***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

 

[tommyboy]

my take on all this is we should have more guns. I'd love to go shopping at a mall where 50% of the patrons were carrying concealed weapons. At least if some dude tried to pull the #### that happened this week in Portland he'd have multiple defenders within 100ft that could have blasted him immediately.

Same with these schools, Virginia Tech was a no-gun school. I'm sure this grade school, no one had a weapon. If the teachers and staff were packing, this guy would have been dead a lot sooner with alot less bloodshed. If 50% of the Virginia Tech population had guns on them at all times, likewise doubtful someones gonna go in there and have a shooting gallery unabated.

To me the real answer isn't guns though, its our sick society. We've lost innocence and its sad

 

[eoMMan]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

My point is why are we even talking about assault weapons right now? Did you see how much damage can be done with 9MM hand guns? It's not the guns. It's the whackos using the guns in a malicious manner.

 

[sporthenry]

I'm all for additional restrictions and/or administrative hoops to make gun ownership more difficult and regulated. It can't hurt and IMO I haven't heard a serious argument against it.But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

Studies I've seen have been conclusive on suicides as well as accidental deaths. As far as homicide rates/gun control, studies haven't been able to isolate the variables. There isn't anything conclusive on either side so it isn't like homicide rate goes down with more guns. People will cite the basic numbers but there is nothing which actually proves this and economists/psychologists point to a bunch of reasons like incarceration rates and gentrification in certain areas.

 

[Rayderr]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

You can not currently own an assault rifle (aka fully automatic)

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Judging by your posts around here you seem to have an anger issue, you intentionally violate of the terms of service of this board, and the prayer statement in the other thread, I'd put you on the top of the list of people the feds need to check out for psychological problems.

 

[timschochet]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:

I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.

Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

 

[sporthenry]

my take on all this is we should have more guns. I'd love to go shopping at a mall where 50% of the patrons were carrying concealed weapons. At least if some dude tried to pull the #### that happened this week in Portland he'd have multiple defenders within 100ft that could have blasted him immediately.Same with these schools, Virginia Tech was a no-gun school. I'm sure this grade school, no one had a weapon. If the teachers and staff were packing, this guy would have been dead a lot sooner with alot less bloodshed. If 50% of the Virginia Tech population had guns on them at all times, likewise doubtful someones gonna go in there and have a shooting gallery unabated.To me the real answer isn't guns though, its our sick society. We've lost innocence and its sad

Yep more guns. Imagine the shooter is in the middle of a group of people. The guy directly across from you pulls out a gun and fired 8 shots at the guy. Odds are, 1 of those shots misses and hits you. You fire 8 shots, you miss with a few . Now all of a sudden, we've got 10 murderers on our hands. Remember the NY situation when the cops accidentally shot some bystanders? And those guys are trained professionals. Sorry if I don't want grandma and grandpa and Joe the Plumber shooting guns. And then what happens when the police come? Remember Columbine when they were arresting all the kids who came out b/c they weren't sure who was the shooter? Well imagine the police walk in and see you shooting. What do you think they do?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Just a few brief thoughts.

I don't think this is a "bad time" to have a discussion on gun control. Any time is a decent time, IMO. I'm not sure the context of this tragedy is the best argument in favor of gun control, though.

When something like this, or the 2011 Norway shooting, happens, it's easy to play the what if game. "What if it been harder for the shooter to get a gun?" "What if the victims had been armed?" Those are particularly lousy questions to ask when we're talking public policy. My guess is that these types of events are exactly the types that would be least likely to be eliminated by gun control. Motivated, disturbed people can probably find a way.

For a lot of Americans, however, gun violence isn't something that just comes up with something like this happens. It's a disturbingly ubiquitious part of their lives. When guns are all around, gun violence is greater possibility. We've had time to study the effects of the Brady Bill and similar state background checks. You can go to the Brady center or the NRA and read the different takes on studies. It certainly seems to me, however, that these relatively modest regulations have done at least a bit to curb gun violence (which has fallen fairly significantly since the mid 90s).

