Gun rights/control/ownership

[Shienvien]

The would-be shooter, he jammed his gun. As it was jammed, he couldn't fire it. Hard to shoot people with a gun that doesn't work.

Except 'jammed' does not equal 'doesn't work'. It was just a slight delay - if you read further, you can see that the offender's gun, in fact, did fire properly shortly after.

 

 

You hear a gun go off. You go around a corner and see someone shooting a pistol. Do you fire? Now, how do you know if you were firing on a mass shooter or a civilian who was responding?

Depends on the circumstances - your scene is very incomplete and therefore I can't give a clear answer. There's assessing the situation to be done before deciding anything - for example, what is the person doing now? Holding fire and staring at someone lying on the ground? Pointing at random people trying to run away and continuing to shoot?

[philpot123]

See, I don't understand how you can sell at a gun show (essentially same-day) when that kind of check takes weeks to do properly. Plus in the US I presume if it's only particular to the State then anything you've done in another state simply doesn't show up. Which makes it a waste of time as anyone with a record could simply border-hop.

 

I also don't think private party sales should be allowed, as proper tracking and registering of the gun in question would be nigh on impossible.

 

Re: the 10th Amendment argument (bit hectic here, so quite late on that) I'd like to controversially suggest that there is historical precedence for it having been made defunct and obsolete - namely the Civil War, or rather, Abolition. The 13th Amendment had not been added to the Constitution at the point in time Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclimation. On the technicalities of the 10th Amendment it was completely illegal until Congress made the 13th Amendment. Which makes a very simple point: the Federal Government can do what it likes - because all it needs to do is have Congress amend the Constitution after the fact, even if it has to use force the have it ratified. It therefore does not matter if something would currently be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, because if the Federal Government was really that behind something they have the complete capacity to *make* it Consitutional.

No, it really doesn't. You phone TBI, you give a name and a SSN, and they check for criminal record. Takes about 15 minutes. I know, I've bought It's not just a state level check.

 

Just because the national government DOES what it likes doesn't mean it CAN or SHOULD do what it likes.

 

 

 

The gun saved lives? You're leaving out a very important fact. The would-be shooter, he jammed his gun. As it was jammed, he couldn't fire it. Hard to shoot people with a gun that doesn't work. I'm certainly not sorry to see him get shot, but leaving out that detail is misleading. There have been mass murder attempts where the would-be shooter was an idiot and locked all the guns in their car with the keys. Does that mean the car saved people's lives? Pop Quiz. You hear a gun go off. You go around a corner and see someone shooting a pistol. Do you fire? Now, how do you know if you were firing on a mass shooter or a civilian who was responding?

 

Did you read the article? A gun jam is fixable. The shooter successfully shot one person, and was stopped short by the officer. Read the WHOLE article. The fact that the officer was carrying saved many people's lives. It would have been a similar situation if it had been a concealed carrier.

 

You wait to fire until you assess the situation. Basic.

Edited December 19, 2012 by philpot123

[Syrup]

Okay, so we all know that the Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms. And we should. We should be allowed to defend ourselves, or to hunt or do some other *useless* shooting sport. But I dont get why people are complaining about the possible banning of military grade weapons to civilians. I mean really, we dont NEED an AK-47 stowed under our bed. I say, if you want to shoot something a military grade weapon that bad, make yourself useful and join the military!

[TikindiDragon]

No, it really doesn't. You phone TBI, you give a name and a SSN, and they check for criminal record. Takes about 15 minutes. I know, I've bought It's not just a state level check.

That actually makes me rather worried about the levels of checks they run than. I'm not joking when I say the CRB checks in the UK takes weeks because there's a lot of depth to them.

[ChocoBrownie]

I think U.S. is too lax on gun control. I mean, look at China. Nobody can own them, except for a special type of guard. Using guns for hunting is alright, but you can practically buy a gun anywhere in U.S. [if I'm not exaggerating a bit] There's just too much killings that involve a gun. I mean, how much people who get killed every day is stabbed?

