***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[ATC1]

I'm an ardent supporter of gun rights and own quite a few shotguns, handgun, rifles, etc. I'd give up all of them in an instance if I thought for one second it would do any good.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think we all can agree no citizens should be able to have pipe bombs, grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, or Claymore Mines. Why is that? I mean what's more effective than Claymore mines to protect your house. Post a sign out front that says this house is protected by Claymore Mines...proceed at your own risk. Or using a few grenades to do some sport fishing. Dead fish float up and you scoop them up and eat for weeks.

I state crazy talk like this, because some guns have no place in society. Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away. Just like normal people don't own pipe bombs.

Let's at least start down a path that says we are trying to fix this problem. Just ignoring it with stupid phrases like guns don't kill people, people kill people make no sense. Because if that was true, we should all be able to go buy our grenades. I have never seen a grenade injure someone that was not tossed by a person.

Exactly.I have never seen a gun kill someone without a person pulling the trigger.

You kind of made the point of "......people kill people"

That said, I agree with your post that we need to fix this problem. Rapid unemployment and lack of direction growing up all contribute to people going bat#### crazy with no morals or regard for human life.

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

Right, and I agree certain guns should be banned. But if you ban all guns, only criminals and killers will have them. It's a saying most people who wants guns banned hate to hear, but it's more truth than fiction.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think we all can agree no citizens should be able to have pipe bombs, grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, or Claymore Mines. Why is that? I mean what's more effective than Claymore mines to protect your house. Post a sign out front that says this house is protected by Claymore Mines...proceed at your own risk. Or using a few grenades to do some sport fishing. Dead fish float up and you scoop them up and eat for weeks.

I state crazy talk like this, because some guns have no place in society. Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away. Just like normal people don't own pipe bombs.

Let's at least start down a path that says we are trying to fix this problem. Just ignoring it with stupid phrases like guns don't kill people, people kill people make no sense. Because if that was true, we should all be able to go buy our grenades. I have never seen a grenade injure someone that was not tossed by a person.

Exactly.I have never seen a gun kill someone without a person pulling the trigger.

You kind of made the point of "......people kill people"

That said, I agree with your post that we need to fix this problem. Rapid unemployment and lack of direction growing up all contribute to people going bat#### crazy with no morals or regard for human life.

What BS. You can't shoot up a school classroom in seconds without a semi-automatic weapon. These weapons directly let these events happen.

First it's not BS....... The bolded, I agree with.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I think we all can agree no citizens should be able to have pipe bombs, grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, or Claymore Mines. Why is that? I mean what's more effective than Claymore mines to protect your house. Post a sign out front that says this house is protected by Claymore Mines...proceed at your own risk. Or using a few grenades to do some sport fishing. Dead fish float up and you scoop them up and eat for weeks.

I state crazy talk like this, because some guns have no place in society. Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away. Just like normal people don't own pipe bombs.

Let's at least start down a path that says we are trying to fix this problem. Just ignoring it with stupid phrases like guns don't kill people, people kill people make no sense. Because if that was true, we should all be able to go buy our grenades. I have never seen a grenade injure someone that was not tossed by a person.

Exactly.I have never seen a gun kill someone without a person pulling the trigger.

You kind of made the point of "......people kill people"

That said, I agree with your post that we need to fix this problem. Rapid unemployment and lack of direction growing up all contribute to people going bat#### crazy with no morals or regard for human life.

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

People don't have the right to own cocaine or heroin. Pretty sure that doesn't stop anyone who wants to use them.

 

[Clifford]

I think we all can agree no citizens should be able to have pipe bombs, grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, or Claymore Mines. Why is that? I mean what's more effective than Claymore mines to protect your house. Post a sign out front that says this house is protected by Claymore Mines...proceed at your own risk. Or using a few grenades to do some sport fishing. Dead fish float up and you scoop them up and eat for weeks.

I state crazy talk like this, because some guns have no place in society. Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away. Just like normal people don't own pipe bombs.

