Gun Control

l0lita-:

The world's a dangerous place nowadays.

I can't help thinking that it would be less so if people weren't able to simply acquire firearms over the counter.

@ l0lita-
The only things I've heard they're trying to do in the U.S. federally is up mental health care/awareness, better rules at gun shows, get rid of high-capacity clips, and require background checks. They aren't even considering getting rid of assault rifles at the moment, which is something I think should be done.

The government isn't taking away anyone's right to own a gun -- it's trying to make sure people who don't have guns don't get them.

I do know I won't keep guns in the home period, especially if I had children. The statistics go up show much and I would never forgive myself if my child got a hold of my gun and an accident happened, which happened to a cop's son a week ago.

@ l0lita-
Who's talking about banning handguns? There is nothing even remotely close to an all out gun ban going through Congress. The only guns that could possibly be banned would be assault rifles (which doesn't sound like it's going to happen either with Congress being as ridiculous as it is right now). You don't use assault rifles for hunting and I can't imagine why you would have to rapid fire shoot an intruder more than 10 times.

Your second ammendment right is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Unless I've misunderstood the 2nd ammenment (which is a very real possibility), then guns were intended for militias. The average citizen at the time of the Constitution didn't own a gun and even if they did, they would have owned a musket, which is highly inaccurate and takes forever to shoot.

Guns don't even seem practical for protection to me. A responsible gun owner keeps an unloaded gun in a gun safe. I think by the time I got a gun safe unlocked and a gun loaded, I could have already gotten my children (hypothetical children, as I don't have any) out the back door or a window and sent them to the neighbors house.

I think gun control laws are futile, for the most part.
Rules that would be a small bit stricter wouldn't be bad but; either way, criminals will end up getting their hands on guns, ammunition & able to hurt people.

And this is cliche; but guns don't kill people, people kill people.
We don't outlaw driving when masses are killed in drunk driving accidents.

But that's just my take on the subject.

@ c0llided.
Funny, but the statistics show that when other countries enacted tougher gun laws that gun crimes went down. Weird how those statistics show that. Are you privy to some other information?

@ dru in flight.
Maybe it's just because I live in Alaska and guns are pretty "mandatory" here. I'm not saying I have some special information that nobody else has access too and I'm certainly not saying that I know what's best for the country or the people in it. I am simply against strict gun control and that's my opinion :)

@ c0llided.
It was just this line "Rules that would be a small bit stricter wouldn't be bad but; either way, criminals will end up getting their hands on guns, ammunition & able to hurt people." which strongly suggests this is what will happen, despite evidence we have that shows the exact opposite.

@ dru in flight.
I mean, criminals are going to find a way to hurt someone or break laws no matter what. Granted, it will be more difficult and it may take some time; but it's bound to happen eventually. Or maybe that's just how I see it.

c0llided.:

@ dru in flight.
I mean, criminals are going to find a way to hurt someone or break laws no matter what. Granted, it will be more difficult and it may take some time; but it's bound to happen eventually. Or maybe that's just how I see it.

Sure, crime will happen, but it's pretty clear that gun control will make it happen less. That's better than nothing.

@ c0llided.
I think "bound to happen eventually" is a lot better than 2500+ gun deaths since December. I'll take "bound to happen" or "rare" to "normal" any day when it comes to gun violence.

However, to clarify, what I believe we need for better gun control immediately is absolute NOT to get rid of guns.

+ Require all the same basic gun laws at gun shows, including identification
+ Background check required for gun sale (including at gun shows)
+ No high ammo clips

I think things that should be discussed (quickly) are:
- Gun insurance (like car insurance)
- Mandatory gun safety courses/knowledge (you need to prove you understand gun safety/know how to use a gun before you buy one just like driving a car)
- Less access or no access to weapons like AK-15s and rocket launchers

Obviously better mental healthcare access and more regulations in place (Holmes/Aurora case specifically referring to know) to require reporting of serious activity. We also need to teach kids in schools how to tell a teacher/adult if a classmate has a gun; a lot of times people knew.

I don't think all gun violence can be stopped, but I think regulating it (as the second Amendment calls for) to protect citizens is not only the best idea, but the only moral one. Otherwise, aren't we all sort of passive bystanders, just watching the gun show and refusing to do anything to help the victims?

@ dru in flight.
I definitely agree with identification, background checks. As for the high ammo clips; I think that depends.
I'm not saying that I'm against laws that are a bit more strict; I just think that completely revamping the system isn't worth it.

And I agree with education, so kids can tell if someone has one and know what to do in a situation like that.

There are a lot of different approaches to the matter, but not all would be effective in every situation. Here, for example, nearly everyone has a gun and the majority of people walking around in public are carrying a weapon. My brother always has his handgun on his hip & a low caliber rifle in his truck. Of course, that is because we live in Alaska, but the amount of gun crimes we do have here are very low because if anyone did try anything; a civilian would be very quick to intervene. I'm not saying that that is the answer & that is always effective because it is dangerous & it definitely wouldn't be effective in every situation but I suppose it's just a sort of...example? I don't know how to explain this lol.

But like I said; I don't think gun control is completely a bad idea but some of the ideas that are floating around [in legislation, not here in this thread] are ridiculous [in my opinion.]

@ c0llided.
What are some of the crazy legislative things you've heard proposed? I've heard ideas, but no actual legislature being put up. Except for the guy in MO who wants to make it illegal to suggest bills on gun control, of course.

Also, what reason could you possibly need a high ammo clip for that you wouldn't be able to stop and reload (besides killing people)?

