Gun rights/control/ownership

[Princess Artemis]

Here's a site I had visited a while back that I just found again. http://www.corneredcat.com It's a lot less pink than it was before; she explains because she doesn't feel as much of a need to make a point about perception of women who carry.

[Kestra15]

"The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed."

 

Link: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-mass...-031629075.html

 

Even if I accept the arguments as to why you need guns in America - I cannot see a justification for that level of purchasing. Soldiers go into war-zones with only 150 rounds each - so why would someone, in the space of two months, need to buy four weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammo? There is no justifiable reason for anyone to ever posses that amount of ammunition. Ever. I mean, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle? Why do you ever need an assault rifle? Or a 100 round drum magazine?

 

And the key word in that quote? "Legally."

 

You can legally purchase the equivalent of 100 rounds a day for two solid months? With weapons only seen in war-zones? Between that and the ridiculous health-care system, it's starting to sound more like "Fallout 3" over in the States.

[epicguy10000]

Well I just got back from shooting with my dad, I got to shoot an M4 with a .22 conversion, to sights were a little hard to get used to but once I figured it out I was pretty accurate

Edited July 21, 2012 by penguin_adu6oo

[renton]

Guns should always be legal and everyone should have the right to them. I strongly agree with them as self-defense. I wouldn't hesitate to take somebody out who broke into my home and threatened my family. In life there will always be somebody who wishes to harm others and we need proper tools to keep everyone around us safe. I would feel zero remorse for taking the life of an individual who will try his or her best to hurt the people I love. I don't want to have to have to do something like that but I also won't sit back and watch my friends die.

 

Now, to the girl who talked about "if burglars only had a knife and that would be pffft" Knives are extremely deadly especially if the attacker has training with it. Hell, regardless of training they are still deadly. Not to mention they can be thrown, so while guns are easier to use even if we outlawed them criminals would use swords, throwing daggers, knives and tazers. The options are endless.

 

I'm fine with hunting, so that's not really a problem. Some people own guns just to hunt. Some others use it to target practice for fun. These hobbies pose no risk to others, so I don't see why we'd need to restrict guns. Yeah, people who are mentally ill will ruin it for the rest of us by targeting innocent people like the guy in the movie theater. You could argue with conceal carry people could easily handle hostile situations like that and limit deaths to a minimum.

 

Eh, maybe for my last example this is a bit extreme but in the event of a depression the crime rate will shoot up. You'll NEED to protect people or even yourself as well as your belongings. We're a civil society to an extent but when everything collapses financially... People change dramatically and they wont hesitate to do what they need to for themselves. Also, another event could be warfare such as an attack from another country on our soil. Not everybody would be able to evacuate from the danger zone hypothetically speaking, so a gun would be useful there . Like I said a bit extreme, but hey anything is possible right?

[Ashes The Second]

Guns should always be legal and everyone should have the right to them. I strongly agree with them as self-defense. I wouldn't hesitate to take somebody out who broke into my home and threatened my family. In life there will always be somebody who wishes to harm others and we need proper tools to keep everyone around us safe. I would feel zero remorse for taking the life of an individual who will try his or her best to hurt the people I love. I don't want to have to have to do something like that but I also won't sit back and watch my friends die.

 

Now, to the girl who talked about "if burglars only had a knife and that would be pffft" Knives are extremely deadly especially if the attacker has training with it. Hell, regardless of training they are still deadly. Not to mention they can be thrown, so while guns are easier to use even if we outlawed them criminals would use swords, throwing daggers, knives and tazers. The options are endless.

 

I'm fine with hunting, so that's not really a problem. Some people own guns just to hunt. Some others use it to target practice for fun. These hobbies pose no risk to others, so I don't see why we'd need to restrict guns. Yeah, people who are mentally ill will ruin it for the rest of us by targeting innocent people like the guy in the movie theater. You could argue with conceal carry people could easily handle hostile situations like that and limit deaths to a minimum.

 

Eh, maybe for my last example this is a bit extreme but in the event of a depression the crime rate will shoot up. You'll NEED to protect people or even yourself as well as your belongings. We're a civil society to an extent but when everything collapses financially... People change dramatically and they wont hesitate to do what they need to for themselves. Also, another event could be warfare such as an attack from another country on our soil. Not everybody would be able to evacuate from the danger zone hypothetically speaking, so a gun would be useful there . Like I said a bit extreme, but hey anything is possible right?

