***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[ATC1]

****Just a guess here****

The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

 

[Rayderr]

****Just a guess here****The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

I'm not getting real time coverage here, but if he shot the father, I"m guessing authorities would know that by now and it would've made the news.Now as far as stolen guns, like the one used at the mall, the only realistic solution to that would that people must keep their firearms on their person at all time. I'm guessing that won't fly very well. (and even that has flaws since people need to sleep sometime.)

 

[eoMMan]

FWIW, the initial reports from today make it sound like a lot of the killing was done with 2 9MM handguns.

Ban assault rifles all you want. You won't stop tragedies like this from happening, unfortunately.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I just don't understand why a person would own certain types of guns.

People like different things. I'm not a gun person. I've never had any interest in owning any kind of gun. But a lot of people really like'em.

 

[fatkid]

I akin gun control and drug control and alcohol control as similar problems with similar solutions. We can't ban either activity without a significant underworld economy developing. But we can estimate the cost of damage those activities cause in society. Then we can legalize them, and tax them such that the cost of damage is covered by the income raised in taxes.

If someone wants to argue that it will cost 10 trillion dollars to implement security measures at schools or public areas to prevent weapons. Fine. Lets implement them, and pass the costs allong to gun owners in the form of taxes on guns and ammunition sales.

We will never fully prevent these types of crimes. They are too random, and humans are too smart, and with 300 million people, some of them will be crazy. But by taking actions, we can change the balance. I think we all agree the balance today is too far towards random violence. We need a reasonable goal of restoring the balance through policies our government can actually enforce.

Right, because the gun nuts (I distinguish from reasonable people who enjoy firearms and gun nuts - I myself own firearms) are the type who are very reasonable about new taxes

They are not going to like any "solution" in this thread. Of all of the solutions so far suggested, I bet if you put a gun to their head, they would choose my idea before any other.

 

[Clifford]

****Just a guess here****The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gunIn-depth analysis of how guns are handled in the home at time of purchase, and a class to be completed about safe storage of firearmsEnlarge the psychological checks to the entire family if they will have access to the gunsThe first one is doable today and would have prevented a non-purchaser from firing the weapon.If people want to keep their guns, and avoid forcing a bad decision that would take guns away from people who are capable of owning and using them responsibly, then we better start talking about what measures would be tolerable in order to do something about this. Once you get leagues of Moms lobbying the white house and sitting out on the lawns with photos of their dead kids every day, you might get laws that you'd really dislike.

 

[rascal]

SO ATC1 has said he would favor psychological background checks and he is thus far the first self-described pro-gun person to say so. Anyone else want to voice an opinion on this?

I said it after the Aurora shooting, FWIW.

 

[ATC1]

****Just a guess here****The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

I'm not getting real time coverage here, but if he shot the father, I"m guessing authorities would know that by now and it would've made the news.Now as far as stolen guns, like the one used at the mall, the only realistic solution to that would that people must keep their firearms on their person at all time. I'm guessing that won't fly very well. (and even that has flaws since people need to sleep sometime.)

Not as far as who the guns belonged too. But the father was found in his house. At least locked in a safe. There are great safes that allow quick access that can be on the night stand. Personally I would like to possibly see the government give safes to all gun owners. Or a tax break to safe owners. Something.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.

I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.

But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

I have no idea.

But a gun like this:

http://www.bidgunner.com/auctions/ushmaster1emi-utomatic223emington556301

Is it legal? If so, why?

I honestly am just inquiring.

Reasons I can think of include having fun shooting it at the range with friends, showing friends yours is bigger and cooler, and my favorite being, "Because I can as an American."But not knowing and advocating gun laws is a problem.

I'm not advocating gun laws. I just don't understand why a person would own certain types of guns.

I don't understand why people go to storage locker auctions or own classic cars either, but they do.

 

[culdeus]

Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Serious question.I get a hunting rifle. Heck, even a pistol for protection, fine.But an assault weapon? What's one good reason to buy a good designed to effectively kill people?

Quick, what's the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle? No cheating using google. Tell me in your own words what you think the difference is.

bullet capacity and rate of fire come to mind for me. Also tactical barrel length designed for close combat, muzzle breaks etc..

 

[pizzatyme]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!

This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms.

Stop the insanity!