@ dru in flight.
I don't want to be rude & maybe it's just me but you sound really condescending & I don't know what I did or if I have offended you in some way but.. I don't know, maybe I'm just being sensitive.

I never said that actual legislature was put up, only that talk of future legislation & "rumors" about ideas for future legislation.

For example, it has been suggested that no guns that hold an amount of 10 bullets per magazine should be legal to own. Say 2 people break into your house, or even just 1. 10 bullets isn't going to be very substantial; that provides for 5 bullets per intruder + it's granted that you'll miss at least one shot, and what if these people are armed? Guns are used for more than just hurting people, they're also used to protect & defend one's home + loved ones.

A high ammo clip can be used for hunting; for one. If I was out in the woods 5 minutes from my house & I only had a small handgun on me & let's say; an Alaskan grizzly bear shows up; I'm dead unless I have a high ammo firearm. Even if I landed a shot in the middle of his forehead or his eye; there is a very low chance I'd actually put him down.

Now again, that situation doesn't apply everywhere; as you aren't going to find a grizzly wandering the streets of New York but..still.

I saw an article recently that was advocating against gun control by showing two signs. One was the current one you see on grounds of schools and public places "Firearms not permitted on campus" and the second was a sign that said "All staff of this premises are armed & to be considered dangerous. Any threat to hurt staff or children will be met with deadly force."

Now, maybe this is just my personal opinion, but I think the second would be a whole lot more affective than the first. Now, people say that "Well, if there were stricter gun laws, criminals wouldn't be able to go into schools and start shooting!" They are criminals; they couldn't care less about what laws say. That's why they break them. They will always be able to procure firearms or some way to hurt people. During the Prohibition Act, people didn't simply give up on drinking alcohol; they went out of their way to procure it & keep drinking. Did it do any good? Very little and it was eventually, repealed. Now, alcohol is on a completely different spectrum than firearms but the principle still stands.

Criminals are criminals.
Now, trying to save lives is not a bad thing. I'm not trying to say that things like Sandy Hook should happen and we should simply overlook them & in no way am I saying that something should not be done to stop such tragedies. Things like that should never take place; there are no words to describe the horror that happened at that school. However, gun control [ in my opinion ] is taking a step in the wrong direction. If change should happen, it must be in the opposite direction from the road that proponents of gun control are traveling. Such a road will undeniably pull our nation, as it has so many others in the past, such as with Hitler and Stalin [no, I am not saying Obama is a dictator or a communist] down the path from freedom and toward the path of tyranny.

And that is all I'm going to say on this anymore, I'm not trying to change your opinion because everyone has different views on everything & I'm not trying to say you should believe what I believe. And I apologize for writing an entire dissertation on the matter lol.

:)

There's one country (either Sweden or Switzerland... I think Switzerland) where it is obligatory to serve in the military for a certain period of time, and then after they are discharged, they are required to keep their weapons. How often are there mass-shootings there?

@ c0llided.
I'm simply debating; tone directed at you is perceived. I understand; the internet isn't great about discerning tone.

"But like I said; I don't think gun control is completely a bad idea but some of the ideas that are floating around [in legislation, not here in this thread] are ridiculous [in my opinion.]" The part where you said "in legislation" is where I got the idea you were talking about things in legislation.

Most people who break into your house aren't willing to be shot in order to steal a few things. Firing a shot may be more than enough to scare a robber away. Five bullets apiece seems like a lot/intended murder to me.

Who uses a small handgun for hunting? I know my father used a .22 rifle. I've never heard of anyone using a small handgun for hunting so if you're using a small handgun for hunting, clearly you're one of those people who needs to know more about guns before they buy one. (You referring to anyone, not specifically you.)

You may think the second sign is a whole lot better than the first but the fact that teachers in a school would even carry guns scares the ever living shit outta me. I just imagine a five year old finding a gun and blowing their brains out. (A cop's four-year-old son killed himself last week from a self-inflicted accident.) I would never send my child to a school where the teachers were armed and I know others agree with me. The best idea is to STOP school shootings from happening, not bring more guns and violence into the schools.

Criminals are criminals. Unfortunately accidental gun deaths happen all the time and have nothing to do with people being criminals. Unfortunately, not all criminals were criminals at one point and have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to buy a gun than to get mental healthcare in this country.

And the idea that we're all just supposed to say "oh well, let them die so that I can have unregulated guns" drives me up the wall. And the idea that any form of gun control is an attack on the second Amendment just means no one bothered to read it because it specifically calls for a "well-regulated Militia"

wohali:

There's one country (either Sweden or Switzerland... I think Switzerland) where it is obligatory to serve in the military for a certain period of time, and then after they are discharged, they are required to keep their weapons. How often are there mass-shootings there?

Switzerland has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the whole of Europe.

@ Alex; periphery.
They had 138 gun deaths in 2010? I'll take it. (Versus the U.S. having over 2500 since Sandy Hook.)

@ dru in flight.
I'm talking per 100,000 population, to obviate the obvious bias that comes with the US having far more people. Even then Switzerland's rate is still small but in terms of Europe it's surpassed only by Albania, and everyone else's are much smaller.

@ Alex; periphery.
The United States' is still about 10x higher even going by per 100,000.

But I'm not saying I think anyone should be required to keep a gun. I don't think anyone should have to use a gun if they choose not to.

dru in flight.:

@ Alex; periphery.
The United States' is still about 10x higher even going by per 100,000.

But I'm not saying I think anyone should be required to keep a gun. I don't think anyone should have to use a gun if they choose not to.

I know, I wasn't saying it was anywhere near as bad as in the US, I was just pointing out that Switzerland's gun crime rate isn't as innocuous despite its gun politics as was implied in wohali's post.