Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Black Death

...and Ronald Reagan while we're at it.

again... not surprising from a guy with a murdering communist in his avatar.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Black Death

I'm not fearful for my life when I step outside - can you say the same in your country?

Yes. I can.

Only the hand-wringing castrati and the govt.-addicted sycophants feel that way.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by Black Death

Our "Monarch" is a bit like segments of your constitution - an entity that has no link modern Australian life - unfortunately people of your parallel in my country see to stick with tradition and keep the Monarch as a in-name-only shadow. When we were Federated it was also to federate different states - and in fact our Senate was basically formed to enshrine state rights - fortunately the states decided (for the good of the people that lived in them) that letting everyone have access to guns was a bad thing, and I guess that's why they let the Federal government to bring in laws that have dropped the rates of our gun crime to levels you will never see in your country in your lifetime. I figure with your murder rates and rates of gun-crime I feel a whole lot less for my life when I step out of doors than what you do when you step out of yours.

you have no ****ing idea what this country is like.

all you know is what you've managed to glean from news outlets. Essentially, the Rich Ciminis of Americans.

[freestater]

anyways....

what all the caterwauling comes down to is this....

wanna get rid of all the guns? Come get 'em.

Good luck with that, c*nts.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Black Death

Our "Monarch" is a bit like segments of your constitution - an entity that has no link modern Australian life - unfortunately people of your parallel in my country see to stick with tradition and keep the Monarch as a in-name-only shadow. When we were Federated it was also to federate different states - and in fact our Senate was basically formed to enshrine state rights - fortunately the states decided (for the good of the people that lived in them) that letting everyone have access to guns was a bad thing, and I guess that's why they let the Federal government to bring in laws that have dropped the rates of our gun crime to levels you will never see in your country in your lifetime. I figure with your murder rates and rates of gun-crime I feel a whole lot less for my life when I step out of doors than what you do when you step out of yours.

Australia - a world leader in exactly what?
Speaking Japanese if we didn't save you.
During the Vietnam War, Australia was a legendary place for R&R for American GIs. Why? Aussie wome thought Americans were great because Aussie men were losers. Fact.
Sound like you're afraid of your own shadow down under.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Glad you're coming along. Three of the four weapons this nut job had were "single shot" weapons. And the guy was "clean". Nuts but clean.

The Gabby Gifford nut also used a single shooter as did the Beltway snipers. And the VA Tech killer. And Charles Whitman and the Fort Hood Guy. And most of these cases.
I agree no automatic or high caliber weapons. Or armor piercing ammo.
Nobody with a criminal record shoud be allowed to buy ANY gun. But it is a state by state matter. I can go to any of a dozen gun stores and buy whatever right now. NY is different as is NJ.

When you say the guy was clean only if you ignore the fact that he bought 4 guns including an assualt weapon along with tons of ammo in a very short time. That's only clean in a legal sense under the current rules.

You can protect your home with a shotgun maybe 2. You don't need semi-automatic weapons, assault weapons and large clips of ammo.
We have sporting goods stores that look like Armories in this country.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

We have sporting goods stores that look like Armories in this country.

It's by necessity, we turned over a lot of armories to public housing and homeless shelters

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

It's by necessity, we turned over a lot of armories to public housing and homeless shelters

If we went into those public housing projects and confiscated the weapons we would need an armory to put them in. You suggesting we re-sell them at Dicks sporting goods?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

So Europe has mass killings too. However, deaths by gunshots are much less common over there than they are in the States, and that's more indicative of our gun problem over here. The mass killings are aberrations - and make up a small percentage of deaths by gunshot, so that's a misleading list you gave.

I have a list of my own, more indicative of the dangerous gun culture here, illustrating how Europe has it much better than us. It's a list of countries by firearm-related death rate in a given recent year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

The United States is sandwiched in between the advanced, great nations of the Philippines and Mexico.

Other than Estonia, the U.S. has a significantly higher gunshot-death rate than every other European country on the list. This proves, like it or not, that Europe does a much better job at regulating firearms, making them harder to get for the average joe, etc. Our firearm death rate is more than 10x higher than that of Spain. The easier our country makes it to get a gun, the more gun-related deaths there will be. It's very, very simple, I think. More guns circulating = more deaths. Shutting down mom & pop gun shops that Joe Schmoe can walk into and buy a gun will decrease the amount of firearms in use. Putting more effort into cracking down harder on those who own illegal guns will also go a long way - something the government definitely is capable of.

