huckfin

with guns we are citizens, without them we are defenseless sheep. i fully support reasonable gun control laws but i do not support those who, out of ignorance or fear, would try to take away the right to conceal and carry from law abiding citizens.

there's a reason that unstable people choose gun free zones, easy targets and less chances of a confrontation. gun control, quite simply, should be wielded by the person that has a gun in their hand, and not by the government.

keep in mind that no law can keep people safe. strict gun control laws do not deter criminals who will always have them and use them against innocent people. who wants only the government and criminals to have access to guns?

good people who are well-armed are the counter to well-armed bad people and we cannot count on the police who are normally notified after a crime has been committed.

while not everyone should have access to guns, people should be encouraged to learn defensive tactics and many others should learn basic firearm safety. crimes and massacres can be stopped if well-armed and well-trained people are vigilant in defending themselves and others.

cjcameron11

Ok i'll address a couple of these points but let me first say i believe most people are arguing the ban of Assault rifles, not conceal and carry.

Do you have a valid reason why Assault rifles should be allowed?

Why would it bother you that the government has guns and you don't? Are you that worried that the government will start shooting its citizens? Or that they will have more power than you?

Can someone please tell me when was the last time that an armed civilian took down someone in the middle of killing other people? Like i actually want to know when some random from the public saw someone shooting other people and in turn took them down?

It seems to me that many of these arguments against gun law changes are personal reasons and people afraid of having things taken from them.

In case the tone of any of those responses is offensive i assure you i meant none, just an intelligent debate.

__________________
my names's Petey and i have gigantic balls

huckfin

i'll address these one at a time...

1) very few crimes are committed with assault weapons, so why the need to ban them? the last numbers i looked at, assault weapons accounted for about 3% of guns seized by police. so a ban of such weapons will have little to zero impact at addressing violent crime. the virginia tech shooter only needed a glock 19 and a p22, neither of which are assault weapons by the anyone's definition but the victims.

2) that is absolutely not near reality, the criminals would have all the guns they need through black market. just like mexico.

3) dec 11, 2012 clackamas oregon, mall shooter kills two shoppers before his gun jams, while clearing the jam, an armed citizen in the mall drew on the shooter with his pistol. the shooter, just getting his gun reloaded, retreated to a hallway and killed himself.

cjcameron11

The first point you still don't give a valid reason as to why Assault weapons should be allowed.

2nd. You still have not said why you think only the government having these weapons and the public not, is bad.

3rd. I am glad to hear that someone armed with a pistol (not not an assault rifle) foiled someones plans to murder people, albeit he didn't kill the gunman but the end result was the same.

__________________
my names's Petey and i have gigantic balls

huckfin

1) i am confident that any reason i give you for not banning assault weapons, you will deem 'not valid'. so i won't try. but why don't you give me a good reason for banning them, other than they are scary looking. and also, explain how turning half of your citizens into felons overnight will solve anything but a law enforcement and political agenda; will the gov't start knocking on doors to confiscate guns? i'm sure that will work very well, not! only sane law abiding citizens will follow a gun ban, sane law abiding citizens do not murder people.

2) the gov't will not be the only ones with guns, and it is stupid to even fantasize about it, you tell me how it's humanly possible to confiscate millions and millions of untrackable firearms and get them out of the hands of criminals, you know... the ones that will commit crimes with them.. by doing this you may bring down murder by gun rates, but your crime rate will skyrocket to crazy levels, since you know.. the criminals will know the citizens cannot defend themselves.

3) hangduns account for more crime than assault weapons do.. why do you want to ban assault weapons, and not handguns? since handguns kill far more people than assault weapons. do you have some political agenda or something.. are you in the handgun business? are assault weapons your competitive market?

Bones

Following this logic, I am shocked that the Japanese people aren't extinct by now.

So tell me me, why are female homicides three times more frequent if there is a gun in their home? You would have us believe that it would be the exact opposite: not a gun free zone, a target with access to a gun and a good chance of confrontation for their attackers.

Why do the facts completely contradict you?

