Gun Control

[Fatal Dawn]

Following the Aurora, Colorado shooting there is currently a debate as to whether gun laws are not tight enough. In the past, concerns have also been raised regarding gun laws following the aftermath of tragedies such as the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres, in which guns were easily obtained by dangerous individuals to take lives. While it is largely debatable as to whether more stringent gun laws would have prevented these tragedies altogether, there has been talk in order to prompt lawmakers into taking action in addressing the issue of gun control in America.



In this case, the Aurora, Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was reported to have bought a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifle, two semi-automatic .40-caliber Glock pistols, and a 12-gauge Remington shotgun, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition - all legally. http://www.cbsnews.c...ch/?id=7415740n



Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

All law abiding citizens should turn their weapons in to the police to make all of the bad guys feel safer when they break into a house or try to rob somebody on the street.



It is very stressful for them to have to worry about getting shot when all they want to do is rape your daughter and steal your TV.

 

[Kahnai]

I think all people should be allowed to carry guns if they are 21 years or older.

​

Sure there are psychos out there. But for every one psycho there are at least 30 good people.

Imagine a room where one psycho bursts in and attempts to shoot up the place filled with 30 good people. Now they're hostages.

Now imagine a room where one psycho burst in and attempts to shoot up the place filled with 30 armed good people. Now they're heros, and he's one dead psycho!



...hmm...

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Sure there are psychos out there. But for every one psycho there are at least 30 good people.

Imagine a room where one psycho bursts in and attempts to shoot up the place filled with 30 good people. Now they're hostages.

Now imagine a room where one psycho burst in and attempts to shoot up the place filled with 30 armed good people. Now they're heros, and he's one dead psycho!

That's assuming your 30 people are familiarized in how to handle and react sensibly to the situation. If you have a situation where the psycho instigates a mass panic, people will start shooting at anyone that they deem a threat. You add in the risk of friendly fire.

 

[Sinon]

I don't quite understand why it's this shooting that is causing people to contemplate tighter gun laws. The perpetrator had no past history of mental illness and from what I've read, a completely clean criminal record. As a result, even if you were to tighten gun control laws people like him could still get weapons, and they could still commit crimes like this.



The only arguable method that gun control could be employed in this situation is to remove it entirely. If it were illegal to purchase those weapons and equipment, he would have a much harder time finding places to obtain them, which would have made this event much less likely.

 

[Kahnai]

That's assuming your 30 people are familiarized in how to handle and react sensibly to the situation. If you have a situation where the psycho instigates a mass panic, people will start shooting at anyone that they deem a threat. You add in the risk of friendly fire.

Well I'm sure they would have to take a gun safety course and perhaps even a competency test to prove they are of sane mind to handle a gun.

I don't quite understand why it's this shooting that is causing people to contemplate tighter gun laws. The perpetrator had no past history of mental illness and from what I've read, a completely clean criminal record. As a result, even if you were to tighten gun control laws people like him could still get weapons, and they could still commit crimes like this.



The only arguable method that gun control could be employed in this situation is to remove it entirely. If it were illegal to purchase those weapons and equipment, he would have a much harder time finding places to obtain them, which would have made this event much less likely.

True, no past history, no known mental illness. Which is fine. However even if you ban all guns, he would still have them. He was intelligent and certainly smart enough to get around rules to order guns even with them being illegal. However if guns were accessible to all he would have been shot down fairly early on and maybe not as many people would have died. Then again, it was a dark theater. Which if the crowd had been armed with guns could have resulted in more deaths.



Honestly... It's there is no way to know what could have happened. My personal belief is that if the competent adults in the theater had been armed he would have been taken down sooner. But again, I guess we'll never know.

 

[Temerit]

Regardless of the recent incident.



I think there should absolutely be mandatory gun education/safety class or classes that must be taken prior to gun ownership (same as with driving a car).



Also, there should be limitations on what kind of weapons may be owned (assault weapons etc.)



