room and go out and shoot people. No other weapon can you do this so easily with.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Sagat said:


> I definitely support strict rules for fire arms, but it wont solve the problem. Here in Canada, where we can't have guns, there are shootings that happen.


Yes but they are so less frequent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Wizerzak said:


> Which is exactly why I made my point. Very few of these gun attacks are 'adamant psychos' that actual plan in advance. You just have to have a bad day and think that there's nothing worth left living for and it becomes VERY easy in the US to just pick up your gun lying in your living room and go out and shoot people. No other weapon can you do this so easily with.


People who are capable of "breaking down when they have a bad day" shouldn't be gun owners to begin with - that's why background checks and psychological tests are so important, and they should be performed in regular intervals. The psychological tests will separate the chaff from the grain and background checks will assert whether the gun owner lives with someone capable of seizing the weapon/s and if the weapons are securely stored. I know I'm repeating myself, but I can't stress it strongly enough - hanging a gun over your mantlepiece may be "cool", but it's certainly not "safe". If you want one hanging on the wall, make sure it's inoperable and the actual, working weapons are in safes where they belong or on your person at all times (when it comes to self-defense weapons).


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

emigre said:


> I don't know where to start with this. I'm certainly pro-gun control but for those who want to own a firearm than they should show responsibility and comply with the law. Not stocking up on firearms. That's fucking irresponsible. Firearms are dangerous and if citizens and legally own one than there needs to regulation where both regulators (the state) and regulated (the gun owners) need to display responsibility and co-operation with each other.


the guns are registered to dead people.... family but still dead.... your quoting had nothing to do with my post

and no matter how regulated u make the laws.... its not hard to make a gun... with the right tools and know how u can pick up any fire arm and mod it yourself file off the serial and have a basicly unregistered full auto weapon.... and sadly all the info you need is right here on the net.

laws don't protect people from bullets....


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

sanoblue said:


> the guns are registered to dead people.... family but still dead.... your quoting had nothing to do with my post


...Yeah, that's still pretty illegal, mate. I'm pretty sure that the registration becomes invalid once the owner dies - the next owner may get said weapons as inheritence, but still has to register them own a permit under his/her name - do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm to a great extent unfamiliar with the lenient U.S gun ownership laws. 

EDIT: Nomenclature issues.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

sanoblue said:


> no... registration happens at the purchase of a gun.... once its passed down its just that passed down.... the link is the serial number to the dead and their blood tie to the family... aside from that its open game sadly....


I see. Well, that makes sense, but you still do need some form of a license to actually be allowed to use them, don't you? The way it works here, if you inherit a weapon, you need to pass tests to use it (equivalent to its type) or either decomission it or remove its capacity to fire (varies between weapon to weapon, usually it's a matter of filing down the firing-pin). If not, then the legislature seems flawed at best.


sanoblue said:


> much less correct me if im wrong.... but arnt guns of a certain age dont need registering? cause i know u can pawn old ass guns like civil war rifles without the registration......


They would have to be incredibly old and with no capacity for firing them, but I'll have to look it up to be sure.


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

nope no classes no nothing... its yours just like receiving money.... u dont need a class to learn how to spend it.... lol but yes those classes are available... to teach proper use, care and safety


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

the removal of a firing pin.... allows the gun to be sold as a replica.... but 50 bucks and the right person can turn a replica into a full functioning gun

if im not mistaken i think the age has to be about 100?????? for non registered.... and it doesnt have to be decommissioned... u can buy ball and cap at walmart... muzzle loaders even have their own season of hunting


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

i know if you get a gun in say a storage unit/locker sale... ur supposed to report it.... but how often does that happen....


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

sanoblue said:


> the removal of a firing pin.... allows the gun to be sold as a replica.... but 50 bucks and the right person can turn a replica into a full functioning gun


I realize that, but that said, the weapon is no longer "immediately usable" which is the whole point - in case it is stolen, it poses no danger until it's modified, and until then, you will have notified the authorities about it.

Okay, I looked up some facts:


> The regulation of guns in the United States is categorised as permissive
> Guiding gun control legislation in the United States is the Gun Control Act 196836 (this is Federal legislation only: each US state and territory enacts its own gun law)
> The minimum age for gun ownership in the United States is regulated by state or local authorities according to weapon type, but is 18 years to purchase shotguns and rifles and 21 years to purchase all other firearms, according to Federal law.
> In the United States, the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.


That's, in a nutshell the federal side of things - most of gun ownership issues are regulated on a state level. From that perspective, the only real boundry here appears to be age. That said, here's an excerpt from such regulations in Hawaii:


> HRS 134-2 states: “No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or by prior owner or unregistered, either by purchase, gift, inheritance, bequest, or in any other manner, whether procured in the state or imported by mail, until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the person’s place of business or…residence…a permit to acquire the ownership of a firearm as prescribed in this section.”


That basically means that regardless whether or not the gun is registered, you're required to possess a permit for gun ownership to actually keep it. Perhaps it works differently in whatever state you live in, but it's not a general rule.

It works similarily in North Carolina:


> To acquire a handgun in North Carolina (including private sales, gifts, and inheritance) an individual must go to the county sheriff's office in the county in which they reside and obtain a pistol purchase permit. This is not required if one has a CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) permit.State law requires the applicant to appear in person with government ID, pay a $5 fee, undergo a background check similar in scope and scrutiny to NICS, and have a reason for owning a pistol (hunting, target shooting, self defense, or collecting).


Inheritence alone does not allow you to actually own the weapon - you still need to undergo background checks as well as obtain a permit and present a reason why you need a pistol. Not sure about rifles, but you can look into it further if you want, I just wanted to show that "I inherited a weapon therefore I own it" is not always the case.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I see. Well, that makes sense, but you still do need some form of a license to actually be allowed to use them, don't you? The way it works here, if you inherit a weapon, you need to pass tests to use it (equivalent to its type) or either decomission it or remove its capacity to fire (varies between weapon to weapon, usually it's a matter of filing down the firing-pin). If not, then the legislature seems flawed at best.
> They would have to be incredibly old and with no capacity for firing them, but I'll have to look it up to be sure.


The legislature is most certainly flawed, and beyond repair. There are already so many guns in the hands of gun owners that Congress will never signed more strict regulation into law. It would be too big a job to even begin to enforce it.

I was talking with my wife about this last night (read: arguing). She is opposed to the government regulating...well...anything really. When I said, "I have no problem with people owning guns. There is just no application in the United States of America that calls for semi-automatic weapons of any kind short of law enforcement. No one should be able to walk into a room and spray 30 people in a matter of seconds. No one goes hunting with an AK-47. There is no reason to have semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians." She responded, "Gun control isn't going to stop crimes from happening. It's only going to hurt hobbyists and enthusiasts who purchase and operate their guns in a legal way. Criminals will still have these guns because the majority of guns used in these crimes are obtained illegally (so very wrong...). What if the shit hit the fan? What if we were invaded or there was a zombie apocolypse? You'd want a gun then, wouldn't you?"

We didn't speak again for the rest of the night...


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> That basically means that regardless whether or not the gun is registered, you're required to possess a permit for gun ownership to actually keep it. Perhaps it works differently in whatever state you live in, but it's not a general rule.


a gun permit is required for u to own or carry.... but like said it very state to state... look up Texas gun laws, they are loose...


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

sanoblue said:


>


As if spree killers would give a fuck, most of them shoot themselves anyway. You want your kid's elementary teacher to stand there teaching class in army fatigues with two assault rifles, bullet proof vest, riot helmet? And your theatre usher? And your fast food server? And you're going to pay the extra in taxes or prices for everyone in every job to be armed and trained? 

Yeah, this seems like a much more sensible society than every other country in the world which avoids regular massacres. Wonder how they do it? I mean, it can't be just not giving guns to every fucking brain dead hick that wants one that would just be fucking crazy.


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> The legislature is most certainly flawed, and beyond repair. There are already so many guns in the hands of gun owners that Congress will never signed more strict regulation into law. It would be too big a job to even begin to enforce it.
> 
> I was talking with my wife about this last night (read: arguing). She is opposed to the government regulating...well...anything really. When I said, "I have no problem with people owning guns. There is just no application in the United States of America that calls for semi-automatic weapons of any kind short of law enforcement. No one should be able to walk into a room and spray 30 people in a matter of seconds. No one goes hunting with an AK-47. There is no reason to have semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians." She responded, "Gun control isn't going to stop crimes from happening. It's only going to hurt hobbyists and enthusiasts who purchase and operate their guns in a legal way. Criminals will still have these guns because the majority of guns used in these crimes are obtained illegally (so very wrong...). What if the shit hit the fan? What if we were invaded or there was a zombie apocolypse? You'd want a gun then, wouldn't you?"
> 
> We didn't speak again for the rest of the night...


exactly there are too many already out there for any law to be really effective


----------



## Sanoblue (Dec 15, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> As if spree killers would give a fuck, most of them shoot themselves anyway. You want your kid's elementary teacher to stand there teaching class in army fatigues with two assault rifles, bullet proof vest, riot helmet? And your theatre usher? And your fast food server? And you're going to pay the extra in taxes or prices for everyone in every job to be armed and trained?
> 
> Yeah, this seems like a much more sensible society than every other country in the world which avoids regular massacres. Wonder how they do it? I mean, it can't be just not fixing guns to every fucking brain dead hick that wants one that would just be fucking crazy


true totally agree... but still a funny pic lol


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

McHaggis said:


> Except in the UK where prohibition worked really well...


 

Sure about that?? 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html




> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> The legislature is most certainly flawed, and beyond repair. There are already so many guns in the hands of gun owners that Congress will never signed more strict regulation into law. It would be too big a job to even begin to enforce it.
> 
> I was talking with my wife about this last night (read: arguing). She is opposed to the government regulating...well...anything really. When I said, "I have no problem with people owning guns. There is just no application in the United States of America that calls for semi-automatic weapons of any kind short of law enforcement. No one should be able to walk into a room and spray 30 people in a matter of seconds. No one goes hunting with an AK-47. There is no reason to have semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians." She responded, "Gun control isn't going to stop crimes from happening. It's only going to hurt hobbyists and enthusiasts who purchase and operate their guns in a legal way. Criminals will still have these guns because the majority of guns used in these crimes are obtained illegally (so very wrong...). What if the shit hit the fan? What if we were invaded or there was a zombie apocolypse? You'd want a gun then, wouldn't you?"
> 
> We didn't speak again for the rest of the night...


I agree with you - there's no reason as to why one would own so-called "tactical firearms" as the forementioned submachine guns or assault rifles - these weapons do not have a practical use. They're useless at hunting due to their loud nature, useless at shooting ranges due to their stronger recoil and often cumbersome dimensions and far too inconvenient for self-defense - if they are tools then they are tools of war and should be kept in the hands of soldiers, not civilians.

I also don't like the commonly-used definition of "semi-automatic" - to me, a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon which is capable of reloading the chamber after a shot is fired - the average handgun is "semi-automatic" as it loads the chamber but requires the user to pull the trigger once more to fire again (with some exceptions, see certain Glock models etc.). If the weapon both reloads the chamber and shoots then it's nothing short of automatic and calling it anything else is retarded - there are construction differences, yes, but the end result is the same - automatic fire... but I digress.

That said, a handgun at close range is just as effective as a freaking cannon - what needs to change is the attitude towards guns. In the U.S, there's a whole mythos surrounding them. First, people need to get it through their heads that they're not in immediate danger of war, zombie apocalypse ain't gonna happen and the Wild West is a distant memory. They're not frontier men and women anymore and don't need to be armed to the teeth.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure about that??
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html




'Firearm offences' include people bring found with illegal weapons and having them successfully confiscated. Would you like to compare the murder rate? I'm sure you'll find you're safer. After all you guys can defend yourselves, right? Or maybe you could check out the number of school shootings since the legislation brought in after Dunblane?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> No one goes hunting with an AK-47..


 
Sure about that??


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> 'Firearm offences' include people bring found with illegal weapons and having them successfully confiscated. Would you like to compare the murder rate? I'm sure you'll find you're safer. After all you guys can defend yourselves, right? Or maybe you could check out the number of school shootings since the legislation brought in after Dunblane?


 

Found further down in the article:



> The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure about that??


and that is one of the many things wrong with America.


----------



## xist (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure about that??
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html


 
Yep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure about that??
> *photo*


Talk about _overkill_ - he takes an assault rifle for hunting, forfeiting the advantages of a longer barrel and higher accuracy with lower recoil for the sake of fully automatic fire that he's unlikely to use if he wants to stuff the animal or eat it... or have anything left of it, actually. Good ol' huntin'.


----------



## xist (Dec 15, 2012)

Is there something gone a bit awry when people believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right, but the right to free healthcare for all isn't? It just seems that the former is terribly outdated.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

xist said:


> Yep
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf


 

I'm not entirely sure what your point is ... the murder rate in Great Britain is lower per capita than the USA, but everyone knows that. But if you look back at the article I linked, it shows that the death/injury rate from firearms in Great Britain more than doubled (104% increase) in the 10 years after the ban. Now, it's been decreasing gradually since 2005 or so, but gun crime generally has been decreasing in the US too. But freak incidents like the shooting yesterday have little to do with general trends.

The truth about life in the USA ... you see where the article you linked there says that the highest murder rates in the world are in places like Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica, etc? That's probably wrong. The highest murder rates are probably in places in the USA that are _like_ Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica ... if you were to remove the gang & drug related violence, the gun crime numbers from the USA would be far less sensational. Outside of certain parts of Chicago, L.A., Detroit, etc., we live pretty safe, peaceful lives here.

It's just my opinion, but eliminating drug prohibition in the USA would work miracles on our gun crime statistics. And as for the occasional mass shootings, they're not so occasional anymore and I think there's a very good possibility of an explanation for that as well. 

Look at this: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-2012-12

_



			Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, including today's school massacre, five have occured during the Obama administration, including the 2009 shooting at an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y. (14 dead); the 2009 Fort Hood massacre (13 dead); the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., this summer (12 dead); and the 2009 shooting spree in Alabama (11 dead)
		
Click to expand...

_ 
And the Virginia Tech shooting, which is certainly also on that list, happened just before. Why so many of these mass shootings in such a short time, and mostly committed by younger people? For the past 25 years or so, the public school systems in the USA have been increasingly resorting to ADHD drugs as a means of subduing unruly children, to the extent now that about 1 in 50 (? - quick wikipedia look) kids are on these drugs. Is there a connection? I don't know, but the timing is suggestive. You read up on ritalin and other such drugs and there is a certain small percentage of cases in which psychotic side effects are known to have resulted in children taking the drugs. This gets dismissed because of the statistically low percentages involved, but 1 person is all it takes. We saw that yesterday.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Talk about _overkill_ - he takes an assault rifle for hunting, forfeiting the advantages of a longer barrel and higher accuracy with lower recoil for the sake of fully automatic fire that he's unlikely to use if he wants to stuff the animal or eat it... or have anything left of it, actually. Good ol' huntin'.


 

Not fully automatic. Semi-auto. Both boars were shot once. Why he used an AK? Maybe for the challenge - it's a crappy, inaccurate rifle in my opinion. Maybe he can't afford to own a versatile collection of guns (what emigre calls stockpiling) and this one is the best 'do-all' on the market, useful for hunting and self-defense. Anyway this guy is a member on a discussion board I'm registered at ... no friend of mine, but he does hunt with an AK.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Not fully automatic. Semi-auto. Both boars were shot once. Why he used an AK? Maybe for the challenge - it's a crappy, inaccurate rifle in my opinion. Maybe he can't afford to own a versatile collection of guns (what emigre calls stockpiling) and this one is the best 'do-all' on the market, useful for hunting and self-defense. Anyway this guy is a member on a discussion board I'm registered at ... no friend of mine, but he does hunt with an AK.


It's a pretty weird choice for hunting and I don't really believe in "self-defense with assault rifles" as they're too cumbersome to pull out at moment's notice, but if it suits him for hunting, whatever. I'm aware of the fact that various flavours of AK's have various firing modes, so he could be shooting in semi-auto - that's why I said _he has an option for auto that he'll never use for hunting purposes. _


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

Most gun rights activists don't care about protection or stopping a tyrannical government anyway, it's simply because they think guns are cool and they want to play with them. It's this immaturity and fetishism that fuels the gun nut pressure groups that force the environment that lets tragedies like this happen. Just boys and their toys. I rarely see an argument for gun ownership that's not based on childish and cowardly reasoning.


----------



## xist (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not entirely sure what your point is ... the murder rate in Great Britain is lower per capita than the USA, but everyone knows that. But if you look back at the article I linked, it shows that the death/injury rate from firearms in Great Britain more than doubled (104% increase) in the 10 years after the ban. Now, it's been decreasing gradually since 2005 or so, but gun crime generally has been decreasing in the US too. But freak incidents like the shooting yesterday have little to do with general trends.


 
Those figures reflect 10 years of firearms statistics...there's nothing to do with a ban causing an increase in offences because firearms have never been readily available. The changes in law just made licensing more strict in relation to referees required. If you read the commentary and the political discussion of the time you'll see that it's attributed to a rise in gang culture and the measures put into place regarding welfare by the government of that period. In fact in 2006 the Violent Crime Reduction Act was put into place making any form of weaponry even tougher to possess (harsher rules on imitation and air weaponry included). Even allowing for the difference in population figures the occasions of any notable firearm crime of the scale we see elsewhere in the world is almost non-existent. Removing ready access to guns means that crimes of passion are far less likely to be so damaging.

