750 replies to this topic

[Eleven]

There are people who make pipe bombs as a hobby; should that be legal, too?  After all, the Second Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions "arms."  If I have an interest in nuclear warheads, should I be able to develop one in my own backyard?  (Because really, that's the only way I'm going to be able to protect myself against an oppressive government...)

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

While i am in favor of the right to gun ownership, i agree with several on this board that the screening process for ownership must be rehashed and redone.

It's my understanding that the gunman stole the firearms from his mother, whome they were registered to.  That means these were illegal weapons in the hands of that monster.

It all comes down to individual responsibility.  My father owns firearms, but you know what? I'm 21 years old (will be in less than 2 weeks) and i still have no idea where in the house they are.  I know they are locked up, but i couldn't tell you where.  The reason for that is that i've simply never had a reason to know.  That's his stance and honestly i believe it's the right one.

There will always be a gray area in this conversation.  Some claim that ownership should be legal for self defense against illegal firearms, others claim that were it not legal to own one for "self defense" that it would not be easy to access them.  There is no right answer.  Guns kill people.  People with guns kill people.  Regardless of which thread you subscribe to, there's only one truth that's truly defensible, and that's that guns have the capacity to kill, and there's no denying that.

[weave]

Eleven, on 16 December 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

There are people who make pipe bombs as a hobby; should that be legal, too?  After all, the Second Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions "arms."  If I have an interest in nuclear warheads, should I be able to develop one in my own backyard?  (Because really, that's the only way I'm going to be able to protect myself against an oppressive government...)

Ahh yes.  Let's make our arguments from the extreme.........

[d4rksabre]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Ahh yes.  Let's make our arguments from the extreme.........

A bunch of kids getting murdered is less extreme?

[Eleven]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Ahh yes.  Let's make our arguments from the extreme.........

It's not extreme.  I'm just describing the slippery slope that you were headed down. We've limited what we have a right to as "arms," and I'd like to see that further limited to remove weapons that have no legitimate purpose but to kill human beings on the offensive.  You know you don't need a machine gun to kill a deer.

Edited by Eleven, 16 December 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[deluca67]

Eleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I just read something that intrigued me.  Don't know to whom it's attributable:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports.  Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

Michigan just passed a law where you can bring guns into schools. Guns are OK, a peanut butter cookie on the other hand is a no no. This is a truly fu@ked-up world we live in.

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

A bunch of kids getting murdered is less extreme?

I'm not sure I've seen any arguments *for* murdering a bunch of kids so I'm going to file this under "Strawman".

Eleven, on 16 December 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

It's not extreme.  I'm just describing the slippery slope that you were headed down. We've limited what we have a right to as "arms," and I'd like to see that further limited to remove weapons that have no legitimate purpose but to kill human beings on the offensive.  You know you don't need a machine gun to kill a deer.

As mentioned earlier, noone is talking "need".  I'm not sure why you guys are so insistant upon using that word.  I am going to assume that when you speak of "weapons that have no legitimate purpose but to kill human beings on the offensive" you are referring to AR types, erroneously labeled assault rifles (the name originated to describe a specific military application, none of the rifles generally available to civilians fit that definition).  Those firearms are actually VERY effective hunting firearms, and are functionally no different from a whole slew of firearms that don't have the scary look but aren't classified as "assault".  There is no functional difference between say a Remington model 76000, Browning BAR, and an AR-15.  But the Remington and Browning have wood stocks without a pistol grip so they seem to be OK'd as merely hunting tools.  It is nearly all image and no substance.

As for the machine gun quote, machine guns have not been generally available for sale since 1934, and even then only under VERY strict, expensive federal statutes and it is limited to firearms manufacturered prior to 1968..  I suspect you know that "real" machine guns are not what you are referring to though.  If we are going to discuss it, let's at least use honest, accurate terminology instead of scary hyperbole.

As for the slippery slope, why am I supposed to accept your slippery slope argument when you won't respect the slippery slope argument that the pro-gun side uses to justify their stance?

