Come debate gun control with me

[Scotty2Hotty]

So just heard on Fox News (fukn lol) that the guy knew his mother was trying to put him into a psych wards of sorts...

Stirring the pot...:gabe:

 

http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/problem-child_l2.jpg

[TTQ B4U]

Excellent, but specifically who in the family?

 

Likely the mother. We usually hurt the ones we love right.....

[2highpsi]

Yeah, my second soapbox point is that mental health professionals should be empowered - explicitly, by legislature - to have more authority to force those at risk to receive treatment (or to face restriction, such as involuntary commitment). This (as I've said elsewhere) is a delicate subject, however.

Very Delicate. It would be a short time before corruption ruined anything good that could really come from this, just as it has ruined anything that comes along with that sort of "power".

 

 

Question for everyone: who is the most at risk for being the victim of violence that is associated with mental illness?

 

I would say the one with the mental illness themself

[Mallard]

I'm tired of hearing the counter-arguement against gun control about banning spoons for making people fat, or cars for killing people in accidents, or knives for cutting people. It just doesn't hold water. A gun was designed for one specific thing: killing. Forks, knives, spoons, diesel fuel, fertilizer, or whatever else you come up with has been designed for a purpose other than killing. Anything in the environment can kill you if used properly (or improperly if you prefer) so it's not a matter of 'I could kill you with a toothpick too, so it won't make a difference if you take my semi-automatic rife with 30 round magazine off the market.'

 

Nobody is advocating removing the 2nd Amendment. You will always have a right to bear arms, but even the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be limits put on what type of weapons citizens can posses. The debate is about where to put that limit and should everyone in the population be subject to the same limits. Had the shooter not had this type of weapon it's plausable that the staff that confronted him could have put a stop to it while sacrificing their lives. For all the people killed they said each one had between something like 3 to 11 rounds in them. That's a lot of gunfire in a short period of time. None of them stood a chance. The ongoing or upcoming issue is should anyone on the street be allowed to possess something that can lay down this much fire. Hand guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are going nowhere.

 

Yes, crazy people are everywhere and they are unpredictable. And a guy in China did just stab a bunch of elementary school kids. But guess what? They lived. All it took was one failed shoe bomb and we all take our shoes off at the airport. How many mass shootings in public have taken place in the last few years (or even the last month) but we advocate going forward with business as usual?

 

Also, let's put to rest this idea of arming the teachers. A teacher has no business carrying a firearm into a classroom. Way too much can go wrong, and I don't want a teacher making a kill/no-kill decision, or even worse, have their gun stolen from them by a student. The only guns allowed in schools should be on a police officer.

[Scotty2Hotty]

But where would it end? If the powers that be found out the true lethality of shotguns, I'm sure they'd see the ban hammer too. Look at the number of crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles vs every other firearm. You'll see, a stupid small percentage comes to light.

[Mallard]

But where would it end? If the powers that be found out the true lethality of shotguns, I'm sure they'd see the ban hammer too. Look at the number of crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles vs every other firearm. You'll see, a stupid small percentage comes to light.

This is true, but how many people can it kill in x amount of time? It's going to be far less than the semi-auto rifle. If every citizen has a CCW and someone tries to shoot up the place with a handgun the number of casualty's is going to be extremely low before other draw on him. Even people without a firearm have a chance to rush him.

 

I'm sure the number of crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles is low compared to hand guns, but the number of innocent people killed in random public shootings is going to be higher with the semi-auto. As of Nov. 29 Detroit had 354 homicides (although that includes people stabbed), but that doesn't include the Sept 10 stat of 863 non-fatal shootings. I would bet that that nearly all of there were not committed with a semi-auto rifle, but I would also say that a majority were not random acts of violence. They were a target that someone decided to kill, and they would find any way to do it.

 

Where would it end? That's what the whole debate is about. Do you never impose any limits for fear of future limits that no one's even talking about? The 2nd Amendement isn't going anywhere, and you can bet money that any limit imposed will not be drastic. The gun lobby is too powerful and the US representatives are too split on the issue. Anything that gets passed will be fairly predictable and tame for fear of getting challenged and thrown out by the supreme court.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Just how many deaths are acceptable during one of these shootings?

