Gun rights/control/ownership

[Syaoransbear]

In Canada, you can have a rifle shipped straight to your door. I could order a semi-automatic SKS with a 10 round box magazine from the internet and get it delivered TO MY HOUSE. In America, gun purchases from internet ordering sites must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Of course, this is assuming it's a legitimate website. I've heard whisperings of Deep Web sites where getting illegal guns delivered to your door is not unheard of, but that's already outside the realm of legality.

But you need a PAL license to order any firearms off the internet, which is the license you get after you've completed your firearms safety course. So it's not like they just ship them to whoever has a credit card without doing any checks.

[philpot123]

But you need a PAL license to order any firearms off the internet, which is the license you get after you've completed your firearms safety course. So it's not like they just ship them to whoever has a credit card without doing any checks.

It is my understanding that the firearms safety course only involves showing you can handle a firearm safely. It's pretty basic, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, there's no such provisions in the US. I just find it interesting. Even if I have taken safety courses and even have a permit to carry a gun, I still can't purchase a firearm off the internet without going through a dealer and getting a background check and sometimes registering it, depending on the state.

 

 

 

For anyone interested, this website is very informative. Interesting slideshow format.

 

Assault Weapons

[TikindiDragon]

It is my understanding that the firearms safety course only involves showing you can handle a firearm safely. It's pretty basic, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, there's no such provisions in the US. I just find it interesting. Even if I have taken safety courses and even have a permit to carry a gun, I still can't purchase a firearm off the internet without going through a dealer and getting a background check and sometimes registering it, depending on the state.

Someone in the UK clearly *did* buy a gun off a US website without those checks being made. Because, as I said, such checks would have to go through the UK police, who would have flat-out informed them that such a sale was illegal.

[philpot123]

Someone in the UK clearly *did* buy a gun off a US website without those checks being made. Because, as I said, such checks would have to go through the UK police, who would have flat-out informed them that such a sale was illegal.

If they did, it would have been an illegal purchase anyways, because to the best of my knowledge you cannot sell firearms on the internet in/from the US without going through a dealer. Perhaps it was purchased from a below-the-radar .onion site? Do you have any news articles about it? Because I REALLY don't think that's legal, even here. There's something fishy there.

Edited January 16, 2013 by philpot123

[TikindiDragon]

If they did, it would have been an illegal purchase anyways, because to the best of my knowledge you cannot sell firearms on the internet in/from the US without going through a dealer. Perhaps it was purchased from a below-the-radar .onion site? Do you have any news articles about it? Because I REALLY don't think that's legal, even here. There's something fishy there.

Oh, it was a joint operation between US and British agencies. But the fact that the guns had actually left the US and made it over here, and the fact that guns can be sold without face-to-face meetings at all are what worries me.

 

It's mentioned at the bottom of this BBC report and also in this more detailed one.

[Dragon Mage]

The problem with your assumption here is where guns are produced - in this case, it's broadly the USA. There are more gun illegally smuggled *into* Mexico *from* the US than the other way around. We had a load of info on it brought up when we were discussing cartels.

 

So... don't think your point is valid on that one.

 

2. As has been extensively and exhaustingly pointed out again and again, the problem is more guns being smuggled *into* Mexico. It's so tiresomely overdone that "Mexico = drugs lords wanting blood" that it is frankly racism.

 

My statement has little do with the cartels in Mexico or even where guns are made, merely that there's a very big, experienced smuggling ring when it comes to getting something over the border from Mexico to the US. Drugs, people, guns, it really doesn't matter -- merely that the smuggling is so successful is what I'm referring to.

 

In the theoretical situation where guns are banned from the US, it wouldn't stop people wanting to make a profit from smuggling that desired item over the border. It has nothing to do with the political state of Mexico, merely that getting things over the border is very successful, and while it does go both ways, Mexico would be primarily smuggling illegal things to the US; in this hypothetical situation, it would be guns.

 

Where'd you get racism from? o_0

 

1. Naive thinking to say the least. Yes, a criminal will always try to get the edge through illegal means. However if you make guns less common and more difficult to get hold of legally, it means that those who obtain the guns through shady legal means then sell them on illegally will find it more difficult to get the same quantity, and thus there will be less guns for sale illegally. It's as simple as maths gets; less guns overall means less guns for each side. Restricting sale of guns (as pointed out, you can by them in the marketplace and over the internet without requiring any background check and that is 'legal' by the American system) will mean it is more difficult for people to get hold of them, regardless of legal or illegal means.

