Gun Control?

[kcobb9]

In the aftermath of the recent Newtown school shooting there has been a big debate on whether or not there should or shouldn't be stricter gun control. I personally believe that there is a reason for guns and they need to stay without stricter control. My main reason is this, when you are in a gun free zone such as a school, hospital, post-office, etc. any law breaker such as a shooter could walk in and fire, without any attempt of the possible victims fighting back because of the gun free zone that they are in, meaning all the law-abiding citizens wouldn't have a weapon to fight back and many lives could be lost. Imagine if a whole country were a gun free zone then all the law-breakers would be home free. Now let's see if a gunman were to walk into a gun show, well he couldn't even aim the gun without at least 3 others pointing back so why would he even try. Let's say the whole country is this way, well there would be a lot less crime such as rape, murder, robbery, etc. because the attacker wouldn't know if the victim has a weapon to fight back and they themselves wouldn't want to get hurt. I'm not saying that there would never be a shooting again because, if you're crazy you wouldn't really care about losing your life. If any one would like to explain their views on the topic please post a comment. If you'd like to see my views on other parts of gun control you may ask in the comments.

 

[Cheeze]

This cannot end well.

 

[4WideRacing]

In the aftermath of the recent Newtown school shooting there has been a big debate on whether or not there should or shouldn't be stricter gun control. I personally believe that there is a reason for guns and they need to stay without stricter control. My main reason is this, when you are in a gun free zone such as a school, hospital, post-office, etc. any law breaker such as a shooter could walk in and fire, without any attempt of the possible victims fighting back because of the gun free zone that they are in, meaning all the law-abiding citizens wouldn't have a weapon to fight back and many lives could be lost. Imagine if a whole country were a gun free zone then all the law-breakers would be home free. Now let's see if a gunman were to walk into a gun show, well he couldn't even aim the gun without at least 3 others pointing back so why would he even try. Let's say the whole country is this way, well there would be a lot less crime such as rape, murder, robbery, etc. because the attacker wouldn't know if the victim has a weapon to fight back and they themselves wouldn't want to get hurt. I'm not saying that there would never be a shooting again because, if you're crazy you wouldn't really care about losing your life. If any one would like to explain their views on the topic please post a comment. If you'd like to see my views on other parts of gun control you may ask in the comments.

I agree with you 100% but I believe most places the guns at the gun shows have to be unloaded and sometimes "locked" so the danger to the shooter wouldn't come immediately but it would soon follow.

It someone can break the law and kill 26 innocent people he could so easily just break the gun laws (kinda like he did by having a gun on the school grounds).

 

[bigrolltide1877]

It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are people will always get guns. Having stricter gun laws in my opinion solves nothing it only makes things worst. If teachers had guns people would not go to schools and just start shooting because then the schools wouldnt be a easy target for criminals.
One last thing its not the gun killing people its the idiot using it. Guns are a very good thing but they can also be a bad thing when the wrong people use them to harm or even kill people.

 

[Paul Johnson]

It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are people will always get guns. Having stricter gun laws in my opinion solves nothing it only makes things worst. If teachers had guns people would not go to schools and just start shooting because then the schools wouldnt be a easy target for criminals.
One last thing its not the gun killing people its the idiot using it. Guns are a very good thing but they can also be a bad thing when the wrong people use them to harm or even kill people.

Then something like coffee shops would become a target, i really don't think much can be done about this issue.

 

[kcobb9]

This cannot end well.

Well I trust that the people here at SRD can keep it a respectful debate.

 

[The Captain]

We should focus less on the guns and more on the people behind them. How many times do we hear about the people who do this possibly suffering from a mental illness? Should we not be more concerned about the well being of our citizens from a health standpoint as opposed to a self defense standpoint? When I was in high school, one of our math teachers had a mental breakdown IN CLASS. I don't want to think of how that could have ended had he been packing. I would much rather see this country look after its people not by arming them further, but by making sure they can find ways of getting the proper care they need.

 

[BillyJack79]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's the 2nd Amendment, as ratified in 1791.
Fast-forward to 2012. Does is still hold the same meaning or importance? Should it? Personally, I'm against government telling people what they can or can't have. A person who wants to own guns, for whatever reason, once they've been licensed and proven competency, should be able. I also know and deal with people on a regular basis that I wouldn't trust with a water gun, let alone a firearm. How could anybody in their right mind defend the notion that EVERY American should have the right to own a gun.
Now, with two clear, polarized sides to the argument, the only logical answer is increased regulation. You can't take guns from everybody, but you also can't let everybody have free access. There have to be more gun regulations if you're ever going to lessen gun violence. It will never be eliminated, but if you look around the world, you see that countries with stricter gun laws have less mass shootings.