[Lilithiana]

That's right. I know some journalists went to the USA. They dressed up like Hitler and other quite dubious persons. They even acted accordingly. Nobody cared! They were able to buy any gun they wanted at every store they tried.

Buying a gun the the USA seems to be as easy as buying candy.

[northxblue]

I think the most important fact that cannot be denied is that guns kill multiple people much more quickly and easily than any other weapon. The latest massacre in Connecticut proves that time and again, people's lives can be snuffed out and yet in every single mass murder incident, not a single person could fight back or escape fairly. The attacker always kills themselves or is shot down by police forces. So much for the right to bear arms and that more guns in the hands of people = more people able to fight back against these psychos.

 

Compare the Connecticut massacre to the recent attack in China where a madman ran amok with a knife. Yes, people were injured, but nobody died unlike the poor children in America. Many shootings, many deaths, many mass killings time and time again. But... guns aren't the problem and gun control never, ever works. Okay. So I guess when a nutjob opened fire in Port Arthur and caused the country to tighten up their gun control, leading to no such incidents happening since is wishful thinking. Oh right, mass shootings haven't happened since, and Australia is still okay even with their gun control laws.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012...arthur/1778519/

 

But keep your guns, America. Sure you're safe from harm, until the next time some fool stockpiles plentiful weapons and ammunition and goes out on a mass shooting spree.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kuraselache

[Kestra15]

In all cases it happens, there is a predisposion. If it is something to which we already know a genetic link to, a single genetic test will show whether you might get it or not.

Wrong. You do not need a predisposition or a family/personal history of mental illness to develop mental illness, and like all illnesses it can be a rapid degradation on a whim.

[Shienvien]

You do not need a predisposition.

I'd still say that a person does (note that family history might have no correlation whatsoever; we're all mutants, and even all the cells in our bodies do not have the same genetic codes because of replication errors continuing to occur after conception). One person is susceptible to depression, another is not, one is easy to anger, a second one is not, one takes stressful situations well and never suffers many long-lasting consequences, another might collapse under the strain.

Of course, environment can further or hinder these developments, but there's always the fact that the person had the potential to be affected in this manner firsthand.

 

Else, could you bring me a few examples of mental illnesses which certainly do not derive from genetic factors, and which are not the result of physical damage and/or chemical influences?

[Kestra15]

I'd still say that a person does (note that family history might have no correlation whatsoever; we're all mutants, and even all the cells in our bodies do not have the same genetic codes because of replication errors continuing to occur after conception). One person is susceptible to depression, another is not, one is easy to anger, a second one is not, one takes stressful situations well and never suffers many long-lasting consequences, another might collapse under the strain.

Of course, environment can further or hinder these developments, but there's always the fact that the person had the potential to be affected in this manner firsthand.

 

Else, could you bring me a few examples of mental illnesses which certainly do not derive from genetic factors, and which are not the result of physical damage and/or chemical influences?

Depression.

Anxiety disorder.

Acute stress disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Adjustment disorder.

Anti-social behaviour disorder.

Adult anti-social behaviour disorder.

Agoraphobia.

Alcohol abuse, addiction and dependence, withdrawal.

Anorexia nervosa.

Retrograde/anterograde amnesia.

 

 

Frankly, I could go on all day and not even touch the surface. You do not need a predisposition, family history, genetic trait or physical trauma to suffer from a mental illness/disorder. I mean you're right, you can say it all you want. But you'll just keep being wrong.

 

 

[Biohazard626]

I do not own a gun, nor have I ever needed one because the times I've needed to defend myself, hand-to-hand was much more useful. I don't see needing one becoming a thing, so I see no need in getting one.

 

I'm fine with other people owning guns--within reason. I don't see why anyone would need assault rifles or 30-clip magazines. I think gun laws should be much tighter and regulatory laws enhanced. I don't think anyone with a violent disposition should have guns. I don't think anyone who is mentally unstable should have them. I don't think anyone with a particularly low IQ should have them.

