Gun control

[craigiri]

It's accessible, but there are still millions of ways to kill. You can't really stop killings. You can only stop the mental people from carrying out such mass killings.

Well some truth there. You can't stop killing, but you can try to make sure crazies can't do much more than kill themselves and maybe a couple others at best.......

That would seem relatively easy to do. Firstly, don't allow easy access to weapons which can fire 30 bullets in 10 seconds. That might help.....

 

[Carlos]

Sorry to say, but that makes no logical sense at all.

It makes sense, because removing guns won't solve the problem if there's weapons such as a sharp blade, or a sharp knife, or a kitchen knife. The whole point of a gun in the first place is to stop a criminal from a distance.

You have knives at home I presume? For Cooking purposes if not any other? Ergo in your thinking every single person would need to be armed to the eyeballs to protect themselves from everyday items constantly.

Precisely!

You never know if the person next to you or the next person after that has an agenda of his/her own to kill you because of something you said.

I am sure that more guns is not the answer.

I don't think he's saying there should be more guns, rather, there needs to be better ways for a citizen to protect themselves against other non-well-meaning gun owners from killing them.

From what I've read, gun ownership laws up in Connecticut didn't help stop mentally ill persons from partaking in these mass killings. To own a gun here in California, you need to be a licensed gun owner, as in, you have to pass some tests in order to own it. Just as with a driver's license.

An Army, Navy, or Marine has conditions to follow before training stops. They specifically tell you: Do not shoot anything you do not intend to kill. That means, from the minute you hold the gun, you must make a decision, before you shoot at anything.

I'm throwing all of this information at you so you guys can be more educated.

 

[craigiri]

Fine by me. You have zero chance of repealing the Second Amendment.

Don't need to even try - SCOTUS has ruled many times that regs on guns are A-OK.

I would have thought you were up on that stuff?

 

[craigiri]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

Pretty clear, Fred - that's Scalia's opinions. Commercial sale of arms is fair game and totally constitutional to regulate. So stop with the straw men and discuss the issue at hand.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Don't need to even try - SCOTUS has ruled many times that regs on guns are A-OK.

I would have thought you were up on that stuff?

I am. Most of their rulings have been limiting gun control.

 

[Aarmin]

Facts of gun ownership tell you that as 95% of gun death and injury are of the gun owner and his family and acquaintances. Best thing to do to protect your family is get the guns out of the house. ...

I don't know who you are trying to convince, if you read my first post I actually mentioned that having a gun in the house do lead to suicides and family accidental shootings.. I could go on more about social and family values.

 

[EQnoble]

I am getting my mom a pistol for Christmas. This is what I am buying for myself...

A side note...gun control is a 10 shot group the size of a quarter...and locking it up safely when not on your person.

 

[Kim]

Or if they had them, you might have a different story to tell. Yours proves gun control doesn't stop criminals from using them. His proves that gun ownership can protect you from criminals. As someone else said earlier, if only one life is saved, its worth it.

OK... last I am saying in this thread, because it is really like watching a tennis match, and frankly neither side is going to concede a single point, I can only hope that as a Democracy you will wake up and realise that the majority don't want this, don't want to send their kids to school, go to the movies, have any kind of public interaction... and have to be constantly worried about what some maniac armed to the teeth with military assault weapons might do.

if only one life is saved, its worth it

That has to be without doubt, the most ridiculous statement yet... it is not one life saved, it could not ever be "one life saved" even if one life was saved in one particular crazed event......

.................do you not see that it is thousands and thousands of lives lost every single year, every single year.. for every one person who is "saved" by owning a gun, or being around someone who does, there is a considerable (won't pull some stat out of my arse like most of you are in this debate) number who are killed by that exact same gun that you would state saves lives.

Anyway.. as I said, not my country (never ever would I move there!!!) nor my argument... so here is me bowing out.

 

[Carlos]

Nice gun design.

That has to be without doubt, the most ridiculous statement yet... it is not one life saved, it could not ever be "one life saved" even if one life was saved in one particular crazed event..

I do agree that "one life saved, it's worth it." You save one life, you're doing one good deed. Save hundreds or thousands or millions is better, but if you can save one life at the moment's notice.... DO IT.