The simple issue from the point of view of an outsider is that it's a cyclical argument, where guns and gang culture arise in one location, which cause a rise elsewhere (gang culture in the UK rose in direct relation to that of the US), and the response of needing guns to prevent more crime. At some point something needs to be done. It's too late to do anything about "the right to bear arms", but if it was revoked you'd end up living in a place where the level of fatal shootings was much less simply because there would need to be far more premeditation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Most gun rights activists don't care about protection or stopping a tyrannical government anyway, it's simply because they think guns are cool and they want to play with them. It's this immaturity and fetishism that fuels the gun nut pressure groups that force the environment that lets tragedies like this happen. Just boys and their toys. I rarely see an argument for gun ownership that's not based on childish and cowardly reasoning.


It's alright if you're responsible with your toys, but if you just hang them around your house like posters so that they're readily-available to every child and/or burglar, it becomes a problem. Not every kid is grown up enough to have a slingshot, not every person is grown up enough to responsibly own a gun.

Sure, guns are cool, but if someone's passionate about them, it's not an issue - an issue arises when someone becomes slightly "twisted". Yes, I'm talking to you, people with "nuclear" shelters and canned foods that'll last you for 3-5 years that you regularily cycle as well as a stockpile weapons for defense againts enemy incursion.

...trust me, that basement of yours isn't going to protect you from a nuke. You're wasting canned food.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 15, 2012)

xist said:


> Is there something gone a bit awry when people believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right, but the right to free healthcare for all isn't? It just seems that the former is terribly outdated.


both are fundamental


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Why he used an AK? Maybe for the challenge - it's a crappy, inaccurate rifle in my opinion.


A challenge?  Hardly.  If hunters wanted a challenge they'd be sitting in trees with bowie knives or stalking their prey, even using a bow.  As it is now, you can "hunt" from 100 yards away...  Hunting with an AK is just a gun owner playing with his toys.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> both are fundamental


Why.  Why is it a fundamental human right to own a firearm?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a pretty weird choice for hunting and I don't really believe in "self-defense with assault rifles" as they're too cumbersome to pull out at moment's notice, but if it suits him for hunting, whatever. I'm aware of the fact that various flavours of AK's have various firing modes, so he could be shooting in semi-auto - that's why I said _he has an option for auto that he'll never use for hunting purposes. _


 

No, that rifle is semi-auto only. No auto fire, no burst fire. Despite the misstatements that frequently appear in news reports, there is effectively a ban on civilians obtaining automatic or select-fire weapons in the USA. The first clampdown on that came in 1934 with the NFA (National Firearms Act) and then was made much stricter still in 1986 with the ironically titled "Firearms Owners' Protection Act." Since 1986, it is illegal to own any automatic weapon made after 1986, and illegal to import any older automatic weapon in the USA. So basically, the only remaining automatic weapons legally owned by US citizens must have already been registered under the original 1934 law when the 1986 law went into effect. Nothing new can be made, and nothing can come in, new or old. Since the supply is severely limited, you not only have to pass the rigorous federal background check to get the license (it's actually a tax stamp ... legalese), but the price for your basic full-auto weapon these days is well in excess of 10,000 dollars. As a result, since 1934 there have been only a couple homicides committed with legally owned full-auto weapons, and one of those was by a police officer. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html) They're investments, kept in the safes of people rich enough to own them.

We can buy "AK-47's", but they are semi-auto only. And for home defense (not carrying on your person, but for keeping a burglar from coming in the room where you've retreated with your wife and kids) I'd say an AK would be a pretty good choice.


----------



## Chary (Dec 15, 2012)

You know, drugs are outlawed. People still get them. If guns are banned, then the murderers/robbers just find a way to get them illegally. Then, they break in to someone's house, and do whatever they want, _because the homeowners no longer have a gun to protect themselves with._


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

Chary said:


> You know, drugs are outlawed. People still get them. If guns are banned, then the murderers/robbers just find a way to get them illegally. Then, they break in to someone's house, and do whatever they want, _because the homeowners no longer have a gun to protect themselves with._


 
Do you believe this is what happens in normal countries where everycunt who wants one can go to the store and buy a firearm?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Chary said:


> You know, drugs are outlawed. People still get them. If guns are banned, then the murderers/robbers just find a way to get them illegally. Then, they break in to someone's house, and do whatever they want, _*because the homeowners no longer have a gun to protect themselves with*._


who in this thread is talking about taking away people's guns?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> We can buy "AK-47's", but they are semi-auto only. And for home defense (not carrying on your person, but for keeping a burglar from coming in the room where you've retreated with your wife and kids) I'd say an AK would be a pretty good choice.


I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I think that in close quaters a light handgun is infinitely more useful than the AK - if anything, it's shortened version would be far more acceptable. It's simply easier to maneuver with a handgun within closed spaces - using an AK47 only makes sense when your "enemies" are relatively "far", when your house is literally sieged, and I can't see that happening in contemporary U.S unless it's the coppers sieging your house.  Within closed spaces, it's far too unwieldy and if an attacker manages to suprise you and approach you, there's very little you can do to protect yourself. With a handgun, you can at least attempt some hand-to-hand, wheras with a rifle the weapon becomes extra burden until you manage to push the attacker away.

As for the "Full-Auto Ban", I was unaware of that - is it a federal law or does it vary by state? I used to browse through Youtube videos of collectors and they had relatively contemporary Full Auto weapons with all the proper paperwork to back them up - perhaps it requires an additional permit (most of them were shooting range owners, perhaps that's why)?


----------



## Chary (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> who in this thread is talking about taking away people's guns?


If the gun laws are changed, people are less likely to get a gun, because they think they'll be safe from potential threats involving guns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2012)

Chary said:


> If the gun laws are changed, people are less likely to get a gun, because they think they'll be safe from potential threats involving guns.


That's not "taking away", that's distribution management.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 15, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> People who are capable of "breaking down when they have a bad day" shouldn't be gun owners to begin with - that's why background checks and psychological tests are so important, and they should be performed in regular intervals. The psychological tests will separate the chaff from the grain and background checks will assert whether the gun owner lives with someone capable of seizing the weapon/s and if the weapons are securely stored. I know I'm repeating myself, but I can't stress it strongly enough - hanging a gun over your mantlepiece may be "cool", but it's certainly not "safe". If you want one hanging on the wall, make sure it's inoperable and the actual, working weapons are in safes where they belong or on your person at all times (when it comes to self-defense weapons).


^This, certainly this X 1000!!!


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Chary said:


> If the gun laws are changed, people are less likely to get a gun, because they think they'll be safe from potential threats involving guns.


How old are you? No adult human is that naive. No one will ever be safe from gun violence as long as there are crazy people on this planet (so...never). The gun control debate is in regards to the regulation of firearms, not the prohibition. I'm pretty sure the word regulation is used in second amendment.

We have a right to...


> _*A well regulated Militia*_, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Why. Why is it a fundamental human right to own a firearm?


 

Because it 





Foxi4 said:


> I suppose it's a matter of preference, but I think that in close quaters a light handgun is infinitely more useful than the AK - if anything, it's shortened version would be far more acceptable. It's simply easier to maneuver with a handgun within closed spaces - using an AK47 only makes sense when your "enemies" are relatively "far", when your house is literally sieged, and I can't see that happening in contemporary U.S unless it's the coppers sieging your house.  Within closed spaces, it's far too unwieldy and if an attacker manages to suprise you and approach you, there's very little you can do to protect yourself. With a handgun, you can at least attempt some hand-to-hand, wheras with a rifle the weapon becomes extra burden until you manage to push the attacker away.


 
I tend to agree. My home-defense weapon of choice is a 9mm handgun, loaded with Speer Gold Dot 124gr +p ammo. But not everyone's home is the same - some live in an apartment, some own a ranch. It's their home to defend.



> As for the "Full-Auto Ban", I was unaware of that - is it a federal law or does it vary by state? I used to browse through Youtube videos of collectors and they had relatively contemporary Full Auto weapons with all the proper paperwork to back them up - perhaps it requires an additional permit (most of them were shooting range owners, perhaps that's why)?


 
It's federal law, but some states have their own even more restrictive laws. I believe there are a number of states in which you cannot own a "Class 3" weapon or accessory of any kind, period. Class 3 also includes suppressors (i.e. silencer), "shot-barreled rifles" and other such non-typical weapons. The most common thing people get a Class 3 permit for is a suppressor, which I really think should be available to anyone who shoots as a hobby like myself. I go to the range about once a month, murdering sheets of paper with targets printed on them. Guns are loud, damage hearing. I would love to have a suppressor to put on while shooting, but I don't bother because nobody else at the range has one, so I have to hear their guns anyway.

As for the folks you saw on youtube, like I said it isn't really a "ban" - if you have LOTS of money and a spotless, spotless record, you can buy a full-auto rifle, provided it was manufactured and already in the US before 1986. Since that rules out pretty much everyone likely to do crimes with one, it works out pretty well. Maybe not fair, but effective I guess.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> How old are you? No adult human is that naive. No one will ever be safe from gun violence as long as there are crazy people on this planet (so...never). The gun control debate is in regards to the regulation of firearms, not the prohibition. I'm pretty sure the word regulation is used in second amendment.
> 
> We have a right to...


 

Just so you know, the phrase "well-regulated" in the late 18th century meant "well-equipped." It had nothing to do with modern day bureaucratic regulations. There were damned few "regulations" of any kind when the USA was founded, just laws ... there weren't even any regulatory agencies of any kind.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Because it


 
Because it, what?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Because it, what?


 

At first I was like "where did that come from?" and then I looked back and saw where yeah I did start responding to that. So, fair enough ... I'm not sure I would go as far as calling the right of the people to own firearms a "fundamental" right since that would imply given by God. And that's not the case. We invented the things, without his help thank you very much. Probably the thing that sparked the industrial revolution. But why should it be the right of any law-abiding person to own a gun? Because it gives an 80 year old woman some chance of defending herself and her home against a 24 year old burglarizing meth-head POS. With the gun, she might prevail, and it's not hard to find such stories. Without the gun, she's 100% at that fucker's mercy.


----------



## Arizato (Dec 15, 2012)

I can only speak from my own perspective. But guns are really hard to come by here in Sweden, at least around where I live. I think our system works really well and it's pretty rare to hear about a shooting. I am not trying to say my country is better in any way. I am just saying that it's way harder to come by weapons legally in Sweden, and it seems to work pretty well. Even though I am aware that you can buy weapons illegally.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> At first I was like "where did that come from?" and then I looked back and saw where yeah I did start responding to that. So, fair enough ... I'm not sure I would go as far as calling the right of the people to own firearms a "fundamental" right since that would imply given by God. And that's not the case. We invented the things, without his help thank you very much. Probably the thing that sparked the industrial revolution. But why should it be the right of any law-abiding person to own a gun? Because it gives an 80 year old woman some chance of defending herself and her home against a 24 year old burglarizing meth-head POS. With the gun, she might prevail, and it's not hard to find such stories. Without the gun, she's 100% at that fucker's mercy.


 
And at the same time, it gives the 20 year old psycho some chance of killing as many innocent people possible in as short a time as possible. I'm not anti-firearms in the least. I own two guns; a Ruger 22 rifle and a Smith & Wesson 586. The rifle was a gift from my father (it's only fired maybe a dozen rounds), the revolver a purchase for home protection. The keys are around mine and my wife's necks at all times so as not to be stumbled upon in the house. I would rather keep my guns. However, I'm also a proponent of mandatory yearly training seminars for gun owners and the regulation or restriction of semi-auto weapons with the exception of law enforcement officers. If guns are banned, they're banned. I will comply with the law because it's the law. I'd prefer it if guns were not banned, but better regulated.

I think education is a fundamental human right. I think healthcare is a fundamental human right. Owning a firearm is not, but it is possible to better educate the public and offer mental health services at reasonable rates as preventative measures for tragedies like these. I'd be happy to go to a yearly psych eval.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Dec 15, 2012)

the problem isnt guns ,if you make guns illegal ,only criminals will have guns ,like police


----------



## Valwin (Dec 15, 2012)

lest get rid of  all legal weapons and only left the criminal have them yep such a good idea


----------



## air2004 (Dec 15, 2012)

emigre said:


> You forgot a key word ,"unregistered." That's my issue with that. You have firearms which aren't registered whatever the purpose than that's irresponsible.


No , whats irresponsible is when a city you live in posts that you own guns or have applied for a gun permit.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2012)

It's one thing to want a gun, it's quite another thing on how you use it.  Banning guns isn't going to stop criminals from getting them. It doesn't work for Japan, does it. The Yakuza have guns, but the people who live aren't allowed to possess them legally.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> I think education is a fundamental human right. I think healthcare is a fundamental human right. Owning a firearm is not, but it is possible to better educate the public and offer mental health services at reasonable rates as preventative measures for tragedies like these. I'd be happy to go to a yearly psych eval.


 
Question: would you support a mandatory "safe storage, handling, and operation of firearms" class in public schools? I personally believe that teaching kids to understand that a gun is just a mechanism that is subject to certain safety precautions, and deadly when misused just like a chainsaw or a high-voltage electrical line, helps to 'de-hype' the gun mystique that comes out of Hollywood fiction and (yes, sorry) FPS video games. My dad had me learning to shoot from age 7, and based on seeing at that age what damage a gun could do, I learned to respect and understand that with the gun comes a huge responsibility. As a result, I've never really cared for FPS games. (I play mostly platformers, puzzle, stategy, and rpg's)  I'd rather shoot real guns responsibly than pretend guns like a fool.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Question: would you support a mandatory "safe storage, handling, and operation of firearms" class in public schools? I personally believe that teaching kids to understand that a gun is just a mechanism that is subject to certain safety precautions, and deadly when misused just like a chainsaw or a high-voltage electrical line, helps to 'de-hype' the gun mystique that comes out of Hollywood fiction and (yes, sorry) FPS video games. My dad had me learning to shoot from age 7, and based on seeing at that age what damage a gun could do, I learned to respect and understand that with the gun comes a huge responsibility. As a result, I've never really cared for FPS games. (I play mostly platformers, puzzle, stategy, and rpg's) I'd rather shoot real guns responsibly than pretend guns like a fool.


 
I would support a high school course, but with the laser training guns the police/sheriffs/corrections officers use rather than blanks or live ammo.  No firable weapons on school grounds.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 15, 2012)

How secure should guns be? If they're locked in a safe you're not going to be able to grab them to defend yourself. If they're easy to get to, then your teenage kids can have a bad day and slaughter 20 children with them.

Should you be allowed access to guns after drinking? If not,how the fuck do you 'defend yourself' while drinking alcohol? If so, seriously, what the fuck?


----------



## Tom (Dec 15, 2012)

Being NJ, I'm saying no, it just occurred to me that others do not have regulations as strict as here


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> How secure should guns be? If they're locked in a safe you're not going to be able to grab them to defend yourself. If they're easy to get to, then your teenage kids can have a bad day and slaughter 20 children with them.
> 
> Should you be allowed access to guns after drinking? If not,how the fuck do you 'defend yourself' while drinking alcohol? If so, seriously, what the fuck?


 

There are safes meant to protect your investments (including guns) from burglary and fire, and then there are safes meant to prevent access to children and unintended persons while still affording easy & quick access for the owner. Most of the latter use a fingertip combination system. You just tap out a particular sequence, and it opens. Here's a pic of a "Gunvault" brand handgun safe, but they make them for long guns too.


----------



## Zero Aurion (Dec 15, 2012)

Question...

Say guns do become prohibited...

What in the hell makes anybody think that a criminal is going to give one singular damn about the law?

"But, Zero, it will become harder to obtain guns!"
Actually, I'm pretty sure people will still be able to obtain guns. It would be just like weed and piracy... Their prohibited, and hard for some to get a hold of, but once people find out where to look, it will be just as easy.

"What do weed and piracy have to do with guns?"
Easy... The fact that people think that if they're prohibited and illegal, people would be having trouble finding guns. But, as I just stated, once people find out where to look, it will become easy to find.

And then, you'll be left with criminals having all the guns, while people are left defenseless, making it easier for assholes to go and murder people. Crime rates will go up, life rates will go down.

Common sense.

And don't get me wrong. I hate guns. The way I see it, they're a pussy's weapon. But... There is no denying common sense.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 16, 2012)

Even if you made firearms 100% unavailable, even to criminals, the occasional crazy like that guy yesterday would just plow into crowds with their car instead and kill just as many. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more already.


Edit: Here's the worst school massacre in US history ... happened in 1927. 38 kids dead, 6 adults dead, and 58 injured. No guns involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre


----------



## xist (Dec 16, 2012)

Is someone who lives in a country where guns are not readily available (pick a European country...France, UK, Germany) less safe than someone who lives in a country where you can keep a gun at home for protection? (like the US).

Am i, as a UK resident, LESS safe than you as a US resident, because guns are pretty much only in the hands of the criminals? I think here guns are used mostly as a threat and their absence of proliferation means that they're less likely to be fired - someone simply having one is scary to most people. Now that might make me less able to repel a burglar armed with a gun, but equally, that burglar is less likely to have a gun as they're less readily available. And killing someone with a knife is far harder than with a gun as it requires much more intent.

Obviously the horse has bolted on gun laws, but if you could go back and remove that right to bear arms from day one, would you?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 16, 2012)

xist said:


> Obviously the horse has bolted on gun laws, but if you could go back and remove that right to bear arms from day one, would you?


 

Actually, it was British soldiers marching on Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists' guns in 1775 that started the Revolutionary War. Answer your question?


----------



## SickPuppy (Dec 16, 2012)

In Michigan, recently the conceal carry law has been changed to allow ccw permit owners to carry in places such as schools, churches, and other places that were previously off limits to ccw permit holders. No reason for some raging maniac to kill so many people, before he becomes the target.