[Eleven]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure I've seen any arguments *for* murdering a bunch of kids so I'm going to file this under "Strawman".




As mentioned earlier, noone is talking "need".  I'm not sure why you guys are so insistant upon using that word.  I am going to assume that when you speak of "weapons that have no legitimate purpose but to kill human beings on the offensive" you are referring to AR types, erroneously labeled assault rifles (the name originated to describe a specific military application, none of the rifles generally available to civilians fit that definition).  Those firearms are actually VERY effective hunting firearms, and are functionally no different from a whole slew of firearms that don't have the scary look but aren't classified as "assault".  There is no functional difference between say a Remington model 76000, Browning BAR, and an AR-15.  But the Remington and Browning have wood stocks without a pistol grip so they seem to be OK'd as merely hunting tools.  It is nearly all image and no substance.

As for the machine gun quote, machine guns have not been generally available for sale since 1934, and even then only under VERY strict, expensive federal statutes and it is limited to firearms manufacturered prior to 1968..  I suspect you know that "real" machine guns are not what you are referring to though.  If we are going to discuss it, let's at least use honest, accurate terminology instead of scary hyperbole.

As for the slippery slope, why am I supposed to accept your slippery slope argument when you won't respect the slippery slope argument that the pro-gun side uses to justify their stance?

What is the slippery slope argument that the pro-gun side uses to justify its stance?

[drnkirishone]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 16 December 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

30%

The economic backdrop is going to drive the next decade of periods of chaos and shifting power. There is no way the citizens can defend themselves against a 100% united US Military.....but let's say for instance as the US debt crisis (fiscal cliff is a sideshow....a pimple on the ass of an elephant) hits a breaking point and our main rivals who are rich in natural resources and who have been hedging against a US failure by hoarding hard assets and setting up deals with other unfriendlies.....decide to make a play for extended power. It's happening patiently and has been. But if they want to take a little pain themselves in order to collapse the US $......it is a very possible and real scenario. This would lead to full blown war, which could be started in any number of ways....which is why the developments in Syria and Iran are worth watching so closely.

If things start to unravel in a hurry.....which also is a very real possibility, you could have a whole country that looks like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy on Staten Island...not in a physical sense, but in a financial, resources, infrastructure, distribution sense. It would take but a week for 80% of the country to be helpless. Now....how the military responds to the possible scenarios that set up would be the moment of truth, and where all hell could break loose.

In chaos, we see how ineffective the government is in small, regional situations. Imagine that on a countrywide scale? It is VERY possible and since 2007, your government and military has been preparing in overdrive for the eventual events that NEED to take place at some point. How deep the pain goes....how fast it happens....how everyone responds.......we don't know.

You are much more likely to see neighborhoods form their own protectionary units for reasons of rioting and looting. At a critical mass, the cops would stay home with their families. That is much more of a realistic issue than full blown war against your own military. Depending on how things unfold, and who the administration is, it is possible to see a breakup in the military and a power struggle. But that is more low single digit percentages......if that happens the Mayans are probably right. But the US reaching a point where everyone will wish they had protection......30%.

I know I normally make light of your doom and gloom conspiracy type things. But I mostly agree with you here and it scares me to think of the day when me and fellow gun owners might be defending ourselves and our neighbors from lawlesness in our communities.

[d4rksabre]

Really, the Paul Kersey argument?

[ThirtyEight]

I'll ask this here, but it is a slight off topic question. Why is it that Americans often quote their founding fathers in these matters? It has perplexed me, as in my mind you have to treat a text by the society it was created in. I guess i don't see people feel Jefferson's quotes about a society 250 years ago are more valid/more prophetic than someone who uses stats of today to explain why people have a right to bear arms.

I'm not trying to be rude, or disrespectful, but it always comes across as a romanticised version of history  as though the founding fathers were so infallible that the words they spoke 250 years should resonate through the centuries and guide America even in a changed world.

