Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Jasper17

B. it can help prevent or hopefully reduce incidents like the one today.

Is there any reason to believe additional firearm regulations would help achieve objective B?

[cedk]

Originally Posted by Axil

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.

The china incident just happened today their time

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&g...w=1440&bih=730
China is a great example of schools have to arm themselves period.Guns or no guns.


Gun laws I read as a person can defend themselves from a intruder for example not the government.Hopefully.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by cedk

The china incident just happened today their time

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&g...w=1440&bih=730
China is a great example of schools have to arm themselves period.Guns or no guns.


Gun laws I read as a person can defend themselves from a intruder for example not the government.Hopefully.

Pretty sure something similar happened a couple of years ago.

EDIT- Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/wo...hina.html?_r=0

[PlumberKhan]

I don't care what happens.

Either we don't have enough gun laws or we have too many.

Something's gotta give. This is f*cking ridiculous. Something is seriously f*cking wrong in this country.

[Borgoguy]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

I don't care what happens.

Either we don't have enough gun laws or we have too many.

Something's gotta give. This is f*cking ridiculous. Something is seriously f*cking wrong in this country.

Too many people are able to buy numerous assault weapons and stockpile insanely huge arsenals. What for? Hunting?

[DDNYjets]

There shouldn't be any assault weapons. But this goes beyond guns. We have become a morally corrupt society.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

There shouldn't be any assault weapons. But this goes beyond guns. We have become a morally corrupt society.

I don't know if we're morally corrupt but we're certainly desensitized to violence. We like violence. I'd even go so far as to say we love violence.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Please look at the FACTS.

FACT: European countries regulate guns & crack down much harder on illegal guns.

FACT: European countries have way fewer gun related deaths, thus making them safer.

Simple, right?

There is no reason America can't change its policies to more strictly enforce gun ownership. None! All I want is a safer country.

Will this result in lesser gun related crimes in South Chicago or East LA?

I own 2 handguns...I see NO, ZERO reason why I can't. I wasn't required to but took private lessons THEN an required 8 hr safety course so I can carry concealed. I don't, but I can.

I would be in favor of required safety training but that would NOT have stopped the latest few incidents of horror.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

I don't care what happens.

Either we don't have enough gun laws or we have too many.

Something's gotta give. This is f*cking ridiculous. Something is seriously f*cking wrong in this country.

Do you own a gun PK? Just curious, I think of you as a man who would.

I don't.

Originally Posted by Borgoguy

Too many people are able to buy numerous assault weapons and stockpile insanely huge arsenals. What for? Hunting?

It should be pointed out that (from reports) none of the weapons used today was an "Assault Weapon". He had (again, according to the reprots I've got thus far) two normal handguns and a semi-auto (i.e. not bolt-action) small-calibur .223 rifle.

What would be your suggested policy limit/regulatory ban, specificly, to solve the problem? The problem in this issue always lies in the specifics.

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

There shouldn't be any assault weapons. But this goes beyond guns. We have become a morally corrupt society.

Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]

So, how about a more accurate desriptor. What weapons specificly should we ban? What types, what styles, etc.

I'm open to regulation, I really am. But open-ended langauge without specificity is not going to get us there, nor is political terms like "assault weapon". We need specifics to agree on before we can agree.

Other than a 100% ban, or a ban on say, all guns that carry more than one singel round within them, I'm not sure how to "stop" events like today. Even a bagful of old Colt single-action revolvers can be used to kill multiple people, you just need to bring more than one with you. An average guy could probably carry 4 loaded easily, and a number fo speed-loader reloads. Say 30-40 total bullets, without a problem. Thats still 30-40 possible kills, with the most basic and old school handguns you can get.

So is the answer no Guns that fire more than one shot?

[Axil]

Originally Posted by southparkcpa

Will this result in lesser gun related crimes in South Chicago or East LA?

I own 2 handguns...I see NO, ZERO reason why I can't. I wasn't required to but took private lessons THEN an required 8 hr safety course so I can carry concealed. I don't, but I can.

I would be in favor of required safety training but that would NOT have stopped the latest few incidents of horror.

Just as an FYI he posted that 5 months ago.

I agree, i don't think gun control stops violence. Some level of gun control may reduce gun violence, but overall, violent behavior will be unaffected. In addition, since law abiding citizens are more affected by gun control than criminals, your going to decrease the instances of successful defense against criminal violent behavior, and thus decrease one of the disincentives towards criminal violent behavior.

That said, given the tragedy that took place today, I'm not sure this is an environment conducive to rational discourse. Human beings do horrible things to one another. It would be wonderful if we could eliminate these instances through governance, but i do not believe that is possible.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

Just as an FYI he posted that 5 months ago.

I agree, i don't think gun control stops violence. Some level of gun control may reduce gun violence, but overall, violent behavior will be unaffected. In addition, since law abiding citizens are more affected by gun control than criminals, your going to decrease the instances of successful defense against criminal violent behavior, and thus decrease one of the disincentives towards criminal violent behavior.

