Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[Bolty]

Anyways, sorry if my posts come across as being harsh.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Post of the Year.™

If we all stop abusing each other here, maybe there can actually be some intelligent debate.

[eppie]

Anyways, sorry if my posts come across as being harsh.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Post of the Year.™

If we all stop abusing each other here, maybe there can actually be some intelligent debate.

The guy that starts these kind of threads is not interested in intelligent debate. He just post something he knows will trigger some people and he just hangs back and watches....how do you call someone like that again?

[shoju]

If you remove one easy method, another will take its place. Or, they will get the guns illegally. It's prohibition all over again. I'm sure the southern border is secure enough to prevent any smuggling.

First, Let's make something clear. I'm not talking about completely removing guns. You allude to that a couple of times in here. I'm not talking about removing guns from the population, but I am talking about how we should in fact regulate them far more intensely.

Yes. another will take it's place. Just like in China. Probably bladed attacks. Let's be real for a second. What has happened in China the past few years is really tragic. It's really terrible. It's really awful.

But there are far fewer dead.

It's not Prohibition. Because I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm saying make it harder to get one. It's a piece of machinery that was designed to KILL THINGS and we treat it like it's not. It's time to stop treating it like it's not something that can kill people. Multiple People. Faster than other things that can kill people.

It's not infringing on rights. You have the second ammendment right to own a gun. A lot of people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That first part, life, is pretty damn important.

People have murdered people (even mass murder) for eons. You cannot ban enough stuff to make a dent in it. Consider Julio González and the Happyland fire. Arson mass murders are far more common than gun mass murders. What is the background check, or waiting period for 5 gallons of gas?

You're changing the point, and deferring. "WELL THIS THING OVER HERE KILLS PEOPLE TOO! SO LETS NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS THING RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US THAT IS CAUSING MASS MURDER, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOREVER".

That's irresponsible. You do what you can to protect the people that you can. I could go on a mass murder spree with a spoon, or with a lawn mower blade. But we aren't talking about lawn mower blades. We're talking about guns, and what we can do to make sure that guns aren't killing people, in mass murder, or in gun crime in inner cities.

You missed it. I'm saying we should ban Lexus 4 door sedans since they are most often used in DUI vehicular homicide.

No. I didn't miss it. Because If you have been paying attention, I haven't been talking about banning Handguns, which in your example would be the lexus 4 door sedan. I'm talking about getting the F1, Indy, and Nascars of the gun world out of the general publics hands. I'm talking about banning aftermarket parts for guns in the same way that you can't just go to Nappa and order a turbo kit like what they use on an F1 or Dragster to put on your Pinto. You can order them, sure. As long as you are putting them onto an F1 or Top Fuel Dragster, you're fine. But when you put them on your daily driver, you have broken the law.

I repeat. After the (felony) crime. Which is already the law, since convicted felons cannot own or possess guns.
What did the Newtown, or the Aurora shooters do prior to mass murder that would have disarmed them?

Have you not paid attention to the Aurora shooting at all? You want to talk mental health, and how we should do something about it. That man had absolutely no business being allowed to own a firearm, or order that amount of Ammo. Let's talk Mental Health, and how it should have kept him from being in that position.

There was no felony involved. It was medical. You can lose your license to drive a car for medical reasons. My wife EVERY YEAR has to have a physical from her doctor that proves that she is still allowed to drive a vehicle.

Why don't we have that from a Psych profile and Medical DR. to own a gun?

Be that as it may, you'd deport 4.3 million Americans because you don't like the rhetoric of their spokesperson? How very totalitarian of you.

I was being facetious, but if we wanted to get serious about it, send them to Mexico. Maybe they can do what Gun Laws and a government haven't been able to do. End a bloody awful Drug Lord War. If we want to be serious, I don't have a problem with people who are part of the NRA. I do have a problem with LaPierre, and any single NRA member who is standing behind the position that they have taken over this. Yes. I have a problem with them.

Wow. How about the 1st? How about the 3rd? "Dumb" people by someones definition are denied their rights. Again, how very totalitarian of you.

In reference to what I referring to, the 1st amendment has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a loaded glock under your pillow.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the 3rd ammendment.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The murder rate per capita in the US is not that much different than the murder rate in places that have outlawed guns. They just don't use guns as much. Compare the murder rate per capita of Luxembourg to Switzerland.

Again, your pointing at it and saying "Well it wont matter, it wont change things." Really? I hate to be the bearer of bad news sir, but you are wrong. Dead wrong (pardon the bad pun.)

According to the 2004 study Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development

The US Murder per Capita is 4.8 per 100,000 people.
Let's look at the UK, where Handguns are outlawed. 1.2

Uh Oh... Uh... What? I thought you said it was the same. I know! Let's look at China, where they have had the rampant bladed attacks at schools. 1.0

Wait... that's... 3.8 less.

How about Australia! 1.0 again.

Ok, so what about Iran! 3.0 Well now.

And since you brought them up. Switzerland is a .7 (that's a demical point in front of it) and Luxembourg is a 2.5 Both of them lower than us. And.... they really aren't that close either.

No it wouldn't have done anything to stop these high profile first time offenders who go postal and kill off a bunch of people.

Oh, I beg to differ. Instituting licensing, including Mental Health Services as part of it (you know, what I've been saying since the beginning, taking a "wholistic" approach to the problme) would have kept Aurora from happening with legally purchased firearms.

Maybe it still would have happened. Maybe he would have purchased them illegally. It's a possibility. But it is another chance to catch the offender before it happens.

Meaning you are just getting started with the intent to make guns impossible for people to own.

Like I said before. I don't want it to be impossible. I want it to be regulated. I want it to be monitored. You have the right to do an awful lot of things, that are far more regulated than owning a gun. It's time that we stop treating guns like they aren't a dangerous, deadly, violent, murderous weapon. They are. Like you said. Any gun, when pointed at someone is an assault weapon. Any gun will kill you, and shoot you dead as can be. So why do we treat them like they aren't?

