Gun Control Debate thread

[StreetDoc]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Streetdoc, actually, I think you are somewhat correct here. While I dont advocate banning video games, movies etc, I do think we as a culture tend to glorify violence and the popularity of media violence is symptematic of an overall culture sickness. All I was really saying is that what we are seeing happening here at home is possibly a small reflectinon of what we are seeing in the world and seemingly condoning under the guise of "hey its war". I know these pieces of shit in Al Qaeda use children as human shields but I think sometimes we are too quick to sacrifice them. Sometimes the target is just not "valuable" enough to kill these innocent children. And you are right, it isnt just "big bad America", but worldwide, human beings seem to be loosing their ability to empathize with others. Look at the absolute misery that little Palestinian and Israeli children endure. When these kids are 5 and 6 years old; the same ages as the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, they dont know they are supposed to hate each yet. Little Palestinian kids and little Israeli kids are playing in the streets of Gaza one day and then shooting each other the next.

I am actually pretty much in agreement with you that gun control alone will solve very little. Your point is correct about guns having been a part of our culture but mass shooting being a new phenomenon in the past couple of decades. That is why I have said that while yes, I do support limitiming magazine capacities for all guns and outright banning some types of weapons, I have also voiced opposition to some of our Canadian friends who think all hand guns need to go. I also think gun control is just a part of the overall solution.

Hey at least we agree on something. For the record I wasn't trying to be a dick before either...

[sleev-les]

I said my piece in the Costas thread so I'm not going to go on the debate much in here. Except for this point:

Kid was 20. Not legal age to purchase guns. Where did he get them? Did his father have them? From what I read he was carrying multiple weapons. Again, at 20, where did he get them.... Now my pont.


"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

[slyder]

Snowolf, well spoken points as usual.

My opinion on the magazine capacity varies and you/others make solid points for limitations. Again I'm on the fence here no specific reason really....
With all that mentioned, speed loaders for revolvers are quite quick to reload. Yes a delay and that 10 seconds could mean the bad guy being dead from police or civilian.

Handguns and rifles are a much faster reload as you obviously know. I"m not sure how much a magazine limit would help. The Columbine shooting the kid had thirteen 10-round magazines, where he fired about a 100 rounds.
Again I don't have a strong or rational point here just reading, pondering the possible solutions, and praying for the families.

The shooting close to my own city opened eyes even though it was on a much smaller scale and really stemmed from a domestic situation. Much like many of these mass shootings seem to stem from an issue in ones personal life, bullying, divorce, job loss. Some of these people owned the guns others bought them off the streets.
As many have stated there needs to be a multifaceted approach as one solution/rule/law is not the answer.
Will schools and malls now be locked down in security like airports??? Could this be coming, I don't know....

Kinda rambling no real solid input or structure from me on this one.

[Donutz]

Originally Posted by StreetDoc

saying you're ignorant to an issue is hardly a personal attack. Didn't mean to offend, figured the political forum would have a little thicker skin. I'm done with this forum, obviously everyone has their own opinion and that's not going to change. No use wasting time here.

Hey, no-one is even close to being banned or censured for anything that was said so far in this thread. You are allowed to be more in-your-face in this subforum, but your opponent is also allowed to be more vociferous in return. You're probably a little taken aback because Snowolf is an admin. Don't be. In this section, if someone needs a slap we'll get one of the non-participating admins or mods to adjudicate.

You take away Snowolf's opportunity to argue and he WILL get cranky.

[Sassicaia]

I have to point out that in canada we play the same video games, watching the same movies, and listen to same crappy rap music. The difference to me is the gun laws, and its not just the simple logistics of allowing assault riffles and hand guns, but the phycological effect of them being being around and so normal.

Snowolf,
Allowing a hand gun for serious backcountry people who may bump into a bear is such a minimal amount of society that for the sake of this debate its sort of irrelevant. If its really needed (and we could debate that) then make the hoops you need jump through enough that the general public wouldnt consider it, or see a need for it because its simply not feasible.

You mention you can only put 6 six shots in a revolver, but whats stopping someone from carrying 2 or 3 of them fully loaded? Couldnt they have one on each side of their belt and one under each arm, with one in each hand? Thats 6. 6x6 is 36. After each one is empty the shooter simply drops it and reaches for another.

If the people in power end up making this debate about something as trivial as clip size rather then focusing on making the next generation not feel the need to buy these type of guns all together unless they are hunters then IMO the debate is a waste of time.

