U.S.A Gun Control

[Opinns]

In semi response to this thread: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11741126#post11741126

Although i am not an American, i do agree with their 2nd amendment letting them have guns. What i do not agree with is the easyness of owning certain weapons without license's.

I am wondering what do you think should be included in restrictions about buying weapons in all states in America, and to the Americans on here, what are the requirements in your states and would you change anything.

For me I believe a psychology report should be needed before buying a gun or if not, if anyone is ever having to see a councilor/psychologist it should register on a system that they own a gun, and that the councilor/psychologist can give a basis whether they believe the person is a threat to themselves or others and that the weapons should be taken away until/if the person regains the right of mind to own a weapon.

That's all i had to read to notice this thread will be nothing but a crock of shit.

edit/ also some guns DO require a certain license such as automatic weapons, silencers, anything similar to these. Maybe a bump trigger should be banned but NOTHING else.

 

[fredecus]

Wow, things got personal a lot faster than I expected. I guess I will add my 2 cents anyways.

I feel like in general, we need to be stricter laws in acquiring firearms. Now, this is not just referring to mass shootings, but just the purchase by anyone. Last month my college roomy walked into the store and came out with a AR-15 (I live in Alabama so go figure). There was no wait time, no brief background check, he just walked in and bought it.

To see people saying everyone should be armed is crazy, it could go of two ways that are extremely different that we would never be able to predict. There is the situation where everyone is scared of everyone and thus you see a drop in crime rate or, you see a lot of everyday crimes escalate into shootings. An example would be a robbery where the robber has a gun and the victim does not. The robber robs and leaves. Now lets say the victim has a gun and instead of a normal robbery, shots are fired and someone is killed. What if the robber stopped committing crimes because the chances were higher that the victim was armed? What if the robber went in with the intent to kill anyways? I believe someone posted about criminals committing crimes anyways so if he was going to commit the crime anyways does the victim having a gun matter to the robber?

I said all of that to say this. We will and can not know how the hell society will react unless something is done either way. To me, the most reasonable thing to do is to add a few more restrictions when purchasing a firearm. Maybe a wait period, some mandatory training, and a brief background check/in house abbreviated psych exam all at the cost of the buyer. I too believe that there are far too many guns in the US but why keep adding to them. We have to do something now.

 

[Emperor Nero]

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

You just proved my point. It says legally manufactured. Manufactured is not the same thing as purchased. It's a small minority of people that walk into a gun store and the walk out an do a mass shooting. It's most gangbangers and street gangs that take part in most violent crime committed now and their weapons are generally not legally bought.

great idea, the 2nd amendment was to protect ourselfs from law enforcement, all this does is give law enforcement an upper hand when they decide to strip us of our rights. and lets not forget, how many murderers do you know of that would wilfully give up that .223 ar-15?

You do know that you're actually taking the document out of context, right? Let's take a recap of history during the period of the writing of the constitution. The US was 13 states on the east coast, poorly defended, weak to no national government meaning weak to no standing military for defense, and an incredible fear that they might become a monarchy. Now let's look at the 7th amendment and how it is hardly relative today. It says you have a right to a jury trial if you are suing for anything over $20, which was at the time an incredible amount. Now I can find $20 in change when I clean up the house and has pretty much made that amendment irrelevant for all intents and purposes of the founding fathers. Now look at third amendment in the fact that it says that at no time during peace normal citizens would be forced to quarter soldiers. Just how relevant is that? Not very. Now that our brief lesson on famous historical documents is over let's look at the point at hand. The second amendment was put in place to prevent a hostile take over and to allow the citizens to form citizen militias in case the government tries to go from a republic to some other form of government the people didn't like. Now how relevant are citizen militias today? We aren't a third world nation in the depths of some civil war.

Exact words:

I could go on and make many more points.

 

[woodcut ox]

You're a fucking idiot. Explain to me your psychotic argument that having more guns will cause less gun violence and killings.
You have no argument, all you care about is your precious guns and you don't give a shit about how many people die.
Less guns will cause less gun related violence - that is a fact.