Let's at least start down a path that says we are trying to fix this problem. Just ignoring it with stupid phrases like guns don't kill people, people kill people make no sense. Because if that was true, we should all be able to go buy our grenades. I have never seen a grenade injure someone that was not tossed by a person.

Exactly.I have never seen a gun kill someone without a person pulling the trigger.

You kind of made the point of "......people kill people"

That said, I agree with your post that we need to fix this problem. Rapid unemployment and lack of direction growing up all contribute to people going bat#### crazy with no morals or regard for human life.

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

Right, and I agree certain guns should be banned. But if you ban all guns, only criminals and killers will have them. It's a saying most people who wants guns banned hate to hear, but it's more truth than fiction.

If pro-gun crowd doesn't embrace some form of reasonable change (like psychological background checks, fingerprint-activated handles, and micro-stamping) then this might just happen. I for one am ready to give it a try.

 

[ATC1]

It's actually pretty simple, the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is spot on.

The hand wringers think that once all guns are banned the criminals will hand over their guns because it's illegal. Ridiculous.

What percent of criminal acts are stopped or somehow prevented by armed citizens? I know you don't have a percentage and can't because it would be something around .0001%So the argument of loose gun control laws stopping crime is bull####.

After Aurora I proposed that anyone who wants to acquire a gun have to go through a psychological check as well as a background check. The first should be a call to the person's medical insurance to see if they covered any psychological drugs or counselling. If either is found the person would have to wait while the seller talked to the counselor or dr. who prescribed the drugs. If either felt that the person posed any sort of risks to other or himself, he/she would not be able to purchase a gun and be put on a police watch-list for attempting to purchase a gun.

I was laughed off this board because of concerns around what it would take to build the infrastructure to execute and the invasion of privacy.

I wonder how people feel about those concerns now.

I'll take that, and if I can get more people to realize that you should not fear guns, but be familiar with them, then it could climb higher.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

like I wrote before.. just because something is illegal doesnt mean you cant obtain it. A person who wants to kill unsuspecting people will most likely succeed by any means.

So because you can't completely eliminate it you shouldn't even try?

 

[Statcruncher]

Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away.

I don't know which sentence is more ridiculous.

 

[ATC1]

I think we all can agree no citizens should be able to have pipe bombs, grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, or Claymore Mines. Why is that? I mean what's more effective than Claymore mines to protect your house. Post a sign out front that says this house is protected by Claymore Mines...proceed at your own risk. Or using a few grenades to do some sport fishing. Dead fish float up and you scoop them up and eat for weeks.

I state crazy talk like this, because some guns have no place in society. Assault Rifles, Rapid shooting guns, etc. What's the point of allowing citizens to own these except to be used for killing lots of people. Make the penalty for owning this type of gun severe and they will go away. Just like normal people don't own pipe bombs.

Let's at least start down a path that says we are trying to fix this problem. Just ignoring it with stupid phrases like guns don't kill people, people kill people make no sense. Because if that was true, we should all be able to go buy our grenades. I have never seen a grenade injure someone that was not tossed by a person.

Exactly.I have never seen a gun kill someone without a person pulling the trigger.

You kind of made the point of "......people kill people"

That said, I agree with your post that we need to fix this problem. Rapid unemployment and lack of direction growing up all contribute to people going bat#### crazy with no morals or regard for human life.

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

Right, and I agree certain guns should be banned. But if you ban all guns, only criminals and killers will have them. It's a saying most people who wants guns banned hate to hear, but it's more truth than fiction.

If pro-gun crowd doesn't embrace some form of reasonable change (like psychological background checks, fingerprint-activated handles, and micro-stamping) then this might just happen. I for one am ready to give it a try.

It can be as simple as a Yes/No. When a check is made if a person can own/carry a gun, all that needs to be put into the system is a name and if they have a record, mental issue or prescribed certain drugs they would get a no. Some would still consider it a breach of confidentiality, but no specific information is given.

 

[kface]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

The difference is all those kids in china are alive. Guns make it way to easy to kill a lot of people quick and if we can all agree that there seem to be quite a few sick people in society then making it harder for them to do this kind of destruction seems like the only common sense answer.

