Figured to point the gun debate here.

 

 

I do not own a gun, but I don't disagree with those that do. I may be in the minority but something HAS to change in light of what happened. There has to be more regulations regarding gun control. I'm not saying don't allow people to only have so many but something needs to be done because it isn't safe for anyone. I know the saying "guns don't kill people" but whoever said that is an idiot.

 

I'm still amazed at how many people are still fighting over gun issues and aren't willing to make some kind of compromise if it meant a safer world.

If you think the person that said that is an idiot then I assume you have countless cases where a gun pulled it's own trigger and killed a person? If I hold your head under water until you drown are you did because of the water or because I held your head under the water? If guns are responsible then why do we charge people with murder when they shot someone? The gun did it right?

 

To the point of the thread...do you truly believe that passing any kind of gun control will make the US safer? If so why?

As to the bolded, you are incorrect. If you are going to make statements like that, please, do some research and familiarize yourself with the subject matter. I am not being condescending either. In the interest of good debate, we all need to know what an automatic weapon is, what a semi automatic weapon is and what type of guns belong in each category.

 

Automatic = one pull of the trigger yields multiple shots. Think machine guns. These are strictly regulated, very cost prohibitive for the average joe.

 

Semi Auto = one pull of the trigger yields only one shot. Most home defense pistols and hunting shotguns fit this category as well as a great number of hunting rifles if not most. So do assault rifles, for which you can get magazines that hold a great number of shots.

 

Semi automatic weapons include a very wide sweeping category. If you ban all semi auto weapons, that would include most pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles that are used for home defense and recreational hunting in civilian society. Just about the only weapons that are not semi auto are revolvers, muzzle loaders, bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns.

And really, although not thought of as semi-auto, most revolvers aren't much different in basic function. They are a little slower but still pull the trigger and you get 1 shot, pull the trigger and you get 1 shot, repeat until empty.

 

Pump shotguns have to be cocked between shots but spend 10 mins shooting one and you can get pretty quick at it. Hell, watch what Tom Knapp can do with a pump shotgun.

To the point of the thread...do you truly believe that passing any kind of gun control will make the US safer? If so why?

 

It absolutely, unquestionably would. Just look to the places with very strict gun control.

 

But that's not the question we have to ask ourselves. In order to get to that point, we couldn't just make some laws that aid in "responsible gun ownership." We'd have to ban almost all personally-held firearms and in the process, absolutely dismantle the second amendment. Are we prepared to surrender that right and go as far as is needed to actually make gun control useful? No, I don't think we are.

 

I think the idea of gun control under the currently existing paradigm is not particularly effective, so the discussion has to shift elsewhere. To what? I wish I was smart enough to pin that down.

And really, although not thought of as semi-auto, most revolvers aren't much different in basic function. They are a little slower but still pull the trigger and you get 1 shot, pull the trigger and you get 1 shot, repeat until empty.

 

Pump shotguns have to be cocked between shots but spend 10 mins shooting one and you can get pretty quick at it. Hell, watch what Tom Knapp can do with a pump shotgun.

^ I left double barrel shotguns and pump shotguns & rifles off my list.

It absolutely, unquestionably would. Just look to the places with very strict gun control.

 

But that's not the question we have to ask ourselves. In order to get to that point, we couldn't just make some laws that aid in "responsible gun ownership." We'd have to ban almost all personally-held firearms and in the process, absolutely dismantle the second amendment. Are we prepared to surrender that right and go as far as is needed to actually make gun control useful? No, I don't think we are.

 

I think the idea of gun control under the currently existing paradigm is not particularly effective, so the discussion has to shift elsewhere. To what? I wish I was smart enough to pin that down.

My question was under the assumption that we only went after the mean guns. If you are talking about a total ban and using a white out pen on the 2nd amendment then maybe then it's a different scenario. I would still argue things like this would happen. One because no way you get all of the guns already in circulation. But mainly because we haven't addressed the real issue. Sane law abiding people do not do these things. If your cheese slides off your crack you will find a way to kill some people. Will it be 26 at a time? Who knows. I know others have brought it up before but the worst school killing in US history was done with explosives in 1928 or 29. What do you think would of happen if the guy last week walked in there with a full propane tank and a flare? Or a couple cans of gas and a lighter?