First of all, Take your head out of your ass and look at a bigger picture. Im not a fucking idiot your just ignorant as fuck. Switzerland doesn't not have an army, instead its an army of the people. They gave their citizens and assault rifle (i believe AR-15's) a while back and it cut their crime rates drastically. Not to mention if you where to cut all gun use the economy of states like South Dakota, North Dakota, etc. Would fall since majority of their income comes from hunting. But i guess I don't care about anything but my "precious guns".

 

[Emperor Nero]

First of all, Take your head out of your ass and look at a bigger picture. Im not a fucking idiot your just ignorant as fuck. Switzerland doesn't not have an army, instead its an army of the people. They gave their citizens and assault rifle (i believe AR-15's) a while back and it cut their crime rates drastically. Not to mention if you where to cut all gun use the economy of states like South Dakota, North Dakota, etc. Would fall since majority of their income comes from hunting. But i guess I don't care about anything but my "precious guns".

The statement you made would lead the normal reader to make the assumption that the Swiss government gave all of their of age citizens assault riles and ammo and that just isn't true. They gave members of their citizen militia fire arms, which today is only a small fraction of the population that amounts to around 1% or so. Sale of firearms and ammo is strictly regulated there also and the government routinely audits the members of it's militia.

http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html

Read that, and that covers their gun laws.

More on the citizen militia: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Special...eep_guns_at_home_but_not_ammo.html?cid=970614

 

[yavarevenge]

You just proved my point. It says legally manufactured. Manufactured is not the same thing as purchased. It's a small minority of people that walk into a gun store and the walk out an do a mass shooting. It's most gangbangers and street gangs that take part in most violent crime committed now and their weapons are generally not legally bought.



You do know that you're actually taking the document out of context, right? Let's take a recap of history during the period of the writing of the constitution. The US was 13 states on the east coast, poorly defended, weak to no national government meaning weak to no standing military for defense, and an incredible fear that they might become a monarchy. Now let's look at the 7th amendment and how it is hardly relative today. It says you have a right to a jury trial if you are suing for anything over $20, which was at the time an incredible amount. Now I can find $20 in change when I clean up the house and has pretty much made that amendment irrelevant for all intents and purposes of the founding fathers. Now look at third amendment in the fact that it says that at no time during peace normal citizens would be forced to quarter soldiers. Just how relevant is that? Not very. Now that our brief lesson on famous historical documents is over let's look at the point at hand. The second amendment was put in place to prevent a hostile take over and to allow the citizens to form citizen militias in case the government tries to go from a republic to some other form of government the people didn't like. Now how relevant are citizen militias today? We aren't a third world nation in the depths of some civil war.

Exact words:

I could go on and make many more points.

so you dont call when we were rallying in seattle and california and all over the nation, with no weapons, and government steps in and uses tear gas and salt guns a form of civil war? you must be blind.

 

If 'murderers' or 'criminals' couldn't get guns through legal means, then they'd sure as hell get them otherwise. The only ones that'd be affected by changing it would be the victims, who could no longer obtain weapons to defend themselves against the criminals who illegally obtained theirs.

 

[Emperor Nero]

so you dont call when we were rallying in seattle and california and all over the nation, with no weapons, and government steps in and uses tear gas and salt guns a form of civil war? you must be blind.

I am not sure what your definition of a civil war is?

Mine is:

In the fact that protests aren't even close to a war. There is a distinct difference between a rebel uprising and a civil war. What happened in the middle east is protests against tyrannical governments evolved into a rebel uprising, which then in the case of Syria became a civil war. So clearly my history lesson had no effect on you. You should study constitutional law and see what you can come up with. Find Lysander Spooner - he has a interesting take.

If 'murderers' or 'criminals' couldn't get guns through legal means, then they'd sure as hell get them otherwise. The only ones that'd be affected by changing it would be the victims, who could no longer obtain weapons to defend themselves against the criminals who illegally obtained theirs.

