Gun Control

[quote]treco wrote:
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study refuting more guns / more murders

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/quote]

Liberals aren’t going to be budged by a study or anything like that on this issue because it makes so much sense to them. In their world it’s always the guns fault whenever something like this happens. No amount of rational discussion will sway their opinion sadly. I guess I don’t get it because the counter argument that many of us have made in here makes so much sense to me. I really don’t see how one could come to the conclusion of getting rid of guns, but that’s what so many people are calling for every time one of these horrible events happens.

Gun laws don’t work, we tried it, and it failed miserably.

California gun purchases nearing record…

Californians just can’t get enough guns and are on a pace to set a new annual record for the number purchased legally.

Experts with the state Department of Justice predict residents will buy 725,000 rifles, pistols and shotguns in 2012, nearly twice the number they purchased five years ago, when 370,628 were acquired.

Anyone notice how this shit happens in the blue states (CA, CO, VA, CT) ?

There was a shooting here in Newport Beach yesterday as well, at a mall, the suspect shot over 50 bullets but no one was harmed.

Problem is, the state’s landmark assault-weapons law, which went into effect in 2000, banned the use of handgun magazines with more than 19 bullets.

There is no law to prevent crazy.

[quote]treco wrote:
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study refuting more guns / more murders

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/quote]

Great find, treco, thanks!

[quote]treco wrote:
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study refuting more guns / more murders

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/quote]

Interesting piece. However, a quick read through revealed several misconceptions. For instance, it mentions Denmark as a country with a high rate of gun ownership, which is quite a stretch. People simply do not own handguns in Denmark.

As a European, who grew up in a country with strict gun/knife-laws, a few questions always pop up when tragic events like this happen:

  1. Do those that argue for gun ownership ever stop and wonder whether it is the right way to go following such tragic events? Or is it gung-ho Second Amendment all the time?

  2. The argument that ‘one could as easily just strangle/beat/whatever someone as shoot someone’ is often used to ellude that people kill people and not guns. Do guns not make it incredibly easier to kill people from a mental standpoint? Simply pulling the trigger vs. physically killing someone.

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study refuting more guns / more murders

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/quote]

Interesting piece. However, a quick read through revealed several misconceptions. For instance, it mentions Denmark as a country with a high rate of gun ownership, which is quite a stretch. People simply do not own handguns in Denmark.

As a European, who grew up in a country with strict gun/knife-laws, a few questions always pop up when tragic events like this happen:

  1. Do those that argue for gun ownership ever stop and wonder whether it is the right way to go following such tragic events? Or is it gung-ho Second Amendment all the time?

  2. The argument that ‘one could as easily just strangle/beat/whatever someone as shoot someone’ is often used to ellude that people kill people and not guns. Do guns not make it incredibly easier to kill people from a mental standpoint? Simply pulling the trigger vs. physically killing someone.

[/quote]

I’m sure you’ve been brainwashed as good as we have. In the event you are willing to open your mind to a different way of thinking, there are several to be found here:

“Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. […] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. […] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

  • Dianne Feinstein

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

  1. Do those that argue for gun ownership ever stop and wonder whether it is the right way to go following such tragic events? Or is it gung-ho Second Amendment all the time?

I think about the issue like most other thinking adults. I don’t believe the evidence supports the idea that strict gun laws prevent carnage. Norway has very strict gun-control laws. That last scumbag still managed to get a hold of some guns and wack 70 people. I’d rather have a means of defending myself in the event a committed sociopath finds away to get ahold of a gun.

Frankly, even if the evidence was stronger in favor of gun control, it probably wouldn’t sway me. Cars are dangerous in the hands of alcoholics and they use cars recklessly to kill people all the time. When this happens, you don’t take away everyone’s right to drive, you take away the right of the person who abuses the right. I didn’t go on a rampage, and you shouldn’t punish me or take away my right to self defense just because someone else abuses gun ownership.


