Gun Control and The Second Amendment.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Janke, I don't even know where to start with your post. While I do think that you address half the issue, the "why", your discourse is so dangerous because you're actively trying to remove the responsibility of the individual with regards to the tool. Sadly, the crux of the argument isn't really about "less guns = less crime". In truth, if 100% of your population could 100% guarantee responsible use of a tool then there's no reason why that tool should be restricted to the general population. The real discussion is about access to PARTICULAR types of guns to that same population.

You talk about how blaming guns is like blaming a car - people don't INTENTIONALLY drive INTO people while under a state of intoxication so the context isn't the same. A gun has a very specific use which is to eject projectiles at extreme speeds toward a target. When you get a gun, there is only one intention - to shoot it. So, really, guns, by their very nature, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as other tools that CAN be used for more nefarious purposes.

While I agree that the musket example is anabsurdist argument, the basis of the observation is more relevant. Everything that governs the behaviour of individuals needs to undergo constant review because cultures evolve and change. The Constitution was drafted during a period of US history that was forged by forceful resolution of armed conflicts. The colonies were not allowed to have their own standing, regular, army and had to rely on militia effectively nothing more than armed civilians. To fight against the "tyranny" of British Imperialism, the only way to do so was for civilians to coerce change through armed determination. So if someone wants to bring up the 2nd Amendment, it's also important to understand the context of WHY it was devised. Last time I checked, the US regular military has come a LONG way since the inception of the Constitution. In addition, the US political system is based on a democratic process that is meant to have so many checks and balances to protect against "internal" tyranny. So, really, what political justification is there to defend this amendment from a pro-gun lobby perspective?

You're right, people don't shoot up schools because they have an AR-15 - the AR-15 just empowers them to act on their troubled impulses. It's not even about comparing butcher knives or guns. I put to you the example: you have an AR-15 with (a capacity magazine) and you have a handgun - which do you think will likely cause more harm in the hands of the same person, regardless of how proficient they are with that tool? If you're at the point where you're considering inflicting grievous harm to children, I'd like to think that you're looking at ways to maximize your impact before it all ends. This isn't a point about debating what gun would actually be more efficient in [x] setting. This is about the sheer psychological influence of choosing between a rifle that looks like it's used by military people in movies (and it really just doesn't matter whether the AR-15 is actually an "assault" weapon or not) or a pistol. So, yeah, I'm all for it being targeted more directly.

In the end, if people want to get guns for legitimate reasons, they will go through all the hoops to get them. Really the point of all of this is that there's no logical reason why you shouldn't have an excessive amount of hoops to go through before you get the kinds of guns that have been the focal point of the last 3 mass shootings. Short of addressing the root cause, why would limiting the outcome tragedy be a bad thing? But as I mentioned at the beginning this is only part of the issue but one that, with each passing killing spree, becomes easier to legislate rather than looking at changing the fabric of a nation. You need to do both.

[Janke 1st MRB]

Janke, I don't even know where to start with your post. While I do think that you address half the issue, the "why", your discourse is so dangerous because you're actively trying to remove the responsibility of the individual with regards to the tool. Sadly, the crux of the argument isn't really about "less guns = less crime". In truth, if 100% of your population could 100% guarantee responsible use of a tool then there's no reason why that tool should be restricted to the general population. The real discussion is about access to PARTICULAR types of guns to that same population.

You talk about how blaming guns is like blaming a car - people don't INTENTIONALLY drive INTO people while under a state of intoxication so the context isn't the same. A gun has a very specific use which is to eject projectiles at extreme speeds toward a target. When you get a gun, there is only one intention - to shoot it. So, really, guns, by their very nature, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as other tools that CAN be used for more nefarious purposes.

While I agree that the musket example is anabsurdist argument, the basis of the observation is more relevant. Everything that governs the behaviour of individuals needs to undergo constant review because cultures evolve and change. The Constitution was drafted during a period of US history that was forged by forceful resolution of armed conflicts. The colonies were not allowed to have their own standing, regular, army and had to rely on militia effectively nothing more than armed civilians. To fight against the "tyranny" of British Imperialism, the only way to do so was for civilians to coerce change through armed determination. So if someone wants to bring up the 2nd Amendment, it's also important to understand the context of WHY it was devised. Last time I checked, the US regular military has come a LONG way since the inception of the Constitution. In addition, the US political system is based on a democratic process that is meant to have so many checks and balances to protect against "internal" tyranny. So, really, what political justification is there to defend this amendment from a pro-gun lobby perspective?

You're right, people don't shoot up schools because they have an AR-15 - the AR-15 just empowers them to act on their troubled impulses. It's not even about arguing about butcher knives or guns. I put to you the example: you have an AR-15 with (a capacity magazine) and you have a handgun - which do you think will likely cause more harm in the hands of the same person, regardless of how proficient they are? If you're at the point where you're considering inflicting grievous harm to children, I'd like to think that you're looking at ways to maximize your impact before it all ends. This isn't a point about debating what gun would actually be more efficient in [x] setting. This is about the sheer psychological influence of seeing a rifle that looks like military people would use in movies (and it really just doesn't matter whether the AR-15 is actually an "assault" weapon or not) or a pistol. So, yeah, I'm all for it being targeted more directly.

In the end, if people want to get guns for legitimate reasons, they will go through all the hoops to get them. Really the point of all of this is that there's no logical reason why you shouldn't have an excessive amount of hoops to go through before you get the kinds of guns that have been the focal point of the last 3 mass shootings. Short of addressing the root cause, why would limiting the outcome tragedy be a bad thing? But as I mentioned at the beginning this is only part of the issue but one that, with each passing killing spree, becomes easier to legislate rather than looking at changing the fabric of a nation. You need to do both.