And by we, I mean society. We as a society, just don't give two shits about them. A lot of gun owners try to be as responsible as they can be. And there is a group that aren't. They don't respect the firearm. They don't respect what it does. They treat it like a toy. And in turn, as a society, people aren't taught the right way to do things.

Seriously. If you think banning "assault" weapons will do anything to prevent kids killing kids on the streets of Chicago, you are wrong. If you think making law abiding people go through training and licensing will stop domestic violence, or gangland shootings, again, you are wrong. We live in a world filled with dangerous things if they get into the hands of people with murderous intent. You cannot make the world safe by removing all the dangerous stuff from the lawful.

No, banning assault weapons wont do much for chicago. Restricting the sale of weapons will. Making it harder to get them will. Making it a crime to own one, and not be licensed would help.

The whole point is to reduce the flow. The Law Abiding people who are responsible with weapons, will do what is asked, because they realize that things are being done to help make sure that people are safe.

Sometimes, bad things happen, and no amount of good intentions in the world will stop it. But that doesn't mean that we don't do the good things. We do the good things, because somewhere, it will help. Somewhere it will stop something. If we always look at the shit, at the worst of the worst, and say "We can't fix that, so why try to stop any of it" we're already lost.

[LochnarITB]

There was no felony involved. It was medical. You can lose your license to drive a car for medical reasons. My wife EVERY YEAR has to have a physical from her doctor that proves that she is still allowed to drive a vehicle.

Why don't we have that from a Psych profile and Medical DR. to own a gun?

I am assuming she is in this position for the same reason as me and I would like to add to this point because it kind of lays a precedence for said psych profiles for gun ownership. Because of a medical condition, although well controlled, I am required each year to have my doctor OK my operating a motor vehicle. There has never been an incident of loss of control to forewarn of another happening. I do not drink or do drugs and never have. People that do so regularly do not have to go to their doctor to prove that they will not drive under the influence yet they could just as easily hurt or kill someone else if the did. The person seeking psychological care is not required to get the OK to use or own a gun. Why not? If I have to "prove" that I will not use my "deadly weapon" (a car) to kill someone, by blacking out, so should those that have shown they might drive under the influence or snap psychologically and buy or steal a gun.

[Jabberwolky]

I rarely speak my mind, but since I deal with this kind of thing on a nightly basis I thought I'd add my two cents. For those of you that do not know I have been in law enforcement/military for the past 9 years in one form or another. I like to put people into three categories; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. Sheep being the normal law abiding citizen, wolves being the violent people that want to hurt you, and sheep dogs being those that are trained to protect the normal citizens.

Wolves will do whatever they need to accomplish their objective because most people that are this violent do not care about laws and are usually highly motivated. If a person gets to the point that they feel the need to make a statement and kill a bunch of innocents then they will scope out a nice soft target and achieve their objective. Once a person gets to that point where they can justify something so horrible then I think the only way to stop or cure them is with two to the chest and one to the head. In most situations where a person has gone on a mass killing, it has ended with them taking their own life, giving up, or being shot by law enforcement or an armed citizen.

One problem that I run into when it comes to people that need psychiatric help is the complete lack of it. On many occasions I have brought a person that I truly felt needed some serious mental help to the local ER so that they could be evaluated by MHMR, as this is my only option. 99 times out of 100 they will turn the person away, pinky swear that they are okay, and send them home no matter how I may have come to have to encounter them. Family members that have to deal with these kinds of individuals come to me at the end of their rope because they can't find any kind of help. More often as not these people don't get the kind of mental help they need and end up slipping through the cracks. I would like to see more funding and incentives for mental help professionals and institutions to help people out that need mental treatment. I have recently looked into getting some additional credentials as a mental health counselor myself since I make contact with these people so often. Maybe then I could make a bigger impact or help recognize certain signs that could prevent something bad from happening.

I do think that if the media would be more responsible / respectful of the victims, the families of the victims, and the communities that surround these people; we may see a drop in these incidents. These people want to be remembered as monsters and the media plays into that by making "news" out of it across the entire country.

I personally fall into the camp that gun control can be defined as "front sight, trigger squeeze." I am not a gun nut. I own guns but they have all been passed down to me. I don't go out and buy them, but I like to shoot them, have grown up with them, I have used them as a tool, and I love to train people on how to use them safely and effectively. I have to carry them for my work and I have to carry one when I'm off duty because I may meet a wolf when I'm at the grocery store (possibly with my kids) and that wolf may recognize me as a sheepdog, and for that reason I need to be armed. Also for that small possibility that some nut may decide to open fire at Target while I'm shopping there...again, a law isn't going to stop that guy, only a sheepdog or a sheep will.

A gun is a tool. Yes that tool was designed to maim and kill. In the hands of a sheep or a sheep dog that weapon is of no threat to anyone. The tool then is used for hunting, protection, and recreational shooting. In the hands of a wolf it can do terrible things. Would I feel safer if guns regulated...absolutely not. Because the bottom line is if a wolf wants an AR-15 or AK-47, that wolf will do whatever is needed to obtain the instrument of destruction that they desire. All a gun control law will do is add a tool in the toolbox of law enforcement and government to put additional limits on your rights as a citizen and I am against that. Bad people are going to do bad things...that is a constant that will never change. Making guns more regulated isn't going to change that.

My main concern about this gun control uproar is the government over stepping its bounds and setting a bad precedent that could further infringe on our second amendment rights later down the road. I do not want my loved ones to not have the ability to protect their lives with deadly force with a tool that is just as effective as what could possibly be used against them. As a citizen or law enforcement, I hope that If I have to face a bad guy carrying an assault weapon that I have a weapon just as good available to me so that I can stop that threat. If a person decides to exercise their right not to own a weapon then that is their choice and I hope that everything turns out okay for them because by the time a sheep dog gets there to help them the wolf has probably achieved his objective and fled the scene.