 

I think gun safety courses should be mandated for everyone who applies for a gun license. I think there should be a longer waiting period. I think private dealers and gun shows should have to stick to a waiting period and requiring a firearms license, unlike the current requirements in the US.

 

Of course, I wouldn't mind a straight up firearms ban, either, but let's be realistic.

[Shienvien]

Depression.

Anxiety disorder.

Acute stress disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Adjustment disorder.

Anti-social behaviour disorder.

Adult anti-social behaviour disorder.

Agoraphobia.

Alcohol abuse, addiction and dependence, withdrawal.

Anorexia nervosa.

Retrograde/anterograde amnesia.

 

...All of which are the result of either chemical influence, physical damage, or have genetic background (the latter encompassing both direct gene-disorder links and factors that merely determine how susceptible a person is to each of those. None of those things comes to exist just because - there is always a cause-result pattern.

A person's genes make the one susceptible to something, the environment merely triggers it, pretty much, unless it is the environment actively altering the one, chemically or through physical influence. (I gather you surely aren't insisting that mental illnesses just develop for no particular reason at all.)

[asciicat]

I cannot understand the pro-gun advocates. It would be safer if there were a gun ban. The argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is irrelevant because "knives don't kill people, people kill people". Also, consider the time and ease it takes to fire a bullet, and compare that to running up to someone and stabbing them. It's easier to shoot someone.

 

You heard about that shooting recently, 30 something kids right? Yeah the one in china were a guy stabbed 30 children and all survived. That seems "better" than 20 kids dying. What the is wrong with some people? Missing/defunct empathy center in their brains?

 

Psychopaths

[Red2111]

first i want to state i have not read this entire thread so i apologize if i'm bringing up points that have already been discussed. 2nd, i'm normally not this great at spelling, but my home browser is Opera and has spell check; while the browser i use at work is IE and has no such thing. so if i post during the day tomorrow, expect spelling errors from me

 

I do not own a gun, nor have I ever needed one because the times I've needed to defend myself, hand-to-hand was much more useful. I don't see needing one becoming a thing, so I see no need in getting one.

 

I'm fine with other people owning guns--within reason. I don't see why anyone would need assault rifles or 30-clip magazines. I think gun laws should be much tighter and regulatory laws enhanced. I don't think anyone with a violent disposition should have guns. I don't think anyone who is mentally unstable should have them. I don't think anyone with a particularly low IQ should have them.

 

I think gun safety courses should be mandated for everyone who applies for a gun license. I think there should be a longer waiting period. I think private dealers and gun shows should have to stick to a waiting period and requiring a firearms license, unlike the current requirements in the US.

 

Of course, I wouldn't mind a straight up firearms ban, either, but let's be realistic.

before i get into my personal thoughts, which from appearances most will disagree with, i want to first say that i agree with the above post excluding the bits in italics.

 

1st italic - i would like to point out that hand-to-hand only works if you can get the gun away from the aggressor before s/he shoots you.

 

2nd italic - while this is your personal opinion and i can respect that, i argue that if obtaining a Dirvers Licsense does not require an IQ limit (which it should) and Motor Vehicles account for more deaths in the US each year than guns link that thsi should never be applied to guns, especially since driving is not a right afforded to us by the constitution but a privilege and private gun ownership is.; as dictated by SCOTUS in 2008.

 

3rd italic - and an all out ban would have the opposite impact your looking for, unless you discount what happened as a result of the Assult Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf - is a link to the findings og the NCJRS in referance to the 1994 assualt weapons ban.

 

the claim is that a ban would reduce the guns, the findings of this study were that discussion of a ban and the ban itself led to more guns being produced and sold.

 

the claim is that a ban would reduce the number of victims, the study found that it had little to minimal impact on victims.

 

all a ban does, is take the guns out of law abiding citizens and allow the criminals easier and more targets; because criminals do not abide by the laws.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

now as to my own thoughts on this.