----------



## xist (Dec 16, 2012)

Not reall


Hanafuda said:


> Actually, it was British soldiers marching on Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists' guns in 1775 that started the Revolutionary War. Answer your question?


 
No, not really. That doesn't justify an intelligent person (or group) putting together a constitution of rights that ensures EVERYONE should have access to firearms. Based on that it seems even more stupid/kneejerk.


----------



## dickfour (Dec 16, 2012)

If any laws should be strengthened in should be the civil commitment laws. It's about time we lock people up who are a danger to themselves and the public. No more just giving them psychotropic drugs. And sending them on their merry way. Drugs that if you believe the commercials cause suicidal thoughts


----------



## Fear Zoa (Dec 16, 2012)

Freedom vs Security
It all comes down to whether or not you want to sacrifice the very freedoms our ancestors fought for, for a false sense of security. 

Sad as it is we are at its core a country that got tired of its government and decided to rise against them, they gave us all the rights and resources to do so if needed in the future, yet over the years we're slowly losing those rights. I fear we won't want to fight back till we have no reasonable way of doing so.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 16, 2012)

I actually couldn't believe how easy it is to get guns in the U.S.
I was in vacation once in Florida, IIRC, and I saw a giant store with the words "Gun World" on it, and I (_not-quite_) literally shit my pants. I was walking to the closest Wal-Mart actually, which I also happened to spot firearms. I don't see why the US seems to have such a great infatuation with guns. They are just so damn easy to get.

I propose something along these lines.

Two guns (One rifle or shotgun, one pistol), per every 3 family members in a household
Guns must stay locked in a safe with only two approved citizens having knowledge of the combination
Guns may only be used if they can be used to prevent personal danger, this includes the event of a zombie apocalypse
If you are not part of the military, you may not carry firearms outside of a 30 foot radius outside your home, except in the event of a zombie apocalypse
If you're hunting, firearms must be supplied by the recreational office. Unless you're hunting zombies.



Fear Zoa said:


> Freedom vs Security
> It all comes down to whether or not you want to sacrifice the very freedoms our ancestors fought for, for a false sense of security.
> 
> Sad as it is we are at its core a country that got tired of its government and decided to rise against them, they gave us all the rights and resources to do so if needed in the future, yet over the years we're slowly losing those rights. I fear we won't want to fight back till we have no reasonable way of doing so.


 
Oh god, this is the perfect time for another civil war. No sarcasm, it is. The US government is a corrupt piece of shit. It's already too late to fight back, though. On one side you have people incapable of fighting, you have people who simply are too dumb to see what the government is doing, and people who don't give a damn. 

But in this day and age, I doubt an uprising in a country such as the US will ever work. It's just too big, with too many allies.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 16, 2012)

dickfour said:


> If any laws should be strengthened in should be the civil commitment laws. It's about time we lock people up who are a danger to themselves and the public. No more just giving them psychotropic drugs. And sending them on their merry way. Drugs that if you believe the commercials cause suicidal thoughts


 

I said much the same thing a couple pages back. And Chris Rock said it years ago.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they
wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to
make it keep pace with the advance of the age"—Thomas Jefferson


In the founding fathers' time, guns fired one round and were used by militias and for hunting. Today, guns fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and are used by whoever fucking feels like it.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

xist said:


> Not reall
> 
> 
> No, not really. That doesn't justify an intelligent person (or group) putting together a constitution of rights that ensures EVERYONE should have access to firearms. Based on that it seems even more stupid/kneejerk.


 
people in the USA have right to own a gun a a safety measure towards the federal government if the event we the people would need to overthrow them

but what do you know you still have a queen


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> people in the USA have right to own a gun a a safety measure towards the federal government if the event we the people would need to overthrow them


 
lol...
so the purpose of the second amendment is to overthrow the government?


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> lol...
> so the purpose of the second amendment is to overthrow the government?


 
think of it as a safety measure if the government were to become tyrannical the people would be ready to fight

fathers of the nations weren't dumb the new their own government could fall into the temptation of power


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> think of it as a safety measure if the government were to become tyrannical the people would be ready to fight
> 
> fathers of the nations weren't dumb the new their own government could fall into the temptation of power


Right, I'll go ahead and shape my beliefs around those of a Puerto Rican who can't put a sentence together in the founding fathers' language.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Right, I'll go ahead and shape my beliefs around those of a Puerto Rican who can't put a sentence together in the founding fathers' language.


 
funny going by your flag  it says you're from the USA yet it seem i know more the nation than you  do you even read your own history ?


as USA possession  i have a right to give my opinion on matters happening in the nation


----------



## xist (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> people in the USA have right to own a gun a a safety measure towards the federal government if the event we the people would need to overthrow them
> 
> but what do you know you still have a queen


 
A) I'd get rid of the Monarchy in a heartbeat.
B) The Queen has zero power. She's just a figurehead and a tourist attraction. Can you actually justify what that comment you make even means or are you just attempting to be insulting?

And once more if that's an argument for gun laws it's stupid. We're beyond needing weaponry to instigate change.


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

xist said:


> A) I'd get rid of the Monarchy in a heartbeat.
> B) The Queen has zero power. She's just a figurehead and a tourist attraction. Can you actually justify what that comment you make even means or are you just attempting to be insulting?
> 
> And once more if that's an argument for gun laws it's stupid. We're beyond needing weaponry to instigate change.


 
The queen can dissolve parliament if she wishes too just because she have never done it it does no mean there zero power  i am not trying to be insulting

limiting weapons would do no good


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> funny going by your flag it says you're from the USA yet it seem i know more the nation than you do you even read your own history ?
> 
> 
> as USA possession i have a right to give my opinion on matters happening in the nation


Repeating far-right rhetoric and NRA "interpretations" of law does not make you a historian, friend.  The right to bear arms is surely a means of self-defense/preservation, but to say it's specific purpose is to overthrow the government "when needed" is retarded.  I think the USN section is missing you right now.


----------



## xist (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> The queen can dissolve parliament if she wishes too just because she have never done it it does no mean there zero power i am not trying to be insulting
> 
> limiting weapons would do no good


 
Now that's ridiculous. Firstly, given that the Monarchy has no political input beyond the ceremony of the dissolution, reformation etc of governments the part she plays is "theatre". It's tradition but has no real bearing on the working of the country Because you don't have the historical legacy the UK has you may not understand it but it's all pomp. And based upon your reasoning for having guns, you're implying the only way the British populace could stop that if it could actually happen would be with guns?

Times have changed since the constitution was drafted, and guns themselves seem to be convey a false sense of security.  In your opinion then, why would Germany, France or even the UK be better off if we could all go out and get handguns?


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Repeating far-right rhetoric and NRA "interpretations" of law does not make you a historian, friend. The right to bear arms is surely a means of self-defense/preservation, but to say it's specific purpose is to overthrow the government "when needed" is retarded. I think the USN section is missing you right now.


repeating fake  interpretations does not make you right friend

preservation of the current way of government

i dont need to repeat anything


----------



## Valwin (Dec 17, 2012)

xist said:


> Now that's ridiculous. Firstly, given that the Monarchy has no political input beyond the ceremony of the dissolution, reformation etc of governments the part she plays is "theatre". It's tradition but has no real bearing on the working of the country Because you don't have the historical legacy the UK has you may not understand it but it's all pomp. And based upon your reasoning for having guns, you're implying the only way the British populace could stop that if it could actually happen would be with guns?
> 
> Times have changed since the constitution was drafted, and guns themselves seem to be convey a false sense of security. In your opinion then, why would Germany, France or even the UK be better off if we could all go out and get handguns?


 
so the british 0people are going to fight with flowers if one day their government became tyrannical ?



were i live we have gun laws that are way stronger that the ones in the USA  the common person here cant get a damn gun and were are been hit by the highest criminal wave in history of our island  because only criminals are the ones with guns

i would have love to see this child killing asshole try this in texas


----------



## xist (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> so the british 0people are going to fight with flowers if one day their government became tyrannical ?


 
And this is exactly why making guns readily available to almost anyone is bad. When you come down to protest with either firearms or flowers, with nothing in between you're essentially proving that guns are a bad thing as they remove any chance of discourse.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> so the british 0people are going to fight with flowers if one day their government became tyrannical ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Right, because in Texas every school teacher and child are armed in every classroom.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 17, 2012)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...eview_writer_says_it_s_not_that_powerful.html


----------



## BORTZ (Dec 17, 2012)

I love my guns. I would like to keep them, so I use them in safe and practical ways, not for harming other humans or their things.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 18, 2012)

Gotta give credit to "Mammoth Jones" on gaf for posting these first ones ....










And here's some more I found:














Well, that's enough. There's no end to these news reports on youtube if you bother to look.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 18, 2012)

Ah, so making the possession of firearms illegal to citizens will somehow magically prevent criminals from getting them by illicit means?  Banning guns isn't going to reduce criminal use.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 18, 2012)

Well written opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal analyzing the possible reasons why random mass shootings have increased in number over the last 30 years. As the author states, AR-15 rifles with high-capacity magazines have been available on the civilian market since the 1960's (high capacity magazines for pistols go back at least to the Browning Hi-Power, 1930's), and gun regulations have only gotten more strict over time. So why an increase in random acts of mass murder, if it's not because of these particular types of guns? Again, it's an opinion piece, but I found his thoughts on the subject very much on-point. I was especially surprised to learn that the number of state hospital beds available for the mentally ill in the U.S. has dropped to the same level it was at in 1850 (14.1 beds per 100,000 people).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html?mod=hp_opinion


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Ah, so making the possession of firearms illegal to citizens will somehow magically prevent criminals from getting them by illicit means? Banning guns isn't going to reduce criminal use.


 
It certainly did in Australia.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html



> At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
> What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the _Washington Post_’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.


 
There is no evidence at all for any of these scaremongering theories about all these supposedly terrible things that might happen as a result of gun control. However there is very real evidence of a genuine increase in safety for everyone in places where such controls have been enacted, which is something that seriously pisses off gun nuts.



dickfour said:


> If any laws should be strengthened in should be the civil commitment laws. It's about time we lock people up who are a danger to themselves and the public. No more just giving them psychotropic drugs. And sending them on their merry way. Drugs that if you believe the commercials cause suicidal thoughts


 
Well, locking up people who display signs of paranoid delusion would be a good way to drastically cut the number of gun nuts, survivalists, birthers, Tea Partiers, NRA members, Alex Jones NWO conspiracists and end timers at large in society.



Hanafuda said:


> Gotta give credit to "Mammoth Jones" on gaf for posting these first ones ....
> 
> Well, that's enough. There's no end to these news reports on youtube if you bother to look.


 
And I'm sure we could post youtube video after yourtube video of people who were murdered with legally bought firearms. After all, about 70% of murders in the US are carried out with guns.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 19, 2012)

So it's real after all - the mythical triple post!

It's as if there was no convenient "Edit" function at all!


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

Hey how's it going Gahars?
Thanks for the words of wisdom.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Gahars said:


> So it's real after all - the mythical triple post!
> 
> It's as if there was no convenient "Edit" function at all!


It's Starcraft's fault, leave him alone!


----------



## dickfour (Dec 19, 2012)

Anyone feel safe in a free fire, I mean "gun free zone". Typical liberal feel good legislation that's a sign post for spree killers that reads commit you crimes here. If there's any legislation that needs to happen it's that we need to ban gun free zones


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

More knee-jerking events.


----------



## xist (Dec 19, 2012)

dickfour said:


> Anyone feel safe in a free fire, I mean "gun free zone". Typical liberal feel good legislation that's a sign post for spree killers that reads commit you crimes here. If there's any legislation that needs to happen it's that we need to ban gun free zones


 
Grow up. How many countries around the world have you lived in to create this piece of stunning information?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> It certainly did in Australia.
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html


How silly of me, I guess people don't have any rights to using self-defense in a life or death situation. How wrong I was.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

dickfour said:


> Anyone feel safe in a free fire, I mean "gun free zone". Typical liberal feel good legislation that's a sign post for spree killers that reads commit you crimes here. If there's any legislation that needs to happen it's that we need to ban gun free zones


 


xist said:


> Grow up. How many countries around the world have you lived in to create this piece of stunning information?


 
With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


----------



## xist (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


 
You're isolating the US. I wasn't. Plus i can't check your statistics but they seem unlikely.

We're never going to agree because i don't think that taking life should be made so easy, and that by restricting gun access there would be less shots fired and therefore less deaths resulting from them. Defending yourself by killing someone else isn't justifiable in my book, and it just breeds the vigilante state of mind.

The relationship between guns and the people of America is far too complicated to be solved, and there's no chance it'll be hugely restricted, but in a hypothetical case where the public no longer had access to guns i'd wager that the number of deaths resulting from being shot would drop like a stone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


Is that because of the ban on carrying in those places or because of the well-rooted gunslinging tradition of the U.S citizens, further enforced by outdated legislature?

You're not defending yourselves from the British anymore. You're not under any threat of a sudden Indian invasion. You can stop now. Put things in historical perspective. Americans were allowed to purchase and carry arms with little limitations _because_ they were under constant threat - it was a New World. It's not anymore though.


----------



## phia (Dec 19, 2012)

dj4uk6cjm said:


> First the mass shooting at an oregon mall and now this? http://gbatemp.net/threads/connecticut-school-shooting.339189/ I'm usually not one to post my own opinions about news stories and stuff but this is serious, i want to hear everyones opinions on this. do you think there should be tougher gun laws? 2 mass shootings in one week...1 week!!! what the hell is going on in this world? and we cant forget about the kansas chiefs and jordan davis shooting either  its sad.


 yes much harder


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> You're not defending yourselves from the British anymore. You're not under any threat of a sudden Indian invasion. You can stop now. Put things in historical perspective. Americans were allowed to purchase and carry arms with little limitations _because_ they were under constant threat - it was a New World. It's not anymore though.


 
Mmmmhuh.



How do you respond to this tragedy? By buying more guns of course. Makes sense.
And also, Congress is now getting serious about banning assault weapons. Instead of a high caliber bullet, we're now allowed to use a low caliber bullet to kill people.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> How silly of me, I guess people don't have any rights to using self-defense in a life or death situation. How wrong I was.


 
Nice strawman to change the subject - no answer to why murders went down, gun crime went down, home invasions didn't increase, massacres stopped happening when you're so sure gun control causes the opposite?


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


 
How many have been carried out with guns that had been bought legally?  How come the Giffords shooting wasn't stopped by some John Wayne wannabee packing heat?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

xist said:


> You're isolating the US.


 
Yes, I am. I live here. You don't.



> Plus i can't check your statistics but they seem unlikely.


 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund



> Defending yourself by killing someone else isn't justifiable in my book


 
You're reading the wrong book then. Or perhaps you simply don't have anything yet that's worth defending. Get back to me when you have a home of your own and a couple kids, then tell me how you'd react to someone trying to break in at 2am.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Nice strawman to change the subject - no answer to why murders went down, gun crime went down, home invasions didn't increase, massacres stopped happening when you're so sure gun control causes the opposite?


Nope. But you probably can't explain why Washington DC has such high crime rates and strict gun laws. If self-defense is so "evil" why do many states have "stand your ground" or Castle Doctrine laws?  If you believe you or someone important to you is in danger or getting hurt or killed, you have very right to defend yourself and your family. 

If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat.


----------



## xist (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Yes, I am. I live here. You don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You know before this post i didn't see it, but this message is incredibly arrogant, and really hammers home that you'll only ever see one side on an argument.

I may not live in the US, but my response was in relation to a message i'd written earlier about worldwide gun legislation. You're ignoring the context in an attempt to prove yourself correct, and trying to make my point look redundant.

I'll assume you don't have an academic background because posting a single article, which doesn't cite research isn't really a sufficient amount of evidence. Hell, you could probably do the same for alien abduction. Statistically it's highly unlikely to be true.

And your final "point" isn't worth a response from me. You make totally unfounded assumptions about me, my personal life and any experience i've had with burglary. I'm not going to justify your ignorance with any kind of response beyond pointing out that belligerently trying to prove a point without looking at the bigger picture generally doesn't win the argument.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Nope. But you probably can't explain why Washington DC has such high crime rates and strict gun laws.


It doesn't just take strict laws - it takes a change in the overall approach, a change of mentality, and that cannot be achieved with a few laws. The laws are a good starting point though.

U.S citizens need to stop child rearing their children into glorification of firearms like it takes place now - guns in the U.S are symbolic, like tea in the U.K, except tea rarely kills people. The truth is that "normal" people don't shoot others, that much is correct, but you need to take into account that you never know when a person is going to "snap", that's why stricter requirements and a different attitude need to be introduced over time.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 19, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Is that because of the ban on carrying in those places or because of the well-rooted gunslinging tradition of the U.S citizens, further enforced by outdated legislature?
> 
> You're not defending yourselves from the British anymore. You're not under any threat of a sudden Indian invasion. You can stop now. Put things in historical perspective. Americans were allowed to purchase and carry arms with little limitations _because_ they were under constant threat - it was a New World. It's not anymore though.


 
An excellent point, and I just want to add one thing - when the Founding Fathers created the 2nd amendment, they were living in an age of muskets - it was hardly written with modern firearms in mind.

The Constitution is supposed to be a living document - one that is updated and amended to adapt to the ever-changing world. We need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as is just may not be entirely relevant anymore, and that we should focus on creating legislation/amendment that address the issue with modern sensibilities.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 19, 2012)

phia said:


> yes much harder


 

Have a look at this http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560044/obama-sets-up-gun-violence-task-force/, obama was just speaking about this moments ago on most news stations.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Nope. But you probably can't explain why Washington DC has such high crime rates and strict gun laws. If self-defense is so "evil" why do many states have "stand your ground" or Castle Doctrine laws? If you believe you or someone important to you is in danger or getting hurt or killed, you have very right to defend yourself and your family.
> 
> If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat.


