The Gun Conversation

[BwareDWare94 723]

Before I delve too far into this discussion, I want to state two things that need to be out in the open so people don't argue about something that this topic will not discuss.

 

1. This is NOT about banning firearms.

2. Any point I make about gun control laws (or anybody else who's in favor of stricter laws) is not with the belief that they will stop gun crime altogether.

-PLEASE refrain from going back to these topics to counter any point I, or any other poster in favor of stricter laws, make. This is not our argument.

 

And so I begin.

 

Main queston: What are you opinions, and please lay them out for everybody, about stricter gun laws?

Sub-questions:

1. Is it best for this country to maintain it's current set of laws concerning the ownership of firearms?

2. Should we place stricter laws upon certain weapons, such as assault rifles?

3. Should automatic firearms be available to the everyday citizen, as some currently are?

 

Address these topics with stated opinions.

 

I feel like this has to be the most relevant debate in our country right now, and I want to discuss it in this thread, but civilly. Please respect others' opinions.

[BwareDWare94 723]

As for me, I see a broken system that's coming to fruition in light of this recent surge of shootings. I see no point in banning firearms in a country that has an underground market that caters strictly to criminals and gangs. There is no upside to disallowing the general citizen from owning firearms altogether.

 

But stricter laws are clearly necessary in the wake of Aurora, Madison, Portland, and of course, Newtown.

I'm in favor of disallowing the general citizen the right to ownership of any assault weapon, particularly AK47s and anything that holds more than ten rounds at once.

I'm also in favor of a three step process, entirely funded by the citizen who wishes to own any firearm.

1. Applying for a license.

2. Psychiatric evaluation.

3. Registering your firearm with the feds, so they can monitor any odd accumulation of weaponry by any citizen. (this registration would be filled out when the weapon is actually purchased, after steps 1 and 2)

-All of this is entirely funded by the citizen. You want great power in your hands, you part with your own cash for it.

-I consider it a crime when parents are responsible for the weaponry used by their children in such tragedies as Newtown and Columbine. We need to start punishing these people when these tragedies occur to set an example. There's no reason your kids should know how to get into your gun cabinet or whichever place you store your weaponry and not only be able to get the firearm, but to load it as well because they know here your ammunition is. This shit is downright sickening, and we at the very least need to look into ways to counter it.

 

Oh, and if anybody comes in here in favor of less restrictions, let me just say that more bullets flying through the air is not a good thing.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I'll try to sum up my thoughts as concisely as I can, but if anyone wants me to elaborate, please ask.

 

• I don't believe citing successful gun control in Europe is a strong argument. Gun control works in Europe because the culture of Europe is different. People on the street are scared to death of guns. (There's plenty of violence from knives, but forget that for a moment.) Americans, on the other hand, are as used to guns as people can be. Hell, Hollywood has basically desensitized violence for us. It would be impossible to incite the necessary culture change to get a country-wide gun ban to work. And even if it could...
  
• The 2nd Amendment. The wording of the actual text is tricky, but my interpretation is that the founders wanted civilians to be able to legally carry firearms. After all, civilians won the Revolutionary War. In a country based on freedom, I believe one of those freedoms should be the ability to--legally--possess a firearm for whatever purposes one desires. It's a dangerous freedom, yes, but as Martin Luther King Jr. said, freedom has always been an expensive thing. Furthermore...
  
• What makes anybody think gun control laws are going to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns? If anything, banning guns would make them cheaper and easier to obtain via the black market. All any American needs to do is look at the outlawing of heroin, cocaine, etc. to see how effective legislation is in situations like this.
  
• Given all this, obtaining a firearm should still be a process involving checks against criminal record, mental illness, and substance abuse. Many of such measures are in place across this country, but they are more lenient in some places than others. I'm not sure what the federal government could do about it, but remember that the perpetrator of the Aurora shootings was a graduate student with no history of any of the three things I mentioned. The grave ultimatum we must realize is that sometimes, these things happen. This is the cost of freedom. Having said that...
  
• I fully support legislation that makes assault rifles extremely difficult to obtain. If you want a gun to protect yourself, a handgun is sufficient. If you want a gun for hunting, plenty of rifles are available. I don't see the need to own an AK-47 or M16. If anyone does, please speak up because I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

Well, that wasn't nearly as concise as I thought it would be, but there it is. Let's try to get through this thread in a civil manner, eh?

Edited December 15, 2012 by SteVo

[blotsfan 2,112]

My beliefs are pretty similar to Bwares, but I'll clarify mine.