[TTQ B4U]

I'm tired of hearing the counter-arguement against gun control about banning spoons for making people fat, or cars for killing people in accidents, or knives for cutting people. It just doesn't hold water. A gun was designed for one specific thing: killing. Forks, knives, spoons, diesel fuel, fertilizer, or whatever else you come up with has been designed for a purpose other than killing. Anything in the environment can kill you if used properly (or improperly if you prefer) so it's not a matter of 'I could kill you with a toothpick too, so it won't make a difference if you take my semi-automatic rife with 30 round magazine off the market.'

 

I see the point you're trying to make, but in reality, it doesn't matter what the purpose of the spoon vs a gun is, as both are just objects. It's really a matter of the intent of the person in possention of them. Limiting the product will only do just that but you're still left with a guy who's intent is to kill you. What would be different about the CT incident if AR-15's weren't in existence? Not a damn thing as he would have just found another object to use. See the point?

 

Nobody is advocating removing the 2nd Amendment. You will always have a right to bear arms,

 

You seriously believe that as strongly today as you did prior to Obama being in office? Seriously?

 

but even the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be limits put on what type of weapons citizens can posses. The debate is about where to put that limit and should everyone in the population be subject to the same limits.

 

You just validated the previous point. The 2nd amendment is no longer as sacred as it once was and if you believe it is you're mistaken. Illusionist Roy Horn underestimated his tiger....I'm warning you not to do the same with the those in power today. You will get burned. It's just a matter of when.

 

I also stand by there's no need for new laws or "limits" beyond what we have today. As with most everything, this situation was about poor judgement on many parts, especially the mom who is IMO the one to blame along side her son. She exhibited poor judgement letting him handle a firearm, and had no respect for those around her to allow him access to them. Very poor control over her personal life, son and her guns. Damn shame.

 

Had the shooter not had this type of weapon it's plausable that the staff that confronted him could have put a stop to it while sacrificing their lives.

 

I'm 99% doubtful of that. He could have pulled off just as much damage with his two pistols and ammo. The principle that charged him would be dead with any of these guns. If his intent was really to kill a 6yr old he could have had a 30 round .22 cal and done it.

 

For all the people killed they said each one had between something like 3 to 11 rounds in them. That's a lot of gunfire in a short period of time. None of them stood a chance.

 

Again, overkill. He could have easily fired off less less rounds and still killed them all. His victims were all UNARMED and that's what makes your last statement true.

 

The ongoing or upcoming issue is should anyone on the street be allowed to possess something that can lay down this much fire.

 

Define "that much fire" How's using a .223 rifle on a 6yr old or at point blank range on a teacher any different than a Glock and/or a Sig Sauer on them ? It's not. He can lay down tons of fire, using multiple guns and reload in between without any difference in the outcome other than perhaps less bullet holes in the same dead bodies. Sorry to be so grim, but it's true.

 

Hand guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are going nowhere.

 

So how do you feel if the gov't begins to demand registrations fro ALL of the above?

 

Yes, crazy people are everywhere and they are unpredictable. And a guy in China did just stab a bunch of elementary school kids. But guess what? They lived. All it took was one failed shoe bomb and we all take our shoes off at the airport. How many mass shootings in public have taken place in the last few years (or even the last month) but we advocate going forward with business as usual?

 

http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_weapons2.png

 

So by your standards, perhaps these "assault weapons" aren't the ones Obama and his clan should be going after? How's that make you feel in terms of your previous statement that handguns aren't going anywhere?

 

Again, don't underestimate anyone, ESPECIALLY Obama.....he's a liar and everyone with a brain knows it. He LIED about this years 9/11 attack and that's clear. Even Hillary knows she's going to take the heat for all of it and is just this week pulling some BS Stunt tactic.

 

Also, let's put to rest this idea of arming the teachers. A teacher has no business carrying a firearm into a classroom. Way too much can go wrong, and I don't want a teacher making a kill/no-kill decision, or even worse, have their gun stolen from them by a student. The only guns allowed in schools should be on a police officer.

 

I bet if you ask the husband of the principle, he'd debate that with you right now. If she had a gun, she wouldn't have rushed his AR15 toting ass with her unarmed body. She'd have shot him dead.

 

I see your point about potential mishaps but think about how many teachers are CCW Holders, hunters, and are skilled with guns. It's not like being a teacher automatically means you have no business carrying a gun.