 

[Statcruncher]

It's actually pretty simple, the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is spot on.

The hand wringers think that once all guns are banned the criminals will hand over their guns because it's illegal. Ridiculous.

Then why don't we see more mass stabbings?

My link

I think the "Injures" part of the headline is kind of relevant to this debate. It's a very different headline than "Kills."

So then, you're part of the crowd that believes if all guns are banned, these problems will go away?Again, I wish my world was as simple as yours.

No, I'm not part of that crowd. But if you're putting up a stabbing of 22 elementary school kids as a correlary to what happened today, I'd say it's also relevant that those kids aren't dead.

Did you guys read the whole article or just the headline?

Security at China's schools has been increased in recent years following a spate of similar knife attacks in which nearly 20 children have been killed.

 

[kface]

It's actually pretty simple, the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is spot on.

The hand wringers think that once all guns are banned the criminals will hand over their guns because it's illegal. Ridiculous.

Then why don't we see more mass stabbings?

My link

I think the "Injures" part of the headline is kind of relevant to this debate. It's a very different headline than "Kills."

So then, you're part of the crowd that believes if all guns are banned, these problems will go away?Again, I wish my world was as simple as yours.

No, I'm not part of that crowd. But if you're putting up a stabbing of 22 elementary school kids as a correlary to what happened today, I'd say it's also relevant that those kids aren't dead.

Did you guys read the whole article or just the headline?

Security at China's schools has been increased in recent years following a spate of similar knife attacks in which nearly 20 children have been killed.

SO over the years 20 children have been killed and over many incidences....so lets give all these guys with knives an ar-15 and unlimited ammution...how do you think that sentence would read?

 

[Sweet Feet]

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

like I wrote before.. just because something is illegal doesnt mean you cant obtain it. A person who wants to kill unsuspecting people will most likely succeed by any means.

So because you can't completely eliminate it you shouldn't even try?

I'm not saying that.. I just feel that its an extremely difficult area to curb especially when you're dealing with people who are willing to die to achieve their goal.

 

[kface]

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

like I wrote before.. just because something is illegal doesnt mean you cant obtain it. A person who wants to kill unsuspecting people will most likely succeed by any means.

So because you can't completely eliminate it you shouldn't even try?

I'm not saying that.. I just feel that its an extremely difficult area to curb especially when you're dealing with people who are willing to die to achieve their goal.

This is the worst arguement of them all...these people aren't mobsters, they don't know how to connect to the criminal underground. They are mentally disturbed people and most would struggle to find something if it was illegal and might just decide that taking their own life is just the easiest way. People are generally cowards and you can be a coward and open up fire on innocents and then kill yourself. It takes a lot of gall to try and do this with any other weapon.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Except citizens can't own grenades. See the irony. You don't have the right to own a grenade. It's the law. That's the same logic a lot of guns should be banned. They have no place in society.

like I wrote before.. just because something is illegal doesnt mean you cant obtain it. A person who wants to kill unsuspecting people will most likely succeed by any means.

So because you can't completely eliminate it you shouldn't even try?

I'm not saying that.. I just feel that its an extremely difficult area to curb especially when you're dealing with people who are willing to die to achieve their goal.

This is the worst arguement of them all...these people aren't mobsters, they don't know how to connect to the criminal underground. They are mentally disturbed people and most would struggle to find something if it was illegal and might just decide that taking their own life is just the easiest way. People are generally cowards and you can be a coward and open up fire on innocents and then kill yourself. It takes a lot of gall to try and do this with any other weapon.

ok. how about this.. guns and or explosives are not hard to get or make illegally. I wont argue but you're obviously in the dark about the accessibility to weapons.

 

[Clifford]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

 

[ATC1]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

That is not the point. It would be harder for them to do so.

 

[Vision6]

If there was a magic button to eliminate all guns from existence, I'm all for pressing it.

Unfortunately that doesn't exist.

Taking away the gun rights from every sane American won't prevent a crazy person from getting his hands on one.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

That is not the point. It would be harder for them to do so.

