Gun control (and other oxymorons)

[Keleynal]

I agree with a lot of what bohrdog posted, but I still feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. All freedoms are restricted in a civil society. I don't have the freedom of speech to yell "Fire!" as a joke in a crowded theater. I don't have the freedom of religion to sacrifice children and animals.

Common sense says the right to bear arms should be regulated as well. I think most would agree that heavy machine guns and rocket launchers are over the line. I think ARs should be in that category a well.

 

[Topher]

I think most would agree that heavy machine guns and rocket launchers are over the line. I think ARs should be in that category a well.

Okay let's say this then. We ban all assault rifles, and we manage to get them all off the streets or what have you. Now that we have no automatic weapons the government decides to become a dictatorship, now this would include our armed forces as well. What can we do but kneel to our new overlords as we have only handguns and hunting rifles as a defense against hordes of men with automatic rifles?

 

[Topher]

I mean don't get me wrong. I feel really bad about what happened in Sandy Hook but as I pointed out not as many people were killed as in the Virgina Tech shooting that, again, was done with handguns.

 

[Keleynal]

Okay let's say this then. We ban all assault rifles, and we manage to get them all off the streets or what have you. Now that we have no automatic weapons the government decides to become a dictatorship, now this would include our armed forces as well. What can we do but kneel to our new overlords as we have only handguns and hunting rifles as a defense against hordes of men with automatic rifles?

What would we do with our automatic rifles against hordes of men with heavy machine guns, rocket launcers, grenade launchers, aircraft carriers, jets, and almost unlimited supply of ammunition and funding?

I think we shoud live our lives dealing with the reality at hand and not worrying about a "what if?" that is way far afield. We fortunately live in a country that has been very stable and doesn't show signs of collapsing into chaos any time soon. I have no doubt that America will one day stop exisitng as we know it, but I give another hundred years or so.

 

[Jia]

Coming from a different cultural background, I can't even begin to explain how alien this conversation feels to me. It seems as though people need guns for their own safety, much like some nations believe that they need atomic bombs to protect themselves from other countries that already have nuclear weapons. I can't help but think that nothing good will ever come of this.

 

[Red Omen]

Yeah, the mutually assured destruction of the '60s isn't exactly an ideal state of affairs.

Topher - no one is going to repeal the second amendment. The United States is not going to become a dictatorship. Restricting access to military-grade weapons like rocket launchers and assault rifles and stopping felons and the mentally ill from acquiring guns are things that even NRA members support. Nor is a Democrat as conservative as Obama has been going to make egregious anti-gun legislation.

Yes, assault weapons bans have been poorly written (banning components like barrel shrouds just because they look scary, etc.). It's also wrong to demonize the mentally disabled. But I'd prefer to take a thorough, evidence-based examination of the sources of gun violence - not just mass shootings, but also the far more common killings in poor urban areas - and address the merits and implications of acting on those conclusions. I'd also like to look at the methods of other countries that have been successful in curbing gun violence and apply some of those methods here. We can knock down straw men all day, but insisting that all our opponents have to say is "guns are bad"/"government is bad" won't bring us any closer to a viable solution.

 

[Bohrdog]

Is it the cars fault that a drunk driver ran over and killed someone? Is it the spoons fault that someone got fat? Stop blaming inanimate objects and look at the real reason...people. We don't need to ban this or that it wont work we need to help the people. Mental Health is one of the most underfunded medical issues in every state of the union. Till we fix the people you will never fix the problem and as long as the media flashes it all over the place like a score board some one will be looking for a way to beat the record.

 

[Red Omen]

Precisely my point.

 

[Razulian]

Just want to throw in here that if you shoot someone to protect yourself in Belgium you still can end up in jail. The cops need a really good lawyer if they don't want to end up in jail after they've shot someone.

I mean, if I stabbed someone who was trying to kill me, I might have to keep in mind not to drop the soap (though don't worry, getting raped by men in Belgian prisons don't occur that much because people get released really fast anyway. "The prisons are too full" is the usual excuse).

It's a bit harder than in America to get a gun here, still you can get one. But gotta say, if you want to shoot keep in mind that there's the possibility of you getting in jail.

God bless Belgiums laws.

EDIT: Rant in a rant lol

 

[greeneguy]

Jia- I pretty much agree with you. It's scary to me, too.

But coming from Colorado, we've been talking about this kind of thing for quite a few months now. We actually just had a new law come up saying that we are allowed to keep concealed weapons with us on our campus, which was illegal before. So there's been lots of debate about this since before the Sandy shooting where I'm at. I've heard lots of opinions and great arguments from both sides since then.

I think having a concealed weapon is great! It makes those individuals feel protected without the anxiety from others around them by seeing a gun in the open. I have friends who are relieved and feel much safer now. Yet there are some people I know who feel unsafe and MORE paranoid than before. They see it as more opportunities to get shot. Except maybe in this case it would be accidental shootings. I remember reading a month or so back that a woman's gun accidentally went off in her purse and injured someone nearby. This is definitely what my concerned friends are afraid of happening. Which leads me to my point: lessons on how to use guns would be awesome. Maybe even periodic (and mandatory) renewals for owning guns. That way everyone who owns knows how to handle one, and doesn't make some stupid mistake and having it go off while it's on their person.

