The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

To me, the right to bear arms was so that if big brother wanted to come at us, we would have a way to fight back, in the hills or mountains, like the glorious francis marion, che or the mighty wolverines.

But I really don't know what gun control would do in mass shootings. With crime waves in every city, obtaining a gun illegally would be just as easy.


I'm all for trying though.

 

Let gun freaks have what the amendment intended, and let them have it exactly: an antique single-shot, manual load gun.

Everything else, from semi-automatic handguns to rocket launchers to thermonuclear weapons, was not covered by the founding fathers.

I'm kind of serious.

Or maybe, since people seem to go especially crazy as males, aged 20-26, we can just ban guns to that age group. Can't drive until you're 18, can't drink until you're about 21, and can't own or touch a firearm without direct adult supervision until you turn 26. (The supervision would still let hunting enthusiasts enjoy a tradition, with older friends or parents, which I think is important.)

 

Most problems need to be approached from multiple angles (there is no, ahem, magic bullet). Increased attention to mental health programs, decreasing the availability of weapons with this kind of sheer destructive power, increased awareness of issues of alienation and glorification of violence as a tool probably all would help.

Gun control is a slippery slope.
Gun control is not effective.

False.

Waiting periods are a great example of this. Do they stop all gun violence? No. Absolutely not. Do they stop some criminals from getting guns? Yes. Absolutely it is empirically proven to do so. Do they stop some people from committing crimes of passion and suicide? Yes, absolutely. Have they resulted in a fascist state where we have no guns? No. Apparently not.

 

Tax the living crap out of guns and ammunition. Let the nuts pay for their "right."

 

assault weapons ban does make sense.

 

Anyone who thinks tighter gun control won't result in less murders with guns is clueless. You have so many proofs all around the world and you still ignore it. No, even better: you bring the Norwegian killing up. Which is one freaking event. How many were there in US in last 20 years and how many in Norway? Or China? For each shooting outside of US, I can find 10 such shootings in US. Put the 2nd amendment in use in European countries and we will quickly follow US in shootings.

People will always try to hurt each other. The more weapons you give them, the more hurting will come. Until psychological prevention works wonders and finds potential killers before they do their crimes, taking guns out of their hands is the only prevention that works. Of course some of them can get their guns illegaly, but there would be much smaller number of such people.

 

I posted this in the other thread.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it easier.

My point is that the convenience with how these mass killers are able to rack up the body count that they can needs to look it. While yes a determined murderer will probably figure out a way to kill people in spite of laws, Anders Breivik, I am curious how long it took someone like Breivik to assemble his arsenal to carry out his killing. Further while people can assemble bombs bomb making isn't as easy obtaining a gun. Consider the Times Square bomber was someone who had bomb training and a technical background yet still couldn't make that bomb work. For that matter all of these terrorists that the FBI keeps catching many of them are relying on the FBI to provide with the parts to make a bomb rather than just doing it themselves.

As far as knives go yes people get killed with knives and knives are easier to obtain than guns. Most of us have several knives lying around that could be used as killing weapons. It is easier though to kill with guns and kill a lot of people with a gun.

I am not for complete eradication of private ownership of guns and I accept that the 2nd Amendment does protect private ownership of guns but restrictions on the type, type of ammunition and magazine are things that are both sensible. Consider that the Gabby Giffords shooter was only stopped when his high capacity magazine ran out.

 

Who was it that said let people have all the guns they want just make the bullets a $1000 a piece?

 

That would be the great Chris Rock.

"I would bust a cap in your ass....if I could afford it"

 

Chris Rock. And it was $5000.

"When a man gets shot they'll 'damn, he must've done something... they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass'".

 

The country would be a better place if this had continued happening.

 

I agree. I am historically in favor of the second amendment interpretation that we have a right to own guns. But rights have limits. No sensible person would argue you can privately own a nuke. So the discussion is about where to draw the line, not IF there is a line.

 

Gun ownership wasn't protected as an individual right until 2008 - you are saying that prior to that time we had a police state?

 

Yes. We need to at least start the discussion here.

However....if tomorrow we made ALL guns illegal, it would take years (decades?) for it to have much of an impact. There's simply too many out there already.

 

Are you really that ignorant? Take a look at the war on drugs to see how effective this would be.

 

I'm not in favor of banning all guns, but it would have an immediate effect. You'd have to buy one illegally, which means you'd have to make contact with someone in the black market and buy one. Many people simply would not do this. All the new guns that would have been on the market wouldn't be on the market, and the flow of used guns would be restricted (not every gun owner would decide to become a criminal and sell their guns illegally).

 

the second someone can name ONE purpose guns serve outside of killing/maming is the second i will listen to their reasoning for not having tighter gun restrictions.

 

At some point reality has to override ideology.

Or everyone just ends up in hell together.

 

Dude....just....come on man...really?!?!

 

It has so far here in Australia since restrictions came in. They followed several mass shootings and in the 16 years since the laws changed there have been none. Sure there are still shootings as criminals can still find ways to arm themselves but in nearly all cases they just use them on each other.

Also people seem to think there is a gun ban here, which isn't the case. You can still buy non automatic weapons here, you just need a permit to do so which requires passing a course which includes safety training and not being a nutjob. The pro gun argument here at the time was very similar to the one pushed out by yours, even if we are certainly not as gun loving as a country but you don't hear any of them complaining anymore because if they do the right thing they can still get a gun if they have a legal reason to do so.