 

2nd amendment is pretty clear, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". SCOTUS has ruled that the type of weaponry covered by this amendment is equal to that of what the malitia (armed services) uses with a common sense clause (no tanks, nukes, drones, ect) and has more recently ruled in 2004 that the 2nd amendment also applies to a private citizens right to self defense (whether from a home invader, mass shooter, or tyrannical government makes no difference)

 

it is important to know that i am a constitutionalist - meaning that i support the constitution as it was founded by the Founders, believe that it is a living document that applies to todays society because the Founders understood Human Nature, and that it is not a document used to restrict the federal government, but more so a document used to protect the freedoms of the citizens from tyranny and ensure that we remain a free people.

 

 

now, pertaining to the issue directly of gun control, or rather increased gun control as Washington is now discussing; such as re-instituting the Assault Weapons Ban".

 

as i've stated earlier in this post, the Assualt Weapons ban had the opposite effect on society that it was intended. it did not reduce gun violence, nor did it reduce the amount of Assault Weapons within the US. other instances from other nations can be used to show how gun control has the opposite effect on society than what is intended.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-89-decade.html - which shows that gun violence increased after weapons ban in England. the same statistics can be shown for Australia.

 

 

this alone for me is proof to the statement that gun control takes away the power of the law abiding citizen and places that power it into the hands criminal. after all, only law abiding citizens obey laws.

 

 

 

another aspect to look at, is government control when the individual right to bear arms is revoked. instead of relying on ones self to protect from harm, you then have to rely on someone else to do this for you. in this case, it would be the People relying on the Government (law enforcement) to protect them from Criminals.

 

using the most recent example of gun violence to showcase the danger in this, it took '20 Minutes to arrive at the school once it was reported to 911. this is 19 minutes too long to respond to any short of tragedy, let alone one of this caliber.

 

Police generally show up either after the crime has been committed or while it is in progress; they very rarely are able to prevent the crime from happening. in this sense, relying on police for personal protection against harm is not logical nor productive.

 

before this, i mention government control. look at how the Government currently spends our tax dollars an how they use this to control us. we give the gov tax revenue to provide certain services for us (education, defense, roads, ect). Yet the areas which get the least funding for tax dollars are the exact areas that we demand the gov provide for us; instead the appropriate majority of the funding to special interest projects or "research and development". And, when We The People, complain about that spending, the first cuts made are to the programs we require the gov to provide. its the gov telling us "STFU, we'll spend your money how we want, if you complain and we'll cut the things you like. now be nice little sheep and continue giving us your wool."

 

relying on the gov for protection is just giving them yet another leash at which to control us with.

 

 

 

the next aspect to consider is the well known statement "guns dont kill people, people kill people."

 

to consider this aspect, you must first understand what i mean by this. what this is saying is, blame the person for his/her actions, not the item with which they used as a weapon. for me, banning or instituting crippling regulation on guns as a result of violent crimes is akin to banning Grand Theft Auto because a child played the game and thought it a good idea to go carjack the next door neighbors jag.

 

in part, this really applies to a broader beef i have with society in general; which is the lack of personal responsibility .. but i digress.

 

by focusing on the weapon, and not the person committing the crime you give the criminal an excuse for their behavior and transfer the blame for the tragedy from the person onto the inanimate object.

 

 

coupled with this point is the statement "if we ban guns, then why not knives. after all, knifes kill people too."

 

again, to consider this point, you must first understand what is meant by this point.

 

what is meant by this point is to showcase the question of "if we outlaw guns because they're used for Murder, then at what point do we stop outlawing items because their used for Murder." if we outlaw guns, as England did, and if homocide rate as a result to knives increases in coorelation to this (as happene din England) do we then consider outlawing Knives or restricting their individual use (as happened in England) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/contents

 

what i'm further stating is that, when an individual has it in their mind to commit murder, they will do so with whatever is item is available to them. if they dont have access to a gun, they'll use the next best thing available to them, be it a knife, a lamp, their fists, a car, ect.

