Gun Control

[ninjainspandex]

Someone asked me at work why anyone needed a gun than held more than 8 bullets. This really got me thinking why do we need cars that go faster than the speed limit, shouldn't cars be limited on their speed then? Speeding is dangerous and police chases even more so. Needless to say i enraged a few anti gun car nuts with this question .

[marurun]

You do have to get a license and show a level of competency to carrry a gun in public places in most areas. And those are state issued licenses.

Magazine limits do little. You know how quickly one can change mags?

These sound good in theory but most likely won't have the desired real worls effect.

According to this Wikipedia article, gun laws vary widely by state, and having to have a license doesn't mean that there's a requirement of competency. Some probably do require it, but I think that's mostly for concealed carry. I'm pretty sure in most places you can own a rifle or a handgun without any actual competency requirements other than passing a background check.

Sure, magazine changes can be quick, but they do cause the shooter to have to tie up their other hand and stop aiming for a moment. It may not be much, but it creates an opening for someone to react, either to escape or to intervene. Might not have helped much in CT shooting, but in Aurora it might have made a small difference.

I don't think anyone would be so foolish as to argue that there are simple solutions to this complex problem. And since this topic is about gun control, I'm not going into social changes that could help as well. I do, however, think that certain key gun provisions could, in combination with other critical changes, add up and eventually put a dent in gun violence against others in the US.

[Jmustang1968]

You do have to get a license and show a level of competency to carrry a gun in public places in most areas. And those are state issued licenses.

Magazine limits do little. You know how quickly one can change mags?

These sound good in theory but most likely won't have the desired real worls effect.

According to this Wikipedia article, gun laws vary widely by state, and having to have a license doesn't mean that there's a requirement of competency. Some probably do require it, but I think that's mostly for concealed carry. I'm pretty sure in most places you can own a rifle or a handgun without any actual competency requirements other than passing a background check.

Sure, magazine changes can be quick, but they do cause the shooter to have to tie up their other hand and stop aiming for a moment. It may not be much, but it creates an opening for someone to react, either to escape or to intervene. Might not have helped much in CT shooting, but in Aurora it might have made a small difference.

I don't think anyone would be so foolish as to argue that there are simple solutions to this complex problem. And since this topic is about gun control, I'm not going into social changes that could help as well. I do, however, think that certain key gun provisions could, in combination with other critical changes, add up and eventually put a dent in gun violence against others in the US.

Exactly. You can own a gun without competency, just as you can own a car. But you have to have a license to drive on public roads. Just as you need a license to carry concealed.

[saturnfan]

I didn't read through most of this thread, but it seemed overall pretty civil. An accomplishment itself these days.

But I don't own any guns, although I consider myself pro-gun. Those who are aggressively attempting to limit the availability of guns and outlaw certain weapon and ammo types are unwittingly trying to find short term solutions to mask symptoms. Crime is primarily the result of societal problems like poverty, among other things. It isn't caused because somebody can buy a 30+ bullet clip. How many crimes are committed with weapons with magazines over 10? You're more likely to be killed with a 5 bullet snub nose than you are by a person who has an AR-15 with a custom 300 bullet drum.

[o.pwuaioc]

I didn't read through most of this thread, but it seemed overall pretty civil. An accomplishment itself these days.

But I don't own any guns, although I consider myself pro-gun. Those who are aggressively attempting to limit the availability of guns and outlaw certain weapon and ammo types are unwittingly trying to find short term solutions to mask symptoms. Crime is primarily the result of societal problems like poverty, among other things. It isn't caused because somebody can buy a 30+ bullet clip. How many crimes are committed with weapons with magazines over 10? You're more likely to be killed with a 5 bullet snub nose than you are by a person who has an AR-15 with a custom 300 bullet drum.

But really there are two problems here. You're more likely to die in a car accident than a plane crash or terrorist attack, but that doesn't mean we should only focus on cars to the detriment of our safety in the sky and from terrorism. Likewise, regulating handguns (which apparently is now a no-go after a recent court decision) won't affect people like the Columbine shooters (only one of the guns was a handgun, and it was still semi-automatic) or Aurora shooter. But Aurora and Columbine were not like the gun violence to which poor neighborhoods are subjected. These are entirely different problems, and need different solutions. A ban on larger magazines can indeed limit the effectiveness of mass murderers: certainly not prevent them, but merely make a dent.

[AdamGomez1987]

In my opinion, the people who want guns banned are usually the people who say that video games and Dungeons & Dragons are killing more people.. and these laws on gun control are punishing good people for what bad people do and it's the bad people who don't even have a permit for those types of weapons.

Even if government were to call for a ban on firearms, they are not God to make them all banish into thin air. Also, in the USA, we do not live in a utopia, if any of you know about the Fast & The Furious Scandal with Eric Holder giving those big firearms to people across the border, you'll see that they're supplying bad people.

And then you have the media as a weapon as Piers Morgan has been talking about a lot now a days to keep his ratings alive namely because Alex Jones got everyone listening to what he was saying. And though many people scoffed him because of his pitch. Piers Morgan wouldn't dare talk about the medication with a 10ft poll because of CNN's sponsors. And now the question for myself is, why would I want a man from another country to represent my rights and tell me the 2nd amendment is nonsense? It took him a week to finally answer the Chicago gun ban response to show how big of a puppet these twats are.

The problem with these laws is that you might want to get rid of assault weapons like the AR-15, but then you'll look at Chicago and now New York who passed some new regulations. They'll turn an inch into a mile which is why compromising can be costly if a standard is not made.

And I'm sure you've all seen the NRA commercial attacking Obama on elitism because big wig guys like Piers Morgan and Obama have security guards that are armed to the teeth.

[AppleQueso]

In my opinion, the people who want guns banned are usually the people who say that video games and Dungeons & Dragons are killing more people..

Most of the video game arguments I've seen lately are being thrown around by people who are desperately trying to shift the discussion away from guns. People like, you know, the NRA.

And I'm sure you've all seen the NRA commercial attacking Obama on elitism because big wig guys like Piers Morgan and Obama have security guards that are armed to the teeth.

That was flat out bizarre. I'm not even sure what point they were trying to make with that one.

[AdamGomez1987]

And I'm sure you've all seen the NRA commercial attacking Obama on elitism because big wig guys like Piers Morgan and Obama have security guards that are armed to the teeth.

That was flat out bizarre. I'm not even sure what point they were trying to make with that one.

That the rich elite would be above these laws because the top 1% such as these political figures would be except from such laws as they will find a way to justify it. And if that's true, then we would be living in an estate system where people are born with privileges by the government than others.

[AppleQueso]

And I'm sure you've all seen the NRA commercial attacking Obama on elitism because big wig guys like Piers Morgan and Obama have security guards that are armed to the teeth.

That was flat out bizarre. I'm not even sure what point they were trying to make with that one.

That the rich elite wouldn't be above these laws because the top 1% such as these political figures would be except from such laws as they will find a way to justify it. And if that's true, then we would be living in an estate system where people are born with privileges by the government than others.

What laws? Last i heard nobody was proposing a ban on armed guards.

[AdamGomez1987]

What laws? Last i heard nobody was proposing a ban on armed guards.

Look at the weapons that the armed guards carry. You won't see any change in their arsenal. Look at New York and look at Bloomberg's guards. They're exempt from the laws that he puts on the people.