Gun Control Thread- Should we?

I agree with this article, for the most part:

The roots of mass murder (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html?hpid=z2)

The irony is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

And:

But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

That’s a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there’s no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the Transportation Security Administration invades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?

Im not really on a side here. Its about containment, clean up, and preventitive maintenance. Since bad guys have guns the good guys need guns too - its the chicken and the egg. We cant just make them all disappear. One thing i would be in favor of is stiffer penalties for a lost or stolen gun. Also stiffer requirements for buying guns. If i purchase a gun to have in my house to protect my family from some nutjob who decides to break in with his own gun there certainly should be no issue with that. However if that gun turns up missing or stolen than i should be in serious trouble. It is my responsibility to keep that gun out of the hands of some nutjob. Mrs Lanza obviously was not responsible and the result was catastrophic. There are no easy answers. There are way too many guns already in circulation. Distribution of any and all guns going forward need to be funnelled through one source so they can be traced back to that source. On top of that we need some sort of task force to try and recover all the guns in circulation. The key though is the stiff penalties for the irresponsible. It would make other gun owners think twice about keeping their own weapons secure. If Mrs Lanza had survived she should have been made example of. When you choose to buy a gun you are obligated under heavy penalty of the law to keep it out of the hands of anybody else. And if you fail to do so than you will be made example of.

Im not really on a side here. <snip>

Ok, but where do you stand on Unicorn Leash Laws or the cock snorting epidemic on WP?

Ok, but where do you stand on Unicorn Leash Laws or the cock snorting epidemic on WP?

The unicorn leash law is ridiculous because anybody who has ever had one knows they can easily bust out of the leash with their horn. I once saw a unicorn open a can of soup with his horn. Also there used to be really good lsd tabs in circulation called purple unicorns.
Cock snorting is purely mythical mumbo jumbo and not even possible if you think about it so i really pay it no mind

Skinsguy, you're right. Guns have other purposes. It was wrong for me to insinuate there was a single purpose. Let me rephrase, they are designed to kill. When guns are invisioned, most of them are designed to kill people or animals. I'm sure there are some designed for target practice, etc. That said, I don't believe those are the weapons we're having issues with in this country. However, the point of my original post stands, people are grasping at straw man arguments to defend it. You're grasping at banning cars, knives, and baseball bats. No one is saying violence stems from a single form, but firearms are the easiest and most efficient. Secondly, all of the above are not being used as intended, where assault rifles are being used as intended.

Switzerland is certainly the exception to the rule. However, let's be clear. Each person that owns a gun there also has military training to go along with the gun. They have very few automatic weapons, only active militia personnel are given access to automatic weapons. They strictly regulate all ammunition. If you need ammunition you are forced to get it from the military armory in the event of an emergency, except the ammunition sold at the shooting range which has strict regulations on using that ammunition at the range. Finally, to carry a gun in public you must get a permit which you have to justify your need to carry a firearm and pass an exam. So, all of your folks talking about how utopic Switzerland is... I agree. Let's enact their system. I'm fine with it. I'm guessing most of the pro-gun crowd isn't though. So how about we stop using Switzerland as an example.

What about a bit of a compromise, what about the laws Japan has in place? To buy a shotgun or an air rifle (handguns/assault rifles banned) you have to:

Take a class and exam.
Skill test at shooting range.
Pass a drug test.
Comprehensive mental evaluation.
File your firearm with the police, who run a background check.


This ensures only qualified individuals own a firearm. Japan had 11 gun-related homicides last year. It brings mental health into the picture as an equation. It causes someone who wants a gun to clear multiple hurdles to get a firearm. That's enough to deter those who don't deserve a gun.

When it really comes down to it, if children getting slaughtered by a crazy man with an assault rifle won't convince you to change your stance, nothing I can type on a football forum would change that stance.

LINKZ:
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)
Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs (http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/?hpt=hp_c4)

Daseal:

I agree 100% with your points you have made in regards to the prerequisites one would have to meet in order to obtain a firearm. I think many places require such prerequisites already, or something very similar before someone can carry a concealed weapon. So, maybe just explain that out to all weapons one purchases.

However, that's just the tip of the ice burg, and it's really just a small precaution that doesn't hit on the root of the problem. We can have the most strict gun laws in the world, but that alone won't prevent mass murders from happening. In fact, some of the worst murders in the history of this nation didn't involve guns. It comes down to treating the behavior before it even has a chance to manifest into something much worse. For instance, often times, a sign of someone with homicidal tendencies can start when they are young. The kids who thinks its funny killing dogs or cats with fire crackers or throwing them in microwaves, and etc...and then getting some sort of high or rush from watching these animals suffer. This can be a very big tale-tale sign that there is something very wrong with this person.

I can go on and on about other aspects, but the point is, people have gotten so wrapped up in arguments that really tend to become very insignificant band-aids on the problem. If we all realized that the focus and attention first goes on the behavioral health aspect, and maybe stricter gun laws once the first aspect has been reached, then we'll find real progress.

Everyone is looking at and talking about guns but the real problem is the fame these people want through the media. I'll be happy to give in on some gun control when the media is restricted from printing the name and face of these killers. I have seen several major news outlets talking about this issue and then they turn around and show his pic and spend 10 min talking about his back ground. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

Everyone is looking at and talking about guns but the real problem is the fame these people want through the media. I'll be happy to give in on some gun control when the media is restricted from printing the name and face of these killers. I have seen several major news outlets talking about this issue and then they turn around and show his pic and spend 10 min talking about his back ground. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

That's part of it as well. In some sick way, they become celebrities even if they don't live to "enjoy" the fame.

That's part of it as well. In some sick way, they become celebrities even if they don't live to "enjoy" the fame.

But the next mass killer is sitting there looking at the fame this guy is getting and knows he/she will get the same fame.

But the next mass killer is sitting there looking at the fame this guy is getting and knows he/she will get the same fame.

Thats why the next one that doesnt off himself should be tortured on television for the world to see in the most terrible way possible for as long as possible.
I realize that will never happen, but ill be damned if i dont think about it.

Thats why the next one that doesnt off himself should be tortured on television for the world to see in the most terrible way possible for as long as possible.
I realize that will never happen, but ill be damned if i dont think about it.

I hate to say it, but that would probably put them in a frame of mind that they're some type of messiah.