[eppie]

I like to put people into three categories; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. Sheep being the normal law abiding citizen, wolves being the violent people that want to hurt you, and sheep dogs being those that are trained to protect the normal citizens.

Nice American oversimplification this. Completely useless to solve anything if you honestly believe this is true.

One problem that I run into when it comes to people that need psychiatric help is the complete lack of it. On many occasions I have brought a person that I truly felt needed some serious mental help to the local ER so that they could be evaluated by MHMR, as this is my only option. 99 times out of 100 they will turn the person away, pinky swear that they are okay, and send them home no matter how I may have come to have to encounter them. Family members that have to deal with these kinds of individuals come to me at the end of their rope because they can't find any kind of help. More often as not these people don't get the kind of mental help they need and end up slipping through the cracks. I would like to see more funding and incentives for mental help professionals and institutions to help people out that need mental treatment.

All nice and well, but how does the weapon industry benefit from this?
(yes this is sarcastic)

I have recently looked into getting some additional credentials as a mental health counselor myself since I make contact with these people so often. Maybe then I could make a bigger impact or help recognize certain signs that could prevent something bad from happening.

These are true and great words, I fully agree and support you here.
What I actually think that in the US (and this is the same in other countries like the Netherlands were it is allowed to own a gun if you for example are member of a shooting club) right now the population that owns a gun has a larger percentage of potential violent loonies than the population that doesn't own a gun.

(as a connected sidenote.....in Holland to do something against football stadium violence they introduced a club card in order to keep track of hooligans......but what you see is that less 'normal' people decide to visit matches while among the ones that do there is a concentration of actual hooligans)

I do think that if the media would be more responsible / respectful of the victims, the families of the victims, and the communities that surround these people; we may see a drop in these incidents. These people want to be remembered as monsters and the media plays into that by making "news" out of it across the entire country.

You are thinking about the type Charles MAnson.....the guy in Newtown had no interest in being remembered in anyway...asnd this is the case most of the time because (as you said yourself) these things usually end with the gunman being killed...so here you are totally wrong.

Also for that small possibility that some nut may decide to open fire at Target while I'm shopping there...again, a law isn't going to stop that guy, only a sheepdog or a sheep will.

But with as main difference that the chance of this happening in your Target is much higher than the chance of this happening in my local H&M store. Because your division into sheep and wolves might give you a good nights rest, it just isn't as simple as that....and people change.
And how would this work on your local kindergarten? Go for the NRA's solution? Let's employ 200.000 armed guards and put them in front of every school in the US....but wait...what if one of those guards flips out???

A gun is a tool. Yes that tool was designed to maim and kill. In the hands of a sheep or a sheep dog that weapon is of no threat to anyone. The tool then is used for hunting, protection, and recreational shooting. In the hands of a wolf it can do terrible things. Would I feel safer if guns regulated...absolutely not. Because the bottom line is if a wolf wants an AR-15 or AK-47, that wolf will do whatever is needed to obtain the instrument of destruction that they desire.

And here is the big point. I allready explained this in a previous thread about the connection between having the right to be able to defend yourself with a gun and the right of being as safe as possible.
I indeed believe you would feel safer when there is little regulation (you personally as someone who uses guns often probably are safer although that is specualtion) but on average as a whole society you are less safe. Because there are more shootings , most wolves shoot better than most sheep, there happen more accidents etc.

So I fully respect your position here because I understand your right of feeling safe, but your society as a whole will be less safe.

Thsi directly makes the discussion a bit obsolete because you cannot weigh feelings against facts. And the righst of the individual against teh stastical well being of a population.

(buy a Hummer to drive around.....change of dying in it almost zero.......so personally a very good choice.....but if everyone does the same teh death toll amongs bikers and pedestrians will skyrocket.)

My main concern about this gun control uproar is the government over stepping its bounds and setting a bad precedent that could further infringe on our second amendment rights later down the road.

As a population you don't have much issues with taking away rights from citizens. When you talk about guns everyone screams second amandement, but when it comes to gay marriage, drugs, listening to swear words on TV, death penalty, abortion etc everyone is perfectly fine with the government telling you what to do.

I do not want my loved ones to not have the ability to protect their lives with deadly force with a tool that is just as effective as what could possibly be used against them. As a citizen or law enforcement, I hope that If I have to face a bad guy carrying an assault weapon that I have a weapon just as good available to me so that I can stop that threat. If a person decides to exercise their right not to own a weapon then that is their choice and I hope that everything turns out okay for them because by the time a sheep dog gets there to help them the wolf has probably achieved his objective and fled the scene.

Again, I fully respect and understand your sentiment here, but for me it is simple.
If the chance of anyone shooting my child in the streets can be made smaller in any way I am in favour.....it is all fine and dandy to 'HAVE THE RIGHT' and ''FEEL SAFE''.....but please realise that not everyone is as good a shot as you.....most under 10 aren't for example.

[Jester]

I like to put people into three categories; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs.

That categorization sounds familiar.

-Jester

[shoju]

There was no felony involved. It was medical. You can lose your license to drive a car for medical reasons. My wife EVERY YEAR has to have a physical from her doctor that proves that she is still allowed to drive a vehicle.

Why don't we have that from a Psych profile and Medical DR. to own a gun?

I am assuming she is in this position for the same reason as me and I would like to add to this point because it kind of lays a precedence for said psych profiles for gun ownership. Because of a medical condition, although well controlled, I am required each year to have my doctor OK my operating a motor vehicle. There has never been an incident of loss of control to forewarn of another happening. I do not drink or do drugs and never have. People that do so regularly do not have to go to their doctor to prove that they will not drive under the influence yet they could just as easily hurt or kill someone else if the did. The person seeking psychological care is not required to get the OK to use or own a gun. Why not? If I have to "prove" that I will not use my "deadly weapon" (a car) to kill someone, by blacking out, so should those that have shown they might drive under the influence or snap psychologically and buy or steal a gun.