Back on topic, does someone have the stats that show countries that have strong gun control have much higher bomb/knife crime? It just doesn't make sense to me, as if people say we shouldn't ban guns because knife crime will increase, then surely that is a (comparatively) good thing? I'd rather be stabbed than shot. And people who say if we banned guns then bomb crime would increase, well that is idiotic, bomb making is a specialist field, you would have to learn it and buy unusual supplies - this makes it a lot harder to do than pull a trigger.

I think an argument could me made for hunting riffles  hand guns and shot guns; but i really don't see why someone needs an assault rifle? How many people are they expecting to defend their home against?

Some extra pieces of info:
‎70% of murders in the US take place using a gun (just under 13,000 last year).
The US murder rate is four times that of Western Europe.

Edited by ThirtyEight, 16 December 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[deluca67]

We can probably post stories like these every day. We all know the next "tragedy" is only days away.

http://www.usatoday....threat/1772941/

http://news.blogs.cn...-air/?hpt=hp_t3

[d4rksabre]

DeLuca67, on 16 December 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

We can probably post stories like these every day. We all know the next "tragedy" is only days away.

http://www.usatoday....threat/1772941/

http://news.blogs.cn...-air/?hpt=hp_t3

It's okay Deluca, this is the price other people that aren't you or me have to pay so that a small portion of Americans can be prepared to fight the US government/China/Mexico/their own neighbors/hoodlums on dirtbikes with mohawks.

[deluca67]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

It's okay Deluca, this is the price other people that aren't you or me have to pay so that a small portion of Americans can be prepared to fight the US government/China/Mexico/their own neighbors/hoodlums on dirtbikes with mohawks.

It's hard to stay calm when 20 6 year olds pay that price. They all died so the weekend Rambos can feel like men on the weekends. I know, it's an over reaction because they could have just as easily been killed with a tomato.

[HopefulFuture]

ThirtyEight, on 16 December 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I'll ask this here, but it is a slight off topic question. Why is it that Americans often quote their founding fathers in these matters? It has perplexed me, as in my mind you have to treat a text by the society it was created in. I guess i don't see people feel Jefferson's quotes about a society 250 years ago are more valid/more prophetic than someone who uses stats of today to explain why people have a right to bear arms.

I'm not trying to be rude, or disrespectful, but it always comes across as a romanticised version of history  as though the founding fathers were so infallible that the words they spoke 250 years should resonate through the centuries and guide America even in a changed world.

Back on topic, does someone have the stats that show countries that have strong gun control have much higher bomb/knife crime? It just doesn't make sense to me, as if people say we shouldn't ban guns because knife crime will increase, then surely that is a (comparatively) good thing? I'd rather be stabbed than shot. And people who say if we banned guns then bomb crime would increase, well that is idiotic, bomb making is a specialist field, you would have to learn it and buy unusual supplies - this makes it a lot harder to do than pull a trigger.

I think an argument could me made for hunting riffles  hand guns and shot guns; but i really don't see why someone needs an assault rifle? How many people are they expecting to defend their home against?

Some extra pieces of info:
‎70% of murders in the US take place using a gun (just under 13,000 last year).
The US murder rate is four times that of Western Europe.

I believe the answer your looking for only comes when your born and bred an American. To live the American experience is to be American.
The founding fathers are the core of that principle, for without them, The Unitied States of America does not exist. And yes, those men lived in a different time, but the principals and concepts they put forth and enacted is the foundation of all for us, or, at least it should be.

Once we loose our way and turn our backs on our founding principals, which is happening now, the game is over.

DeLuca67, on 16 December 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

It's hard to stay calm when 20 6 year olds pay that price. They all died so the weekend Rambos can feel like men on the weekends. I know, it's an over reaction because they could have just as easily been killed with a tomato.

Oh my god, get over yourself already. Tragedies like this have occured in the past, yes, even before the founding of the nation.
I don't see you railing hard about the genocide that took place against the Native Americans in this land as Manifest Destiny took hold, and I can assure you, 20 children and 6 adults pale in comparison to what was wrought on those poor souls.

And one last note on this, the tragedies haven't become more in number nor more in horror or damage inflicted, it is merely because of the information flow on a moments notice that it has become the new focul point of the now, self-proclaimed "News" cycle that hypes it.