Certainly how we balance gun control with the Second Amendment is a concern, but it's a worthwhile conversation to have. Because it's only been recognized as an individual right recently, we don't have satisfying case law on the acceptable limitations of the right, as opposed to say the First or Fourth Amendments where we have hundreds of years of caselaw. What seems clear, to me, is that it makes no sense to treat the right to bear arms as unconditionally and inviolately as the NRA advocates. That would prejudice it over all the other Constitutional rights we don't treat that way.

 

[sporthenry]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

You can not currently own an assault rifle (aka fully automatic)

You can but the restrictions are very tight. Why not have similar restrictions for a semi automatic?

 

[Rayderr]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

 

[Clifford]

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.

Judging by your posts around here you seem to have an anger issue, you intentionally violate of the terms of service of this board, and the prayer statement in the other thread, I'd put you on the top of the list of people the feds need to check out for psychological problems.

So anger and questioning God are not appropriate emotions and thoughts today?

 

[BassNBrew]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

You can not currently own an assault rifle (aka fully automatic)

You can but the restrictions are very tight. Why not have similar restrictions for a semi automatic?

Pretty much every gun is a semi-auto from my .22 cal rifle to most pistols.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Judging by your posts around here you seem to have an anger issue, you intentionally violate of the terms of service of this board, and the prayer statement in the other thread, I'd put you on the top of the list of people the feds need to check out for psychological problems.

So anger and questioning God are not appropriate emotions and thoughts today?

Just emotions and thoughts of someone I'd put into let's keep a close eye on and check to see if he owns any guns. Definately would be "fail" criteria for the gun purchase background check you propose.1. Admitted anger.2. Disregarding established forum rules.3. Anger/questioning god.You may be a great guy, but if I have to give and up/down on allowing you to purchase a gun today it would be the down.

 

[Rayderr]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

You can not currently own an assault rifle (aka fully automatic)

You can but the restrictions are very tight. Why not have similar restrictions for a semi automatic?

Civilian assault rifles have not been made since 1986. Some states have allowed owners to keep theirs if they had one prior to FOPA. Even prior to that, they were highly regulated by the ATF, so there just aren't many out there, and you can't go out and get one now for civilian use.

 

[sporthenry]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

 

[sporthenry]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

So you don't think assault rifles should be banned? What is the point of owning an assault rifle? As Dodds points out earlier, why can't I own an RPG then? Where is the line drawn?

You can not currently own an assault rifle (aka fully automatic)

You can but the restrictions are very tight. Why not have similar restrictions for a semi automatic?

Civilian assault rifles have not been made since 1986. Some states have allowed owners to keep theirs if they had one prior to FOPA. Even prior to that, they were highly regulated by the ATF, so there just aren't many out there, and you can't go out and get one now for civilian use.

And the point being, some semi-automatics act very similar to automatics and are made just like them. What does someone need an AR-15 for? B/c they enjoy shooting them? Well I enjoy throwing grenades but I can't do that. It is the price we pay. I'll sacrifice no AR-15 for a bit more safety.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

It's not about punishing the guys who can handle it. It's about the aggregrate benefit or harm. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say that 999,999 out of every 1,000,000 people that might enjoy collecting thermo-nuclear warheads wouldn't harm anyone. They aren't super into it. But it's a small little hobby that adds some bit of happiness to their day. But one out of every 1,000,000 can't handle it. And that one nutjob can cause more social disutility, all on his own, than the aggregate utility of everyone who enjoys collecting nukes. Assault rifles have declining marginal utility as sources of self defense over handguns. Not many people are attacked in their homes by the entire training camp squad of the Green Bay Packers. They provide some utility to nice guys who enjoy collecting guns. I don't judge. In the wrong hands, however, they cause all kinds of damage. And if it's too difficult or expensive to figure out a regulatory scheme that can let the nice guys build their displays in their rumpus room without keeping them out of the hands of some nutjob, then sorry. The hobbyists get screwed. I'm not saying I know the result of that calculus, but I do know that there is point where that interest in freedom doesn't prevail.

 

[SacramentoBob]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

It's good to know that facts have little meaning to you.