My wife is a Type 1 Diabetic, and has been so for 23 years. She was diagnosed when she was 9. She was the first child in the area to be placed on an Insulin Pump when she was 15. Every year, like clockwork, she has to have a Dr's appointment where they review her A1C for the year, her Blood Sugar Test results, motor function, etc... to ensure that she is still physically capable of driving a car.

She has never had a hypoglycemic episode while driving that would render her unable to operate the car, careen out of control and wreck. Likewise, she has never had a hyperglycemic episode that would impair her judgement, or cause uncontrollable road rage. in 16 years of operating a motor vehicle.

But every year, just like clockwork, she has to go back to the doctor and prove that she is fit to be able to drive a car. She had to prove that she was fit enough before she could get her license as a teenager. It wasn't like there was even some "trigger" event. It was simply "I have type 1 diabetes".

Like I said, we treat cars like they are big scary machines of death, and we license people to drive them, and can remove their license purely based on the words of a doctor. Before someone says "well, but that's a medical doctor, not a shrink".

Fine. My wife is a Social Worker. She works with "Shrinks" all the time. Did you know that you can lose your driver's license for Mental Illness? That's right. If you have a select set of diagnosis, you can lose your driver's license at the behest of a "Shrink". It could be because your condition would make driving a car a bad idea. It could be for non-compliance of treatment. But the Psychiatrist can have the same effect as a "normal" medical doctor on your license.

So why do we regulate cars so much, but not guns? We force operators to be licensed. We force cars to be registered. We have a whole set of laws and regulations regarding cars. We have restrictions in place to ensure that the cars you see in the general public fall within certain criteria. They are regulated heavily. We do this in an effort to ensure that the population of the country is safe. We license drivers, and have a point system on licenses, so that even if you are just not committing terrible crimes, enough little crimes, and you can forfeit the license to operate a vehicle.

But when it comes to guns, a tool (I like that definition Jabber) whose original design and purpose was to end the life of something, we don't want to regulate it. We don't want to control it, we don't want to make sure that an item that was designed to kill has the same regulations as something designed for transportation that can kill. And when we do so, we hide behind 14 words.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We hide behind it, as if it were a shield. A shield from the scornful gaze of contemporary nations, the mothers of the dead, the victims of gun crime themselves. We use it as a club to beat people back into line when they dare speak out and say "We should regulate this". We use it as a scapegoat, whenever there is a horrific tragedy.

You have the right to bear arms. I have the right to bear arms.

But the 11,101 people who were murdered by a gun in 2011 had the right to live their life. 3.6 people per 100,000 in 2011 died as the result of (a) gunshot wound(s) inflicted in such a way that it was ruled murder.

You have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean that you can't be regulated or licensed, and your right to bear arms doesn't trump someone else's right to live.

Let's also shy away from getting a English Definition Gestappo about the definition of the word infringed. Yes, in a very literal sense, regulations would in fact "infringe" on your right to bear arms.

But let's also maintain the idea that when the 2nd amendment to our Constitution was written, and then adopted in 1791, the founding fathers lived in a world where Muskets, Black Powder, and single shot firearms were the norm of the day. Successful Machine Gun Designs were still 50-60 years away. Cartridge Revolvers were 65 years away. "Modern" Shotguns were still 40 years away. The world within which they lived, was completely different. It is hard to say that the 2nd amendment as set forth originally 222 years ago would have read the same had the authors known the technology that would exist in the future.

I've tried for an hour to find a statistic on the number of murders in the US in ANY SINGLE YEAR that where the murder weapon was a car. The best I could find was this list It doesn't list car or auto as a way to murder someone. It's lumped in the 1131 "other" deaths in 2009. So let's take a minute to think about this. in 2009, there were 13,636 murders in the US. 9,146 (67%) of those murders were perpetrated by a gun. AT MOST 1131 murders were committed with a vehicle. 8.2%. and let's be real for a minute. We all know that the number of murders perpetrated with a car is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO 1131. But we regulate cars. We keep track of who owns what car. Who is licensed to operate a car.

I love my guns. They all have meaning to me. I don't want to be told that I'm not allowed to own them. But I'm ok with being told that from now on, we're going to keep tabs on who owns what, and license you. I'd be ok with that, because I'm ok with putting as many "things" as possible in the way to catch someone between the time that they get a gun, and the time that they kill with the gun.

[Bolty]

Would I feel safer if guns regulated...absolutely not. Because the bottom line is if a wolf wants an AR-15 or AK-47, that wolf will do whatever is needed to obtain the instrument of destruction that they desire. All a gun control law will do is add a tool in the toolbox of law enforcement and government to put additional limits on your rights as a citizen and I am against that.

This is the only point that really bothers me in the whole gun control debate. For starters, there's often no delineation between "we want to stop the sale of assault rifles and automatic weapons designed to kill many people quickly" and "we want to ban all guns altogether" when gun control conversations come up. This can prompt a volatile reaction by gun rights advocates, which is understandable.

I'm not sure how cars come up in conversations regarding guns, because a car is a tool designed to transport people/things from one place to another, whereas a gun is a tool designed to kill or hurt people/things. A car can also be used to kill or hurt people/things, but it is not its designated use and it is necessary, like so many things in human societies (knives, hammers, frying pans), to accept this in order to function.

Guns are very useful for self defense as an equalizer. A small, weak female has less fear of being attacked by a large, powerful male if she has a gun, and it can thus act as a strong deterrent. I respect that argument and it is one of the reasons I am not personally for the ban of all guns.

However, one cannot walk into a gun store and buy a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. One cannot walk into a gun store and purchase a surface-to-air missile launcher. There are reasons these weapons are kept out of the hands of the general populace. At some point on the spectrum between combat knife and thermonuclear warhead, you have to decide where to draw the line and say "for your average citizen, this is enough firepower they need for self defense, hunting, or any reasonable application for a weapon of such nature." The sheer cost of some weaponry automatically places them out of the hands of an average citizen (e.g. thermonuclear warhead), but the problem we're seeing is that weapons designed to unload, say, 30 bullets in 30 seconds (or less) are easily affordable to the average American citizen.

