The gun control discussion thread

Discussion Open Forum
81

Just as I quoted Ben Franklin, I’d rather have a VT massacre every few years and be able to keep my rights rather than be totally defenseless against others. The Military is armed, criminals are armed, I want to be armed.

In china the bad guys have guns, use them to kill people, then pay off the police. All of this is illegal but it happens, then its covered up so we never hear about it.

In order to have freedom you have to risk a lack of security. I mean 32 people died, thats really not much at all, the world population is expected to double in 40 years so its not like we’re running out. Polution is rising, starvation is rising. Why exactly do we need more people? Why do we need to cure ALL KNOWN diseases?

Now I realize these things are not as bad as I say and I’m exaggerating and all that, but still, my point is we have other things to worry about, and this isn’t one of them. Lets get bush and cheney tried as war criminals along with their CEO buddies, lets find an alternate fuel source, and THEN once we’ve decreased the pollution and corruption we can worry about a couple kids dying. If we don’t watch out we’re gonna end up wiping ALL of us out with irresponsibility. These psycho killers only strike every few years, kill a few dozen people, then they go away. Lets deal with the constant criminals in big business who are killing millions of us each day, and killing the hopes of a prosperous future in order to make a quick buck today.

Thats how I feel at least.

82

OK let me ask you this: Do you carry a firearm where ever you go currently? (i.e. to restaurants, shopping malls, to class, when travelling etc)

83

OK let me ask you this: Do you carry a firearm where ever you go currently? (i.e. to restaurants, shopping malls, to class, when travelling etc)[/quote]

Can it would be illegal.

84

OK let me ask you this: Do you carry a firearm where ever you go currently? (i.e. to restaurants, shopping malls, to class, when travelling etc)[/quote]

Can it would be illegal.[/quote]
Not exactly sure what you mean there Nama, but let’s consider either:
“Can’t, it would be illegal”

So what you are saying then is if everyone carried a weapon, as Ian_Alexander suggests, then all the law abiding citizens would have to leave their weapons outside of the areas where an attack is possible.

“Can, it would be legal”

So what you are saying is that gatherings in public place would consist of an unknown amount of weapons. Concealed or otherwise.
So, lets consider a shooting scenario. Outdoor Concert venue, say 10000 people. Lets say 1 in every 10 people are carrying a weapon, so that’s 1000 handguns.
Shots are heard when some loonie decides to shoot. approx 870 other handguns get drawn, safety’s off.
Of those 870 weapon holders, 5 get a visual of the gunman. 4 decide to shoot. 3 miss completely but manage to hit innocent bystanders. Now 20 other weapons holders get a visual on someone shooting innocent bystanders - they think they have identified the gunman, so 15 of these people take a shot…10 stray bullets go into the crowd, and by this point the gunman might even be lying on the ground dead after being hit by a vigilante.
The security/police decide to intervene. It appears there are around 10 crazy gunmen shooting innocent people, so they line up the shooters…

Get the idea?

85

Ben Franklin lived in a completely different world. Would you like to own slaves, too, since BF did?

Incidentally, when the 2d Amendment was promulgated, the militias that gun fans refer to as support for their cause, carried muskets that were loaded with black powder, a steel ball and a ramrod. If you want to argue you have a constitutional right to possess such an implement, fine, but the drafters of the Constitution had no idea citizens would one day shoot up schools, playgrounds, workplaces and neighborhoods, with uzis, semiautomatic rifles and glocks. Clearly they were not stating an unfettered right to own any such weapon and carry or use it anywhere. As I explained before, it has long been established that ALL of the rights stated in the Constitution are subject to reasonable limitations. Clearly, some further limitations are required with regard to gun ownership.

That’s totally simplistic, insensitive and ignorant. I take it you’re not a parent? If you are one, imagine that your son or daughter was among the victims. Something like that would rip your heart out and leave you in misery for the rest of your life. If you’re not a parent, imagine that your father or mother was one of the teachers who was killed, or your brother, sister or best friend was a victim.

