Gun Control

Most likely any legislation will be flawed, grandfather in preexisting owned weapons, and allow for loopholes. And it is only going to get pasted because of our reactive society that is too lazy to figure out the real causes and blame the easiest thing possible. The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no. We ignore the mental health epidemic in our country, and blame the weapons people use and not the people who allowed them to get the weapons.

Sure we need some comprehensive gun control, but banning assault rifles, or semi autos, or large capacity mags, is not going to stop people from using weapons to kill people. That kid in Conn. could have just as easily used a car to kill kids getting on or off buses, or made pipe bombs and threw them in class rooms. We don't blame alcohol when someone gets drunk and kills people. Its the idiot who got behind the wheel after drinking that is to blame. More than 10k people were killed in 2010 by drunk drivers, and almost 30 people die a day by drunk drivers, where are the cries to make cars and alcohol illegal.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

 
HuskerNationNick said:
I say we use our military to benefit public safety. 2 Armed military members, who pass background tests, stand guard in every school. You wouldn't have to relocate, as many cities/towns have a few vets/current military personnel in them. Its a thought, and all you have to do is raise their pay just a bit to compensate their duties, if at all. I wouldn't force anyone to do this, but leave it open to those who want to serve our communities better. I have a handful of military friends in Omaha who would stand guard in a heartbeat to protect little ones and teachers.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the legality of that. Military and police are very separate entities, and short of declaring a state of emergency to use the National Guard, like in natural disasters, I don't know if military is even allowed to function in that role. Too close to being a 'martial law' kinda situation.

 
Ziggy said:
Most likely any legislation will be flawed, grandfather in preexisting owned weapons, and allow for loopholes. And it is only going to get pasted because of our reactive society that is too lazy to figure out the real causes and blame the easiest thing possible. The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no. We ignore the mental health epidemic in our country, and blame the weapons people use and not the people who allowed them to get the weapons.

Sure we need some comprehensive gun control, but banning assault rifles, or semi autos, or large capacity mags, is not going to stop people from using weapons to kill people. That kid in Conn. could have just as easily used a car to kill kids getting on or off buses, or made pipe bombs and threw them in class rooms. We don't blame alcohol when someone gets drunk and kills people. Its the idiot who got behind the wheel after drinking that is to blame. More than 10k people were killed in 2010 by drunk drivers, and almost 30 people die a day by drunk drivers, where are the cries to make cars and alcohol illegal.

http://www.cdc.gov/m..._factsheet.html
Click to expand...
Well, we tried outlawing alcohol once....Didn't go exactly as the proponents planned.

 
I posted this earlier but it seems to have got lost in the shuffle. Curious as to what some of your thoughts are on this.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, so forgive me for not perusing the four pages, but, there was an interesting USA Today article a few days ago talking about Australia's gun laws and how they dramatically cut down on their gun crime violence after 1996. I don't remember many of the specifics, but the essentials of their gun law changes were to classify weapons into five different categories and put an outright ban on assault rifle ownership. Getting a gun and getting ammunition became significantly more challenging. They also implemented a buyback program which was responsible for the destruction of 650,000 guns.

Since then, they've had ZERO mass shootings and cut their homicide rate by more than 50 percent.

America is a unique beast when it comes to culture, a gun/crime culture unlike anywhere else in the world. Following Australia's example probably won't have the same drastic effects, but I think it could help quite a bit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with looking to Europe and Australia does get down to the vastly different nature of the countries and cultures. Size is first and foremost. And the Federal nature of our country is rather unique itself. Outlawing things people already own is a tricky problem. And grandfathering is generally the way we have handled it. Short of going door to door there really is no way to remove all of a type of weapon. And that idea alone is illegal under the Constitution. As would be many of the measures Australia and Europe use to limit guns. To do what those nations have done would require a change to the Bill of Rights, and that is never going to happen.

 
Enhance89 said:
I posted this earlier but it seems to have got lost in the shuffle. Curious as to what some of your thoughts are on this.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, so forgive me for not perusing the four pages, but, there was an interesting USA Today article a few days ago talking about Australia's gun laws and how they dramatically cut down on their gun crime violence after 1996. I don't remember many of the specifics, but the essentials of their gun law changes were to classify weapons into five different categories and put an outright ban on assault rifle ownership. Getting a gun and getting ammunition became significantly more challenging. They also implemented a buyback program which was responsible for the destruction of 650,000 guns.

Since then, they've had ZERO mass shootings and cut their homicide rate by more than 50 percent.

