Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Stricter Gun Control Laws
- Thread starter Jazzy
- Start date
I'm not sure what should be done exactly, though I think something should be done. Schools could be made more secure, but that doesn't stop people using guns elsewere. And gun control laws limit the use of guns as protection. Also, if guns are more controlled, people could always find some other instrument to cause damage or riots with.
Let's clarify one thing right now.
When the control crowd uses a phrase like getting weapons off the street to protect the children, as some have done over this last weekend on TV talk shows, they are talking about either having law abiding citizens surrender their legally owned firearms, or perhaps executing involuntary seizures of said items by law enforcement in addition to prohibiting new purchases by said individuals of various types of weapons.
Also, I did not vote as I am simply in favor of enforcing the existing laws.
When the control crowd uses a phrase like getting weapons off the street to protect the children, as some have done over this last weekend on TV talk shows, they are talking about either having law abiding citizens surrender their legally owned firearms, or perhaps executing involuntary seizures of said items by law enforcement in addition to prohibiting new purchases by said individuals of various types of weapons.
Also, I did not vote as I am simply in favor of enforcing the existing laws.
I think the type of weapons needs to be cut down. To be honest, you can bang your drums about the right to bear arms, the right to protect yourself etc. all you want. Isn't a handgun sufficient? Do you seriously need a full-blown assault rifle in order to feel safe?
The recent event was committed with a legally-owned assault rifle. If they weren't legal to own, the perpetrator wouldn't have been able to use it. So yes, I'm definitely in favour of tighter laws, or additional restrictions. A few ideas:
1. Psychiatric evaluations based on when they wish to purchase a weapon. Don't just look at previous history and say Well he seems ok. Put them through an evaluation then and there, or demand they take one before they can purchase a weapon. Medical history doesn't mean squat if they don't bother getting anything done.
2. Training. Make sure the person you're selling to is capable of using what they're buying correctly.
3. (This one probably isn't viable, but if the manpower existed it would drastically cut down on the misuse of legally-procured arms) Checkups every few months. Similar to how social services check up on at-risk children every so often. Have someone evaluate the gun owner every so often to verify they haven't developed any conditions which could make them volatile or overly dangerous.
The recent event was committed with a legally-owned assault rifle. If they weren't legal to own, the perpetrator wouldn't have been able to use it. So yes, I'm definitely in favour of tighter laws, or additional restrictions. A few ideas:
1. Psychiatric evaluations based on when they wish to purchase a weapon. Don't just look at previous history and say Well he seems ok. Put them through an evaluation then and there, or demand they take one before they can purchase a weapon. Medical history doesn't mean squat if they don't bother getting anything done.
2. Training. Make sure the person you're selling to is capable of using what they're buying correctly.
3. (This one probably isn't viable, but if the manpower existed it would drastically cut down on the misuse of legally-procured arms) Checkups every few months. Similar to how social services check up on at-risk children every so often. Have someone evaluate the gun owner every so often to verify they haven't developed any conditions which could make them volatile or overly dangerous.
So then since you don't think a citizen should own an assault weapon are you advocating voluntary surrender, as in a wrongly named buy back program, or, failing that, involuntary seizure from those who legally own such a firearm now?
Then what do you do with those who, as of today, own said firearms illegally?
Then what do you do with those who, as of today, own said firearms illegally?
In 2006 (I think? I forget) here in the UK we had something called a knife amnesty. Since knife crime is/was one of the biggest here, it was basically getting rid of things like swords and knives without any penalty. It hauled in a load of weapons, and if I remember rightly knife crime lessened. I'd be hesitant to claim the same would work in the US (on that scale, at least) but it could be something worth thinking about.
There will always be an issue with illegal firearms. Obviously you won't get Nebulous Gangbanger to hand over his gat willingly. But from what I've been told, a good portion of illegal firearms originated as legal ones. So I definitely think that fewer legal firearms would translate to a smaller amount of illegal firearms, though it would obviously take a while to see an actual difference.
The thing that I don't quite get (bearing in mind I live in a country where firearms beyond air rifles are uncommon) is the whole home defence aspect. If there's somebody creeping around your home, or they catch you and point a gun at you, or whatever, when exactly is the time for you to pull out your own? Similarly, what guarantee is there that it will be within reach? I'm not 100% clear on the rulings regarding the safekeeping of firearms in the US, but here in the UK you are required by law to have a metal cabinet to store your gun/s in. It must be locked at all times, and the firearms within must not be loaded. Assuming a similar situation in the US (again, I don't know) I don't see how you could protect yourself in that way.
