Gun Laws

[rkim291968]

I love how people think owning handguns and rifles will save the if the military was turned on us. Sorry to say that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. It's just a false sense of security that means nothing. this argument that it matters that we can arm ourselves is really outdated ignorance.

There are surprising number of people who believe that government can turn on them. It's their main reason to arm themselves, to fight back against the government.  I don't get their mentality.  

[RussUK]

OK, so having read all the posts (some great points rasied guys), we know that gun ownership will probably never be banned. At the end of the day its not the gun thats the problem, is just an inanimate object, its the squishy thing stuck on the end of it that can make it dangerous.

So what can be done?

many people in europe have this idea that in the US you can walk into your local Wallmart (other retailers are available) and buy a gun and walk out. IN reality (and according to American Guns on discovery ) there are checks done before the sale can go through especially on the larger calibre weapons (who the hell needs a .50 cal Barrett?)

So should potential buyers be given a Psychiatric evaluation (similar to those given to Soldiers in here in the UK)?

[rkim291968]

 

So should potential buyers be given a Psychiatric evaluation (similar to those given to Soldiers in here in the UK)?

Given so many crazies who bought guns and killed people, cCommon sense dictates what you asked above but that will never happen.  Gun industry is simply too smart & powerful to let that happen. 

[RussUK]

Given so many crazies who bought guns and killed people, cCommon sense dictates what you asked above but that will never happen.  Gun industry is simply too smart & powerful to let that happen. 

Yep, good point. If you hold the power you can dicate what people do, even the government. Looks like there will be many more mornings i watch the news and think "what is the world coming to!!!"

[Elmer]

One of the most crime free towns in the USA is Tombstone AZ. They have gunfights every single day, but no gun related crimes. . .food for thought.

Along these lines, I kind of think that if all the other students had guns, the killer could have maybe taken out one person before being stopped. . .

If the gun carrying student was a competent shot. If said gun carrying student could identify the correct target.
If the said gun carrying student could make a clean shot in a hectic situation. If the gun carrying student's heart rate wasnt causing their hands to shake.
 

And what if the gun carrying student missed?
What if the gun carrying student missed and hit someone else?
What if the gun carrying student emptied their clip and hit 6 other people?

Does the gun carrying student now become a 2nd gunman?

Not everyone who carrying  a gun is dirty harry. Ask any Vet who has actually been in a fire fight!

Do you trust your government enough to allow them to be the only ones bearing arms?

The second amendment was written to protect the states' sovereignty from an out of control federal government. 

The founders knew that ultimately power rests with those with the most force. They didn't want the federal government to be the lone force of the land. Low and behold here we are, the states have essentially lost their sovereignty, and the only thing left to completely remove any power is to remove the guns.

The founders also Knew that women shouldnt vote.
And the Ownership of humans was an issue best left ignored.
Some also felt the ownership of Humans was OK!
So dont pretend they were geniuses and infallible!

[inthehole]

I'm not really sure I understand.  You say that gun control isn't the answer and then you say that they have a background check system in your state that works really well and go on to imply that it isn't used elsewhere with the "and SHOULD by all means be applied to gun shows" sentence.

Wouldn't adding a background check where there [apparently] wasn't one previously be a form of "gun control?"

Gun control is a completely different issue than a background check.   Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from an instant background check when they buy a firearm from a retailer.    Felons and underage gang types who wish to obtain firearms are those that fear instant background checks, which is exactly why the system works so well.

[Gator Hazard]

@saevel25 I agree.  A gun provides a sense of security (in relation to our government) in the same way as a blanket might to a child hiding under it.  It makes you feel better but it really doesn't offer that much security.  If our government wants to do anything to us with force they have the weapons and technology to do it.  The real safety is in human nature and reason.  It would be be impossible to get all of the military to take up arms against its citizens.

@rkim291968 I think there is a place for handguns, in the right hands for the right reasons.  Even if guns were banned, how do you level the playing field between say a father who sits at his desk all day and weighs a whopping 145 lbs against three intruders who are criminals and weigh twice that in muscle?  I think they are good in some circumstances.  I have one, only one, and it is an uncomfortable balance, I know what it can do, but I do like knowing that it is there in case I should ever need it if I can get to it in time.