Yes harder but it won't stop them from getting one if they want to.

 

[Rayderr]

Just throwing this in here. Picture of the type of gun used .223 caliber rifle

en

Police have recovered two weapons from the suspect, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, the source said. It's unclear if police killed the suspect.

both of those are handguns.

It's what the AP is reporting now.

Ok, CNN still isn't reporting that on their website. Of course, that tweet is still rather misleading since I haven't even seen AP mention the make and model. This is also a .233 caliber rifle. That said, what I don't understand about this and the Mall shooting, and even COlumbine, how the hell do these people get in carrying a rifle. Loughner used a handgun which you can conceal. Holmes parked his car right next to an emergency exit. So how are these people able to just walk into the building carrying rifles, which really can't be concealed?

 

[kface]

If there was a magic button to eliminate all guns from existence, I'm all for pressing it.Unfortunately that doesn't exist. Taking away the gun rights from every sane American won't prevent a crazy person from getting his hands on one.

Come to canada and try and get an illegal fire arm...it is very difficult.

 

[ATC1]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

That is not the point. It would be harder for them to do so.

Yes harder but it won't stop them from getting one if they want to.

If it stops one, it will be enough?

 

[fatkid]

I akin gun control and drug control and alcohol control as similar problems with similar solutions. We can't ban either activity without a significant underworld economy developing. But we can estimate the cost of damage those activities cause in society. Then we can legalize them, and tax them such that the cost of damage is covered by the income raised in taxes.

If someone wants to argue that it will cost 10 trillion dollars to implement security measures at schools or public areas to prevent weapons. Fine. Lets implement them, and pass the costs allong to gun owners in the form of taxes on guns and ammunition sales.

We will never fully prevent these types of crimes. They are too random, and humans are too smart, and with 300 million people, some of them will be crazy. But by taking actions, we can change the balance. I think we all agree the balance today is too far towards random violence. We need a reasonable goal of restoring the balance through policies our government can actually enforce.

 

[Clifford]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW.

Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.

Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.

Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.

This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.

We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.

Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

OF COURSE I DO. Did you read anything that I wrote? No measure to stop anything is 100% effective. If we stop one of these with psychological checks, 1, then it's worth it. How easy is it to steal a gun? Where can you go right now and buy a gun illegaly?Furthermore, if someone tries to buy a gun and are denied for any reason, they should immediately be reported to local authorities and receive an immediate visit from police asking them why they wanted to purchase a gun. This would allow for a site visit, and the cops detected something suspicious, they could get a warrant.

But again, not one single pro-gun person ever expressed even a modicum of support for exploring the idea, even though it would not prevent any sane, non-violent person from owning a gun.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I akin gun control and drug control and alcohol control as similar problems with similar solutions. We can't ban either activity without a significant underworld economy developing. But we can estimate the cost of damage those activities cause in society. Then we can legalize them, and tax them such that the cost of damage is covered by the income raised in taxes.

Because the 'cost' is just about the dollars and cents and not blood and tears.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

Of course not. It would be illegal.

 

[lod01]

Make guns illegal and they will be just like drugs. The idiots can still get drugs. They will still be able to get guns. There is nothing to debate.

 

[Rayderr]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW.

Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.

Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.

Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.

This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.

We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.

Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

Of course not. It would be illegal.

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

 

[shader]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

 

[Vision6]

If there was a magic button to eliminate all guns from existence, I'm all for pressing it.Unfortunately that doesn't exist. Taking away the gun rights from every sane American won't prevent a crazy person from getting his hands on one.

Come to canada and try and get an illegal fire arm...it is very difficult.

I'm sure it is. Does that mean no one dies from guns in Canada ever?

 

[ATC1]

But again, not one single pro-gun person ever expressed even a modicum of support for exploring the idea, even though it would not prevent any sane, non-violent person from owning a gun.

 

[Vision6]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW.

Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.

Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.

Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.

This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.

We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.

Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

Of course not. It would be illegal.

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

*A Straw man appears*

 

[Rayderr]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

 

[Rayderr]

But again, not one single pro-gun person ever expressed even a modicum of support for exploring the idea, even though it would not prevent any sane, non-violent person from owning a gun.