32 perfectly innocent, random, beautiful people, shot dead on a university campus for no reason whatsoever, by one madman on a crazy binge with a couple of guns he never should have been allowed to purchase (bear in mind he’d previously been locked in the looney bin involuntarily because he posed a threat to himself and others) is way too many.

Don’t think of the 32 as a mere statistic; that’s not right. Look at the actual people who were killed and tell me it’s not much: nytimes.com/ref/us/20070418_ … APHIC.html

One can only hope that some good will come from this in the way of stricter laws, regulations or policies re guns.

86

Reassuringly pragmatic post there, MT.

Cheers. :bravo:

HG

87

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
Incidentally, when the 2d Amendment was promulgated, the militias that gun fans refer to as support for their cause, carried muskets that were loaded with black powder, a steel ball and a ramrod. If you want to argue you have a constitutional right to possess such an implement, fine…[/quote]

Ahhh, here’s the solution to gun control in the US. Allow everybody to possess muzzle-loading muskets, and then outlaw the rest.

Now, I am no expert on the second amendment, however was the idea not that militias were not to be disarmed?

In other words, that people who enrolled in militias got to buy and keep their weapons?

Cool, then a solution to gun control would be that people who enrolled in militias in the US got to keep their firearm at home, and the rest of us would be barred from having one.

You see systems like that implemented in Denmark, Switzerland and other places, and we don’t have that much gun related crime. I think that the home guard, which is the govt’s militia has some 25,000 military machine guns sitting in Danish homes, and we have only had 1 homicide done with one of them in more than 50 years.

The govt owns the weapon and they have some demands as to how the ammo and the bottom piece (?) is kept, they have to be in a govt issued box, which has to be fastened to a brick or concrede wall using a certain size screws.

The US could do the same, and restrict gun ownership to hunters etc. gun club members would have to keep their guns at the club.

That’s the way things are in at least Denmark, and it would appear to work, given the fact that homicides by firearms are very few back home.

88

[quote=“Mr He”]Now, I am no expert on the second amendment, however was the idea not that militias were not to be disarmed?

In other words, that people who enrolled in militias got to buy and keep their weapons?

Cool, then a solution to gun control would be that people who enrolled in militias in the US got to keep their firearm at home, and the rest of us would be barred from having one.[/quote]

And that’s how we got lots of “militia” groups established in the U.S., where closet white supremacists could find some buddies to dress up in camo outfits, shoot assault rifles, machine guns and whatever they could get their hands on, and plot how to blow up federal buildings. These militia’s rallied around things like Waco (where the feds tried to intervene with pedophile David Koresh) or Ruby Ridge (where one of their neo-Nazi friends was hiding).

89

[quote=“mofangongren”][quote=“Mr He”]Now, I am no expert on the second amendment, however was the idea not that militias were not to be disarmed?

In other words, that people who enrolled in militias got to buy and keep their weapons?

Cool, then a solution to gun control would be that people who enrolled in militias in the US got to keep their firearm at home, and the rest of us would be barred from having one.[/quote]

And that’s how we got lots of “militia” groups established in the U.S., where closet white supremacists could find some buddies to dress up in camo outfits, shoot assault rifles, machine guns and whatever they could get their hands on, and plot how to blow up federal buildings. These militia’s rallied around things like Waco (where the feds tried to intervene with pedophile David Koresh) or Ruby Ridge (where one of their neo-Nazi friends was hiding).[/quote]

I always thought it was meant to be “well-regulated militia”. Which I dare say all the loony militias out in the mountains are not.

Here’s a thought. Ban guns while at the same time legalising drugs. In Australia at least, the vast majority of burglary, muggings, home invasions etc are committed by people looking for money to buy drugs. If the US is the same or similar, legalise drugs and there won’t be a need to fear home invasion, mugging etc. Hence no need for guns as protection.

You are always going to have psycho’s who kill just to kill, but they are relatively rare (compared to regular homicide).

