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

Do you even read what you write?

 

Yes, nobody needs personal cars. ...you really don't. You won't stop every car on the road but its a start, and if it means saving lives. It's economics AND good for the environment... Win- win

 

When law enforcement is corrupted due to their new found power.. what then? You better be obedient and do what they say.

If no one had guns.. why would SWAT need them? Oh wait. yeah. criminals don't follow rules or laws. Better yet how about going after the criminals instead?

 

The car analogy is inherently stupid and a loser on a cost-benefit basis - nobody who is assessing the problem logically would think that restricting firearms necessitates banning automobiles, but ROXRAN - good idea.

Why DON't we regulate firearms to the same level that we regulate automobiles - mandatory testing, mandatory insurance, mandatory registration, mandatory annual inspections - owning & operating a firearm should be at least as onerous as going to the DMV, if not more so. Of course, this will mean higher costs for gun owners. Nothing a few excise taxes & registration fees can't fix - got to be fiscally reponsible you know.

 

Agreed. More testing, evaluation. No prob. My problem Is when people want to take away. Because the justification is numerically weak when you think of other threats to people at large...if we agree to minimize cars, ban alcohol, and tobacco first, then..you have my permission to eradicate guns. At least that progression of restricting/taking away makes sense from an overall threat to the people perspective...

 

The 1700s called...

 

The justification isn't related to other threats to people at large, and attempting to tie it to such is a diversion. Eradicating AIDS doesn't mean you're not going to drop dead of heart attack or cancer - but it's still valuable for us to try to do it.

Stricter regulation of guns isn't going to cure drunk driving or smoking-related lung cancer fatalities - it's still a great idea for its own sake, and we're going to get it done this time hopefully.

 

This kind of argument is the least persuasive to be made. Just because one is examining one issue does not preclude one from looking at others---in fact, if anything, looking at something like gun control can help expand one's mind on many other issues.

I don't even understand where you are going with the comparisons, but I suggest you start a thread on those issues if you want to talk about them, rather than using them to escape debating this one.

 

Oh, boy, how many lives of kids will be numerical strong for you to have your permission? One innocent life lost in elementry, middle, high and college is one too many. One innocent life lost in a mall, movie theater in one's daily living to a radom shooting is one too many. What's the justfication?

As far as I can tell, most of people are really really disturbed by this trend of mass killing .

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dhXOuuHcjbs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I'm sorry, but I think others are right when they say you are avoiding the issue.

If this is your logic, then you should feel free to wave a 9-iron over your head in a lightning storm, or cover yourself in fish blood and swim at the Farallon Islands... because you are more likely to get killed in a car wreck.

See what I mean? It's just not a good argument.

Houses serve a purpose. Cars serve a purpose. Semi-automatic weapons, especially with 30-round magazines, really have one and only one purpose: hurting people. No, really, with the ammo this kid was using: killing people, period. You can say you want it to defend your home, and I'm okay with that to an extent, but just admit it's not comparable to everyday utilities like a house or electricity or a car. It's a hobby. I think you have to articulate, or the NRA will have to articulate, why drawing the line at semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity clips is a good hobby and owning a tank with live ammo is a bad hobby.

I think your bringing up car regulation and Sam going with that is a great way forward. Insurance, real licensing exams, real penalties for failing to follow the rules... and by analogy, you can't go buy a street-illegal car at a car show, with regulations that avoid DMV. Too easy to do that with guns, from what I can ascertain.

 

Reports are that he left rather than undergoing a background check. The check would have put off his purchase until after the massacre. He was seen by school counselors but there's no reason to believe that would have screened him on the basis of mental illness since he was apparently never officially diagnosed. If he'd waited a few days longer, if he'd not been on such an expedited schedule, they'd have happily sold him guns. Just like they did to all the other (untreated) crazy people that did massacres. Most crazy people (the vast majority) do not seek treatment and therefore do not show up on mental health background checks.

I couldn't buy a gun now because I wouldn't pass a check but when I was REALLY bad off, when I was actually dangerous, I'd have had no trouble at all. Because at that point, like most mentally ill people, I'd not sought treatment or received a diagnosis.