Please, go read something...anything.

devo

I read this yesterday. He makes some interesting points.http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

__________________
"If you dont live for something, you'll die for nothing"-Jasta

Bones

There are tons of articles like this, it is an opinion piece

Unfortunately, there is not one academic study that supports or opposes his opinion. Yes, there has been an increase in multiple shootings events at schools by non-students, but there has been a decline in school shootings by students.

cjcameron11

Well you hadn't asked me for one, here are a couple: They are effectively a military weapon designed to shot a lot of targets with ease quickly. They are very powerful and accurate making them perfect for mass killings. They shoot too many rounds too quickly for anyone to justify them as a hunting weapon, They are/were designed for killing HUMANS not big game or animals, they are a weapon of choice for people who do commit mass killings (I understand not the only weapon though).

You don't need to over react with the law change either, no one would be a felon overnight, there undoubtably would be an amnesty for quite some time for people to hand them in at their discretion, we still have periods of time each year where there is an amnesty for handing in illegal weapons to police no questions asked. The government would also buy back the weapons to reimburse the value of the guns.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it will be easy, or that everyone will comply. What it does do is then limit (even marginally) the amount of these type of weapons in the publics hands. It has been shown that crime rates do NOT skyrocket to crazy levels as you have suggested. And no one is saying all guns should confiscated, can you not defend yourself with a rifle/shotgun/pistol?

Criminals don't give a fuck who can or cant defend themselves, this has been shown by the amount of crime by any means in the first place.

If it were up to me i would too ban handguns, but i also see that they are useful for self defence when in the wilderness. BUT that is not what i am arguing so don't act like i have ever said ban all guns or handguns.

I live in Australia mate, we don't have assault rifles, and it is near impossible to get a handgun, so instead of turning the argument into something that is my doing please just answer the questions instead of throwing out accusations that are quite frankly ridiculous.

You are STILL yet to give a valid reason as to why Assault rifles should not be banned.

Please ill settle for one good reason other than "they look cool"

__________________
my names's Petey and i have gigantic balls

dreampow

Most of the developed world has much lower crime rates, importantly less murders and mass murders with guns.

Yet it seems most Americans (on here at least) are still saying.

"Well you can kill with a knife or any metal implement, therefore we would need to ban everything that could be used as a weapon for a ban to make sense".

Do you realize how entirely illogical this "argument" is?

It makes no sense because as many have repeatedly pointed out other weapons are much less effective at killing and require more fitness, strength, skill, speed and will power.

Home made bombs may be an exception, but they are still harder to make and successfully use to kill people. It requires much more effort and there is much more that can go wrong and the bomb be a dud.

I believe that addressing the deeper issues of glorifying violence and killing (mass media, movies games etc) and treatment (or lack of it) for the mentally ill are the key issues.

Still these things will take a long time because most people watch violence and killing (even if it is acting) for entertainment.

This issue in itself is not unique to America and I believe that our whole idea of violence and killing is wrong and needs to be looked at. It needs to be seen for what it is which is a horrible, terrible disgusting thing.

It can only really be an option when we or others we are protecting are genuinely in danger (unlike the war in Iraq where there was only a fabricated threat).

In the meantime making it harder to get guns (more checks longer waiting time) and limiting what guns are available are the obvious short term measures.

I concede that with pure science, it is very hard to prove or disprove the effectiveness of such measures, just too many variables that cannot be controlled.

Even if they cannot be proven to work there is very good evidence to suggest it has helped in other countries.

Surely its worth a try?

The rest of the world is looking on with disbelief as Americans say "we have the right to own machine guns and we will be less safe without them".

Also this nonsense about protecting yourselves from government needs to be looked at in the cold light of day.

If the US military comes after civilians (which I believe they never ever would even if a deranged government asked them to) you are screwed. Your machine guns mean jack shit against trained professionals with all of the latest equipment, training and technology.

Will you shoot your machine gun at a tank or an armored vehicle?

Will you fire it at a fighter jet as it drops a cluster bomb from overhead?

Get real people.

So I say to you why not give some tighter gun legislation a try?

Can you be sure it won't help?

You can bet if it was any of your own relatives who had been shot in the recent shootings you'd be more open to at least explore the possibilities.