 

No, it's naive for you to say that getting rid of guns means less guns will be available. As pointed out, there are always ways of getting guns in a 'gun free zone' so banning them will not automatically result in less guns for both sides. Indeed, it makes guns harder for normal people to acquire for protection, and easier for a criminal to get one since they do not have to go through any official channels.

 

3. Correct. But why do you need a silencer?

 

I was replying to a statement made a page back or so. A suppressor is very easy to make, so whether or not they were banned would be an entirely moot point.

 

4 & 5. Semi-automatic means one round per pull...but it also means that the rifle will automatically load the next round, so you can still get through a 30-round magazine in a few seconds as you *tap-tap-tap* away. And why do you need such an aggressive-looking weapon if the only reason you need a gun for is hunting?

 

Yes, I am aware of what a semi-automatic gun is, I have one. Even if you were to pull the trigger as fast as possible, only 2 or 3 rounds will hit a desired target. You must aim between shots because the recoil will still throw off your aim. It is very implausible someone could fire all 30 rounds (not sure how you got that number, but okay) and still hit their target, unless it was the size of a truck.

 

Aggressive looking? What do cosmetics have to do with anything? I thought we were going on logic here, not being scared by black plastic.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, the polymer frame is more ergonomic and much more comfortable to hold to your shoulder for hours which, if you're hunting, you will easily spend half a day doing. Also, because of the polymer frame, it's much lighter and easy to carry around for a long time (and if your tromping through the woods, you want as little weight on you as possible). The drawback to the lightness of the frame, however, is that the recoil is greater, spoiling any secondary shots without at least a second or three to readjust.

 

And if you're going for defending your house (which, according to most supporters of keeping gun control as it is, or making it more lax, seems to be a nightly occurrence for Americans), a Ruger is a poor choice. A handgun would be a far better choice - smaller so more convenient to hide and keep to hand, easier to use in close quarters, easier to aim as well since you need the less room to bring it to bear, and you can use one-handed and still have a good enough aim.

 

I believe you mean a rifle, not a Ruger. I myself own a Ruger SR9C, and I agree, a rifle is not an ideal for home defense, but many may prefer it because the majority of handguns fire a small round -- at least 7 or 8 needed to take down an attacker for a 9mm. The larger calibers, like a .45 requires 2-3 rounds, but those are usually too big and unwieldy for many people, especially since the recoil can be a beast. Thus, a small rifle, like the Mini-14 would seem to a good many people a compromise in recoil and stopping power.

 

Personally, I'd say those people should just become acquainted with a .45 at a range until they are comfortable enough with it, or else get a shotgun.

 

In any case, rifles are generally used for hunting, not home defense, though it has been known that such occurrences happen.

 

6. Closing down 'mental hospitals' is more recognising that you cannot segregate mental health from the rest of the health disciplines so cleanly, and thus moving them to integrate into the wider health system. You do still have care communities that specialise in mental health, but mostly it's accepted that you need to have the wider knowledge. You do have a mental health system, but since your entire health system is at best third-world it means your mental health system is appalling to say the least.

 

Wrong, in fact, mental health had been segregated from everything else for hundreds of years. If you don't believe me, then by all means, ask a psychologist. A medical doctor and a psychologist are entirely different professions, and for a good reason.

 

The original plan after the Mental Health Systems act was that all the patients would be put into community-based 'group homes' where the mentally ill patients would be reintegrated into society and exposure to a normal environment would help this along. As it turned out, no one wanted a house full of crazy people in their suburb, so the plan was scrapped and those very mentally ill people are now just walking around as free as you please. There is no system to help them unless they seek it out themselves and many are in no position to do this, and may actively avoid it.

 

I do not know where you get off calling the health system of the USA 'third-world at best' and that it is 'appalling' but I must remind you that I did not come in here hurling insults left and right. You are being incredibly offensive and antagonistic for no reason. Please be respectful and not offer insults when none was given.