 

[moppenheimer]

Regardless of whether stricter laws get/will get/need to be passed,doing so will solve nothing. There are to many guns, and too many passionate gun owners to ever make significant headway in reducing the amount or ease of access to guns.

What needs to be done is an overhaul of this country's mental health system so that people can actually get treatment, not just locked up and swept under the rug.

 

[Exterminator]

My Idea of "gun control" is hitting that at which I aim!

 

[DERacing]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's the 2nd Amendment, as ratified in 1791.
Fast-forward to 2012. Does is still hold the same meaning or importance? Should it? Personally, I'm against government telling people what they can or can't have. A person who wants to own guns, for whatever reason, once they've been licensed and proven competency, should be able. I also know and deal with people on a regular basis that I wouldn't trust with a water gun, let alone a firearm. How could anybody in their right mind defend the notion that EVERY American should have the right to own a gun.
Now, with two clear, polarized sides to the argument, the only logical answer is increased regulation. You can't take guns from everybody, but you also can't let everybody have free access. There have to be more gun regulations if you're ever going to lessen gun violence. It will never be eliminated, but if you look around the world, you see that countries with stricter gun laws have less mass shootings.

Your entire post was a contradiction of itself.

You dont think .gov should be able to tell you what you can and cannot have, yet not every American should have the right to own a gun??

And your thought of countries with stricter gun laws have less violence is flawed as well. It is a fact that 1 year after Great Britian enacted its gun bans that violent crimes involving a firearm rose by 36%.

"A person who wants to own guns, for whatever reason, once they've been licensed and proven competency, should be able." - While I am all for gun safety, competence and education, your thoughts of forced licensing is not what the 2nd Amendment states. It is not for hunting or sporting purposes. Contrary to what gun grabbers want to say it is not related to muskets only. The 2nd was put in place by very wise men who knew what the powers of .gov could do to good men of lesser character. This RIGHT is there to enable the citizens to resist a tyrranical .gov should they ever try to violate all other rights afforded to a free people. These are not privileges give by the .gov, but they are uninalienable rights given by God and ratified as such in the Constitution.

Lastly, I will leave you with this thought... "shall not be infringed"

 

[BillyJack79]

Your entire post was a contradiction of itself.

..or maybe an effort to remain arbitrary, in fairness to both sides of the issue. More conductive to good discussion when someone's willing to see separate perspective that support both sides. My feelings on the topic are firm. Others that read this thread might not be so. Respectfully, I'm not trying to sway any opinions.

Gun ban hasn't worked in the UK, nobody's suggested that here, that I know of. Despite the increase in gun violence after the handgun ban, their rate of firearm homicide is 40 times lower than ours, per capita. Ours is highest by far among developed countries.

The 2nd was put in place by very wise men who knew what the powers of .gov could do to good men of lesser character. This RIGHT is there to enable the citizens to resist a tyranical .gov should they ever try to violate all other rights afforded to a free people. These are not privileges give by the .gov, but they are unalienable rights given by God and ratified as such in the Constitution.

This is a fair interpretation, and I'm sure it was an absolute necessity in colonial times. It seems a little dated in 2012, my opinion. If you fear a tyrant gov't that would rob you of your basic rights in the world today, in a nation of 311 million people, in the 21st century.... that's a fear I don't understand. I also have a hard time including gun ownership in with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights. How could other countries enact bans if it were a God-given right to own a gun?

I'm for higher and further regulation in the firearm industry. Assault rifles and hundred round clips have no place in civilian life, that I can see. Not everybody who can fill out the form is responsible or stable enough to be trusted with a gun. That's fact. Just like not everybody should be allowed to drive. It's easier here to get a gun than it is to drive a car. You have to prove driving ability and, in most places now, financial responsibility to get a driver's license, but all it takes is a signature and no felonies to buy an ak-47 and a box of rounds. Some would say that's a gross oversight by our gov't in regards to public safety.

