Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Feb 1, '13 at 8:27pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

'm just brainstorming here, but: To own and drive a car, which is much more essential to daily living than a gun in modern society, there are all kinds of requirement that ensure everyone is capable of at least maintaining a minimum level of knowledge, ability, and responsibility. 

That minimum is still, imo, far too low. As evidenced by the tens of thousands of accidents every year.

If these safety and responsibility measures were put in place it would probably reduce gun accidents and illegal guns in the hands of criminals, but still allow people who follow the rules to have their guns.

Might I ask, what is the reason anyone opposes this? Guns are not toys. Anyone who thinks they should be able to walk down the street and buy a gun does not have the right mindset. They are potentially lethal weapons. They should not be laying around the house, in reach of anyone. They shouldn't be stored with the ammo, and they shouldn't be played around with. If you don't take care of it properly, it can even malfunction.

If you want to own a gun, you should be educated on all that I mentioned and more.

 

Posted Feb 2, '13 at 7:37am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

One issue that people are aware of, it is just another small step towards more dismantling of the Bill of Rights. The problem with trying to compromise with these some of these legislators is that they have down right said, on record, that their goal is to disarm America. And it blows my mind that people either refuse to acknowledge that fact or that when presented with that truth they just shrug their shoulders and say nothing.

Although, you can't simple educate people who refuse to acknowledge the facts that are put before them. The information is out there, but.....what I really think it is, most people are afraid. They see the "writing on the wall" and by shoving fingers in their ears and turning their back to the issues that it will somehow a. just get better. b. won't effect them.

Sure background checks are great. Making sure a felon cannot purchase a weapon is a great tool to deter violence. But this issue that people don't want to hear over and over (although its true and valid) is that said felon can still obtain a weapon some way, some how. The best way to defend yourself, so you are not powerless against an aggressor, is to arm yourself one way or another. It again, blows my mind that people think laws are going to stop a criminal that is consciously making the decision to break the law.

But therein lies the problem that people who study history and know that history repeats itself. It is these small measures that are obviously over stepping their bounds, are going to eventually lead to a breaking point. It is coming (that's the bad news) but it is coming slowly (that's the silver lining).
----
I was going to type this rather long couple of paragraphs. But why? People have already made their minds up. No one here is going to convince anyone otherwise.

The best I can say is open your minds and look past what you have been taught and seek knowledge yourself. Stop listening to that garbage CNN and FOX. Start listening/reading to some alternative news sources and you will begin to really see the poo-storm America is in for. Ask questions for yourself and don't carelessly throw out the answers that you may not like.

In closing, the absolute greatest mistake anyone can make, is to believe that "it cannot happen to me."

Tin hats, all kinds of them, all sizes of the, you can buy them online now at www.tinhatnutjob.com, hurry and get yourself a tin hat, 10% of profits will go to cheeseburge organization and NRA.
If buy a tin hat before 1st match you get 50% discount.
TIN HATS, AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED.

 

Posted Feb 2, '13 at 5:16pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

Tin hats, all kinds of them, all sizes of the, you can buy them online now at www.tinhatnutjob.com, hurry and get yourself a tin hat, 10% of profits will go to cheeseburge organization and NRA.
If buy a tin hat before 1st match you get 50% discount.
TIN HATS, AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED.

lol I was hoping that was an actual link

 

Posted Feb 6, '13 at 3:51pm

zeus999

zeus999

34 posts

"it cannot happen to me."

...said the people who buy guns for safety and protection despite the reality that guns in the home are more likely to shoot the residents (gun owner and family) or friends they know than an attacker/intruder/potential rapist/burglar/hamburglar/ninja/pirate/oscar the grouch/assassin/zombie.
Homes with guns are more likely to have homicides and ER trips due to gun shot wounds (both on purpose and "accidental").Fun fact did you know homes with dirt bikes are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.

Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.

 

Posted Feb 6, '13 at 4:56pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,997 posts

Knight

Did you know home with dirt bikes in them are more likely to have dirt bike accidents.

What an idiotic thing to say. Accidents can happen with nearly everything, homicides however usually not. To add with that, the purpose of a gun at home is most often for self-defence, so it kinda doesn't make sense if it actually increases the risks, which it does.

 

Posted Feb 6, '13 at 4:59pm

Squidbears

Squidbears

652 posts

Not to mention dirt bikes aren't a tool made for the sole purpose to maim or kill. Guns are tools with death in mind.

 

Posted Feb 7, '13 at 2:04am

PauseBreak

PauseBreak

310 posts

I'm sorry my reply is so late. I don't get a lot of time on the computer much anymore so hopefully I can reply, if needed, to this one in a more timely matter.

Tin hats, all kinds of them, all sizes of the, you can buy them online now at www.tinhatnutjob.com, hurry and get yourself a tin hat, 10% of profits will go to cheeseburge organization and NRA.
If buy a tin hat before 1st match you get 50% discount.
TIN HATS, AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED.

