Gun Reform?

[rev0lver]

Again, I'm not for a gun ban. But there is seriously an astounding lack of logic and research in these arguments (from both sides)....

- Where are people getting the idea that these shooters would just get their guns illegally if they were banned? Does anyone seriously think a sheltered nerdy looking suburban white kid or a fanatical neuroscience student would have the connections to get guns off the black market?

- The British violent crime rate is often cited here. The problem here is that "violent crime" has no set international definition. The criteria for that is looser there than in other countries.

- Other countries aren't scared to fight us because our citizens have guns. They're scared to fight us because we have dozens of nuclear weapons.

- Defending ourselves from tyranny is a silly argument. Maybe not 200 years ago, but in the modern age yes. Our political and legal system is such that it couldn't happen, at least not nearly to the extent that we would need to fight them. Our government is made of citizens who we are able to vote in and out of office. In the extremely unlikely event that someone would ascend to the presidency and starts commanding the military to massacre civilians or something, he would be immediately thrown out. I think people watch too many movies.

- If for some odd reason we decide to institute authoritarianism just for kicks, lbsh, we would still get bodied even if everyone had guns. The days of muskets and bayonets is over. Now we have drone strikes.

- Responsible gun owners exist in bigger numbers than irresponsible gun owners. No one's trying to compare a father who wants to protect his family with the VA Tech shooter. That being said, the gun lobbyists in America are preventing us from dealing with those irresponsible gun owners, and it's tougher to add laws preventing psychopaths from getting guns than it is to let two men marry. The pro-gun people need to realize this. Not everyone wants to take everyone's guns away, we just want to make things safer.

- Gun bans won't conceivably work with the way American culture is. With the number of guns we have out there, we would only prevent the purchase of more guns. We can't pretend we can find all the guns already out there and throw them away.

- It's easy to say guns should be illegal when you're in an area without people with illegal guns. Perspective always needs to be taken into account.

 

[rev0lver]

In New York they are now talking about banning 10 round magazines (they aren't called clips by the way). So once you give into the "who needs 30 round magazines" argument. Then it becomes "who needs 10 rounds for hunting" Governor Cuomo just said this literally in a speech last week. They want 7 round magazines in NY now.

That seems like a pretty reasonable change. 3 less rounds could potentially be 3 people still alive if someone chooses to go on a shooting spree, and it's pretty unlikely that you'd need more than 7 if you're not going around trying to kill people.

The slippery slope argument is never a good argument though. Because someone doesn't think 10 rounds is necessary doesn't mean they will keep going down until there's nothing.

What if I said "They're taking two strips of bacon off the baconator?????? Soon the baconator will have no bacon!" or "Video game prices are going up $5?????? In just a few years they could be a billion dollars!"

 

[LesMore]

Reading comment's... doing some thinking... and into my head popped: Google baby with a gun. So I did...

 

[Zoidberg747]

Again, I'm not for a gun ban. But there is seriously an astounding lack of logic and research in these arguments (from both sides)....

- Where are people getting the idea that these shooters would just get their guns illegally if they were banned? Does anyone seriously think a sheltered nerdy looking suburban white kid or a fanatical neuroscience student would have the connections to get guns off the black market?

- The British violent crime rate is often cited here. The problem here is that "violent crime" has no set international definition. The criteria for that is looser there than in other countries.

- Other countries aren't scared to fight us because our criminals have guns. They're scared to fight us because we have dozens of nuclear weapons.

- Defending ourselves from tyranny is a silly argument. Maybe not 200 years ago, but in the modern age yes. Our political and legal system is such that it couldn't happen, at least not nearly to the extent that we would need to fight them. Our government is made of citizens who we are able to vote in and out of office. In the extremely unlikely event that someone would ascend to the presidency and starts commanding the military to massacre civilians or something, he would be immediately thrown out. I think people watch too many movies.

- If for some odd reason we decide to institute authoritarianism just for kicks, lbsh, we would still get bodied even if everyone had guns. The days of muskets and bayonets is over. Now we have drone strikes.

- Responsible gun owners exist in bigger numbers than irresponsible gun owners. No one's trying to compare a father who wants to protect his family with the VA Tech shooter. That being said, the gun lobbyists in America are preventing us from dealing with those irresponsible gun owners, and it's tougher to add laws preventing psychopaths from getting guns than it is to let two men marry. The pro-gun people need to realize this. Not everyone wants to take everyone's guns away, we just want to make things safer.

- Gun bans won't conceivably work with the way American culture is. With the number of guns we have out there, we would only prevent the purchase of more guns. We can't pretend we can find all the guns already out there and throw them away.

- It's easy to say guns should be illegal when you're in an area without people with illegal guns. Perspective always needs to be taken into account.