The idea of allowing citizens to own private property is not a dangerous one, and to call opposition to gun control dangerous is to insult the majority of America's gun owners. If you look at the effectiveness of the last AWB, as well as analyzing crime statistics over a period in time in the US, you will see that the last AWB accomplished nothing and that there is generally accepted to be no direct correlation to gun ownership and gun crime, though murder rates dropped quite noticeably between 1989-1999, the period in time when most US States adopted CCW laws, with Illinois now being the only one without any at all, and that's soon to change, and 4 States; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming; not requiring any license at all to carry a handgun.

Those who drive drunk know very well the consequences of such an action, they know it can be lethal.

And you misinterpret the 2nd Again, tyranny was not only foreseen by the British, the founding fathers were worried about future tyranny from their own government, from the American government. The 2nd was not just to fight against the invading British, it was to ensure the American government never became the British, because the citizens would be able to fight the government if it tried. In accordance with the principles of the 2nd, it is still relevant today, because while the government may still be fair today, who's to say what the government will be like in 30 years? 50 years?

Virginia Tech, the most lethal school shooting in the US, was committed by a man armed with only 2 pistols, each with only 10-round mags, the shooter simply chained the doors shut and brought a lot of magazines. The Cumbria Shootings in England were committed by a man with a double-barrelled shotgun, and he killed 13 people. The École Polytechnique shooting was committed by someone who broke his Ruger Mini-14 so that it was basically a straight-pull bolt-action, and he killed 15. And as for Newtown, I've heard from NBC that no AR-15 was used in Newtown, it was also only handguns, the AR-15 was in the car the whole time. Adam Lanza was also denied the ability to buy a gun, he stole them from his mother.

The looks of a gun also mean absolutely nothing in terms of its function. Why target a gun based on looks? What will that accomplish? So they ban "evil, scary guns" like this one but guns like this are not "assault weapons"? You know what the difference is between those two guns? Nothing. Banning a gun based off of aesthetic features is absolutely ridiculous, because it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will not stop mass shootings, both the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine happened during the last AWB, it failed to stop either. Canada's restrictive gun laws failed to stop shootings just last year in Scarborough, Downtown Toronto, and Edmonton. Britain's gun laws failed to stop the 2010 Cumbria Shootings. Gun laws in both France and Germany have failed to stop mass shootings. Gun laws fail to stop these because they do not address the core issue, and the core issue of mass shootings is mental illness.

Moreover, as I already mentioned, mass shootings account for less than 1% of America's national murders, rifles and shotguns account for about 3% of all national gun murders combined, America's true problem with gun violence is the 97% of murders committed with a handgun, which is largely gangsters in inner-city ghettos. To address the real issue, one must address the causes of murder, not the tool. For one, the criminals who cause the majority of the murders already ignore all firearms law, they actually love gun control, it disarms their targets. Why then, if they already blatantly ignore all current laws, would one more suddenly make a criminal change their mind? Criminals will always have guns, regardless of whether or not the law-abiding do, all you accomplish by disarming the law-abiding is giving the criminals easier targets. Secondly, even if by some miracle you managed to do the literally impossible and take all the 300 million guns out of America, these gangsters would still kill each other, they'd simply resort to stabbing each other. Knife crime in Britain skyrocketed following the gun bans there, and it's actually the most violent place is Europe, more violent than the US or South Africa. They banned guns, and it didn't stopped violent crime, murder, or mass-shootings.

It's also interesting to note that at this time America's homicide rate and violent crime rate is at the lowest point it's been since the 1960s, and that is despite the fact that there are more guns in America, approximately 300 million, than ever before.

As well, with the exception of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, every mass shooting in the last 30 years has been committed in a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech? Columbine? The Aurora Theatre (and by the way, there was a theatre closer to his house and a theatre with a larger auditorium he could have shot up, he chose the one he did because it advertised nobody inside would be armed)? Sandy Hook? École Polytechnique? All gun-free zones, meaning nobody in the building could possibly stop the shooter, they wouldn't have the means to. The Oregon Mall Shooting? It ended after a CCW holder drew his gun. He actually wasn't supposed to be carrying in that mall, it was supposed to be a gun-free zone. He didn't shoot, because of bystanders behind the shooter, but the shooter saw the permit holder, and the next shot he got off after un-jamming his gun was to kill himself, because he knew he was done. These killers chose these places because they knew they wouldn't have resistance, because they knew they would have easy, vulnerable targets.

You do not need to ban guns to reduce violent crime, murder, or mass shootings in the US. While I do believe that America could do with some slightly stronger gun control in the form of better screening, perhaps even a license covering the acquisition of a gun, and only the acquisition, I do not believe that the word "banned" needs to be used at all in relation to functional gun control. In the Czech Republic there is technically no such thing as a banned gun, legally you can get any gun you please, even automatics if you can justify to the police why, and yet it has a murder rate comparable to Canada's, but like I said previously, the US is unlike any other nation and it's not entirely fair to compare its situation to the situation of any other nation. I do think, however, that every nation around the world could learn some things about effective gun control by looking at certain parts of the gun control in the Czech Republic. No gun needs to be banned, not even automatics; which have since 1934 only ever been used in 2 shootings, one by a cop; in order to have effective gun control, all you need is varying levels of restriction, but no gun should ever be or need to be entirely inaccessible to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to acquire such a firearm.