 

[sporthenry]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

It's good to know that facts have little meaning to you.

What facts?

 

[timschochet]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that we have to be very careful about making public policy decisions based on events like these.Look, I have two young daughters in school right now. I feel absolutely horrible about what happened today. But when I remove emotion from it then I know that nothing that happened this morning has made my kids any less safe, and that it's extremely unlikely that any gun control laws are going to make my kids any more safe.

 

[jafo]

Do people even know the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle? Or do you accept what the media spoon feeds you as fact?

 

[Neovivo]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

This is why there is never any serious headway into this matter. I am sure that your fine upstanding police office friend Derek would give up his assault rifles in a heartbeat if it would save 1 person. Derek can find a new hobby.

 

[BassNBrew]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

This is why there is never any serious headway into this matter. I am sure that your fine upstanding police office friend Derek would give up his assault rifles in a heartbeat if it would save 1 person. Derek can find a new hobby.

Assuming you drink alcohol, would you support prohibition if it saved one person?

 

[Rayderr]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

 

[sporthenry]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

As some #####e commented on a friends sympathy post, "D. Wesley Leek-Nobody's life is worth my freedom to carry guns. And Israel has students and teach carry guns at school and they have zero shootings. MORE GUNS LESS CRIME!!!"

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-downI'm not very familiar with Israeli gun control laws.

First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.

But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.

However, once those soldiers finish their service two or three years later, they are subject to civilian gun control regulations that are much stricter than American laws.

In fact, it’s pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in last week’s massacre in Aurora, Colo. James E. Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 in the Aurora movie theater, legally bought the firearms he used, according to reports, including a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol and a 12-gauge shotgun. Leading up to the shooting, Holmes had bought thousands of bullets online.

In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.

Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted.

In 2008, 143 people in Israel died from firearms, according to the website gunpolicy.org.

“They don’t recruit everyone,” said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. “If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged.”

Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks.

He said that gun massacres don’t occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners.

“It’s not guns that kill, it’s people that kill,” Nedivi said. “If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don’t get a chance to get a gun.”

Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue.

“We think the society is over-armed,” said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. “There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings.”

Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law.

“The private police companies offer an illusion of security,” Ben-Natan said. “They’re not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don’t bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot.”

For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.

So it doesn't seem to be as easy as more guns, less crimes.

 

[BassNBrew]

In 2010 10,228 people died in dui accidents. 10,228 / 365 = 28 per day.

 

[timschochet]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

It's not about punishing the guys who can handle it. It's about the aggregrate benefit or harm. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say that 999,999 out of every 1,000,000 people that might enjoy collecting thermo-nuclear warheads wouldn't harm anyone. They aren't super into it. But it's a small little hobby that adds some bit of happiness to their day. But one out of every 1,000,000 can't handle it. And that one nutjob can cause more social disutility, all on his own, than the aggregate utility of everyone who enjoys collecting nukes.Assault rifles have declining marginal utility as sources of self defense over handguns. Not many people are attacked in their homes by the entire training camp squad of the Green Bay Packers. They provide some utility to nice guys who enjoy collecting guns. I don't judge. In the wrong hands, however, they cause all kinds of damage. And if it's too difficult or expensive to figure out a regulatory scheme that can let the nice guys build their displays in their rumpus room without keeping them out of the hands of some nutjob, then sorry. The hobbyists get screwed. I'm not saying I know the result of that calculus, but I do know that there is point where that interest in freedom doesn't prevail.

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think convicted felons or mentally ill people should be allowed to own any kind of firearm. I have no idea how I would enforce this idea against mentally ill people, but in terms of convicted felons, I have proposed closing the loophole in our current laws which allow private sales and transfers of firearms without notifying public authorities. This proposal has been ridiculed and argued against by a lot of people in here, but I remain convinced that it's workable. I don't think that it would be too difficult or expensive- but if I agreed with your premise, then I might also have to agree with your ultimate conclusion that the only solution is a ban. Right now I don't accept that.