Explain to me why the average citizen needs such a weapon. What so many Americans, such as myself, are arguing is that the line needs to be scaled down a few notches. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written in the 1700s, when your average citizen could possess a musket, capable of firing a bullet sparingly given the lengthy time to reload the weapon. At that time, if you could gather up enough people with muskets, you could have a militia that could actually pose a serious threat to a dedicated, trained military force. Technology has moved on substantially since then, and so has the ability for one person to kill large swaths of the populace via relatively accessible means. See the Oklahoma City bombing; we carefully monitor the activities of people and organizations with access to bomb-making materials (even things like fertilizer!) in order to help prevent such things from happening again. I just can't buy the argument that citizenry needs assault rifles and powerful machine guns to keep the American government at bay, because if the government wants to take you out, those guns aren't going to do a damn thing. In this era of precision drone bombing and advanced weaponry, your AK-47 won't amount to jack squat and you would get completely rolled by a military force.

I will leave you with something else to ponder: as technology improves, it will simply get easier and easier and easier and easier to use such technology to kill large groups of people. The insanity has to end somewhere. While the gun manufacturers continue to pour massive amounts of money into lobbying groups and advertising (usually of a highly emotion-driven, patriotically-laden nature) to keep their stranglehold on American politics, the murders just keep piling up and the death toll rises.

[shoju]

Thank you Bolty, for saying (part of) what I've been trying to say.

You just said it far more eloquently than I have in my clumsy ways.

You rock.

[Taem]

Explain to me why the average citizen needs such a weapon. What so many Americans, such as myself, are arguing is that the line needs to be scaled down a few notches. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written in the 1700s, when your average citizen could possess a musket, capable of firing a bullet sparingly given the lengthy time to reload the weapon. At that time, if you could gather up enough people with muskets, you could have a militia that could actually pose a serious threat to a dedicated, trained military force. Technology has moved on substantially since then, and so has the ability for one person to kill large swaths of the populace via relatively accessible means. See the Oklahoma City bombing; we carefully monitor the activities of people and organizations with access to bomb-making materials (even things like fertilizer!) in order to help prevent such things from happening again. I just can't buy the argument that citizenry needs assault rifles and powerful machine guns to keep the American government at bay, because if the government wants to take you out, those guns aren't going to do a damn thing. In this era of precision drone bombing and advanced weaponry, your AK-47 won't amount to jack squat and you would get completely rolled by a military force.

NPR News disagrees with you. For a single individual, of course your example holds, but when you're talking about guerilla warfare where the citizens of the US fight a huge militia from the shadows, nobody wins! We haven't even come close to squashing the Taliban yet, despite blasting their leaders with drones daily, and Viet Nam? How about most of the wars during the Arab Spring? I know, those are all extreme examples, but I think the point can be gleamed that in extreme cases, citizens turn to guerilla warfare to fight a greater threat, which is highly effective against militias... and neither side wins, but isn't that the point? Now I don't have enough mistrust against my government to worry about such situations, but I'd say a well armed citizenry would have a much greater chance of putting up a resistance than an unarmed one, which is I believe what the point of the 2nd Amendment is. Single-freedom fighter? Dead! Huge portion of the US getting upset at the current direction of the country and taking up arms using guerilla tactics to fight? Slim chance at victory, but still a chance, and the freedom to choose and fight for what they believe is theirs. In the end, it just goes to show that you can't kill an idea - once started - so easily, be it a direction you want to country to head, rights to bear arms, or freedom!

[shoju]

The Taliban is a multinational group funded from many people throughout multiple nations. They aren't exactly the same type of group as American Citizens.

Look at the Arab Spring, since you mentioned it. Can you really say that the armed populace is behind that?

And no one is saying that you unarm the populace of the United States. But like Bolty said, slide that "line" back a few notches. When we are discussing the safety of our society, we shouldn't be so quick to move to the "But we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government!" That should be the very last thing on our minds, but even in the United States, it is seemingly the first thing we jump to. And if it isn't the first thing we jump to, it's certainly on a very short list of things that we leap at to defend our right to own weaponry that John Q. Public has no idea how to use properly or effectively.

I think of it as a Don Quixote complex. We are constantly waiting, and preparing, and bantering as if the windmill that is the US Government will one day awake as a sentient malevolent bloodthirsty giant, coming to take away our freedoms, our lands, our wives, our children, and our guns.

I'm just not that fearful that the windmill is going to awake, and come to take me away. And I'm not so sure that if it ever did, a well armed populace is going to be the force to repel it.

[Jester]

For a single individual, of course your example holds, but when you're talking about guerilla warfare where the citizens of the US fight a huge militia from the shadows, nobody wins! We haven't even come close to squashing the Taliban yet, despite blasting their leaders with drones daily, and Viet Nam? How about most of the wars during the Arab Spring?

The US loses guerilla wars when it gets tired of fighting them. It is unlikely that they're going to get tired of fighting on their own soil. As they said about the game of thrones - win or die.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

First, Let's make something clear. I'm not talking about completely removing guns. You allude to that a couple of times in here. I'm not talking about removing guns from the population, but I am talking about how we should in fact regulate them far more intensely.

It's not Prohibition. Because I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm saying make it harder to get one. It's a piece of machinery that was designed to KILL THINGS and we treat it like it's not. It's time to stop treating it like it's not something that can kill people. Multiple People. Faster than other things that can kill people.

It's not infringing on rights. You have the second amendment right to own a gun.

If you jump through the hoops of red tape, and the government allows it. That is not how rights are administered. Imagine if we treated speech the same way. First, you must go through government training to ensure you are speaking in a way that does not endanger other peoples feelings... Then, before you publish anything, you must get a government license. Then, if anything you write is objectionable to the powers in charge, your license may be revoked. And, if you don't believe that words can kill, then I can cite some examples (e.g. George Wallace).