There will always be an issue with illegal firearms. Obviously you won't get Nebulous Gangbanger to hand over his gat willingly. But from what I've been told, a good portion of illegal firearms originated as legal ones. So I definitely think that fewer legal firearms would translate to a smaller amount of illegal firearms, though it would obviously take a while to see an actual difference.
The thing that I don't quite get (bearing in mind I live in a country where firearms beyond air rifles are uncommon) is the whole home defence aspect. If there's somebody creeping around your home, or they catch you and point a gun at you, or whatever, when exactly is the time for you to pull out your own? Similarly, what guarantee is there that it will be within reach? I'm not 100% clear on the rulings regarding the safekeeping of firearms in the US, but here in the UK you are required by law to have a metal cabinet to store your gun/s in. It must be locked at all times, and the firearms within must not be loaded. Assuming a similar situation in the US (again, I don't know) I don't see how you could protect yourself in that way.
+ghost in the wind said:
I'm not quite seeing the logic in this. Of course humans are the core fault in this debate, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier. Compare the recent events in Connecticut to a similar attack in Henan province, China. A man went outside a school and, using a knife, wounded 22 children and an elderly woman. No deaths were reported. Whereas the Connecticut event led to the deaths of 28 people. Both of these events share some key components, but the biggest difference is the equipment used.
I don't know about you, but I'd fancy my chances much higher against someone with a knife than I would someone with a gun.
Well.... maybe it isn't so rosy in the UK as far as knives go after all....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/london-knife-crime
When a stabbing goes unreported, it is uncounted.
Interesting way of making your statistics go down.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/london-knife-crime
When a stabbing goes unreported, it is uncounted.
Interesting way of making your statistics go down.
That's why I'm here.
The Democrats are all about gun control:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012...nd-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012...nd-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/
Short answer: I voted no.
Long answer:
Being from the Baltimore area, I know what guns can do and the fear they install.
The vast majority of the shootings I've heard or experienced have ended in fatalities. So what bothers me is when I hear the comparisons made between deaths caused by vehicular accidents, drowning, or other such accidents and gun homicides. I feel that there is a certain pathology concerning firearms aside from mechanical function (guns require only a pull of a trigger, are impersonal weapons, allow for a relatively quick method of suicide, etc.) that is diminished when such comparisons are formed.
As an aside, take, for example, the psychopathology of weapons like firearms. I feel there is something unique in firearms that canââ¬â¢t be adequately compared to knives, blunt tools, etc. I would agree with the statistic that cites self-defense as the most common reason for acquiring a gun; everyone I know who owns a gun echoes the same sentiment. Those sentiments refer to the potent psychological effect ââ¬â see: ââ¬Åweapons effectââ¬Â ââ¬â of guns. Guns change the power dynamic drastically; give someone a gun and they instantly go from being a victim to the one in control. There is a lot of research into the psychological aspect of firearms, particularly in young males. A few interesting reads:
http://al.nd.edu/new...research-shows/
http://faculty.knox....sto-aggress.pdf
http://www.psycholog...1999/98abb.html
If you are against gun control and preach personal responsibility accountable ownership, etc., then this is probably more your alley:
http://www.saf.org/j...igger-happy.pdf
That said, I donââ¬â¢t feel stricter gun control is the answer. In short, from the data I've looked at and from what I've read, evidence for the effectiveness of gun laws is pretty spotty. Gun laws just scratch the surface. There isn't enough to convince me, personally, that gun laws will go much deeper than that (save for what Mr. Jazzy alluded to when he said that as long as there are people and there are guns, there will always been the threat of shootings).
However, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that there is a direct correlation between gun availability and crime. So controlling the amount of guns can be helpful. In addition, I feel that so-called assault weapons are the ones under abundant scrutiny when there is evidence to suggest that concealable handguns are a far greater menace. Backgrounds checks are already in place, but the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes like mass shootings are purchased legally suggests that guns have a way of finding themselves out of the hands of so-called law-abiding owners and into the public. The gun culture here doesn't help either as any attempt to impose some form of regulation on guns is met by the usual political reverie and even more excitation to cling to guns and prevent the evil democrats from taking away [our] guns.
Long answer:
Being from the Baltimore area, I know what guns can do and the fear they install.
The vast majority of the shootings I've heard or experienced have ended in fatalities. So what bothers me is when I hear the comparisons made between deaths caused by vehicular accidents, drowning, or other such accidents and gun homicides. I feel that there is a certain pathology concerning firearms aside from mechanical function (guns require only a pull of a trigger, are impersonal weapons, allow for a relatively quick method of suicide, etc.) that is diminished when such comparisons are formed.