"The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed."

 

Link: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-mass...-031629075.html

 

Even if I accept the arguments as to why you need guns in America - I cannot see a justification for that level of purchasing. Soldiers go into war-zones with only 150 rounds each - so why would someone, in the space of two months, need to buy four weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammo? There is no justifiable reason for anyone to ever posses that amount of ammunition. Ever. I mean, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle? Why do you ever need an assault rifle? Or a 100 round drum magazine?

 

And the key word in that quote? "Legally."

 

You can legally purchase the equivalent of 100 rounds a day for two solid months? With weapons only seen in war-zones? Between that and the ridiculous health-care system, it's starting to sound more like "Fallout 3" over in the States.

 

I think that answers sufficiently. That should never be legal.

 

edit; the man was not mentally unstable at all, he simply was angry.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Ashes The Second

[renton]

 

I think that answers sufficiently. That should never be legal.

 

edit; the man was not mentally unstable at all, he simply was angry.

yeah, you won't be saying that when you're in a situation like that. Legal or not people will still have them in possession, so having them be illegal will only strengthen the people who wish to do bad. People will still be able to smuggle or acquire weapons just like drugs. So, while I respect your opinion I also find it kind of arrogant to say making them illegal would change a thing.

[Obscure_Trash]

 

I think that answers sufficiently. That should never be legal.

 

edit; the man was not mentally unstable at all, he simply was angry.

While I agree that purchasing that much ammo should send up some kind of red flag, it's a bit early to say that he was just angry. Last I heard, all we really knew is that he had a definite strategy and that he told police he was the Joker. While there is lots of talk right now about how mass murderers aren't usually mentally ill and usually just looking for revenge or fame, we don't really know that about James Holmes yet.

 

And I would argue that anyone who plans out a mass murder has to be at least a little mentally unstable, even if they don't have an actual mental disorder.

[7Deadly$ins]

yeah, you won't be saying that when you're in a situation like that. Legal or not people will still have them in possession, so having them be illegal will only strengthen the people who wish to do bad. People will still be able to smuggle or acquire weapons just like drugs. So, while I respect your opinion I also find it kind of arrogant to say making them illegal would change a thing.

Um. If I were in a shooting I'm pretty sure I would still think they should be illegal. Seems I'd have more reasons to think that way.

[LadyNightshade]

I agree that purchasing so much ammunition in such a short amount of time shouldn't be legal or at least should have some sort of police check.

 

I understand the use of guns for hunting and even personal protection but there is never a circumstance for either of those where you need so much ammunition.

 

 

[epicguy10000]

Making guns illegal only makes things worse, then the only people getting guns WOULD be the criminals, it's like drugs, the good people aren't selling drugs, it's all the criminals, sorry for that stupid analogy there

[Ashes The Second]

While I agree that purchasing that much ammo should send up some kind of red flag, it's a bit early to say that he was just angry. Last I heard, all we really knew is that he had a definite strategy and that he told police he was the Joker. While there is lots of talk right now about how mass murderers aren't usually mentally ill and usually just looking for revenge or fame, we don't really know that about James Holmes yet.

 

And I would argue that anyone who plans out a mass murder has to be at least a little mentally unstable, even if they don't have an actual mental disorder.

heard they said he was completely fine in the head; an expert came in and talked about it on the Tyra Banks show.

[Kelkelen]

Well, there's a big difference between trying to make all arms illegal and simply calling for stricter control of said arms. I am all in favor of federal legislation requiring uniform background checks and waiting periods of a reasonable duration for all states. I'm sick of the discrepancy between gun laws in different states, and how easy it is (in some places) for anyone at all to obtain a serious assault weapon.

 

Also? I see NO good reason to make AK-47s, or the equivalent, available to the public at large.

 

What I really hate is that, any time there's a shooting, the NRA is *instantly* all over it to scream for LESS gun control. It just seems heinously insensitive to the victims, to make a soapbox out of the horror they're trying to live through.

 

It seems clear to me that some form of control or observation could be put in place to prevent, or at least postpone, an individual from stockpiling their own personal armory. NO ONE should be able to gather that many weapons and that much ammunition in so short a time without it raising suspicion and probable investigation. I do realize that a criminal background check wouldn't have prevented the shooter from purchasing guns, in this instance; though it might well be relevant in others.

