Let's Talk About Gun Control

[Type Username Here]

So you don't think stricter gun control laws would also make it harder for criminals and/or mentally ill people to get weapons?

No, not unless you ban owning personal weapons completely and esnuring that all weapons are destroyed. This violates Constitutional Law.

I don't think EVERYBODY knows somebody that will sell them an illegal weapon. Even in this recent school shooting, the guy apparently got the gun from his mother (who had them legally), not somebody on the street. Had she not had the guns, it's feasible that the shooter would not have had access to guns or at least would have had a harder time getting them.

So did the person who bought these weapons legally commit these crimes? You keep denying that this person was mentally fukked up. Acri, at first you were here advocating that these guns laws made it too easy to buy weapons, and now that you know he didn't buy the weapons, you keep tap dancing.

IMO, making guns harder to get in general would make them harder to get for criminals. It's not like all (or even most) people involved in gun violence get the guns off the street. It's often from friends/family or because they bought the gun legally.

That isn't true though. Look at Britain. They are on a secluded Island.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Did this Adam Lanza buy his own weapons?

I don't get it.

His mother bought the weapons, he took her weapons, and you say the gun laws don't work.

The only solution it seems you are advocating is total ban on guns. That won't happen bro. Never. It's like the Right Wingers saying that they will overturn Roe V Wade.

The guns are already everywhere. You won't got rid of them short of waving a magic wand.

Laws should hold the owner accountable if their guns are stolen and used for crime. Theft should have to be reported and explained to authorities. This would encourage people to keep their guns in a safe place and to take care of them. There should also be restrictions on the amounts of guns and bullets that can be held in the home. No one needs an entire arsenal and thousands of rounds to protect their home.

These things may or may not have prevented this tragedy, but they would be a step in the correct direction.

Other things that can be done are putting safeguards in place that would raise a red flag if a mentally challenged person tries to by a gun, or if a gun owner is diagnosed with a mental illness. People taking mood altering drugs shouldn't be allowed to possess a weapon.

I have to show up to the DMV once a year to prove I'm still worthy of my driving privileges, why is this out of the question for gun owners to do?

Also the overall number of legally manufactured/imported guns should be reduced. All illegal guns were once legal guns. If we reduce legal guns we will be reducing illegal guns.

All or some of these things could be implemented and effective. Also some new or different ideas could be implemented as well. One thing for sure is doing nothing is not the answer.

 

[acri1]

No, not unless you ban owning personal weapons completely and esnuring that all weapons are destroyed. This violates Constitutional Law.

So did the person who bought these weapons legally commit these crimes? You keep denying that this person was mentally fukked up. Acri, at first you were here advocating that these guns laws made it too easy to buy weapons, and now that you know he didn't buy the weapons, you keep tap dancing.

Strict Gun Control Laws =/= Banning all personal weapons


In this case, obviously the person that legally owned the guns didn't commit the crime, but that doesn't mean that stricter gun control couldn't make situations like this less likely to happen. Let's avoid oversimplifying the issue and making it about banning all guns (which few people would suggest).

Think about how he might have gotten the guns. Also, we have to ask whether his mother should have had a gun if she lived in a household with someone with a history of mental illness or autism or whatever.

And even if you disagree with that, you have to ask - was his mother trained properly on gun safety and storage? Where exactly was she keeping the guns and why were they in a place where someone that wasn't the owner could get to it?

Also, the shooter used semiautomatic guns...do we really need those to be available for everybody on the street to buy? Not that you couldn't commit atrocities with a handgun, but it would he harder and the shooter would be more likely to be stopped sooner.


These are the types of things people mean when they say gun control, not "banning all weapons".

 

[88m3]

You can make it illegal to possess weapons. You can make it harder for law abiding citizens to get weapons.

Until you address the other issue, things won't change.

tuh I agree with you on your mental health/social issue take. you'll still also have to limit access to firearms for it to be effective.

 

[Type Username Here]

Laws should hold the owner accountable if their guns are stolen and used for crime. Theft should have to be reported and explained to authorities. This would encourage people to keep their guns in a safe place and to take care of them. There should also be restrictions on the amounts of guns and bullets that can be held in the home. No one needs an entire arsenal and thousands of rounds to protect their home.

The mother was killed. She didn't really have the means to report it.

These things may or may not have prevented this tragedy, but they would be a step in the correct direction.

In your opinion, devoid of any data.

Other things that can be done are putting safeguards in place that would raise a red flag if a mentally challenged person tries to by a gun, or if a gun owner is diagnosed with a mental illness. People taking mood altering drugs shouldn't be allowed to possess a weapon.

Agreed.

I have to show up to the DMV once a year to prove I'm still worthy of my driving privileges, why is this out of the question for gun owners to do?

You don't understand the 2nd Amendment do you?

Also the overall number of legally manufactured/imported guns should be reduced. All illegal guns were once legal guns. If we reduce legal guns we will be reducing illegal guns.

This has proven to be false. See Britain.

All or some of these things could be implemented and effective. Also some new or different ideas could be implemented as well. One thing for sure is doing nothing is not the answer.

What happened yesterday, while tragic, is rare. Don't let emotion clout your judgement.

We went running to the government for safety after 9/11, and we have nothing to show for it but our lack of rights and privacy.

 

[Type Username Here]

tuh I agree with you on your mental health/social issue take. you'll still also have to limit access to firearms for it to be effective.

How do you limit access to firearms without totally banning them or using magic to have them all disappear?

 

[Type Username Here]

Strict Gun Control Laws =/= Banning all personal weapons


In this case, obviously the person that legally owned the guns didn't commit the crime, but that doesn't mean that stricter gun control couldn't make situations like this less likely to happen. Let's avoid oversimplifying the issue and making it about banning all guns (which few people would suggest).