A lot of people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That first part, life, is pretty damn important.

Exactly, which is why we have the 2nd amendment. This is so that people can defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

You're changing the point, and deferring. "WELL THIS THING OVER HERE KILLS PEOPLE TOO! SO LETS NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS THING RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US THAT IS CAUSING MASS MURDER, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOREVER".

That's irresponsible. You do what you can to protect the people that you can. I could go on a mass murder spree with a spoon, or with a lawn mower blade. But we aren't talking about lawn mower blades. We're talking about guns, and what we can do to make sure that guns aren't killing people, in mass murder, or in gun crime in inner cities.

I'm not changing the point. We are talking about mass murder - by whom, and how it is committed. Guns happen to be a popular choice of tool, but if we were determined to mow the lawn but we were forbidden from using the riding mower would we find an alternative tool to mow the lawn? A scythe perhaps?

No. I didn't miss it. Because If you have been paying attention, I haven't been talking about banning Handguns, which in your example would be the lexus 4 door sedan.

Automatic weapons are illegal already. What is the thing you'd ban?

Have you not paid attention to the Aurora shooting at all? You want to talk mental health, and how we should do something about it. That man had absolutely no business being allowed to own a firearm, or order that amount of Ammo. Let's talk Mental Health, and how it should have kept him from being in that position.

There was no felony involved. It was medical. You can lose your license to drive a car for medical reasons. My wife EVERY YEAR has to have a physical from her doctor that proves that she is still allowed to drive a vehicle.

Mental health is the one of the main issues we need to deal with in a way that does not create a stigma around seeking mental health. There are 15 million hits on the Federal NICS register per year in the US, and many of those background checks result in multiple gun purchases. Incidents of mass murder in the US have remained about 30 incidents per year over the past 30 years.

Here is a detailed analysis of Murder, and mass murder since 1980.

"Mass killings usually involve the use of firearms, especially handguns and rifles, or acts of arson, which also can kill large numbers of victims. Single-victim murders also frequently involve firearms but also include significant numbers of knifes or so-called "personal weapons" such as the killers' hands for strangulation or beating."

Why don't we have that from a Psych profile and Medical DR. to own a gun?

In 2010, there were 14,748 murders and non-negligent manslaughters committed out of 308,747,538 people. Or, .000048% -- meaning more than 99.999952% of people did not commit murder last year. Considering also that these murderers probably killed more than one, and they've done it multiple times in their history, the percent of the population who commit murder is very, very, very low. If you read the article by the psychiatrist who treats these kinds of disturbed individuals, it is also hard to determine before hand which individuals may be killers in advance. The cost on the population to do these psych evaluations would be high, and the error rate would be high resulting in false negatives (wrongly denying a person their rights), and many missed acceptances that may then go on to result in more tragedies.

I was being facetious, but if we wanted to get serious about it, send them to Mexico. Maybe they can do what Gun Laws and a government haven't been able to do. End a bloody awful Drug Lord War. If we want to be serious, I don't have a problem with people who are part of the NRA. I do have a problem with LaPierre, and any single NRA member who is standing behind the position that they have taken over this. Yes. I have a problem with them.

I disagree with many people, but I don't want harm to come to them. I'd urge you to reexamine your position with those you disagree with. Often they are your neighbors too.

In reference to what I referring to, the 1st amendment has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a loaded glock under your pillow.

You wrote, "They already have the ability to deny your 2nd amendment rights. And they should." I asked you if you have this same attitude for the whole Bill of Rights? Do you think the government should have the ability to deny certain people their Constitutional rights?

Again, your pointing at it and saying "Well it wont matter, it wont change things." Really? I hate to be the bearer of bad news sir, but you are wrong. Dead wrong (pardon the bad pun.)

Actually, you need to compare more than 1 dimension in the data, which I was doing and you are not. What is the murder by guns per capita is one dimension, what is the gun ownership rate per capita is a 2nd, and the 3rd is what is the overall murder rate per capita? The US has about 88,000 guns per 100,000 people. That alone doesn't tell the tale. Most gun owners are rural, or suburban. There is no positive correlation between per capita gun ownership and crimes.

Oh, I beg to differ. Instituting licensing, including Mental Health Services as part of it (you know, what I've been saying since the beginning, taking a "wholistic" approach to the problem) would have kept Aurora from happening with legally purchased firearms.

Maybe it still would have happened. Maybe he would have purchased them illegally. It's a possibility. But it is another chance to catch the offender before it happens.

Ok, wait. So now a person not only needs to apply for a gun license, go through criminal background check, have evidence of training, but then also another precondition would be to pass a mental health evaluation? This happens once when they first apply, or every year, or only when they decide to buy a new gun?

Like I said before. I don't want it to be impossible. I want it to be regulated. I want it to be monitored. You have the right to do an awful lot of things, that are far more regulated than owning a gun volatile chemicals. It's time that we stop treating guns volatile chemicals like they aren't a dangerous, deadly, violent, murderous weapon. They are. Like you said. Any gun volatile chemical, when pointed at threatening someone is an assault weapon. Any gun volatile chemical will kill you, and shoot toast you dead as can be. So why do we treat them like they aren't?

And by we, I mean society. We as a society, just don't give two shits about them. A lot of gun chemical owners try to be as responsible as they can be. And there is a group that aren't. They don't respect the firearm chemistry. They don't respect what it does. They treat it like a toy. And in turn, as a society, people aren't taught the right way to do things.

Maybe not impossible, but certainly in violation of the 2nd amendment, and it would probably be functionally impossible. It would also be easy for the system to be rigged, such that no one is qualified to be licensed.

No, banning assault weapons wont do much for Chicago. Restricting the sale of weapons will. Making it harder to get them will. Making it a crime to own one, and not be licensed would help.

The whole point is to reduce the flow. The Law Abiding people who are responsible with weapons, will do what is asked, because they realize that things are being done to help make sure that people are safe.

