Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[RedskinRat]

In support of skinsguy's point I would cite the fact that just about every household in Switzerland has a gun, it has one of the highest rates of gun ownership (almost 50%) due to their use of citizens as a standing militia. However their gun crime is so low they don't even keep records on it.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The problem with this topic when it comes to violent acts such as what happened last week in Connecticut is the fact that you get two camps of knee-jerk arguments: More guns VS no guns. Both arguments do nothing for the root of the problem. The root of the problem is not the guns themselves. It's the people who operate them. Strict gun laws keep the honest men honest. That's about it. Those who are deranged enough to use these guns to go out and commit violent acts will do so whether they obtain the guns legally or illegally. That's just the facts.

The root of the problem is the mental health programs in the states from where these people live in. Are these mental health programs up to par, and if so, how can they be made more affordable or more available to those who need them? In every case, we can pretty much figure that there was something badly wrong, with the person who committed these acts. What if this person had been treated for his issues? I know, who's to say he wasn't, but I think this is where people need to focus on first before entertaining changing our First Amendment Rights.

Here's the issue with your analogy. Vehicles and Booze have primary uses. When not used, as intended, then they can have negative consequeneces. However, their value, especially that of a vehicle, is very important in our culture and society. Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.

I say we take a note from Australia. In 1996 they had a massacre, and they reacted by banning all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. After the ban Australia saw a 59% drop in firearm homicide and a 65% drop in firearm suicide. More importantly, they saw no increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. That is real world evidence that banning assault weapons lower the murder and suicide rates in the area affected.

No one is saying that a gun ban will eliminate gun violence. It will put a hamper on crimes that are not premeditated and make it more difficult to get the type of guns that can cause massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time, especially without red flags being raised. The gun ban is certainly no silver bullet type of situation, but it is one of many steps that can greatly reduce the amount of violence we face in this country in addition to more money spent on preventitive mental health care.

Link: Did gun control work in Australia? (Has links to studies built in)

[RedskinRat]

If I use my Glock to chase off intruders I have used it defensively. No one has been killed.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

That's funny

What's funny about it? It's evident you (and others) are trolling at this point. Why you say?

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The pro gun crowd doesn't have answers. Some even seem to ignore the alarming stats that point to a serious problem. I cannot fathom how they don't find concern with the sheer amount of guns owned in the country. If guns aren't he problem...or a part of it...then what is?

We don't have answers, yet not a single one of you have acknowledge what I posted with any sincerity. Not one. Yet the evidence is OVERWHELMING that it plays a huge part in why we have mass murderers, yet...the answer is always......BAN THIS/REGULATE THAT.


How about we address the real problems at hand. Mental health and media. They play more of a factor here than do the availability of guns. These people are doing this merely for the attention it will bring to them once they are gone.

[NC_Skins]

Chinese teenager kills 8 people, wounds 5 in knife attack - Yahoo! News


LETS REGULATE KNIVES!!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Here's the issue with your analogy. Vehicles and Booze have primary uses. When not used, as intended, then they can have negative consequeneces. However, their value, especially that of a vehicle, is very important in our culture and society. Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.

I say we take a note from Australia. In 1996 they had a massacre, and they reacted by banning all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. After the ban Australia saw a 59% drop in firearm homicide and a 65% drop in firearm suicide. More importantly, they saw no increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. That is real world evidence that banning assault weapons lower the murder and suicide rates in the area affected.

No one is saying that a gun ban will eliminate gun violence. It will put a hamper on crimes that are not premeditated and make it more difficult to get the type of guns that can cause massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time, especially without red flags being raised. The gun ban is certainly no silver bullet type of situation, but it is one of many steps that can greatly reduce the amount of violence we face in this country in addition to more money spent on preventitive mental health care.

Link: Did gun control work in Australia? (Has links to studies built in)

It had also dropped that much prior to the bann so what does that prove.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Reduce them?
How?
Which kind?
How many?

Good questions

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

If someone owns 1,000 firearms and never abuses them why should they be limited?

Wrong-headed thinking.

Who said they should?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Who said they should?

You did:

FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them."

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.

Saying guns have one purpose, killing, is kinda like saying cars have one purpose, to crash at the highest speeds possible. I doubt the guns the CT shooter used, were bought to massacre people at an elementary school.

Guns are bought for hunting, target practice, self defence (which most owners would tell you they hope never involves actually shooting), and collections. The guns bought for killing, by individuals, gangs, cartels, are a subset of that, like the kids who buy cars based on 0-60 times are a subset of all car owners.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Chinese teenager kills 8 people, wounds 5 in knife attack - Yahoo! News


LETS REGULATE KNIVES!!

Fists are next.

Hands and feet kill twice as many people per year than "assault weapons" do.
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Saying guns have one purpose, killing, is kinda like saying cars have one purpose, to crash at the highest speeds possible. I doubt the guns the CT shooter used, were bought to massacre people at an elementary school.

Guns are bought for hunting, target practice, self defence (which most owners would tell you they hope never involves actually shooting), and collections. The guns bought for killing, by individuals, gangs, cartels, are a subset of that, like the kids who buy cars based on 0-60 times are a subset of all car owners.

Exactly!
My guns have only one purpose too, to make holes in paper at 100 and 50 yards. To say that their only purpose is to kill is pretty foolish.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You did:

FRPLG: ".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately the fact that we own so many guns in this country is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively reducing them but we do need to reduce them."

Now you're making stuff up. Nowhere did I say limit them for a person. Nowhere. Pro gunners have this reflexive habit about them it seems. Every discussion of violence and guns gets them super defensive. Perhaps discussing and creating positive discourse would be more helpful than just assuming that if someone doesn't think guns are the greatest they must think we should outlaw them.

Again...our society has an astonishing amount of guns. I believe this is an indicator that deserves attention. What does it indicate? Not totally sure. I'm less concerned about how easy it is to get guns. I'm more concerned that it is so prevalent.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

How about we address the real problems at hand. Mental health and media. They play more of a factor here than do the availability of guns. These people are doing this merely for the attention it will bring to them once they are gone.

I actually very much agree with you. We have a cultural problem that promotes this behavior. I do strongly believe the amount of guns in this country is also indicative of this societal problem as well.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Now you're making stuff up. Nowhere did I say limit them for a person. Nowhere. Pro gunners have this reflexive habit about them it seems. Every discussion of violence and guns gets them super defensive. Perhaps discussing and creating positive discourse would be more helpful than just assuming that if someone doesn't think guns are the greatest they must think we should outlaw them.

Again...our society has an astonishing amount of guns. I believe this is an indicator that deserves attention. What does it indicate? Not totally sure. I'm less concerned about how easy it is to get guns. I'm more concerned that it is so prevalent.

You say there are too many but you dont explain what that means.
You say that there is too much.
How can you expect that not to be taken as per person?