What do I even make of that? The tragedy here is you think you have a compelling argument. (Or whatever you want to call that) Honestly, its the people like you that are so ignorant and full of bias that you think you are funny? Or clever?

At least the two past posters had an argument. Whether or not I agree with all of it is another story. But you. Seriously. And you think people are going to have a serious conversation with you?

I'm trying to tell people that America is shifting in a direction that people from Soviet states are warning is happening here. And you laugh at it? I'm done with you.
------

Getoffmydangle,

You have to understand, with your logic people cut themselves (and severely at times) with kitchen knives. You would want to ban knives because of a small percentage of accidents?

I do think you are very wrong on this. Many people own guns but only a very small percentage of those gun owners hurt themselves. You are picking out a very small group of people to push an idea.
Accidents are not justifications to ban or limit non-criminals. You cannot protect people from themselves unless you want ultimate control over people....whats that called?

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you don't have much life experience and live in some theoretical world. - How do you stop a criminal with a gun? Words? Smiles? Harsh language to piss him/her off more? Rainbows? None of the above. You disarm the threat with a weapon of equal or greater value.

Its silly to think that someone is more safe without a device to defend themselves with against people who wish to do harm. Your logic on that issue is really illogical. What keeps actors, performers, the president, and other VIP's safe? Armed guards.

Those people in Sandy's path need housing, food, and supplies, and perhaps to not be living at sea-level, but not more guns.

How is someone suppose to protect their home and their possessions from robbery and or a mob? Have you seen the Katrina photo's of the mobs just looting and raiding private business and personal homes? Do you really think the police have time and effort to protect every single house? Of course not.

Honestly, the rest of your argument suggests that you want to protect the criminal. Stop protecting the criminals!

Then you just have a bunch of homeless, shelterless, disaster-struck, desperate, hungry people with guns.

Because they can't use knives? Because they can't use baseball bats? Because they can't use their own hands? Your bad logic is bad.

I think your bias is really strong, just like mine. So we are not going to come to an understanding on this issue.

 

Posted Feb 7, '13 at 2:34am

PauseBreak

PauseBreak

310 posts

Kasic

Making policy to determine safe usage is not dismantling freedom or the bill of rights.

In a way it is and in a way it isn't. Again, I will state, you have to look at who is leading the charge here. And again I will tell you, its the same people who have been quoted that they would disarm America in a heartbeat.

Criminals who have felonies don't have the right to own a weapon. That's because they went through Due Process to have their rights removed. Doctors and therapists do not have the right to take rights away that Obama think they should. "Report your friends and family to the proper authorities." I wonder where the world has heard that before......

More strict gun control means there's less guns out there for criminals to get a hold of, and still doesn't take away people's rights to own a weapon.

Because banning alcohol worked? Right? Because banning Meth and Crack from off the streets helped? Right?
Because the ban of guns in Chicago didn't make them the country leader in homicides? Right?

Sandy Hook's State had the most strict gun controls in the country. That didn't stop the shooter from stealing the guns and killing children did it?

You mean having more in-depth background checks, to make sure people who want to own guns aren't going to go on a rampage, even if it's a very small amount that actually do so?

Have you even bought a gun? Do you know what background checks are required? I do. The background check, checks if you have a criminal background. That's it. Its not a future telling device that will say whether someone will go nuts. How can you even tell what the future holds? What kind of in-depth "background check" is going to fix that? Seriously. Think about that one for a second considering our Sandy Hook shooter was denied gun purchases. But guess what, he was still able to get a hold of weapons by stealing them from someone else. Namely, his mother. Who he also murdered.

So you might argue that his mother should not have guns. Ok. How far in the family line should a gun ban go if someone in the related family has mental issues? Uncles and aunts? Cousins? My point is, you can't tell who is going to just wake up one morning and go on a shooting spree. Its better to be prepared (and don't ever confuse prepare with paranoia) for these situations than post some stupid little signs that criminals/nut jobs give two effs about.

You mean making it so that weapons, which were made for war, are not so common it's extremely easy to get a hold of one?

See, this is where you lost me. You assume that a big bad black gun that is MISNAMED an assault rifle is somehow on the calibre of what the army issues. An assault rifle is automatic. You cannot just go to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, or a gun show and buy automatic weapons.
People don't have tanks. People don't have mortar systems. People don't have bombs or nukes. Obviously, its not so easy to get a hold of a "weapon of war".

Owning a gun is not necessarily being prepared for bad things in life, nor is it impossible to be prepared without owning a gun.

I absolutely agree with this. A gun isn't the be-all end-all to the worlds problems. But it can keep people safe but please, do not coddle criminals.

 

Posted Feb 7, '13 at 9:22am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Again, I will state, you have to look at who is leading the charge here. And again I will tell you, its the same people who have been quoted that they would disarm America in a heartbeat.

I don't think it matters who thinks what, so long as the proper things get done and it stops at the right time, even if they want to keep pressing it back. I would agree with racist bible thumpers on the right for them to have their own religion without persecution, but I wouldn't follow them off the cliff of insanity and prejudice when they want to keep going and make it illegal for anyone else to have a different religion. Hitch your wagon to the horse that's willing to work and jump ship before it drags you under.