 

7. False, on so many levels. Men don't just randomly go 'nutty' in their 20s. Mental health can occur in anyone at any age, and often those with mental health issues don't actually show signs/admit to their mental health problem until a while (sometimes years or decades) after it actually begins. So are you advocating that all men in their 20s are just crazy and shouldn't be allowed guns at all?

 

I never said that all men just randomly went nuts, merely that the early twenties is when mental illness began to truly manifest in men, on average. Where you got specifics to the contrary, I do not know, but I never said that all men in their 20's were crazy.

 

[Obscure_Trash]

This is a prevalent thought in a lot of places, but the mentally disabled or the mentally disordered are actually much, much more likely to be victims of violent crime than the perpetrators. I feel like people use 'they were mentally disabled/disordered' as a cop out so we don't have to deal with the fact that people do bad things. =(

Quoting my reply to someone earlier since we seem to again be headed down the road of 'well, these people are crazy and let's blame this on craziness instead of doing anything about gun regulation'. Yes, I most definitely agree that our mental health care system needs improvement, as do attitudes and understanding of what it means to have a mental illness. And before I ramble on and obfuscate my own point, there may be language in the comments, but this article says what I'm trying to get at. Only it actually gets at the point. >_e

 

My statement has little do with the cartels in Mexico or even where guns are made, merely that there's a very big, experienced smuggling ring when it comes to getting something over the border from Mexico to the US. Drugs, people, guns, it really doesn't matter -- merely that the smuggling is so successful is what I'm referring to.

 

In the theoretical situation where guns are banned from the US, it wouldn't stop people wanting to make a profit from smuggling that desired item over the border. It has nothing to do with the political state of Mexico, merely that getting things over the border is very successful, and while it does go both ways, Mexico would be primarily smuggling illegal things to the US; in this hypothetical situation, it would be guns.

 

This sounds like a slippery slope to me (but, hey, I am not great with fallacies). How can we possibly know that, if the US tightened gun regulation, things would suddenly do a flip and instead of smuggling guns from the US, guns would now be smuggled from Mexico? How would this 180 occur? Are we going to smuggle back the guns from Mexico that were originally smuggled from the US? Is Mexico suddenly going to produce more guns just because the US tightened regulations? Yes, I suppose there is some sort of argument in 'people can obtain things illegally' but considering how many (mass) killings use weapons legally obtained...

[~Kat~]

I read your article Sock.

 

All of the factors are important in the article.

 

Anyone who kills to me is not in their right mind to start with. There is something wrong with these people, does not matter if they are mentally ill, thugs, dope heads, robbers or just plain mean and because they want something that some one else has, they will just kill them and take it. I can come up with many words to describe all sorts of people who go on a killing rampage. People that do this are just plain sinners.

 

Some people who do drugs go off the deep end and kill, but yet quite a few people say some of these drugs need to be legalized like marijuana. So yes drug abuse legal or illegal play a big part as well.

 

I feel parents do not want to do right by their children when they see their child is not quite right, because they do not want to put them in some of the places they need to be in for what ever reason. They will not even put them in therapy.

 

A gun is a gun, and if the person knows how to shoot, they will take out many people no matter what. People in a school room, at the movies, or any enclosed spaces are easier to target.

 

You can take a hand gun and strap them to your back, chest, arms, legs and have many sets of reloads on you. Most cops carry two guns and reloads.

 

I can go along to some degree about gun control, but it seems like it is always because of the bad people that the good citizens are punished. A lot of us good citizens are tired of this as it infringes on our rights. As this article that you put on said, drug abuse has a lot to do with people killing others, and many of us do not want illegal drugs legalized of any sort, but yet it has been.

 

For the people who are not crazy, and kill, the laws need to be very stiff. They should not be put on death row for twenty years. If it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, they need to die plain and simple as well as with in a short period of time. If you steal, your hands are cut off. I know this sounds horrible, and yes it is, but just maybe it might make believers of those who want to sin this bad. The laws in America are the ones hurting the good citizens of our country because these people get put in jail and are let back out to do it again.

 

With my sons in the Military and Law Enforcement, I know on some stops they will let them go because the jails are so full. If they take them in, they have a lot of paper work to do, and the perps will be let out in a few hours or with in twenty four hours. This really says a lot for our justice system. Well if the oh so smart ones from the president down will get their thinking caps on a little better, and have harsher laws for really bad crime we might get some where. But, to me, they would rather put a band-aid on it. Then put some gun restrictions on people.