America is a unique beast when it comes to culture, a gun/crime culture unlike anywhere else in the world. Following Australia's example probably won't have the same drastic effects, but I think it could help quite a bit.
Click to expand...
And the crazy bastards would still find a way to obtain a weapon and kill.

There are somewhere around 320,000,000 guns in the USA and to try a buy back would make us more broke then we already are. You would have to pay a fair and reasonable price for them, lets say $200 bucks. (that is quite low) That would cost you and me $70 billion. Not gonna happen.

What I don't understand, is that when something bad happens, why people want to do something that effects all of the law abiding citizens. The stats don't support such measures.

You have places like Chicago and DC, with some of the toughest gun laws, and yet they still have the highest murder rates, by guns, in the USA.

Stats from 2011:

Accidental drownings (not boat related) averaged 10 per day. 3650

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Murder by personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 728

Rifles 323

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

It's not the assault rifles, its the people. If you want to take away their weapons, maybe we should also drain all of the pools, ponds, lakes and rivers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My 2 cents, as the esteemed Rawhide pontificates....

What isn't really being discussed here is "question" of why this country has such a high murder rate with guns {compared to most EVERY other country} Canadian citizens own a lot of guns, you don't hear of this happening there much do you? {Or could it be that communist plot of socialized medicine has something to do with that?} There is something obviously wrong with our collective brain pan on this......

And why does the "average Joe" need an AR-15 or AK-47? Not just criminals buy these, I've seen it at gun shows. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "The Departed" Owning & using weapons like these don't add inches to your d*ck. Again this could be a symptom of the problems we have on this subject that I stated from above.

Is it possible that the tragedy at Sandy Hook could have been prevented IF these weapons were properly secured away? Were they just left out in plain sight?

 
Chef K said:
What isn't really being discussed here is "question" of why this country has such a high murder rate with guns {compared to most EVERY other country} Canadian citizens own a lot of guns, you don't hear of this happening there much do you?
Click to expand...
Canada has much more restrictive gun laws compared to the US.

Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation had become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered. As of April 6, 2012, the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation. Systematic auditing of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada,[1][2] and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Bill 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).[3]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

(Wiki, so don't rely on it too much...)

 
beanman said:
I've come to the conclusion that Carlfense has all the answers . . .
Click to expand...
Interesting. If I recall correctly I haven't said that I was sure of something when I was completely mistaken.

I have far more questions than answers. Unlike some, I don't hide that lack of answers behind a facade of certainty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rawhide said:
Regardless, rifle or handgun does not bring those kids back.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone is saying this.

What I'm saying is that if the shooter only had a S&W Model 60 and he had to reload individual cartridges after every 5 shots it's quite possible (probably even likely) that we would be mourning over fewer dead children.

 
carlfense said:
beanman said:
I've come to the conclusion that Carlfense has all the answers . . .
Click to expand...
Interesting. If I recall correctly I haven't said that I was sure of something when I was completely mistaken.

I have far more questions than answers. Unlike some, I don't hide that lack of answers behind a facade of certainty.
Click to expand...
Few on here have demonstrated any certainty in solving the problem. I think I've flip-flopped 3 or 4 times on this issue in this thread alone. It just seems to me like you get your rocks off pointing out other peoples flaws in their argument or their lack of research and rubbing their nose in it. Your posts come across as very condescending to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

I'm done with this thread. Later.

 
Ziggy said:
The problem is people not guns. We allow kids to watch violence on tv and in video games, but sex and nudity is a no no.
Click to expand...
Japan has millions of gamers and violent video games . . . yet they had 11 deaths by firearms in 2008.

In that same year there were almost one thousand times that number of firearm homicides in the United States.

The main difference? It's almost impossible to get a gun in Japan. (And I'm not arguing for gun bans here . . . just pointing out that access to guns DOES in fact play a huge role in this problem. Guns don't kill people. That I agree with. People with guns do kill people. People without guns kill fewer people.)

 
carlfense said:
Police Stations? From this morning:

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... only one dead, the suspect. I guess armed officers didn't prevent more deaths. I said it can happen anywhere. Only difference, is someone is going to be less likely to do something like this. If it does happen, you don't see the mass number of casualties like you do when there isn't an armed officer there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
beanman said:
Your posts come across as very condescending to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
Click to expand...
Agreed, in this case. I think that it was justified given the combination of the confidence level and the demonstrated factual inaccuracy.

You have my genuine apologies if it offended you.

 
Back
Top