 

[Digital Doctor]

In terms of moving forward,

“Instead of obsessing over the wording of the amendment, which doesn’t fit anymore, we need to talk about unenumerated rights in America,” he replied. “Having guns in homes for self protection is a very deep part of American culture. You couldn't even get rid of those guns if you tried. It would make prohibition look like a day in the park. Today, almost everywhere in America you can have a gun in your home and that should be respected. But that doesn't mean you need guns that can mow 26 people down. We can talk about reasonable regulation.”

[source]

Guns designed "to kill lots of people quickly" should be banned.

I'll start the list of banned weapons:
[1] Bushmaster AR15

 

[Aarmin]

Very nice Five-seveN pistol... expensive, but nice

Now we should ban Facebook and Video Games because they lead to depression.

 

[Carlos]

Now we should ban Facebook and Video Games because they lead to depression.

..........................................................

Video Games don't kill people.

 

[jasetaro]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

Pretty clear, Fred - that's Scalia's opinions. Commercial sale of arms is fair game and totally constitutional to regulate. So stop with the straw men and discuss the issue at hand.

And we already do that, as I said before Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States -- we're in the top in the Brady Campaign's rankings of state gun laws, and they didn't stop this guy.

The sad reality is no law can stop a deranged person hell-bent on killing others from doing just that... If hadn't used a gun, he'd have used something else.

 

[Digital Doctor]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BGL]

You can't really stop killings. You can only stop the mental people from carrying out such mass killings.

Most of the 30,000 gun deaths are not the mass shootings of children, they are just the most powerful lessons of the need for gun control. More children are killed by guns one at at time and garner few headlines.

We can greatly reduce gun deaths and injury.

The evidence is clear from results of good gun control in other developed nations (UK, Canada, Germany) where gun deaths are in the hundreds vs. US 30,000.

 

[whynot]

As someone else said earlier, if only one life is saved, its worth it.

...even if it costs 30000 lives.

 

[BGL]

And we already do that, as I said before Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States -- we're in the top in the Brady Campaign's rankings of state gun laws, and they didn't stop this guy.

Not strict at all if some irrational person amasses an arsenal of that is then used to kill people.

As the typical chain of evidence of gun violence shows, it is a national problem. We can't have one state with strong laws next to weak ones.

 

[Fred Sherman]

In terms of moving forward,


[source]

Guns designed "to kill lots of people quickly" should be banned.

I'll start the list of banned weapons:
[1] Bushmaster AR15
View attachment 38214

Functionally, that rifle is no different than my semi-auto hunting rifle. Is it simply because of its look?

 

[BGL]

Functionally, that rifle is no different than my semi-auto hunting rifle. Is it simply because of its look?

Look at the successful gun control laws around the world for your answer.

No need for weapons that can be quickly reloaded. Those are combat weapons.

PS Reminding everyone that Obama got Bush Sr's best friend Bin Laden in three years while the Bushes were either feeding him cash and weapons or chasing him around for the previous 12 years has the opposite effect of what you want.

 

[zappaDPJ]

There isn't much you can do. I believe responsible gun owners should secure their weapons. I do. But its not like you can inspect their homes.

Now I will ask you in return, what do you do to stop a homicidal nut? You can take away the gun, but does that really stop them? Sure, maybe a knife isn't as effective. But a pipe capped at both ends, filled with roofing nails, kerosine and fertilizer is more effective. IEDs are pretty effective in Iraq.

There will always be people that are set apart from what's considered by the majority to be decent members of society and they often go unidentified until something nasty occurs. What can you do with them? If you can't identify and help them without a witch hunt and you won't legislate against what they might use to hurt other people, which isn't always practical, then you'll have to endure the mayhem they cause.

It's remarkable how easy it is to become desensitised to atrocities. I've had my windows blown in and been very close to the scene of a number of large terrorist bombs. At first it really shook me but I got used to it and got on with my life. I suspect in general the same will happen in the US. Nothing much will change and these atrocities will continue.

I think I understand the problem to some extent. If I lived in a country where everyone possessed a firearm then I probably wouldn't want to give mine up either but I'd rather live in a country where nobody owns a firearm or just as importantly, wants to own a firearm.