[casprrr]

The fellow who went on the shooting spree in the Aurora, CO movie theater broke the law when he illegally entered the theater and opened fire, not when he purchased his weapons and ammo. The murderous rampage never should have happened, and regulating ammunition purchases - not necessarily guns - would likely help curtail some of this type of violence.

 

6,000 rounds of ammunition? State governments need to start doing a better job of tracking ammunition purchases,and if they won't, maybe the federal government has to. I mean c'mon, my name gets entered into a state wide database whenever I purchase cold pills containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine because they can be used to make methamphetamine. If I purchase too much in a certain amount of time, it raises a flag. There's no reason the same type of control can't be used for ammunition purchases.

[Kelkelen]

I mean c'mon, my name gets entered into a state wide database whenever I purchase cold pills containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine because they can be used to make methamphetamine. If I purchase too much in a certain amount of time, it raises a flag. There's no reason the same type of control can't be used for ammunition purchases.

This, seriously. I can't buy cough syrup without ID. My friend with ADD isn't legally permitted to purchase more than one month's worth of ritalin at a time. Surely, if they can regulate reasonable amounts of ritalin, they can do it with bullets!

[Alpha1]

Even if I accept the arguments as to why you need guns in America - I cannot see a justification for that level of purchasing. Soldiers go into war-zones with only 150 rounds each - so why would someone, in the space of two months, need to buy four weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammo? There is no justifiable reason for anyone to ever posses that amount of ammunition. Ever. I mean, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle? Why do you ever need an assault rifle? Or a 100 round drum magazine?

 

The so-called assault weapons have the same functionality as a semi-auto hunting rifle made by Remington, Winchester, etc.

 

I do concur that the drum magazines have little utility for someone that just wants to hunt or make target practice and reloading as a hobby. The collectors may be annoyed by it. I personally wouldn't mind if high capacity magazines weren't produced and were illegal.

 

In fact, there's a 200 round drum for the AR-15. Silencers and fully-auto guns are illegal unless you jump through hoops, so I don't know why many gun owners find it unreasonable.

 

You can legally purchase the equivalent of 100 rounds a day for two solid months? With weapons only seen in war-zones? Between that and the ridiculous health-care system, it's starting to sound more like "Fallout 3" over in the States.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-immigrat...-of-ammo-2012-3

 

"U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal. "

 

I wonder what they're shooting at.

 

The amount of ammo he had wasn't the limiting factor, so it's a non-issue.

 

Also? I see NO good reason to make AK-47s, or the equivalent, available to the public at large.

 

Again, same functionality as a semi-auto rifle without the military look. I do understand they have higher magazine capacities available, though.

 

 

Always low prices. Always.

 

...This current government has an F on gun control from the Brady Campaign. They've done more for gun rights than the last administration.

 

Bush didn't renew the AWB and nothing stands out from what I know. This administration doesn't do anything because it's bad politics.

 

However, there is a difference when it comes to the SC and appeals court. Both of the justices selected under Bush would support a landmark decision in favor of guns. Sotomayor and Kagan? They wouldn't have.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Edited July 22, 2012 by Alpha1

[Princess Artemis]

It seems clear to me that some form of control or observation could be put in place to prevent, or at least postpone, an individual from stockpiling their own personal armory. NO ONE should be able to gather that many weapons and that much ammunition in so short a time without it raising suspicion and probable investigation. I do realize that a criminal background check wouldn't have prevented the shooter from purchasing guns, in this instance; though it might well be relevant in others.

Why should the government have that much control over their sovereign rulers?

 

I do think it should have been checked into, but I'm not on board with the sweeping NO ONE.

[Kai]

How do you shoot 80 people and only kill 12?

[Process]

How do you shoot 80 people and only kill 12?

Because getting shot isn't like it is in holly wood.

Torso wounds (depending on the gun and ammo rounds) have a very high survivability rates, shots to the limbs are more dangerous though. They have a higher chance to nick a major arty and cause you to bleed out.

Then I guess the ability to aim, people fleeing in panic and all those little factor would add into most shots would cause damage but not be fatal.

 

[Alpha1]

How do you shoot 80 people and only kill 12?

 

I believe he was using .223 Remington FMJ bullets. I can't find this from a reliable news source, but it makes sense. The drum mag also jammed, so the others he had on hand were birdshot, and two .40 caliber handguns with unknown bullet design.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2012 by Alpha1

[philpot123]

So much to reply to I can hardly stand it!

 

Why do you ever need an assault rifle?