I mentioned it in the other thread.

 

[shader]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea. But a gun like this:http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301Is it legal? If so, why?I honestly am just inquiring.

 

[Clifford]

OK, one more time to the "Do nothing because there is no cure-all" posters. You've had your say. Your arguments are not only insensitive the dead kids and their parents, they are just plain ####### stupid. They are made as if the poster has complete ignorance of every other security and safety measure ever imposed in human history, so not only are they insensitive AND stupid they are intellectually dishonest. So if you have come here to post that we can never enact any gun control measures because it won't stop 100% of crime or criminals or shootings or murders, SHUT THE #### UP. You are part of the problem and part of the culture that has again and again turned a blind eye to obvious and workable solutions that might curb 5, 10, or maybe even 15% of these crimes. You are the ones opposing micro-stamping which every p;ice precinct in the world has asked for. You are the ones opposing more extensive background checks that would have at least given us a chance to catch some of these ####ed up #######s.

So please, if you are here to make this insensitive, stupid, and intellectually dishonest point, GTFO. Vision6 I am looking at you. Quit trolling.

 

[Rayderr]

Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal.

Sure there are. There are people who think they should be able to take any substance they want. "make all drugs legal" pulls up over 80,000 results on google.

People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

No we're not. Do not confused semi-automatic rifle with assault rifle. I understand the confusion. It's what the anti-gun groups intended when they started referring to semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons.

 

[Statcruncher]

It's actually pretty simple, the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is spot on.

The hand wringers think that once all guns are banned the criminals will hand over their guns because it's illegal. Ridiculous.

What percent of criminal acts are stopped or somehow prevented by armed citizens? I know you don't have a percentage and can't because it would be something around .0001%So the argument of loose gun control laws stopping crime is bull####.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article with some homocide stats.. It says that there were 165,068 murders between 2000-2010 in all states except Florida. It breaks those out into homocides and justified homocides (felon killed). The justified homocides category is further broken into 2 categories; felon killed by police and felon killed by citizens. Of the 6,662 felons killed police killed 4,081 felons and private citizens killed 2,581.

JUSTIFIED HOMOCIDES

4,081 Felons killed by police

2,405 Victim attacked police officer

675 Victim killed in commission of a crime

369 Not enough information to determine

250 Victim attacked fellow police officer

177 Victim resisted arrest

131 Victim attempted flight from a crime

90 Victim attacked a civilian

2,581 Felons killed by a private citizen

1,329 Victim killed in commission of a crime

967 Victim attacked a civilian

206 Not enough information to determine

41 Victim attacked police officer

23 Victim attempted flight from a crime

9 Victim attacked fellow police officer

7 Victim resisted arrest

Interesting to note that twice as many felons were killed in the commission of a crime by private citizens than by police. I don't have overall crime statistics to figure out percentages, but aren't you the one touting that just saving one life would be worth it? Private citizens who are armed have justifiably killed over 2,500 felons, over half of those during the crime. Isn't it possible that stricter gun laws would actually increase innocent deaths if it reduces the firearms in the hands of private citizens?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Plenty of people, including a lot of prominent posters in the FFA, support legalizing other drugs like meth and heroin and cocaine. I do.

 

[Clifford]

It's actually pretty simple, the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is spot on.

The hand wringers think that once all guns are banned the criminals will hand over their guns because it's illegal. Ridiculous.

What percent of criminal acts are stopped or somehow prevented by armed citizens? I know you don't have a percentage and can't because it would be something around .0001%So the argument of loose gun control laws stopping crime is bull####.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article with some homocide stats.. It says that there were 165,068 murders between 2000-2010 in all states except Florida. It breaks those out into homocides and justified homocides (felon killed). The justified homocides category is further broken into 2 categories; felon killed by police and felon killed by citizens. Of the 6,662 felons killed police killed 4,081 felons and private citizens killed 2,581.