All very good points.

Also the more I think about it an assault rifles ban is not a smart idea. I think if we just up restrictions and reform the gun purchasing system that problem will solve itself.

Then again if we just prevent any more assault rifles from being acquired and let those who already legally have them keep them I wouldnt be against that.

 

[Mr. Mileena]

This is true, criminals will find away around it, and obtain assault rifles, but wouldn't you want harsher punishment for criminals who owned those guns? I mean, a person is just as capable of shooting a criminal with a pistol\shotgun\rifle than somebody with an assault rifle.

The fact they are limiting high capacity magazines is because who actually needs 30+ rounds a clip if you're not using your gun recreationally? Nobody.

We are a militia, not a vigilante group.

How will we ever find out when a criminal has an assult rifle? More than likely (if they ever become illegal for good), users who disobey the law will have to with the intent to kill with it, at which point the punishment won't be for possessing an assult rifle, it will be murder (mass murder, etc) yet again.

I understand that a handgun alone is enough to protect you from a home invasion etc.

 

[LEGEND]

Again, I'm not for a gun ban. But there is seriously an astounding lack of logic and research in these arguments (from both sides)....

- Where are people getting the idea that these shooters would just get their guns illegally if they were banned? Does anyone seriously think a sheltered nerdy looking suburban white kid or a fanatical neuroscience student would have the connections to get guns off the black market?

- The British violent crime rate is often cited here. The problem here is that "violent crime" has no set international definition. The criteria for that is looser there than in other countries.

- Other countries aren't scared to fight us because our citizens have guns. They're scared to fight us because we have dozens of nuclear weapons.

- Defending ourselves from tyranny is a silly argument. Maybe not 200 years ago, but in the modern age yes. Our political and legal system is such that it couldn't happen, at least not nearly to the extent that we would need to fight them. Our government is made of citizens who we are able to vote in and out of office. In the extremely unlikely event that someone would ascend to the presidency and starts commanding the military to massacre civilians or something, he would be immediately thrown out. I think people watch too many movies.

- If for some odd reason we decide to institute authoritarianism just for kicks, lbsh, we would still get bodied even if everyone had guns. The days of muskets and bayonets is over. Now we have drone strikes.

- Responsible gun owners exist in bigger numbers than irresponsible gun owners. No one's trying to compare a father who wants to protect his family with the VA Tech shooter. That being said, the gun lobbyists in America are preventing us from dealing with those irresponsible gun owners, and it's tougher to add laws preventing psychopaths from getting guns than it is to let two men marry. The pro-gun people need to realize this. Not everyone wants to take everyone's guns away, we just want to make things safer.

- Gun bans won't conceivably work with the way American culture is. With the number of guns we have out there, we would only prevent the purchase of more guns. We can't pretend we can find all the guns already out there and throw them away.

- It's easy to say guns should be illegal when you're in an area without people with illegal guns. Perspective always needs to be taken into account.

That seems like a pretty reasonable change. 3 less rounds could potentially be 3 people still alive if someone chooses to go on a shooting spree, and it's pretty unlikely that you'd need more than 7 if you're not going around trying to kill people.

The slippery slope argument is never a good argument though. Because someone doesn't think 10 rounds is necessary doesn't mean they will keep going down until there's nothing.

What if I said "They're taking two strips of bacon off the baconator?????? Soon the baconator will have no bacon!" or "Video game prices are going up $5?????? In just a few years they could be a billion dollars!"

Great posts

 

[GutiSapiens]

Guys, If it is so easy to solve a problem like this as to ban guns, then why don't we ban stupidity, and hatred, and violence, and homophobia and so on.... it is that easy right? right?

 

[Zoidberg747]

How will we ever find out when a criminal has an assult rifle? More than likely (if they ever become illegal for good), users who disobey the law will have to with the intent to kill with it, at which point the punishment won't be for possessing an assult rifle, it will be murder (mass murder, etc) yet again.

I understand that a handgun alone is enough to protect you from a home invasion etc.

I have already covered this in a previous post

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

I don't know about you, but I see plenty of solutions to those 3 issues.

1. Restrictions on gun dealers including records of gun inventory and guns sold, and SEVERE penalties for "Missing guns".
2. Background checks and tighter restrictions on who can buy them. If you have background checks and tons of paperwork to buy guns, people are not going to go through all the trouble if they don't actually want the guns themselves.
3. Again, background checks. Also, I honestly would not mind seeing gun shows being made illegal. I find them extremely stupid and adding to the problem. But that might not be fair and cause political backlash, so requiring all gun shows to do background checks is a more fair option.

 

[GutiSapiens]

Again, I'm not for a gun ban. But there is seriously an astounding lack of logic and research in these arguments (from both sides)....