 

First order of business, let me correct this assumption that's been flying around lately. An AR-15 or any civilian legal variant thereof is NOT. I repeat. NOT. An assault rifle. AR does NOT stand for "assault rifle" as the media likes to claim, it refers to "armalite," the original concept designer IIRC. An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, such as an AK-47, M4, certain variants of M16s, etc. An AR-15 is the civilian legal, semi-automatic VARIANT of an assault rifle, but the fact that it is limited to one round per trigger pull means it is not an assault rifle.

 

As to why I would need one? Well, I actually own a semi-automatic AK variant and DAMN she's a sexy thing. Shoots like a dream. I own it for home defense, sport shooting, and a lovely bartering tool in case of TEOTWAWKI.

 

Or a 100 round drum magazine?

 

 

For when you really want the squirrel to stay dead. Or just for fun shooting. Ever let loose with a magazine like that? It's fun.

 

With weapons only seen in war-zones?

 

Not true. You can purchase an AR-15 at walmart. They're great for hunting. Glocks are the standard weapon of police forces everywhere, and pretty much every handgun owner in the world has one. And everybody and their dog in the south has a Remington 870 over their mantelpiece or sitting in the corner.

 

There is no justifiable reason for anyone to ever posses that amount of ammunition. Ever.

 

That's entirely incorrect. You could own that much ammunition as an investment. There were people who wisely purchased veritable craptons of ammunition before the 2008 election and resold it during the crazy rush and shortage and make oodles of cash. 'Merca.

 

You could also own that much ammunition as personal protection against shortage. I have a few thousand rounds of ammo between my AK and my Glock, because should I ever need ammunition or want to go shooting, I don't want to be dependent on the unreliable stores.

 

You could also own that much if you're a survivalist/prepper. I quite enjoy being prepared in case of economic collapse or national disaster, and not only will my ammunition be good for self defense but it'll also be worth a LOT in a barter market.

 

In short, your idea that there is no justifiable reason to own an AR-15, shotgun, handgun, a drum magazine, or thousands of rounds of ammo simply isn't true.

 

Moving on.

 

I understand the use of guns for hunting and even personal protection but there is never a circumstance for either of those where you need so much ammunition.

 

See earlier comments on ammo shortages and preparation...

 

Also? I see NO good reason to make AK-47s, or the equivalent, available to the public at large.

 

Hate to break it to you, but they sort of are got 400, 500 bucks? Go down to your local gun store and they've probably got a few Romanian made AK-47s sitting on the shelf you could snatch up. Got 700-1000 bucks? You can get an amazing AR-15 just about anywhere. They're semi automatic. One trigger pull, one shot, same as most hunting rifles. There are plenty of justifiable reasons to own one, which is kind of why I own one.

 

There's no reason the same type of control can't be used for ammunition purchases.

 

The 4th amendment comes to mind.

 

This, seriously. I can't buy cough syrup without ID.

 

That is because people like my father abuse it as a drug, thus requiring you to be 18 to purchase it. I can't purchase rifle ammo without an ID, and I can't purchase handgun ammo myself because I'm not 21.

 

How do you shoot 80 people and only kill 12?

 

.223 is a ****ty bullet size.

 

believe he was using .223 Remington FMJ bullets. I can't find this from a reliable news source, but it makes sense.

 

He was using a S&W branded version of the AR-15, which typically shoots .223 or 5.56mm NATO rounds. I haven't heard anything about it being converted or anything, so I'm assuming standard rounds. ARs CAN be converted to shoot 7.62 like an AK, or a number of other things. AR-10s even shoot .308 rounds. That's a bad A gun.

Edited July 25, 2012 by philpot123

[Alpha1]

.223 is a ****ty bullet size.

 

Yeah, that's why it's .224.

 

Those rounds do have a lot of punch. It has about 1200 ft-lbs of energy. Common pistol cartridges are a lot lower than that, and even though it is small in diameter, the smaller bullets can cause a lot of damage by yawing and fragmenting.

[Kestra15]

I strongly agree with them as self-defense.

Just out of interest; how often during shootings, such as those in the cinema or in schools, do you ever hear of someone pulling out their own weapon in response and shooting the original shooter?

Because getting shot isn't like it is in holly wood.

Torso wounds (depending on the gun and ammo rounds) have a very high survivability rates, shots to the limbs are more dangerous though. They have a higher chance to nick a major arty and cause you to bleed out.