@Elmer  I mentioned maybe having armed personnel on campuses such as the US Air Marshalls.  To your points of if they were a competent shot and could remain calm enough to do the job I would advocate having a system like that in place.  Universities could do this and while helping the community and a group of individuals that don't always have an easy time transitioning to regular style employment.  I would recommend it as part of a job for US soldiers, could be in conjunction with the GI Bill.  They could get free room and board and a stipend as well as their books and education paid for.  If I were a student I would feel a lot better knowing one of the people in my classroom could be at a minimum a trained soldier, trained in weapons and maybe even a battle tested veteran.  I cannot think of many more solutions that make sense, at this point we will never get all of the guns out of the population of people who should not have them or access to them so we need to think of other ways to stem the violence.  Prevention first and alternatives that can be employed immediately.

[Lihu]

 

If the gun carrying student was a competent shot. If said gun carrying student could identify the correct target.
If the said gun carrying student could make a clean shot in a hectic situation. If the gun carrying student's heart rate wasnt causing their hands to shake.
 

And what if the gun carrying student missed?
What if the gun carrying student missed and hit someone else?
What if the gun carrying student emptied their clip and hit 6 other people?

Does the gun carrying student now become a 2nd gunman?

Not everyone who carrying  a gun is dirty harry. Ask any Vet who has actually been in a fire fight!

The founders also Knew that women shouldnt vote.
And the Ownership of humans was an issue best left ignored.
Some also felt the ownership of Humans was OK!
So dont pretend they were geniuses and infallible!

Minimal training in martial arts helps women thwart off attackers. So, along those lines if everyone carried a gun or taser that is compatible with their ability and build, there would be less people like this one.

He was wearing body armor from what I understand, but if they all had some form of protection it seems like they wouldn't be totally helpless. I'm sure more people are considering carrying a weapon because of these incidents. It makes sense, and could potentially dissuade more perpetrators of this type.

If that army vet had a gun with him, I'm sure he would have used it on the perp with reasonable effectiveness rather than getting shot 7 times.

[Elmer]

 

@Elmer  I mentioned maybe having armed personnel on campuses such as the US Air Marshalls.  To your points of if they were a competent shot and could remain calm enough to do the job I would advocate having a system like that in place.  Universities could do this and while helping the community and a group of individuals that don't always have an easy time transitioning to regular style employment.  I would recommend it as part of a job for US soldiers, could be in conjunction with the GI Bill.  They could get free room and board and a stipend as well as their books and education paid for.  If I were a student I would feel a lot better knowing one of the people in my classroom could be at a minimum a trained soldier, trained in weapons and maybe even a battle tested veteran.  I cannot think of many more solutions that make sense, at this point we will never get all of the guns out of the population of people who should not have them or access to them so we need to think of other ways to stem the violence.  Prevention first and alternatives that can be employed immediately.

Dont hate the idea!

 But there are a lot of classrooms!
And how do you explain to a kindergarden class a guy standing in the corner wearing camo with a bazooka in a state of cat like readiness?

[rkim291968]

@rkim291968 I think there is a place for handguns, in the right hands for the right reasons.  Even if guns were banned, how do you level the playing field between say a father who sits at his desk all day and weighs a whopping 145 lbs against three intruders who are criminals and weigh twice that in muscle?  I think they are good in some circumstances.  I have one, only one, and it is an uncomfortable balance, I know what it can do, but I do like knowing that it is there in case I should ever need it if I can get to it in time.

If we account for these very rare occurrences and allow weapons, we will always need weapons, they will end up in hands of criminals, accidents will happen, and we are right back to this same discussion.  

Majority of developed nations ban guns and they are doing much, much better in gun deaths compare to US.   We can do the same but we don't have the will, desire (too many gun lovers), or power.

 

[Gator Hazard]

Dont hate the idea!

 But there are a lot of classrooms!
And how do you explain to a kindergarden class a guy standing in the corner wearing camo with a bazooka in a state of cat like readiness?

There are a lot of soldiers that come out of the armed forces after their military time is up as well.  I would think that you wouldn't know who it was that was the soldier with the gun, it would help to advertise this as well.  "We are a university that proudly employs ex-military in conjunction with the GI Bill in the role of undercover, armed university marshalls".  I can see a small problem with this as well for some people.

At the high school and lower level it is a lot trickier I guess, I don't know how you do that.  Lots of people not too keen on the idea of teachers being armed, but maybe it could be a janitor or a gym coach or an administrator or two and you have no idea and they are ex military as well.  

If we account for these very rare occurrences and allow weapons, we will always need weapons, they will end up in hands of criminals, accidents will happen, and we are right back to this same discussion.  

Majority of developed nations ban guns and they are doing much, much better in gun deaths compare to US.   We can do the same but we don't have the will, desire (too many gun lovers), or power.