 

[tipptruck]

As a guy that owns many guns. Of which may are are assault rifles. I get crap every time some thing happens with guns. Many of my guns also have 20 round clips. Why do I have 20 round clips? That's like asking people with 500hp cars why they have them. I am also guilty of that. It sure as hell is not for home protection. I have a 12ga for that. Plus I have a conceal carry for when i am out in the public. But I open carry at home, or while fishing. When I am at home. There is a loaded gun no farther then 3 ft from me at any time.

I have the big clips for fun, and fun only. I shoot a lot of clay pigeons. Then for the rifles I only shoot .22, .308, and 30-06. The 308 and 30-06 are big boy rounds. Nothing beats shooting hundred's of rounds with friends. Having a 20 round clip makes funnier for every one. But when I go hunting. I am only allowed 3-5 rounds in the gun at a time. I understand why. So I go by that. I ahve no problem obeying that law.

Here some thing funny about the guns congress whats gone. The rounds that they shoot are tiny compared to what I shoot. The damage a .223 or ak round dose compared to a 308 or bigger round. Is like night and day. A 223 round will go right though a gallon of water. You take a 308 to the same gallon of water. The water jug blows up. Why dose it blow up? Its is classifed as a subsonic bullet. A slower moving bullet with a lot of force. If you shoot a animal with a round like that. You do not even have to be close to the vitals for a kill. Were as you need to hit the vitals with a 223 for a kill. Heres a picture to compare the rounds.

The one on the far right is a .22. The two to the left of it are the m16 and ak round. The 308 is in the middle. If a 30-06 were in that picture. It would be next to the 308.

I also have the big boy rounds for hunting. It takes a lot to drop a 200 pound plus deer. Also I feel safer in the woods with bigger rounds. We have 200 lb plus bears and other mammals running around. That if I crossed them. They would have no problem trying to eat me.

I think the media and congress are forgetting one thing. When it happened. They said it happened with pistols. Now there saying it was a m16 type gun. If I recall right also. Other then the mall shooting last month. And the one at the movie theater. Every shooting in the last 20 years here in the states. All were carried out with pistols. Last time I checked a pistol is not a assault rifle. Even uzis are not classified as them. Also every gun has come back stolen.

I am also for tighter gun control though. Getting a gun is way to easy. Most of the guns that are bought here. Are under the table type buys. What I mean bu that. Is there is not back ground check. I am not saying people are selling to felons. What I mean is private gun sales. I for one would never buy a gun from a friend or family member. I would also not sell to any one but a dealer. The reason is because if the gun comes back stolen or involved in a crime. The person that has the gun in his or hers possession will be the one getting visited by bubba.

In today's world of computers. I can have a rifle in my hands in less then 2 hours. Two days for a pistol. Compare that to even 20 years ago it would take a week to two weeks to do a back ground check. I have no problem if the atf wants to look in to my mental health. The back ground check wont take any longer then what it dose now.

Do I think it will stop gun crimes no. Look at dc. They have the higest gun crimes in the states. Even when they had pistol ban. Its like drugs. If you want to go get a gram of crack you can do it. Nothing will stop the people wanting to cause harm to other people. Like I said earlier. Every gun has come back stolen.

As for teachers that are armed. If I had kids, and I found out that there teachers were packing. I would pull them out of that school in a heart beat. teachers are there to teach. Police are there to protect. I would rather have ex service or current cops walking the halls. Then packing teachers.

 

[LarryFoyt50]

Honestly, I feel like citizens can bear arms if they want to. It is their protection. I know with Newtown, little 6 years old would not carry guns. But still, teachers would protect the students with their gun. If for an example, there is a high school out in the country. No police around to save them and a gunman walks in. The teachers can shoot down the suspected shooter with taking few to no lives. Say we go really strict on guns. The teachers will be defenselessness and more lives are killed. Criminals will do anything legal or illegal.

 

[celticfang]

Tipptruck, in the Colorado shooting weren't the guns legally bought online or did they later retract that? The last I read after it said he bought the guns and 600 or so rounds of ammo online.

I'm gonna go on a little rant here though. I've fired a .308 rifle, it pretty much tore my shoulder out because it hurts like crazy to fire it. Howeve, I do not think you need a 308 rifle, an AK, an M16, an AR-15 or a freaking minigun for home defense.

A pistol or a shotgun is fine in my opinion. Guns are status symbols, much like cars are, if you know somebody who has either a 500hp Charger or an M4A1, you're going to be impressed by it, it's human nature.