 
I'm not saying self-defense is 'evil', you're inventing my position because you find yourself completely at a loss to form an argument against what I've actually said. These massacres and the prevalence of gun crime in America is due to being a first world country with a third world gun law. And the reason it's so difficult to change that law is because people who own guns are cowards and believe their right to be terrified (and their right to pose in the mirror with a military weapon) outweighs the rights of everyone else in the country.  And it's an imagined safety against their boogeymen anyway, you and your family are more likely to be killed by a gun if you're a gun owner.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

Gahars said:


> An excellent point, and I just want to add one thing - when the Founding Fathers created the 2nd amendment, they were living in an age of muskets - it was hardly written with modern firearms in mind.
> 
> The Constitution is supposed to be a living document - one that is updated and amended to adapt to the ever-changing world. We need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as is just may not be entirely relevant anymore, and that we should focus on creating legislation/amendment that address the issue with modern sensibilities.


 
Well exactly.  The cult of personality that the US have about their founding fathers reminds me of North Korea sometimes, in that there's this unspoken assumption that they were almost divine in their judgement and that as long as you can convince people that XXX is what they believed, you don't even have to consider if XXX is a good or bad thing because the founding fathers have some kind of holy infallibility.  But even if you do believe that, looking at the second amendment for advice on modern gun control is like looking at the bible for advice on stem cell research and The Pill.  There are simple technologies available today which were not even thought of at the time.  How do you decide which modern inventions fall under ancient rulings?  Do Americans have the right to nukes, tanks, turret mounted machine guns, flame throwers, assault rifles, automatic rifles, RPGs, what?


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

I bet that if any of you here reach the ripe old age of 80 or 90 years old, you'll see that in the future you'll have the same argument.
Nothing will change. But there'll be only discussion. You see, Americans like to discuss but have a hard time to decide.
More events:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

xist said:


> You know before this post i didn't see it, but this message is incredibly arrogant, and really hammers home that you'll only ever see one side on an argument.


 
unlike yourself, of course



> I may not live in the US, but my response was in relation to a message i'd written earlier about worldwide gun legislation. You're ignoring the context in an attempt to prove yourself correct, and trying to make my point look redundant.


 
No, go back to my post quoting yours (and dickfour's). You were responding to dickfour's post about 'gun free' zones. Even if "gun free zones" aren't an exclusively American bit of stupidity, the cultures, demographics, and socio-economic clusterfuck we have here in the US make just about any other countries' experiences with gun control inapplicable. Sorry, that may sound arrogant, but it isn't intended to be. This isn't Japan, Australia, Great Britain ... what you did wouldn't work here.



> I'll assume you don't have an academic background because posting a single article, which doesn't cite research isn't really a sufficient amount of evidence.


 
Doctor of jurisprudence. In other words, I'm a lawyer. For five years, I was a prosecutor. Got out of it and went private because the pay was for shit and the human scum was starting to rub off - you get very jaded doing that job. As for citing research, the article cites the source of the quote - Mr. John Lott. He's well known over here, they put him on the TV as a 2nd Amendment and gun expert frequently. But for that matter, this is a discussion board, not a doctoral thesis. Lighten up.




> You make totally unfounded assumptions about me, my personal life and any experience i've had with burglary. I'm not going to justify your ignorance with any kind of response beyond pointing out that belligerently trying to prove a point without looking at the bigger picture generally doesn't win the argument.


 
I didn't assume anything about you. I supposed something about you ... a supposition. It's not the same thing. I only said, "maybe" you don't have a home, spouse, kids to defend yet. I meant no insult, but you apparently took one. That, sir, isn't my problem.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

Sorry, America's not special in this regard. What works elsewhere can work in America. America's just another country.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I didn't assume anything about you. I supposed something about you ... a supposition. It's not the same thing. I only said, "maybe" you don't have a home, spouse, kids to defend yet. I meant no insult, but you apparently took one. That, sir, isn't my problem.


This is exactly the _American Problem_, if I may call it that way. Look _at your own wording_. You treat _"defense of your home, house and spouse"_ in the context of _combat_, unlike the average European who'll sooner think of good locks, installing an alarm etc. - _security_ in general. The whole perception of the subject is vastly different - that kind of approach towards _"defense"_ is what the average neanderthal would do when protecting a cave - no offense intended.

More advanced societies depend on special services, the Police or the Army, to protect them. You guys feel the need to put landmines on your lawn in case a Cuban invasion pops out of nowhere and you have a moral duty of defending your "cave", which is illogical in the context of today. That's the mentality of the past, and while I have no problem with you owning a weapon for self-defense, this self-defense needs to be justified - you need to have a reason to feel threatened and the distribution of firearms needs to be controlled so that they do not fall into the wrong hands.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 19, 2012)

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they
wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to
make it keep pace with the advance of the age"—Thomas Jefferson (a.k.a. one of those "founding fathers" the anti-gun control advocates are so vehemently citing...)


In the founding fathers' time, guns fired one round and were for nation defense and hunting. Today, guns fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and are used by whoever fucking feels like it. In order to make the constitution "keep pace with the advance of the age", it needs to be amended with technological advancement in mind. Guns didn't instantly reload their chambers two hundred years ago...

And y'all can probably cool it with the "if guns kill then spoons make me fat" and "people die from auto accidents, maybe we should ban cars" bullshit. Spoons and cars were not created for the purpose of ending life.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

Gahars said:


> The Constitution is supposed to be a living document


 
I hear that a lot, from "progressives." I don't agree. The words are there to be strictly interpreted according to their original meaning. The drafters of the Bill of Rights, in writing the 2nd Amendment, intended that the everyday citizen be armed sufficiently to provide for the common defense (against foes foreign and domestic). That means weapons that are capable of meeting a contemporary threat. However, it also limits this to arms that can be borne about the person (i.e. the right to bear arms), and I take this to mean nothing more than an infantryman might be issued in the military, i.e. not nukes, tanks, heavy artillery.

However, if you want to amend the Constitution, and specifically the content of the Bill of Rights, there's a process. Go ahead and try.



BlueStar said:


> Sorry, America's not special in this regard. What works elsewhere can work in America. America's just another country.


If there was a mass government "buyback" of guns in the USA, who do you think would be turning theirs in? The people least likely to commit crimes, or the people most likely? Keep in mind there is no federal "registration" system here (a few states have this, but not most), so there's no way of knowing who's got what.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> _if it worked for people over 200 years ago it should work for people now..._


Right, guy...


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2012)

Well, there's no point in trying to debate a serious issue, so I'll take my leave. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

In other sporting news:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nascar/...my-tank-dale-earnhardt-jr-sprint-cup-champion

Hey, if this guy can buy a tank to defend his family i want a tactical nuclear missile to defend my family.


----------



## dickfour (Dec 19, 2012)

It makes more sense to ban all violence in movies and video games. We wouldn't't want to inspire nut jobs to do anything rash so every bit of entertainment should be screened by a government minder and all violence removed so we can all be safe


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 19, 2012)

dickfour said:


> It makes more sense to ban all violence in movies and video games. We wouldn't't want to inspire nut jobs to do anything rash so every bit of entertainment should be screened by a government minder and all violence removed so we can all be safe


It makes more sense to gather all nutjobs and extremists, designate a state or two for them to live in together, and build a 20' wall around them to keep the rest of the populace safe. If you want to be a cowboy, we'll build an "Arkham City" and you can take your archaic, antiquated "rights" there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

dickfour said:


> It makes more sense to ban all violence in movies and video games. We wouldn't't want to inspire nut jobs to do anything rash so every bit of entertainment should be screened by a government minder and all violence removed so we can all be safe


Video games and movies never killed anyone - or have you heard of such instances? I personally never heard or read about anyone smacking someone across the face with a BluRay disc long enough to kill said person. Guns on the other hand...

Besides, nobody wants to ban guns - prohibition never works, it's been stated ten gajizzilion times in this thread. All that should be implemented is some kind of a _reasonable_ control mechanism over firearm distribution. That, and some weapons currently in circulation are a bit of an overkill.


----------



## Engert (Dec 19, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> All that should be implemented is some kind of a _reasonable_ control mechanism over firearm distribution. That, and some weapons currently in circulation are a bit of an overkill.


 
Pffft. You can keep talking.
Florida hit a milestone today:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121219/APN/1212190891


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Engert said:


> Pffft. You can keep talking.
> Florida hit a milestone today:


Another thing I find curious about this situation is that some Americans don't see a problem in building up an arsenal of badly secured weapons in their basement but refuse to close their back door since "they're free to have it open, and if someone enters their house, they can always shoot him/her". If that's the case, how exactly are you working towards securing your family? It's quite paradoxical, really.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 19, 2012)

My take on the matter.

A man can kill another man with anything.  That same man can kill a group of people with the same thing and a little sick creativity added to it.  Guns just happen to be the most efficient and detached way of going on a murderous rampage, unfortunately.

Take a look at this though.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Aside from detonating the explosives in his truck with his Winchester, unless I missed something, no guns were used in this disaster.  Furthermore, no guns were used to directly kill another person or group of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Again, no guns used, and you can still buy, within reason, all of the materials used.

The guns aren't the issue, at least not the main one.  Like I said, you can kill someone with anything and a little creativity.  Take away guns, and you're gonna get fertilizer bombs again.

The mentally sick are the issue.  Detecting and treating mental illnesses that would cause someone to go on a rampage like that is what, in my opinion, needs to be fixed and improved upon.

Also, it's not like every gun ever used to kill someone is a legal, registered gun.  Most rampages like that, sure, may typically use registered guns, but gang violence, where it's just a few guys against another few guys because of the street they're walking on and the color of the shirt they're wearing, those aren't legal.  Some might be, but for the most part, they just picked it up off some guy who knows a guy who passed another guy in the street when they were near an alley.

Ad above this post: "Tell congress: Support the 2nd amendment - SIGN PETITION".  Great.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 19, 2012)

The AR-15 sure is a popular weapon these days http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57559725/popular-ar-15-rifle-at-center-of-gun-control-debate/, its even been pulled from walmarts website http://www.inquisitr.com/444016/bus...from-walmart-website-manufacturer-to-be-sold/ and dicks sporting goods has currently stopped selling it. well for whatever the reason this is going to get gun owners fired up.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Another thing I find curious about this situation is that some Americans don't see a problem in building up an arsenal of badly secured weapons in their basement but refuse to close their back door since "they're free to have it open, and if someone enters their house, they can always shoot him/her". If that's the case, how exactly are you working towards securing your family? It's quite paradoxical, really.


 
Yeah, that's accurate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, that's accurate.


I said _some_ - you can't say that you haven't seen a house with an open back door 12 hours a day, can you? Not to mention that most back doors are 80% glass anyways, so they're not exactly an obstacle. That's just the suburban architecture style - I get it. Doesn't mean that it isn't stupid though.


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 19, 2012)

I guess all these parents from this new school shot up. forgot about Columbine already.. how could anyone forget that.

Then there is this old addage..."Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - Author Forgotten, sentiment retained
G-d help 'em all. In addition to gun control, they also need better mental health screening in todays societies, schools, jobs, etc...

My father was a federally licensed gun dealer, but never had a shop. Even though every gun in our home had a safe-key lock on the trigger i never felt any more safe. Most forget the criminal can often use your weapon against you too. Rule #2 in martial arts.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 19, 2012)

dickfour said:


> It makes more sense to ban all violence in movies and video games. We wouldn't't want to inspire nut jobs to do anything rash so every bit of entertainment should be screened by a government minder and all violence removed so we can all be safe


 
And force everyone to watch MLP:FIM, right?  After all, friendship, man.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 19, 2012)




----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 19, 2012)

It doesnt matter how tougher Gun laws will be.. They will never resolve the issues at all as long as there are corruptions in this evil world. No. It won't work at all no matter what.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Dec 19, 2012)

bearmon2010 said:


> It doesnt matter how tougher Gun laws will be.. They will never resolve the issues at all as long as there are corruptions in this evil world. No. It won't work at all no matter what.


Says the guy whose avatar characters have guns for hands...


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

dj4uk6cjm said:


> The AR-15 sure is a popular weapon these days http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57559725/popular-ar-15-rifle-at-center-of-gun-control-debate/, its even been pulled from walmarts website http://www.inquisitr.com/444016/bus...from-walmart-website-manufacturer-to-be-sold/ and discks sporting goods has currently stopped selling it. well for whatever the reason this is going to get gun owners fired up.


 

It is a popular weapon. It is the best selling rifle in the US. Why? It's useful for a wide variety of purposes, it's not monstrously high-powered so it can be handled by just about anyone, you can attach a flashlight easily, you can change the type of sights easily (aperture, scope, reflex red-dot), for the most part you don't have to worry about it rusting, if it has an adjustable stock it can be made to fit different persons, parts are interchangeable and easily replaced, there is a variety of ammo available including special 'frangible' bullets that don't over-penetrate like traditional rifle ammo, etc. etc.

It has the virtue of basic utility. Like a swiss army knife of rifles. And yes, they are popular for hunting of medium sized game, i.e. varmint/pest size. Not so much for deer (not powerful enough) or squirrel (too powerful), which is why you hear mainstream "meat" hunters saying they don't need one.

And, the AR-15 used by the shooter in CT was not an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law, which does have an AWB in place. 

It doesn't really matter that Dicks or WalMart stopped selling them from their stores ... if they plan to put them back in inventory later they will. If they intend to make it permanent, they'll just sell them to another retailer. 

And in case you're wondering, no ... I don't own one. No particular reason though, other than the expense. I don't buy cheap junk like that Bushmaster, so if I were to get into shooting AR-15 it would take a sizable initial investment. And believe it or not, I'm just not that into guns.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> It is a popular weapon. It is the best selling rifle in the US. Why? It's useful for a wide variety of purposes, it's not monstrously high-powered so it can be handled by just about anyone, you can attach a flashlight easily, you can change the type of sights easily (aperture, scope, reflex red-dot), for the most part you don't have to worry about it rusting, if it has an adjustable stock it can be made to fit different persons, parts are interchangeable and easily replaced, there is a variety of ammo available including special 'frangible' bullets that don't over-penetrate like traditional rifle ammo, etc. etc.
> 
> It has the virtue of basic utility. Like a swiss army knife of rifles. And yes, they are popular for hunting of medium sized game, i.e. varmint/pest size. Not so much for deer (not powerful enough) or squirrel (too powerful), which is why you hear mainstream "meat" hunters saying they don't need one.
> 
> ...


 


I still wonder why the mother of the shooter bought this specific weapon, was she really in fear of her life?


----------



## Qtis (Dec 19, 2012)

TL;DR.

I just want to point out the differences in cultures and what is considered the idea behind the firearm laws. I live in Finland, where hunting is a part of the culture in one way or another. Some people may say it's cruel or whatnot, but it's a win-win situation in my opinion because of the following:

a. Deer population grows pretty fast by itself without hunting. If you add hunting to the equation, the populations doesn't grow limitless.
b. It is also regulated by the Finnish government in many ways (area restrictions for hunting (both area and proximity to housing), quotas, etc). 
c. You have to have a gun permit before anything else is possible.

On the other hand, Finland has had it's own shootings at different locations (Jokela High School, Kauhajoki Vocational College, etc). 
The negative cases I mentioned are mainly done by individual instead of the general population. I don't usually talk about the difference in people, but the cases here have pointed out a few things (especially in my case, since I live only a few miles from Jokela, quite a few of my friends were there during the incident and I've driven through just next to high school pretty much every summer during the last few years because of my summer job):

1. People don't use guns against each other, if the general opinion is against it.
2. There are always "extremists" (hard to find a word in english to describe it without bias and condemnation) that tend to do things regardless of general opinion just to break rules.
3. There are people that do things because it's illegal. (Compared quite a lot to the 2. point in terms of psychology)

Also the following as my personal opinion:

Regardless of the need for a weapon for self defense, no one needs an assault rifle type gun for that. If you really have to defend your house with one (I mean that you don't have a hobby/career regarding them), you are living in the wrong neighborhood. Really. I've yet to see a single situation where I'd need a gun to handle my fights and I've been living by myself for quite a few years. In areas, where there is drug abuse. In areas, where there are more poor people. In areas where there are mainly students. None of the areas have made me even think about carrying a gun around. Neither have all the foreign ares I've visited so far (pretty much every continent).

TL;DR: Guns don't make people kill, but the general opinion and atmosphere does. Changing opinion is just as good as changing laws/regulations/sanctions/etc.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 19, 2012)

dj4uk6cjm said:


> I still wonder why the mother of the shooter chose this specific weapon, was she really in fear of her life?


 
I mean, in states where it's easier to get a gun permit than others, you might not need a reason to have a gun except to just have it.  Maybe she just wanted one *shrug*

My extent with shooting has been fairly limited, consisting of going to the range with my girlfriend and her stepdad and firing off some handguns (.375 shooting .38 specials, Glock 19, Glock 17), and when I was younger, just firing a shotgun (with my dad's supervision) into the distance on my grandparent's farm (I was maybe 9 or 10 when I did that, DAMN did that have a kick back then).  I'm 20 now, a pretty big guy, and even those handguns had a big kick to them (likely due to my inexperience with shooting).  I can't even imagine what firing something like an AR-15 would be like, control wise.