 

[sporthenry]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

 

[Neovivo]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

This is why there is never any serious headway into this matter. I am sure that your fine upstanding police office friend Derek would give up his assault rifles in a heartbeat if it would save 1 person. Derek can find a new hobby.

Assuming you drink alcohol, would you support prohibition if it saved one person?

yes

 

[hammerva]

Can someone please explain why the people who believe that you should carry loaded weapons anywhere you want feel the need to have them concealed. I mean if you are the "law abiding responsible" citizen that you claim to be then why are you worried about hiding it? And if the purpose of arming everyone like a ####### video game wouldn't you want then to actually see the weapon to make them think twice?

If you want to treat this world like a first person shooter game that is fine by me but don't hide it from us. Let us know that you have a loaded weapon in the bar, library, church, and school so I can get the #### away from you

 

[timschochet]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

This is why there is never any serious headway into this matter. I am sure that your fine upstanding police office friend Derek would give up his assault rifles in a heartbeat if it would save 1 person. Derek can find a new hobby.

Before I ask him the question, I would first have to understand how Derek giving up his rifle would save 1 person. If you can convince me that this assertion makes any sense at all, then I will put the question to him next time I see him. Would you give up beer if you knew that it might save someone from a drunk driving tragedy?

 

[Brony]

In 2010 10,228 people died in dui accidents. 10,228 / 365 = 28 per day.

9 out of 10 fat chicks (=90%) support alcohol having benefit to society.

 

[Neovivo]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

This is why there is never any serious headway into this matter. I am sure that your fine upstanding police office friend Derek would give up his assault rifles in a heartbeat if it would save 1 person. Derek can find a new hobby.

Before I ask him the question, I would first have to understand how Derek giving up his rifle would save 1 person. If you can convince me that this assertion makes any sense at all, then I will put the question to him next time I see him. Would you give up beer if you knew that it might save someone from a drunk driving tragedy?

Yes on the beer.Oh, and the Oregon mall shooter...The weapon used in the shooting was an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office said was stolen the day before from an acquaintance of the killer.

 

[BassNBrew]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think convicted felons or mentally ill people should be allowed to own any kind of firearm. I have no idea how I would enforce this idea against mentally ill people, but in terms of convicted felons, I have proposed closing the loophole in our current laws which allow private sales and transfers of firearms without notifying public authorities. This proposal has been ridiculed and argued against by a lot of people in here, but I remain convinced that it's workable. I don't think that it would be too difficult or expensive- but if I agreed with your premise, then I might also have to agree with your ultimate conclusion that the only solution is a ban. Right now I don't accept that.

I didn't make an ultimate conclusion. I don't pretend to know whether banning semi-automatic rifles is advantageous. I was simply pointing out that when the argument against increased regulation is that it infringes on the freedom of hobbyists, you're not acknowledging the incredible delta between the utility (I imagine it's roughly equivalent to collecting stamps) and the potential disutilty.We all recognize that with nukes. I imagine we do with lots of weapons. Bazookas, stinger missile launchers, fully automatic assault rifles. Once you're moving out of the range of the (admittedly significant) liberty interest in a plausible form of self-defense, you're fighting a much, much harder battle. After that guns are like stamps or anything else. Collect them all you want unless we find that stamp collecting is causing a bunch of social harm.

 

[Don Quixote]

my take on all this is we should have more guns. I'd love to go shopping at a mall where 50% of the patrons were carrying concealed weapons. At least if some dude tried to pull the #### that happened this week in Portland he'd have multiple defenders within 100ft that could have blasted him immediately.Same with these schools, Virginia Tech was a no-gun school. I'm sure this grade school, no one had a weapon. If the teachers and staff were packing, this guy would have been dead a lot sooner with alot less bloodshed. If 50% of the Virginia Tech population had guns on them at all times, likewise doubtful someones gonna go in there and have a shooting gallery unabated.To me the real answer isn't guns though, its our sick society. We've lost innocence and its sad

Yep more guns. Imagine the shooter is in the middle of a group of people. The guy directly across from you pulls out a gun and fired 8 shots at the guy. Odds are, 1 of those shots misses and hits you. You fire 8 shots, you miss with a few . Now all of a sudden, we've got 10 murderers on our hands. Remember the NY situation when the cops accidentally shot some bystanders? And those guys are trained professionals. Sorry if I don't want grandma and grandpa and Joe the Plumber shooting guns. And then what happens when the police come? Remember Columbine when they were arresting all the kids who came out b/c they weren't sure who was the shooter? Well imagine the police walk in and see you shooting. What do you think they do?