In the end, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, because quite frankly, after 42 years of witnessing what I have in this nation and with documented historical events put into the context of this subject, I'd rather keep my guns, thank you very much.

Edited by HopefulFuture, 16 December 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[d4rksabre]

HopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I believe the answer your looking for only comes when your born and bred an American. To live the American experience is to be American.
The founding fathers are the core of that principle, for without them, The Unitied States of America does not exist. And yes, those men lived in a different time, but the principals and concepts they put forth and enacted is the foundation of all for us, or, at least it should be.

Once we loose our way and turn our backs on our founding principals, which is happening now, the game is over.



Oh my god, get over yourself already. Tragedies like this have occured in the past, yes, even before the founding of the nation.
I don't see you railing hard about the genocide that took place against the Native Americans in this land as Manifest Destiny took hold, and I can assure you, 20 children and 6 adults pale in comparison to the what was wrought on those poor souls.

I believe Deluca has brought up his displeasure with the Native American genocide in the past. Our country has its black marks. Why must we continue to enable them? Why should we desire to facilitate future tragedy? Because America?

[HopefulFuture]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

I believe Deluca has brought up his displeasure with the Native American genocide in the past. Our country has its black marks. Why must we continue to enable them? Why should we desire to facilitate future tragedy? Because America?

The answer is simple, take away the guns, and knives will be used. Take away the knives and sharpened sticks will be used. Take away the sharpened sticks and rocks will be used. And so it goes........

As I said history is filled with far more tragic moments then this and yes, this is a tragedy to be sure, innocence lost.
But in the end, arming the citizens, who quite frankly are on the front lines of any encounter is the surest way to ensure minimal damage when you look at the broder spectrum of weaponry and how it's used for bad, evil, call it what you will.

[d4rksabre]

HopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

The answer is simple, take away the guns, and knives will be used. Take away the knives and sharpened sticks will be used. Take away the sharpened sticks and rocks will be used. And so it goes........

As I said history is filled with far more tragic moments then this and yes, this is a tragedy to be sure, innocence lost.
But in the end, arming the citizens, who quite frankly are on the front lines of any encounter is the surest way to ensure minimal damage when you look at the broder spectrum of weaponry and how it's used for bad, evil, call it what you will.

So the shooter would have taken a stick into the school and killed a bunch of kids with it.

Do you see how severely flawed that thought process is?

As far as the second part. This country went through a period of time where citizens were well armed. It was the 1800s. And more people died from guns during that time than any other in our country's history. The last thing we need is a return to that era.

Edited by d4rksabre, 16 December 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[HopefulFuture]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

So the shooter would have taken a stick into the school and killed a bunch of kids with it.

Do you see how severely flawed that thought process is?

As far as the second part. This country went through a period of time where citizens were well armed. It was the 1800s. And more people died from guns during that time than any other in our country's history. The last thing we need is a return to that era.

History shows you to be wrong. Factual, documented attacks on facilities, homes, traveling groups is well documented in history. The gun has no more or less sway on the situation when looked at in a broader context of the subject of weapons.

Case in point, I worked in Utah back 6 years ago and there was a mall shooting in Salt Lake City, the offender was gunned down by an off duty police officer and a regular citizen, both armed due to the ease with which you could carry fire arms.

As many have said on here, it's the mental state of the individual, and even if society in general in this nation hadn't attacked faith and religion and stayed the course in that regards, incidents like this would still occur unfortunately. It's a sad day, and it worries me for my children, but I believe what I believe because I have faith, not only on the morale's taught by my faith, but faith that if the teachers in my school were armed, it would make it safer inherintly.

[drnkirishone]

Teachers should not be armed at school. To think it is a good idea to have a teacher carrying a handgun when they are spending all day around children is insanity. However I do think having a armed person at each school would be a good idea.


I say again banning guns is not the answer. The answer is finding and treating the sick before they can commit these heinous acts.