 

Where I work, we have security that are not allowed to carry a weapon, what a joke. I asked the head security guy today as a matter of fact, if some one came on to the property shooting what he could do for me. He said nothing except to get out of the way and hopefully I could get to my car and get my gun to shoot or kill the person. Yep, the security we have makes me really feel secure!!!

 

My children were small once upon a time to and went to school. I am glad it never happened at their school. But having been around weapons most of my life, as well as my family hunted and had guns for protection I can not say gun control is going to stop any of these killings. I am a good citizen and I want any gun I can get my hands on to stop someone that goes on a killing spree or invades my house or goes to prey on me, my family or anyone else.

 

My ex, both my sons and my father are excellent shooters. My father was a gunner in the navy and they called him Ace. He could shoot skeet, and very few could match him. They can all shoot a deer on the run and bring it down with one shot. My sons have practiced and practiced at the pistol range and are dead on. You have many good citizens out there that know how to shoot and handle guns. So, it is not only the unbalanced people, thugs, drug abusers and just the plain old bad folks that can shoot.

 

I feel it is time to utilize cops or some of our military guys in schools and other areas. This will also help get more people on the payroll making a living and keeping our children and others safer. It is sad this needs to be done. I also feel that some of the teachers should have weapons in case something like this was to happen again. Of course they would need to go through a course and be able to shoot what they were aiming out.

 

I understand your article Sock and can agree with it to some degree. I only hope what I have added here that maybe some of you can see my points as well.

 

I pray for all the people who have been victims of such horrible circumstances, and anymore if it happens.

[~Kat~]

NRA Slams Obama Gun Control Proposal

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/n...26pLid%3D258147

[Kestra15]

Post-night shift posting, so apologies for brevity.

 

Where'd you get racism from?

There is a theme in gun control/American politics that Mexico seems to be where all the bad stuff comes from and people act as if it is a lawless territory. It is so repetitive and often entirely false that it comes across as racism that Mexico = lawless drug bandito territory where all the illegal guns come from.

 

No, it's naive for you to say that getting rid of guns means less guns will be available.

By the very definition of getting rid of guns means there are less guns around. If you destroy 100 guns, that means there are 100 less guns. And as pointed out, tighter gun control =/= outright ban.

 

Yes, I am aware of what a semi-automatic gun is, I have one. Even if you were to pull the trigger as fast as possible, only 2 or 3 rounds will hit a desired target. You must aim between shots because the recoil will still throw off your aim. It is very implausible someone could fire all 30 rounds (not sure how you got that number, but okay) and still hit their target, unless it was the size of a truck.

Then you're a bad shot and don't know how to use a gun, given everyone in my school could do just that by the age of 12yrs. Providing you're actually holding the weapon properly, you can keyhole rather well with a semi. I mean, the military seem to do quite well at it too, so it can't be the weapon itself. If you seem to have recoil so bad with a basic rifle you can't keep it even vaguely on target after one round then I would be wary of letting you near one, let alone saying you're safe to own one yourself.

 

I believe you mean a rifle, not a Ruger.

No, I meant Ruger, in reference to the picture.

 

Wrong, in fact, mental health had been segregated from everything else for hundreds of years. If you don't believe me, then by all means, ask a psychologist. A medical doctor and a psychologist are entirely different professions, and for a good reason.

 

The original plan after the Mental Health Systems act was that all the patients would be put into community-based 'group homes' where the mentally ill patients would be reintegrated into society and exposure to a normal environment would help this along. As it turned out, no one wanted a house full of crazy people in their suburb, so the plan was scrapped and those very mentally ill people are now just walking around as free as you please. There is no system to help them unless they seek it out themselves and many are in no position to do this, and may actively avoid it.

 

I do not know where you get off calling the health system of the USA 'third-world at best' and that it is 'appalling' but I must remind you that I did not come in here hurling insults left and right. You are being incredibly offensive and antagonistic for no reason. Please be respectful and not offer insults when none was given.