I also know that guns are completely accessible, no matter how many regulations we put on them. While I agree that assault rifles should definitely be banned, they will still be around. I can find the article later, but I read that it is now possible to PRINT OUT your own guns with a special 3D printer. The guns of the future will be easily accessed through your computer. The easier method for "control" of guns would be to limit ammunition. Someone might have talked about this in the thread already because I haven't read every single post, but it seems like a viable option if we were to actually do something about it.

I believe that everyone deserves the right to feel safe and to own a gun, but some sort of "check up" should be in place..so we know you know how to handle one and that you're mentally healthy. Plus a ban on assault rifles and some sort of regulation of ammunition in a non-restrictive way would be the way to go.

Bada-bing, Bada-boom. Solution to the problem. Just in my opinion, of course. You all have viable arguments in my book!

 

[Topher]

Plus a ban on assault rifles

Okay I have some questions for people here. Do you think, if we had an assault rifle ban in place, that that would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting, or the Aurora, Colorado shooting? If not then do you think an assault rifle ban would have meant less people would have gotten killed?

 

[greeneguy]

Well personally I don't think either. I know that almost all of these types of shootings have been hand guns or shot guns, etc. I just think that because all of this gun control stuff has come into the spotlight, it just seems like a reasonable thing to do. Assault guns can kill many people in the same time it takes to kill one or two with another gun. Guns were only made to kill, and the only time I would feel it was necessary for a citizen to carry an assault rifle would be usurping the government. Which I don't see the need for for awhile..

But even so, I think anyone would be able to get these guns in some form if they really wanted to. Which leads me to a full circle and begs to ask the question if a ban would even matter anyway, since most of them are probably bought illegally or online, etc.

 

[Keleynal]

Okay I have some questions for people here. Do you think, if we had an assault rifle ban in place, that that would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting, or the Aurora, Colorado shooting? If not then do you think an assault rifle ban would have meant less people would have gotten killed?

Impossible to know. An AR ban would not clear the streets of them entirely, obviously. But if we can keep them out of casual ownership there weill be less of them lying around in homes and stores just waiting to be stolen or abused. If a ban got 50% or more of them off the streets, I'd say it was worthwhile.

I can find the article later, but I read that it is now possible to PRINT OUT your own guns with a special 3D printer. The guns of the future will be easily accessed through your computer.

I've seen the 3D printers, they are super awesome. I hadn't heard tehy could print a gun though, I thought it was more simple part fabrication. Regardless, the cost of "printing" a gun would be much more than just buying the thing outright (can you imagine the cost of a titanium print cartridge??), and I have a hard time believing it would function very well, at least at current technology levels. Just because something is easy doesn't mean it's practical.

The easier method for "control" of guns would be to limit ammunition. Someone might have talked about this in the thread already because I haven't read every single post, but it seems like a viable option if we were to actually do something about it.

Maybe, but guns are a whole lot easier to track. How would we hold people accountable for their ammo? Would they have to submit to inventory checks? My job in the military was to store and keep track of ammunition. For most small arms, if you take the ammo out of the box, there's no good way of telling where it came from or where it belongs. We had to bury large amounts because we couldn't account for it.

 

[Topher]

Impossible to know. An AR ban would not clear the streets of them entirely, obviously.

I'm just saying the assault rifle used was an AR-15 which carries a .223 round standard on it. There are quite a few pistols out there use the same type of round with the same type of clip that would not fall under the assault rifle category, and that would have a lot more killing power up close as your AR-15 was not specifically designed for CQC.

Now as for the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004 it's possible most if not all the pistols that carried the .223 round would fall under that ban. However in an enclosed area like a school your simple 9mm pistol ammo has more killing power as more .223 round shatter because the velocity is too high when it hits a solid object at such a close range. We all know just how easy it is to gain access to a 9mm pistol.

Also there are many shotguns that can be magazine fed. This in mind the spread on shotguns from shotguns would be a lot more deadly in such close quarters than anything else as it can just tear through bone and flesh. Just to give you an idea here is a video. . These would not fall under the assault weapon ban and have more killing power than an assault rifle.

To conclude assault rifles are dangerous, yes. Assault rifles were meant to kill many people quickly, I'll agree. Banning assault rifles however does not take any less killing power off the streets. It would cost the government loads of money to take these weapons back, even if they don't refund the people in some way, and it's going to take time.

 

[Keleynal]

Whoa. A ban is not the same as a confiscation. I do not think the government should confiscate property already owned. I do think they should all be regestered, only those with the serial numbers removed would be confiscated (that's already a crime). An AR ban would have no immediate effect at all. It would take many years for the numbers of them out there to drop off, but we wouldn't be adding to the pile. That's why the AR ban is just one measure I suggested in the OP, it's not an end unto itself.

 

[Topher]

I believe all of the assault rifles that were used in mass shootings were obtained legally. So the ban won't matter whichever way.

 

[Keleynal]

I believe all of the assault rifles that were used in mass shootings were obtained legally. So the ban won't matter whichever way.

Actually, I think that's a good argument in favor of a ban. If all guns used for mass shootings were obtained legally, then mass shootings with these types of weapons would stop if they could not be obtained legally.

 

[Topher]

As I've pointed out assault rifles just look the scariest of all these guns. But they do not have the most killing power in an indoor area if you want to just murder a lot of people.