Gun Laws

There are already laws on the books.Did that prevent this tragedy?Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals that would do them harm.

WinstonSmith wrote:

There are already laws on the books.Did that prevent this tragedy?Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from criminals that would do them harm.

So no type of gun law could help prevent some of these events? No kind of stricter policy can help in any way? What about targeting semi-auto rifles? Any any of it help, even in the slightest? Should we not waste our time by atleast looking into it? What makes you so certain there is nothing that could be done to alteast make it more difficult for these kind of things to happen?

Because a criminal does not obey laws and can pick up a gun anywhere for the right price.What makes you think the government will stop at semi-automatic weapons with more than a 10 round magazine.Governments have disarmed their citizenry in the past with disastrous results.R.J. Rummel has pointed out in his book that more people have been killed by their own government than all the wars in the 20th century.

WinstonSmith wrote:

Because a criminal does not obey laws and can pick up a gun anywhere for the right price.What makes you think the government will stop at semi-automatic weapons with more than a 10 round magazine.Governments have disarmed their citizenry in the past with disastrous results.R.J. Rummel has pointed out in his book that more people have been killed by their own government than all the wars in the 20th century.

I don't understand how that is a point against stricter gun laws? Also wouldn't stricter gun laws make the illegal guns more expensive? Which in return could keep the guns out of aleast a small percentage of criminals hands? I realize you will never be able fully prevent people from getting guns but can't you make the process more difficult at the very least? A motivated criminal will get what they want, I don't disagree. But couldn't we keep the guns out of some peoples hands? Can't we help even in the slightest? Prevent a small fraction of these crimes from happening? Is there any hope of that at all?

I'm for keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill as long as it doesn't affect the law abiding citizen.I'm not sure how one would go about doing it.

WinstonSmith wrote:

I'm for keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill as long as it doesn't affect the law abiding citizen.I'm not sure how one would go about doing it.

Me either, that will be up to men much smarter then me. But shouldn't we atleast pursue it? Try to find some kind of answer to that question? If protection is all you are worried about then can't you atleast agree that semi auto rifles are excessive and unnecessary? I can't imagine that being a requirement to making anyone feel safe. Can't you live with a shotgun and a magnum?

You made some good points in this discussion.I need to head off to work.Have a good day,sir.

WinstonSmith wrote:

You made some good points in this discussion.I need to head off to work.Have a good day,sir.

Nice to see you stop by. Don't be a stranger. Have a good day

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Looks like someone is sensitive. The black population makes up 13% of total pop yet over 50% of the murders.

Farmer's right, the poor black communities are the biggest problem in the US. Brutal crime rates, little hope of upward mobility, major drain on the system. Unfortunately neither side of the aisle has any solid ideas as to how fix the problem. Lib's want to continue giving the tit when we should be way beyond that point in development, and red's just want to walk away with a "not our problem" attitude. Well given on how these communities came to be, Gov't does have a responsibility, but the solution is clearly not what the dem's are serving up.

repped

check my questioning when you get a chance

my opinion

Gun Control does not work. For example, it is a trend that places where laws are on the books to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own a gun actually have higher gun violence and gun murders. While places where there are no gun control laws and many people either have a permit to carry, or at least have one in their home for self defense, actually have very low crime rates.
I think that the logic shows that criminals are much more likely to commit crimes in areas where they know people are less likely to be armed and defend themselves. Most violent criminals are really cowherds who feed on the young, the weak, and the defenseless.

Now, school shootings are obviously a problem. Im not going to deny that. But jumping to the conclusion that banning guns is going to stop school shootings is not only incorrect, but dangerous.
Have you ever heard that quote : "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it".

Please do a little bit of research on the history of gun control, it's effectiveness or lack their of, why tyrants throughout history have constantly tried to disarm their people before massive centralization of power, and the true reason why we have a 2nd amendment.