----------



## Qtis (Dec 19, 2012)

plasma dragon007 said:


> I mean, in states where it's easier to get a gun permit than others, you might not need a reason to have a gun except to just have it. Maybe she just wanted one *shrug*
> 
> My extent with shooting has been fairly limited, consisting of going to the range with my girlfriend and her stepdad and firing off some handguns (.375 shooting .38 specials, Glock 19, Glock 17), and when I was younger, just firing a shotgun (with my dad's supervision) into the distance on my grandparent's farm (I was maybe 9 or 10 when I did that, DAMN did that have a kick back then). I'm 20 now, a pretty big guy, and even those handguns had a big kick to them (likely due to my inexperience with shooting). I can't even imagine what firing something like an AR-15 would be like, control wise.


The best time's I've had with firearms was during my army period. I have to say I liked the target practice, but it was just like you: target practice and the feel of new things (guns). I've been thinking about getting a gun permit just for that sake. (EDIT: I'd never even consider using firearms against another person. Weapons weren't made to be used between neighbor over a fence or whatnot. I don't see reason in using weapons agains innocent civilians in any way).

I just thought about another thing peculiar about Finland. Some (possibly most, I'm not sure about the statistics in general) of the shootings here have been done with weapons *not* owned by the shooters. The weapons have been held in locked (key or code) lockers which have been designed to keep outsiders away from them. IF you take this into account, what is the responsibility of the person who owns the weapon(s) vs the person who fires the weapon(s) vs the company that makes the lockers? Not that simple.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2012)

dj4uk6cjm said:


> I still wonder why the mother of the shooter bought this specific weapon, was she really in fear of her life?


 

You want a guess? I read that she got into guns after her divorce in 2009. Maybe she was trying to catch a new man. Seriously. I'm 45 years old ... it's not unusual for guys my age to see middle-aged women showing up at the scene of "manly" hobbies after they get divorced so they can expose themselves to a variety of new prospects. Who knows? I'm not saying this was something she was necessarily conscious of doing as a choice ... I think of it more in terms of instinct. Poker night, gun range, bowling alley ... keep your eyes peeled for 40-something chicks having fun with men. 

Or maybe she was just genuinely a gun nut. There are millions of those all over the place who never hurt a fly.

Or maybe a salesman talked her into it.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> If there was a mass government "buyback" of guns in the USA, who do you think would be turning theirs in? The people least likely to commit crimes, or the people most likely? Keep in mind there is no federal "registration" system here (a few states have this, but not most), so there's no way of knowing who's got what.


Well surely freedom lovin' upstandin' NRA will members wouldn't and criminal Obama lovin' scum would? 

The simple answer is that most of the people who either snap and go crackers don't consider themselves to be criminals 6 months before the fact and neither do people whose guns may be taken by ne'erdowells. And of course we get back to the question of what happened in Australia. Are Americans really that much more horrible a people that a buyback wouldn't have the same affect? Why? Most of the arguments against the reality of what actually happens when gun controls are tightened in other countries seems to boil down to 'Yeah, but we're all horrible cunts over here'


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

As for the mother of the shooter, she was one of these survivalist pillocks, sure the world was going to end and she had to be armed to the teeth to be prepared for it. And ironically, the weapons she bought, the doomsday training she gave her son, were what ended the world for her.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Dec 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> You want a guess? I read that she got into guns after her divorce in 2009. Maybe she was trying to catch a new man. Seriously. I'm 45 years old ... it's not unusual for guys my age to see middle-aged women showing up at the scene of "manly" hobbies after they get divorced so they can expose themselves to a variety of new prospects. Who knows? I'm not saying this was something she was necessarily conscious of doing as a choice ... I think of it more in terms of instinct. Poker night, gun range, bowling alley ... keep your eyes peeled for 40-something chicks having fun with men.
> 
> Or maybe she was just genuinely a gun nut. There are millions of those all over the place who never hurt a fly.
> 
> Or maybe a salesman talked her into it.


 


Lol i can't wait to see what the husband has to say, i bet only he and the brother ryan lanza can answer all the questions.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 19, 2012)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  America is the only western country with such lax gun laws, it's the only western country where once every 12 months someone picks up someone's legally obtained weapon and tries to slaughter as many people as possible with it.  You can say "Oh, well, if only we had 150 guns per 100 people rather than 90 guns per 100 people maybe someone could have shot them before they killed the 8th person" but we'll never know.  What we do know for a fact is that restricting gun ownership lowers crime, lowers murders and lowers chaos.  Shame that there's so many manchild rambo fantasists who put their own personal paranoia above the safety of others.

I saw one of the print adverts for the Bushmaster used in the shooting recently, with the caption "CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED" It's not really any wonder that all these people with small dick syndrome feel the need to overcompensate with a pretend M16.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> [...] You can say "Oh, well, if only we had 150 guns per 100 people rather than 90 guns per 100 people maybe someone could have shot them before they killed the 8th person" but we'll never know. [...]


 
What I got thinking of this whole situation with the recent school shooting, which is in a bit related to that statement... I don't know how things are in other parts of the world, but in most, if not all of the 'States, we have what's called a School Resource Officer, an on-duty and armed police officer who is stationed in the school every day from before students get there till after they leave.  Thing is, we only have them in Jr. High/High School (in my area, at least).  Elementary schools are left more or less without any sort of law enforcement.  Why doesn't *every* school have an SRO (or more than one) on duty?  I'm not saying that having a police officer in the school would have stopped the shooting, but given the threat and how one would have reacted, the impact _could_ have been... reduced, if you will.



BlueStar said:


> I saw one of the print adverts for the Bushmaster used in the shooting recently, with the caption "CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED" It's not really any wonder that all these people with small dick syndrome feel the need to overcompensate with a pretend M16.


 
Nah man.  Here, the guys with small dick syndrome drive Ford pickups.

http://jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/12/f650.jpg

http://image.8-lug.com/f/32880666/1005_8l_09+LNO_jr_memorial_show_2009+lifted_ford_f350.jpg


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> What we do know for a fact is that restricting gun ownership lowers crime, lowers murders and lowers chaos.


 
Mexico and Brazil both have very strict gun control, and yet higher gun murder rates per capita than the US. Explain.

(If your answer has anything to do with illicit drug trafficking, I agree. Eliminating recreational drug prohibition in North and South America would pull the rug out from under the cartels, widely spread gangs like MS13, even the 'mafia'. It wouldn't have any effect on the random looney shooting spree, but overall gun/violent crime would decrease substantially. We're talking thousands of deaths a year less.)


----------



## Gahars (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I hear that a lot, from "progressives." I don't agree. The words are there to be strictly interpreted according to their original meaning. The drafters of the Bill of Rights, in writing the 2nd Amendment, intended that the everyday citizen be armed sufficiently to provide for the common defense (against foes foreign and domestic). That means weapons that are capable of meeting a contemporary threat. However, it also limits this to arms that can be borne about the person (i.e. the right to bear arms), and I take this to mean nothing more than an infantryman might be issued in the military, i.e. not nukes, tanks, heavy artillery.
> 
> However, if you want to amend the Constitution, and specifically the content of the Bill of Rights, there's a process. Go ahead and try.


 

This isn't a "progressive" ideal - it's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court in the first place - the Justices are entrusted to apply the underlying principles behind the Constitution to modern day dilemmas as best they can. Thomas Jefferson himself advocated a rewriting of the Constitution every generation to limit the "power of the dead over the living," essentially. They were aware of the fact that they simply couldn't foresee the future, and that the nation's guiding document should be flexible and vague enough (even without amendment) to accommodate changes.

If we didn't have this in place, for example, then the Federal Government couldn't ensure that state law adheres to the various clauses of the Bill of Rights through incorporation - that's a pretty big deal, I'd say.

We talk about the concepts of security and defense, but it's imperative to recognize that these very concepts have changed dramatically over the past two centuries. The context that birthed the 2nd Amendment as is can't be ignored. Another British invasion lay on the horizon, attacks from Native American tribes were a legitimate threat, and law enforcement was little more than a novelty depending on where you lived - if it even existed at all. We don't live in that world anymore, and to continue to legislate as if we did is counterproductive. This doesn't mean we abandon the spirit behind the amendment - rather, we preserve it by applying it in a way that makes sense for the world we do live in.

You offer a little challenge there about the amendment process, as if I wasn't aware of this - I already mentioned that in my first post, and advocated for it, so it's pretty redundant.

Plus, you kind of contradict yourself there. You advocate going by the 2nd Amendment's literal "intended" meaning... while throwing in your own personal interpretation of how the text should be applied in a modern context. So...


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Mexico and Brazil both have very strict gun control, and yet higher gun murder rates per capita than the US. Explain.


 
Much poorer countries, Mexico is practically in civil war due to drugs cartels (and still only has a slightly higher gun death rate than the US, 11.1 compared to 10.2) and most of Mexico's gun problem comes from being next to America. Which is why it's better to compare to similar countries like the UK and Australia which, when they tightened gun control, saw no more school massacres, no increase in criminals taking advantage of unarmed citizens and fewer murders, for reasons we just can't seem to work out, I mean, what could it be?



plasma dragon007 said:


> I don't know how things are in other parts of the world, but in most, if not all of the 'States, we have what's called a School Resource Officer, an on-duty and armed police officer who is stationed in the school every day from before students get there till after they leave. Thing is, we only have them in Jr. High/High School (in my area, at least). Elementary schools are left more or less without any sort of law enforcement. Why doesn't *every* school have an SRO (or more than one) on duty?


 
How the fuck do you get into a position where you have to have an armed guard in every elementary school?  People are talking about arming teachers.  You want your kid to be learning their ABCs from a woman with a bullet proof vest and an M16 slung over her shoulder?  Can you not be a teacher without also wanting to be a fucking merc?  Who's going to pay (through taxes or increased prices) to train and arm every DMV clerk, theatre usher, teacher, supply teacher, dance class instructor to be trained and armed to a level where they can fight off some ex-marine with PTSD?

You've now got a parent sending their kids to school with guns and thinking it'll make them safer!

!


----------



## xist (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> unlike yourself, of course


 
Whilst you may not realise it because you're so vehemently defending one side of the argument, i've noted multiple times and even in reply to you, that the horse has bolted on gun law within the US. From the outside looking in it's a total mess of a system where an individual is allowed to use deadly force is they think someone "might" be threatening them...the law regarding shooting first is something that people from places where guns aren't so prevalent would find horrifying in it's severity. Similar could be said of being allowed to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home (although obviously that's far rarer) And unlike you of course i'm willing to see every side of the argument, but thus far your arguments justifying ownership seem immensely weak - more people get injured by accident with guns than there are cases where they're used for defence. 

Care of Neogaf -


> I know the numbers are a bit small, so I'll reproduce them. If we were to make the caveat that all fire/hot object/flame homicides involved explosives (they didn't), that would be 186 deaths. If we then make the allowance that every single specified homicide that didn't fall into a stated category was also due to an explosive (absolutely no chance, but why not): total gets bumped up to 426. If we add in all unspecified homicides (cause unknown or not part of the record), saying that all of those are explosives too, we get up to 2340, some portion of which were fertilizer related bombs. Let's say all of them were fertilizer-related bombing deaths. For the purposes of argument.
> 
> Gun homicides? 11,493. _Eleven thousand four hundred and ninety-three._ Even with all the ridiculous no-chance-in-hell allowances I just made to account for the "rash of fertilizer-related bombings" plaguing America, they would barely equal 20% of the number of firearm-related homicides in this country.
> 
> So no, there is no equivalency to be drawn whatsoever between increased gun regulation and regulating fucking fertilizer, which isn't even a _weapon_ in the first place.


 
Are these shootings inaccurate/ is Texas really a state that denies gun possession? - (sourced from a BBC article).


1984: James Oliver Huberty shoots dead 21 people at a McDonald's in California
1986: Postal worker Pat Sherrill kills 14 people at post office in Oklahoma
1991: George Hennard kills 23 people at a cafeteria in Texas
1999: Two students at Columbine high school kill 13 and injure 20, before killing themselves
2007: A student kills 32 and injures dozens more at Virginia Tech university
2009: 13 people are killed in a mass shooting at Ford Hood military base in Texas
2012: James Holmes kills 12 people and injures 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado
Because if they are the really discredit your gun expert and stats about public shootings. Plus there's these just from this year. Isolated cases of increased control isn't much of a solution...if anything it creates a greater problem as the disparity between areas of America is increased.

Whilst you're trying to paint me into a box of extreme anti firearms, i think that the best option for the US would be stricter laws that enforce responsibility. Owning a gun should be something that is a serious issue and respect and fear of it's power is something that should be imbued in anyone owning one. If someone takes a large dog out in public then there may be a level of fear about that dog injuring someone - there's a level of responsibility there. However, it seems guns are so easily owned that the ease at which human life can be lost is overlooked. People don't feel awed by possessing a lethal weapon, it seems like guns are almost treated like toys. In the US now i'd think that the best approach would be stricter legislation limiting the number of guns, amounts of ammo, keeping weapons locked up, strict registering of ownership, only allowing them out at home etc...castle doctrine is immensely brutal in many circumstances and i'd imagine would do more to increase death and injury than prevent it.

And you made no mention of maybe...read that back. You told me to come back when i had something worth defending. I have no idea how much first hand experience you've had with death, but the gravity of taking a life is something that can't be ignored. Soldiers trained for war come back with mental health issues related to killing people, and yet with no training or preparation some office worker could buy a gun and kill an unarmed burglar? The immensity of just snuffing someone out is hugely obfuscated by the ease of pulling a trigger. Killing someone with any other sort of weapon involves so much more thought, and again it seems like there's a lack of, for want of a better word, fear associated with having to get a firearm out.

Guns are a persistent problem in the US, and the statistics involving deaths and injuries really support this. However, they're so ingrained in American culture that removing their access to everyone would do more harm than good at this point. There just needs to be more thought associated with getting your gun out, and more respect for human life.

If you moved to somewhere in England or France and no longer had access to a gun would you feel less safe? Here guns are a threat....in places where they're much more prevalent they're a weapon. Whilst experiencing someone breaking in to burgle me was one of the most invasive and awful things i've experienced, would it have been made better if we'd both been armed? I don't think so.

As for a response....i'm honestly not bothered as i know what will be said anyway, so feel free to not bother. It just seems there's more fear associated with removing the ability to kill people than there is making if more easy. That seems somewhat topsy turvy....a gun is a lethal weapon and in a civilised society with law enforcement agencies making them readily available seems backward.


----------



## Jamstruth (Dec 20, 2012)

If you could reel back the gun market from America (and I admit that would be insanely difficult to do). People are right, not all gun crime would be avoided. Any organised crime gig will find a way to get guns. I know this, its the same anywhere in the world.. Its also a heck of a lot more hassle to carry a gun though. As soon as a gun is spotted then the Police are calling in the backup. Our Police don't carry guns, I think this helps because criminals don't feel that they need guns to protect themselves from Police. The deaths that would go down as a result of banning guns would be the rash, impulse ones. Homicides that come from somebody just escalating an argument really quickly. Maybe this would just be replaced with knives, or an increase in beatings or something but here's the thing: They are nowhere near as destructive as guns. You can stab somebody and they can survive. Its a lot easier to run away from a guy going on a machete spree through a school than it is to run from somebody with an automatic rifle.
From the outside looking in America's gun control seems mad. I know you're supposed to be very strict about who can buy one but clearly having easy access to such a destructive weapon is not good for anybody. I've never felt the need to own a weapon for protection but I live a privileged life so perhaps I'm not the best to comment on that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

xist said:


> 1984: James Oliver Huberty shoots dead 21 people at a McDonald's in California
> 1986: Postal worker Pat Sherrill kills 14 people at post office in Oklahoma
> 1991: George Hennard kills 23 people at a cafeteria in Texas
> 1999: Two students at Columbine high school kill 13 and injure 20, before killing themselves
> ...


 
These _are_ all locations where guns are either prohibited by law or by the business owner (McDonald's, cinema) as a matter company policy.


I'm sorry you experienced being the victim of a burglary. That sucks. But one thing I found interesting is that you posited, "would it have been made better if we'd both been armed?" .... that suggests that the person who burgled your home was not armed. And that's the thing. In the US, he almost certainly would have been armed, and passing a gun ban won't change that.


----------



## xist (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> These _are_ all locations where guns are either prohibited by law or by the business owner (McDonald's, cinema) as a matter company policy.
> 
> I'm sorry you experienced being the victim of a burglary. That sucks. But one thing I found interesting is that you posited, "would it have been made better if we'd both been armed?" .... that suggests that the person who burgled your home was not armed. And that's the thing. In the US, he almost certainly would have been armed, and passing a gun ban won't change that.


 
Oh, now i see the distinction. You didn't mean state law (which is what i assumed), you meant actual specific location...that division seems immensely flimsy in regards to gun possession and shootings because if these were not premeditated then these same people would have been perfectly entitled to possess their guns out on the streets. Removing the level of freedom to access those weapons everywhere in a state would make carrying a gun a great deal more serious....rather than serious if inside a building, not so much outside.

He had a knife. However, the thought of being able to shoot and potentially kill someone for that crime still seems immensely over the top and whilst the idea of restraining him still crosses my mind, the idea of fatally injuring him doesn't. And thankfully in the years since that event there have been no further incidents....random opportunistic crimes shouldn't potentially have the death penalty. I may sound like the victim, but in a sense i regard the justice system and my personal right to justice as distinct entities. Being entitled to kill an intruder blurs that line.

Surely from an objective standpoint you can see the laws which are in place at the moment are not working?


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I hear that a lot, from "progressives." I don't agree. The words are there to be strictly interpreted according to their original meaning.