 

1. You need a licence, with the same waiting period we have now.

2. No gun show/online loopholes. I understand that they would be hard to enforce, but at least have the rule in place.

3. All guns federally tracked to both stores and customer. If someone is found to have used a gun that was not licensed to him, both the customer who purchased the gun and the gun store owner will be questioned. Major punishments for selling guns under the table, or buying a gun for someone else.

4. In order to get a gun, you must go through extensive firearm training at your expense. If you want the responsibility of owning a gun, you should have know how to use it.

5. No assault weapons unless you can provide valid reason to need one. Self defense is not a valid reason.

 

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Quite frankly, there are NO legitimate reasons to own an assault rifle. None. Whatsoever. I'm interested to see what cockamamie reasons people might come up with.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Well, that wasn't nearly as concise as I thought it would be, but there it is. Let's try to get through this thread in a civil manner, eh?

 

 

Quite frankly, there are NO legitimate reasons to own an assault rifle. None. Whatsoever. I'm interested to see what cockamamie reasons people might come up with.

 

That is the kind of inflammatory statement that make civil conversation impossible.

[BigBen07 285]

As for me, I see a broken system that's coming to fruition in light of this recent surge of shootings. I see no point in banning firearms in a country that has an underground market that caters strictly to criminals and gangs. There is no upside to disallowing the general citizen from owning firearms altogether.

 

But stricter laws are clearly necessary in the wake of Aurora, Madison, Portland, and of course, Newtown.

I'm in favor of disallowing the general citizen the right to ownership of any assault weapon, particularly AK47s and anything that holds more than ten rounds at once.

I'm also in favor of a three step process, entirely funded by the citizen who wishes to own any firearm.

1. Applying for a license.

2. Psychiatric evaluation.

3. Registering your firearm with the feds, so they can monitor any odd accumulation of weaponry by any citizen. (this registration would be filled out when the weapon is actually purchased, after steps 1 and 2)

-All of this is entirely funded by the citizen. You want great power in your hands, you part with your own cash for it.

-I consider it a crime when parents are responsible for the weaponry used by their children in such tragedies as Newtown and Columbine. We need to start punishing these people when these tragedies occur to set an example. There's no reason your kids should know how to get into your gun cabinet or whichever place you store your weaponry and not only be able to get the firearm, but to load it as well because they know here your ammunition is. This shit is downright sickening, and we at the very least need to look into ways to counter it.

 

Oh, and if anybody comes in here in favor of less restrictions, let me just say that more bullets flying through the air is not a good thing.

 

That bolded step I agree with 100%. I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. We need to start making sure the person (or people) can actually be responsible for owning a firearm.

[BwareDWare94 723]

That is the kind of inflammatory statement that make civil conversation impossible.

 

It's the truth. Hardly inflammatory. Any "justifiable" reason anybody can come up with for owning an assault rifle is going to be laughable, at best.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I do not believe it would do anything to reduce crime. It may reduce certain types of crime, but it would raise others. I know that home invasions are now more common in areas because the criminals know the civilians are not likely to own firearms.

 

Stricter gun control laws would have done nothing to stop the shooting at Newtown. It was his mother's guns he was using. To the best of our current knowledge, she was mentally competent, and perfectly legally owning guns. There is no reason why any stricter laws would have prohibited her and allowed others.

 

It would not have stopped the shootings back in June at the Dark Knight Rises opening. The man was a medical student with zero history of mental disorder or any warning flags.

 

I don't believe it would stopped the majority of killings. Even if you prevented them from getting their hands on guns, if they were sufficiently deranged, it would do nothing. There was a Chinese man that walked into an elementary school on the East Coast of China back in 2010 and stabbed eight kids to death with a knife.

 

There are homicidal maniacs among the human race, but the answer to their violence is not to ban/regulate certain tools that they use just because they happen to use them. Stricter gun control laws do not seem to have any effect on the crime rate- look at Chicago, for example.

 

Not to mention, are you really willing to let the government start up another "war" going around and getting guns from those people who don't meet the stricter requirements? Or are you simply advocating that we do this from now on?

 

This is the same, old, tired argument that I'm sure our Australian friends have heard many times before from that lunatic of a Prime Minister about banning video games. The culprit is NOT the weapon used, it is the person involved. Just as there are millions of people that play violent video games, and watch violent movies, without going out and going on a killing spree in real life, so there are millions of responsible gun owners that enjoy their hobby and do not go out shooting things at random.