[biodork]

Eleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I just read something that intrigued me.  Don't know to whom it's attributable:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports.  Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

Great point. As inconvenient / invasive as it is for all fliers to have to take off shoes, undergo pat-downs, and walk through body scanners, I'm okay with it because it helps us all fly safer. Purchasing a firearm should be subject to a great deal more scrutiny and oversight than it is now.

wjag, on 16 December 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

I do not believe this country has the fortitude to do what is right.  In my opinion, handguns and assault rifles should not be legal to possess by John Q Public.  Since that opinion will never carry the day in this country I'm in favor of very restrictive ownership rules.  I would require the following minimally:

1.  Annual recertification requirements.  Just like your car needs to be inspected, the owner needs to produce the weapon annually for inspection.  Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of said weapon.
2.  Requirement to report a lost gun within 12 hours of when owner first recognizes the gun is missing.  (not sure what actual requirement is today)
3.  30 day waiting period for the purchase of any gun.  That will allow sufficient cooling down period.  Surely a gun owner can wait 30 days.
4.  A 100 dollar tax on every gun purchase to be used as a victim of gun violence fund.
5.  A 25 cent tax on every bullet sold for same purpose as number four and fund number one.
6.  Requirement to purchase gun locker or provide proof of gun locker before any gun can be sold.
7.  Revoke each and every concealed gun permit, where ever issued excluding law enforcement agencies.
8.  Capacity limit the number of firearms any individual citizen may own.
9.  Increase the guns for cash incentive programs.  Turn in any gun and get cash from number four and five above.
10. Create a consistent set of rules and laws across all 50 states with uniform penalties.


I throw these out for discussion.  Have at it...

I do not believe our Congress and President will do something "meaningful".   I hope they will.  My fear is this story will fade to black next week as the press remembers that cliff thing...

I can get on board with all your suggestions. A friend posted this article on Facebook that I found interesting:

http://www.theatlant...-deaths/260189/

Quote

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Eleven, on 16 December 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I just read something that intrigued me.  Don't know to whom it's attributable:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at airports.  Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

That is a great quote man, where did you read it?

[d4rksabre]

HopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

History shows you to be wrong. Factual, documented attacks on facilities, homes, traveling groups is well documented in history. The gun has no more or less sway on the situation when looked at in a broader context of the subject of weapons.

Case in point, I worked in Utah back 6 years ago and there was a mall shooting in Salt Lake City, the offender was gunned down by an off duty police officer and a regular citizen, both armed due to the ease with which you could carry fire arms.

As many have said on here, it's the mental state of the individual, and even if society in general in this nation hadn't attacked faith and religion and stayed the course in that regards, incidents like this would still occur unfortunately. It's a sad day, and it worries me for my children, but I believe what I believe because I have faith, not only on the morale's taught by my faith, but faith that if the teachers in my school were armed, it would make it safer inherintly.

Would you like to stop supporting acts of the present by citing the past? Do we not want to move away from the past, not continue the status quo?

I have a question for this forum. Does anyone here know someone who was a victim of a gun incident? Someone who lost a child, a sibling, a parent, or a friend to an act of violence in a non- military situation?

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Would you like to stop supporting acts of the present by citing the past? Do we not want to move away from the past, not continue the status quo?

I have a question for this forum. Does anyone here know someone who was a victim of a gun incident? Someone who lost a child, a sibling, a parent, or a friend to an act of violence in a non- military situation?

I do. I know three. Your point?

[d4rksabre]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

I do. I know three. Your point?

No point, just hoping to have a discussion. I know a man who lost a brother to a shooting. And I know another who lost a son. The ways that they react to those very personal incidents, how they talk about them, are as much different as they are similar. Both treat the losses of those loved ones with a sort of sad acceptance. As if there was no avoiding the outcome. I just wondered if that was similar for others, and if it shaped how you think about gun violence.

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

No point, just hoping to have a discussion. I know a man who lost a brother to a shooting. And I know another who lost a son. The ways that they react to those very personal incidents, how they talk about them, are as much different as they are similar. Both treat the losses of those loved ones with a sort of sad acceptance. As if there was no avoiding the outcome. I just wondered if that was similar for others, and if it shaped how you think about gun violence.