 

Just some counter points.

[nurkvinny]

How many mass shootings in public have taken place in the last few years (or even the last month) but we advocate going forward with business as usual?

 

Far fewer this decade than previous ones.

 

So, what has changed over the past month in our society?

[1fast5gp]

Nobody is advocating removing the 2nd Amendment. You will always have a right to bear arms, but even the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be limits put on what type of weapons citizens can posses. The debate is about where to put that limit and should everyone in the population be subject to the same limits. Had the shooter not had this type of weapon it's plausable that the staff that confronted him could have put a stop to it while sacrificing their lives. For all the people killed they said each one had between something like 3 to 11 rounds in them. That's a lot of gunfire in a short period of time. None of them stood a chance. The ongoing or upcoming issue is should anyone on the street be allowed to possess something that can lay down this much fire. Hand guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are going nowhere.

 

It is also plausable that if a the school admins was armed, they could have taken down the gunman before he killed anyone. It is all speculation and really doesn't hold any water. Do you know for a fact that getting rid of AR15s will prevent massacres like this in the future? I don't think so. Look at Columbine, AR15 was not used in that massacre.

 

What needs to be done is promoting responsible gun ownership. Maybe mandatory classes for people with ARs or AK47s so they know what they should be used for. Maybe background checks with a psyc evaluation before you are allowed to buy one. Punishing irresponsible parents for not protecting their firearms from their kids. There is no reason why that California cop who left his duty gun underneath his seat and had is 3 year old accidentally shoot him in the back to get off scot free. He also end up trying to sue Glock for their "design". That is what is the law makers are there for. A flat out ban on AR15s won't do shit. They need to stop treating symptoms and get to the root of the problem.

[1fast5gp]

Far fewer this decade than previous ones.

 

So, what has changed over the past month in our society?

 

Obama got reelected? 2012? lol

[TTQ B4U]

This is true, but how many people can it kill in x amount of time? It's going to be far less than the semi-auto rifle.

 

So am I more dangerous walking into a mall with the intent to kill everyone carrying 2-3 pistols vs an AR15? Really? So if I only kill 15 with 1-2 shots each is that any different if I kill those same 15 with 3-7 shots per?

 

If every citizen has a CCW and someone tries to shoot up the place with a handgun the number of casualty's is going to be extremely low before other draw on him. Even people without a firearm have a chance to rush him.

 

If others draw on him? So you're saying people are more likely to draw a CCW on a guy with handgun vs an AR15? You're right in a sense that eventually both are going to have to reload, but I'll bet you I can reload my .40cal faster than my AR15. Now I have more practice with it but if I'm dead set on killing the masses and you try and rush me, I'll tell you right now, I'm going to reload that .40cal faster and you won't be rushing at me for long.

 

They were a target that someone decided to kill, and they would find any way to do it.

 

Exactly...the common denominator in all those Detroit shootings/killings isn't the firearm it's the intent of the person holding them.

 

Where would it end? That's what the whole debate is about. Do you never impose any limits for fear of future limits that no one's even talking about? The 2nd Amendement isn't going anywhere, and you can bet money that any limit imposed will not be drastic. The gun lobby is too powerful and the US representatives are too split on the issue. Anything that gets passed will be fairly predictable and tame for fear of getting challenged and thrown out by the supreme court.

 

Where it ends is Obama needs to stop giving away phones and free medical care and needs to start focusing on the education system. even this kids own high school counselor said it was the system that failed as once he left high school, his support needed to help manage his illness was gone.

[TTQ B4U]

It is also plausable that if a the school admins was armed, they could have taken down the gunman before he killed anyone. It is all speculation and really doesn't hold any water. Do you know for a fact that getting rid of AR15s will prevent massacres like this in the future? I don't think so. Look at Columbine, AR15 was not used in that massacre.

 

Amen to the above. No one can dismiss having a CCW isn't helpful in saving lives. It's insurance...something you hope to never use. Just like the fire extinguishers in my house. Extinguishers don't make me a fireman any more than a gun make me a cop but they both will save lives if there when needed and I wouldn't have my family in a home that isn't protected by both.

