Discussion: The Second Amendment

[The Major]

Right because criminals are all about going through proper legal channels, right...

Criminals will have to use smarter methods to get them. This would cut down on the dumb criminals getting access and make more difficult for regular people who snap, as well.

Why? Do you think possession of a permit makes one more likely to use a gun illegally?

You misunderstand. The permit itself isn't the problem, it's the lax guidelines which allow people who shouldnt have guns in the first place getting to get those permits.

If someone wants to harm someone, they don't need a permit to get one.

True. However, it would be more difficult for the to kill people without guns.

Added regulation only separates responsible gun owners from these weapons.

No it wouldn't. The responsible ones would still be able to get their permits.

Name one.

The mentally ill and criminals couldn't just pick up guns as easily with stricter guidelines.

 

[The Major]

Or the person could have shot and killed the shooter.

True.

They wouldn't have pulled the gun on him with him looking.

There are many variables with this. The shooter could be quicker then them, better trained in using it, have better weapons (he had a rifle and a pistol IIRC), they would only have a few seconds to react if the shooter pulls out a weapon which they'd do first which is more likely to occur since a bystander usually isn't prepared for an ambush like this, the shooter could came into the room shooting at everyone etc. The bystander with the gun would really be in trouble if the shooter has body armor, as well.

They would have done it with his back turned and then unloaded a clip into him.

Which means they'd rely purely on luck that the shooter is a complete idiot.

 

[StorminNorman]

Criminals will have to use smarter methods to get them. This would cut down on the dumb criminals getting access and make more difficult for regular people who snap, as well.

Really? Illegal isn't exactly smarter. Dumb criminals get access to illegal **** all the time. Drugs, guns, children, women, men, etc.

You misunderstand. The permit itself isn't the problem, it's the lax guidelines which allow people who shouldnt have guns in the first place getting to get those permits.

But again, if someone's intent is to use a gun illegally...they aren't going to be interested in permits.

True. However, it would be more difficult for the to kill people without guns.

You misunderstand what I am saying. You do not need a permit, to shoot a gun. There are so many guns on the street that the idea that increasing the difficulty to access of legal guns is silly. Its the immigration issue all over again - the best way to help ease the illegal immigration problem isn't to shut the borders tighter, its to open them up more.

No it wouldn't. The responsible ones would still be able to get their permits.

Yes...but it would be more difficult. Mean while such added red tape is going to do nothing to stop Sammy Psycho from shooting up your local 7-11.

The mentally ill and criminals couldn't just pick up guns as easily with stricter guidelines.

Yes they can!

The majority of guns used in crimes are NOT purchased through legal means:

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=370

Restricting the ability to obtain a gun legally has HURT England:

http://reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Gun Control is the Liberal's Abstinence Only Sex Ed. It sounds great on paper, but it simply doesn't work in reality and you have to ignore reality to support it.

 

[Bill]

No it wouldn't. The responsible ones would still be able to get their permits.

I have my permit, and I am a responsible gun owner. I am also well trained and shoot more than the average police officer.(I know I shoot with a few of them I know on occasion) Unfortunately, the restrictions are so tight that I cannot carry my pistol abroad concealed. What real good is having a permit doing if I am sitting at a public place and a gunman attacks? Myself, former military, and possibly others who are trained could do some good in such a situation, but we are so heavily restricted, despite having a permit in hand, that we are unable to defend ourselves and others.

The mentally ill and criminals couldn't just pick up guns as easily with stricter guidelines.

Since they don't pick up those weapons through legal means, what good does it do making them stricter? The restrictions up here in NY are stricter than in most states, yet we still have shootings on a weekly basis in our area alone. The stricter guidelines only affect those who go through legal means to obtain their weapons. The majority of criminals get them on the black market or steal them. They need to wrangle the black market. THAT would diminish gun-related crime more than any current or future restriction on obtaining them legally.

 

[Malice]

Texas just passed a law to allow those with concealed handgun licenses to carry them onto properties...the parting lot of companies...the companies still have to approve bringing it into the building.