 

Murder is not defined by the items with which the person uses to commit the act; but instead it is determined by the intent behind how an individual uses said item. a lamp is a useful, non-harmful item .. until i use it to bludgeon you to death.

 

 

 

which neatly brings me to my next aspect for consideration. we need to focus less on the inanimate object and more on the Human element. in the instance of gun violence, you have 2 distinct human elements. the Criminal element and the Mentally Insane element.

 

the Criminal element is easily defined by acts of Home invasion or crimes against individuals. and i believe i already covered this element enough previously. as stated before, only law abiding citizens obey laws. one point i do wish to add on the criminal element is that guns used in acts of violence perpetrated by criminals are, for the most part are obtained illegally - http://ohioccw.org/200412042532/op-ed-just...-illegally.html (be it through theft of legally purchase guns, or through black market dealers.)

 

the next element is the Mentally Insane Element, which is generally the sort of person who is responsible to acts of Mass Shootings, such as Columbine, Colorado Movie Theater and the tragedy which occurred last Friday. in this i argue that we are better served focusing on ensuring that these people are properly treated (as it is both beneficial for themselves and for society) rather than focusing on gun control, which does nothing to fix the underlaying problem nor will it prevent them from committing murder with a different item. you may argue, "but they'll kill less!" to which i respond "isn't one death, one too many when the death could have been avoided with proper medical treatment?"

 

the point of citing the Human aspect of gun violence is to show you, guns are not the root cause of Murder and Violence, Humans are. a gun does not chose to kill, no more than a knife chooses to stab; a Human makes the conscious decision to use that item as a weapon, to pull that trigger and the stab with that knife. you cannot solve or lessen the tragedy of Murder by banning the weapon, because the underlaying cause of Murder remains unchallenged and intact.

 

 

this next point is more of a personal plea and grievance. while everyone can agree that what happened on Friday was a tragedy, something that no one can argue. my heart still bleeds for those children and those that survive them. i cannot imagine how i would feel or react to being in those parents shoes. in fact, just thinking about this has me choking back tears. to say that i lack empathy because i argue against increased gun control after this tragedy is failing to understand that i feel the same sorrow and pain, deep within my heart, for those children as i do for those that lost their lives on 9/11. both events have effected and changed my life in some aspect, and both events i equally grieve for. this is not to say that the events are equal, just that they have impacted me personally the same emotionally.

 

having stated this, i agree with Ben Franklin when he said "Those who sacrifice liberty to gain security diverse neither." while i grieve and feel a deep sorrow for what happened to those children and 6 adults, i cannot abide having my 2nd amendment rights infringed upon in the guise of false security.

 

this country had an extreme emotional reaction to this tragedy, as much so as it had to the tragedy of 9/11. with 9/11, the government used our emotional reaction and fear to enact legislation termed "The Patriot Act" which greatly diminished out 4th Amendment Rights as citizens in the name for increased security.

 

and once again, Washington is now plying on our emotional reaction and fear to infringe on our 2nd amendment right in the guise of increased security. i regardless of how deeply i morn, how saddened and angry and confused i am that this happened. i can not complacently allow the government to once again capitalize on a tragedy, especially not at the expense of my Rights.

 

We all agree that school shooting need to stop, why then are we focusing on gun control and not the lack of proper funding. if politicians had not "re-allocated" funds meant for schools to pet projects; is it not easy to argue that the school would have been better equipped to prevent this tragedy or at least curtail the outcome. if the school had its proper funding, they might have been able to afford safety glass which would have prevented him from obtaining entrance to the school, and metal detectors to warn the faculty that he was armed, or even might have been able to afford a local law enforcement agent or retired military personal on staff with a gun to help protect against this sort of intruder.

 

But instead of focusing on the real issue, we jump directly to taking away freedoms in the guise of false security.