 
So why are you so in favour of something that's an amendment, a change to the original document?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

xist said:


> Oh, now i see the distinction. You didn't mean state law (which is what i assumed), you meant actual specific location...that division seems immensely flimsy in regards to gun possession and shootings because if these were not premeditated then these same people would have been perfectly entitled to possess their guns out on the streets. Removing the level of freedom to access those weapons everywhere in a state would make carrying a gun a great deal more serious....rather than serious if inside a building, not so much outside.


 

Yeah that's what dickfour was talking about a couple pages back. We have these 'gun free zones' here where you're not to take a weapon under any circumstances even if you have a concealed carry permit. Only law enforcement officers are exempted. Post offices, schools, any federal building, libraries, etc. The problem with this approach is that it makes for a soft target for lunatics, so these are the places where random mass shootings tend to occur. Last week, it took police 20 minutes from the time the shooting started before they arrived at the school. By that time it was all over.






BlueStar said:


> So why are you so in favour of something that's an amendment, a change to the original document?


 


I never said I was opposed to the amendment process. If the American people decide to remove the 2nd Amendment, or any other Amendment, or to amend the content of the main document, so be it. I don't think that's going to happen, but there's a process for it. What I'm opposed to is an attempt to essentially ignore the original intent of the Constitution through a perverted interpretation. The 2nd Amendment says the American people have the right to bear arms, because the drafters of the Bill of Rights felt this was necessary for keeping this a free country. Free from threats from its enemies, free from oppression by the government. That's what it means. If the people decide otherwise, then they can take the appropriate legal steps to have that portion removed. But unless that happens, that's the law and it means what it says it means.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Gun control debate in year 2113:






But seriously though, for now the best thing to do is to infuse a bunch of dollars into defense contracts with the local police stations around the country so they can keep us safe.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Dec 20, 2012)

Valwin said:


> *so the british 0people are going to fight with flowers if one day their government became tyrannical ?*
> were i live we have gun laws that are way stronger that the ones in the USA the common person here cant get a damn gun and were are been hit by the highest criminal wave in history of our island because only criminals are the ones with guns
> 
> i would have love to see this child killing asshole try this in texas


Forgive my ignorance, but is that the actual justification for allowing the common man to bear arms in the US?


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

ZAFDeltaForce said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but is that the actual justification for allowing the common man to bear arms in the US?


 
It has something to do with an outdated constitution and the culture in the U.S.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

The Constitution is outdated? What other parts of the Constitution do you think are "obsolete?" Shall we do away with our system of three branches of government, with checks and balances? Do you want to do away with freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? The right to peacefully assemble? What about protections against unreasonable search and seizure? Right to counsel and right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination also outdated? I guess due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment no longer apply in our modern society either? Because the same people who came up with all those protections for the people also insisted that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Don't worry, i was just explaining to someone from Singapore our _traditions_ (as someone from Argentina put it):



NahuelDS said:


> We had this kid back at primary school, he was a nice guy, but weird as fuck. We always though: "if this was America, he would shoot every single one of us in the classroom"
> I found it really weird, it's like a tradition in your country. It's so sad...
> 
> on a side note, in others countries (like mine), the government uses this kind of episodes to justify themselves saying: _"see... you think our country is insecure?, america is worst"_
> I hate politicians, specially if they are argentinians


 
I realize that nothing will change.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

Singapore - where chewing gum is illegal.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Singapore - where chewing gum is illegal.


 
Let's find something to declare war on them. It's healthy for our country.


----------



## Jamstruth (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The Constitution is outdated? What other parts of the Constitution do you think are "obsolete?" Shall we do away with our system of three branches of government, with checks and balances? Do you want to do away with freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? The right to peacefully assemble? What about protections against unreasonable search and seizure? Right to counsel and right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination also outdated? I guess due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment no longer apply in our modern society either? Because the same people who came up with all those protections for the people also insisted that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary.


...
100 years ago you had laws saying that people could be owned as property.
50 years ago you had laws giving black people reduced rights.
Even now people are trying to reduce the rights of homosexuals.
Society is fluid and things change. Who gives a shit about the people who founded your country and "what they would do" because frankly THEY DON'T FRICKIN' MATTER! What matters is what people now think. Bring the Founders to our modern age and they would wonder what the hell is going on. Black people can marry now? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE!? etc. They're opinion means exactly dick now. You guys put far too much moral weight on what the people who founded your country said. What matters is what you and the rest of your country thinks right now.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> ...
> making too much sense.


Stop making too much sense. It's a culture thing. You Brits don't understand.

I for one, want more of the Military Industrial Complex in our neighborhoods.

http://rt.com/usa/news/swat-guns-paragould-arkansas-224/

http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-surveillance-mesa-colorado-433/


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> How the fuck do you get into a position where you have to have an armed guard in every elementary school? People are talking about arming teachers. You want your kid to be learning their ABCs from a woman with a bullet proof vest and an M16 slung over her shoulder? Can you not be a teacher without also wanting to be a fucking merc? Who's going to pay (through taxes or increased prices) to train and arm every DMV clerk, theatre usher, teacher, supply teacher, dance class instructor to be trained and armed to a level where they can fight off some ex-marine with PTSD?


 
Well if it has sense to have police in Jr. High/High School, why not elementary school?  We're talking police officers here, not marines.  I don't know how UK police are armed but here, ours carry a handgun, taser, pepper spray, and handcuffs.  Yes, they wear bullet proof vests, *under their uniforms*.  I don't think the teachers should be taught and armed, because then they're taking vigilante law enforcement into their own hands, or they're working two jobs at the same time.  Nowhere did I ever say a teacher should be trained.  I said a police officer should be staffed in every school.  Learn to fucking read before you jump to rash conclusions like that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> ...
> 100 years ago you had laws saying that people could be owned as property.
> 50 years ago you had laws giving black people reduced rights.
> Even now people are trying to reduce the rights of homosexuals.
> Society is fluid and things change. Who gives a shit about the people who founded your country and "what they would do" because frankly THEY DON'T FRICKIN' MATTER! What matters is what people now think. Bring the Founders to our modern age and they would wonder what the hell is going on. Black people can marry now? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE!? etc. They're opinion means exactly dick now. You guys put far too much moral weight on what the people who founded your country said. What matters is what you and the rest of your country thinks right now.


 

I think you're missing the point. Engert was saying "the Constitution" was obsolete ... I was just wondering what other parts he thinks are outdated and need to be abolished.

And for the record, your country had legal slavery, too. It was England that established slavery in the Americas. And England beat us in getting rid of it by a whole 32 years (1833 vs. 1865), mostly because they didn't need it anymore because they could just buy what they needed from the American south where the economy depended on slaves. That's why England nearly entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy ... to keep the cheap slave-produced goods coming.


Edit: Anyway, back on topic, I've already explained my feelings about the process for amending the Constitution. You think the American people support abolishing the 2nd amendment? Go for it.


----------



## Jamstruth (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I think you're missing the point. Engert was saying "the Constitution" was obsolete ... I was just wondering what other parts he thinks are outdated and need to be abolished.
> 
> And for the record, your country had legal slavery, too. It was England that established slavery in the Americas. And England beat us in getting rid of it by a whole 32 years (1833 vs. 1865), mostly because they didn't need it anymore because they could just buy what they needed from the American south where the economy depended on slaves. That's why England nearly entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy ... to keep the cheap slave-produced goods coming.


I'm not the one arguing that a 200 year old document can't be "outdated" though. When did I say I agreed with all the decisions my ancestors made? Britain is guilty of all 3 of those examples I gave. Do I agree with them? Not in the slightest. Would I support a 200 year old document just because "Its been the cornerstone of our country forever" even if I considered its contents to be wrong? Hell no.

For an example. I run a company. We're using the same 20 year old computer system we had when the company started up. I've changed a few things but not much. Do I keep using it when it becomes ill-fit for purpose for tradition? No. I change it out for something that makes more sense. I think what Engert meant was that your constitution needs a serious review to see if any of it needs to change. This can be done by referendum to ensure not vital rights are removed from you and nothing is changed without majority support of the populace.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I think you're missing the point. Engert was saying "the Constitution" was obsolete ... I was just wondering what other parts he thinks are outdated and need to be abolished.


 
It doesn't matter what we think. Guns are part of our DNA and are here to stay. That's the reality.


----------



## Jamstruth (Dec 20, 2012)

- Double Post so SNIPP -


----------



## Janthran (Dec 20, 2012)

Someone I know was at that Oregon mall shooting. She told me that pretty much everyone in the mall was prepared for something like that happening.


Stricter gun laws? No.
If it's illegal to have guns, only outlaws will have them.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

Engert said:


> [...]Guns are part of our DNA and are here to stay.[...]


 
No they're not. If you want to make the argument that they're part of our culture, our society, then make that, even though that's a shoddy argument.  They're not part of our DNA.  Literally or figuratively, that's a crappy claim to make.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

plasma dragon007 said:


> No they're not. If you want to make the argument that they're part of our culture, our society, then make that, even though that's a shoddy argument. They're not part of our DNA. Literally or figuratively, that's a crappy claim to make.


 
Ok. You wanna bet? If we're still alive in 50 years i will pay you $1000 (via Paypal) if all guns are banned in America.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

Engert said:


> Ok. You wanna bet? If we're still alive in 50 years i will pay you $1000 (via Paypal) if all guns are banned in America.


 
If I cared enough I'd bet you right now that there is no gun in my DNA.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Maybe not in yours. So you're 2 out 10 people who don't have guns in this country.
What about the other 8? Try to convince them.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

I didn’t vote for him but I respect him for being realistic.


			
				President Obama said:
			
		

> We won’t prevent them all but that can’t be an excuse for not to try.


 


U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 20, 2012)

plasma dragon007 said:


> Well if it has sense to have police in Jr. High/High School, why not elementary school? We're talking police officers here, not marines. I don't know how UK police are armed but here, ours carry a handgun, taser, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Yes, they wear bullet proof vests, *under their uniforms*. I don't think the teachers should be taught and armed, because then they're taking vigilante law enforcement into their own hands, or they're working two jobs at the same time. Nowhere did I ever say a teacher should be trained. I said a police officer should be staffed in every school. Learn to fucking read before you jump to rash conclusions like that.


 
I pointed out some people were talking about teachers being armed, I never said you were saying that, maybe you should take your own advice and read posts before replying?

Police over here are not armed, aside from a small number of specialist units.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> I pointed out some people were talking about teachers being armed, I never said you were saying that, maybe you should take your own advice and read posts before replying?
> 
> Police over here are not armed, aside from a small number of specialist units.


 
It seemed like an extremely odd tangent to go on when replying to my statement then.

Police here are all armed, pretty much all to the extent I said - handgun, taser, pepper spray, handcuffs, vest under uniform.  There are specialist divisions (S.W.A.T. for example) that are even more armed.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

Guns. More guns.

I am working on an anti-matter gun so i can create black holes for self defense and to get justice by protecting the honor of my family.
It's all about having an edge on the enemy. Whoever has the biggest gun wins.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 20, 2012)

Engert said:


> Guns. More guns.
> 
> I am working on an anti-matter gun so i can create black holes for self defense and to get justice by protecting the honor of my family.
> It's all about having an edge on the enemy. Whoever has the biggest gun wins.


 Having the bigger stick doesn't mean shit if the other guy swings first.


----------



## Engert (Dec 20, 2012)

They'll have to get passed my lawn which is booby trapped with anti-matter devices, thus falling into a black hole.
And i am going to leave the front door open while leaving my wallet and iPad visibly on the living room table so i can lure them in.
I don't believe in window shades. They block my view.


----------



## no_chocobo (Dec 21, 2012)

This conversation.  Again.  Ugh fine I'll do it.

There was a study done that showed that most criminals are more afraid of armed civilians than law enforcement.  If we take that fear from them, do you think they will commit more crimes?

Banning guns will also not prevent gun violence.  If I wanted to buy a handgun it will take me a MINIMUM of 2 weeks, usually longer.  OR I can head a few miles south into Detroit, and pick up a totally unregistered handgun RIGHT NOW.  Banning certain drugs does not make them go away, why would banning guns make them go away?


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 21, 2012)

NRA blames violent videogames and films for shootings, calls them 'filth' 

While he was blaming the lack of guns in schools a protestor held a sign reading "NRA KILLS OUR KIDS". Another protestor is bring hauled out now.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 21, 2012)

no_chocobo said:


> This conversation.  Again.  Ugh fine I'll do it.
> 
> There was a study done that showed that most criminals are more afraid of armed civilians than law enforcement.  If we take that fear from them, do you think they will commit more crimes?
> 
> Banning guns will also not prevent gun violence.  If I wanted to buy a handgun it will take me a MINIMUM of 2 weeks, usually longer.  OR I can head a few miles south into Detroit, and pick up a totally unregistered handgun RIGHT NOW.  Banning certain drugs does not make them go away, why would banning guns make them go away?



The reason you can do this is because more legal weapons = more illegal weapons. I wouldn't have the first fucking clue how to go about getting an illegal gun in the UK.


----------



## xist (Dec 21, 2012)

no_chocobo said:


> This conversation. Again. Ugh fine I'll do it.
> 
> There was a study done that showed that most criminals are more afraid of armed civilians than law enforcement.


 
Link to the study/research?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

xist said:


> Link to the study/research?


 



> Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”





> _(James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994])_.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 21, 2012)

Wasn't there armed security at Columbine at the time of the massacre there? Do the NRA not know that, or are they deliberately ignoring it when pushing to make Kindergarten Cop a reality?


----------



## Engert (Dec 21, 2012)

You foreigners don't get it do you?
Here, watch this documentary for more insight into our traditions. It's an hour long though so watch it at your leisure with headphones on when no one is bothering you.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Wasn't there armed security at Columbine at the time of the massacre there? Do the NRA not know that, or are they deliberately ignoring it when pushing to make Kindergarten Cop a reality?


 
Yes there was, and he actually kept one of the shooters (Harris) occupied for a while with shooting at him instead of more kids. But, given the magnitude of that attack, he didn't and probably couldn't have made much difference. The Columbine shooters had more than just guns. They had constructed 99 various homemade explosive devices, including propane bombs. And as for weapons, they used sawed off shotguns, Tec-9 pistols, and a 9mm carbine (using 10 round mags, not hi-capacity mags). They did not use AR-15's or AK-47's. 

I'm a parent of a 20 year old who's out of school now and a 9 year old who's still in elementary school. I don't really have a problem with this idea of a security officer in each school, but in practice it's just going to be a guy eating donuts. But when it comes to the idea of school teachers being allowed, if they choose, to be trained and have access to a secured firearm for the purpose of defending their kids and themselves, absolutely. Consider this ... when my child is home with me, asleep at night, I am her defender, her protector. That's my job as her parent. But when I drop her off at school, when the school assumes the legal status of _in loco parentis_, who is her defender then? Is it acceptable that no defense exists for our children while they're in school, except for 911? As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (And at Newtown last week, they were about 20 minutes away.)

The gun control advocates have said they want a "conversation" about how to keep school attacks/shootings from happening. But they don't seem to think increased security in the schools should be included in that conversation - the only subject they consider worth talking about is more restrictions on guns. They don't seem very willing to talk seriously about doing something to limit access to and purchase of guns by the mentally ill, either. The NRA is proposing that a standardized national database of those adjudicated to be mentally ill be incorporated into the NICS background check. Sounds like common sense to me, but I'm seeing gun control advocates poo-pooing it as a waste, or just NRA trying to deflect. This obstinance from the gun control lobby, that new gun control laws are the only thing that can be included in this so-called "conversation," tells me they're not really serious about protecting children - "doing it for the children" is just an effective means of swaying the public opinion, along with fear-mongering, scary propaganda and made-up terms like "assault weapon" for sporting guns that are functionally no different than hunting weapons that have a more traditional appearance. Their only goal is getting one incremental step closer to a total ban, and they'll happily capitalize on peoples' deaths to make it happen.


.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 21, 2012)

And you wouldn't have any fear of an angry student taking a teacher's gun in a rage or a teacher themself snapping while carrying around a gun? The implication that our children in the UK have no "protectors" either at home or school because the people looking after them don't have guns is a pretty alien concept to me, I have to say. I'd feel safer with my kid in a UK or Australian school with unarmed educators than in a US school where teachers can choose to carry firearms, I can say that for sure.


----------



## xist (Dec 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> _[1986]_


 
Not exactly relevant then. (the survey is from the first date)


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> And you wouldn't have any fear of an angry student taking a teacher's gun in a rage or a teacher themself snapping while carrying around a gun? The implication that our children in the UK have no "protectors" either at home or school because the people looking after them don't have guns is a pretty alien concept to me, I have to say. I'd feel safer with my kid in a UK or Australian school with unarmed educators than in a US school where teachers can choose to carry firearms, I can say that for sure.


 
I said a "secured firearm", i.e. it would be in a quick-access safe, like the one I linked a picture of earlier in this thread. As for a teacher snapping, I suppose the same teacher could as easily manage to crush a few 3rd graders' skulls with a  heavy stapler or something. There is no such thing as 100% "safe."

Also, perspective: As horrendous as this tragedy was, the risk of any person dying in one of these random mass shootings is extremely small, roughly the same as the risk of being struck by lightning. On the other hand, about 800 American children under 15yo die every year in drowning accidents, all 100% preventable ... but I don't hear much outcry to ban swimming pools.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

xist said:


> Not exactly relevant then. (the survey is from the first date)


 

Cuz why, exactly? Guns do something different now than they did in '86? Imprisoned felons have a different psychology now than in '86?

Actually, maybe you're right ... given the wave of states passing CCW laws since then, criminals are probably even more fearful of citizens shooting back now than they were in '86.