 

If we could hit the reset button I would maybe be okay with it, but we cannot;  just as you have said, there are a lot of "pry the gun out of my cold, dead hand" people.  So we need solutions that work in the environment we are in, and none of them will please everyone.  Whether people are pro or anti guns, one thing is true, guns have certainly complicated things, no solutions are ironclad or easy.

[Braivo]

@Elmer  I mentioned maybe having armed personnel on campuses such as the US Air Marshalls.  To your points of if they were a competent shot and could remain calm enough to do the job I would advocate having a system like that in place.  Universities could do this and while helping the community and a group of individuals that don't always have an easy time transitioning to regular style employment.  I would recommend it as part of a job for US soldiers, could be in conjunction with the GI Bill.  They could get free room and board and a stipend as well as their books and education paid for.  If I were a student I would feel a lot better knowing one of the people in my classroom could be at a minimum a trained soldier, trained in weapons and maybe even a battle tested veteran.  I cannot think of many more solutions that make sense, at this point we will never get all of the guns out of the population of people who should not have them or access to them so we need to think of other ways to stem the violence.  Prevention first and alternatives that can be employed immediately.

Dont hate the idea!

 But there are a lot of classrooms!
And how do you explain to a kindergarden class a guy standing in the corner wearing camo with a bazooka in a state of cat like readiness?

This is an excellent idea with many resulting benefits. First of all you would have an armed, trained soldier on every school campus. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that's the point. Here is where the real benefit comes in. You would be training many more young men to be soldiers and giving them purpose and meaning in their life. 

If that army vet had a gun with him, I'm sure he would have used it on the perp with reasonable effectiveness rather than getting shot 7 times.

Yes, he would have. Why not encourage / allow all military veterans to carry a weapon at all times. They've served our country and are highly trained in the use of weapons. They should have the privilege / responsibility if they choose to. Everywhere you go there are military vets. Ever go to a dinner or reception and they ask the vets to stand up and be recognized, there are always several around. Let each and every one carry a gun without restriction. 

[benredik]

People kill people, guns don't.

Bombs don't kill people either. Neither does Strategic Bomber planes, AC-130 Gunships, Chemical weapons, Biological weapons or Nuclear weapons.

I have a right to own these, to protect myself and my loved ones from government oppression. I will keep them safe and out of reach for children. If these are outlawed, it means only criminals will have them. I would like to see the criminal that would break into my home with all these weapons available. 

I thank GOD for the right he has given us to bare these arms. Let's all pray a bit harder, and these school shootings will surely stop. I follow the example of Jesus, and his followers, that led the way with their love of heavy weaponry and tacit acceptance of innocent kids being slaughtered in schools. 

 

ex soldier

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by benredik
spelling

[saevel25]

Yes, he would have. Why not encourage / allow all military veterans to carry a weapon at all times. They've served our country and are highly trained in the use of weapons. They should have the privilege / responsibility if they choose to. Everywhere you go there are military vets. Ever go to a dinner or reception and they ask the vets to stand up and be recognized, there are always several around. Let each and every one carry a gun without restriction. 

Because some of them are so F'd up in the head they shouldn't have weapons on them. It's not a knock on all veterans, but the ones that might think they are still at war. Until we do a better job understanding and treating PTSD and other mental damage done to our veterans those who are deemed to dangerous to themselves and others should not be allowed to own a weapon. The primary avenue for veterans to commit suicide is by firearms. 

This goes into making sure everyone who has a gun has been tested to see if they are a danger to themselves or other people. If they are then they should not be allowed to own a weapon. 
 

This is an excellent idea with many resulting benefits. First of all you would have an armed, trained soldier on every school campus. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that's the point. Here is where the real benefit comes in. You would be training many more young men to be soldiers and giving them purpose and meaning in their life. 

This is a stupid idea. You want to have political suicide then you support this idea. First, no democrat would want this because it supports gun use and expand the military. Second no person who hates government involvement and expansion in our lives would support this. A good amount of republicans to libertarians would not support this. Also, what if you have an accidental discharge of a weapon that kills a kid you are f'd. It will happen. A kid will get killed by an armed guard at some point. Then all hell will break lose and people would wonder why this was a good idea at all. If you want a way to kill even more support for those in the military go ahead with this idea. 

Also, do you want to create anxiety at school? Honestly do you want to get kids used to having a totalitarian/dictator type concept of having military guards located in your public places? This sounds like something straight out of North Korea.  