Sticking with Spain, here is a brief rundown of their policy when it comes to citizen-owned firearms:

http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/0...-in-spain.html



I understand that guns would still be accessible in America if made illegal - just like they are for some people in Europe. Laws will always be broken to a degree and nothing will ever be perfect. But there's no reason to not move in that direction for the sake of making the U.S. safer. Things would IMMEDIATELY improve by making guns hard to get, like they do in Spain, and tons of other European countries.

And for the record, the Second Amendment is the only Amendment I don't support.

And Israel has a far more prevalent "gun culture" than the United States, and far fewer killings.

It's not the gun laws. Its the vast size of the country and the lack of social cohesion that leads to this.

That said, I completely disagree with the "if you outlaw [insert type of gun/ammo] here, then only criminals will have it" line of argument.

The fact is, fully automatic weapons have been illegal for quite some time. Yet spree killers like this pretty much always use legally available weapons, obtained legally, rather than full autos. There are two reasons for that, I think. First, supply and demand; I suspect it's a lot harder to get a full auto on the black market because fewer of them are manufactured, since there isn't a robust legal market to sell them in. And second, because spree killers aren't typically hard-core criminals with ready access to those markets; they're usually the "my god, I never thought he would do something like that" types. And even if they were, black market transactions increase the chances of someone identifying the plan before it happens, if their dealer happens to get raided. Much safer to simply buy guns that are legal and use those.

My bet - and this is mainly based on logic and speculation, not study - is that criminals would continue to primarily use legally available (if not necessarily legally obtained) weapons, with a small, hard core using more significant weapons (like mob-types or professional bank robbers with full autos).

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Axil

You do realize correlation and causation are different, yes?

Put another way:

Fact: There are more 911 calls in locations where gunshots occur frequently.

Fact: Areas that rarely call for police intervention, don't often suffer violent crime, thus making them safer.

Must be those damn cops causing all the crime, eh?

[Warfish]

The original purpose of teh bearing of arms was one to assist in keeping the State in check. It's quite obvious, given they had just finished toppling a Govt. that oppressed them.

But as tech has marched on, the armed individual is no longer a check vs. the State. The State, simply, has vastly outclassed them individuals in terms of weaponry, meaning this purpose has, through no fault of the individual, become outdated in real terms. I don't like that, but it is what it is.

As such, my own view is one of compromise. Protect gun rights, while limiting access to high-potential high-ammo high-RoF millitary-style weaponry.

Handguns w/ 10 round clips. Shotguns. Rifles. All legal.

Beyond that, illegal.

I can live with that kind of compromise, IF and ONLY IF we could be assured that like so many issues, this wouldn't simply be taken as Step 1 in a Multi-Step Plan to make all guns illegal. Sadly, I have no faith that the left would agree to such terms for long.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Sure, let's go w/ that. There's always Holmes, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. to fall back on "humourously" when you get tired of that avatar.

Hello, look at the text in his avatar: "I don't know who this is but my friends say he's cool" - it's clearly mocking the idiots who go around in Che paraphernalia without any understanding of who he was and why wearing his face/slapping it up on a poster is a monstrously wrong thing to do. Very few people have Hitler/Mao/Stalin T-shirts or posters (and the few that do are rightly reviled by the entire world - including the idiots wearing Che shirts)

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The original purpose of teh bearing of arms was one to assist in keeping the State in check. It's quite obvious, given they had just finished toppling a Govt. that oppressed them.

But as tech has marched on, the armed individual is no longer a check vs. the State. The State, simply, has vastly outclassed them individuals in terms of weaponry, meaning this purpose has, through no fault of the individual, become outdated in real terms. I don't like that, but it is what it is.

As such, my own view is one of compromise. Protect gun rights, while limiting access to high-potential high-ammo high-RoF millitary-style weaponry.

Handguns w/ 10 round clips. Shotguns. Rifles. All legal.

Beyond that, illegal.

I can live with that kind of compromise, IF and ONLY IF we could be assured that like so many issues, this wouldn't simply be taken as Step 1 in a Multi-Step Plan to make all guns illegal. Sadly, I have no faith that the left would agree to such terms for long.

Exactly. (Not sure about the 10 round clips; haven't given enough thought to that issue to offer an opinion on whether that's a good number). The Second Amendment cannot serve its purpose, not unless we want individuals having access to RPGs and bazookas and the other weapons that would be necessary to stop a modern army - and I think we all agree we don't want that.