Not trying to make this political at all, but i think most of us now recognize that we have a government that is getting bigger and giving it's self more power everyday. Whether you think that is a good thing or bad thing is a topic for another day. But what you need to realize is that despite what the president has said about the 2nd amendment, it was not put in the constitution for hunting and fishing. The 2nd amendment is in the constitution to protect citizens against tyranny. Foreign or Domestic. It is there to ensure that the government never has a monopoly of force over it's people.

Now, i do agree that something does have to be done about school shootings. Improving the security at schools needs to become a priority. Whether that means having more police officers in school, or upgrading the building to make it more secure. Implementing massive gun control laws will predictably fail to stop school shootings. Let's learn our lesson from prohibition against drugs and alcohol. Just banning something or making it illegal doesn't solve problems. In fact it will probably just make more dangerous guns easier to get on the black market. Gun control is an easy yet ineffective answer to a much more complex issue.

Also one thing i think needs to be mentioned is that there are several factors at play here. A scary high percentage of the shooters are often found to be on all sorts of psychotropic drugs. Rogan was actually talking about it on his podcast the other day. I think there is definitely a connection there that is being ignored. But then again i think this country's problem with prescription drugs should be pretty clear to everyone at this point, but don't expect to hear that on mainstream media or washington dc. They get way too much money from big pharma lobbyists to actually bring that up.


Also i think banning semi-automatic rifles makes no sense. I have a little .22. It's semi-auto. That doesn't make it an ar-15. Yet it would still be banned? Makes no sense.

oggy420 wrote:

my opinion

Gun Control does not work. For example, it is a trend that places where laws are on the books to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own a gun actually have higher gun violence and gun murders. While places where there are no gun control laws and many people either have a permit to carry, or at least have one in their home for self defense, actually have very low crime rates.
I think that the logic shows that criminals are much more likely to commit crimes in areas where they know people are less likely to be armed and defend themselves. Most violent criminals are really cowherds who feed on the young, the weak, and the defenseless.

1)If u are talking US cities, then the reason gun laws were put into place was because of high rates of gun violence. The violence preceded the laws, not vice versa. And the violence in those cities is often gang vs gang, ie, illegal gun holder vs illegal gun holder. So I think the idea of "feeding on the weak" is a false one. At least in a large % of gun crimes

2)We can look at numerous countries, who unlike US cities actually have some control of it's borders, which outlaw guns and see much lower rates of gun violence.

oggy420 wrote:

Now, school shootings are obviously a problem. Im not going to deny that. But jumping to the conclusion that banning guns is going to stop school shootings is not only incorrect, but dangerous.

Banning guns will certainly not stop school shootings. But can those laws significantly lower the rate? Possibly. But I don't think banning guns outright is an option that is even on the table. Banning of assault rifles is where the legitimate debate centers. And personally I'm all for that ban.

A big problem I see with many of those on the pro gun side of the argument is that they treat their guns more like entertainment. Toys for grown ups.


The seriousness that these weapons demand is not afforded to them.

Guns are entertainment to a lot if people. Shooting and hunting are sports. It's all about the end user. 99% of gun owners are just fine. Just like most drivers are fine too. But there are some that drink and drive wreck less and kill people. It's about the individual.

Cu Bu wrote:

if assult rifles become illegal be prepared for the cartels to sell to US citizens

you know the ones that our government sold them AKA " Fast and Furious"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/10/us/cartels-columbus-new-mexico/index.html

ARs are selling like hotcakes. Academy's around here are selling out in minutes when they get in and online auctions are going for double what they were not too long ago.

1)If u are talking US cities, then the reason gun laws were put into place was because of high rates of gun violence. The violence preceded the laws, not vice versa. And the violence in those cities is often gang vs gang, ie, illegal gun holder vs illegal gun holder. So I think the idea of "feeding on the weak" is a false one. At least in a large % of gun crimes

- Sorry but there just really isn't any evidence to prove that. Of course gun laws are passed because of gun violence. The whole point is that it doesn't work. Gun violence often escalates after gun control laws are passed proving their ineffectiveness.
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower


The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.