My brother is a avid hunter and gun collector but he is using it to shoot us a goose for christmas dinner. The thought of myself owning a gun has never crossed my mind in my 35 times around the sun. Not once. Now that I think of it its has to be for two reasons.

1.) They arent easy to get or keep
2.) They are built for specific a specific reason. I dont own a gun like I dont own a crab trap because I dont hunt or catch crabs.

My point is a society without strict gun laws breeds people who feel they need guns, or feel that they are simply normal.

Last week a guy in my city snapped took his cloths off and beat 3 woman nearly to death. Had guns been around and easy to get as a drivers license then those woman would be dead and many others.


One interesting point. Someone earlier posted the Swiss gun laws with the argument that "hey almost everyone has an assault rifle given to them by the government". I thought the argument was interesting, but being convinced there had to me more too it I dug further and found what I believe to be the difference, and what separates the Swiss from the American culture about guns.

1.) the guns are issued with a specific purpose that comes with training. These are trained military personal.

2.) getting a permit to actually carry a gun around with you isnt feasible for the average person. Basically, you need to be in the military or a profession that requires you to have one. (even the people who had them issued cant carry them)

3.) Laws around transportation are very strict i.e. too and from gun ranges, gun shows only etc

The end result is society doesnt see a need for guns. To prove that these laws have an effect of how people view guns in 2011 the Swiss government decided that all the people who had these guns needed to return the ammo for them to the government and 99% was returned and accounted for. 99%!!! Imagine what % of the ammo would be returned if the US government required it?

The fact is the swiss returned the ammo because they saw no need for it? Of course, what possible use could they have for it? Who the hell is going to invade Switzerland?

I dont mean to make this about Americans vs anyone else, because I stated before i like your country and people. Its about the effect of easy gun access has created on humans. Canadians would be the same if we had generations of the same gun laws.

Unless you are shooting a goose for christmas dinner, what possible use does the public have for guns? They serve no purpose.

[ThunderChunky]

There is a difference between Canada and the US. Right now it is gun laws, but we have has stricter gun laws and nothing has changed. The culture is different. The attitude is different. Ask any Canadian that's been to America. You get bumped into in Canada and end up with a free beer. You bump into someone here and you get a dirty look. You guys do listen to the same music, play the same games and watch the same movies. But you don't glorify yourself as a military giant. You don't have the same freedoms we do. The vibe is different. We have a much more independent status. People here generally don't care about the person to their left. This is the difference, not gun laws.

I still believe gun laws should be in place. I think New York is the perfect example. With the exception of the clip restriction and automatics. There are no automatics allows here. If you have experience with automatics, you know it's useless. The only time it's used is on machine guns. You should only be allowed to own automatics if you are in the military or in a field where you operate weapons. The clip restriction here is only 5 rounds for any weapon besides a pistol. 20 to 30 would be fine. If someone is to carry out a shooting with a weapon that had clips less than this can change them so quick it really is like having a drum anyway. The last thing I would change about the laws here is how simple it is to get a rifle. It ain't super easy, but it should be as hard as getting a pistol.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Hunting is a very legitimate sport and for many a way to feed their family. There is nothing wrong with the sport or even the sport of target shooting.

Additionally, defense from Bears really is a legitimate argument. In many bush villages in Alaska and Canada, armed citizens must escort kids to school because of Polar bears.

Unfortunately, this argument does not apply to 99% of the population.

Be that as it may, would you be supportive of some stringent requirements for gun ownership? Mandatory training on an on-going basis (say bi-annual?) Stringent storage requirements? Ammunition limits?

I just look at car ownership and the various requirements for driver licensing, safety checks, mandatory insurance, etc. and see a much more stringent system (albeit imperfect) that no responsible car owner really minds. I mean no one really complains about automobile "street legal" requirements, but, geez, take away their ability to own a semi-automatic and 1000 rounds for "self protection" and everyone gets bent.

I do agree, however, that the real problem is a cavalier attitude toward guns and human life. Even on this forum, threatening someone with a gun is considered a somewhat normal reaction to an emotional situation. "If I saw someone stealing my board, I'd...insert gun threat here"

I remember driving on the freeway outside of Detroit....never been there. Trying to read signs and merge and I cut some guy off. Totally my bad and worthy of a loud horn honk and maybe the finger. He pulled up beside me and I tried to apologize with hand gestures. First and only thing he did was lift up his pistol (not point it, just show it). I wasn't scared that he was going to shoot as that obviously wasn't his intent, but the only thing I could think was "holy crap....the first thing you think of is to threaten me with death because I cut you off? Really? That's an option that you put in your top 5 ways to get back at some one who merely pisses you off?"