[Marchese 1st MRB]

Janke, I don't even know where to start with your post. While I do think that you address half the issue, the "why", your discourse is so dangerous because you're actively trying to remove the responsibility of the individual with regards to the tool. Sadly, the crux of the argument isn't really about "less guns = less crime". In truth, if 100% of your population could 100% guarantee responsible use of a tool then there's no reason why that tool should be restricted to the general population. The real discussion is about access to PARTICULAR types of guns to that same population.

You talk about how blaming guns is like blaming a car - people don't INTENTIONALLY drive INTO people while under a state of intoxication so the context isn't the same. A gun has a very specific use which is to eject projectiles at extreme speeds toward a target. When you get a gun, there is only one intention - to shoot it. So, really, guns, by their very nature, shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as other tools that CAN be used for more nefarious purposes.

While I agree that the musket example is anabsurdist argument, the basis of the observation is more relevant. Everything that governs the behaviour of individuals needs to undergo constant review because cultures evolve and change. The Constitution was drafted during a period of US history that was forged by forceful resolution of armed conflicts. The colonies were not allowed to have their own standing, regular, army and had to rely on militia effectively nothing more than armed civilians. To fight against the "tyranny" of British Imperialism, the only way to do so was for civilians to coerce change through armed determination. So if someone wants to bring up the 2nd Amendment, it's also important to understand the context of WHY it was devised. Last time I checked, the US regular military has come a LONG way since the inception of the Constitution. In addition, the US political system is based on a democratic process that is meant to have so many checks and balances to protect against "internal" tyranny. So, really, what political justification is there to defend this amendment from a pro-gun lobby perspective?

You're right, people don't shoot up schools because they have an AR-15 - the AR-15 just empowers them to act on their troubled impulses. It's not even about arguing about butcher knives or guns. I put to you the example: you have an AR-15 with (a capacity magazine) and you have a handgun - which do you think will likely cause more harm in the hands of the same person, regardless of how proficient they are? If you're at the point where you're considering inflicting grievous harm to children, I'd like to think that you're looking at ways to maximize your impact before it all ends. This isn't a point about debating what gun would actually be more efficient in [x] setting. This is about the sheer psychological influence of seeing a rifle that looks like military people would use in movies (and it really just doesn't matter whether the AR-15 is actually an "assault" weapon or not) or a pistol. So, yeah, I'm all for it being targeted more directly.

In the end, if people want to get guns for legitimate reasons, they will go through all the hoops to get them. Really the point of all of this is that there's no logical reason why you shouldn't have an excessive amount of hoops to go through before you get the kinds of guns that have been the focal point of the last 3 mass shootings. Short of addressing the root cause, why would limiting the outcome tragedy be a bad thing? But as I mentioned at the beginning this is only part of the issue but one that, with each passing killing spree, becomes easier to legislate rather than looking at changing the fabric of a nation. You need to do both.

The idea of allowing citizens to own private property is not a dangerous one, and to call opposition to gun control dangerous is to insult the majority of America's gun owners. If you look at the effectiveness of the last AWB, as well as analyzing crime statistics over a period in time in the US, you will see that the last AWB accomplished nothing and that there is generally accepted to be no direct correlation to gun ownership and gun crime, though murder rates dropped quite noticeably between 1989-1999, the period in time when most US States adopted CCW laws, with Illinois now being the only one without any at all, and that's soon to change, and 4 States; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming; not requiring any license at all to carry a handgun.

Those who drive drunk know very well the consequences of such an action, they know it can be lethal.

And you misinterpret the 2nd Again, tyranny was not only foreseen by the British, the founding fathers were worried about future tyranny from their own government, from the American government. The 2nd was not just to fight against the invading British, it was to ensure the American government never became the British, because the citizens would be able to fight the government if it tried. In accordance with the principles of the 2nd, it is still relevant today, because while the government may still be fair today, who's to say what the government will be like in 30 years? 50 years?

Virginia Tech, the most lethal school shooting in the US, was committed by a man armed with only 2 pistols, each with only 10-round mags, the shooter simply chained the doors shut and brought a lot of magazines. The Cumbria Shootings in England were committed by a man with a double-barrelled shotgun, and he killed 13 people. The École Polytechnique shooting was committed by someone who broke his Ruger Mini-14 so that it was basically a straight-pull bolt-action, and he killed 15. And as for Newtown, I've heard from NBC that no AR-15 was used in Newtown, it was also only handguns, the AR-15 was in the car the whole time. Adam Lanza was also denied the ability to buy a gun, he stole them from his mother.

The looks of a gun also mean absolutely nothing in terms of its function. Why target a gun based on looks? What will that accomplish? So they ban "evil, scary guns" like this one but guns like this are not "assault weapons"? You know what the difference is between those two guns? Nothing. Banning a gun based off of aesthetic features is absolutely ridiculous, because it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will not stop mass shootings, both the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine happened during the last AWB, it failed to stop either. Canada's restrictive gun laws failed to stop shootings just last year in Scarborough, Downtown Toronto, and Edmonton. Britain's gun laws failed to stop the 2010 Cumbria Shootings. Gun laws in both France and Germany have failed to stop mass shootings. Gun laws fail to stop these because they do not address the core issue, and the core issue of mass shootings is mental illness.