This won't come as a surprise to 'fish, but my personal view is you do the right thing and deal with the slippery slope as it comes.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

That's the all too predictable lib/crypto-liberal way-someone shoots up a public place once in a blue moon and all guns must be grabbed-except from Psychotic Muslim US Army Officers (who haven't even been tried yet) Illegal Aliens and Inner Cities.

Never mind hanging the guy from the highest yardarm as he deserves

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Exactly. (Not sure about the 10 round clips; haven't given enough thought to that issue to offer an opinion on whether that's a good number). The Second Amendment cannot serve its purpose, not unless we want individuals having access to RPGs and bazookas and the other weapons that would be necessary to stop a modern army - and I think we all agree we don't want that.

Agreed.

This won't come as a surprise to 'fish, but my personal view is you do the right thing and deal with the slippery slope as it comes.

If only I felt we could be so trusting.

The "slippery slope" defense exists becuase neither side accepts compromise. They simply get their next step, them proceed to march on immediately towards getting the step after that towards their all-or-nothing goals on their pet issues.

I would, then, want any such comprimise laid down in a form that disallowed such additional nit-picks around the edges and further efforts to limit/expand rights. The only route I can think of that would suffice is a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the 2nd Amendment clause on the purpsoe, and right, and limitations, of arms bearing in society today as opposed to 1770's.

But that will never happen. Sadly, we as a Nation have seemingly abandoned the idea of adjusting our basic fundamental rights of law via amendment proceedings. But in my view, it's the only real legitmate route to correction/updating/modernizing our constitutional rights the right way.

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Hello, look at the text in his avatar: "I don't know who this is but my friends say he's cool" - it's clearly mocking the idiots who go around in Che paraphernalia without any understanding of who he was and why wearing his face/slapping it up on a poster is a monstrously wrong thing to do. Very few people have Hitler/Mao/Stalin T-shirts or posters (and the few that do are rightly reviled by the entire world - including the idiots wearing Che shirts)

Aye, I thought that was somewhat obvious as well.

[MCBNY]

Time for stricter regulation.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Time for stricter regulation.

Perhaps.

One would need to know if existing regulation worked or did not work, first. Far too early to know any of that yet. If existing law failed, new law is not neccessarily the answer.

The frequency of events of late certainly does raise the issue though of the very right itself. Has the right (and the original reason for the right) become so outmoded, outdated, and impossible to no longer warrant the right in the first place. Remember, if the purpose was to keep Govt. in check (and in fear) of the people, that purpose is outdated. Handguns and rifles will never overthrow a bad U.S. Govt.

I, for one, would accept stronger regulation and a closing of all loopholes (like gun shows). Limitations on ammunation types. IF these changes came along with very specific protections for the right to own for things like target shooting and hunting, if you're not found crazy or covicted of a violent crime, etc.

Plenty of room to quantify this right further, if we (as a people) wish it.

[cedk]

The regulation not allowing guns at school has made the schools a target.


In china 22 children where stabbed by another nut job.

I like my idea of developing non lethal weapons to defend one self and then much greater regulation of guns

[Axil]

Originally Posted by cedk

The regulation not allowing guns at school has made the schools a target.


In china 22 children where stabbed by another nut job.

I like my idea of developing non lethal weapons to defend one self and then much greater regulation of guns

I hadn't heard this particular story before, but doesn't this suggest that the gun played little to no role in this?

If two or three teachers were armed, i don't think we would have seen anywhere near the loss of life that was seen today.

A surge in gun violence isn't indicative of a need for more gun control, it is indicative of a need for rapid lethal response directed at those perpetrating gun violence.

For the record, i disagree with the notion that the original objective of having the means to resist an evil government obsolete. I also object to the notion that "intent" is more important than the letter of the law. If laws are so poorly written that they do not reflect the intentions with which they were passed, they ought to be rewritten.

[Jasper17]

Stricter regulation is fine so long as that doesn't limit my right to own.

If I am a law-abiding citizen and can pass a background check, psychological exam, gynecological exam, etc. I should be able to possess a firearm for my own safety/protection/hunting/recreational shooting etc.

I wouldn't care how long the above process might take as long as A. I can still own a firearm and B. it can help prevent or hopefully reduce incidents like the one today.

I am suspect of someone who "needs" a firearm immediately or in x number of days.