Two of the individuals I know had their fathers killed when they were children.  One was the victim of a random shooting, the other died in a drunken barroom brawl that turned into a shooting.  Both of them are gun owners now.  Both hunt.  One is a member of the military, the other is an NRA member.  I guess I don't know what that says, other than they didn't blame a tool.  they blamed an individual.


Here is an interesting article George Takei posted on his FB page today.  It says alot of what I've been trying to say.  http://gawker.com/59...m-lanzas-mother

[d4rksabre]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Two of the individuals I know had their fathers killed when they were children.  One was the victim of a random shooting, the other died in a drunken barroom brawl that turned into a shooting.  Both of them are gun owners now.  Both hunt.  One is a member of the military, the other is an NRA member.  I guess I don't know what that says, other than they didn't blame a tool.  they blamed an individual.


Here is an interesting article George Takei posted on his FB page today.  It says alot of what I've been trying to say.  http://gawker.com/59...m-lanzas-mother

Could blame for the tool and also the person be a reciprocal relationship? One cannot act without the other. Which is easier to control?

[SwampD]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Two of the individuals I know had their fathers killed when they were children.  One was the victim of a random shooting, the other died in a drunken barroom brawl that turned into a shooting.  Both of them are gun owners now.  Both hunt.  One is a member of the military, the other is an NRA member.  I guess I don't know what that says, other than they didn't blame a tool.  they blamed an individual.


Here is an interesting article George Takei posted on his FB page today.  It says alot of what I've been trying to say.  http://gawker.com/59...m-lanzas-mother

George Takei?  Really?

Something about that story just seems fishy to me.  Not sure I believe it.

[wjag]

weave, on 16 December 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Here is an interesting article George Takei posted on his FB page today.  It says alot of what I've been trying to say.  http://gawker.com/59...m-lanzas-mother

Those that travel the road of developmental disabilities and associated behaviors, know this story all too well.

[deluca67]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

I believe Deluca has brought up his displeasure with the Native American genocide in the past. Our country has its black marks. Why must we continue to enable them? Why should we desire to facilitate future tragedy? Because America?

We can't allow previous inaction to dictate further inaction. Gunning are killing machines, they are so efficient that even those with limited or damaged mental  capacities can slaughter a great number of people with great speed and high efficiency. I'll take my chances against a knife or a stick, dare I say if Adam Lanza went to that school armed with only a knife that many, if not all,  of the 6 adults and 20 children would be alive today.

I am reading a lot of smoke being blown by those who are arguing against  stricter gun regulations and out right bans on specific guns. Not just here but other outlets. What I have yet to here addressed is why a person needs the capability to kill so many in a short period of time. I see the 2nd Amendment thrown around and the idea that we should just live with tragedies because we have in the past. I have yet to see a intelligent reason why a private citizens needs to to be in possession of such killing machines. I know why, there aren't any. When discussing the topis we are often faced with paranoid rants like this one:

Quote

In the end, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, because quite frankly, after 42 years of witnessing what I have in this nation and with documented historical events put into the context of this subject, I'd rather keep my guns, thank you very much.

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Could blame for the tool and also the person be a reciprocal relationship? One cannot act without the other. Which is easier to control?

The easier path isn't necessarily the correct path.  The tool used will change if we continue to focus our attention on the tool.

[wjag]

DeLuca67, on 17 December 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

I see the 2nd Amendment thrown around and the idea that we should just live with tragedies because we have in the past. I have yet to see a intelligent reason why a private citizens needs to to be in possession of such killing machines.

Don't you know, evil was responsible for this...  It wasn't June Cleaver's fault that her assembled arsenal was used by one of her own.  By some emerging accounts, June even took her sons to a range to shoot.  June probably taught them to respect the weapon and gun safety. You see, June Cleaver was a gun enthusiast.  This was not June's fault.  June bought these guns legally.  June followed all the rules for stockpiling a weapons and ammo cache.  This was evil's fault, plain and simple.  Couldn't be forseen and couldn't be predicted...

