I think there needs to be close examination of ways gun control can be improved. A ban is not one of them. I do not want to hear any slippery slope arguments from the NRA crowd. There will never be a complete ban on guns in this nation. Never. Even people like myself who don't own a gun, don't hunt and prefer tight rules on gun control will fight with all our power against a ban. If I want a gun, I want to be able to get one.

 

This argument is about what is real and right in gun control. As I said, I am not a gun person and need more education to have firm opinions, but here are questions that come to mind:

 

1. Why does anyone need a weapon with a clip that holds more than 10-12 bullets?

 

2. Why does anyone in the general public need a hollow point bullet?

 

3. Are there weapons being sold legally that are designed purely as assault weapons? Why should that be allowed?

 

I know we have knowledgeable gun enthusiasts on here and look forward to some education. I also would like to hear from gun enthusiasts the answer to this:

 

If you must have 2 or 3 new gun control laws put in place, what should they be?

 

1. Why does anyone need a weapon with a clip that holds more than 10-12 bullets?

 

Protection in the woods. If you are in the woods and have only 1 weapon with you (pistol, rifle, etc.) you come across a snake or dangerous animal (bear) or multiple snakes, multiple dangerous animals you may need many rounds. I know of people who are armed when in the woods for just potential issues. Larger rattlers will need many rounds to ensure they are addressed. Multiple snakes may need lots of rounds. Common mags are now 20 as a minimum. Do you 'need' 30 or 40 rounds maybe not. As indicated if you think you 'need' that many carry a 2nd and 3rd clip. But that is point. 1 large magazine vs. multiple is almost a wash - for those who may 'need' or those intending to inflict terrible harm.

 

2. Why does anyone in the general public need a hollow point bullet?

 

Why not? If you are shooting at a human or a bear the HP will spread out on impact and 'cause more damage'. But FMJs will cause a different damage - cavitation due their their velocity. But the FMJ will pass through an intended target and continue down range if it does not strike bone or a hard material. Thus, they may be more dangerous. HPs sound bad but really are not as bad as portrayed. Amour-piercing is more of concern. And for certain ammo - like amour piercing - looking at more stringent regulation is reasonable.

 

3. Are there weapons being sold legally that are designed purely as assault weapons? Why should that be allowed?

 

Again, what is a 'pure assault rifle'? Sliding stock? A short stock is useful if engaging a snake that is 2-4 feet from you since you have to aim almost straight down. Pistol grip? Not sure why this is an issue. If it allows for better control and accuracy why ban it. I would rather legal gun owners have accurate weapons. Grenade launcher - ok, thats a feature not really needed. Not that grenade launcher have created any mass casualties that I know of. Bayonet mount? See the end of the 2nd video I posted. They guy jokes about that since the BM does have that. OK, outlaw civilian bayonet mounts, though they have not been a factor in mass casualty events.

 

Automatic - sure. Keep that tight control as is the law today. 3-round burst (standard on military version) - sure same thing.

 

I know of people who occationally do hunt with an AR-15. There is nothing that keeps that legitimate function from being done with this 'military style' rifle. But if you are in the woods and have only one single firearm for other reasons - the AR-15 with the 'assault feathers' is more useful and flexible.

 

 

2 or 3 new laws =

 

1. Basic training or a basic 'test' mandatory for standard purchases. Show you know at least the basics of owning a gun responsibility.

2. Increase security at well known 'gun free' zones. Schools and businesses mostly. If these high density places are going to be 'gun free' then they need good, solid security - physical, perimeter, etc. Set security standards for 'gun free' areas.

3. On the other end of the spectrum if a place can not provide the minimum standards for 'gun free' area then they should not be allowed to declare themselves as such. The Aurora theater event comes to mind. The theater had nice no-firearms signs. But no real security. It was a soft target and advertised itself as such.

Your Chicago citing really means nothing. Just a number meant to scare people away. Citing the number of homicides in one weekend fails miserably in telling the story.

 

I can copy and paste this all day:

 

Once again, if a reason is because we have more guns why is fixing that not worthy of consideration? You, yourself said our abundance of guns is a reason these types of incidents happen more here than elsewhere.

:lol: OK, ignore reality. Let me know if you want to seriously debate this.