Moreover, as I already mentioned, mass shootings account for less than 1% of America's national murders, rifles and shotguns account for about 3% of all national gun murders combined, America's true problem with gun violence is the 97% of murders committed with a handgun, which is largely gangsters in inner-city ghettos. To address the real issue, one must address the causes of murder, not the tool. For one, the criminals who cause the majority of the murders already ignore all firearms law, they actually love gun control, it disarms their targets. Why then, if they already blatantly ignore all current laws, would one more suddenly make a criminal change their mind? Criminals will always have guns, regardless of whether or not the law-abiding do, all you accomplish by disarming the law-abiding is giving the criminals easier targets. Secondly, even if by some miracle you managed to do the literally impossible and take all the 300 million guns out of America, these gangsters would still kill each other, they'd simply resort to stabbing each other. Knife crime in Britain skyrocketed following the gun bans there, and it's actually the most violent place is Europe, more violent than the US or South Africa. They banned guns, and it didn't stopped violent crime, murder, or mass-shootings.

It's also interesting to note that at this time America's homicide rate and violent crime rate is at the lowest point it's been since the 1960s, and that is despite the fact that there are more guns in America, approximately 300 million, than ever before.

As well, with the exception of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, every mass shooting in the last 30 years has been committed in a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech? Columbine? The Aurora Theatre (and by the way, there was a theatre closer to his house and a theatre with a larger auditorium he could have shot up, he chose the one he did because it advertised nobody inside would be armed)? Sandy Hook? École Polytechnique? All gun-free zones, meaning nobody in the building could possibly stop the shooter, they wouldn't have the means to. The Oregon Mall Shooting? It ended after a CCW holder drew his gun. He actually wasn't supposed to be carrying in that mall, it was supposed to be a gun-free zone. He didn't shoot, because of bystanders behind the shooter, but the shooter saw the permit holder, and the next shot he got off after un-jamming his gun was to kill himself, because he knew he was done. These killers chose these places because they knew they wouldn't have resistance, because they knew they would have easy, vulnerable targets.

You do not need to ban guns to reduce violent crime, murder, or mass shootings in the US. While I do believe that America could do with some slightly stronger gun control in the form of better screening, perhaps even a license covering the acquisition of a gun, and only the acquisition, I do not believe that the word "banned" needs to be used at all in relation to functional gun control. In the Czech Republic there is technically no such thing as a banned gun, legally you can get any gun you please, even automatics if you can justify to the police why, and yet it has a murder rate comparable to Canada's, but like I said previously, the US is unlike any other nation and it's not entirely fair to compare its situation to the situation of any other nation. I do think, however, that every nation around the world could learn some things about effective gun control by looking at certain parts of the gun control in the Czech Republic. No gun needs to be banned, not even automatics; which have since 1934 only ever been used in 2 shootings, one by a cop; in order to have effective gun control, all you need is varying levels of restriction, but no gun should ever be or need to be entirely inaccessible to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to acquire such a firearm.

+1 Also would like to add that many people have died to allow us to have these rights be it having access to guns or having free speech etc. and we need to show the courage to defend these rights or we throw away all the sacrifices that those people made for us.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Marchese 1st MRB

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Those who drive drunk know very well the consequences of such an action, they know it can be lethal.

You didn't really just assume that drunk driving is a result of "fully-aware and in control of their means" drunk drivers did you? Because when you say that "those who drive drunk know very well", it kind of sounds like that's what you're saying.

And you misinterpret the 2nd Again, tyranny was not only foreseen by the British, the founding fathers were worried about future tyranny from their own government, from the American government. The 2nd was not just to fight against the invading British, it was to ensure the American government never became the British, because the citizens would be able to fight the government if it tried. In accordance with the principles of the 2nd, it is still relevant today, because while the government may still be fair today, who's to say what the government will be like in 30 years? 50 years?

I think I might have mentioned something about a democratic system built with checks and balances on many levels to prevent that kind of ultimate corruption. If modern Americans think they need to ensure that interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think that they'll have more to worry about then gun ownership.

As well, with the exception of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, every mass shooting in the last 30 years has been committed in a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech? Columbine? The Aurora Theatre (and by the way, there was a theatre closer to his house and a theatre with a larger auditorium he could have shot up, he chose the one he did because it advertised nobody inside would be armed)? Sandy Hook? École Polytechnique? All gun-free zones, meaning nobody in the building could possibly stop the shooter, they wouldn't have the means to. The Oregon Mall Shooting? It ended after a CCW holder drew his gun. He actually wasn't supposed to be carrying in that mall, it was supposed to be a gun-free zone. He didn't shoot, because of bystanders behind the shooter, but the shooter saw the permit holder, and the next shot he got off after un-jamming his gun was to kill himself, because he knew he was done. These killers chose these places because they knew they wouldn't have resistance, because they knew they would have easy, vulnerable targets.

I do believe that Fort Hood has armed MPs? I won't even go into the slippery slope of the argument that more people with more guns = better deterrent because any rational exploration exposes the rather titanic flaws in that defense. And you said you were concerned about what kind of government would be around in 30 or 50 years... Oy vey!

You do not need to ban guns to reduce violent crime, murder, or mass shootings in the US. While I do believe that America could do with some slightly stronger gun control in the form of better screening, perhaps even a license covering the acquisition of a gun, and only the acquisition, I do not believe that the word "banned" needs to be used at all in relation to functional gun control. In the Czech Republic there is technically no such thing as a banned gun, legally you can get any gun you please, even automatics if you can justify to the police why, and yet it has a murder rate comparable to Canada's, but like I said previously, the US is unlike any other nation and it's not entirely fair to compare its situation to the situation of any other nation. I do think, however, that every nation around the world could learn some things about effective gun control by looking at certain parts of the gun control in the Czech Republic. No gun needs to be banned, not even automatics; which have since 1934 only ever been used in 2 shootings, one by a cop; in order to have effective gun control, all you need is varying levels of restriction, but no gun should ever be or need to be entirely inaccessible to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to acquire such a firearm.