- Where are people getting the idea that these shooters would just get their guns illegally if they were banned? Does anyone seriously think a sheltered nerdy looking suburban white kid or a fanatical neuroscience student would have the connections to get guns off the black market?

It is easier than you think, even as to build a bomb with everyday items. But I agree that it would be more difficult

- The British violent crime rate is often cited here. The problem here is that "violent crime" has no set international definition. The criteria for that is looser there than in other countries.

Agreed

- Other countries aren't scared to fight us because our citizens have guns. They're scared to fight us because we have dozens of nuclear weapons.

100% agreed

- Defending ourselves from tyranny is a silly argument. Maybe not 200 years ago, but in the modern age yes. Our political and legal system is such that it couldn't happen, at least not nearly to the extent that we would need to fight them. Our government is made of citizens who we are able to vote in and out of office. In the extremely unlikely event that someone would ascend to the presidency and starts commanding the military to massacre civilians or something, he would be immediately thrown out. I think people watch too many movies.

It is not silly to defend ourselves from tyranny, maybe not tyranny as the government killing people, but stealing from people of course!! look at Hugo Chávez! look up the 'corralito' in Argentina

- If for some odd reason we decide to institute authoritarianism just for kicks, lbsh, we would still get bodied even if everyone had guns. The days of muskets and bayonets is over. Now we have drone strikes.

Agreed

- Responsible gun owners exist in bigger numbers than irresponsible gun owners. No one's trying to compare a father who wants to protect his family with the VA Tech shooter. That being said, the gun lobbyists in America are preventing us from dealing with those irresponsible gun owners, and it's tougher to add laws preventing psychopaths from getting guns than it is to let two men marry. The pro-gun people need to realize this. Not everyone wants to take everyone's guns away, we just want to make things safer.

Agreed

- Gun bans won't conceivably work with the way American culture is. With the number of guns we have out there, we would only prevent the purchase of more guns. We can't pretend we can find all the guns already out there and throw them away.

Agreed


- It's easy to say guns should be illegal when you're in an area without people with illegal guns. Perspective always needs to be taken into account.

 

[Zoidberg747]

Guys, If it is so easy to solve a problem like this as to ban guns, then why don't we ban stupidity, and hatred, and violence, and homophobia and so on.... it is that easy right? right?

Banning an idea is almost always impossible, because it is an IDEA.

Banning a physical object is entirely possible. Homophobia is not the same thing as an assault rifle.

The closest things we have to what you describe are hate crimes, which make a more severe punishment for those who admit to having racial or homophobic motives in serious crimes.

 

[GutiSapiens]

Banning an idea is almost always impossible, because it is an IDEA.

Banning a physical object is entirely possible. Homophobia is not the same thing as an assault rifle.

The closest things we have to what you describe are hate crimes, which make a more severe punishment for those who admit to having racial or homophobic motives in serious crimes.

It has been tried to ban objects, Alcohol was 'banned', and Al Capone rose (along many others of course), drugs are 'banned' and el Chapo Guzmán rose (along many many many others), 'ban' guns and a lot of people will rise. And I use quotations because they were legally banned but people could easily get their hands on it.

 

[Zoidberg747]

It has been tried to ban objects, Alcohol was 'banned', and Al Capone rose (along many others of course), drugs are 'banned' and el Chapo Guzmán rose (along many many many others), 'ban' guns and a lot of people will rise. And I use quotations because they were legally banned but people could easily get their hands on it.

See my post in response to Mr. Mileena. Most of the common ways guns are obtained illegally can be limited by placing tighter restrictions on gun dealers and their customers.

 

[rev0lver]

It is not silly to defend ourselves from tyranny, maybe not tyranny as the government killing people, but stealing from people of course!! look at Hugo Chávez! look up the 'corralito' in Argentina

I actually like Hugo Chavez, but that's another discussion. Their political system isn't like ours though. He has far more power there than our legal system would allow.

It is easier than you think, even as to build a bomb with everyday items. But I agree that it would be more difficult

I live in New York City and I wouldn't even know where to start if I wanted illegal weapons like that. The bomb thing is true, but considering they would cause a greater death toll than guns, I think there are reasons mass shootings are more common. For example, targeting a specific person/people, being able to see the people getting shot (unless it's a suicide thing, but most shooters planned to survive or have a shootout with police), and less room for error.

 

[GutiSapiens]

See my post in response to Mr. Mileena. Most of the common ways guns are obtained illegally can be limited by placing tighter restrictions on gun dealers and their customers.

The same could be said as for drugs now and alcohol in the 30s.... I still could get my hands on a marihuana (cigarette? dubie?) any day I want, I still could call a hooker any day a want. 'Banning' is not the way to solve problems. And would you prefer to have legal vendors or people like El chapo guzmán and Al capone ?

