U.S.A Gun Control

While i agree with certain posts, the problem with the Gun crime statistics in the UK is that we also include replica firearms which are used.

Like I've mentioned before, i don't disagree with people saying you should keep your guns. What i think should happen, is that there should be a set law Nation Wide through out the whole of the USA rather than different state laws, as well as a ban of unlicensed weapons changing hands in private gun shows, i believe that in the private gun shows, weapons should still have to be licensed.

Edited: Just adding, im grateful that this thread is still going strong and that it is still at a serious interlectual debate, rather than descending into flame wars like i have seen in previous threads on this section that have got to this size.

 

According to the official 911 tape, at which everyone is available to listen to but i do not have readily onhand from this computer.

9:53 - One Suspect Down
9:53:35 - Four handgun's seized

later in the tape close to 10:00 they list the long rifle being found in the car, no mention of one on person.

Your source listed IS a very valid one, and I don't discredit it at all, in fact I gladly appreciate it.(And you know me well enough to know that when i'm wrong, i'll gladly admit it). But there definitely is some lack of communication between the information, when officers do not report it, yet it shows up on a listing of being inside.

Now moving on, I find the fact that it contained a 30 round magazine completely irrelevant, and that banning high capacity mags to be the absolute least effective measure of stopping future shootings... I'm a trained shooter, so the rule may not apply to me, but I know that the difference between shooting 30 rounds from my duty rifle in a single mag, and in 3- 10 round magazines, is less than 5 seconds of total reload time.

What truthfully is the difference between a 2.5sec reload while being shot at?

 

Well I'm assuming that under the pressure of the moment someone had misinformation and thought there were more handguns than there were, or something. I think it's fairly certain that he did use the rifle in the shootings. The fact that the clip is larger does play a role since many shootings are stopped when the gunman reloads. The Giffords shooting is an example of this (I believe). Some guys tackled the guy when he went to reload. He also had larger magazines which allowed him to get more rounds off before he was able to be tackled.

The fact of the matter is most crazy killers are not going to be experts with firearms. The Mythbusters did some tests (for seeing how long shooting scenes should last vs how long Hollywood makes them last) and they were able to reload fairly quickly. But that's also under lab conditions and it isn't some crazy person. But again I don't think banning is the right way to go about it since there are still plenty of people who are perfectly responsible. Making them harder to come by and having easily available background checks would help.

 

Recently in Seattle there was a gun buy back program. Opinions on those?

 

as a gun owner ( somone here old enough to buy a gun and not have daddy buy it for me) i think the right to own guns can't be taken away.

to all those sissy hippies that say they think they can do w/e they want/its dangerious. your all abunch of idiots.


passing stricter gun laws is ONLY i repeat ONLY going to take guns away from the law abidding citizens like myself, those guys that go and shoot up schools etc, didn't do the legal process t oget a firearm, all these laws are going to do is keep good people from getting guns, criminal will still find a way to get their hands on guns.




obama wants to use those kids death as a catylyst for his own agenda.
If we are going to ban guns for killing people, when are we going to start banning cars, prescription drugs, alcohol, knives, bows, shovels, hammers... the list goes on an on.

guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

from my understanding his AR jammed so he started using handguns after a few rounds, and was later found a saiga in the trunk of his car.

 

I also was under the assumption that no AR was used mostly on the autopsy reports from the coroner. No caliber was listed, but the damage was listed as "devastating". A 55gr .223 round at 3000fps close range is far from devastating. Its a puncture, and in a child would go right through them. A 180gr 10mm at 1000fps is a whole nother story. Those are devastating and leave big ass holes. Both are known from experience with ballistics.

 

That's the problem. But I also believe that with rising gun laws, prices going up on ammo (yes I'm aware as a gun owner they have gone up). I think that it's gonna cause more harm then good.

 

The problem is violence in the raising of children, not inanimate objects.

 

To be fair most people on Sythe are barely literate.

Also the second amendment is interesting because it is the only amendment that singles out a group of people. It specifies a regulated militia of citizens. There has been a lot of discussion on the various ways that this discrepancy could be be interpreted. On one side gun advocates say that the militia part is irrelevant because it also says citizens and on the other side they say that since this is the only amendment that specifies a group of citizens then there is something important that should be inferred. The problem is that the constitution isn't a living document as it's supposed to be.

 

As a moderate on both this issue, and in general, I see the intentions of the phrasing as very clear. America was founded as a country due to rebelling against an unfair, monarchical rule by the British, so the founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of government. They, therefore, supported the American people having the capacity to defend themselves, against enemies both foreign and domestic. The liberals who argue that having a national guard or state national guard fulfills the purpose of this amendment are incorrect. One of the main, potential domestic enemies and/or oppressors of the people is the government itself, a fact which the founding fathers were very cognizant of.

 

While I can't verify each and every element of these articles, because I am neither a historian nor a constitutional lawyer, they are interesting reads about one side of the debate:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...dment.html#commentAnchor_nyr_2000000002076103

 

I don't know enough about the US Gun laws so I can't go in discussion about it but I definitely think they should forbid the sales of guns except for hunting purposes.

I don't know why you need to have a gun if you're not gonna hunt with it? Here in Europe we're doing just fine without guns. I also don't understand why Americans are so attached to their guns. Whenever a tragedy happens, they're all looking for someone/something to blame(video games, media). But when people suggest that the laws on guns should be changed they get all angry about it. I find it more than normal that a person shouldn't have/own a gun.

 

Why not? I'm not going to go shoot someone with it. Why should my liberty be restricted because a few people do bad things with them? Why can't we find alternatives other than blanket bans?

 

Well why would u need it, if you're not gonna shoot anyone with it and why do u make a connection between Guns and Liberty :/. How is it going to protect you if everybody is carrying/having guns. It's an equal killing force/tool.

I don't see myself being more "free" if i'm allowed to buy/carry a gun lol. I'd feel more afraid in fact, knowing that others could also have guns.

 

Well that's where the "stricter" gun laws come into play. I know in MN we're talking about trying to control guns more. Not happy about that.

 

Even if they do something about gun control and make them illegal for citizens, people would still buy them illegaly

 

It depends on how you define liberty (freedom). There is freedom to, meaning I am free to say what I want and do what I want. There is also freedom from, meaning freedom from bodily harm, or freedom from crime, etc. I personally do not believe we should sacrifice the first for the second, or even the second for the first (perhaps to a lesser degree). And guns are used for sport. Target shooting is very fun.

I'm not against controlling guns. We control lots of things that aren't as dangerous as guns.

 

Yea well that creates the problem of (dangerous) individuals being able to buy guns and use them just for non-fun-purposes.

Would the US be prepared to hand in their fun & liberty to make this world/their country a safer place? I know it might not all be as simple as i'm putting it here but it's kind of true right :/?