Also there should be limitations on where guns can be carried, concealed or otherwise (bars etc.)

 

[DrLeftover]

Jamaica banned all private ownership of firearms in 1974.



It has really worked there.



http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6657203.stm





A firsthand account from the time of the ban.



http://jpfo.org/file...a-m/jamaica.htm





And I have a question about the mandatory classes.



I've had proper training from an NRA certified law enforcement trainer.



Most likely anybody else who reads this forum would go to a class when offered.



How are you going to get the thugs on the street corner to go to a class?

 

[Sinon]

True, no past history, no known mental illness. Which is fine. However even if you ban all guns, he would still have them. He was intelligent and certainly smart enough to get around rules to order guns even with them being illegal.

No.

The police said he appeared to have legally purchased all of the weapons, including a second pistol found in Holmes's car.

The guns were bought over the last two months at several shops including a camping and hunting chain, Bass Pro Shops, and Gander Mountain Guns. Both outlets released statements on Friday.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/20/james-holmes-ar-15-semi-automatic



All the guns he used were legally purchased, as was the ammunition. If it were illegal to own guns, he would have struggled to obtain them, far more than he did with the existing laws.

 

[Temerit]

[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]How are you going to get the thugs on the street corner to go to a class?

[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]You aren't... and why would you want him to?[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]There are tons and tons of easily prevented gun accidents that happen each year.[/background]



[background=rgb(250, 246, 237)][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]People love to make the comparison saying that well cars can be used to kill people too. Well, a thug can hijack a car, but you still have to take driving education or pass a test before you can get your license. It should be the same deal with guns.[/background]

 

[DrLeftover]

So a bad guy has to have a license before he can steal your car.



I didn't know that.



That means that anybody that steals a car without taking the 'behind the wheel' class is a criminal.



Cool.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Well I'm sure they would have to take a gun safety course and perhaps even a competency test to prove they are of sane mind to handle a gun.

You can train people to be responsible gun owners, but how exactly do you prepare people to confront such an unforeseeable crisis? Even then, concealed carry goes beyond self-defense and becomes vigilantism.

True, no past history, no known mental illness. Which is fine. However even if you ban all guns, he would still have them. He was intelligent and certainly smart enough to get around rules to order guns even with them being illegal.

He purchased every gun legally. In the same sense that one could simply walk into a store, show some identification and purchase a product over-the-counter. He was even suspected to have purchased them using federal grant money: http://www.huffingto..._n_1702740.html





These two ideas I agree with:

Also, there should be limitations on what kind of weapons may be owned (assault weapons etc.)

There really should be no place for military-style weapons which are designed to slaughter a large amount of people in a short amount of time.

Also there should be limitations on where guns can be carried, concealed or otherwise (bars etc.)

 

[Temerit]

[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]So a bad guy has to have a license before he can steal your car.[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]I didn't know that.[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]That means that anybody that steals a car without taking the 'behind the wheel' class is a criminal.[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]Cool.

[/background]



[font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(250, 246, 237)]Dude, there are tons of gun accidents worth preventing. That's mostly what I'm talking about. Not keeping criminals from getting guns.[/background]

 

[DrLeftover]

On that point then, we are agreed.



But back to Jamaica with those that want all private ownership of all firearms prohibited.



The authorities could not keep control of the situation on a small island. To the point that Jamaica is now routinely called the murder capital of the world. And unless a private citizen with a lot of money hires a security firm (which the larger tourist resorts that play one love on their commercials have done).....



.... they are helpless.



So what would a total ban do for the US?

 

[Temerit]

Well, I'd say the police forces in Jamaica aren't exactly comparable to the ones in the US.



Especially considering US corporations raped the Jamaican economy into oblivion, with profoundly negative implications for the Jamaican government and Jamaican society as a whole.