 

[Zoidberg747]

The same could be said as for drugs now and alcohol in the 30s.... I still could get my hands on a marihuana (cigarette? dubie?) any day I want, I still could call a hooker any day a want. 'Banning' is not the way to solve problems. And would you prefer to have legal vendors or people like El chapo guzmán and Al capone ?

I actually said nothing about banning, Ive been saying this whole time that the main focus should be tightening restrictions and reforming the gun purchase system and record keeping of firearms sales.

Also marijuana can not be used to kill people, and neither can hookers(Unlesss she will really do ANYTHING)

 

[GutiSapiens]

I actually like Hugo Chavez, but that's another discussion. Their political system isn't like ours though. He has far more power there than our legal system would allow.

Wow ok, that's another discussion, but I agree with the fact that your political system wouldn't allow a Chavez-like figure, presidents still can steal from people through obscene amounts of corruption, I believe that is tyranny, but maybe we are talking semantics. And seriously check out corralito, maybe not now but I think you would find it interesting

I live in New York City and I wouldn't even know where to start if I wanted illegal weapons like that. The bomb thing is true, but considering they would cause a greater death toll than guns, I think there are reasons mass shootings are more common. For example, targeting a specific person/people, being able to see the people getting shot (unless it's a suicide thing, but most shooters planned to survive or have a shootout with police), and less room for error.

Crazy people like the ones that do mass shootings usually spend a lot of time in shady places (virtual online places) like the Onion webbrowser or whatever its called, I have checked it out and having guns delivered to your house is actually very easy that way. The surviving thing is true, although the las guy at sandy hook killed himself right?

 

[Juggs]

Prohibition has never, and will never "work". I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done, but banishment won't solve the problem, it will just create more. See, the prohibition era.

 

[GutiSapiens]

I actually said nothing about banning, Ive been saying this whole time that the main focus should be tightening restrictions and reforming the gun purchase system and record keeping of firearms sales.

Look I'm not saying cross your arms and do nothing, but banning and restricting never have and will never work.

Also marijuana can not be used to kill people, and neither can hookers(Unlesss she will really do ANYTHING)

Marijuana no, but crack incites violence, same as alcohol. Knives,chainsaws, houndreds of chemical compounds that create venoms and explotions?? and the hooker part: lol

 

[Zoidberg747]

Look I'm not saying cross your arms and do nothing, but banning and restricting never have and will never work.


Marijuana no, but crack incites violence, same as alcohol. Knives,chainsaws, houndreds of chemical compounds that create venoms and explotions?? and the hooker part: lol

Restrictions can and will do something.

If you make everyone that purchases a firearm go through an extensive background check and mental health check, that will more than likely eliminate straw purchasers because it becomes too much effort(The friend that bought the two columbine killers gun for them said they would not have done it had the dealer required a background check)

But yeah a ban wont do much probably.

 

[BillStickers]

Again, I'm not for a gun ban. But there is seriously an astounding lack of logic and research in these arguments (from both sides)....

- Gun bans won't conceivably work with the way American culture is. With the number of guns we have out there, we would only prevent the purchase of more guns. We can't pretend we can find all the guns already out there and throw them away.

You can make buyback laws and create requirements for lost and stolen firearms. Firearms databases exist for a reason.

 

[BlaqandMild15]

The main issue I have is when people defend assault rifles or semi-assault rifles.I have no problem with people owning handguns because they are the most suitable for self-defense.If someone is breaking into my house in the middle of the night,why would I want to go through the hassle of using a bulky rifle over a simple more efficient handgun?Besides,when people defend them by saying''well handguns would be more deadly in public shootings anyway.''then why would ya'll still want assault or semi-assaults?

 

[rev0lver]

You can make buyback laws and create requirements for lost and stolen firearms. Firearms databases exist for a reason.

No one can prove that your gun wasn't lost or stolen. Buyback would get some but if someone really wants to keep their guns they won't bother.

 

[187x]

 

[The Green Machine]

Reading comment's... doing some thinking... and into my head popped: Google baby with a gun. So I did...

Dad gets shot by kid, he unfortunately died.
but i mean if you're that stupid you deserve it, probably.

 

[BillStickers]

No one can prove that your gun wasn't lost or stolen. Buyback would get some but if someone really wants to keep their guns they won't bother.

So people are just going to keep guns in their family with no access to legal ammunition and no legal way to use the firearm? In that case, keep the buyback open indefinitely, add every person with a reported lost or stolen weapon to a federal watch list, and impose huge penalty enhancements (much like hate crime laws) to any crimes involving firearms. At a certain point, the money incentive will win out over being a criminal.