 

[fatkid]

I akin gun control and drug control and alcohol control as similar problems with similar solutions. We can't ban either activity without a significant underworld economy developing. But we can estimate the cost of damage those activities cause in society. Then we can legalize them, and tax them such that the cost of damage is covered by the income raised in taxes.

Because the 'cost' is just about the dollars and cents and not blood and tears.

True, but just because we can perfectly account for "Cost" doesn't mean this idea is worthless. We can't accurately calculate the cost of driving in terms of wear on roads and highways, traffic enforcement, and infrastrcuture and yet we still tax gas. Same with cigarettes.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I just don't understand why a person would own certain types of guns.

People like different things. I'm not a gun person. I've never had any interest in owning any kind of gun. But a lot of people really like'em.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Plenty of people, including a lot of prominent posters in the FFA, support legalizing other drugs like meth and heroin and cocaine. I do.

Are we still considering you prominent, gb?

 

[tommyboy]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Plenty of people, including a lot of prominent posters in the FFA, support legalizing other drugs like meth and heroin and cocaine. I do.

Are we still considering you prominent, gb?

Nah, I was talking about people like Maurile and IvanKaramazov. Pretty sure I'm buried somewhere in the middle of the Pickles official tier system.

 

[Clifford]

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun

You're big on the fingerprint technology but it's not a foolproof technology. Gloves, sweat, dirt, and malfunction could all cause the weapon to not fire. Besides, what good is a firearm only you can fire? Would you buy a car nobody else could drive?

Is this serious because it seems like trolling. I think I've been pretty clear on the "don't try anything because there is no perfect solution" argument. And what good is a firearm that only you can fire? WTF do you even mean with this question. You're bummed because you can't loan your buddies your guns? I mean, seriously, you honestly wrote this and meant it?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

****Just a guess here****The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gunIn-depth analysis of how guns are handled in the home at time of purchase, and a class to be completed about safe storage of firearmsEnlarge the psychological checks to the entire family if they will have access to the gunsThe first one is doable today and would have prevented a non-purchaser from firing the weapon.If people want to keep their guns, and avoid forcing a bad decision that would take guns away from people who are capable of owning and using them responsibly, then we better start talking about what measures would be tolerable in order to do something about this. Once you get leagues of Moms lobbying the white house and sitting out on the lawns with photos of their dead kids every day, you might get laws that you'd really dislike.

I'm not against looking into this stuff, but it sounds a little big-brothery and very expensive. How do we pay for this?

 

[ATC1]

****Just a guess here****

The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:

Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun - I'm not opposed because it will prevent stolen gun problem and black market, but I can see the downfall. Before purchasing a gun, I like to test fire some friends to see what I feel safest with. Expense is another. Grips can always be changed.

In-depth analysis of how guns are handled in the home at time of purchase, and a class to be completed about safe storage of firearms - Agreed

Enlarge the psychological checks to the entire family if they will have access to the guns - Baby steps. The person wanting to purchase for sure.

The first one is doable today and would have prevented a non-purchaser from firing the weapon.

If people want to keep their guns, and avoid forcing a bad decision that would take guns away from people who are capable of owning and using them responsibly, then we better start talking about what measures would be tolerable in order to do something about this. Once you get leagues of Moms lobbying the white house and sitting out on the lawns with photos of their dead kids every day, you might get laws that you'd really dislike.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Might want to look at WHY people do these things and not HOW. Hint: It isn't a gun problem.

The Why is a longer term societal fix.Doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder for people to get the means to execute schoolchildren even if you can't fix everyone's thoughts.

You think banning guns is a short term fix? You know how many guns are in the US? Like the stabbing in China today, a nutjub is going to find a way. What if the next trend is to take a bunch of gas cans into a school and burn everyone? Ban gas?