 

The answer is NOT stricter regulations, as that will do nothing to stop violent crime. Indeed, it may very well increase it. If you're looking for an answer that will stop all violent crime, I don't have it. No one does. And I don't think making guns legally difficult to obtain would do anything to stop a psychopath like the one that committed the Newtown atrocity. Do you really think he would have let his mom not having guns stop him from carrying that heinous act out?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's the truth. Hardly inflammatory. Any "justifiable" reason anybody can come up with for owning an assault rifle is going to be laughable, at best.

 

There's no reason for owning a 90 inch widescreen television, either, beyond your enjoyment watching things on it.

 

Someone may own an assault rifle because they enjoy it. I know a person who has tons of guns, (not sure if he has an assault rifle), and has never used a single one when he hunts, as he considers it unsporting to the animals, (he uses a crossbow). He does enjoy taking the guns apart, inspecting their parts, putting them back together, modding them, and talking about them with anyone who will give him five minutes.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Thanatos19

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Take everyone's guns away. People will find a way to obtain them through foreign nations...like Mexico. (Experience)

 

Give everyone a gun, and you just increase the risk of more violence and bloodshed. Best bet would to leave it as it is, IMO.

 

There's really nothing that can simply be done to solve this situation...it's a lose lose.

Edited December 16, 2012 by ATL

[BwareDWare94 723]

There's no reason for owning a 90 inch widescreen television, either, beyond your enjoyment watching things on it.

 

Someone may own an assault rifle because they enjoy it. I know a person who has tons of guns, (not sure if he has an assault rifle), and has never used a single one when he hunts, as he considers it unsporting to the animals, (he uses a crossbow). He does enjoy taking the guns apart, inspecting their parts, putting them back together, modding them, and talking about them with anyone who will give him five minutes.

 

Who's the last person that got killed by a TV?

 

I understand the comparison, but it's sort of hard to think it's relevant in light of recent events. Don't you?

[Duck Fallas 209]

the problem with mandadting a psychiatric evaluation is that you cannot force someone to see a doctor under almost any circumstance. Aside from that, psychiatric evaluations are incredibly unreliable.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It's the truth. Hardly inflammatory. Any "justifiable" reason anybody can come up with for owning an assault rifle is going to be laughable, at best.

 

I am going to say this as politically correct as I can. Quit being a douche.

 

You are the same guy that if you ask your friends they are the end all be all on which gun hunts what and if they "would never even think about it" then obviously it can not be good.

 

You already hashed this out in the Bob Costas thing and now you want to start this thread so you can reject others opinion, just so you can feel high and mighty and righteous.

 

People gave you several reasons on why gun restrictions, bans, or any other sort of "let me force myself into peoples homes" type of legislation is stupid and ultimately ineffective. You act as if we have civil liberties to go around. We have been stripped of more and more and yet stooges keep saying yeah lets take more away.

 

You have already been told that by making tighter restrictions you only put them on the law abiding citizens who dont do this type of shit. Criminals will find them and they will use them and when somebody unbalanced like this who will suck off a 50 cent crackhead for an illegal weapon then you have solved nothing. All you did was pin some metaphorical medal on your chest so you can feel like you have done your bit to change the world.

 

Well go you. You sir are the embodiment of an idealist and I will admit that we should just strip all civil liberties away and trim the fat off the constitution until we have nothing left other than the right to breathe....within reason of course.

 

It is pathetic and sad that people will use these childrens death who are not even in the ground yet to say, "I told you so, I had a plan all along now look what happened. My point was just proven." Good for you I am sure that this exactly the type of stage someone should use to push a political agenda.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Omerta+ 1,206]

8 people were killed in China with a knife. 22 were injured. Should we ban knives ?

[Packers Dynasty 2010 116]

Banning assault rifles out right is stupid in my opinion. My dad has a couple and we enjoy going out and shooting at targets with them as they are a unique experience. Along with going coyote hunting with them once. They just need to make assault rifles harder to acquire, such as requiring a harder to acquire license, extensive training, and the buyer of an AR being placed on a watchlist. On a side note, requiring people to take a psych eval when purchasing a weapon sounds ridiculous.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I've already stated that this thread isn't about banning guns, so your knife point is moot. Great job paying attention.

 

Your theory that all criminals and potential criminals will find ways to attain guns is flawed. Very flawed. They get guns because guns are readily available. You take that availability away and many crimes don't even happen because the potential criminal never becomes enabled. This isn't about banning anything. It's about making these weapons more difficult to get, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Yeah, I did this to make my point, right? It's not relevant at all, in today's world, to have this conversation, is it?

 

Aurora

Madison

Portland

Jovan Belcher

Newtown

 

Has it even been half a year and all of these shootings have transpired? Stop ignoring the growing problem, and you should be happy that political agendas are being pushed by certain parties, because at least they aren't ignoring this glaring issue.