 

I sit in my chair here each night with a wooded lot behind me and no blinds up and if the motion sensors/alarm goes off out back, it's 99% that someone is out there. I couldn't imagine hearing that and NOT having a gun within reach. I would be doing my family a complete disservice if I was strictly relying on 911 to save them.

 

What needs to be done is promoting responsible gun ownership. Maybe mandatory classes for people with ARs or AK47s so they know what they should be used for. Maybe background checks with a psyc evaluation before you are allowed to buy one. Punishing irresponsible parents for not protecting their firearms from their kids. There is no reason why that California cop who left his duty gun underneath his seat and had is 3 year old accidentally shoot him in the back to get off scot free. He also end up trying to sue Glock for their "design". That is what is the law makers are there for. A flat out ban on AR15s won't do shit. They need to stop treating symptoms and get to the root of the problem.

^^ I'd swing from those nuts all day because he's flat out right.

[Draco-REX]

Fuck gun control, how about License control?

 

2009 deaths by motor vehicle: 36,216

 

2009 deaths by firearms;

Homicide: 11,493

Accidental: 554

Undetermined: 232

Total: 12,279

 

Ratio: 2.9:1

 

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf Page 39

[nurkvinny]

Fuck gun control, how about License control?

 

2009 deaths by motor vehicle: 36,216

2009 deaths by firearms;

Homicide: 11,493 Accidental: 554 Und

 

EDIT: oops, still putting the numbers together..

 

Temporarily excused...

[TTQ B4U]

Fuck gun control, how about License control?

 

How about simply not letting DUI offenders get behind the wheel of a car ever again. Yet we constantly have them out there over and over and over again killing people without one freaking change in the law regarding them. Shoring up so many other areas of life such as this can save more lives than trying to jerk around with guns.

[Draco-REX]

How about simply not letting DUI offenders get behind the wheel of a car ever again. Yet we constantly have them out there over and over and over again killing people without one freaking change in the law regarding them.

 

I'd vote for that. Along with seizing the car and auctioning it off with the proceeds going to a fund for victims of DUI drivers.

[TTQ B4U]

I'd vote for that. Along with seizing the car and auctioning it off with the proceeds going to a fund for victims of DUI drivers.

 

^^ Agree.....i was multitasking and couldn't spit that out but glad you did. Can't get a DUI if you don't have wheels.

[Wonderboy]

What a bunch of fags. When will you fuckers realize that arguing with eachother on here wont change anything, ever. Im sure you all feel so tough and empowered because youre "standing youre ground" and what not but, this is all just a waste of time. Eat shit.

[Geeesammy]

What a bunch of fags. When will you fuckers realize that arguing with eachother on here wont change anything, ever. Im sure you all feel so tough and empowered because youre "standing youre ground" and what not but, this is all just a waste of time. Eat shit.

 

I sense butt-hurt being the primary reasoning for this post. It's just the interwebz...

[TTQ B4U]

What a bunch of fags. When will you fuckers realize that arguing with eachother on here wont change anything, ever. Im sure you all feel so tough and empowered because youre "standing youre ground" and what not but, this is all just a waste of time. Eat shit.

Every generation needs a new revolution

— Thomas Jefferson

[AndMetal]

A gun was designed for one specific thing: killing.

No, defense. The rest of your argument is invalid.

 

This is true, but how many people can it kill in x amount of time? It's going to be far less than the semi-auto rifle.

Do you know how much shot is in a single shell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_shell#Shot_sizes. Depending on the spread, I'd argue 6-40 pieces of .22" - .36" shot per pull of the trigger > rapid fire semi-auto. Better ban those under/over guns, too.

 

Anything that gets passed will be fairly predictable and tame for fear of getting challenged and thrown out by the supreme court.

Just like Chicago and DC? How about the previous AWB that I guess was never challenged in court? :gabe:

 

this is all just a waste of time

You think? :lolguy:

[Mallard]

You just validated the previous point. The 2nd amendment is no longer as sacred as it once was and if you believe it is you're mistaken.

 

For example, the 2nd Amendment with no limits means you can buy a nuclear warhead. I think we can all agree no one should have that. (but then again maybe no one would mess with eachother if they knew we all had warheads). This is just what the Supreme's Court ruling means. There can be a limit imposed. It's just a matter of where to set the bar.