Thanks for understanding my OP

[Marsden 1st MRB]

My issue with gun control is very simple. Take all of the gun related crimes in America. Now take the number of guns that were legally registered and used by the registered owners out of the pile. What remains is the vast majority of gun related crimes. Mostly committed with illegally owned handguns and automatic weapons purchased through shady channels. now add stricter gun laws. Ok so we now have the same number of doubly illegal crimes. how bout we stop trying to add more laws that don't effectively get enforced to stop the problem because that all ways works out. as far as the comments about other nations gun laws and how much better things are there in relation to gun violence; cool beans. difference being you look at owning a long gun as a privilege. It's my right. Now should I be able to go down to the local store and buy an AR-15 with an Under-slung M03 grenade launcher? No. What in the fuck purpose does that type of gun serve? Kill as many armed combatants as possible; hard cover, no biggy got nades. but should there be any form of limitation on my 30-06 lever action with a 6X scope on it? no. it holds 13 rounds and one hot loaded in the barrel. and that is all I need to defend my home. Or what about my 8 gauge shot-gun that holds a total of nine shots that is sitting right her next to me loaded with salt-rock? you gonna take that away to? I think not. The weapons that need regulation are not your everyday hand gun; not my rifles or my shotguns. The weapons that need to be taken away are the Firearms that are designed to allow for suppressive fire and firing for effect. Screening for metal health should be a requirement in order to purchase a firearm in this country as well as a criminal background check. beyond that it should be left alone. As for the interpretation that only the militias should have weapons that is a valid argument but now since 1903 all militias are federally regulated and controlled making it not a militia but simply the reserves. A militia is a self run force that has sworn it's allegiance to it's country and it's state. Enemies of our country understand what the second amendment means as well. In WWII one of the main reasons that Japan did not invade was " The Second Amendment

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” This statement goes beyond what our active military could do. This is in reference to the populace. Now would every American Citizen take up arms to defend this country? not likely. Would enough take up our guns to make invading hell? yes. Would many of us do this to defend our "Government" instead of our homes? Not likely. The second amendment rights were not set in place simply for the government to be able to call on the militia. Nor was it set in place so the Militia's could hold the government at bay or the populace at bay. It was made to allow people the right to decide if they want to own a rifle or shotgun or even a pistol for home defense or hunting or drilling in the event of an invasion or call to arms. However should it be opened to include Military grade weaponry capable of putting thousands of rounds down field in a matter of minutes? no. there is no need for this. However outlawing a semi-automatic rifle is going too far. Come try and take my remake of a Garand.

All in all it comes down to one thing. To be effective with a firearm you do not need to be able to put thousands of rounds down field unless you are in a situation were there may be thousands of targets down field. You only need to be able to put down one shot to be effective, pick your mark and remain calm, or else you will miss regardless of how many rounds you can fire. Besides the American populace puts too much stock in fear of a government that was built and is supposed to run under the concepts that they are run and elected by the people for the people.

done with my tirade. enjoy ripping it to shreds if you find it uninformed and opinionated as that is what it is XD.

politics 101. take away all freedom and you have a rebellion. ask people if they would like to loose each right one at a time and they will vote it away and call it reform. Welcome to Marxism. We hold three pillars of Ten to being a Marxist society, foremost being a centralized federal bank holding a monopoly over currency (hello there o mighty Federal Exchange) walking hand in hand with the Federal Bailouts of Privately owned Banking institutions of which the Federal Government is now a major stockholder of pretty much all of the banks, oh ya and the Secretary of the Treasury is the one who decided which mergers would happen for which banks. nope not moving towards communist society at all. Lets vote away some more of our rights y'all it's a whole lot of fun.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

A key fallacy people don't realize is that the media is stupid, they don't know what they're talking about and try to hype the hell out of just about anything, especially shootings.

Yeah, they really hyped the hell out of the brutal slaughter of 20 children and 6 adults...

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Just a quick question as i don't live in the US and cba googling (also i want to hear your opinions). But does the US have any kind of gun licence akin to a driving licence (basically so you can only own/use a firearm if you can prove you know how to use it responsibly)? I'd just like to know, because i'm seeing the insurance argument but nothing about anykind of licencing.

In Texas Takel, no such things exists. There are ownership papers and such but they are not required and just change hands when you sell the gun. zyou can get a firearms registered but you dont have to, none of my familys guns are registered. Person to person sales are legal, (my dad bought a glock 17 from his coworker which he gave to me) and the only time you do a background check is when you buy from a store. But before Newtown, you could literally buy AR-15s at walmart.

THe only thing we have like what you';re talking about is yes CHL (concealed handgun license), but you only get that if you want to carry a gun on you on a day-to-day basis, and you have to be 21 to get that.

In the end, if people want to get guns for legitimate reasons, they will go through all the hoops to get them. Really the point of all of this is that there's no logical reason why you shouldn't have an excessive amount of hoops to go through before you get the kinds of guns that have been the focal point of the last 3 mass shootings

This is a poor viewpoint to have, as it is easy for a bureacracy to make it practically impossible to purchase a gun. See McDonald vs. Chicago. "An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too unwieldy in the event of a robbery, and wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a citywide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. As a result, in 2008, he joined three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit which became McDonald v. Chicago" Obviously this was stricken down. but my point just is that making it too difficult to get a gun and "jump through an excessive amount of hoops" inherently goes against our constitutional rights. Also, again don't forget that AR-15s shoot a .223, which is not an exceptionally large or powerful round. a 9mm is a larger bullet, obviously a .45 ACP is as well. The same damage could have just as easily been done with a quality assortment of pistols. this guy just happened to have a mother who had posession of an AR-15, so this crazy person decided to pick that as a weapon to slaughter children. Who's really to blame here? the gun? the mother? the mentally unstable person?