No, you do what you can. Why the #### is that so ####### hard to understand for you? Why can't you ####### get that? If you enact a measure that keeps just one murdering ####### ####### from shooting up a school or a mall or a movie theater then you have succeeded in a huge way that trying NOTHING will ever touch.Another all-or-nothing ####### nut. I have proposed very reasonable measures that would at least put effort towards identifying at risk people who attempt to buy guns. It would not prevent anyone non-violent, normal, sane person from owning a gun and all I heard about was how it was an invasion of privacy or would cost too much to institute. We could pass that law tomorrow. And it could have prevented the Aurora shooting had it been on the books then.Real simple: you want a gun, we are going to talk to your medical insurance company and see if you have had any psychological problems whatsoever, and if you have, your gun purchase will wait until it is determined whether you pose any risk to anyone by owning a gun.Also, you are required to submit any social handles so those can be checked. Also laughed at.This guy has a twitter account talking about how he wants to world to end. Aurora dude did too, and had a psychological profile to boot. Guy who shot up the Sikh temple had youtube videos talking about lynching people.We could enact all these restrictions tomorrow, and unless you can provide proof that they would not help prevent one gun from being sold to the wrong person, then there is no reason to not give them a try.Saying we should try nothing because trying anything wouldn't be 100% effective is not only stupid, it's massively insensitive to the victims and their families.

So you don't think that someone with mental issues wouldn't try and steal or illegally buy a gun if they wanted to commit violence?

Of course not. It would be illegal.

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Really? You're basing my argument on that?Did you post just to post?

 

[rascal]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms.

serious question, what do you think they intended?

 

[Rayderr]

****Just a guess here****The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

I'm not getting real time coverage here, but if he shot the father, I"m guessing authorities would know that by now and it would've made the news.Now as far as stolen guns, like the one used at the mall, the only realistic solution to that would that people must keep their firearms on their person at all time. I'm guessing that won't fly very well. (and even that has flaws since people need to sleep sometime.)

Not as far as who the guns belonged too. But the father was found in his house. At least locked in a safe. There are great safes that allow quick access that can be on the night stand. Personally I would like to possibly see the government give safes to all gun owners. Or a tax break to safe owners. Something.

Safes might work, but probably not in the cases where the shooter knows the person they are stealing the gun from. Good chance they've seen the safe opened before, know what the person would choose for a combo, or where they would store said combo. And all that is dependent on ther owner remembering to put the gun in the safe and locking it.We've had guns stolen out of police cars. Surely we can't expect people to carry a gun safe with them in the car.

 

[fatkid]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms. Stop the insanity!

One intent from our founding father was to allow every day civialians to use their arms to defend themselves from oppresive goverments. Many european monarchies took away the citizens rights to own weapons as a way of controlling or subjugating them.Our founding fathers were wise and had good reasons for their actions. But they also created the constitution as a living document, and the people have the right to change it. It will take a constitutional amendment to change gun ownership laws, but we have that right.

 

[saintfool]

what's tim's take?

 

[timschochet]

I'm a little saner about this now. I want to stress first that it's extremely bad policy to base long term decisions on anecdotal events like what took place this morning, no matter how horrific they are. We need to start by acknowledging some facts:

1. We live a pretty safe society. Murders are down across the board, so is gun violence in general.

2. Gun ownership per household is actually at a very low level in this country, per the Washington Post.

Now I believe that there are rational reasons for some gun control laws, but again we need to at least try to limit the discussion, both pro and against, to rational arguments based on facts, statistics, and reason, and not based on emotion. That's the main reason I didn't think it made too much sense to debate this issue within hours of what happened.

That being said, some of Clifford's proposed ideas make sense to me. My goals in this issue are:

1. To prevent the bad guys and crazy guys from having firearms as best as we possibly can.

2. To allow law-abiding citizens to continue to own firearms for their personal safety and private enjoyment.

There are those, especially on the pro-gun ownership side, who find these two goals to be incompatible. I think they are compatible, but we may need to work a little harder as a society to make it happen.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Maybe try reading before posting. We can try and type slower for you if need be.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Plenty of people, including a lot of prominent posters in the FFA, support legalizing other drugs like meth and heroin and cocaine. I do.

Are we still considering you prominent, gb?

Nah, I was talking about people like Maurile and IvanKaramazov. Pretty sure I'm buried somewhere in the middle of the Pickles official tier system.

No way Pickles does you like that. You can be elite without being prominent.

 

[Clifford]

****Just a guess here****

The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:

Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun

In-depth analysis of how guns are handled in the home at time of purchase, and a class to be completed about safe storage of firearms

Enlarge the psychological checks to the entire family if they will have access to the guns

The first one is doable today and would have prevented a non-purchaser from firing the weapon.