[weave]

DeLuca67, on 17 December 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

We can't allow previous inaction to dictate further inaction. Gunning are killing machines, they are so efficient that even those with limited or damaged mental  capacities can slaughter a great number of people with great speed and high efficiency. I'll take my chances against a knife or a stick, dare I say if Adam Lanza went to that school armed with only a knife that many, if not all,  of the 6 adults and 20 children would be alive today.

I am reading a lot of smoke being blown by those who are arguing against  stricter gun regulations and out right bans on specific guns. Not just here but other outlets. What I have yet to here addressed is why a person needs the capability to kill so many in a short period of time. I see the 2nd Amendment thrown around and the idea that we should just live with tragedies because we have in the past. I have yet to see a intelligent reason why a private citizens needs to to be in possession of such killing machines. I know why, there aren't any. When discussing the topis we are often faced with paranoid rants like this one:

When guns aren't available it will be homemade bombs that get used, not knives and sticks.  When you want to focus as much of your energy on underlying causes as you do on the tool used I'll believe your focus is on results, not a political agenda.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

HopefulFuture, on 16 December 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

The answer is simple, take away the guns, and knives will be used. Take away the knives and sharpened sticks will be used. Take away the sharpened sticks and rocks will be used. And so it goes........

As I said history is filled with far more tragic moments then this and yes, this is a tragedy to be sure, innocence lost.
But in the end, arming the citizens, who quite frankly are on the front lines of any encounter is the surest way to ensure minimal damage when you look at the broder spectrum of weaponry and how it's used for bad, evil, call it what you will.

In China a knife was used in a very similar attach, because the suspect could not get a gun and amunition.  Result ... 20 stabed, NO deaths.  Sure being stabed is no picnic, but the victims in this case all (as far as I know) survived.

I also respectfully disagree with your second point concerning arming of the citizens.  How often do we hear of victims being shot in their homes when the assailant used the home owners own gun to shoot them.

Also, it has been argued that the shooting happened at the Denver (I think it was in Denver) movie theater because it was the only one in the area that had a no gun policy.  Can you imagine if all the people in that theater were armed.  IMO, with all the smoke and tear gas and panic it would have been a much worse blood bath, with everyone turning into Rambo it would have been a very confined war zone.

[deluca67]

weave, on 17 December 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

When guns aren't available it will be homemade bombs that get used, not knives and sticks.  When you want to focus as much of your energy on underlying causes as you do on the tool used I'll believe your focus is on results, not a political agenda.

If that day comes it should be addressed.

The "underlying causes" are just a smoke screen. Is the health care system sadly inadequate when comes to mental health? Absolutely, no one is arguing otherwise. It doesn't make guns any less dangerous or the vast availability of high efficiency weapons any less of a National scourge.

wjag, on 17 December 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Don't you know, evil was responsible for this...  It wasn't June Cleaver's fault that her assembled arsenal was used by one of her own.  By some emerging accounts, June even took her sons to a range to shoot.  June probably taught them to respect the weapon and gun safety. You see, June Cleaver was a gun enthusiast.  This was not June's fault.  June bought these guns legally.  June followed all the rules for stockpiling a weapons and ammo cache.  This was evil's fault, plain and simple.  Couldn't be forseen and couldn't be predicted...

Going with the "Evil" premise, how does an allegedly Christian Nation have so many guns and such a willingness to turn a blind eye towards guns and the havoc they cause?

[Sabres Fan In NS]

weave, on 17 December 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

When guns aren't available it will be homemade bombs that get used, not knives and sticks.  When you want to focus as much of your energy on underlying causes as you do on the tool used I'll believe your focus is on results, not a political agenda.

IMO, the general populus do not know how to make homemade bombs.

But, a vast majority have guns ...

The United States has, by far, the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, followed by Serbia (58.2), Yemen (54.8) and Finland/Switzerland (45.7 each), according to GunPolicy.org, an international database at the University of Sydney.

... to me the above stat is the underlying cause.  People would not be shot if there were not so many guns.