Criminals who have felonies don't have the right to own a weapon. That's because they went through Due Process to have their rights removed. Doctors and therapists do not have the right to take rights away that Obama think they should. "Report your friends and family to the proper authorities." I wonder where the world has heard that before......

As far as I am aware, doctors and therapists do not have that right right, as you said. However, with the executive order Obama issued (wasn't it ruled unconstitutional anyways? I haven't been paying too close attention) doctors could report people who they believed were dangerous and had access to firearms. That is nothing like what you said.

Because banning alcohol worked? Right? Because banning Meth and Crack from off the streets helped? Right?

It did reduce the amount. It just increased the proportion of illegal activities because such activities were then called illegal. Of course it didn't stop it. I've said as much many times in this thread, banning guns does not make them disappear. I do not advocate a ban, I advocate more strict procedures to help limit the amount of guns available, and more measures taken to secure illegal firearms.

Because the ban of guns in Chicago didn't make them the country leader in homicides? Right?

You'll have to prove that it was the banning of guns which caused the homicide rate. I am not well versed in that area, but it seems far more reasonable to me that Chicago banned guns because of their high homicide rate. Opposite cause and effect.

Sandy Hook's State had the most strict gun controls in the country. That didn't stop the shooter from stealing the guns and killing children did it?

Quote me where I've said I think people shouldn't have guns. I have said exactly the opposite many times. Trained people carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, help prevent things like that. I have said this before. I've long thought it stupid that security guards at schools are armed with at most a taser.

Have you even bought a gun?

No.

Do you know what background checks are required? I do. The background check, checks if you have a criminal background. That's it.

That's the problem. It doesn't check for a whole host of other things which it should. Would you sell the materials for a bomb to someone without a criminal record? Even if they just said they want to blow up some snowmen for lols and Youtube videos? No, at least not without further proof that they won't end up hurting someone through ignorance, rashness, or anger.

Its not a future telling device that will say whether someone will go nuts.

Obviously not, since the people who go nuts are buying guns beforehand with the current system.

How can you even tell what the future holds? What kind of in-depth "background check" is going to fix that? Seriously.

If someone had been in say, (random figure) 6 car accidents over the course of 10 years of driving, I would say they are a fairly careless person. Unless the accidents were not their fault. If they are constantly being fired from jobs for harassment, anger issues, or similar things, they likely have a personality problem. That kind of in-depth background check. Plenty more could be added to the list, and while one thing alone may not be conclusive, I can sure as hell tell you right now, there are a lot of irresponsible idiots who own guns.

Think about that one for a second considering our Sandy Hook shooter was denied gun purchases. But guess what, he was still able to get a hold of weapons by stealing them from someone else. Namely, his mother. Who he also murdered.

His mother, who should have been aware of her child's mental problems. His mother, who should never have kept a gun anywhere where he could get to it. His mother, who was one of these irresponsible people I keep talking about over and over again. Would an in-depth background check have prevented him from stealing the gun somehow? Who knows. That's why I still advocate what I said earlier in regards to the shooting.

So you might argue that his mother should not have guns. Ok. How far in the family line should a gun ban go if someone in the related family has mental issues? Uncles and aunts? Cousins?

No. I have never said anything like that. My point was that she was irresponsible to allow her son to access the gun. I do not know where she kept it. Was it in a gun cabinet? Under her bed, or in a drawer? Locked in a safe? Hidden in the closet?

I do think that mental illnesses which are dangerous and hereditary should warrant an additional increase in scrutiny to require that they see a psychologist first to ensure they do not have said mental illness.

Not that autism is dangerous or causes violent tendencies anyways. Also, trust me in saying that I am not just prejudiced against people with a mental illness, as I have Aspergers, which is a form of high-functioning autism.

My point is, you can't tell who is going to just wake up one morning and go on a shooting spree.

Never said that you could.

Its better to be prepared (and don't ever confuse prepare with paranoia) for these situations than post some stupid little signs that criminals/nut jobs give two effs about.

Sure it is. Doesn't mean that we still shouldn't make sure people buying potentially lethal weapons aren't morons who have poor inhibition control.

See, this is where you lost me. You assume that a big bad black gun that is MISNAMED an assault rifle is somehow on the calibre of what the army issues. An assault rifle is automatic. You cannot just go to a sporting goods store, or gun shop, or a gun show and buy automatic weapons.

I'll admit I'm not well informed on exactly what laws are currently in relation to those details. I'm not against assault rifles because they're assault rifles, but because, from my knowledge, they are much more powerful, have a larger clip, and have a longer range than a pistol, in addition to automatic fire (unless modified otherwise).

 

Posted Feb 7, '13 at 7:03pm

zombinator2000

zombinator2000

34 posts

Though you can't prove that Chicago's gun bans made it the crime-festered city it is today by looking at a statistic, it is more than obvious that it did not help at all.
Insanity is trying the same thing under the same conditions over and over again, expecting the same results...

Just saying.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!