 

[terry78]

You homo sapiens and your guns.

 

[Kelly]

You homo sapiens and your guns.

That's homo sapiens sapiens to you bucko.....


A school in, I believe North Texas is going to allow a few teachers with training to carry concealed weapons on campus.

We have Harris County Sherrif's Department at my school 5 officers. So we don't really need for anyone, BUT THEM, to carry guns.

 

[Kelly]

Police: 3 Cops Killed In Pa. ShootingPITTSBURGH (CBS) ―

A man opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, before barricading himself in the home, a police official said.

Three officers were killed, said a police official at the scene who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

At least five officers were wounded, police spokeswoman Diane Richard said. It's not clear if that included the slain officers.

The man who fired at the officers was arrested after a several-hour standoff. One witness reported hearing hundreds of shots.

Edward Perkovic, a 22-year-old who said he was the gunman's best friend, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, "Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you."

"I heard gunshots and he hung up," Perkovic said.

The officers were called to the home in the Stanton Heights neighborhood at about 7 a.m., Richard said.

Tom Moffitt, 51, a city firefighter who lives two blocks away, said he heard about the shooting on his scanner and came to the scene, where he heard "hundreds, just hundreds of shots. And not just once -- several times."

Rob Gift, 45, who lives a block away, said he heard rapid gunfire as he was letting his dog out.

He said the neighborhood of well-kept single-family houses and manicured lawns is home to many police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other city workers.

"It's just a very quiet neighborhood," Gift said.

This neighborhood is full of firefighters and police officers, so several police officers responded to the scene.

Neighbors said they heard 100's of shots.....sounds like he had a semi-automatic....

 

[xisaacx]

Gun control isn't necessary, if the person is educated.

I have been shooting guns since I was younger, and I'm 22 now. I come from a family of cops and military personnel, I have NEVER pulled, threatened, used, or shown off to anyone the gun collection we have. So seriously, when it comes down to it RAISE YOUR DAMN KIDS to not be ******s. Not everyone is out of control when it comes to handling firearms.

 

[The Major]

Really? Illegal isn't exactly smarter.

It can. Just depends on the method used.

Dumb criminals get access to illegal **** all the time. Drugs, guns, children, women, men, etc.

True. Though access to guns through legal means with guns, I'm referencing selling them from newspaers etc, will make it harder then it currently is. You can't do tht with drugs or slavery.

But again, if someone's intent is to use a gun illegally...they aren't going to be interested in permits.

Not all criminals do that. Drug cartels use proxies at gun shows to legally buy weapons for them. While it wouldn't stop it, it would mean they'd have to be more careful with who they can get to do that. They couldn't just hire anyone off the street to do it if they have psychological problems or are in the system.

You misunderstand what I am saying. You do not need a permit, to shoot a gun.

True, but it does make it harder to acquire it legally if the person is unhealthy or has red flags in the past like breaking the law. This would severely cut down ordinary people who commit crimes, not career criminals. Though it should be harder for career criminals to get weapons, as well. The government really should be doing better with clamping down on them.

There are so many guns on the street that the idea that increasing the difficulty to access of legal guns is silly.

Stricter controls would prevent them form getting new guns. The old guns would be unfortunately out of reach but there are some measures the government could do to make it harder to sell them legally.

Its the immigration issue all over again - the best way to help ease the illegal immigration problem isn't to shut the borders tighter, its to open them up more.

I disagree.

Yes...but it would be more difficult.

While it would be more difficult, surely some inconvenience is worth it to make society safer.

Mean while such added red tape is going to do nothing to stop Sammy Psycho from shooting up your local 7-11.

It depends on how Sammy Psycho got the gun. If he mentally ill under a stricter guidelines he wouldn't be able to buy it off the market from gun owners. Unless he's actually connected with people in the criminal element, which not everyone is, that would severely restrict him from getting one, as well.

Yes they can!

The majority of guns used in crimes are NOT purchased through legal means:

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=370

Which is something that should be outlawed IMO.

