Gun Control Thread- Should we?

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them. Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

Why do anti-2nd Amendment people always sprint to the assault-weapon argument? It's the extreme, not the intentions of most gun owners who are being targeted.

Pretty much said all that I have to say on the topic here: http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/18863-ted-nugent-on-gun-control.html

Mostly, I am in agreement with 12th.

What a concept ... local laws/regulations for local situations.

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.

That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, due to ignorance most people DO have a discomfort around guns. It wouldn't be mandatory to carry a gun, but it should be a choice.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them.

We already have enough laws n the books, lets have them enforced.

Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

Because that's their right. Why should people be allowed to own and operate a vehicle capable of exceeding the speed limit by 3X?

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

People should have the right to buy and use what they choose. Enforce the laws that we already have.

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

and others would have been killed when they went into his apartment. I mean, hindsight is 20-20 and saying filling the air with lead is the solution simply assumes all the variables break your way.

Trained shooter gets jostled by panicked crowd - misfires.
Trained shooter mistaken by panicked crowd member as a co-conspirator and then steps into someone else's line of fire.
etc., etc. There are a billion ways that your scenario breaks bad.

You may be right. It may have lessened the casualities. It may, however, created more given the panic that was occurring.

Pretty much said all that I have to say on the topic here: http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/18863-ted-nugent-on-gun-control.html

Mostly, I am in agreement with 12th.

What a concept ... local laws/regulations for local situations.

Damn you JR for making me search for your post...lol


For those of you that are lazy.

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/18863-ted-nugent-on-gun-control-4.html#post328702

You may be right. It may have lessened the casualities. It may, however, created more given the panic that was occurring.

More panic? Knowing he's the only one with a gun and can get a shot at everyone isn't scarier than knowing someone is on your side and is trying to stop him?

There's a madman with a gun. There's going to be mass panic regardless of the circumstances. Not really an argument.

Seriously? That's your argument?

Just let him empty his guns on the crowd then. Don't let responsible, trained gun owners try to stop him. :doh:

People who obtain a C&C license typically take their responsibility very seriously. They get trained. They practice. Most of all, they realize they need to use only when necessary and are typically smart about it because they know acting irresponsibly with a weapon will get them in huge trouble. They're not a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks like the anti-gun activists like to paint them as.

So are we then giving guns only to trained people then? And making sure they're at the movie too? Or are we, as you seemed to imply, on your first post, giving it to anyone who wanted a gun?

I think SolidSnake's anecdote in the other thread (I believe about his friend) who got a gun and now is spooked by anything and ready to just fire and will one day unintentionally seriously hurt someone innocently was on point.

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer. Nor do I think we should cling so blindly to the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. If we're not willing to evolve from the past...well then, 12thMan would be 4thMan

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer.

John Lott does and he's actually taken the time to substantiate his position. If you have some time please read 'More Guns, Less Crime (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/)' and you may change your position.

Monkeydad, can we drop the anti 2nd Amendment hyperbole? Not a single person in any thread that I've participated in has advocated against the 2nd Amendment.

You ask why do liberals jump to the assault weapons argument. Well that's because in all of the most recent mass murders, the perpetrator used an assault weapon. That's why.

I do think this.

1) people should have to enroll in a training course and pass it before owning a gun

2) no felons or people with mental issues should be allowed to own a gun


Just like a car, a person has to be trained and tested before he's given access to drive down the road. I see no qualm with having a person go through the same type of training for something that could potentially kill another(just like a car) if improperly used.

Now, I don't think people should be allowed to own bazookas or surface to air missiles...lol