 

Your complete dismissal of making guns harder to obtain baffles me. Your freedom isn't being stepped on at all. Your safety is being considered.

Edited December 16, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[BwareDWare94 723]

Banning assault rifles out right is stupid in my opinion. My dad has a couple and we enjoy going out and shooting at targets with them as they are a unique experience. Along with going coyote hunting with them once. They just need to make assault rifles harder to acquire, such as requiring a harder to acquire license, extensive training, and the buyer of an AR being placed on a watchlist. On a side note, requiring people to take a psych eval when purchasing a weapon sounds ridiculous.

 

That would be perfectly fine with me, if it's that thorough.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I don't buy the "this isn't the appropriate time" idea. When is a more relevant time to talk about gun control? Murders are always happening. Its just a way to put off ever talking about it by saying its not ok. And this isn't using the kids to push the agenda. Pro gun control people didn't intentionally kill those kids to prove a point. Their point comes from not liking when people are killed by guns. So yes, the point is easier made when theres a recent event that can be pointed to.

 

And don't bother with the "If we take away guns, we'll get rid of the whole constitution." The founding fathers intentionally made the constitution amendable because they knew times would change. I also suggest you look up the slippery slope fallacy.

 

Also, if the only justification for needing assault rifles is because you like to go hunting, then I say no more hunting. A hobby isn't worth this. And before you bring up that knife incident, need I remind you that in a similar situation that man killed 8 people. Thats a lot less than 27.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I've already stated that this thread isn't about banning guns, so your knife point is moot. Great job paying attention.

 

Your theory that all criminals and potential criminals will find ways to attain guns is flawed. Very flawed. They get guns because guns are readily available. You take that availability away and many crimes don't even happen because the potential criminal never becomes enabled. This isn't about banning anything. It's about making these weapons more difficult to get, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Yeah, I did this to make my point, right? It's not relevant at all, in today's world, to have this conversation, is it?

 

Aurora

Madison

Portland

Jovan Belcher

Newtown

 

Has it even been half a year and all of these shootings have transpired? Stop ignoring the growing problem, and you should be happy that political agendas are being pushed by certain parties, because at least they aren't ignoring this glaring issue.

 

Your complete dismissal of making guns harder to obtain baffles me. Your freedom isn't being stepped on at all. Your safety is being considered.

 

Ha I didnt say anything about banning them did I ? Great job paying attention. And how is the knife point moot ? Because it undermines what you are saying about guns being evil.

 

And dude you are so naive it really blows my mind. It may not occur in Jerkwater USA, however Miami, the southern coast of Texas, California are being flooded with illegal weapons that arent made here. They come one cigarette boats from Mexico and Cuba to arm drug dealers in the US. Are you really that naive or stupid to think that if we banned them that drug dealers would not recognize the enormous cash flow potential of selling illegal weapons ? Hell guns would probably be more lucrative then drugs. You have to be one dumb son of a bitch to not see that. If that is you sorry, if it isn't then quit acting like these restrictions will help anything.

 

Of course you did. You took this and said I am going to use this to talk gun control did you not ? Yes the timing is so stupid again I cant believe someone who claims to be reasonable cant see why. You really think right now that people arent going to have knee jerk reactions and pass laws that should not be. That never happens right ? The Patriot Act. Yeah that was necessary but vultures in this country use national tragedy as an opportunity to pass agendas. This will get passed with the zeal and bipartisanship that is only reserved for those crooked assholes to raise there own pay. Wait a while when everyone cools off so we can have a reasonable discussion on what needs to happen instead of trying to capitalize on childrens death to get it passed before people come to their senses.

 

And I will tell you this. I am not worried about my safety. Gun control legislation will not effect me in the slightest. I can get assault weapons now and I will be able to continue to get them unless they just outright ban them. I am not dismissing it at all, I am completely aware that it exists and it has peoples support. I just think it is idiotic and I am being a dick and critical but not dismissive.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I don't buy the "this isn't the appropriate time" idea. When is a more relevant time to talk about gun control? Murders are always happening. Its just a way to put off ever talking about it by saying its not ok. And this isn't using the kids to push the agenda. Pro gun control people didn't intentionally kill those kids to prove a point. Their point comes from not liking when people are killed by guns. So yes, the point is easier made when theres a recent event that can be pointed to.

 

And don't bother with the "If we take away guns, we'll get rid of the whole constitution." The founding fathers intentionally made the constitution amendable because they knew times would change. I also suggest you look up the slippery slope fallacy.