If people want to keep their guns, and avoid forcing a bad decision that would take guns away from people who are capable of owning and using them responsibly, then we better start talking about what measures would be tolerable in order to do something about this. Once you get leagues of Moms lobbying the white house and sitting out on the lawns with photos of their dead kids every day, you might get laws that you'd really dislike.

I'm not against looking into this stuff, but it sounds a little big-brothery and very expensive. How do we pay for this?

Same way we pay for everything else.

 

[Mr.Pack]

OK, one more time to the "Do nothing because there is no cure-all" posters. You've had your say. Your arguments are not only insensitive the dead kids and their parents, they are just plain ####### stupid. They are made as if the poster has complete ignorance of every other security and safety measure ever imposed in human history, so not only are they insensitive AND stupid they are intellectually dishonest. So if you have come here to post that we can never enact any gun control measures because it won't stop 100% of crime or criminals or shootings or murders, SHUT THE #### UP. You are part of the problem and part of the culture that has again and again turned a blind eye to obvious and workable solutions that might curb 5, 10, or maybe even 15% of these crimes. You are the ones opposing micro-stamping which every p;ice precinct in the world has asked for. You are the ones opposing more extensive background checks that would have at least given us a chance to catch some of these ####ed up #######s.

So please, if you are here to make this insensitive, stupid, and intellectually dishonest point, GTFO. Vision6 I am looking at you. Quit trolling.

You and proninja should get together and learn some reading comprehension. No one in here is advocating doing nothing.Wow...... Just wow

 

[Rayderr]

what's tim's take?

I'm a little saner about this now...

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

****Just a guess here****

The guns from the CT shooting are the shooter's father's. He shot the father and stole the guns. That would be a tough one to debate. Nothing could have been done except if the father had them locked up.

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:

Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun

In-depth analysis of how guns are handled in the home at time of purchase, and a class to be completed about safe storage of firearms

Enlarge the psychological checks to the entire family if they will have access to the guns

The first one is doable today and would have prevented a non-purchaser from firing the weapon.

If people want to keep their guns, and avoid forcing a bad decision that would take guns away from people who are capable of owning and using them responsibly, then we better start talking about what measures would be tolerable in order to do something about this. Once you get leagues of Moms lobbying the white house and sitting out on the lawns with photos of their dead kids every day, you might get laws that you'd really dislike.

I'm not against looking into this stuff, but it sounds a little big-brothery and very expensive. How do we pay for this?

Same way we pay for everything else.

Borrow against our future?

 

[ATC1]

Is it easy to get a bullet proof vest? Maybe we as a society should be rather inquisitive as to why people are purchasing these outside of law enforcement. This murderer was wearing one, I think the Colorado movie shooter had one and maybe the Oregon mall shooter? Forget the battle over gun control for a minute - would it make sense to start following the ball on the people who buy these? Is it normal for a 24 year old kid to buy a bullet proof vest?

 

[pizzatyme]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms.

serious question, what do you think they intended?

I think they intended guns of that time. If assault weapons were around when the laws were written, then that would be perfectly fine. I know I have no idea what they were thinking, but they wrote laws based on the technology available then. Not now. And I am related to Bejamin Harrison. So take that!

 

[Mr.Pack]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

 

[Clifford]

OK, one more time to the "Do nothing because there is no cure-all" posters. You've had your say. Your arguments are not only insensitive the dead kids and their parents, they are just plain ####### stupid. They are made as if the poster has complete ignorance of every other security and safety measure ever imposed in human history, so not only are they insensitive AND stupid they are intellectually dishonest. So if you have come here to post that we can never enact any gun control measures because it won't stop 100% of crime or criminals or shootings or murders, SHUT THE #### UP. You are part of the problem and part of the culture that has again and again turned a blind eye to obvious and workable solutions that might curb 5, 10, or maybe even 15% of these crimes. You are the ones opposing micro-stamping which every p;ice precinct in the world has asked for. You are the ones opposing more extensive background checks that would have at least given us a chance to catch some of these ####ed up #######s.

So please, if you are here to make this insensitive, stupid, and intellectually dishonest point, GTFO. Vision6 I am looking at you. Quit trolling.

You and proninja should get together and learn some reading comprehension. No one in here is advocating doing nothing.Wow...... Just wow

Please link your solution that you have offered in this thread.