That said, given the tragedy that took place today, I'm not sure this is an environment conducive to rational discourse. Human beings do horrible things to one another. It would be wonderful if we could eliminate these instances through governance, but i do not believe that is possible.

I.e. probably les outright dead victims.

And a LOT more injured/crippled/beaten/runover/stabbed victims who may not die.

But overall violence will remain the same, as a crazy chucklehead intent on harm will find a way to harm. They may just be less able to kill.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Tougher gun laws won't prevent people from obtaining guns...period. Did Prohibition prevent people from buying liquor? Which brings me to ask another question. Do you really think tougher liquor laws would prevent people from driving drunk? More people are killed by drunk drivers then with guns.

I don't have any answers as to how to prevent what happened to today, happening again. I am from a different generation and these types of things did not happen when I was a kid...it's society that is ****ed up and how do you fix that?

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by NIGHT STALKER

Tougher gun laws won't prevent people from obtaining guns...period. Did Prohibition prevent people from buying liquor? Which brings me to ask another question. Do you really think tougher liquor laws would prevent people from driving drunk? More people are killed by drunk drivers then with guns.

Actually, tougher drunk driving laws DO reduce incidences of drunk driving. So that's not a good example.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

Actually, tougher drunk driving laws DO reduce incidences of drunk driving. So that's not a good example.

Really? You have stats to back that up? I think it was a great example. Answer my first question. Did Prohibition prevent people from obtaining liquor? My point is, you want a gun bad enough, you get one regardless of any law...

[gunnails]

I,m starting to get a bit fat, so is the rest of the US, should we outlaw forks?

If drunks didn't have easy access to cars then they would not be able to drink,drive, kill innocents, should we outlaw cars?

More people are killed by falls then guns, should we outlaw ladders?

Lets outlaw trampolines, bikes, swimming pools, rivers and lakes, Drano,
Ski Resorts, etc.


Or we could get serious about how we deal with mental illness.

[detjetsfan]

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

You cannot be serious. You want kids and teachers carrying rubber bullets and mace?

The whole fake cowboy argument of the right that guns should be made more available as a preventive measure is asinine. I've seen highly trained and experienced members of the military have all kinds of accidents/negligent discharge etc. So some teacher with no military or law enforcement background, a 10 safety course and maybe 1 trip to an indoor range should be packing heat?


I am opposed to gun control and believe in the Constitutionally mandated right to bear arms but making guns more available than they already as some sort of safety measure is stupid is as stupid does.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by NIGHT STALKER

Really? You have stats to back that up? I think it was a great example. Answer my first question. Did Prohibition prevent people from obtaining liquor? My point is, you want a gun bad enough, you get one regardless of any law...

So why not repeal all gun laws then, is that your point? Seeing as you seem to be arguing threat of punishment doesn't prevent people from doing things they shouldn't.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by NIGHT STALKER

Really? You have stats to back that up? I think it was a great example. Answer my first question. Did Prohibition prevent people from obtaining liquor? My point is, you want a gun bad enough, you get one regardless of any law...

Guns will never be banned in this country. I could care less about the far-right's paranoia. Obama, who everyone keeps telling me is a communist dictator, has done NOTHING to further regulate or ban guns as President.

Outright banning of guns and even some gun control laws are unconstitutional. 2nd amendment is what it it is. That said, I love how conservatives are more outraged about people calling for gun control then they are about 26 innocent people getting killed.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by Warfish

So, how about a more accurate desriptor. What weapons specificly should we ban? What types, what styles, etc.

I'm open to regulation, I really am. But open-ended langauge without specificity is not going to get us there, nor is political terms like "assault weapon". We need specifics to agree on before we can agree.

Other than a 100% ban, or a ban on say, all guns that carry more than one singel round within them, I'm not sure how to "stop" events like today. Even a bagful of old Colt single-action revolvers can be used to kill multiple people, you just need to bring more than one with you. An average guy could probably carry 4 loaded easily, and a number fo speed-loader reloads. Say 30-40 total bullets, without a problem. Thats still 30-40 possible kills, with the most basic and old school handguns you can get.

So is the answer no Guns that fire more than one shot?

My definition of an assault weapon is a semi-auto rifle that can be modified to become fully automatic. AK-47, AR-15, etc.

I agree with your points, I do not think this will prevent these tragedies from happening but at this point I think we should just try it out. There is very little downside to this. People can still hunt and buy regular rifles or shotguns for home defense.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

I don't care what happens.

Either we don't have enough gun laws or we have too many.

Something's gotta give. This is f*cking ridiculous. Something is seriously f*cking wrong in this country.

Killing sprees have unfortunately become the easiest way to get famous quick in our society which worships the famous. The little p*ssy in Va Tech, that clown in Ft Hood, the wannabe comic book villain in Aurora, this waste of sperm who did this today - they're all a bunch of narcisistic psychopath fame-whores who had nothing going for them.