I agree with having the ability to defend oneself against harm, but why would you need an assault rifle to do that? You don't. You can't use an assault rifle for anything other than show and target practice that is legal. A hunting rifle or a handgun can do either just fine.

 

[woodcut ox]

The statement you made would lead the normal reader to make the assumption that the Swiss government gave all of their of age citizens assault riles and ammo and that just isn't true. They gave members of their citizen militia fire arms, which today is only a small fraction of the population that amounts to around 1% or so. Sale of firearms and ammo is strictly regulated there also and the government routinely audits the members of it's militia.

http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html

Read that, and that covers their gun laws.

More on the citizen militia: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Special...eep_guns_at_home_but_not_ammo.html?cid=970614

I read an article a couple years back that gave me this info, i didn't know who got the guns or anything of that matter (at least not that i remember). The main point i wanted to get across is the economy's of some mid-western will be down to nothing. I didn't want to go deep in this because everyone has their own opinion, but when i read what Freedy Kruegur said and the way he acted so immaturely to a simple post and he didn't understand that fear alone would/could help stop it i gave an example. Then i wanted to show that my "precious guns" which i only own one (Remington 1187 -shotgun) fuels more then violence you see on TV with murders and such. I can understand they're probably no good in a inner city setting (where most murders happen in Minnesota; north Minneapolis to be exact, atleast the ones Kare11 shows) but there's something called a world outside of the cities and that world doesn't always see the inner cities violence and we like our 2nd amendment rightsand wish to keep them.

"Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: 63 percent occurred in cities with populations more than 100,000, and 22 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2010."

"The number of gang-related homicides increased approximately 10 percent from 2008 to 2009 and then again from 2009 to 2010 in cities with populations over 100,000."

The number of gang members obviously isnt exactly right due to the fact they don't know every single one. But homicide numbers don't lie. And these stats show increase in cities. Also note that the graphs depict gang members as a whole (100%) so this excludes normal citizens.

Source: http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

 

[nodnarbusn]

Ive said it once ill say it again, any attempt at gun regulation at this point is a fucking joke. There are millions of firearms within the US, they cant take them away (if they TRIED murrika and its millions of guns would no doubt retaliate (myself included)). Its too late now, they cant do shit about whats already there. If anything more regulation is just going to drive up the prices and make more weapons illegally obtained (leaving no paper trail as to who owns what like legally obtained new firearms are (outside of shit like gunshows which should be more closely regulated, my friend on probation got his first pistol last week from a gunshow with no issue, thats all kinds of fucked). This is just going to drive up crime, the guns are here. What we need is help rooting out these troubled people and getting them help before they fucking snap, After all GUNS dont kill people.. people kill people.

People twist off and do crazy shit and hurt people all the time worldwide, whether it be with a baseball bat a knife or a gun (or even the ever popular homemade explosive which can be made from just about anything).

Gun regulation isnt going to change anything the guns are here already, these people need help before they twist off. Many of these shooters have reached out for help calling hotlines and seeing counselors ect only to be ignored till its too late, if people would pull their heads out of their asses and realize its not these guns that get up and decide to shoot up schools and what not its people.

Adam lanza was a socially inept very troubled young man (im not being sympathetic to this sorry piece of shit by any means) with ALL the classic warning signs that something was wrong, his mom was supposedly in the process of institutionalizing him when the shooting occurred. If his mother new ANYTHING she would have actually acted on her intuition and gotten her son some help or asked a professional on the matter. This kids family is coming out in troves saying they spoke to his mother about him being troubled years ahead of time, same with neighbors ect. If people were more educated about spotting warning signs we would be much better off, this was the SAME case as the Aurora shooting, columbine and a plethora of others (they ALL showed signs of mental health issues and none received any treatment or "help"). Guns arent at the root of these issues.
http://www.freep.com/article/201212...light?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FEATURES08

Also something i found somewhat silly thats going on in the media is the anti ar-15 backlash. They pulled sales of so called "black rifles" (military style rifles typically ar-15s often demonized in the wake of any shooting) but dicks sporting goods still sells the other guns used (glock and sig sauer 9mm handguns) in this most recent shooting. As if pulling ONE variety of gun will change shit.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/news/wal-mart-dicks-guns-connecticut/

 

[yavarevenge]

I am not sure what your definition of a civil war is?