 

Also, if the only justification for needing assault rifles is because you like to go hunting, then I say no more hunting. A hobby isn't worth this. And before you bring up that knife incident, need I remind you that in a similar situation that man killed 8 people. Thats a lot less than 27.

 

 

So you are saying that you want people to start passing legislation in the time of a national crisis. Here comes another Patriot Act. I mean that did us so much good. We need to wait at least a couple of weeks for people to clear their minds and then we can come to a meeting of the minds. Having an emotional congress is a bad way to get legislation passed. And of course they want event to point to so they can play peoples emotions. I mean they got you.

 

Yes I am well aware that our constitution is a living document. I have recited it more than once from memory, I am well aware of what it says. Hell if you want to quote the damn thing then you know in the Preamble it says,"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves." And then everyone knows the second amendment. It is pretty cut and dried on how they felt about people being able to own guns. So please educate me on how it would not be an infringement on it.

 

And who the hell are you to decide what other peoples hobbies are worth. If people want to own them for the enjoyment it brings them and their children under supervision then who are you to say that is something we should outlaw. I guarantee you when the next shooting happened after we put restrictions on them the only people you hurt are the ones who you ahve stripped of hobbies. We live in reality not a fairy tale land where when it is signed into law everyone follows it. So when it happens again and it would what then ?

[SteVo+ 3,702]

So you are saying that you want people to start passing legislation in the time of a national crisis. Here comes another Patriot Act. I mean that did us so much good. We need to wait at least a couple of weeks for people to clear their minds and then we can come to a meeting of the minds. Having an emotional congress is a bad way to get legislation passed.

 

Fortunately (or perhaps not), this lame duck Congress isn't going to pass any significant legislation other than fiscal cliff related things.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Fortunately (or perhaps not), this lame duck Congress isn't going to pass any significant legislation other than fiscal cliff related things.

 

I think it is fortunate. I just hate the mob mentality that people have when it comes to political gain. If people wait ling enough a tragedy will come around that justifies their point. And if it is bad enough it very well could unite our inept congress.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ngata, you are making blatant generalizations about everybody who's ever committed any kind of crime, and you're also generalizing about anybody who will become a criminal. You're saying that stricter gun laws wouldn't do a thing. I don't buy that. Guns are enablers to people who need to be enabled before they have the guts to commit a crime in the first place, and they are easy to get. You take away that ease, and many of those potential criminals that are out there probably never become criminals. You can't make generalizations about situations that are currently hypothetical. Stricter gun laws would most certainly put a dent in gun crime. This isn't about fixing a problem, because it's a problem that can't be fixed, but it's about making something less of a problem. You're being obnoxious to the highest degree about this, because you aren't even considering it.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ngata, you are making blatant generalizations about everybody who's ever committed any kind of crime, and you're also generalizing about anybody who will become a criminal. You're saying that stricter gun laws wouldn't do a thing. I don't buy that. Guns are enablers to people who need to be enabled before they have the guts to commit a crime in the first place, and they are easy to get. You take away that ease, and many of those potential criminals that are out there probably never become criminals. You can't make generalizations about situations that are currently hypothetical. Stricter gun laws would most certainly put a dent in gun crime. This isn't about fixing a problem, because it's a problem that can't be fixed, but it's about making something less of a problem. You're being obnoxious to the highest degree about this, because you aren't even considering it.

 

Yup and I will openly admit I am being a dick, wont deny it. I am because you guys wont listen to reason so now I am trying the whole dick approach.

 

You want to say something about me making generalizations about all criminals. YOU are making generalizations about people who have done nothing wrong yet. It is just the side that is not for doing something drastic has something like prohibition and drugs to look back on as a point of reference. You completely ignore the fact how widespread guns would become from illegal dealers because the money in it would be ludicrous instead of selling AR's for 1500 they could charge what they want because they are the only ones with the supply so it becomes a sellers market. It does not take an economist to figure this out.

 

People would get them either way so all you are doing is hurting the law abiding citizens. What part of that you dont get I will never understand. And as far as having the guts, did any of these other than belchers scream I would not do this without guns. Almost all fo those they walked in their with the intent to end lives. Simple as that. And knives in the right hands are very efficient killers. As well as silent. You could kill 4 or 5 people with a blade before anybody knew you were in the room.

 

I just dont get how you think this would put a HUGE dent in it. That is such a naive way of thinking my brain can literally not grasp what you are saying. Again think about it. Make Guns illegal. Criminals will now see opportunity. Sellers Market. Makes more money. Instead of Drug Lords we War Lords or Gun lords or whatever. They make a killing. They sell more guns. Not sure how any of that was confusing but I tried to keep each sentence less than 10 words.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ngata_Chance