Then I guess the ability to aim, people fleeing in panic and all those little factor would add into most shots would cause damage but not be fatal.

...really? A torso shot is more deadly - if you puncture the stomach you're in for a very messy, painful death. Dense internal organs means that you will not only suffer from internal bleeding but also there's the fact that you will damage at least one organ if not more, which further complicates matters. A limb wound is easier to deal with - you only have to control bleeding which is more likely to be external. Torso/abdomen wounds will involve major internal and external bleeds and organ damage.

 

Then you add in the infection risks; at least you can chop off a limb as a last resort.

As to why I would need one? Well, I actually own a semi-automatic AK variant and DAMN she's a sexy thing. Shoots like a dream. I own it for home defense, sport shooting, and a lovely bartering tool in case of TEOTWAWKI.

 

 

For when you really want the squirrel to stay dead. Or just for fun shooting. Ever let loose with a magazine like that? It's fun.

So your main excuse is "for fun." Not a valid reason at all, and no real need. And again, there is no need for any form of automatic/semi-automatic. The one and only reason you need that rate of fire is to cause as much death and harm in the shortest amount of time. If you're hunting for an actual reason you don't want to create such a mess of your kill because you will ruin the carcass. There is no justifiable reason for such rates of fire or amount of ammunition other than 'to kill people quickly.

 

You can purchase an AR-15 at walmart.

Again it is worrying to think you can purchase such a weapon with your weekly shopping.

 

That's entirely incorrect. You could own that much ammunition as an investment. There were people who wisely purchased veritable craptons of ammunition before the 2008 election and resold it during the crazy rush and shortage and make oodles of cash. 'Merca.

 

There are far wiser and less deadly investments to be made. And 'in case of economic collapse?' Please - Fallout 3 all over again.

 

In short, your idea that there is no justifiable reason to own an AR-15, shotgun, handgun, a drum magazine, or thousands of rounds of ammo simply isn't true.

Your entire argument is based on it being 'fun to own, fun to fire, the entire world will collapse at any moment and I need to barter and defend myself.' If that is your idea of 'justifiable' then fine. There is no further point in debating.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Kestra15

[Princess Artemis]

Your entire argument is based on it being 'fun to own, fun to fire, the entire world will collapse at any moment and I need to barter and defend myself.' If that is your idea of 'justifiable' then fine. There is no further point in debating.

Since your stance is "Americans don't need guns" full stop, there was never a point in debating with you in the first place. You can consider your questions asked and answered, however.

 

I'll assume you don't know that hunters who hunt for food and not sport actually do often use semi-auto rifles. Not automatics, because surprise! those are illegal in Fallou-I mean, America

[Kestra15]

Since your stance is "Americans don't need guns" full stop, there was never a point in debating with you in the first place.  You can consider your questions asked and answered, however.

However my reasons are based on more then simple, selfish pleasures.

 

Anyway, currently watching "Most Dangerous Place To Be A Nurse," which is based in Ciudad Juarez (news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19397516) and they just mentioned about how US gun laws fuel the Mexican violence. Especially given some users' recent comments about how they would like to wipe out the Mexican drug cartels and their ilk, I thought it would be an interesting (and ironic?) point if the vaunted 'guns for all' approach in US is in fact directly fueling violence in another country - and that violence is a cause for complaint for the self-same people.

 

Did a quick search on news stories; there seems to be some weight behind the claim:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13758499

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/05/132652351/tr...exican-violence

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40572312/ns/wo...e/#.UEpP-41mTW4

 

Anyone got anything a bit more concrete on this claim? I think three different news articles from different times is a good start, but I would like to see something a bit more. And no, I'm not running off to work in Juarez General - I love my trauma, but much like summiting Everest I'd rather not visit a 'death zone.'

Edited September 7, 2012 by Kestra15

[archangelofcreation]

i believe that anyone over the age of 18 and as long as they are properly trained as in going to the safety courses and having at least 1 year of experience firing said weapon that they should be able to carry a gun on them at all times as long as it isnt concealed from the police. i dont believe that we should have to pay for a 3000 dollar licence to own a gun and then pay anywhere from 200 to 8500 dollars for a gun because then it limits who can carry a gun. if anyone was smart enough to carry a weapon into the theatre when the man comes in there shooting people then only 3 people would have died the first victim the second victim and the man that started shooting. i rest my case if any of you hate me for it fine. your a democrat.