 

 

lastly, i will leave you with a warning to the wise. those of us have heard the saying "History repeats itself, those who do not learn from it, are doomed t repeat it."

 

part of the justification behind the 2nd amendment rights for individuals to bear arms applies to protection from a tyrannical government. 1st i warn that if you that state "Not in the USA!" i argue that you are to complacent in your trust of the government, especially as it has stood since the 20th Century.

 

2nd i remind you of the extremes that has happened in history when the citizens are revoked their right to bear arms and caution of the ease at which history repeats itself.

 

http://www.afn.org/~govern/guncontrol.html

 

and leave you with this quote from Thomas Jefferson in regards to my warnings

 

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

 

Edited December 20, 2012 by Red2111

[Daydreamer09]

I think the most important fact that cannot be denied is that guns kill multiple people much more quickly and easily than any other weapon.

 

....

But keep your guns, America. Sure you're safe from harm, until the next time some fool stockpiles plentiful weapons and ammunition and goes out on a mass shooting spree.

Bombs? What about the planes that flew into the pentagon or the world trade towers? There are people out there that will find a way, no matter what the method is to cause the most harm to others.

 

The attitude some people from out of country give off is coming off as snide and condescending. Listen, the right to bear arms is in the US bill of rights. It was originally put in place because of the fact that a little before the US revolutionary war time, England prohibited colonists from owning ammunition and forming local militias. You can argue as much as you want, but it won't change the fact that civilians in the US will continue carrying guns.

[KageSora]

1st italic - i would like to point out that hand-to-hand only works if you can get the gun away from the aggressor before s/he shoots you.

Just like to point out, though, that having a gun only works if you can point it at your attacker before they shoot you or have theirs pressed against your skull. So, that does go both ways. Just having a gun doesn't mean you'll get out, if both parties are armed with a gun.

 

Of course, your attacker might not have a gun. They could have a knife, some sort of object to beat you with, or just be using their bare hands.

[Red2111]

my post has been updated with my personal thoughts, and supporting evidence against increased gun control

 

 

Just like to point out, though, that having a gun only works if you can point it at your attacker before they shoot you or have theirs pressed against your skull.  So, that does go both ways.  Just having a gun doesn't mean you'll get out, if both parties are armed with a gun.

 

Of course, your attacker might not have a gun.  They could have a knife, some sort of object to beat you with, or just be using their bare hands.

you can point that out, and your valid in what you say, but i would also like to point out that in most cases its not shooting the gun that is effective, but the mere knowledge that the intended victim has a gun with which to defend themselves with that deters or stops crime.

 

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-arme...-183593571.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

 

http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02/14/new...tes-study-says/

 

 

are just a few instances were law abiding citizens prevented more murders because they had a gun.

 

if you want to see more, go to your local search engine and imput the following search

 

"law abiding citizen holds criminal until police arrive"

 

just an FYI, my Bing.com search came up with 1,360,000 results

Edited December 20, 2012 by Red2111

[KageSora]

Again, that only works if the attacker thinks you'll use it, or doesn't want to be shot.

 

It won't do anything for you if your attacker doesn't care if they're shot. It also doesn't do anything for you if they decide to chance that you won't shoot.

 

And if they have a gun... Well, then you're both in the same position--you both have the means to injure or kill each other, it just comes down to who gets to do it first.

 

I wonder, though. What good is a gun without the conviction to use it? Using it merely as a deterrent can be good, yes. But if your attacker is counting on you only planning to use it as a deterrent? What then?

 

If you plan to use it to attempt to intimidate your attacker, you have to be ready to make use of it for real.

 

And, again, it also depends on the attacker. What if they're counting on their victim hurting or killing them, such as those who try the "suicide by cop" routine? Such a person won't care if they can get gunned down by other civvies before they finish their crime.

 

 

 

And, just since you said you didn't read the entire thread--I'm not anti-gun.

 

I'm all for more restrictions and making people who own guns have continued checkups to ensure that they're mentally fit to continue owning their guns--and a way to remove their guns if they are no longer mentally stable enough to maintain them.