I wanna pose a question to this debate. Most people could agree this country is on the verge of massive financial problems. Let's say the financial system collapses, and lets say that facilitates a collapse of the government. Panic and anarchy ensues. How are the police going to protect you if they dont have money to run their operation? Is the national guard gonna roll into your neighborhood and protect your home? My point simply is people should have the ability to protect themselves in the event that the government cannot protect them. and if armed gangs armed with illegal automatic weapons come knocking on your door to take what you have, i dont think your 7 round 9mm will be sufficient.

Yeah, they really hyped the hell out of the brutal slaughter of 20 children and 6 adults...

unfortunately martinez, they did. After the shooting, there were dozens of news channels that ONLY covered the shooting, a hundred percent, several spreading misinformation. i know, my stepmom watched them for 3 days straight. shes obessessed with shootings when they happen, and i know shes not the only person in this country whos like that. The media gives these guys so much attention its sick.

[Pandalsson 1st MRB]

Zorbanos, I'm not well versed in legalese, but is it possible that there's a "slight" difference between a citywide handgun ban and more stringent restrictions on the purchase of specific types of guns? If so I guess you can remove the "practically" from "practically impossible". Which is kind of NOT my point (to outright ban weapons).

And if the defense is to be "a pistol can just as easily do the same damage", then that certainly begs the question, WHY have rifles been chosen over pistols in the past tragedies? Certainly, having a easily concealed weapon would make access to a targeted area much easier no? So what's the motivating element to choose one over the other?

So, would dealing with bureaucratic monoliths like the IRS be against your constitutional right? I mean, you don't get more hoops than that. I'm sure it's likely easier to get a rifle than to prove that your taxes have been well filed.

If armed gangs with illegal automatic weapons come to your home in a post-apocalyptic future where the entire country has broken down into an anarchist state, and not to be a debbie-downer here, then I highly doubt your access to a high-powered rifle is going to improve your chances of seeing a better tomorrow. Both you and Janke seem be concerned with this "what if the whole country goes down the toilet" scenario - my question is, why allow the HERE AND NOW to get worse so that you can feel like you're standing on the driest part of a sinking ship later?

[Janke 1st MRB]

Those who drive drunk know very well the consequences of such an action, they know it can be lethal.

You didn't really just assume that drunk driving is a result of "fully-aware and in control of their means" drunk drivers did you? Because when you say that "those who drive drunk know very well", it kind of sounds like that's what you're saying.

And you misinterpret the 2nd Again, tyranny was not only foreseen by the British, the founding fathers were worried about future tyranny from their own government, from the American government. The 2nd was not just to fight against the invading British, it was to ensure the American government never became the British, because the citizens would be able to fight the government if it tried. In accordance with the principles of the 2nd, it is still relevant today, because while the government may still be fair today, who's to say what the government will be like in 30 years? 50 years?

I think I might have mentioned something about a democratic system built with checks and balances on many levels to prevent that kind of ultimate corruption. If modern Americans think they need to ensure that interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think that they'll have more to worry about then gun ownership.

As well, with the exception of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, every mass shooting in the last 30 years has been committed in a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech? Columbine? The Aurora Theatre (and by the way, there was a theatre closer to his house and a theatre with a larger auditorium he could have shot up, he chose the one he did because it advertised nobody inside would be armed)? Sandy Hook? École Polytechnique? All gun-free zones, meaning nobody in the building could possibly stop the shooter, they wouldn't have the means to. The Oregon Mall Shooting? It ended after a CCW holder drew his gun. He actually wasn't supposed to be carrying in that mall, it was supposed to be a gun-free zone. He didn't shoot, because of bystanders behind the shooter, but the shooter saw the permit holder, and the next shot he got off after un-jamming his gun was to kill himself, because he knew he was done. These killers chose these places because they knew they wouldn't have resistance, because they knew they would have easy, vulnerable targets.

I do believe that Fort Hood has armed MPs? I won't even go into the slippery slope of the argument that more people with more guns = better deterrent because any rational exploration exposes the rather titanic flaws in that defense. And you said you were concerned about what kind of government would be around in 30 or 50 years... Oy vey!

You do not need to ban guns to reduce violent crime, murder, or mass shootings in the US. While I do believe that America could do with some slightly stronger gun control in the form of better screening, perhaps even a license covering the acquisition of a gun, and only the acquisition, I do not believe that the word "banned" needs to be used at all in relation to functional gun control. In the Czech Republic there is technically no such thing as a banned gun, legally you can get any gun you please, even automatics if you can justify to the police why, and yet it has a murder rate comparable to Canada's, but like I said previously, the US is unlike any other nation and it's not entirely fair to compare its situation to the situation of any other nation. I do think, however, that every nation around the world could learn some things about effective gun control by looking at certain parts of the gun control in the Czech Republic. No gun needs to be banned, not even automatics; which have since 1934 only ever been used in 2 shootings, one by a cop; in order to have effective gun control, all you need is varying levels of restriction, but no gun should ever be or need to be entirely inaccessible to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to acquire such a firearm.

Thanks for understanding my OP

Everyone who drives drunk knows fully well what can happen when they do so, whether it be when they're drunk or before hand. If one is going to get so shit-faced that they forget the consequences of drunk driving, then they have a responsibility when they're sober to prepare for their drunken stupidity and make a motor vehicle inaccessible to themselves. The main point, though, is no legislators go after the car when someone drives drunk, they go after the person and the root cause. Why is it then when a gun is involved in a crime the causes are seemingly ignored, and the only focus becomes on the gun?