Restricting the ability to obtain a gun legally has HURT England:

http://reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Which is why I'm not for banning, just stricter access.

Gun Control is the Liberal's Abstinence Only Sex Ed. It sounds great on paper, but it simply doesn't work in reality and you have to ignore reality to support it.

Liberals aren't completely wrong in wanting guns under control, both sides just need to come up with a safer compromise IMO.

Edit: What I mean with the outlawing the current gun selling market is just to replace it with a system that works with the government so they can screen the buyers. That would be safer and everyone would get what they want IMO.

 

[Nivek]

I'm waiting to hear the types of weapon used in both these spree killings. And how they we're obtained.

 

[The Major]

Gun control isn't necessary, if the person is educated.

True. Unfortunately that isn't a solution IMO. Educated people can still be a danger, as well. This is not say everyone with gun education is a threat, but sometimes that isn't enough. I can' remember the family's name but there was an incident at a high school where a teenager killed his rival who stated dating his ex a few years ago. He came from a family who hunted, his father taught him how to use rifles. He was a normal kid but a few months prior he went into depression which escalated into murder. He used a rifle to gun down his rival in front of school as everyone was leaving. IIRC it was revealed that he was mentally unstable, his parents just didn't realize it. Were stricter gun control in place he wouldn't be able to get that access IMO.

I have been shooting guns since I was younger, and I'm 22 now. I come from a family of cops and military personnel, I have NEVER pulled, threatened, used, or shown off to anyone the gun collection we have. So seriously, when it comes down to it RAISE YOUR DAMN KIDS to not be ******s.

Proper gun control wouldn't stop you from acquiring guns though.

Not everyone is out of control when it comes to handling firearms.

True.

 

[StorminNorman]

It can. Just depends on the method used.

So you are admitting that it is possible for criminals to get guns through illegal means that don't require greater "smarts" right.

True. Though access to guns through legal means with guns, I'm referencing selling them from newspaers etc, will make it harder then it currently is. You can't do tht with drugs or slavery.

Rephrase.

Not all criminals do that. Drug cartels use proxies at gun shows to legally buy weapons for them. While it wouldn't stop it, it would mean they'd have to be more careful with who they can get to do that. They couldn't just hire anyone off the street to do it if they have psychological problems or are in the system.

I want any sort of evidence that a significant portion of firearms used by drug cartels are purchased at gun shows.

True, but it does make it harder to acquire it legally if the person is unhealthy or has red flags in the past like breaking the law. This would severely cut down ordinary people who commit crimes, not career criminals. Though it should be harder for career criminals to get weapons, as well. The government really should be doing better with clamping down on them.

How would it severely cut down "ordinary people" who commit crimes? The sort of situation I think you are describing is when an ordinary person "snaps" or whatever and grabs the gun he purchased legally to go commit a crime. So unless the person snaps during the short increase in time required to get a permit, nothing is impacted by this. He still has the gun in his drawer - it just took a little longer for him to get it.

Stricter controls would prevent them form getting new guns. The old guns would be unfortunately out of reach but there are some measures the government could do to make it harder to sell them legally.

Again, since the majority of guns used in crimes are not bought legally - no they wouldn't.

While it would be more difficult, surely some inconvenience is worth it to make society safer.

But society isn't safer for it. How is society safer? You are adding a temporary inconvenience that will only affect reasonable gun owners. Not the criminals. The reasonable gun owners that end up resorting to gun crime would be unaffected because they would still own the gun...it just took a little longer to do it.

It depends on how Sammy Psycho got the gun. If he mentally ill under a stricter guidelines he wouldn't be able to buy it off the market from gun owners. Unless he's actually connected with people in the criminal element, which not everyone is, that would severely restrict him from getting one, as well.

I have no problem making it harder for the mentally ill to gain guns.

Which is why I'm not for banning, just stricter access.

But, again, stricter access is only going to restrict those that respect the law. Not the ones that want to act outside it.

Liberals aren't completely wrong in wanting guns under control, both sides just need to come up with a safer compromise IMO.