JUSTIFIED HOMOCIDES

4,081 Felons killed by police<br clear="all">2,405 Victim attacked police officer675 Victim killed in commission of a crime369 Not enough information to determine250 Victim attacked fellow police officer177 Victim resisted arrest131 Victim attempted flight from a crime90 Victim attacked a civilian

2,581 Felons killed by a private citizen<br clear="all">1,329 Victim killed in commission of a crime

967 Victim attacked a civilian

206 Not enough information to determine

41 Victim attacked police officer

23 Victim attempted flight from a crime

9 Victim attacked fellow police officer

7 Victim resisted arrest

Interesting to note that twice as many felons were killed in the commission of a crime by private citizens than by police. I don't have overall crime statistics to figure out percentages, but aren't you the one touting that just saving one life would be worth it? Private citizens who are armed have justifiably killed over 2,500 felons, over half of those during the crime. Isn't it possible that stricter gun laws would actually increase innocent deaths if it reduces the firearms in the hands of private citizens?

No because smarter gun control would still allow sane, law-abiding nonviolent citizens to have guns. It would make it much harder for those that are mentally ill to get guns and those that express violent points of view to get guns.

 

[ATC1]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea.

But a gun like this:

http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301

Is it legal? If so, why?

I honestly am just inquiring.

Reasons I can think of include having fun shooting it at the range with friends, showing friends yours is bigger and cooler, and my favorite being, "Because I can as an American."But not knowing and advocating gun laws is a problem.

 

[Rayderr]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea. But a gun like this:http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301Is it legal? If so, why?I honestly am just inquiring.

Can't judge a gun by it's looks. Yeah it looks real scary. But a lot of scary guns are really piss poor. The term "assault weapon" was introduced by gun control groups to get people to confuse semi-automatic weapons with assault rifles and other fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic is a machine gun. You hold down the trigger, and it just shoots one bullet after another. Semiautomatic ejects the casing after firing, and loads the next bullet. The shooter has to release the trigger and pull the trigger again to fire another single shot.

 

[Clifford]

SO ATC1 has said he would favor psychological background checks and he is thus far the first self-described pro-gun person to say so. Anyone else want to voice an opinion on this?

 

[shader]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea. But a gun like this:http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301Is it legal? If so, why?I honestly am just inquiring.

Can't judge a gun by it's looks. Yeah it looks real scary. But a lot of scary guns are really piss poor. The term "assault weapon" was introduced by gun control groups to get people to confuse semi-automatic weapons with assault rifles and other fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic is a machine gun. You hold down the trigger, and it just shoots one bullet after another. Semiautomatic ejects the casing after firing, and loads the next bullet. The shooter has to release the trigger and pull the trigger again to fire another single shot.

So the gun I linked is used for hunting?

 

[shader]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea.

But a gun like this:

http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301

Is it legal? If so, why?

I honestly am just inquiring.

Reasons I can think of include having fun shooting it at the range with friends, showing friends yours is bigger and cooler, and my favorite being, "Because I can as an American."But not knowing and advocating gun laws is a problem.

I'm not advocating gun laws. I just don't understand why a person would own certain types of guns.

 

[Abraham]

Dodds spot on. Make it a 5-10 year felony if you are caught possessing an assault rifle.

 

[ATC1]

SO ATC1 has said he would favor psychological background checks and he is thus far the first self-described pro-gun person to say so. Anyone else want to voice an opinion on this?

I think we can agree that some areas require stricter gun laws while other areas can be looser?

 

[Rayderr]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea. But a gun like this:

http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301

Is it legal? If so, why?

I honestly am just inquiring.

Can't judge a gun by it's looks. Yeah it looks real scary. But a lot of scary guns are really piss poor. The term "assault weapon" was introduced by gun control groups to get people to confuse semi-automatic weapons with assault rifles and other fully automatic weapons.

Fully automatic is a machine gun. You hold down the trigger, and it just shoots one bullet after another. Semiautomatic ejects the casing after firing, and loads the next bullet. The shooter has to release the trigger and pull the trigger again to fire another single shot.

So the gun I linked is used for hunting?

yes.