  1. The argument that ‘one could as easily just strangle/beat/whatever someone as shoot someone’ is often used to ellude that people kill people and not guns. Do guns not make it incredibly easier to kill people from a mental standpoint? Simply pulling the trigger vs. physically killing someone.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but, see my point under No. 1. Guns also make it easier for me to defend myself, which is my right that shouldn’t be taken away because someone else abuses that right.

[/quote]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. […] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. […] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

  • Dianne Feinstein[/quote]

I am curious about the rest of her 1995 speech and the direction of where the above quote is going.

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

  1. Do those that argue for gun ownership ever stop and wonder whether it is the right way to go following such tragic events? Or is it gung-ho Second Amendment all the time?
    [/quote]

Why is automatically going crazy and saying let’s take all guns away the right thing after such tragic events? Is that the right response after such an event?

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. […] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. […] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

  • Dianne Feinstein[/quote]

I am curious about the rest of her 1995 speech and the direction of where the above quote is going.[/quote]

I will give you a hint, it means that when she didn’t have the upper hand, or even a fighting chance, she bitched and moaned about not having a gun.

But now that someone else was the target, she is just fine with not having a gun.

This is NIMBY-ism at it’s best. Better it happen to someone else rather than it happen to me.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We can debate gun control till we are out of breath, but something else is going on that is simply not a function of the availability of guns. This psycho - and others like him - acted out some massive death fantasy that seems to be occurring with more frequency.[/quote]

These crimes although coming so close together are still quite rare.

Of course the STATE run media will play this 24/7 because they have a job to do…namely help enact further gun bans that affect the law abiding. Until we have SOME sort of REGISTRATION and CONTROL over the mentally ill these stories will continue.

Nowhere have I watched or heard on STATE run media the FACT that mentally ill, heavily medicated twisted and derailed minds need CONTROL. They walk among us daily and partake of everything that the rest of us touch. Guns are within touch.

MENTAL ILLNESS CONTROL not GUN CONTROL.

We have parents that physically and sexually and mentally abuse children. We have the hoarders. We have the animal fanatics that take in more animals than they can care for. It goes on and on but you don’t see that played 24/7 on CNN with Piers Morgan calling it absolutely “insane” to let this go on. No he and the others put it squarely on the gun.

There is a single culprit, a reason for so many totally unexplainable things that take place in America today. I believe it is responsible for the horrible chaos. The other is in the realm of our nation’s lack of spiritual responsibility and I’ll save that for another day.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
“Less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. […] I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home. […] And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

  • Dianne Feinstein[/quote]

That’s a good piece.

There was also a newspaper columnist that railed against guns then he made news by shooting some kids that jumped a privacy fence and were in his back yard swimming pool.

Then there’s Rosie O’Donnell who talked gun control until she went off the air but she has a body guard and so do most of the Hollywood elite. Take their guns away first. Take the personal security away from all the Washington politicians first. You can’t just walk up to Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell or the large city mayors.

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We can debate gun control till we are out of breath, but something else is going on that is simply not a function of the availability of guns. This psycho - and others like him - acted out some massive death fantasy that seems to be occurring with more frequency.[/quote]

These crimes although coming so close together are still quite rare.

Of course the STATE run media will play this 24/7 because they have a job to do…namely help enact further gun bans that affect the law abiding. Until we have SOME sort of REGISTRATION and CONTROL over the mentally ill these stories will continue.

Nowhere have I watched or heard on STATE run media the FACT that mentally ill, heavily medicated twisted and derailed minds need CONTROL. They walk among us daily and partake of everything that the rest of us touch. Guns are within touch.

MENTAL ILLNESS CONTROL not GUN CONTROL.

We have parents that physically and sexually and mentally abuse children. We have the hoarders. We have the animal fanatics that take in more animals than they can care for. It goes on and on but you don’t see that played 24/7 on CNN with Piers Morgan calling it absolutely “insane” to let this go on. No he and the others put it squarely on the gun.

There is a single culprit, a reason for so many totally unexplainable things that take place in America today. I believe it is responsible for the horrible chaos. The other is in the realm of our nation’s lack of spiritual responsibility and I’ll save that for another day.