Sometimes, bad things happen, and no amount of good intentions in the world will stop it. But that doesn't mean that we don't do the good things. We do the good things, because somewhere, it will help. Somewhere it will stop something. If we always look at the shit, at the worst of the worst, and say "We can't fix that, so why try to stop any of it" we're already lost.

There is no evidence that you've shown where less guns equates to less crime, or fewer murders. To get to zero opportunity to use a gun you need to address the ~300 million already owned by people in the US. So, really? You think it is a wise use of resource to implement extreme regulatory control and government intervention on 45 million lawful US citizens, in order to stop murders with guns (which would then likely become murders by other means). Even considering that the rate of murders per capita has been in decline? Really, it highlights that this brouhaha about gun control now is politicization of a few high profile incidents. Incidents we've suffered through at a constant rate for over 30 years. Incidents more related to mental health of the perpetrator, than the instruments used. This is Ted Kaczynski. This is Timothy McVeigh. This is Bruce Edwards Ivins. This is Andrew Philip Kehoe. All who committed mass murder atrocities without the use of firearms. If Newtown is your motivation, then mental health care is the focus of the answer. If the massive number of gangland drive by shootings with handguns in Chicago, Detroit, or DC is the problem, then we must address the demographics of those particular problems.

In Minnesota, we have among the highest per capita gun ownership, and among the lowest per capita murder rate. And, as I've outlined before, the bulk of our murders each year by gun mostly fall into two categories -- 1) drugs/gangs related and occur in a limited geography in urban areas, or 2) are related to domestic violence (usually by people with a prior history of domestic violence).

In summation then, based on numerous studies by the Department of Justice, we already know that the bulk of violent crimes are committed by people who are already involved with the system. If you want to start cracking down on citizens as if they were criminals, then I say we should start with the criminals. But wait, we already have which is why crime rates are going down significantly over the past 30 years. Why? Because we've built more and more jails, and we've locked up more and more criminals. But, I am one who also says this is not an answer. The key to reducing crime is to lift people out of poverty. If you want less crime, the answer is not to restrict the rights of the lawful, it is to reduce the amount of poverty. It still doesn't address the mentally ill who go postal, but maybe the parents or the relatives will be able to afford the necessary help.

Another contribution from a renowned criminologist who studies serial and mass murder; James Alan Fox opinion article on CNN

[Alram]

Stepping back a moment from the debate, I'd like to relate a perhaps relevant anecdote.
I had to put a patient, a 91 year old woman, on a walker so that she wouldn't fall. Basically, she'll be on a walker the rest of her life. I suggested to her that she could put ribbons and stickers on it if she liked, but that did not appeal to her in the slightest. Then, jokingly, I told her she could put a gun rack on it, and her eyes lit up. She hasn't fired a gun in maybe 20 years, but the idea tickled her. Everyone, including her daughter (who is her caretaker) thought it was pretty funny.
Make of this story what you will. I am not trying to make a point, just presenting a slice of life in Texas.

[Taem]

The Taliban is a multinational group funded from many people throughout multiple nations. They aren't exactly the same type of group as American Citizens.

Look at the Arab Spring, since you mentioned it. Can you really say that the armed populace is behind that?

And no one is saying that you unarm the populace of the United States. But like Bolty said, slide that "line" back a few notches. When we are discussing the safety of our society, we shouldn't be so quick to move to the "But we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government!" That should be the very last thing on our minds, but even in the United States, it is seemingly the first thing we jump to. And if it isn't the first thing we jump to, it's certainly on a very short list of things that we leap at to defend our right to own weaponry that John Q. Public has no idea how to use properly or effectively.

I think of it as a Don Quixote complex. We are constantly waiting, and preparing, and bantering as if the windmill that is the US Government will one day awake as a sentient malevolent bloodthirsty giant, coming to take away our freedoms, our lands, our wives, our children, and our guns.

I'm just not that fearful that the windmill is going to awake, and come to take me away. And I'm not so sure that if it ever did, a well armed populace is going to be the force to repel it.

My personal opinion? I think Americans should have the right to defend themselves with a gun, however I think letting anyone except military personal have automatic weapons is ridiculous. WTF are you going to use a fully automatic for unless you're planning on killing a group of people with it? I see absolutely no purpose in owning, or letting others own automatic weapons. But I draw this conclusion on the basis of my assumption that I can trust the government, and I don't foresee a time I'll ever have to take up arms against it.

Having said that, as an American living in this country, I fully respect and adhere the best I can (minus some traffic infractions) to the rules and laws set out in this country. I feel now, and have for quite awhile that if we don’t like a certain law, we can circulate ballot initiatives and with enough support, get the notice of our leaders. And guess what, if we feel our leaders aren’t taking action, we can get petitions started for a ballot initiative to hold a special election and vote the leaders out we don’t like. This is our democratic process.

My beliefs in our laws dictate I respect the current laws while I live here, and part of those laws, as written in the US Constitution, says that as an American I have the right to bear arms to protect myself from a government run amok. Now do I believe this will ever happen? No, not in my lifetime, but until the Constitution is ratified to reflect otherwise, I’ll support it in its current form, despite the fact that I don't personally agree everyone should have AK-47's.

Does this make me a mindless drone? A pawn of the system? This is why I tried to refrain from posting my actual opinion of this subject in this thread thus far, to avoid this. I hate fitting FIT’s clichéd profile of a flag-flying American patriot because that is so not me! I have my own opinions, as I stated above, but I feel without law, there is chaos, and laws must be followed and respected, and yes, we the people have the power to bring about change if desired.

Of course, my beliefs bring up some interesting conundrums: should citizens also be allowed to have atomic weapons since the Second Amendment does not strictly dictate the types of weapons one should be allowed to have? Since I personally believe fully automatics and semi-automatics have no place, would I support legislation change? No, I don’t think any weapons of mass destruction (including automatic weapons) should be available to the public, and yes I would support legislations to change this, but until it’s on the ballot, I respect the law in its current form. That’s the way I feel about it and I don’t expect to change any time soon.