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 21, 2012)

And would this safe be physically attached to the teacher?  Or if the teacher is helping a kid with their work and the gun is at their desk, tough, no 'defense' from shooters?  I really don't get how anyone thinks "But mroe people are killed from cars/swimming pools/fatty food" or whatever is any kind of sensible argument.  Aside from the fact the purpose of weapons is totally different from the purpose of those things, you might as well say swimming kills ore people than terrorism so you can't make laws against terrorism without also wanting to ban swimming.


----------



## xist (Dec 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Cuz why, exactly?


 
I apologise for the abruptness of that comment. I realised i should have said more but didn't want to edit in something you may not see. It came across more antagonistic than i intended.

With over 25 years between now and when the research was published it's immensely likely that opinion has changed. We've had a change in gang culture, a change in poverty levels, a change in policing.

I appreciate that you're backing one side of this argument, but unlike legal definitions social research can become outdated and irrelevant as time goes on. Even technical scientific research becomes "historic" after a period of time, and certainly when i studied a citation that was over a quarter of a century old wouldn't hold much weight.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

xist said:


> I apologise for the abruptness of that comment. I realised i should have said more but didn't want to edit in something you may not see. It came across more antagonistic than i intended.
> 
> With over 25 years between now and when the research was published it's immensely likely that opinion has changed. We've had a change in gang culture, a change in poverty levels, a change in policing.
> 
> I appreciate that you're backing one side of this argument, but unlike legal definitions social research can become outdated and irrelevant as time goes on. Even technical scientific research becomes "historic" after a period of time, and certainly when i studied a citation that was over a quarter of a century old wouldn't hold much weight.


 

Not disputing anything you just said. It was no_chocobo who first mentioned the study, but he didn't cite the source. You asked, and I provided the info, only because you asked. I'm not sure I agree that it's no longer a valid study just because it was done in 1986 (I'm a lot older than most of you guys so '86 doesn't seem so long ago to me ... yeah we have iphones now and we didn't then, but people haven't changed as much as you think. Human nature is a constant.). But I also don't really care what a sampling of felons had to say on the subject, either.


----------



## Castiel (Dec 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> But when it comes to the idea of school teachers being allowed, if they choose, to be trained and have access to a secured firearm for the purpose of defending their kids and themselves, absolutely.


Adding on to the idea of a teacher snapping: A very good friend of mine, who is a teacher at my school, told us a story of one of the previous teachers for that subject at our school. One of the students wasn't doing something right so the teacher actually punched the kid and then threw him against the wall and started choking him. The ministry took away the guys license to teach, but then he moved to Alberta and became a teacher there somewhere.

I'm not saying it's a really terrible idea, as most teachers aren't like that, but I have come across a few teachers who just don't give a crap and do like to scare students into listening to them. If this idea you mentioned were to come into play, there would have to be some way of making sure that the teacher would be responsible with a firearm in their possession.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Adding on to the idea of a teacher snapping: A very good friend of mine, who is a teacher at my school, told us a story of one of the previous teachers for that subject at our school. One of the students wasn't doing something right so the teacher actually punched the kid and then threw him against the wall and started choking him. The ministry took away the guys license to teach, but then he moved to Alberta and became a teacher there somewhere.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a really terrible idea, as most teachers aren't like that, but I have come across a few teachers who just don't give a crap and do like to scare students into listening to them. If this idea you mentioned were to come into play, there would have to be some way of making sure that the teacher would be responsible with a firearm in their possession.


 
Like I said above, there are already plenty of objects in a classroom that could be used to kill ... stapler, scissors, etc. In an elementary school, if a teacher truly went bonkers on murder, I'm sure 8 - 10 children in a closed classroom could be fatally stabbed with scissors by the much larger, stronger adult before anyone could do much about it. So worrying about the teacher as a threat is just looking for excuses not to consider this.

Anyway, though this was an interesting read ... it's from The Atlantic, which is a liberal and pro-gun control publication. But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem. They begin the article by saying how all these different kinds of gun control measures would still be a good thing, but that eliminating drug prohibition is the only thing that would really make a difference. I agree on the second part, but disagree on the first part. And they never really explain or defend the assertion that more gun control would be good, either - they just assume you must agree. After all, you're reading The Atlantic. LOL. But it is a good article, even though I know I wouldn't be able to stand 10 minutes in a room with the author of the piece. Please take the time to read it.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-gun-death-policy-ending-the-drug-war/266505/


----------



## xist (Dec 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Please take the time to read it.


 
Perhaps this is a stupid thought, but it's one i had whilst reading the beginning of that article....instead of focusing on removing guns from people, why not just silently remove all ammunition from retailers. Perhaps if firing a gun had a real monetary cost it'd stop them being used so often....as Chris Rock said "Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders."

Also, how many addicts would actually own a gun? Surely they'd have sold anything of monetary value in an attempt to score something for the next hit. The war on drugs is an easy target, and whilst i don't dispute it'd have an effect, i do think it's not as quantifiable as many sources might suggest.


----------



## Engert (Dec 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem.


 
Hahahaha.
Really?
So, U.S. government being the biggest arms dealer in the world, torturing people, assassinating people, spending half of our budged into military and law enforcement defense, setting an example for a complete disregard of human life in home and abroad has nothing to do with it?
You see friend, this is why the gun-culture with never change in U.S. Because people don't ask the hard questions. Don't take a step back and look in the mirror or at their government and say 'let's stop this madness'. They instead look for easy answers to kick the bucket down the road for a few more years. 
And as long as U.S.A. exists with its current mentality and constitution, guns are here to stay. 
What I liked in that article is that taking the guns forcefully might cause something close to a Civil War. That’s very true. 
So that's why you start at the government. Cut the defense budget in half, take all the weapons from the cops and maybe we'll have something called a modern healthy society. And not a society armed to the teeth that practices instant “justice”.
But of course this will never happen because we are a proud nation and like to throw our weight around the world. 
Nothing will change really.


----------



## Chary (Dec 21, 2012)

Well, strict gun laws might not be as effective as you think. In Texas, gun laws are the most lenient in the US. Nearly anyone can get any gun immediately here. But guess what? Some States with stricter gun laws than Texas have more gun-related assaults and murders. So, in the end, stricter gun laws may make a difference, but a very minute one at that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 21, 2012)

Engert,

You know, when it comes to much of what you have to say there, I agree with you. For example, until Obama stops killing children with unmanned drone strikes, I don't really have much use for his fake tears over some kids in Connecticut. And as long as the local police have select-fire M16A4's, why shouldn't I be able to buy one? I'm also strongly opposed to the direction our foreign policy has taken the last 10 years ... not just Bush going into Iraq and Afghan, but Obama ramping it up and adding Yemen and Pakistan to the mix. The type of campaign that's being waged with these drones is the most inhuman and evil of methods ... the bravery of being out of range.

Suppose you get someone elected President in the USA who says he will cut the defense budget in half like you suggest. He'll be assassinated. You know it. And that is the underlying evil that the people in this country who insist on owning guns don't want to succumb to. You really think the US federal government (and the interests that are really pulling the strings) would leave all our remaining liberties and privileges intact if the potential of armed resistance were removed? Eventually it'd be like the fucking Hunger Games.

You're probably right. It's a stalemate, and nothing will change really. Maybe that's why the 2nd amendment got put in there???


----------



## totalnoob617 (Dec 21, 2012)




----------



## no_chocobo (Dec 22, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> The reason you can do this is because more legal weapons = more illegal weapons. I wouldn't have the first @#!*% clue how to go about getting an illegal gun in the UK.


Legal weapons != more illegal weapons.  Why is it that every handgun has to be registered to be purchased, but there is an abundance of handguns without papers?  Many drug dealers also deal in unregistered  handguns, it just kind of goes with the trade.  You might not know where to get an illegal gun in the UK, but is almost every major city in your country overrun with drugs, poverty, and civil unrest?  I live near "The Murder Capital" of the country, and have seen some pretty interesting things.  Have you ever had the windows in your car broken out because (censoring this here!) "we don't want anyone of your race around here"?  In my personal situation, I think owning a gun is wise.  Suppose you call the police because someone is breaking into your house at night, how long does it take for them to show up? Maybe 5 minutes?  In the city of Detroit, THEY DON'T COME!  The Detroit police department makes the residents come to the police station to file a report on a B&E, they won't even come to the scene.  I can tell you from experience talking to people in the inner city, if normal citizens weren't allowed to own firearms, and couldn't rely on the police for protection, it wouldn't take long for the criminals to figure this out.... and then it'd be ABSOLUTE FREAKING MAYHEM. 



Hanafuda said:


> But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem.


Yessir



xist said:


> Also, how many addicts would actually own a gun? Surely they'd have sold anything of monetary value in an attempt to score something for the next hit.


You'd be supprised how many addicts are not straight up junkies living on the streets.  Lets say the business exec who likes to do lines on the weekend drives down to a dealer in the inner city, do you think its smart for him to carry around $5k in cash, dressed nicely, drive a car that costs $70k, and stop in a rough neighborhood for 20 min WITHOUT a gun?  He's basically a giant red target!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 22, 2012)

I'm sure this is a gold mine for ShitGBAtempSays but I can shove my hand only so far up a cow's rectum before I start feeling bad about myself.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 22, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm sure this is a gold mine for ShitGBAtempSays but I can shove my hand only so far up a cow's rectum before I start feeling bad about myself.


 


Just like you, only thinking of yourself. What about the cow's feelings??


----------



## BlueStar (Dec 22, 2012)

no_chocobo said:


> Legal weapons != more illegal weapons. Why is it that every handgun has to be registered to be purchased, but there is an abundance of handguns without papers?


 
Because legal handguns get stolen or get sold by authorised dealers who falsify the paperwork. The guns used in the most recent massacre were not legally owned by the shooter, but he was only able to use them because someone (his mother) was able to buy them legally. That's why it's so much more difficult to buy an illegal weapon over here than over there.

As for living near the 'murder capital', yes, the US has four times as many murders than the UK, largely because you've allowed the country to become flooded with firearms.


----------



## Wizerzak (Dec 22, 2012)

Scientific evidence that my first post (first reply to this topic) is true.


----------



## Mantis41 (Dec 23, 2012)

I was reading the following CNN article.​http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/military-style-weapons-ireport/index.html?hpt=hp_c1​​I then started reading the user comments. After picking myself up off the floor and wiping a tear from my eye I thought, "If these idiots are running around with assault rifles then America have a big problem."​


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 23, 2012)

Mantis41 said:


> I was reading the following CNN article.
> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/military-style-weapons-ireport/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
> 
> I then started reading the user comments. After picking myself up off the floor and wiping a tear from my eye I thought, "If these idiots are running around with assault rifles then America have a big problem."


 

Most of the people who are advocating an "assault weapon ban" don't know what they're talking about. It's all based on fear and emotion. Check my post about the difference between an assault rifle and the types of guns this "assault weapon ban" would affect. 

http://gbatemp.net/threads/nra-vide...orm-of-pornography.339579/page-5#post-4490463

We're not running around with assault rifles. They just want the public to think so.

Also, this LOL.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 2, 2013)

Don't know if anyone will come back to the thread, but I saw this video on another site and thought it was worth sharing here as well:


----------



## smile72 (Jan 4, 2013)

I would love for the U.S. to ave gun laws similar to Israel or Japan (both have very different gun laws). But it's impossible thanks to a conservative media which always likes to tell people that the black president going to take all your guns so you need the guns that fire 30 bullets a minute,without having to reload to protect yourself, an who can forget the NRA and their never giving an inch on anything (not even armor piercing bullets).


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 4, 2013)

smile72 said:


> I would love for the U.S. to ave gun laws similar to Israel or Japan (both have very different gun laws). But it's impossible thanks to a conservative media which always likes to tell people that the black president going to take all your guns so you need the guns that fire 30 bullets a second to protect yourself, an who can forget the NRA and their never giving an inch on anything (not even armor piercing bullets).


 

What guns are you speaking of that fire 30 bullets a second?

As for the "armor-piercing" ammunition baloney, 



> Following significant media hype and widespread misconceptions, Congress got into the act and proposed legislation that would have outlawed any bullet based on its ability to penetrate certain bullet resistant material. The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and other forensic experts cautioned that the proposed ban was too vague to be enforceable. *The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only the controversial armor piercing handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well. *(Most rifle ammunition will easily penetrate the most commonly worn protective vests.)
> The NRA proposed alternative legislation based upon the actual design and construction of the bullets. The final, approved version of the bill (H.R. 3132 passed in 1986) prohibited the sale of armor piercing ammunition [which may be used in a handgun] other than to law enforcement and the military. Representative Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) the original bill's sponsor, stated that the final legislation "... was not some watered down version of what we set out to do. In the end there was no compromise on the part of police safety..."




http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html


----------



## 431unknown (Jan 4, 2013)

First off I'm not going to read 15 pages worth of posts to speak my piece.  With that said I will say that there should be a mental exam for anyone looking for a Concealed  Carry permit and that if you own any firearm your need  have some type of gun safe for any fire arms when they are not ion your possession  ( you need to show proof while buying that you have one) that you may own so that its harder for them to be accessed. I am also all in for biometric identification to be able to pull the trigger on a firearm. It is really sad what has happened it CT but most new gun laws are not with the times and the tech. What I mean by this is there can be more added to the national database to ensure only legitimate  and certified competent  owners can buy guns. When I was 12 years old I had to take a course to be eligible to get a Hunting License, but to get a Concealed Carry permit there is none and no background check in my state and thats just wrong.

This I feel is like any form of discrimination wwhetherit be based on creed , religion, or nationality is bad. Any  sain  firearm owner would and should have had their guns under lock and key when they are not in their possion and all future and current fire arm oownerswill feel the brunt on this assholes actions and his mothers. Also as a member of the NRA way to pass the bill fuckers... don't look forward to a reup of a future membership. because the proper thing to say is you'll  use your lobbying towards the proper passage of bills that will hhindrancethe happings of "llegitimategun owners" firearms being sstolenand used in illegal activities.


----------



## smile72 (Jan 4, 2013)

Hanafuda said:


> What guns are you speaking of that fire 30 bullets a second?
> 
> As for the "armor-piercing" ammunition baloney,
> 
> ...


Sorry meant per minute, misread the article.... plus did not know that about rifles...but lets not kid ourselves countries with less to no guns tend not have gun violence, of course a stabbing every now and then happens but it is much less destructive take the Akihabara stabbing for an example. I myself am a person who believes gun should only be iven to those with a job requirement to carry one. Eh...sorry for going on and on.


----------



## VMM (Jan 4, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> You don't need guns to kill people. I.E some guy in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.
> This isn't a problem with laws or restrictions, this is a problem with human nature. We can't fix it with regulations.


 
Well, how many cases have you seen of a massacre with a knife?
Having laws that allow every civilian to buy a gun without any requirement, makes it easy for anyone to do a massacre.
Why would a civilian need an AK-47?


----------



## Jamstruth (Jan 4, 2013)

[quote="Hanafuda, post: 4491025, member: 32184"
Also, this LOL.






[/quote]
There's a difference between trained personnel having guns and the general populace owning guns.


----------



## AlanJohn (Jan 4, 2013)

VMM said:


> Well, how many cases have you seen of a massacre with a knife?
> Having laws that allow every civilian to buy a gun without any requirement, makes it easy for anyone to do a massacre.
> Why would a civilian need an AK-47?


Well, if I recall correctly then one of the american amendment's clarified that civilians have the right to bear a weapon just in case the government would want full control over the people. This is one of the main reasons why americans to this day argue about gun laws, even though if every american had an AK-47 they would still have no chance against the government. I understand why americans want to always have a gun with them. If I would live in a country like that, I wouldn't go outside without a gun. I can also understand the reason why some people are against guns. If you think about it, both of the reasons behind these two groups are quite dumb.
In example, if I would have a gun for self defense, so I could defend myself from street thugs or some shit. Well, that's quite stupid, since if you get mugged then you already have the thug have a gun right next to your cranium trying to extort money from you. Trying to take your gun out of your pocket, loading it, would take some time, and you'll probably be dead already. Another argument is that guns can be used for defense against robbers. Well, again, stupid. Robbers aren't retarded, they don't go to your house when you're home. They watch you for weeks, where you go, what time do you come home, and then rob your house when your not home. 
Even though self-defense seems quite stupid from what I've said, guns still might come in handy. One time one of my friends, who is a gun owner, went home on foot after a night with his friends at the bar. Then some thugs started walking behind him. He just showed them his gun, and was like "You don't wanna fuck with me" and the thugs went away. So, yeah, guns do come in handy.
Now, anti-gun guys. What the fuck will happen if you ban guns? Create another black market? If you want to see what a country with terrible laws looks like, then look at Mexico, Brazil, Russia. Every day gangs fight on the streets due to the transfer of products banned by the government. Mexico's cartels would be long dead if the americans could start living without coke and/or the government could legalize some drugs. But, even though this is some crazy shit here, banning guns can change something for the better. Look at Australia. 10 years ago there was a massacre in one of the regions and then guns were permanently banned. The result? Not a single massacre. Now, try to count the number of massacres that occurred for the past ten years in the USA. See the difference? So, yeah, even though this could bring some good it would be batshit retarded knowing that americans are more addicted to guns than to coke.

To be honest I'm not on either of these sides. I think these massacres that occur in the US are not the fault of gun laws, video games, society, religion etc., I think the only people responsible for these massacres are the ones who made them. That's it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 4, 2013)

Jamstruth said:


> [quote="Hanafuda, post: 4491025, member: 32184"
> Also, this LOL.


There's a difference between trained personnel having guns and the general populace owning guns.[/quote]


You're right. I can't afford trained personnel to protect me and my family. Guess I'll have to do it myself.