Not just police seeing someone shooting. If you have multiple people with guns, someone could pull out his gun as a defender, and suddenly others decide to shoot at him thinking that he is the menace. There'd probably be a lot of friendly fire casualties caused by people not sure who the real threat is, or thinking there is some kind of coordinated attack going on.

 

[sporthenry]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

Can't they just go to a gun show and purchase said gun? No doubt enforcement is also an issue but some of this enforcement issue comes from loopholes or different states having different laws.

 

[badmojo1006]

Contact your representative or Senators today to make your feelings known, however you fall on the issue

 

[Rayderr]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

Ideally, I'd love for handguns to be restricted to military and law enforcement, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one so it'll never happen. I've sid in other shooting threads that I think mental health professionals should be able to put people on a "no gun list" should they feel that the person is a potential danger (like Loughner, Cho and Holmes.) It won't stop all of these senseless killings (nothing will), but it'll stop a few, and it has no impact on the law abiding, sane gun buyers.

 

[sporthenry]

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think convicted felons or mentally ill people should be allowed to own any kind of firearm. I have no idea how I would enforce this idea against mentally ill people, but in terms of convicted felons, I have proposed closing the loophole in our current laws which allow private sales and transfers of firearms without notifying public authorities. This proposal has been ridiculed and argued against by a lot of people in here, but I remain convinced that it's workable. I don't think that it would be too difficult or expensive- but if I agreed with your premise, then I might also have to agree with your ultimate conclusion that the only solution is a ban. Right now I don't accept that.

I didn't make an ultimate conclusion. I don't pretend to know whether banning semi-automatic rifles is advantageous. I was simply pointing out that when the argument against increased regulation is that it infringes on the freedom of hobbyists, you're not acknowledging the incredible delta between the utility (I imagine it's roughly equivalent to collecting stamps) and the potential disutilty.We all recognize that with nukes. I imagine we do with lots of weapons. Bazookas, stinger missile launchers, fully automatic assault rifles. Once you're moving out of the range of the (admittedly significant) liberty interest in a plausible form of self-defense, you're fighting a much, much harder battle. After that guns are like stamps or anything else. Collect them all you want unless we find that stamp collecting is causing a bunch of social harm.

If only I could be as rational and well spoken as you sometimes.

 

[Clifford]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

Ideally, I'd love for handguns to be restricted to military and law enforcement, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one so it'll never happen. I've sid in other shooting threads that I think mental health professionals should be able to put people on a "no gun list" should they feel that the person is a potential danger (like Loughner, Cho and Holmes.) It won't stop all of these senseless killings (nothing will), but it'll stop a few, and it has no impact on the law abiding, sane gun buyers.

Curious, since you favor this would you oppose one step further down the line what I proposed, that you have to provide proof of medical insurance and that is used to determine whether the potential buyer is currently receiving treatment for a psychiatric condition?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think convicted felons or mentally ill people should be allowed to own any kind of firearm. I have no idea how I would enforce this idea against mentally ill people, but in terms of convicted felons, I have proposed closing the loophole in our current laws which allow private sales and transfers of firearms without notifying public authorities. This proposal has been ridiculed and argued against by a lot of people in here, but I remain convinced that it's workable. I don't think that it would be too difficult or expensive- but if I agreed with your premise, then I might also have to agree with your ultimate conclusion that the only solution is a ban. Right now I don't accept that.