EDIT: I found this interesting article on the subject. Under "THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED", I fully agree with the first column of listed weapons, and disagree with the second and definitely the third tier columns.

[Chesspiece_face]

When we are discussing the safety of our society, we shouldn't be so quick to move to the "But we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government!" That should be the very last thing on our minds, but even in the United States, it is seemingly the first thing we jump to. And if it isn't the first thing we jump to, it's certainly on a very short list of things that we leap at to defend our right to own weaponry that John Q. Public has no idea how to use properly or effectively.

I need to jump in and comment on this because, to me, it betrays a strong undercurrent to the entire discussion that is often ignored or overlooked.

The Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, the NRA and other Pro-Gun supporters love to quote the second half of the Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But completely overlook the entirety of the first section. The section that explicitly states WHY the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. And there are two very important issues within the WHY. First being that a "Militia" (for the purpose of this discussion we can be vague on what this really means) is necessary for the security of a free State. This, unlike how we choose to define "Militia", is not vague. The purpose of any Militia is to serve in the security of the State. Thus, the reason we, as Americans have the right to own weaponry is to aid in the defense of the State. Second and equally important is the descriptors used in relation to "Militia": Well Regulated. By definition the Second Amendment allows the Government the right of oversight on what qualifies as "Militia" and how it deems fit to regulate said "Militia". Unarguably the right to bare arms is not absolute and we could easily paraphrase the Second Amendment as: IF you are abiding by the regulations put forth by the Government AND you are not acting contrary to the security of the State THEN you have the right to bare arms.

*State in this case can also be debated as to meaning, but I think it is unarguable that it would mean the entirety of the community of peoples including their duly elected officials*

This then brings us to the point debated by Bolty and Kandrathe. Where do we draw the line, and who defines "need" for a certain weapon. I don't think the Second Amendment is vague in that it, in fact, proscribes the Government with the power to define "need" but lets move away from any legalistic definition and address this from the Pro-Gun lexicon. Guns are tools. They serve a specific purpose, and are only as good as the individual wielding them. If I were attempting to fasten a bolt and opted to use a hammer to pound it in it would be entirely counter-productive and most likely have lots of negative repercussions. That's not what a hammer is for.

What then is the purpose of this Tool? What is the purpose of an extended clip that can hold double or triple the ammunition of a normal clip? The purpose of these tools is to send as much ordinance down range, causing the most amount of damage possible, in the shortest amount of time. What viable use does the population have for these tools if not to undermine the very security of the State that they are meant to protect? Whether the security at risk is the lives of 20 children at a school or the lives of police or other first responders dealing with overtly anti-government individuals. What use do these tools have for the populace other than "Because I feel like it"? And when do we draw the line and say "Your right to 'Because I feel like it' no longer trumps the security of our State"?

[shoju]

I'm just going to post this. After your last response Kandrathe, I'm done with this thread. Your willingness to completely ignore, and completely twist things has made it impossible for me to continue to have a discussion with you about this.

To compare the First amendment rights to the 2nd amendment right to own a gun, and to get all Dystopian fiction about it, is completely irresponsible in a rational conversation.

If you can't see the difference between the right to free speech, and regulating guns in this country, you have serious issues.

I have absolutely nothing left to say to you. I can't even begin to think of a further response that doesn't involve a large amount of words arranged in a way that would probably end up with me being banned. And even if this place does end up coming to and end soon, I plan to be here through the end.

I didn't even read the rest of your reply. I wont read the rest of your reply. I don't plan on seeing anymore of your replies.

[kandrathe]

I need to jump in and comment on this because, to me, it betrays a strong undercurrent to the entire discussion that is often ignored or overlooked.

The Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Appointed by James Madison, the 2nd amendment was written by George Tucker, who further commented on his text;

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

A supreme court justice, Joseph Story, appointed by then President Madison wrote; "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

I think that clarifies both what they meant at that time by militia, and the intent of why they felt that arms should be kept by citizens. A more recent review and decision is DC vs Heller. From the wikipedia summary; "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved"

What then is the purpose of ...And when do we draw the line and say "Your right to 'Because I feel like it' no longer trumps the security of our State"?

Who decides whether you get a weapon sufficient to defending against what your foe may be wielding? The number of rounds needed is related more to the accuracy of the shooter, and the number of foes they may be facing. If I lived near the border in Texas or Arizona, my requirements may be different than those around my house. I'm more worried about the rafter of 20-30 wild turkeys camped in my front yard.

[kandrathe]

I'm just going to post this. After your last response Kandrathe, I'm done with this thread. Your willingness to completely ignore, and completely twist things has made it impossible for me to continue to have a discussion with you about this.

I have ignored nothing, however I can see that you have failed to read any of the experts opinions, by which I've based my views.

To compare the First amendment rights to the 2nd amendment right to own a gun, and to get all Dystopian fiction about it, is completely irresponsible in a rational conversation.

If you can't see the difference between the right to free speech, and regulating guns in this country, you have serious issues.

It is simple. Rights are rights, not bestowed by the government, but inalienable. The PURPOSE of government is to preserve our rights, not to regulate them away. Whatever you propose to be able to do to one right, like freedom of speech (expression), you can propose to any other right. If you tell me I don't have the right to defend myself with a weapon adequate to do the job, then you can just as well limit my right to speak my mind, or assure me a speedy trial, or engage in the indefinite detention and torture of your citizens.

I have absolutely nothing left to say to you. I can't even begin to think of a further response that doesn't involve a large amount of words arranged in a way that would probably end up with me being banned. And even if this place does end up coming to and end soon, I plan to be here through the end.

I didn't even read the rest of your reply. I wont read the rest of your reply. I don't plan on seeing anymore of your replies.

I am sorry if I have angered you by not agreeing to your ideas. It was not my intent to anger you, but rather to point out the issues with what you proposed.