And no democracy is absolute, there are plenty of examples of democracies throughout history being subverted and overthrown, one of the checks you mention for the US to prevent that is the means to fight back against such a government.

The Fort Hood shooting too place in a gun-free section of the base and was perpetrated by a high-ranking officer, whom nobody had reason to believe would do such a thing. As for these apparent "titanic flaws" I fail to see them, the US is at a 50-year low in murders despite there being more guns in circulation now than ever before, and murder rates dropped significantly as more people in the US gained the ability to carry their guns for self-defence. Dr. John Lott explored the idea in the book by the same name as it, More Guns, Less Crime. And it'd take it kindly for you not to brush off certain aspects of my post in such an condescending and insulting manner. I'm sure the people of Germany in the 1930s never expected their nation to become a dictatorship, nor many of the nations in Europe affected by the Nazis and the Soviets. Nobody can predict the future, especially the future of politics. That exact idea, actually, was from Ben Shapiro's interview with Piers Morgan. And while I am concerned about the future political atmosphere of America, hell I'm concerned about its current political atmosphere, I'm not even American.

Your idea of "excessive amount of hoops" is not the same as my "reasonable training," the implications of your idea are that it should be next to impossible for someone to get a gun, in contrast mine is that one should only need to demonstrate their ability to safely handle the firearm before being able to acquire it.

Zorbanos, I'm not well versed in legalese, but is it possible that there's a "slight" difference between a citywide handgun ban and more stringent restrictions on the purchase of specific types of guns? If so I guess you can remove the "practically" from "practically impossible". Which is kind of NOT my point (to outright ban weapons).

And if the defense is to be "a pistol can just as easily do the same damage", then that certainly begs the question, WHY have rifles been chosen over pistols in the past tragedies? Certainly, having a easily concealed weapon would make access to a targeted area much easier no? So what's the motivating element to choose one over the other?

So, would dealing with bureaucratic monoliths like the IRS be against your constitutional right? I mean, you don't get more hoops than that. I'm sure it's likely easier to get a rifle than to prove that your taxes have been well filed.

If armed gangs with illegal automatic weapons come to your home in a post-apocalyptic future where the entire country has broken down into an anarchist state, and not to be a debbie-downer here, then I highly doubt your access to a high-powered rifle is going to improve your chances of seeing a better tomorrow. Both you and Janke seem be concerned with this "what if the whole country goes down the toilet" scenario - my question is, why allow the HERE AND NOW to get worse so that you can feel like you're standing on the driest part of a sinking ship later?

They haven't, I already showcased an NBC segment saying that Newtown was committed with 4 handguns, Virginia Tech was committed with handguns, the shootings at Danzig St. and the Eaton Centre in Toronto were committed with handguns, the shooting at Concordia University in 1992 was committed with handguns, the Dunblane Massacre was committed with handguns, the Sikh Temple shooting was with handguns, Columbine was committed with weapons legal during the last AWB, including a shotgun. These shooters do not have a preference, though perhaps the AR-15 is noted across the media so often because of its appearance, and perhaps its widespread attention is why several shooters recently have been using it.

And the thing is here and now is not getting worse, it's getting better. I've mentioned this before, homicide rates are down, violent crime is down, but gun ownership is up. As am atter of fact, according to the FBI, just about ever form of violent crime in America is at a lower rate than it was in 1991 and the Bureau of Justice reports homicide rates are at a low not seen since the 1960s. Why indeed should here and now get worse? Here and now is not getting worse with the gun control the US has in place currently, as a matter of fact here and now is getting better. Why then, if there is no statistical detriment to society, should one's freedoms be taken from them in the name of so-called "security"? As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." As defined in the US Constitution, the ownership of firearms is indeed an essential liberty, necessary to the security of a free state.

Penn and Teller did a piece in their series called Bullshit about Gun Control, it's a rather good watch.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

[Lafy BAR]

I would support a ban on Internet Explorer. Why not try it and see what kind of results can be gotten?

[Morton]

People still use IE? WTF is wrong with them?

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Side note: thanks everyone for contributing to this argument and for posting sources. Im gonna use some of this discussion in a policy paper i have to write for my government class on gun control

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I think this might be helpful for you zor.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...d-gun-violence/

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

I don't live in America, I'm Canadian, but I do have an opinion on this. I think its unrealistic for the U.S. to start trying to put a control on guns now, they've already become proliferated throughout the entire country, and there is enough opposition towards the removal of gun rights of any kind that legislation will not be enacted to full effect, I think. Moreover, its not going to stop these shootings from happening. Even in the UK, where they have some of the tightest gun controls in the world, people have gotten a hold of guns for nefarious purposes. If they want to get fully automatic weapons or larger clips, laws be damned, they'll find a way.

Besides, guns alone do not determine the severity of crimes, look at Switzerland. They have like 1 automatic assault rifle for every 10 people there, and when was the last anyone heard of a mass shooting in Switzerland? Look at the shooting in Colorado, the guy picks the only Theatre out of like 12 in the area that does not allow Conceal and Carry permit holders, is it any coincidence that he picked that one to shoot a bunch of people? I don't think we should mess with people's rights to arms in America, I believe its going to be too much effort to control them, and its not going to be worth the effort in my mind when there is not much evidence to support any major positive effects.

And I agree with the idea of people with conceal and carry permits being able to take the law into their own hands in regards to situations like these shootings. These people who do have them have gone through extensive training, examinations, and background checks in order to obtain them, and I've only heard good results out of what I have seen in incidents involving people with conceal and carry permits. Piers Morgan's argument that such a situation can turn into the Okay Corral shootout is unfounded, and I'd rather have someone trying to kill these nefarious people before they get the chance to kill 50 people.