Think about how he might have gotten the guns. Also, we have to ask whether his mother should have had a gun if she lived in a household with someone with a history of mental illness or autism or whatever.

And even if you disagree with that, you have to ask - was his mother trained properly on gun safety and storage? Where exactly was she keeping the guns and why were they in a place where someone that wasn't the owner could get to it?

Also, the shooter used semiautomatic guns...do we really need those to be available for everybody on the street to buy? Not that you couldn't commit atrocities with a handgun, but it would he harder and the shooter would be more likely to be stopped sooner.


These are the types of things people mean when they say gun control, not "banning all weapons".

The utopia you advocate would not be reached until all guns are banned. You know it.

 

[88m3]

How do you limit access to firearms without totally banning them or using magic to have them all disappear?

limit production and sale. no more gun shows. limit the number of stores allowed to sell guns. I know it's already highly regulated but looking back on ff it's clearly not. More licensing and oversight from stores if they can't comply have the gubnent sell guns. tax incentives, tax rebates for returning fire arms.

I think a good place could be too look at dmvs for guidance.

There's probably plenty of other things I haven't thought of.


I don't want to ban guns. I like guns. Guns are cool. Limiting the number of firearms and ammo in circulation will limit the death toll. It's Maths.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The mother was killed. She didn't really have the means to report it.

No but if she thought she would be held accountable if they were stolen, she might have kept them in a more safe place.

In your opinion, devoid of any data.

There is data to back up my claims. Plenty of illegal guns come from theft, steps should be made to prevent theft.

You don't understand the 2nd Amendment do you?

The constitution has always been and will always be up to interpretation. There are people who use the constitution to justify banning guns. One thing for certain is the constitution doesn't directly address life as we know it today. Plenty of things about society have changed since the constitution was written, it makes logical sense that it be looked at from a more modern point of view.

This has proven to be false. See Britain.

Britain has a problem with ilegal imports of guns. That has nothing to do with America's problem of legal guns being stolen or bought illegally. Just in yesterday's tragedy there were 3 illegal guns involved. If the original owner only had one gun, there would have only been one illegal gun on the street. This is only one example of how reducing the amount of legal guns would reduce the amount of illegal guns.

It's easy to keep cherry picking single countries with single stats to try and prove your point. If you look at the entire picture the reality is clear. America has a big problem with guns and it needs to be addressed.

What happened yesterday, while tragic, is rare. Don't let emotion clout your judgement.

We went running to the government for safety after 9/11, and we have nothing to show for it but our lack of rights and privacy.

There have been no more terrorist attacks of that magnitude on American soil since the implementation of those rules. I'd say we have a lot to show for it.

 

[RC-P90]

black kid shoots 5 people;;one dies and the discussion is: whats wrong with black people and black culture


white man shoots 20 children;;they all die and the discussion is: gun control


just once i would like for white people and white culture to be put on trial the way black people and black culture get put on trial...that would be way more interesting than another one of these gun control debates people love to have...

 

[Crakface]

 

[showtime]

A gun in the home is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder. Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

 

[Type Username Here]

No but if she thought she would be held accountable if they were stolen, she might have kept them in a more safe place.

Please tell me how you are going to invent a machine that reads people's thoughts and intention. This isn't the Minority Report son.

There is data to back up my claims. Plenty of illegal guns come from theft, steps should be made to prevent theft.

By all means, share that data here please. The only data you have shown here seems to back up my point.

The constitution has always been and will always be up to interpretation. There are people who use the constitution to justify banning guns.

Please provide me with one person that has said this. I'd like to read their argument.

One thing for certain is the constitution doesn't directly address life as we know it today.

Yes, it does.

Plenty of things about society have changed since the constitution was written, it makes logical sense that it be looked at from a more modern point of view.

Like what? Every major change, except ONE, to the Constitution has been in favor of granting MORE freedom to the population and guaranteeing more rights. The other one, prohibition, was an absolute failure. You might want to to read up on that.

Britain has a problem with ilegal imports of guns. That has nothing to do with America's problem of legal guns being stolen or bought illegally.

Are you even reading what you are writing? Britain has absolutely draconian gun laws, and they can't stop the imports of gun. They live on a fukking island.

Just in yesterday's tragedy there were 3 illegal guns involved. If the original owner only had one gun, there would have only been one illegal gun on the street. This is only one example of how reducing the amount of legal guns would reduce the amount of illegal guns.

3 illegal guns? Source? The guns were bought legally. They were stolen from the rightful owner, who has shot dead. A felony was committed prior to her being killed. Nothing short of the minority report would have stopped that.

It's easy to keep cherry picking single countries with single stats to try and prove your point. If you look at the entire picture the reality is clear. America has a big problem with guns and it needs to be addressed.

The big problem is NOT the guns. You have admitted this already multiple times.

There have been no more terrorist attacks of that magnitude on American soil since the implementation of those rules. I'd say we have a lot to show for it.

Yea, and how many terrorist attacks of that magnitude happened before 9/11 and the resulting legislation was put into place? One? Oh, okay.

 

[OsO]

its less about the guns and more about our culture of violence in america. our government is one of the most violent in the world. our movies are violent our video games are violent our media is violent, a lot about our culture is violent...so its no wonder we have violent citizens.

create a culture of violence and you will get violence.

 

[daze23]

See that country with 34 shooting deaths? They have more weapons per capita than we do. Guns are easier to buy there too.

in some ways, they also have tighter regulation

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia for its national defence. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

...

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.

....

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

-fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)

-stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger

-passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.

Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

-The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.

-The transport has to be direct, i.e.:

>For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
>To an army warehouse and back,
>To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
>To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.