 

I did not say the abundance of guns is why this happens. I said there are too many out there already, as in a ban will solve nothing. Which, the fact you ignored about Chicago points out.

Regarding your opening statement, are you telling me drugs were the cause of this shooting and the reason we cannot have a debate on gun laws? That's what I'm discussing. Not a silly attempt to deflect the issue because you know I support the legalization of drugs.

No, that's not what I'm saying and I never said we couldn't have a debate.

 

BTW, I support the legalization of drugs, you know that, so....

It's just a fact that a lot of gun crime is because of illegal drugs.

 

Honestly, I think parenting, mental illness, video games and the glorification of these idiots on the news are much worse culprits.

Well writen article making its rounds on facebook.

 

'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America

For those in the know, isn't there an issue with gun shows not requiring a background check before purchasing?

Well writen article making its rounds on facebook.

 

'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America

 

We should note that there are some online who say this lady is telling a different story than she's told about her kids on her blog over the years.

 

Regardless, many other parents ARE dealing with this daily. So take it as a summary of what parents go through.

I don't have the answer. I don't think banning guns fixes anything, and I don't think any sane person is advocating a complete ban of guns. I've owned guns, and enjoy shooting (even though I don't hunt). The reality of the situation is the worst mass shootings ever have all occurred in the last decade. And I don't think everyone walking around packing heat is the answer to preventing this issue from continuing. I do think that it starts with a more accessible, affordable mental health care system.

I think that's a good start.

I'd like to add that I think you should be made to prove that you at least have someway of securing your gun while you are away from it. Whether that be a lock or safe you should be made to show that you possess one or the other when purchasing. Gun control should start and stop with the owner of said gun.

I wouldn't have politicized it, I can tell you that. I listened to his speech, I think he obviously politicized it and it's obvious gun control is going to play a big part of what he wants. I think the mental health issue is what needs to be addressed, hell, the glorification of the act on our 24/7 news channels needs more addressing than gun control.

 

The other thread was about what a Dem said, and let's face it, it isn't Republicans that want gun control or bans.

 

Dude - you're the one mentioning Dems and Repubs, not the President, so who's politicizing it? Seems to me if the President would have said "Everyone with a drivers' license gets a free gun" you would find something wrong with that too.

 

Why does the implied hint of gun control send people into a frenzy? What are you/they afraid of? This issue needs to be addressed, in the open, by everyone. The fact that we track and register cars better in this country than we do guns is absurd.

For those in the know, isn't there an issue with gun shows not requiring a background check before purchasing?

 

If you are a license dealer the rule still applies. The gun show does not bypass that requirement for official dealers.

 

If the seller is just a person who pays a fee to participate but is not a dealer then the transition is considered a 'private' transaction.

 

The checks are still required for all handguns and pistols at the show.

We have and will continue to have many "facts" and "studies" presented as evidence to support one side or the other on the topic of crime related to gun control.

 

I would caution all to educate yourself on the difference because "correlation" and "causation."

 

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those in the know, isn't there an issue with gun shows not requiring a background check before purchasing?

 

If you are a license dealer the rule still applies. The gun show does not bypass that requirement for official dealers.

 

If the seller is just a person who pays a fee to participate but is not a dealer then the transition is considered a 'private' transaction.

 

The checks are still required for all handguns and pistols at the show.

Correct on all accounts.

If you are a license dealer the rule still applies. The gun show does not bypass that requirement for official dealers.

 

If the seller is just a person who pays a fee to participate but is not a dealer then the transition is considered a 'private' transaction.

 

The checks are still required for all handguns and pistols at the show.

 

Is there a downside to requiring all purchases to be registered?

Dude - you're the one mentioning Dems and Repubs, not the President, so who's politicizing it? Seems to me if the President would have said "Everyone with a drivers' license gets a free gun" you would find something wrong with that too.

 

Why does the implied hint of gun control send people into a frenzy? What are you/they afraid of? This issue needs to be addressed, in the open, by everyone. The fact that we track and register cars better in this country than we do guns is absurd.

Becoming Australia.

Is there a downside to requiring all purchases to be registered?

 

None. Other than Big Brother knowing you got 'em.