But still, an outright ban shouldn't be necessary in a free society. There are other things that can be addressed, like re-instituting the public mental health services that were in place before Reagan removed them. That's a huge reason why a lot of these things happen. In the case of the aurora shooting the dude was schizophrenic, his mom wasn't even surprised that he had done such a thing ffs.

 

[DrLeftover]

In general, I agree with that assessment, the only sticking point may be the implementation of said program population wide under the new health care laws, which seem to leave out that service as well.



But back on topic.



I would add that a nation wide anti-gang task force, WITH TEETH, should be geared up as well.



Many killings, other than the random nut, and maybe a certain percentage of those as well who are 'playing nuts', are gang related.



And nothing to be proud of-



http://www.chicagogangs.org/

 

[Temerit]

The study that the first infographic gets it's data from is highly disputed.



As for image #2: the most recent tradgedy was committed by an otherwise law abiding citizen that killed using a legally purchased gun.

 

[DrLeftover]

Those who wish to kill, wherever, whenever, will find a way to do so.

A teenager has killed eight people and wounded five others in a knife attack in China's Liaoning province, state media says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-china-19091840





I saw a billboard some time ago that said: if guns cause violence, then matches cause arson.



Interesting premise.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

Well, I'd say the police forces in Jamaica aren't exactly comparable to the ones in the US.

I don't know about Jamaica. There are areas in Mexico where the federal police carry assault rifles and wear ballistic armor instead of lower caliber weapons and normal uniforms like police in the United States. This is to respond to the threat of drug cartels who are using armor-piercing assault rifles - many of which are smuggled in from the U.S.

Mexico's gun laws are pretty tight, they have one gun store where you can get guns legally (albeit with high difficulty).



The non sequitur point of comparison is problematic, though. I don't agree in juxtaposing developing countries like Jamaica and Mexico which have always been torn apart by political instability and drug trafficking as these will have higher rates of gun-related homicides. If you want to point fingers that direction, there will be a lot of finger pointing at the black market and the international drug trade - much of which can be pointed back to the U.S.

Those who wish to kill, wherever, whenever, will find a way to do so.

I saw a billboard some time ago that said: if guns cause violence, then matches cause arson.



Interesting premise.

The prevailing idea behind this premise is to shift responsibility/blame from the weapon itself towards the person handling the weapon. Forgoing that the distinguishing factor in most crimes is determining whether a gun is used in the crime or not (hence why many countries try to emphasize the difference between gun-related homicide rates and non gun-related homicide rates).



I am also tempted to think that guns are merely a tool to facilitate violence. Maybe more needs to be done about the violent culture of America rather than trying to remove guns out of the equation. Or -as Temerit mentioned nationalized mental health services- more should be done about the moral failure of a health care system which would allow so many people suffering from mental illness to fall through the cracks. Will that make more people be on board with the Affordable Care Act? Will that compel more insurance companies to treat mental illness just as it treats physical ailments?

 

[Temerit]

From an article I read recently:

Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?



[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]As far as that first bit is concerned, I couldn't agree more. Fire and drugs kill people. I am so agreeing with that right now. But in this article by Scott L. Bach, president of guns and stuff, he puts forth an argument in favor of guns and stuff that takes it too far. It is a very common yet very broken argument, so I'll just copy/paste it for you right here:

[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]When an arsonist lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The same is true of firearms.

[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]OK. Simply put, Nuh-uh.

[font=Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A match has many uses completely unrelated to causing death. A match is not manufactured or intended for death. And the same goes for drugs (unless of course you're talking about the death of the walls confining us to our limited understanding of perception, man). In fact, the same goes for basically anything other than a firearm. Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot.

Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. But the conversation can't progress if people keep using arguments that ignore what guns actually are, and what they are used for. Likening a gun to a match or recreational drugs or an icicle or [anything else that can cause death] is an attempt to lighten the weight of a firearm's actual purpose. Guns and [anything else] are not the same. They should not be discussed as though they are.​

[font=Georgia, serif]​

​