Because having seen how people suffer under the American health system, where you have to buy your health and those who cannot afford it go without treatment, it is poor showing. It is a health system that many Westernised countries look down on, fear and deplore - the very thought that I would have to ask a casualty whether they have insurance before I throw them in my ambulance horrifies me and goes against all I believe in when it comes to health care.

 

And I believe I will refer to my colleagues' first-hand experience as being mental health professionals in the US when it comes to 'very mentally ill people walking free.' For one, it is always going to be difficult to identify every person who has a mental illness - one in four people will have one in their lives, and I can guarentee a much smaller percentage actively seek or receive treatment. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the US.

 

I never said that all men just randomly went nuts, merely that the early twenties is when mental illness began to truly manifest in men, on average. Where you got specifics to the contrary, I do not know, but I never said that all men in their 20's were crazy.

See above, and include in that mine and Amerylis' healthcare degrees. Feel free to provide evidence.

NRA Slams Obama Gun Control Proposal

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/n...26pLid%3D258147

They are right about Obama ignoring children, given the number of gunmen who pay far too much attention to them instead.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Kestra15

[TikindiDragon]

NRA Slams Obama Gun Control Proposal

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/n...26pLid%3D258147

Posting comments from the NRA about gun control are about as useful as posting comments from PETA about animal welfare.

[Fuzzbucket]

Posting comments from the NRA about gun control are about as useful as posting comments from PETA about animal welfare.

How VERY true.

 

And anyway what WOULD they say other than GIMME MY GUN ? I would be the same if someone decided to ban books....

 

There is a theme in gun control/American politics that Mexico seems to be where all the bad stuff comes from and people act as if it is a lawless territory. It is so repetitive and often entirely false that it comes across as racism that Mexico = lawless drug bandito territory where all the illegal guns come from.

 

Right on ! It is SO boring and so very wrong. Just like the cops in the UK who seem to believe that ALL black youths out at night - and not even only at night - are up to no good and deserve to be bodysearched on the spot.

[philpot123]

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

[Fuzzbucket]

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

No - I can't understand that AT ALL.

[catstaff]

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

I can only best guess the reasons, and mostly it has to do with people's perceptions of the NRA.

 

I'd say it's likely due to the majority of reasonably moderate people viewing the NRA as a fringe element similar to PETA, to use an example I saw earlier today. (Was it in this thread? Or maybe at another board where this same conversation is happening...)

 

Anyway, while PETA does have some points with regards to, say, puppy mills, the group is infamous for stunts such as throwing paint on women in fur coats, and demanding a complete end to the use of animals in medical testing. Most people I know consider PETA to be a bunch of nutjobs and idiots, and automatically dismiss anything the group promotes as being ludicrous without actually listening to the proposal in question.

 

Plenty of people I know think the same way about the NRA. They see people like Ted Nugent loudly supporting the NRA, and they want to distance themselves from nutjobs and idiots like him, so they automatically dismiss anything the NRA promotes as being ludicrous.

 

But let someone of whom they approve make the same proposal, and they'll be all for it. Either because they believe the person who made the proposal is automatically right, or because they took the time to think about the proposal because this time it isn't being promoted by a fringe group, and they decided that maybe it makes some sense and might be worth a try.

[bloodyneptune]

As a Canadian, I find the argument that without guns, its impossible to defend yourself. And to create gun control laws or gun bans will create thousands of criminals or mentally ill people with guns that will break into peoples defenseless peoples homes or go on killing sprees without anyway to stop them.

 

The US, with its right to bear arms, had approximately 31,000 gun related deaths. Canada, with gun control laws, had under 300.

 

When stricter gun control laws were implemented here in 1991, there was a 37% reduction in homicides involving firearms.

 

I think its so engrained in peoples minds the theory of "criminals will get guns illegally, gun control wont work" don't seem to understand that criminals, or mentally unstable individuals can't just go to BuyGuns.Com and illegally import them. But when they can walk into Walmart and get a firearm, then you get a country with one of the highest firearm related homicides in the world.

 

Gun Control will not create a Criminal wonderland. Health Care will not destroy the economy. Gay Marriage won't bring down the wrath of god. We've been doing it for years, its cool.

[Kestra15]

Gun Control will not create a Criminal wonderland. Health Care will not destroy the economy. Gay Marriage won't bring down the wrath of god. We've been doing it for years, its cool.