 

I'm not, however, for banning guns, nor am I for taking them away from fit, stable, law-abiding citizens because there are situations where guns do good.

 

I just want to point out that guns are not a guarantee, and that there are many more factors than just "does the victim have a gun" that go into determining the outcome of any incident. A lot of times I've seen pro-gun people simplify it to "if you have a gun, you're golden if you don't you're screwed", which simply is not a universal rule.

[Vhale]

Pretty much everything KageSora said.

 

What bothers me about the current dialog is people seem so ready to rush out and arm teachers to protect the students, they are forgetting about the students in the rush. It feels like we're reacting to a symptom instead of trying to solve the problem.

[KageSora]

What bothers me about the current dialog is people seem so ready to rush out and arm teachers to protect the students, they are forgetting about the students in the rush. It feels like we're reacting to a symptom instead of trying to solve the problem.

This, very much so.

 

We can treat the symptoms all we want, but they'll just keep coming back stronger than ever and in different variations unless we treat the underlying problem.

 

And that requires a multi-level solution that works from more than one angle--which definitely includes gun control.

[TikindiDragon]

I, also, am for much tighter regulation and not an outright ban. I will also note, Red, that you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that everyone that thinks current policy needs changing wants an outright ban.

 

That said I admit that I don't think people should be carrying guns around with them on a daily basis, and I also don't see a reasonable use for a handgun unless you belong to a pistol shooting club. I can see no reason, whatsoever, for a civilian to own an assault rifle.

 

I will note that the UK actually requires proof of 'reasonable use' before it issues a firearms liscence. This can include membership of a shooting club, a hunters permit, or employment where a gun is essential (including game keepers and, I believe, farmers). I can see something similar benefiting people in the US - for instance registering at a gun club would show that you have undertaken some training in the use and safety of the weapon, and actually practise firing it. The countries with high-ownership but low gun crime are those where almost everyone undergoes military service - I'm not suggesting that for the US, but if everyone had to be a member of a club, and demonstrate a base level of proficiency, then I can only see that being beneficial.

 

Likewise liscences are only issued in the UK once the police (who are the ones who issue the liscence) have been to your property to check you have safe storage for the firearm. The CT shootings may not have happened if the man involved had not been able to access his mother's guns - for instance if they were kept in a locked cabinet to which she was the sole key-holder (or with a combination lock only she knew the code to). Or if, for example, the ammunition had been kept locked away seperate from the guns (assuming that one weanted to leave the unloaded guns available as a deterrant for intruders). Ammunition in the UK can only be purchased on production of the firearms liscence, and the type and quantity a person is allowed will be noted on said liscence. This would make it difficult to impossible for someone like the CT shooter to have bought ammunition for an unloaded gun, even had he been able to lay his hands on that gun in the first place.

 

Finally (and something that some states - I'm looking at you South Carolina! - are currently attempting to take *backwards* steps on) is keeping all guns registered. With a serial number, to the person in legal posession of them. This makes all legal guns fully traceable - from manufacture/import, through sale to owner. It would highlight legitimate dealers that haven't been following procedure, and it would mean the police only had to check a database to find out if a gun was legal, and if so who it was registered to and where it was purchased.

 

I do not want to take everyones guns away. I'm a strong supporter of the hunting community here in the UK (note - not actually a popular position outside of rural areas). But the US *does* have some major issues with firearms, and that can only be begun to be adressed with tighter regulations - on who can own them, how they need to store them, and how guns are registered.

[Kestra15]

...All of which are the result of either chemical influence, physical damage, or have genetic background (the latter encompassing both direct gene-disorder links and factors that merely determine how susceptible a person is to each of those. None of those things comes to exist just because - there is always a cause-result pattern.

A person's genes make the one susceptible to something, the environment merely triggers it, pretty much, unless it is the environment actively altering the one, chemically or through physical influence. (I gather you surely aren't insisting that mental illnesses just develop for no particular reason at all.)

