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

I'm interested to see how effective are the FBI tactics in anticipating would be suicide bombers in preventing other bomb attacks though. I see a lot of poeple saying 'well if guns are banned, then they will upgrade to explosives etc', but there are all those articles praising the FBI/CIA for stopping bomb threats. I'd imagine that if guns were banned, and people tried to go for bombs instead, they would be caught far more easily.

 

I am mixed on this subject. While I agree that guns and ammo shouldn't be so easily available, Im not sure this will help. I am leaning towards that anyone who has a loaded weapon should be required to have a license. I do fear more and more regulation will eventually lead to a full ban, which I do not agree with.

 

You would also be surprised how few people in America use homemade bombs as their murdering weapon of choice.

Must be because guns are a much simpler, more effective, visceral, readily-available alternative.

 

Ehhh Im not sure where you can buy automatic weapons off the streets. Semi-automatic weapons, yes. Automatic, no.

And fully automatic weapons can be bought legally, you just are required to have permits.

 

Having guns, even assault weapons would not enable citizens to replace the govt. these days. It's a silly reason to argue against gun control.

The guns people can buy will not stop tanks, aircraft, loss of water, electricity, etc.

 

Why do you need a bomb just start a fire. How is the fbi going to catch that? There are just some crazy people out there.

 

Two weeks ago in Minneapolis a 4 year old killed his little brother with their father's pistol that he obtained legally and kept for protection.

A related gun self-defense anecdote from MN. Last week a man shot his 16 year old granddaughter when he mistook her for someone breaking into his house.

 

I would think that if you want to defend your home against an intruder, and alarm system would be far more effective than a gun.

 

Really? I hadn't heard of any of that happening. It seems like the slippery slope has not happened in several western nations. It happened in Nazi Germany, and that's about it. In other places when they wanted to get rid of guns, it wasn't a slippery slope where they said they would only take certain kinds.

They wanted to get rid of the guns and they got rid of them. There was little to no slippery slope.

 

But you can't hunt, go the shooting range or extinguish their life with an alarm system. Besides most home invasions are for the purpose of murdering all inhabitants inside.

 

What are you calling a home invasion? Is a burglary a home invasion? Because I believe most home invasions are for burglaries and they do it to rob things, and usually try and make sure it's done when people aren't home.

Obviously that isn't true in most cases, but certainly way more than someone deciding to go into a home for the express purpose killing every single person inside.

 

Let's be honest. . . .if everyone was RESPONSIBLE . .100% of the time
we could allow everyone to have Nuclear Weapons
but
We don't because . .. some f***er may have a bad day and BOOM!

The reality is . . . we need more defensive non-lethal affective weapons.

I am not saying get rid of all guns by any stretch
HOWEVER, I think the penalty for poor gun management should be stringent
i.e. you kids takes the the gun to school . . .if the gun is legal .. that means 3~5 yrs in prison for you
If it is illegal . . . 5~10
[exageration maybe not SOME JAIL TIME FOR YOU!!!]
and
you loose the right to have a gun.

I think more extensive training requirements.
Owning a gun should never be easier than getting a drivers license.


Rocket River

 

I'm sure the psychopath that had it in his head to murder 20+ kids/teachers would have had the moral servitude to not commit the mass murder because guns were illegal to own state. People who are willing to take the associated risk will ALWAYS have illegal items at their disposal. Why punish responsible gun owners bc of people like this?

 

It's not about morals. It's about logic.

This is a discussion that goes far beyond Sandy Hook or Aurora. Trying to pigeonhole it is a disservice.

Not everybody who murders someone is inexorably married to that goal (in fact, that is the incredibly rare exception).

You place barriers between people and their ability to obtain deadly weapons. This decreases the likelihood of gun violence, period.

Or in the case of this guy, had these automatic weapons, etc. not been so readily available to him when he snapped, then perhaps we would be looking at a situation like the attack in China, instead of a massive bodycount we're dealing with today.

Sorry you have to be inconvenienced with more classes, fees, and paperwork. But as they say on the internet...

Spoiler

 

Your not imconveniening me, brother. As someone who makes a living with firearms and have probably taken more firearm/armory courses over my career than most attend college it will just be a hiccup as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, the automatic weapon you speak of was not used in the shooting. He used a Glock 22 and a SIG Semi-Automatic handgun. The rifle was found in his vehicle but not used.

 

The incident in China where the pschopath had a knife instead of a gun, belies your assertion.

I own guns myself and I'm planning on getting more. I'm not in favor of getting rid of gun ownership. But what you stated doesn't fit the facts.

 

Great! So you agree.

Yeah, imagine if he had used it. Doesn't exactly strengthen the anti-gun control case.

 

The Bushmaster .223 was the primary weapon according to the Medical Examiner. Let the debate begin....

 

Say herro to your rittle friend?

 

Can you name some of these nations?