 

[fatkid]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

1, We have 300 million people in this country. Not all of us are wired the same. Either genetically or environmentally in a gene pool this big you will find people who lack empathy and concern for other people, enjoy causing pain, and are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. 2. Humans tend to emulate behavior that is emotionally powerfull. A teenage sucide in a community statistically leads to an increase in suicide in that community. One person does it, and another person emulates.3. Our news media is so efficiant, that we see the impact of this all the time. No one reported the shootout at the OK corral in real time. Frankly no one reports gang violence today either. But these surprising dramatic shootings we all see immeadiately via the news and talk about via social media.

 

[pizzatyme]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms. Stop the insanity!

One intent from our founding father was to allow every day civialians to use their arms to defend themselves from oppresive goverments. Many european monarchies took away the citizens rights to own weapons as a way of controlling or subjugating them.Our founding fathers were wise and had good reasons for their actions. But they also created the constitution as a living document, and the people have the right to change it. It will take a constitutional amendment to change gun ownership laws, but we have that right.

Agreed, and it is time to change the law.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm not for gun control, but I am for controlling the purchase of assault weapons. WTF do you need one of these for other than to do harm?!This is not what our founding fathers intended with the right to bear arms.

serious question, what do you think they intended?

I think they intended guns of that time. If assault weapons were around when the laws were written, then that would be perfectly fine. I know I have no idea what they were thinking, but they wrote laws based on the technology available then. Not now. And I am related to Bejamin Harrison. So take that!

So they intended for citizens to have the most technologically advanced weapons for their time which had just been used to fight a war?

 

[Clifford]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

No, it's easier to add common-sense restrictive measures for gun purchases than it is to diagnose and change a cultural trend. Really seems like you are in here for no other reason than to make fun of other people's proposals.Again, please point me to the constructive post you have made in this thread that offers a solution for stopping gun violence.

 

[urbanhack]

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Maybe try reading before posting. We can try and type slower for you if need be.

Any particular reason you always come off as a ######## in these types of threads?

 

[Statcruncher]

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun

You're big on the fingerprint technology but it's not a foolproof technology. Gloves, sweat, dirt, and malfunction could all cause the weapon to not fire. Besides, what good is a firearm only you can fire? Would you buy a car nobody else could drive?

Is this serious because it seems like trolling. I think I've been pretty clear on the "don't try anything because there is no perfect solution" argument. And what good is a firearm that only you can fire? WTF do you even mean with this question. You're bummed because you can't loan your buddies your guns? I mean, seriously, you honestly wrote this and meant it?

Of course my friends and I share weapons at the range. Being able to try out different weapons without having to drop a grand to buy it is just common sense. And I know you want to protect the innocent and all, but at what point would you like to stop? You've already stated one death is too much. There will always be bad people who do bad things, you can't legislate that out of humans. Some things you just can't prevent unless you're willing to give up freedom. I have no doubt if your restrictions went into effect when the next shooting occured (and it will occur) you would have another set of laws that you would like implemented. Read up on the last weapon ban and see that multiple studies found no apparent effect on murder rates.I truly appreciate your intensity on this matter, it's clear you're very passionate about it, but you have to accept that bad things will happen. Unless you plan on stopping people before they break the law things will happen. And with that I will leave this thread alone. It's clear that we don't agree and any further conversation between us will only bog the thread down.

 

[Ilov80s]

It really isn't a gun issue (that does not mean some gun laws don't need to be rethought, sometimes treating the symptom is important). However, the root cause is Americans themselves. We have a sick, unhealthy lifestyle and culture. I mean that mentally, socially, politically, physically. This issue won't really get addressed because to fix it requires meaningful change and sacrifice

 

[Rayderr]

3. Our news media is so efficiant, that we see the impact of this all the time. No one reported the shootout at the OK corral in real time. Frankly no one reports gang violence today either. But these surprising dramatic shootings we all see immeadiately via the news and talk about via social media.

Part of me does wonder if the 24/7 news cycle encourages this type of thing. We all know the names of Holmes, Loughner, Cho, Harris and Klebold. They become famous (or rather, infamous) That's got to be appealing to a lot of nutbags out there. "If I do that, then everyone will know me and listen to my message!"