However...why should anyone be able to get a gun easier than getting a cat? I'm putting aside the issue of illegal guns (which is a major issue here, the last major shootings in 1987 and 1996 were also done with pistols and rifles, as was the Oslo massacre) as that's a concept some people on other sites seem unable to grasp that no, illegal guns won't suddenly vanish overnight, I think the whole checking system needs to be revamped

I've heard conflicting stories, so can somebody explain to me if this is how it works or if the person who explained it is talking grade-a BS?

I go to buy a pistol and have to show ID, I get a background check and then have to fill in forms, after that I got a waiting period, then I get the weapon.

I know asking a friend who moved to Florida from Alabama that getting a gun there is as easy as sending a card in the mail, and in Colorado there's pretty much zero checks at all.

 

[4WideRacing]

Plus I have a conceal carry for when i am out in the public.

teachers are there to teach. Police are there to protect. I would rather have ex service or current cops walking the halls. Then packing teachers.

:-/ So, are you a Police officer?

 

[bigrolltide1877]

I go to buy a pistol and have to show ID, I get a background check and then have to fill in forms, after that I got a waiting period, then I get the weapon.

I know asking a friend who moved to Florida from Alabama that getting a gun there is as easy as sending a card in the mail, and in Colorado there's pretty much zero checks at all.

Yea in alabama its pretty easy to get a weapon. Went to academy sports and it took us about a hour and a half or two hours.
Had to fill out a crap load of paper work and forms out and show them id and of course a background check. and as always theres no store warranties on guns.

 

[tipptruck]

:-/ So, are you a Police officer?

No I am not a cop. Just for in case type of thing. You would be shocked by how many people conceal carry. Woman also out number men. The funny part is you would never now it.

Celtic yea I forgot he bought them the legal way.

 

[canadienhits]

First off, this doesn't change how I've felt about gun control. Not one bit. Now, before you stop reading, know that before this I believe responsible people should have guns, but I had a lot of conditions. One of those being that no one needs a gun of any kind that can fire more than two shots at a time (three in a shotgun). If you are a hunter you know why. You can't hit something by the second try, you are an awful hunter and your deer, moose, quail, duck, whatever is gone. So, that means no AR-15's, no AK-47's. Also, who the heck needs a 30 round clip. If you are hunting seriously you don't need to shoot 30 rounds in a minute. Again, proves how bad of hunter you are. Lazy hunter as well. My thought anything with 30 rounds or military style belongs only with the military or police, not the public.

Next, anyone even thinking of wanting to own a gun has to pass a hunter's safety course. We had 'em in Kansas. You couldn't touch a gun, let alone buy one without one. I was taught how to properly care, handle, store, and shoot a gun. I remember when I was in the military in boot camp and they passed out the M-16's to the city boys and they played with them like kids. I was a squad leader, and they got pissed I yelled at them and brought it to the attention of the Drill Instructor. A gun is a tool, like a knife or bow and arrow. You respect the tool and what it can do. Lack of respect gets you or someone else killed. I put it like owning a power saw. If I play with a power saw with a friend rather than use it safely, it will mame or kill them.

That brings me to my final point. When someone signs for a background check on a gun, they should do a complete check. The moment you sign a piece of paper, any right to privacy as to sealed documents or Dr.'s privilege is out the window. You want a gun, these are the conditions. That being said, I would not qualify under my guidelines for owning a gun.

People who say all guns are bad are oversimplifing the issue. A gun is a tool, as I said before. Just like a knife there are many types for many purposes. When you have a gun (or knife) YOU have personal responsibility over that tool. It's what YOU choose to do with it. Same as those who say changing gun laws will do nothing. That's like sticking your head in the sand. There are things that CAN and SHOULD be done to make things safer for the public without everyone needing a gun. That just takes us to a fabled old west (and yes the old west really didn't have the guns as the movies play out). There are millions of responsible gun owners, and the crazies are few and far between. Should things be stricter, yes, in every area, but an outright ban is going overboard and placing no responsibility on the person.

 

[tipptruck]

Candein every state has a limit to how many bullets you can have in a gun. WI is 3 for shot guns. If you are hunting. Other wise it is 5 at home. Rifles very from 3-5 for hunting. At home it don't matter. Most states have the same limits for hunting. Yes I agree if you can not hit a target in 3-5 shoots. Chances are the thing you were going to kill is long gone.

You want to know whats better then hunters saftey. Some sort of gun training. Most are about 100 bucks.