As an aside, take, for example, the psychopathology of weapons like firearms. I feel there is something unique in firearms that canââ¬â¢t be adequately compared to knives, blunt tools, etc. I would agree with the statistic that cites self-defense as the most common reason for acquiring a gun; everyone I know who owns a gun echoes the same sentiment. Those sentiments refer to the potent psychological effect ââ¬â see: ââ¬Åweapons effectââ¬Â ââ¬â of guns. Guns change the power dynamic drastically; give someone a gun and they instantly go from being a victim to the one in control. There is a lot of research into the psychological aspect of firearms, particularly in young males. A few interesting reads:
http://al.nd.edu/new...research-shows/
http://faculty.knox....sto-aggress.pdf
http://www.psycholog...1999/98abb.html
If you are against gun control and preach personal responsibility accountable ownership, etc., then this is probably more your alley:
http://www.saf.org/j...igger-happy.pdf
That said, I donââ¬â¢t feel stricter gun control is the answer. In short, from the data I've looked at and from what I've read, evidence for the effectiveness of gun laws is pretty spotty. Gun laws just scratch the surface. There isn't enough to convince me, personally, that gun laws will go much deeper than that (save for what Mr. Jazzy alluded to when he said that as long as there are people and there are guns, there will always been the threat of shootings).
However, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that there is a direct correlation between gun availability and crime. So controlling the amount of guns can be helpful. In addition, I feel that so-called assault weapons are the ones under abundant scrutiny when there is evidence to suggest that concealable handguns are a far greater menace. Backgrounds checks are already in place, but the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes like mass shootings are purchased legally suggests that guns have a way of finding themselves out of the hands of so-called law-abiding owners and into the public. The gun culture here doesn't help either as any attempt to impose some form of regulation on guns is met by the usual political reverie and even more excitation to cling to guns and prevent the evil democrats from taking away [our] guns.
There is allot of great info on this thread, I'm thrilled because besides feelings I have a ton of information. I am going to do this fairly quick I have a client calling me pretty soon. I hope there is not too much objection to reference links, Some of the best stuff to support what I know to be true are said by others.
Psychiatric Evaluations
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will be published in May 2013
In this new Manual everyone will have a Psychiatric disorder and not be allowed to have a firearm, drive a car, and much more.
These people are the reason to retain protection.
The Builderburg Group http://youtu.be/zVBwwuNUkyQ
Here are some of the docs that lay out the plan to take over the US.
Here is the Internment Resettlement Docs
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf
I wish I had more time to address this issue in my words but this is a great start to show what this gun grab is all about. I have been following this for 12 years or so and have much more information.
Psychiatric Evaluations
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will be published in May 2013
In this new Manual everyone will have a Psychiatric disorder and not be allowed to have a firearm, drive a car, and much more.
These people are the reason to retain protection.
The Builderburg Group http://youtu.be/zVBwwuNUkyQ
Here are some of the docs that lay out the plan to take over the US.
Here is the Internment Resettlement Docs
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf
I wish I had more time to address this issue in my words but this is a great start to show what this gun grab is all about. I have been following this for 12 years or so and have much more information.
Yes.
By stricter gun control, I have an actual plan. Keep your handguns, pistols, etc. I'm not naive enough to think all guns could possibly be taken away anyways. No one needs an assault rifle or war weapon just like no one needs a tank in their back yard. If you can have an AR, why can't I have a military tank to drive up and down the streets? And I mean one that is fully functioning.
I say ban those, increase background checks, limit who can buy a gun (not an AR) and we'll see improvement.
There are too many shootings happening every single day to not do something. Instead of blaming video games and other violent media as is so common to do, let's focus on something a bit more connected to the issue.
I'm not saying guns will solve the whole problem, we need a better mental health system as well among other things. Guns are a great place to start though.
By stricter gun control, I have an actual plan. Keep your handguns, pistols, etc. I'm not naive enough to think all guns could possibly be taken away anyways. No one needs an assault rifle or war weapon just like no one needs a tank in their back yard. If you can have an AR, why can't I have a military tank to drive up and down the streets? And I mean one that is fully functioning.
I say ban those, increase background checks, limit who can buy a gun (not an AR) and we'll see improvement.
There are too many shootings happening every single day to not do something. Instead of blaming video games and other violent media as is so common to do, let's focus on something a bit more connected to the issue.
I'm not saying guns will solve the whole problem, we need a better mental health system as well among other things. Guns are a great place to start though.