----------



## VMM (Jan 4, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> If you want to see what a country with terrible laws looks like, then look at Mexico, Brazil, Russia..


 
You clearly do not know what you're talking about.
Have you ever read the "constituição brasileira de 1988"?!


----------



## Jamstruth (Jan 4, 2013)

Hanafuda said:


> There's a difference between trained personnel having guns and the general populace owning guns.


 

You're right. I can't afford trained personnel to protect me and my family. Guess I'll have to do it myself.[/quote]
You're impossible.

Yes. Criminals will always get guns. Its a fact. Here in the UK though where you need to know the right people to get guns most criminals don't bother. Especially the lower end ones. Why? They don't feel they need them to combat the Police or hold up places effectively. In America though, where almost every store owner has a gun and all the Police have guns, criminals _need_ guns.
Other problems with general populace having access to guns is the murders that are done on the spur of the moment, on fits of anger etc. Without this easy access to firearms this is less likely. Oh, and yes, I know you need to pass background checks to obtain a gun. Doesn't stop people being fucking stupid later.

Call me a pussy or whatever I just don't like guns. They have a single use and make that purpose so damned easy it's ridiculous.


----------



## Engert (Jan 4, 2013)

Question for Hanafuda. Bit off-topic.
Are you a gamer? You must be since you are here.
You could call me a Nintendo fanboy since i was grown up with Zelda, Castlevania, Metroid and Super Mario and other Nintendo Classics.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jan 4, 2013)

People use guns not just to kill,they use it for important things.I however it should have strict laws.Anyone could go on a killing spree,in 2020 we will be having guns shots everywhere.As time goes on more killing happens.


----------



## smile72 (Jan 4, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> Well, if I recall correctly then one of the american amendment's clarified that civilians have the right to bear a weapon just in case the government would want full control over the people. This is one of the main reasons why americans to this day argue about gun laws, even though if every american had an AK-47 they would still have no chance against the government. I understand why americans want to always have a gun with them. If I would live in a country like that, I wouldn't go outside without a gun. I can also understand the reason why some people are against guns. If you think about it, both of the reasons behind these two groups are quite dumb.
> In example, if I would have a gun for self defense, so I could defend myself from street thugs or some shit. Well, that's quite stupid, since if you get mugged then you already have the thug have a gun right next to your cranium trying to extort money from you. Trying to take your gun out of your pocket, loading it, would take some time, and you'll probably be dead already. Another argument is that guns can be used for defense against robbers. Well, again, stupid. Robbers aren't retarded, they don't go to your house when you're home. They watch you for weeks, where you go, what time do you come home, and then rob your house when your not home.
> Even though self-defense seems quite stupid from what I've said, guns still might come in handy. One time one of my friends, who is a gun owner, went home on foot after a night with his friends at the bar. Then some thugs started walking behind him. He just showed them his gun, and was like "You don't wanna fuck with me" and the thugs went away. So, yeah, guns do come in handy.
> Now, anti-gun guys. What the fuck will happen if you ban guns? Create another black market? If you want to see what a country with terrible laws looks like, then look at Mexico, Brazil, Russia. Every day gangs fight on the streets due to the transfer of products banned by the government. Mexico's cartels would be long dead if the americans could start living without coke and/or the government could legalize some drugs. But, even though this is some crazy shit here, banning guns can change something for the better. Look at Australia. 10 years ago there was a massacre in one of the regions and then guns were permanently banned. The result? Not a single massacre. Now, try to count the number of massacres that occurred for the past ten years in the USA. See the difference? So, yeah, even though this could bring some good it would be batshit retarded knowing that americans are more addicted to guns than to coke.
> ...


 
I hope you are not seriously comparing the U.S., the world's largest economy to Russia,Mexico, and Brazil...one of these countries has a massively corrupt government, the other is run by drug lords, and I have not done enough research about Brazil but I know enough that it is not comparable in GDP or quality of life. What about Japan, France, Germany, South Korea, U.K., or Spain....all of these countries have a form of gun control better than Americas..and surprise they have a lot less gun related crime, but because we have too many guns on our land we probably won't have the chance to be like them due to having a hugely paranoid population in the South who thinks Obama going to take their guns (he never will). But it would be nice to live in a country with no guns, hell Chicago wouldn't make as much national news..... and to be fair the crazy person wouldn't be able to kill as many people without the gun.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 4, 2013)

i ma not sure  if i should do this but what if instead of blaming the guns ok ok guys stay with me here  i knows is crazy but what if we blame the shooter ?
i know is crazy but what if we blame the guy that did the crime


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jan 4, 2013)

You see,guns are usable by anyone who wants to go on a killing spree.With guns it's harder to defend yourself.With knifes you can defend yourself much better.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 4, 2013)

Engert said:


> Question for Hanafuda. Bit off-topic.
> Are you a gamer? You must be since you are here.
> You could call me a Nintendo fanboy since i was grown up with Zelda, Castlevania, Metroid and Super Mario and other Nintendo Classics.


 

Sure. And, as far as being mostly Nintendo-oriented, yeah that's me too. But I started with an Atari 2600 when I was 11 or 12 I guess, and I spent a lot of money playing Galaxian, Outrun, Galaga, Battlezone, Centipede, PacMan, etc. in the arcades in the early 80's. I was a freshman in college the year the NES first sold in America. In 1991 I got a job in Japan (JET Program) teaching English and that interrupted my home console gaming, and I didn't really get back into it until around 2000 when I got married. 

Nowadays I mostly play on handhelds - GBA, NDS, 3DS. I do have a PSX, an N64, a Saturn, GCN, original Xbox, and a Wii. My kids play with them more than I do, although FWIW I have gotten ALL stars in Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1 & 2, beaten all the Metroid Prime games, Pikmin 1 & 2, etc. 

So yes, I'm not just hanging around this site for the sole purpose of being a pro-gun shill. It is an important issue to me though, obviously.


----------



## AlanJohn (Jan 4, 2013)

smile72 said:


> I hope you are not seriously comparing the U.S., *the world's largest economy* to Russia,Mexico, and Brazil...one of these countries has a massively corrupt government, the other is run by drug lords, and I have not done enough research about Brazil but I know enough that it is not comparable in GDP or quality of life. What about Japan, France, Germany, South Korea, U.K., or Spain....all of these countries have a form of gun control better than Americas..and surprise they have a lot less gun related crime, but because we have too many guns on our land we probably won't have the chance to be like them due to having a hugely paranoid population in the South who thinks Obama going to take their guns (he never will). But it would be nice to live in a country with no guns, hell Chicago wouldn't make as much national news..... and to be fair the crazy person wouldn't be able to kill as many people without the gun.


\
Giggity.

Also I took those 3 countries as an example of a black market created by _drugs_. I also explained what you said.
As I said, I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun, I just think this is a stupid argument.


----------



## Engert (Jan 4, 2013)

Thanks for your answer Hanafuda.
I didn't ask that because i think you're a pro-gun shill. As a matter of fact i like your posts and respect your opinion because it's reality-based and not theoretical.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 5, 2013)

Engert said:


> Thanks for your answer Hanafuda.
> I didn't ask that because i think you're a pro-gun shill. As a matter of fact i like your posts and respect your opinion because it's reality-based and not theoretical.


 

Why, thank you. Thank you very much.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 5, 2013)

Hey guys lol wow this thread is still going on an strong huh.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Jan 5, 2013)

Invisible guns are far better anyway.
They should have something where you can trade in your real guns for invisible guns.
They can advertise them as "Magical and more powerful than real guns"


----------



## Castiel (Jan 5, 2013)

Pingouin7 said:


> Invisible guns are far better anyway.
> They should have something where you can trade in your real guns for invisible guns.
> They can advertise them as "Magical and more powerful than real guns"


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 10, 2013)

An online petition to deport piers morgan just because he expressed his opinion on tougher gun laws, yeah i know the guy can be a little crazy sometimes but c'mon...this is just ridiculous.


----------



## Sterling (Jan 14, 2013)

I'd just like to post this article. This is one of the most educated and reasonable articles explaining why more gun control is not the answer. He also offers a few reasonable suggestions on what he thinks would be reasonable solutions.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jan 14, 2013)

A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population...


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 14, 2013)

Personally I think that it should be illegal to own guns, and if there IS a way to remove them all (or at least the majority) from the public, do it. Sure, it won't stop violent crime. Nothing barring some sort of enlightenment of the entire species will. But as was said very early on, it takes a whole lot more to knife someone than to pull a trigger. By being up close and personal for every action, the action is never divorced from the consequences. You KNOW what you've done when you can feel the resistance against the blade. When all you do is pull a trigger, it becomes impersonal, detached. It doesn't resonate with you the same way. So while knife crime might go up, violent crime as a whole would likely go down because not everyone with a gun would necessarily have the cajones to put the force needed behind a blade and feel it tear through flesh. Knives are also significantly easier to defend against. Stab proof vests are pretty easy to come by and pretty effective as there aren't all that many armour piercing variants of knives, are there? At least not until someone invents lightsabers.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jan 15, 2013)

Hmm...  So now there are Newtown Truthers who believe Sandy Hook was staged by the government to take away guns...

*waits for dickfour...


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 16, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Hmm... So now there are Newtown Truthers who believe Sandy Hook was staged by the government to take away guns...
> 
> *waits for dickfour...


 




Those people who think that are retarded, how can a tragedy like that be staged if "real" children died? Lol there so in denial!


----------



## Jan1tor (Jan 16, 2013)

No. If no innocent people have guns how are they going to protect themselves from the bad guys with guns?
If the government goes bad (WORSE) how will you protect yourself from the military? That is why it was set up in the first place.
Remember Hitler, Stalin, others?







dj4uk6cjm said:


> First the mass shooting at an oregon mall and now this? http://gbatemp.net/threads/connecticut-school-shooting.339189/ I'm usually not one to post my own opinions about news stories and stuff but this is serious, i want to hear everyones opinions on this. do you think there should be tougher gun laws? 2 mass shootings in one week...1 week!!! what the hell is going on in this world? and we cant forget about the kansas chiefs and jordan davis shooting either  its sad.


 
What about 911? Look at all the people that died there! No guns were used, box cutters, knives, Planes. People die every day from violent crime, most of which is done by blunt instruments like baseball bats, hammers, knives, but hey guns are dangerous! If someone really wants to kill people they are going to do it no matter what. He could just as easily chained all the doors shut in the school and burned the building down with gasoline.



Blaze163 said:


> Personally I think that it should be illegal to own guns, and if there IS a way to remove them all (or at least the majority) from the public, do it. Sure, it won't stop violent crime. Nothing barring some sort of enlightenment of the entire species will. But as was said very early on, it takes a whole lot more to knife someone than to pull a trigger. By being up close and personal for every action, the action is never divorced from the consequences. You KNOW what you've done when you can feel the resistance against the blade. When all you do is pull a trigger, it becomes impersonal, detached. It doesn't resonate with you the same way. So while knife crime might go up, violent crime as a whole would likely go down because not everyone with a gun would necessarily have the cajones to put the force needed behind a blade and feel it tear through flesh. Knives are also significantly easier to defend against. Stab proof vests are pretty easy to come by and pretty effective as there aren't all that many armour piercing variants of knives, are there? At least not until someone invents lightsabers.


 
It Does not work banning guns just ask the Australians
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.


----------



## Transdude1996 (Jan 16, 2013)

A similar line to what a Gamefaqs user had in his signature:

"Oh sure, making guns illegal is going to stop gun violence. What about murder? Isn't murder illegal? Oh and what about piracy, isn't piracy illegal? What about rape, isn't rape illegal? And what about drugs?"

What happened to countries that outlawed weapons? In Canada, the crime rate skyrocketed. In Poland, the most highly used murder weapon became the bat.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 16, 2013)

Another gun law speech http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564298/obama-calls-for-sweeping-new-gun-laws/.


----------



## BlueStar (Jan 16, 2013)

Jan1tor said:


> In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
> Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
> Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.


 
Bullshit. What is your source for this? Why are you looking at how crime rose in 2006 and not what happened after the gun laws were brought in a decade beforehand?

Is it because they show this?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
*



			Homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. *In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.*


----------



## Jan1tor (Jan 17, 2013)

BlueStar said:


> Bullshit. What is your source for this? Why are you looking at how crime rose in 2006 and not what happened after the gun laws were brought in a decade beforehand?
> 
> Is it because they show this?
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html


 
This is where I got the info http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 17, 2013)

Tougher gun laws? Well after all, we know that this will stop criminals from getting assault weapons....oh wait.


----------



## Jan1tor (Jan 17, 2013)

I think I'll keep our guns, I don't want our country to end up like this!


----------



## BlueStar (Jan 17, 2013)

Jan1tor said:


> This is where I got the info http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


 
Ah, from a right-wing think-tank.  OK - any thoughts on why an increase in the assault rate from 2005-2006 is more relevant compared to the massive decrease in gun deaths from the time the gun laws were brought in?  How come home invasions didn't increase?  How come there was no increase in murders with other types of weapon when gun deaths went down?  How come the UK has a murder rate at 25% that of the US, when you seem to think restricting civilian gun ownership will lead to criminals having the upper hand?


----------



## BlueStar (Jan 17, 2013)

Jan1tor said:


> I think I'll keep our guns, I don't want our country to end up like this!




Australia - 1.2 people murdered per 100,000 people.

USA - 5 people murdered per 1000,000 people.

How about you look at reality instead of the paranoid fantasies of YouTubers?

I think I'll keep not having wankers running around thinking it's the wild west and building their own personal armouries, I don't want our children slaughtered by some dickhead kid whose 'survivalist' redneck mother taught him to shoot a military rifle.


----------



## BlueStar (Jan 17, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Tougher gun laws? Well after all, we know that this will stop criminals from getting assault weapons....oh wait.


 
Laws against making bombs and anthrax? Didn't stop Timothy McVeigh or the New York anthrax attacks. Only logical thing to do is make them legal! In fact laws against murder don't stop all murders, especially not in America. Make that legal too.

We've not had a school shooting since gun controls brought in after Dunblane. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since their gun controls brought in a decade ago. Can you imagine the US going ten YEARS without mass murder with guns? Hey, maybe you could try starting with 10 months and work your way up? You can keep pretending having guns everywhere actually prevents this kind of thing happening, and every time it happens in your country and not countries where you can't walk into a supermarket and buy a gun with your groceries it makes you look like an idiot.

Give up on trying to claim that all the criminals have guns in Australia and the UK and everyone else is defenceless.  People live there.  People can see it isn't true.  You can post youtube videos and Glen Beck editorials, but unfortunately there are millions of very inconvenient people walking around not dead as uncomfortable evidence that it's bullshit.  Just be honest - say that you think the murders and the massacres are worth it.  That you feel your personal feeling of safety from having a gun, real or imagined, outweighs those things.  At least then it might be possible to have a real discussion about it.


----------



## Engert (Jan 17, 2013)

BlueStar, have you ever been to U.S.?


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 20, 2013)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html is this a coincidence?


----------



## HOMER B0T-EGG FART (Jan 20, 2013)

u liberal retards r forgetting r god given right to bare arms


----------



## xist (Jan 20, 2013)

HOMER B0T-EGG FART said:


> u liberal retards r forgetting r god given right to bare arms


 
And you're forgetting letters of the alphabet. Which is the bigger crime against humanity?


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 21, 2013)

I found a shell casing that looked like one of these in my yard the other day, i didn't really make too much mind of it because it looked like it had been there for a while. just pointing it out.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 22, 2013)

Anyone see this yet? http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/justice/texas-college-shooting/index.html


----------



## xist (Jan 22, 2013)

^It's been all over BBC news tickertapes for the last few hours. There's little point discussing it because it covers the same ground...those of us who feel that if there was no access to guns this sort of thing would be hugely reduced in scale, and those who believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## DragorianSword (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't get it. Why do Americans (I don't say all of them, but most I've spoken) seem to think that tougher gun laws will result in total anarchy?
The US has the highest amount of firearm homicides of all so called 'developed' countries. source
Basically it's also almost a ranking of who has the toughest gun laws/policies.


----------



## tatripp (Jan 22, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> I just posted in the other thread but that'll probably soon be deleted for somehow being off-topic. So I'll post it here anyway.
> 
> You guys are missing the point about gun control. I believe that the main factor with this is the fact that guns are SO easily accessible in the US and that anyone can quite easily just decide to shoot someone and make it happen within such a short space of time.
> 
> ...



I live in California. Let me tell you that there are a lot of gangs over here. My area isn't too bad, but certain areas of LA are terrible and so are certain border areas. These gangs (especially Mexican drug cartels) have tons of guns even though they are not allowed to have guns because they have obtained them illegally and most of them are felons. It will not be hard for them to smuggle guns in the country. Making stricter gun regulation won't decrease the amount of gun crimes here. If someone wants a gun, they will be able to find it no matter what. 
You are right that it may take a long time to stockpile enough explosive material to detonate a large bomb, but it hardly requires any time at all to make smaller explosives that can be used to murder. The evil men who attacked columbine high school had quite a few guns on them but they had even more bombs. 
Taking guns away in European countries may have worked for them but it will never work in America. Americans love their guns wayyy to much. It is an important right for us to be able to defend ourselves against an evil government. Also firing guns at a range is very fun and a great hobby.


----------



## Its_just_Lou (Jan 22, 2013)

Well, ANOTHER campus shooting in the States today....sigh.... 

Thank GOD and JESUS for CODBLOPS!


"Well, its really very simple.   The *high level* of gun-related deaths in the United States can be attributed to ONE thing; the AVAILIBILITY of guns in the United States."  - Stephen King, on why he pulled his novel 'Rage' from shops.


----------