Again no, they're not all a result of chemical influence, physical damage or genetic background. I'm not going to sit here and debate this with you, given I'm quoting from "Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing" by Phil Barker, which is pretty much the handbook on Mental Health Nursing. Believe it all you want, you are just plain wrong.

[Shienvien]

I'm quoting from "Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing" by Phil Barker, which is pretty much the handbook on Mental Health Nursing. Believe it all you want, you are just plain wrong.

In other words, this is the One Book that invalidates all other research in existence, and if I dare make my claims based on anything but this one particular book, I am by default dead wrong. Very hostile, unscientific approach to the matter, I must say...

 

I also don't see a reasonable use for a handgun unless you belong to a pistol shooting club.

What about private practitioners? Though, it can be figured those too would not have to take too much of an effort to register themselves at a club, and I personally am in favor of people actually proving they know what to do and what not to do with a gun before being handed one (as well as, for the sake of repeating it, good registration system, and people being held responsible for not preventing their guns from ending up in wrong hands).

Similarly, while I do agree with not handing out all kinds of ammunition to people when there is no reason for them to possess it (expanding bullets to non-hunters has been mentioned), but I do not agree with limiting the amount of ammunition a person can possess.

 

I can see no reason, whatsoever, for a civilian to own an assault rifle.

Collectors?

 

 

Other than that, only thing that remains is the matter of self-defense... (Note that I'm not claiming that a gun is the magic thing which makes everything turn out fine - I claim it is the one thing which makes the situation - if both are similarly armed - equal.)

 

[Kestra15]

In other words, this is the One Book that invalidates all other research in existence, and if I dare make my claims based on anything but this one particular book, I am by default dead wrong. Very hostile, unscientific approach to the matter, I must say...

The one book that is an amalgamation of 50 peoples work, and every other mental health book in history has the same stance. If mental disorders only came about from those three things you mentioned, it would have been the first thing every health-care worker is told when doing mental health. In fact we're told the complete opposite; that any one person can get mental health issues with or without any form of predisposition.

 

But you're right, what do I know? But, should you find research to support your stance do feel free to let me know as that would be a breakthrough in medical science which would parallel the discovery of penicillin or the mapping of the human genome.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

Similarly, while I do agree with not handing out all kinds of ammunition to people when there is no reason for them to possess it (expanding bullets to non-hunters has been mentioned), but I do not agree with limiting the amount of ammunition a person can possess.

 

 

 

 

Other than that, only thing that remains is the matter of self-defense... (Note that I'm not claiming that a gun is the magic thing which makes everything turn out fine - I claim it is the one thing which makes the situation - if both are similarly armed - equal.)

"Expanding" bullets (hollowpoint rounds) are the ONLY ammunition you should use in your gun if you keep it for home defense. Anything else over-penetrates and leaves others in your home or neighborhood in danger. Expanding rounds not only cause more damage (which is why police use them), they are also almost guaranteed to stop INSIDE the body of the individual being shot, or INSIDE of the first thing it hits, rather than piercing a wall and going through to hit someone in the next room (which I'm sure has happened before). Quite simply, any attempt to take hollowpoint rounds away will just serve to make home-defense situations more perilous for all involved than they already are.

 

Similarly, if you carry a gun for self defense, you should ABSOLUTELY have hollowpoints loaded in your handgun.

 

Or if, for example, the ammunition had been kept locked away seperate from the guns (assuming that one wanted to leave the unloaded guns available as a deterrant for intruders)

 

Ammo and guns should always be stored separately, with the sole exception being the gun you keep for home defense. While an unloaded gun MIGHT be a deterrent just by the sight of it, you're playing with fate if you think that you can properly defend yourself with an unloaded glorified stick.

 

 

 

As to the "assault weapons ban," I fail to see why we're attempting to reinstate one of the least productive pieces of legislation ever. But if they insist on doing it, I have a few guns that will probably double in value. So there's a plus.