[sleev-les]

Originally Posted by Snowolf

According to the latest reports, his 52 year old mother legally purchased the weapons as home defense and told her son where they were and how to use them, etc. Sadly and ironically, she was the first victim to be murdered with her own weapons....

As to you other point, well, a couple of thoughts and you're free to disagree which I suspect you will but hey that`s democracy!

America is very very different place than it was when George Washington spoke those words and the Constitution was designed to be a "living document" that changes with societal evolution.

Additionally, I never have seen a conflict between our Constitution and reasonable, logical and rational gun regulation. The reason in my mind is that the very first sentence of the second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for....." I interpret this as meaning that regulation of the militia (the people) to keep and bear arms, is within the scope of Constitutionality. I absolutely believe the government has the right and responsibility to regulate the bearing of arms to also uphold its duties to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and to secure the general welfare. Misuse of firearms is a clear threat to life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and the general welfare.

Like I have said, I am a gun owner and supporter of people`s right to bear arms and am not an anti gun liberal. I just accept and welcome reasonable gun regulation.

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Absolutely and that is exactly what I have advocated. I am a pilot and in order to maintain my privileges to fly, I cannot smoke pot, I have to pass FAA physical and psychological examinations every 2 years, I have to take on going currency training and take flight reviews to ensure that I am not a danger to myself and others in the aircraft.

A gun is every bit as serious as an aircraft and I think it is a travesty that its so easy to just go get a gun without any licensing or training or mental health evaluations. As long as nothing is on record, you can fill out your form and away you go. Even if you cant pass the federal check, no problem! go to a gun show and as long as its a private non dealer sale between residents of the same state, you got a gun.

Some things I support are extensive security background checks, psychological evaluations that are recurring as part of renewing a gun permit. Mandatory gun safes to deter gun theft and the gun getting into the wrong hands. Training and competency testing so total yahoos and retards aren't out the killing people accidentally by being stupid. Magazine capacity limits, etc.

Gun ownership may be a right and I support that notion, but rights just shouldn't be bestowed without responsibility. So yeah, the answer to your direct question is a direct and resounding "absolutely".....

We may be in a different time, but that doesn't make what was said then any less important because violence and the threat of oppression are still very real. The government is finding ways to control our "freedoms" more and more which is a whole other topic for debate. I saw someone mention ammo limits, but there is no way to control that either. You would have to register and unregister every round purchased. The time and cost would be detrimental to an already strained budget. You mentioned a pilots requirements too.. I used to fly so I know all about those as well, but say you take your required recerts and then 2 months later decide to crash your plane into a building. There is no way to predict that, even with a psych eval. If you snap in between those required timeframes, you can't blame the system. Same with guns. I'm glad to see you are pro gun, but there is no perfect solution. If they want me to go to a class every couple of years, I'll do it, but don't try and restrict what I want to buy or limit my options.

Thanks for answering my first questions because I haven't heard the origin of that kids guns. If his parents purchased those weapons, knowing they had a kid with mental issues, they should have been locked up. I know there is a law that requires locked up weapons if a child is below a certain age. They could extend that to anyone with that kind of mental issue. My guns are all locked up to protect others in case someone tries to break into my house. In the end, I think awareness is going to be the best approach because violence is never going to go away, restrictions or bans will not stop that. It will just inflate the black market. I think you believe the same in a lot of my points by what I've read from your posts, but other want your balls in a vice which is ridiculous. There are reasonable and responsible solutions.

[ThunderChunky]

It amazes me that people still honestly think they stand a chance against the Government as far as combat goes.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by sleev-les

I used to fly so I know all about those as well, but say you take your required recerts and then 2 months later decide to crash your plane into a building. There is no way to predict that, even with a psych eval. If you snap in between those required timeframes, you can't blame the system.

All that said. it would eliminate those who have longer term issues, a history of violence, violent criminal record, etc.

Originally Posted by sleev-les

If they want me to go to a class every couple of years, I'll do it, but don't try and restrict what I want to buy or limit my options.

You're already restricted in what you can buy, carry and transport.

Originally Posted by sleev-les

It will just inflate the black market.

That's the point, it certainly appears to be the exact opposite. It hasn't completely eliminated the black market in other countries, but it has made it much harder. Hard enough that the rate at which guns are used in crimes is significantly less than in the US. Can you buy an illegal gun in Canada, Japan, England? Yes. Is it easy? NO. What's easier? Go to the US, buy a gun and smuggle it back. Not too many drunk ex's and wannabe gangbangers do it.