And conservatives aren't completely wrong in wanting teens to not have sex. That doesn't mean that abstinence only education works or makes sense - just like gun control.

 

[Kelly]

I'm waiting to hear the types of weapon used in both these spree killings. And how they we're obtained.

Early reports on the one in Pittsburgh is that an AK-47 type of weapon was found, along with other weapons.

 

[Nivek]

It's not just the run of the mill thug's I'm concerned about anymore, more or less these spree killers. All these shootings are starting to put a highlight on these high killpower weapons.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

It's not just the run of the mill thug I'm concerned about anymore, more or less these spree killers.

Why? You have a greater risk of dying every time you enter a car. Worrying about things like this is silly. You cannot predict them and they are very difficult to prevent. If someone snaps, there is very little to be done to regain their sanity; especially if they are hell bent on doing something such as this. It's unfortunate but it is the harsh reality of the situation.

 

[Nivek]

Why? You have a greater risk of dying every time you enter a car. Worrying about things like this is silly. You cannot predict them and they are very difficult to prevent. If someone snaps, there is very little to be done to regain their sanity; especially if they are hell bent on doing something such as this. It's unfortunate but it is the harsh reality of the situation.

Sorry, my luck with small percentages was never that great. Besides, there are a lot of really messed up people walking around out there, and I have the unfortunate luck of running into them. I have a couple cousins that have other family members who have to come and take guns out of their home because they are "going through a dark time". These are guys who own mutliple guns, and "hide them". If you know someone that "hides" weapons, then I guess i don't have to explain why that sucks...


Hell, I feel some people shouldn't own car's given the way they drive, given that they don't care if they kill people.

 

[Kelly]

Why? You have a greater risk of dying every time you enter a car. Worrying about things like this is silly. You cannot predict them and they are very difficult to prevent. If someone snaps, there is very little to be done to regain their sanity; especially if they are hell bent on doing something such as this. It's unfortunate but it is the harsh reality of the situation.

Someone snapping with a hand gun, and someone snapping with an AK-47 semi-automatic, are totally two different things, yet both are legal.....

 

[Spidey-Bat]

It is legal to own them but it is not legal to go on a killing spree with them. Those are two completely different things.

 

[StorminNorman]

Someone snapping in a Ford pickup isn't exactly a much better situation than someone snapping with a firearm.

 

[Nivek]

An AK-47 can do more damage to human meat faster, and in more accesible places. Compare the ratio of shooting sprees to automobile rampages.

And guess what, the guy who blew away those police officers in Pittsburgh believed "Obama was going to take away his guns" , according to his friends & family.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/

 

[Spidey-Bat]

An AK-47 can do more damage to human meat faster, and in more accesible places. Compare the ratio of shooting sprees to automobile rampages.

More people are killed each year in automobile accidents than by guns.

Here's a Times article with the number of gun related deaths in 2004. The total is 29,569. They break down the 81 deaths per day in a diagram below. As you can see, a great majority are suicides.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Here is a CNN article with the number of automobile related deaths from 2004. The total is 42,636

This site has a breakdown of automobile deaths. They have the total number of fatalities in 2004 at 42,836.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

 

[Kelly]

More people are killed each year in automobile accidents than by guns.

Here's a Times article with the number of gun related deaths in 2004. The total is 29,569. They break down the 81 deaths per day in a diagram below. As you can see, a great majority are suicides.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Here is a CNN article with the number of automobile related deaths from 2004. The total is 42,636

This site has a breakdown of automobile deaths. They have the total number of fatalities in 2004 at 42,836.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Did you see the word "ratio" in his post? That is a very important word.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Did you see the word "ratio" in his post? That is a very important word.

I know. But using that statistic is misleading. Obviously more people are going to die in 1 mass shooting than 1 automobile accident. But there are far more automobile accidents than mass shootings in a single year.

 

[Kelly]

I know. But using that statistic is misleading. Obviously more people are going to die in 1 mass shooting than 1 automobile accident. But there are far more automobile accidents than mass shootings in a single year.

Because there are far more automobiles and people driving them.