Gun Control

[carlfense]

As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

This is why we need to legalize murder. Laws don't stop criminals.

[Junior]

So this (and DC) are perfect bexamples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

Incorrect. What does disarming law abiding citizens due, besides putting them more at the mercy of criminals? Why not deal with the problem instead of looking for feel good answers that don't solve the problem. As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

 

How many of these crimes are perpetrated by normal, decent, law abiding citizens? Few, if any. So why are we discussing punishing those people? Because you want to make more innocent victims? That is the only answer.

 

If only Nancy Lanza would've had a gun, she could have stopped her son! Oh... wait...

[Ziggy]

So this (and DC) are perfect bexamples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

Incorrect. What does disarming law abiding citizens due, besides putting them more at the mercy of criminals? Why not deal with the problem instead of looking for feel good answers that don't solve the problem. As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

 

How many of these crimes are perpetrated by normal, decent, law abiding citizens? Few, if any. So why are we discussing punishing those people? Because you want to make more innocent victims? That is the only answer.

 

If only Nancy Lanza would've had a gun, she could have stopped her son! Oh... wait...

 

You mean if only she would have taken the proper steps to keep her mentally ill son from getting the guns she legal owned, had registered and completed back round checks on? When are we going to start laying blame on the real problems that allow these attacks to happen? Parents who are not responsible enough like columbine and Sandy hook, inadequate mental health care in Aurora and VT. Sure guns were tools used in these events, but these attacks could have just as easily been perpetrated using home made explosive devises. Just like health care we need to aim toward prevention, and that starts with making people be more responsible for their kids, their patients, and with their property.

[carlfense]

You mean if only she would have taken the proper steps to keep her mentally ill son from getting the guns she legal owned, had registered and completed back round checks on? When are we going to start laying blame on the real problems that allow these attacks to happen? Parents who are not responsible enough like columbine and Sandy hook, inadequate mental health care in Aurora and VT. Sure guns were tools used in these events, but these attacks could have just as easily been perpetrated using home made explosive devises. Just like health care we need to aim toward prevention, and that starts with making people be more responsible for their kids, their patients, and with their property.

What would you suggest? Logically, I understand how keeping a gun out of the hands of a would be shooter would prevent him from shooting people but what concrete steps could we take to "make people more responsible for their kids, their patients, and with their property?"

[It'sNotAFakeID]

It appears no one has bothered answering this question so I'll repeat myself:

 

When is the best time to identify a problem? And no, it is not a trick question.

 

Firearms are most definitely a problem in the United States. So this question applies here as it would to any other problem we have facing us. I want some discussion on this.

[The Dude]

When is the best time to identify a problem?

High noon.

[Ziggy]

You mean if only she would have taken the proper steps to keep her mentally ill son from getting the guns she legal owned, had registered and completed back round checks on? When are we going to start laying blame on the real problems that allow these attacks to happen? Parents who are not responsible enough like columbine and Sandy hook, inadequate mental health care in Aurora and VT. Sure guns were tools used in these events, but these attacks could have just as easily been perpetrated using home made explosive devises. Just like health care we need to aim toward prevention, and that starts with making people be more responsible for their kids, their patients, and with their property.

What would you suggest? Logically, I understand how keeping a gun out of the hands of a would be shooter would prevent him from shooting people but what concrete steps could we take to "make people more responsible for their kids, their patients, and with their property?"

 

 

Logically, I don't know in our country if we can make people be more responsible, if that were possible we wouldn't have most of our congress re-elected, we would have laws that about as long as our constitution. It just seems to me that parents are more and more pushing responsibility away from themselves onto schools and the government. And doctors are more worried about liability than doing what they are supposed to do. I feel like some common sense responsible parent would lock up their pistols, shotgun and AR 15 when they had a violate and mentally unstable child in the house, for that matter I would hope they did that with just a regular child in the house. Parents who know who their kids are hanging out with, where they hang out at, what they do on the internet and in the basement of the house. That maybe a kid who comes into a shrinks office and displays some sign that he might be violent, that they get put on a watch list for buying weapons that could be used to harm or kill other people. OK i am gonna stop it there.

 

For the record, I am not against intelligent laws aimed at reducing gun related crimes. Increasing fines for unprotected weapons in houses, not having trigger locks on weapons, restrictions on who can own what guns. Making all gun sales at stores/ gun shows/ Auctions/ Gun events have to pass a backround check (not necessarily registration) but at least ensuring they are legally allowed to own a weapon is a good start. The whole private sale and gifting of weapons is a grey area I don't have a lot of answers for. Maybe have some sort of nationalized test that would be accompanied with the back round check that would help weed out some of the mentally unstable from purchasing weapons. Maybe like every 5 years it expires and you have to take the test again.

[Ziggy]

It appears no one has bothered answering this question so I'll repeat myself:

 

When is the best time to identify a problem? And no, it is not a trick question.

 

Firearms are most definitely a problem in the United States. So this question applies here as it would to any other problem we have facing us. I want some discussion on this.

 

Other than high noon...nice one the dude. I am gonna guess before an action is taken?

