Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Missing the point really. Maybe we need to talk about how guns make it easier to kill than other weapons. Its quicker, more painless and efficient. You are pressing a trigger from yards away...kinda makes it easier to desensitize yourself.

It's a combination of capacity and easy of doing significant harm.

Why not make holes in paper using an air rifle or something? Why does it have to be bullets? If your answer is because I can, feels good, murica, etc. then I can't talk to you.

I'll agree with the first things but the last makes no sense. Killing is killing and a bullets impact is not a pretty site most of the time.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

It doesnt have to a "bullet", but thats what I choose.
I'm doing somehting quite harmless. And quite legal.

Just because its legal doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be. Not a valid retort IMO. We are debating the validity of existing and possible future legislation.

[hooskins]

Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Piers Morgan really can be a POS. Not Bill Maher level, but a real dick. Its like Rush or Bill, from the other side.

Exactly how he came across. Rush or Bill from the other side. Lol.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts

It's a valid argument that can be applied to anything.

Originally Posted by hooskins

I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

Rogue states are the problem, not the weapons themselves. If you can't see that this may not be the discussion for you. When was the last time we had nuclear ordinance activate and kill without human intervention?

Originally Posted by hooskins

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.

WTF is high ammo? What's the difference between a high capacity magazine and multiple 5 round magazines? A few seconds is all. Go to any range and watch people drill on mag changes.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

We're never taking all guns off the street. That's not gonna happen. How could we even do it?

I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I disagree, not surprisingly. Guns are not going to magically disappear, we have to find a way to identify a potential abuser and stop them. It always seems that there are plenty of people after the fact that will attest to 'creepy eyes' or extremely anti-social behavior yet the amount of intervention by society in general and mental health professionals in particular is lacking.

There will always be a way to create a sensationalized event, using poison, explosives, even interfering with a freeway or railroad track.

If only we had Skynet's behavioral prediction model to help...... j/K

We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.

I am not familiar with that exercise. When did that happen?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.

And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by hooskins

And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people!

Selected by the finest judges in the U.K. FACT!

[skinsguy]

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.un control work in Australia?

Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL!

[Alvin Walton]

Nancy Pelosi wants your assault magazines. (whatever that is)

Nancy Pelosi: In California 'You Can Have Three...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Actually the study which claimed that homicide rates in Australia dropped prior to the Aussie gun ban has been debunked as a false put-on created by the gun lobby.

This source says homcide rates were droping.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.




Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.



Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL!

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
Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This source says homcide rates were droping.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf

Or try this source from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...pring_2011.pdf

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.