^ I'm with you. Very strict gun control can help with those acts of everyday violence we see when two people get gunned down after a drug deal or some creep who gets mad after a divorce and kills his ex-wife. But when it comes to acts of mass murder, I don't know that the method is all that important to these people. Just look at how strict laws are in Europe but what that madman in Norway managed to do last year.

^ I'm with you. Very strict gun control can help with those acts of everyday violence we see when two people get gunned down after a drug deal or some creep who gets mad after a divorce and kills his ex-wife. But when it comes to acts of mass murder, I don't know that the method is all that important to these people. Just look at how strict laws are in Europe but what that madman in Norway managed to do last year.

I disagree that it will help in cases where a drug deal goes bad and people are shot. Those will happen no matter what. Gangs, drug dealers, ect will have guns no matter what law you pass. I agree it will help in domestic cases where it's more of a heat of the moment type thing. However there will probably just be an increase in the number of stabbings or beating deaths.

I am not a big gun person myself, but I believe in our freedoms. I don't feel any different now than before about guns, but I feel different about our mental health system which is in need of an overhaul.

It absolutely, unquestionably would. Just look to the places with very strict gun control.

Really? It sure didn't the last time. How about Chicago?

^ I'm with you. Very strict gun control can help with those acts of everyday violence we see when two people get gunned down after a drug deal or some creep who gets mad after a divorce and kills his ex-wife. But when it comes to acts of mass murder, I don't know that the method is all that important to these people. Just look at how strict laws are in Europe but what that madman in Norway managed to do last year.

Disagree again. I have to bring up Chicago again. Look at the ban, basically, they had and then look at all the gun violence they still had. New York City? Same thing.

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by Run To State

I disagree that it will help in cases where a drug deal goes bad and people are shot. Those will happen no matter what. Gangs, drug dealers, ect will have guns no matter what law you pass. I agree it will help in domestic cases where it's more of a heat of the moment type thing. However there will probably just be an increase in the number of stabbings or beating deaths.

Exactly.

I think the gun control "solution", especially after such an unthinkable crime as Sandy Hook, is fueled by emotion only. There's little to no logic involved because this one really hit home to all of us. You can see and hear it from the president on down. There are so many people reacting with very limited to no education on weapons including the president. Even he doesn't understand what an assault weapon is and I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the term misused on here alone. Leatherneck said it in another thread, people need to educate themselves if they want to have any honest and serious debate on guns and gun control. Otherwise folks, you're allowing you emotions to think for you.

I disagree that it will help in cases where a drug deal goes bad and people are shot. Those will happen no matter what. Gangs, drug dealers, ect will have guns no matter what law you pass. I agree it will help in domestic cases where it's more of a heat of the moment type thing. However there will probably just be an increase in the number of stabbings or beating deaths.

 

This.

I think the gun control "solution", especially after such an unthinkable crime as Sandy Hook, is fueled by emotion only. There's little to no logic involved because this one really hit home to all of us. You can see and hear it from the president on down. There are so many people reacting with very limited to no education on weapons including the president. Even he doesn't understand what an assault weapon is and I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the term misused on here alone. Leatherneck said it in another thread, people need to educate themselves if they want to have any honest and serious debate on guns and gun control. Otherwise folks, you're allowing you emotions to think for you.

 

Its always better to use your brain over your feelings.

I think the gun control "solution", especially after such an unthinkable crime as Sandy Hook, is fueled by emotion only. There's little to no logic involved because this one really hit home to all of us. You can see and hear it from the president on down. There are so many people reacting with very limited to no education on weapons including the president. Even he doesn't understand what an assault weapon is and I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen the term misused on here alone. Leatherneck said it in another thread, people need to educate themselves if they want to have any honest and serious debate on guns and gun control. Otherwise folks, you're allowing you emotions to think for you.

 

When 20, 6 and 7 year olds get executed at their elementary school sometimes we as a nation need to think with our emotions. I've read or heard so far on here, the radio, facebook, etc that the need for high capacity magazines is for that time you come across a snake, target shooting competitions, 10 terrorist show up at your door and the quickest reload is one you don't have to make. None of these are good enough reasons to not limit at least the amount of rounds in a magazine. I just value the lives of children more than a target shooters convenience, a chance run in with a nasty snake or some tin foil hat red dawn scenario. I get that your career is tied to the gun trade but if you're unwilling to acknowledge that aside from mental illness that most of these mass shootings have in common is weapons with high capacity magazines then you're going to get left behind in the debate.