90

“Well-regulated” is in the eye of the beholder, of course. Some felt that eating bran was good enough.

91

There is a huge difference between Compulsory Military Service resulting in a pool of well trained civilians VS run-of-the-mill militia.

The US allows the forming of armed ‘interest groups’, which in extreme cases could be known as Militia. The law not only allows it, but protects their ‘rights’. Just imagine if these guys finally decide to go for it.

92

Well a state militia, then.

After all, the founding fathers would most likely not have condined that a bunch of well armed nutjobs started a war against the state - they wanted local militias who could fight the English.

We have a peoples volunteer militia, run by the govt. They would appear to fit the original bill rather well.

93

I agree with your view Mr. He. I just feel some others like to blur military service with rebel militia. Completely different IMHO.

94

I agree he did live in a different world, and gun law back then made a lot more sense. I agree that citizens having guns is not the best situation we could hope for, but its in our culture. ALL the bad guys have guns and I really dont think there is any way to keep them from getting them. Maybe we dont need to carry concealed weapons everywhere we go but I really think its important that we keep this right, I want to at least be able to protect my home. I can see how everyone having a gun in a public shooting incident could be really bad, but states like Utah allow this, students can bring guns to class, concealed, and I haven’t seen any massacres there.

The world is insensitive, the world is ignorant, and sometimes it takes a simplistic view to solve a difficult problem.
One day I think we will find there is not solution to our population/pollution problems, and something really atrocious will happen, I hope not in my life time. And yes I am not a parent, I am 23. Maybe as I get older I will feel differently but right now I am worried that the carelessness of my ancestors has led my generation into a dead end.

95

It is indeed possible to get guns out of the hands of criminals. An overall tough gun policy will limit the supply of illegal guns, as the legal ones dissappear. Once the legal guns have been under the steamroller, the police will have to start target lillegal gun ownership, however friskings etc. should go a long way.

Countries who have gone from gun love to gun control have all managed to reduce the number of gun related crimes significantly.

96

OK let me ask you this: Do you carry a firearm where ever you go currently? (i.e. to restaurants, shopping malls, to class, when travelling etc)[/quote]

Can it would be illegal.[/quote]
Not exactly sure what you mean there Nama, [/quote]
:smiley: I meant: can’t. and I should have said 'can’t ’ in certain states.

[quote]So what you are saying then is if everyone carried a weapon, as Ian_Alexander suggests, then all the law abiding citizens would have to leave their weapons outside of the areas where an attack is possible[/quote].

In Texas you are allowed to carry an concealed weapon. I believe the same is for Florida. Hmm, is it coincidence that at one time both of those laws came into being because it was during a Bush administration. :ponder: :smiley:

[quote]GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to
carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period
preceding the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise
eligible for a license under Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of age;
(3) has not been convicted of a felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B
misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a
felony under an information or indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class
B misdemeanor;
(6) is not a chemically dependent person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to
the proper use and storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been
convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under
Section 42.01, Penal Code;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to
purchase a handgun;
(10) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a
child support payment administered or collected by the attorney
general;
(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the
payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax
collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision
of the state;
(12) has not been finally determined to be in default on a loan
made under Chapter 57, Education Code;
(13) is not currently restricted under a court protective order or
subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other
than a restraining order solely affecting property interests;
(14) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application,
been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a
penal law of the grade of felony; and
(15) has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to
disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to
Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to
Section 411.175.
(b) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of
this state, another state, or the United States is:
(1) a felony if the offense is so designated by law or if confinement
for one year or more in a penitentiary is affixed to the offense as
a possible punishment; and
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is not a felony and
confinement in a jail other than a state jail felony facility[/quote]

Texas Gun Laws

97

Very comforting.

98

Well just remember, that’s only two states out of 49. :smiley:

99

Kansas also has a conceal and carry law. It just went into effect beginning Jan 1st of this year.

100

The loonies must be ecstatic about that in Kansas.