2)We can look at numerous countries, who unlike US cities actually have some control of it's borders, which outlaw guns and see much lower rates of gun violence.

- Haha i believe fast and furious has already been brought up here. Kind of ironic all of the obama supporters want to ban guns for law abiding citizens while our government has been shipping assault rifles into mexican drug cartels for years. Yea how's that complete gun ban working out in mexico? I rest my case.

In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.[i]

Guess who got a gun for Christmas.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Thats pretty nice man what caliber?

9mm

Springfield xdm

New York City homicide rate at 6.4 is about half of Houston's, or Dallas who are in the 11's.

Fast and Furious? Obviously shows a huge failure in shipping weaponry to foreign countries. But is that relevant in determining whether gun control laws work in other nations? Japan who has some of the strongest gun control laws also has about the lowest homicide rate in the world.

DC? there are studies out there showing that Washingtons gun murder rate is lower then the surrounding areas which do not have similar gun laws.

But contradicting statistics do abound. Clear evidence gun control works? Certainly no clear evidence.


But what the fast and furious thing shows, what these ridiculous crime rates in Brazil show, crime rates in US big cities show, is that there is too many freaking guns. And why are there so many guns? It's big business. Big Big $$$$ in guns. And they, like the gov't like to use fear to help that business. Whether it be the "bad guys" who don't obey laws, whether it be "the gov't is going to steal your guns" or "gov't is going to ban guns" or the "martial law in 2 years without guns" it's all a game of fear. And it is both sides, no denial.

And the gun manufacturers get a complete pass on it. Even the NRA takes more of a hit then the builders of these weapons(though the two are tied togethor) Bad guys are bad, gov't is bad, gun companies flooding the world with guns that they know will get into the hands of drug cartels? Or terrorists, or genocide promoting gov'ts? Nah it's Obama's fault.

Total arms race going on and these guys make the $$$ at both the good guy and bad guy check out counter. Quite a freaking racket.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Guess who got a gun for Christmas.

Following in the footsteps of the 3 wise men.

Never owned a gun.

not saying The NRA's stance is right, i personally don't think putting armed guards in schools is that great of an idea, but i find it interesting that Obama as well as many of the other bureaucrats and celebs calling for gun control and completely demonizing the statement by the NRA all send their kids to a school that has 11 armed guards in it.

And let's just be honest. There is no clear evidence that gun control works... that is an understatement. We have to face facts. We can't go back in time and not invent the firearm. It has played a significant part in the birth and history of this country. We all know there are tons of guns out there now. So even if you completely outlaw making and selling new guns you still have the black market which will thrive like it always does when something is completely banned (Drugs Alcohol).

Now this is important. This mean the only real way to reduce the number of guns would be confiscation. Think about that for a second. Do you really think going door to door trying to forcefully take people gun's when they haven't done anything wrong, haven't broken any laws, is a good idea? The governor of my state is actually currently considering this he said. That scares the shit out of me. That will only lead to senseless violence.
The Journal news put up a detailed map showing every person who had a concealed carry in westchester, putnam, and rockland counties. Listed their full name, their address, and a dot where their house is on the map as if the were some type of sex offender or something. This is getting completely ridiculous. If they are trying to start some civil unrest, they should keep pushing the gun confiscation thing cause that's all that will lead to. And don't be fooled, national or federal gun registration will just be a precursor to confiscation.

At least when that happens the Michael Moore types can stop bitching and trying to insinuate that any white person who owns a gun is a racist.

I still don't understand why anyone would be against banning atleast the majority of semi-autos especially semi-auto riffles, you can have some exceptions but overall it's a completely over the top weapon with little to no practical use.

I also don't see why anyone would have a problem with attempting to make it more difficult to own a fire arm. Will it prevent people from getting guns if they wanted to? No, but making it more of a pain in the ass could prevent some people from owning guns that otherwise would. Even if it MIGHT help just a LITTLE, isn't it worth it to peruse those options?