Mark my words, Police are just a reactionary force, they will never be there right when an incident is occuring, which means that the criminal is basically free to do what they want for at least several minutes (more in most cases). I'd rather put faith in the goodness of people with guns among us than to have us all be unarmed against criminals like these ones who have murdered so many men, women, and children.

[Takel 1st MRB]

Besides, guns alone do not determine the severity of crimes, look at Switzerland. They have like 1 automatic assault rifle for every 10 people there, and when was the last anyone heard of a mass shooting in Switzerland?

I would contest this. as has been pointed out before, the USA is a unique country and is much larger than other countries (examples in this thread being Canada, UK and Japan). Using switzerland as an example is not even sensible on this. Switzerland treats guns massively differently, their populace is educated differently about them and the methods for ownership are different (must be 18+, hold a permit and can only own up to 3 weapons. fully automatic and select fire weapons are banned entirely and concealed carrying is illegal). Also, to obtain a gun permit the person must have no history of mental illness and no criminal record. Their last 'mass shooting' was in 2001, when a man killed 14/15 people and injured roughly the same again after opening fire inside a local government building. also, their overall gun crime rate per 100,000 people is only %10 of what it is in the US. So even comparing the US to switzerland, there's a long way to go.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

here are the latest United Nations numbers:

Country and year of most recent data	Number of firearm homicides that year	Odds of being murdered with a firearm that year	Odds of being murdered that year	Percent homicides involving a firearm
United States ('10)	9,960	1 in 31,000	1 in 24,000	67.5%
Switzerland ('04)	57	1 in 125,000	1 in 91,000	72.2%
Canada ('09)	173	1 in 200,000	1 in 56,000	32.0%
Finland ('09)	24	1 in 250,000	1 in 43,000	19.8%
Sweden ('04)	37	1 in 250,000	1 in 83,000	33.9%
Spain ('09)	90	1 in 500,000	1 in 111,000	21.8%
Germany ('10)	158	1 in 500,000	1 in 125,000	26.3%
Israel ('07)	6	1 in 1,000,000	1 in 53,000	11.7%
Australia ('09)	30	1 in 1,000,000	1 in 83,000	11.5%
England & Wales ('10)	41	1 in 1,000,000	1 in 83,000	6.6%
Japan ('08)	11	more than 1 in 1,000,000	1 in 200,000	1.8%

I'm not sure why it compares different years yet.

Sources: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and United Nations Statistics Division

[Muppet Puncher BAR]

Chris Rock said it, what, 10 years ago? We don't need gun control, we need muthafuckin' bullet control! $500 bullets except at registered rifle ranges, bitches can have whatever gun they want as long as they pay $500 a pop for their lead. Americans need to realise they live in a civilised nation and stop threatening revolution over muthafuckin' guns and pay more attention to the important shit, like Wall Street STILL taking over your lives, oil and war profitters STILL making your country the whipping boy of the world, and single handedly contributing to the largest rise in greenhouse gas emissions (thanks US military). /rantover.

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

Gah, why did I click on this topic again....

[Logue 1st MRB]

I think this should remain a state and not federal issue. The strength of US democracy is the potential for diversity within unity. From what I've read it sounds like some states have no problems with guns while others are suffering from violent crime. The latter are the ones that need to sort something out.

[Lafy BAR]

I think this should remain a state and not federal issue. The strength of US democracy is the potential for diversity within unity. From what I've read it sounds like some states have no problems with guns while others are suffering from violent crime. The latter are the ones that need to sort something out.

The issue with trying to say it's just a state issue is that there are no guarded state borders. Guns travel around. Many states that have major gun crime problems also have strict gun laws, which do them no good because it only takes a couple hours to drive across the state line and buy whatever guns are allowed in the neighbouring state.

Something like an assault riffle ban or universal background checks would be almost useless if people can just go for a short drive to buy a banned weapon or to avoid a background check.

[Legend]

I think this should remain a state and not federal issue. The strength of US democracy is the potential for diversity within unity. From what I've read it sounds like some states have no problems with guns while others are suffering from violent crime. The latter are the ones that need to sort something out.

The issue with trying to say it's just a state issue is that there are no guarded state borders. Guns travel around. Many states that have major gun crime problems also have strict gun laws, which do them no good because it only takes a couple hours to drive across the state line and buy whatever guns are allowed in the neighbouring state.

Something like an assault riffle ban or universal background checks would be almost useless if people can just go for a short drive to buy a banned weapon or to avoid a background check.

Cartels make double profit if we ban.

[Lafy BAR]

The issue with trying to say it's just a state issue is that there are no guarded state borders. Guns travel around. Many states that have major gun crime problems also have strict gun laws, which do them no good because it only takes a couple hours to drive across the state line and buy whatever guns are allowed in the neighbouring state.

Something like an assault riffle ban or universal background checks would be almost useless if people can just go for a short drive to buy a banned weapon or to avoid a background check.

Cartels make double profit if we ban.

The fact that people will violate laws is not an argument against passing laws. And really, getting assault riffles into a country is harder than getting heroin into a country.

[O'Hare 1st MRB]

"A free people ought not only 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

It's our right to buy and carry any weapon that the govt carries!

[Morton]

"A free people ought not only 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

It's our right to buy and carry any weapon that the govt carries!

Bogus Quote.

The actual quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Also it would appear at least some of our Founding Fathers would agree that there is a proper use of fire arms, as in legitimate self-defense, and militia duty. They where also concerned about the misuse of them.