I didn't make an ultimate conclusion. I don't pretend to know whether banning semi-automatic rifles is advantageous. I was simply pointing out that when the argument against increased regulation is that it infringes on the freedom of hobbyists, you're not acknowledging the incredible delta between the utility (I imagine it's roughly equivalent to collecting stamps) and the potential disutilty.We all recognize that with nukes. I imagine we do with lots of weapons. Bazookas, stinger missile launchers, fully automatic assault rifles. Once you're moving out of the range of the (admittedly significant) liberty interest in a plausible form of self-defense, you're fighting a much, much harder battle. After that guns are like stamps or anything else. Collect them all you want unless we find that stamp collecting is causing a bunch of social harm.

I agree with this.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think convicted felons or mentally ill people should be allowed to own any kind of firearm. I have no idea how I would enforce this idea against mentally ill people, but in terms of convicted felons, I have proposed closing the loophole in our current laws which allow private sales and transfers of firearms without notifying public authorities. This proposal has been ridiculed and argued against by a lot of people in here, but I remain convinced that it's workable. I don't think that it would be too difficult or expensive- but if I agreed with your premise, then I might also have to agree with your ultimate conclusion that the only solution is a ban. Right now I don't accept that.

I didn't make an ultimate conclusion. I don't pretend to know whether banning semi-automatic rifles is advantageous. I was simply pointing out that when the argument against increased regulation is that it infringes on the freedom of hobbyists, you're not acknowledging the incredible delta between the utility (I imagine it's roughly equivalent to collecting stamps) and the potential disutilty.We all recognize that with nukes. I imagine we do with lots of weapons. Bazookas, stinger missile launchers, fully automatic assault rifles. Once you're moving out of the range of the (admittedly significant) liberty interest in a plausible form of self-defense, you're fighting a much, much harder battle. After that guns are like stamps or anything else. Collect them all you want unless we find that stamp collecting is causing a bunch of social harm.

I agree with this.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

the idea of making assault rifles illegal is one that I cannot get behind. Here is my reasoning:

I have a friend named Derek who is a police officer. In the past he has owned, privately, a few semi-automatic rifles (not sure if he's owned an automatic rifle or not.) He owns these because he enjoys collecting them, and enjoys firing them at a shooting range. It's a hobby for him. Now me personally, I have no interest in such things. But Derek does. Derek is a fine man, who serves our community and keeps up safe. He has raised his children to be safe around firearms.

Why should Derek, and thousands of people like him, be prohibited from owning assault rifles? They're not the problem.

It's not about punishing the guys who can handle it. It's about the aggregrate benefit or harm. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say that 999,999 out of every 1,000,000 people that might enjoy collecting thermo-nuclear warheads wouldn't harm anyone. They aren't super into it. But it's a small little hobby that adds some bit of happiness to their day. But one out of every 1,000,000 can't handle it. And that one nutjob can cause more social disutility, all on his own, than the aggregate utility of everyone who enjoys collecting nukes.

Assault rifles have declining marginal utility as sources of self defense over handguns. Not many people are attacked in their homes by the entire training camp squad of the Green Bay Packers. They provide some utility to nice guys who enjoy collecting guns. I don't judge. In the wrong hands, however, they cause all kinds of damage. And if it's too difficult or expensive to figure out a regulatory scheme that can let the nice guys build their displays in their rumpus room without keeping them out of the hands of some nutjob, then sorry. The hobbyists get screwed. I'm not saying I know the result of that calculus, but I do know that there is point where that interest in freedom doesn't prevail.

I don't think your thought experiment works, because in the interests of society we cannot allow any private individual to own a nuclear bomb or any kind of bomb for that matter. Those are weapons I don't classify in the same category as a semi-automatic rifle.

Bombs are indiscriminate weapons.

 

[BassNBrew]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

Ideally, I'd love for handguns to be restricted to military and law enforcement, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one so it'll never happen. I've sid in other shooting threads that I think mental health professionals should be able to put people on a "no gun list" should they feel that the person is a potential danger (like Loughner, Cho and Holmes.) It won't stop all of these senseless killings (nothing will), but it'll stop a few, and it has no impact on the law abiding, sane gun buyers.

Curious, since you favor this would you oppose one step further down the line what I proposed, that you have to provide proof of medical insurance and that is used to determine whether the potential buyer is currently receiving treatment for a psychiatric condition?