[/quote]

This is the best post I think I’ve see you made… either that or it’s the one I agree with the most. It can be hard to tell at times.


These nuttjob mass murderers are not the church going, pro USA tea party members that go to lots of rallies and Washington DC vacations. These are the anti-Americans, that want the United States to fall on it’s face and collapse.

The reason for mass shootings of people they do not know signifies the need to punish for their culpable “American behavior” that is similar to anti-USA terrorists. They certainly are not right leaning pro gun, pro God, pro American citizens.

They also want to punish an America they believe to be the reason for the world’s problems. That’s in line with Obama bowing and apologizing to world leaders for America’s sins - not right leaning conservatives as some have tried to put blame on here.

[quote]forbes wrote:
I think everyone should be able to have a weapon. Sane people won’t use it as an excuse to kill willy nilly. If guns were outlawed, people bent on killing others will find a way to get a gun no matter what. Plus they’ll be even more inclined to carry out their crime because they know others won’t have weapons on them. That’s why I believe everyone should have a weapon on them. Murderous people will think twice when they shoot up places because they’ll know a significant amount of people will be carrying concealed firearms.

What do you think?[/quote]

I see your point here, but let’s ask ourselves this - crazy with machine guns vs. crazy with pistol. Who does more damage?

You need far stricter controls on what people can purchase - and who can purchase. Outlawing then is not a solution, but sitting around not doing anything will just ensure a repeat of the recent shootings.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We can debate gun control till we are out of breath, but something else is going on that is simply not a function of the availability of guns. This psycho - and others like him - acted out some massive death fantasy that seems to be occurring with more frequency.

I don’t pretend to psychoanalyze these maniacs, but for some reason, the desire to just go kill someone who wronged you isn’t in vogue - there must be a stage, a huge body count of people unrelated to a narrow personal grudge, and often a blaze of glory.

Guns have nothing to do with this impulse or its troubling increasing frequency. True, more advanced weapons can enable the killer to raise the body count faster, but such an argument is irrelevant to yesterday’s massacre based on the facts we have and the kinds of weapons he used.

I don’t know if we can “cure” these impulses, but we would wise to focus on them. What drives them? Ordinary murderous impulses (which are awful, but let’s face it, “normal” in the human condition) jacked up and enhanced by the need for attention in a world more driven by instantaneous attention than it ever has been? Increasing social atomization? Creeping nihilism?

I don’t have the right answers, and I don’t pretend to, but our time is better spent asking these questions rather than about gun control. The impulse to do this is the true instrument of death here, not a firearm.[/quote]

How did aforementioned psycho get the guns? That’s right, his mother legally purchased them.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I see your point here, but let’s ask ourselves this - crazy with machine guns vs. crazy with pistol. Who does more damage?

You need far stricter controls on what people can purchase - and who can purchase. Outlawing then is not a solution, but sitting around not doing anything will just ensure a repeat of the recent shootings.[/quote]

FYI: There has been exactly 2 homicides since 1934 involving legally owned automatic weapons, what you call machine guns.

They are already strictly regulated. Civilians are not allowed to own automatic weopons with out special permission from the US Treasury. Every time an automatic weapon exchanges ownership, a $200 tax is paid.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence.

Since the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act’s passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I think everyone should be able to have a weapon. Sane people won’t use it as an excuse to kill willy nilly. If guns were outlawed, people bent on killing others will find a way to get a gun no matter what. Plus they’ll be even more inclined to carry out their crime because they know others won’t have weapons on them. That’s why I believe everyone should have a weapon on them. Murderous people will think twice when they shoot up places because they’ll know a significant amount of people will be carrying concealed firearms.

What do you think?[/quote]

I see your point here, but let’s ask ourselves this - crazy with machine guns vs. crazy with pistol. Who does more damage?

You need far stricter controls on what people can purchase - and who can purchase. Outlawing then is not a solution, but sitting around not doing anything will just ensure a repeat of the recent shootings.[/quote]

Who used a machine gun?

Maybe what we need is people who aren’t so fucking stupid to not know the difference in guns deciding what we need to control.