Be a politician. Please.

[Dragon Mage]

Kestra15, since it seems you are entirely incapable of going a post without insulting me, I have nothing further to say to you.

[Vhale]

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

 

I do think we need to address healthcare/poverty/fail drug war/bullying as much or more than gun control though.

Beyond what catstaff posted, I'd say incentive assumes a choice. Though I haven't read on this yet so I'm guessing. But most of the people I know were okay with a guard, even if they weren't sure it would help. They were less okay with random teachers having guns in their desks. And of course, cynical that anyone would really budget it given that education funding has been slashed of late.

[_Z_]

Mod hat off. (Personal opinion)

 

 

A weapon is a tool. In the right hands it can save lives, it can also end lives. I have the right to carry a weapon. I do not agree with anyone telling me I can not. I agree to back ground checks, I agree with "You can only purchase a weapon if you have a concealed weapons permit". I agree with weapons training of some kind. I disagree with banning assault weapons, also with only allowing 10 round mags. It is ridiculous to assume I or someone else can not load a 10 round mags just as fast as necessary.

 

Gun control is a slippery slope that I an many others will refuse to slide down.

[Alpha1]

It was a progressive event. It didn't happen instantaneously. There was time for it to be stopped. He did not merely step into a classroom and kill 20 people in a few seconds.

 

It was eventually.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/a..._n_2311483.html

 

FACT CHECK. Hitler didn't disarm Germany.

 

Okay, but that’s because he didn’t see the German populous as an enemy. Firearms were restricted among the persecuted groups.

 

2. As has been extensively and exhaustingly pointed out again and again, the problem is more guns being smuggled *into* Mexico. It's so tiresomely overdone that "Mexico = drugs lords wanting blood" that it is frankly racism.

 

Mexico has problems. It’s not necessarily racist to point it out. Is it racist if I point out that of the 11,000 to 12,000 gun murders each year here, more than half involve both black killers and black victims (94% of black victims killed by other blacks), mostly in urban areas and much of it gang-related, yet black men only make up about 6.5% of the population?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-573...arming-cartels/

 

"There have been 150,000 or more Mexican soldiers defect to go work for the cartels, and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them," Keane told CBS News.

 

If you think Mexico is bad, look at Rwanda’s past. Over 800,000 dead in 100 days from machetes, clubs, and knives.

 

3. Correct. But why do you need a silencer?

 

One made at home is like using saran wrap as a condom. The most obvious reasons to want one is to prevent hearing loss and reduce the noise, so it's not as bothersome to people around the area.

 

4 & 5. Semi-automatic means one round per pull...but it also means that the rifle will automatically load the next round, so you can still get through a 30-round magazine in a few seconds as you *tap-tap-tap* away.

 

It’s true that semi-autos with high capacity magazines make it easier to kill. A compromise could be to lower magazine capacities/ use fixed magazines.

 

However, mass shootings (four or more dead in a single incident) aren’t common. Since 1982, there have been only around 60 mass shootings here and many of those include shootings where ten or less have been killed. From what I’ve read, there’s been around 90 school shootings since the 1970’s (unsure). Dogs have killed more in the same time period. Edit: Swimming pools at 700+ each year. Enough children drown each year in Florida to fill about 4 preschool classrooms. In fact, “dry drowning” alone results in more deaths each year than all the school mass shootings combined.

 

And if you're going for defending your house (which, according to most supporters of keeping gun control as it is, or making it more lax, seems to be a nightly occurrence for Americans), a Ruger is a poor choice. A handgun would be a far better choice - smaller so more convenient to hide and keep to hand, easier to use in close quarters, easier to aim as well since you need the less room to bring it to bear, and you can use one-handed and still have a good enough aim.

 

A sound recording of pumping a shotgun is all you need. Just press the button and go back to sleep.

 

For anyone interested, this website is very informative. Interesting slideshow format.

Assault Weapons

 

You could require the magazine to be fixed.

 

Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.

 

“There’s a huge distinction between the NRA proposal and what the administration has proposed,” she said. “The NRA proposed arming educators and volunteer security guards and private security personnel. The school resource officer program is an actual program that was funded a number of years ago by Joe Biden’s bill to put law enforcement — actual police offers — in schools after they’ve received adequate training.”