Can I opt out by paying the fine/tax to the federal gov't?

 

[Rayderr]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

Ideally, I'd love for handguns to be restricted to military and law enforcement, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one so it'll never happen. I've sid in other shooting threads that I think mental health professionals should be able to put people on a "no gun list" should they feel that the person is a potential danger (like Loughner, Cho and Holmes.) It won't stop all of these senseless killings (nothing will), but it'll stop a few, and it has no impact on the law abiding, sane gun buyers.

Curious, since you favor this would you oppose one step further down the line what I proposed, that you have to provide proof of medical insurance and that is used to determine whether the potential buyer is currently receiving treatment for a psychiatric condition?

well, everyone is already going to be required to insurance. but no, only because treating someone for anxiety or gender identity disorder is not the same as someone being treated for paranoia schizophrenia or manic depression. And I think knowing that seeking help from a mental health professional would automatically result in gun removal would discourage people from seeking help in the first place. I have that concern with my own idea, but at least if it's on a case by case basis, people wouldn't be quite as discouraged.Court order mental health counseling should also result in being put on a no gun list.

 

[ATC1]

Can someone please explain why the people who believe that you should carry loaded weapons anywhere you want feel the need to have them concealed. I mean if you are the "law abiding responsible" citizen that you claim to be then why are you worried about hiding it? And if the purpose of arming everyone like a ####### video game wouldn't you want then to actually see the weapon to make them think twice?If you want to treat this world like a first person shooter game that is fine by me but don't hide it from us. Let us know that you have a loaded weapon in the bar, library, church, and school so I can get the #### away from you

You really should not be like this and you answered your own question. It's a real shame and I hope you consider to feel different in the future. LA has an open carry law. They are allowed too. Most people who can not get a concealed carry permit, but can own a gun can open carry...Which makes no sense to me, but whatever.There are a few reasons I rather conceal. Biggest is how I am viewed by someone like you. If I open carry, the last thing I want to do is 1. make someone uncomfortable - If I told half the people I talk to in stores that I was carrying I think they would avoid me all together. People should not be afraid of guns, but they are. 2. Increases the chance I am a victim. I am promoting a $4-500 gun for free on my hip. All you have to do is sneak behind me and get the upper hand. That gun can be stolen and used on me, my family or someone else.

 

[ATC1]

my take on all this is we should have more guns. I'd love to go shopping at a mall where 50% of the patrons were carrying concealed weapons. At least if some dude tried to pull the #### that happened this week in Portland he'd have multiple defenders within 100ft that could have blasted him immediately.Same with these schools, Virginia Tech was a no-gun school. I'm sure this grade school, no one had a weapon. If the teachers and staff were packing, this guy would have been dead a lot sooner with alot less bloodshed. If 50% of the Virginia Tech population had guns on them at all times, likewise doubtful someones gonna go in there and have a shooting gallery unabated.To me the real answer isn't guns though, its our sick society. We've lost innocence and its sad

Yep more guns. Imagine the shooter is in the middle of a group of people. The guy directly across from you pulls out a gun and fired 8 shots at the guy. Odds are, 1 of those shots misses and hits you. You fire 8 shots, you miss with a few . Now all of a sudden, we've got 10 murderers on our hands. Remember the NY situation when the cops accidentally shot some bystanders? And those guys are trained professionals. Sorry if I don't want grandma and grandpa and Joe the Plumber shooting guns. And then what happens when the police come? Remember Columbine when they were arresting all the kids who came out b/c they weren't sure who was the shooter? Well imagine the police walk in and see you shooting. What do you think they do?

Not just police seeing someone shooting. If you have multiple people with guns, someone could pull out his gun as a defender, and suddenly others decide to shoot at him thinking that he is the menace. There'd probably be a lot of friendly fire casualties caused by people not sure who the real threat is, or thinking there is some kind of coordinated attack going on.

People that use this argument have never been to a self defense class.ETA:It should be a requirement to anyone wanting to own a handgun IMO.

 

[Abraham]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.