 

[sporthenry]

I just want to know the people who don't want any restrictions on gun. What is your answer to these situations? Arm the kids? I know some people think arming the teachers will somehow solve this but for one, many teachers aren't going to want to own a gun and just wait til John Wayne tries to stop a crime and ends up shooting an innocent victim. But is this really some people's answers to these crimes? Put more guns out there?

There is obviously a problem and some people don't seem to want to address an obvious problem. Yeah, it won't be 100 effective, but that is hardly a reason for not trying. Heck, not every kid will graduate high school, yet, we still try for a 100% rate. Sure, there will be some people who don't get to enjoy all the freedoms they do, but that is life. I can't bring water onto an airplane anymore and have to get felt up going into a football game or on a plane but I don't see many people complain about that.

 

[Clifford]

Obviously nothing done following this can work retroactively.But what if we had:Fingerprint technology activated at time of purchase, so only the purchaser would be able to fire a gun

You're big on the fingerprint technology but it's not a foolproof technology. Gloves, sweat, dirt, and malfunction could all cause the weapon to not fire. Besides, what good is a firearm only you can fire? Would you buy a car nobody else could drive?

Is this serious because it seems like trolling. I think I've been pretty clear on the "don't try anything because there is no perfect solution" argument. And what good is a firearm that only you can fire? WTF do you even mean with this question. You're bummed because you can't loan your buddies your guns? I mean, seriously, you honestly wrote this and meant it?

Of course my friends and I share weapons at the range. Being able to try out different weapons without having to drop a grand to buy it is just common sense. And I know you want to protect the innocent and all, but at what point would you like to stop? You've already stated one death is too much. There will always be bad people who do bad things, you can't legislate that out of humans. Some things you just can't prevent unless you're willing to give up freedom. I have no doubt if your restrictions went into effect when the next shooting occured (and it will occur) you would have another set of laws that you would like implemented. Read up on the last weapon ban and see that multiple studies found no apparent effect on murder rates.I truly appreciate your intensity on this matter, it's clear you're very passionate about it, but you have to accept that bad things will happen. Unless you plan on stopping people before they break the law things will happen. And with that I will leave this thread alone. It's clear that we don't agree and any further conversation between us will only bog the thread down.

One question before you go. Let's say you could see into the future, and the inconveniences are true. You will never again be able to share your guns at the range. Buying a gun is a much harder process for the rest of your life, and takes longer. Guns are 150% more expensive across the board. But you also see that down the line, these measures prevent a kid from taking a gun to his school and shooting a classmate.Now that you have seen the future and these results are 100% real, and you and you alone decide if the measure gets passed.Do you pass the measure or not?

 

[Clifford]

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Maybe try reading before posting. We can try and type slower for you if need be.

Any particular reason you always come off as a ######## in these types of threads?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm all for additional restrictions and/or administrative hoops to make gun ownership more difficult and regulated. It can't hurt and IMO I haven't heard a serious argument against it.

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

 

[eoMMan]

we seem to be missing the bigger picture in this debate? Why don't we try to fix the problem of why are people doing this in the first place? What is it about our society that is causing people to go on murder-suicide sprees against innocents at malls, schools etc...seems to be a problem of the last 20 years. I dont' think that has anything to do with guns, we've had lots of guns in this country for 300 years.

It's not a subject people want to broach.It's easier to blame guns.

And some of you people are blaming assault rifles when some of these horrific shootings are the result of 9MM hand guns. Get a clue before you start banning things, please.

 

[Clifford]

3. Our news media is so efficiant, that we see the impact of this all the time. No one reported the shootout at the OK corral in real time. Frankly no one reports gang violence today either. But these surprising dramatic shootings we all see immeadiately via the news and talk about via social media.

Part of me does wonder if the 24/7 news cycle encourages this type of thing. We all know the names of Holmes, Loughner, Cho, Harris and Klebold. They become famous (or rather, infamous) That's got to be appealing to a lot of nutbags out there. "If I do that, then everyone will know me and listen to my message!"

100% contributes to it. They want notoriety. And yes I would be in favor of restricting news coverage on these events to never once mention the shooters name, show a picture, to anyone outside those directly affected.

 

[BassNBrew]

Dodds spot on. Make it a 5-10 year felony if you are caught possessing an assault rifle.

What is an assualt rifle?