Mine is:

In the fact that protests aren't even close to a war. There is a distinct difference between a rebel uprising and a civil war. What happened in the middle east is protests against tyrannical governments evolved into a rebel uprising, which then in the case of Syria became a civil war. So clearly my history lesson had no effect on you. You should study constitutional law and see what you can come up with. Find Lysander Spooner - he has a interesting take.




I agree with having the ability to defend oneself against harm, but why would you need an assault rifle to do that? You don't. You can't use an assault rifle for anything other than show and target practice that is legal. A hunting rifle or a handgun can do either just fine.

a police officer is a citizen, and the protesters where citizens.

 

[Divine_God]

a police officer is a citizen, and the protesters where citizens.

He specifically stated that protesting is different from war. Ff you want to continue making the (retarded) point that protesting is the same thing as war then go ahead.

I'll articulate my argument in the form of three questions.

1. How would you recall banned firearms?
2. What penalties would you put in place for those that refuse to hand over their arms?
3. Why do you think that criminals would follow new laws?

This is ignoring the fact that Texas ,along with other states, would instantly succeed from the union.

 

[yavarevenge]

He specifically stated that protesting is different from war. Ff you want to continue making the (retarded) point that protesting is the same thing as war then go ahead.

I'll articulate my argument in the form of three questions.

1. How would you recall banned firearms?
2. What penalties would you put in place for those that refuse to hand over their arms?
3. Why do you think that criminals would follow new laws?

if you would read it is not the protesters, it is the police officers using tear gas and salt guns on protesters, and a petition in its self is a civil war, if you think about it, some people are for gun control and some people are anti gun control, that is a war, a war is not just killing someone, and here are your answers:

1. wouldnt try, no firearm should be banned
2. no penalties, because they are using their 2nd amendment right
3. the "new law" would make more criminals

you make it sound like i am for gun control, in my opinion, the status quo should not be changed, or become loser.

 

[RSWhat]

Just saying even I think that everyone has their own opinion
As this topic will lead nowhere

 

[Cabbage]

The government should at least do background checks on people who buy weaponry.

 

[yavarevenge]

The government should at least do background checks on people who buy weaponry.

they already do

 

[SuF]

they already do

Depends on the weapon and the state. Thus they already do not.

 

[SuF]

No high powered guns should be available for sale to the public. I think high caliber handguns should be the most that should be available to the general public. Shotguns should require a strict license with mental tests and training required before someone can purchase one. There should also be a limit on how many firearms you can purchase in a set period, i.e. 10 years.

Assault rifles, sub-machine guns, should all be banned from sale and use. Except by the military and police. No one really requires an assault rifle in their home. You are not fighting a war, the 2nd amendment exists for citizens to defend themselves, an assault rifle is way over the top for self defence. Most of these massacres are conducted with assault or automatic rifles.

Assault rifles do not have a consistent definition. A semi-automatic AR 15 is essentially the same exact thing as other semi-automatic rifles except its black and made out of plastic. Ban the kits to make it a fully auto and only sell fully autos with a lot of regulation.

How would these regulations be enforced?

By throwing people in jail who violate them? Sell someone a gun that you shouldn't have? First, fine them out of business. Second, throw them in jail. That'll serve as a deterrent. Pay for it with application fees and stuff. Also end the drug war and there's plenty of resources for enforcement.

 

[Arto]

Whether illegal or not, people are still going to get their hands on them.
Drugs are illegal, yet there's thousands if not millions that use em.

 

[Kiwi]

Whether illegal or not, people are still going to get their hands on them.
Drugs are illegal, yet there's thousands if not millions that use em.

I was going to say something like this. No matter where you are there IS a way to get control of one.