That scare anyone? It should.

 

I never own a gun or even handle a real gun in my life. I often walked around downtowns in various cities in midnight. I lived in the country for a while too. By the logic of some of you, I should have been dead a long long time ago. I just cannot honestly figure out why do people need a gun? How does it work? You keep a gun under your pillow, you sleep in a self-awake mode and in case when robber breaks in at night, you magically wake yourself like "Bond, James Bond" pulling the gun out of the pillow, fires at the robber. Is that how it works? Can some of you gun owner explain?

 

It's not the movies. I hope I never have to shoot anyone. So no Bond woman in the next room unfortunately.

You might feel safe because nothings happened to you. That's great. Really it is. What about the people that have been victims of crime? I personally have drawn my gun on one person in my life, let me say that I am still here to talk about it and another person that was with me is alive too. I've also been robbed and stopped a robbery once. (yes had a firearm) As an adult, let me say I've been in situations where I would have felt more comfortable with a firearm. Just because you live in an area with no crime.. doesn't mean everyone else does. As a kid my cousin and I were jumped by the McDonalds near Astroworld (waiting for mom to pick us up.) The employees just stood there, some laughed, as we were getting beat up by a mob of people. Just like society causes crazys to come out.. it causes legit citizens to become more aware, therefore they feel the need to carry a firearm. Have you ever known the cops to be around when you need them? Criminals main advantage is surprise.. so don't be surprised when your surprised your getting mugged. :grin:

Maybe I was programmed by society but I feel if everyone else can use that excuse.. I can too.

Regardless, Why does not matter. that's for me to decide. If you decide, you do it because that's your choice. Not anyone else. Everyone is different. Why do people put 24"s w/ spinners on their car? why do people watch Nascar? Why do people drink and drive? Why do people collect knives? Why do people go to strip clubs? Why do people watch reality TV? None may be important to you but it may be to others.

Hunting and home protection are just some of the uses for a firearm. It's actually fun for me, I like target shooting and there's nothing like the thrill of hitting bullseyes at over 100+ yrds. It's recreation, it's competition, it's fun... but can be used for home protection and hunting. As far as both of those activities.. you don't buy a gun, load it up, and wait to use it. You need to practice, practice good gun habits and skills, which is why gun ranges exist. Ranges near my house are actually run by the state.

just my 3cents.

 

And under the same principles we should look at banning things like high capacity and extended magazines. As far as lawsuits since several states have successfully sued the tobacco industry I am guessing this means you don't think that guns should be treated the same as tobacco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
[rquoter]nder the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).[/rquoter]

So basically it is purely voluntary for people making sales at guns shows to decide whether to sell or not to sell with no need for background checks. This also still ignores the fact that Cho, Loughner and Holmes all bought their weapons legally and under current law people like that with a history of mental illness but no criminal record still can.

And again how do you explain how the shooters I listed above were able to get their guns and high capacity magazines?

I fully agree but as noted the current gun laws do nothing to stop those type of people from buying these type of weapons.

If the laws were based on conforming to who is responsible and those who don't we wouldn't punish drunk drivers unless they caused an accident.

As far as the 2nd Amendment as noted already it doesn't prevent the regulation of guns and even banning of types of arms.

 

waiting for the Rockets game and I see a trailer for Gangster Squad, which doesn't even try to hide its glorification of violence and gunplay

just a cultural observation

 

After enough massacres folks are not going to listen to bs like this aany more or your primitive Constitution reading. You gun nuts are going down. Hopefully you can find another reason to have a life. Enough people have been killed so the gun manufacturers can make big bucks.

Essentially all other ways that people die must be regulated or we can't regulate guns. Not even a good try.

I guess you would be ok with regulating guns once all dangerous cracks in all the sidewalks in the United States have been eliminated.

 

Use and ownership are related since there it is accepted that if one owns something they are likely to use it. For example we don't just allow people to own heroin even if they say they won't use it.

Leave that aside the 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent the banning of ownership of types of guns.

 

Hardly. Why do there seem to be more made-up or taken out of context founders quotes on the 2nd amendment than any other topic?

There are three more quotes in your list, but this is getting boring and the post is getting too long.