 

Illusionist Roy Horn underestimated his tiger....I'm warning you not to do the same with the those in power today. You will get burned. It's just a matter of when.

I actually LOL'd at this because for one thing you were trying to compare me to a gay tiger trainer, but also because this analogy could be used against you position. The tiger could be anyone carrying a firearm, while Roy is your average citizen. Day after day they interact with eachother and nothing happens, but someone has a bad day and they snap. When that happens should he be a tiger or a house cat?

 

Now, let's just get this straight, I'm not advocating removing the 2nd Amentment, taking away your guns, stopping the sale of firearms, or disallowing CCW permits. I am, however, tired of bullshit analogy's being used to compare a firearm to a spoon, or saying I could kill you with anything so it doesn't matter if I have an assult weapon or not. I read these and I see a person that has no solid position on the matter and is probably just spewing out trash he saw posted on Facebook or in a chain email. These arguements hold no water, give no leagal arguement FOR your stance on the issue, and amount to finger pointing other objects in an attempt to distract people from the issue.

 

There's no need for me to multi-quote every reply and continue the back and forth because no one in here is going to change their position on the matter. I see the points you are making, and you see mine. At this point I'm really not sure what the total 'solution' is, but I think it's going to come in the form of stricter requirements for who can purchase a firearm. This will go beyond the current background checks, but I'm not sure what's really feasible (if everyone should/could be given a psych eval). It will also most likely result in an "assult weapons" ban being re-instated, but that's going to be a hotly debated issue on the floor. I personally don't want to see teachers carrying guns because I think too much can go wrong in that scenario.

[SHIEF]

No way. Tim came in here to go Obama this and that....shocker. Don't even know you and man are you annoying. Go to a track or something.

[TTQ B4U]

For example, the 2nd Amendment with no limits means you can buy a nuclear warhead. There can be a limit imposed. It's just a matter of where to set the bar.

 

Give someone a Kel-Tec PMR-30 or an AR15 and he could essentially do the same amount of damage as done in CT. So do we only allow single shot pistols? Do you really think limiting the size of a magazine is going to stop a person who's intent is to kill the masses?

 

I actually LOL'd at this because for one thing you were trying to compare me to a gay tiger trainer, but also because this analogy could be used against you position. The tiger could be anyone carrying a firearm, while Roy is your average citizen. Day after day they interact with eachother and nothing happens, but someone has a bad day and they snap. When that happens should he be a tiger or a house cat?

 

I thought you might like that comparison my friend End point is don't underestimate the power of our law makers.

 

Now, let's just get this straight, I'm not advocating removing the 2nd Amentment, taking away your guns, stopping the sale of firearms, or disallowing CCW permits. I am, however, tired of bullshit analogy's being used to compare a firearm to a spoon, or saying I could kill you with anything so it doesn't matter if I have an assult weapon or not. I read these and I see a person that has no solid position on the matter and is probably just spewing out trash he saw posted on Facebook or in a chain email. These arguements hold no water, give no leagal arguement FOR your stance on the issue, and amount to finger pointing other objects in an attempt to distract people from the issue.

 

I know you're not anti 2nd Amendment. Regarding the spoon analogies, my point is that you don't' appear to be seeing the difference between a gun and the intent of the person wielding it. The end result of 28 bodies in CT isn't a result of the weapon but rather the shooter.

 

I think it's going to come in the form of stricter requirements for who can purchase a firearm. This will go beyond the current background checks, but I'm not sure what's really feasible (if everyone should/could be given a psych eval).

 

Perhaps stricture requirements will be had. That's fine. Won't impact me. It however, won't likely impact criminals either. It's much harder today to buy weed as it's not sold in Kroger next to cigarettes, but I can still find it and buy it illegally pretty darn easy if I wanted to. Regulating it through a law that says it's illegal doesn't change much in the way of access.

 

It will also most likely result in an "assult weapons" ban being re-instated, but that's going to be a hotly debated issue on the floor..

 

and it wouldn't have changed a thing in this case nor will it likely do a damn thing to those wanting to commit crimes of this magnitude nor even the ones wanting to use such a weapon when doing so. However, if reinstating such a hotly debated law is what the masses feel is going to work, then once again, proof the bar of intelligence in this country is being lowered not raised.

 

Carry on with treating symptoms and avoiding the problem....