 

That's what the largest teacher union said about it.

 

But most of the people I know were okay with a guard, even if they weren't sure it would help.

 

If every public school has one, that's several billion each year.

 

They were less okay with random teachers having guns in their desks.

 

How would they be "random"? You would need a permit, and they got hired as a teacher. People trust "random" pilots.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Alpha1

[Kestra15]

Mexico has problems. It’s not necessarily racist to point it out. Is it racist if I point out that of the 11,000 to 12,000 gun murders each year here, more than half involve both black killers and black victims (94% of black victims killed by other blacks), mostly in urban areas and much of it gang-related, yet black men only make up about 6.5% of the population?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-573...arming-cartels/

 

"There have been 150,000 or more Mexican soldiers defect to go work for the cartels, and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them," Keane told CBS News.

 

If you think Mexico is bad, look at Rwanda’s past. Over 800,000 dead in 100 days from machetes, clubs, and knives.

And you're right, that isn't racism. The racism is that in this thread and the American Politics, several members have repeatedly said how Mexico is apparently a hotbed of drug lords and that they're responsible for most if not all illegal weapons and drug-based crimes in the US. Most times when Gun Control debates come up, there is an instant finger-point to the Mexicans and *everything* is blamed on them, that somehow by tightening gun control laws will instantly lead to cocaine-fuelled banditos running wild around the States.

 

Providing evidence like you have is fine; I respect that. But continued, biased, unsupported negative prejudice? That's tiresome.

[Rowiehz]

Don't take this too offensive, but whenever people say they need a gun in order to protect themselves or feel safe. It's kinda... contradicting to me. But that's really how you've been raised and how your enviroment is as well.

 

I've lived without a gun near me and my family all my life so far and believe me, I'm pretty damn safe. And if you really want some sense of safety and security around you, I'd recommend taking self defense classes. And maybe even advanced ones. Believe me, it gives so much security knowing that you can throw an assaulter on the ground rather than depending on a tool to do it for you.

 

I've went to clubs, discos and whatnot in the past. And yes, there have been times where people either wanted to take me somewhere without my permission. Even with very bad intentions that could very well get him into prison for a long time. Let me sum that up; Dangerous and threathening things.

 

I've never ever depended on a gun. Yet, I'm still fine?

 

And I do not want to depend on a gun. Why? Because the fear of accidently handling it wrong and taking someone's life is one of the worst I have. That's why I think that self defense is really the best option (although it definitely doesn't solve everything, but then again a gun doesn't either)

 

As far as I know, weapons aren't owned easily over where I live. Thank God. I'd never feel safe outside anymore if I knew that people could get one so easily. So here I say, maybe it would be much better if only certain people where allowed firearms. Such as people who need one for their profession (like cops or something, to name a simple example) But this is my opinion, so please don't feel offended by my story here.

 

 

 

 

[Slaskia]

This article is from late last month, but what it covers is still resonating today.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/24...rs-in-new-york/

 

Yes, a newspaper posted names AND addresses of legal pistol owners. Not only is this a blatant privacy violation, but it is a gold mine for any thief, both for those looking for a house that isn't armed, or those seeking to steal legal firearms from law abidding citizens. In fact, there have been two attempts at the latter already (one successful) that we know of so far.

 

Granted, it will be difficult prove any thefts were the result of that posting, though even ex-thieves commented that it was a stupid move for the paper to make.

[Fuzzbucket]

And you're right, that isn't racism. The racism is that in this thread and the American Politics, several members have repeatedly said how Mexico is apparently a hotbed of drug lords and that they're responsible for most if not all illegal weapons and drug-based crimes in the US. Most times when Gun Control debates come up, there is an instant finger-point to the Mexicans and *everything* is blamed on them, that somehow by tightening gun control laws will instantly lead to cocaine-fuelled banditos running wild around the States.

 

Providing evidence like you have is fine; I respect that. But continued, biased, unsupported negative prejudice? That's tiresome.

Exactly.

 

I too am sick of the posts saying everything bad comes out of Mexico INTO the US. There's plenty nasty going the other way.

 

Rwanda was appalling. I absolutely agree. So were many MANY other genocides all over the world.