[walksalone]

Thats an alarming chart, but those that did commit the gun crimes, were they thug gang bangers, guys that came home to early finding somebody else nailing their old lady? That doesn't really show much other than numbers, that yes aren't good, but thats painting with a broad brush...

No arguments . . . but it's still a more precise brush than a chart showing all murders.

 

But in the wake of the tragedy's in Colorado and Newtown, politicians, those in the media and Hollywood are portraying those normal folks that own guns as threats. We've got our own 21st century witch hunt...

[74Hunter]

So this (and DC) are perfect bexamples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

Incorrect. What does disarming law abiding citizens due, besides putting them more at the mercy of criminals? Why not deal with the problem instead of looking for feel good answers that don't solve the problem. As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

 

How many of these crimes are perpetrated by normal, decent, law abiding citizens? Few, if any. So why are we discussing punishing those people? Because you want to make more innocent victims? That is the only answer.

 

No one is suggesting we take away all of the guns. No one has EVER suggested that. What people suggest are restrictions on magazine sizes, universal background checks on gun purchases, banning guns. You know, that sort of thing. No one wants to take away your deer rifle (assuming you aren't using an assault rifle for deer hunting). This all or nothing mindset is the biggest hurdle that has to change.

 

And yes, I know the 2nd amendment and it's historical context. The problem is that military weaponry has advanced since the 18th century. I'm not sure what military you are planning to take on with your AR15, but good luck shooting down a fighter jet with it. The other issue is that everyone seems to skip the "well regulated militia" part. But if you want to talk about historical context, at the time the 2nd amendment was written, people had muskets. That's it. There were no assault weapons that shot hundreds of rounds a minute. Or semi-automatics that shot as fast as you could pull the trigger.

The only thing I can get behind is background checks. Other than that, its all bunk. It takes a second or two to reload a magazine, so lower capacity mags won't do it. Also, as in some of these shootings the cowards are reloading before they exhaust their capacity. As for banning "military style" "that are specifically designed to shred enemy armies" well, they are "banned" but can be owned if you have go through background checks and pay additional fees. These ARs that are being used in these mass shootings are not in any way military style. That is a farce that the feel-gooders like to throw out there so that the uniformed public will eat it up. These guns are more hunting rifles than they are military style. Do some research on military grade weapons and compare them to the ones that feel-gooders want to ban. They are cosmetically similar, but functionally are not even close to the same.

[74Hunter]

I deal with the facts as they appear. If a multiple murder at a heavily guarded facility doesn’t seem relevant to you because two people were murdered and not four or more . . . well . . . that’s fine. What should I be witnessing regarding the Fort Hood shooting? Should I be witnessing a mass murderer not being deterred by the presence of armed security or should I be witnessing something else?

Again, the report you listed is vague and doesn't detail the amount of security at the bases or the situation. All we know are that 2 people were killed. There were no details.

 

And, you are wrong again. Fort Hood has gun free zones. There was not armed security where the shooting took place, they had to wait for MP to respond to the call. Yep, 10 minutes .Now, were there other security breaches that happened which allowed the perp to go through with his act? It seems likely.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...-gun-free-zone/

http://www.pennlive....free_zones.html

You are wrong and those reports were wrong.

So you are disputing the CNN report that states that the guard was on lunch at the time, and not where he normally would be?

 

http://www.cnn.com/S...PUTIES_TEXT.htm

 

"a CNN report describes Gardner was eating lunch when he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school’s back parking lot."

 

I also fail to see how a ban on guns would have stopped these two from using bombs and the reported "hand grenades."

 

Ah. No shootings at Wal-Mart

 

I didn't say no shootings, we're discussing mass shootings here. Again, please stay on topic instead of straying and convoluting the argument. Thanks

 

Similarly (to my knowledge) there haven't been any shootings at the Douglas County Courthouse since firearms were prohibited. Using your logic, this proves that gun bans work.

Fail. The Do. Co. Courthouse has armed sheriff's deputies as you walk in the door and metal detectors. So if you can have sheriffs and metal detectors everywhere you go to make sure that the bad guys don't have guns, I guess that's ok if you enjoy living in a Gestapo state. I prefer the personal freedoms that our country was founded on.

 

Common sense and real life. Well, then.

Yes, I am about common sense, not what is quoted below.

 

"This is why we need to legalize murder. Laws don't stop criminals."

 

Oh, and there is this, again. http://www.pennlive....free_zones.html

[Junior]

The NRA, at it again.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

 

In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

[Junior]

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/032313_gun_lobby_op/blindfolded-with-one-hand-tied-behind-back/

 

On many occasions the leadership of the NRA has claimed to support vigorous enforcement of the gun laws on the books. By way of illustration, during his recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wayne LaPierre, CEO and executive vice president of the NRA, said, “We support enforcing the federal gun laws on the books 100 percent of the time against drug dealers with the guns, gangs with guns, felons with guns. That—that works.” Despite this rhetoric, no organization has done more to inhibit the law-enforcement functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal agencies than the NRA. No other area of federal law enforcement suffers from so many legislative barriers to action.

[carlfense]

. . . those in the media and Hollywood are portraying those normal folks that own guns as threats.

What are you referring to exactly? Do you have some examples?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

When is the best time to identify a problem?

High noon.

 

Couldn't be anymore correct.