[ThirtyEight]

weave, on 17 December 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

When guns aren't available it will be homemade bombs that get used, not knives and sticks.  When you want to focus as much of your energy on underlying causes as you do on the tool used I'll believe your focus is on results, not a political agenda.

Why is there no bomb crime in the UK/Australia/Western Europe then? Bomb making is difficult and a specialist field, you are almost as likely to blow yourself up than you are get a working prototype.

I don't think anyone is saying that guns are evil/responsible for their actions. That is moronic. However, saying 'Oh we need to find and treat the mentally ill before they can do this' is not the answer. America is a big place, people will slip through the holes, people do slip through the holes. You can't treat everyone, so why not make it much harder to get hold of a lethal weapon.

Moreover, if we are saying that the people who do these actions are mentally ill, then the bomb argument makes even less sense.

Gun control works - it is that simple, basically every first world nation on Earth proves this. If you make it harder/impossible for people to get hold of guns, less people are murdered and less people are shot. Having said that, guns are now so widespread in America, it might be too late for gun control; as even if you made them illegal everyone would know someone who could get hold of one/had one stashed somewhere.

Also, will people please realise having a population run round with sharp objects and knives is less dangerous than having a population running around with guns - want proof? Look at the colonisation of Africa...there is a reason it happened so easily and quickly.

Gun control will not stop crime or death, but it will reduce it - the stats prove this.

[dEnnis the Menace]

I've been away from my computer all weekend, so I figure now that I'm back in front of it, I'll voice my opinion.

I am a gun owner.  My mother is a gun owner.  My grandfather is a gun owner, and his father was a gun owner.  I have been around guns since I was a little boy.  I hunt, I target shoot, and I shoot skeet.  We have close to 10 guns locked in a cabinet with trigger guards on each gun in our house.  Ammo locked up in a foot locker separately.  My younger sister and I both had to take shooting safety courses with instructors (I took mine in the Boy Scouts).  I would like to get my pistol permit so that I can own my grandfathers handguns someday when he passes them down (family heirlooms).  Guns are an integral part of my family.  I would never dream of relinquishing my guns.  It doesn't take a whole lot to be safe with firearms though.  It doesn't take a whole lot to keep the general public safe from your firearms.  keep them locked up.  keep trigger guards on them.  Yeah, a gun cabinet is expensive, but if you want to be a gun owner, you should invest the money to keep the guns in their rightful ownership.

I agree with Wjag in terms of application process and mental fitness being required to own a gun. A lot of the recent shootings have been product of mentally unstable people.  A simple mental evaluation prior to ownership of guns (including mental evaluations of all those within the house with access to the firearms) would reduce A LOT of incidents I believe.  I would submit to one if need be to own my guns.

I know the guns were legally owned by the mother of the shooter, and I believe that there isn't a whole lot that could've been done to prevent the firearms (two handguns and a rifle) from falling into his hands.  I don't think banning guns altogether is the answer, but tougher acquirement laws would be a good start in helping future situations like this from happening.  

I don't know what the answer is to the problem, but i believe taking all guns away is not it.  talking about this in a civil manner though, that is a start.

[Oliver_Cromwell]

SDS, on 15 December 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

I doubt you really want to talk about this. Your few posts so far has amounted to you on a soapbox pointing and shouting and calling the other side a bunch of poopy-heads. Hardly needle moving rhetoric.

I knew from the get-go that DeLuca was going to do what you called him out on, so it's not even worth wasting our time trying to counter his bellicose rhetoric. Some people never change, and he is a prime example of this.

d4rksabre, on 16 December 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

A bunch of kids getting murdered is less extreme?

Happens every day in America, to the tune of around 4000 of them by their own mothers and the willing accomplices of the "doctors" that aid and abet them.

[shrader]

Oliver_Cromwell, on 17 December 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

I knew from the get-go that DeLuca was going to do what you called him out on, so it's not even worth wasting our time trying to counter his bellicose rhetoric. Some people never change, and he is a prime example of this.

Have you informed the kettle that it is black yet?