I don't mind expanding the concept of civil service or working for the national guard. In the end we should not be putting armed forces in our schools. One of the more stupid ideas to come across this form lately. 

 

[mmoan2]

I wish you were right. I truly do. I will pray harder for many things, including stricter gun ownership laws. I'm sure you will qualify to own sufficient arms to protect yourself and your family. Cheers.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-survivor/

[Braivo]

I don't mind expanding the concept of civil service or working for the national guard. In the end we should not be putting armed forces in our schools. One of the more stupid ideas to come across this form lately. 

What is your solution? How would you ensure that not a single weapon gets into the hands of a mentally ill person? Some of the most psychopathic individuals are incredibly intelligent and able to fool even psychologists into thinking they are sane. Even if you have a psychologist sign off on every single gun purchase, how do you keep that gun from being stolen or sold on the black market? 

As long as there are guns in this country then they will fall into the hands of the wrong people. The criminals and those that are disturbed will seek them out and get them. Then what? Suddenly the only people that are armed are the bad guys and the good guys (police). When the bad guys show up firing weapons you call the good guys, but what happens in those 5 minutes in between is a massacre, 10 to 20 lives are taken and not one person can fight back. 

The issue goes beyond gun control, it is this false perception that we can somehow create a utopia. Where we have all good without any bad. You can't. The world contains both good and bad and always will. As one evil is extinguished another rises to the top. We haven't had a world war in 70 years where hundreds of thousands of men were killed, so now our evil is mass shooters killing people in schools. It never changes, there will always be evil, always.

[Gator Hazard]

 

Because some of them are so F'd up in the head they shouldn't have weapons on them. It's not a knock on all veterans, but the ones that might think they are still at war. Until we do a better job understanding and treating PTSD and other mental damage done to our veterans those who are deemed to dangerous to themselves and others should not be allowed to own a weapon. The primary avenue for veterans to commit suicide is by firearms. 

This goes into making sure everyone who has a gun has been tested to see if they are a danger to themselves or other people. If they are then they should not be allowed to own a weapon. 
 

This is a stupid idea. You want to have political suicide then you support this idea. First, no democrat would want this because it supports gun use and expand the military. Second no person who hates government involvement and expansion in our lives would support this. A good amount of republicans to libertarians would not support this. Also, what if you have an accidental discharge of a weapon that kills a kid you are f'd. It will happen. A kid will get killed by an armed guard at some point. Then all hell will break lose and people would wonder why this was a good idea at all. If you want a way to kill even more support for those in the military go ahead with this idea. 

Also, do you want to create anxiety at school? Honestly do you want to get kids used to having a totalitarian/dictator type concept of having military guards located in your public places? This sounds like something straight out of North Korea.  

I don't mind expanding the concept of civil service or working for the national guard. In the end we should not be putting armed forces in our schools. One of the more stupid ideas to come across this form lately. 

 

I agree that stringent testing and additional training needs to happen.  I do not think it is a stupid idea to have armed personnel on college campuses, especially with the changes in technology where there are non lethal solutions in the form of non lethal bullets, bean bags, taser guns that shoot charges etc.  There could be ways to find a balance that would give options without the consequences having to be lethal in order to minimize risk of the types of accidents you speak of, and also, I wouldn't want them to know who the persons were that had these tools.  Mr. Jones could be one, or Mrs. Hathaway, or maybe its Mr. Smith or Mr. Gerard, who knows.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[carpediem4300]

I see the problem being one of change issues, and people being scared of change

The facts and figures prove beyond reasonable doubt that when england banned guns after a massacre, we have had no more massacres, the recently posted figures of gun deaths in Japan compared to the USA, the facts dont lie,......Less guns equals less deaths, PERIOD

 

So why are Americans so afraid to change?

Many arguments are of the 2nd amendment, an outdated article that in itself was ahem "amended" meaning it could always be changed again you know?, it was written with the idea that the common man could protect himself from the government, the army, whoever,.........im not being funny but in 2015 if you still think that 1) that concept will ever happen or 2) you stand a chance with your gun against a battalion of trained warriors, then you have deeper issues than your toys being taken off you

 

The other argument I see is the "there are too many, we cant change it",.......thats just plain pathetic, when theres a will theres a way, if you want to change something you can do it,....you abolished slavery didnt you? you gave women the right to vote? of course there will still be "illegal guns" but that doesnt stop you from trying, your supposed to be the most advanced economic power on the planet and yet this seems an insurmountable issue for you?

 

nothin will ever change anyway so i dont see why people are still debating it