Gun Control

[Guest Oui230]

Phantomb the thing is gun control in the US would just make it harder for the law abiding citizens to acquire guns and the criminals would still get them anyways. There is no way to be able to completely get rid of all the guns in the country.

[Guest xprowlerx]

Phantomb the thing is gun control in the US would just make it harder for the law abiding citizens to acquire guns and the criminals would still get them anyways. There is no way to be able to completely get rid of all the guns in the country.

 

still it will make it 10-fold harder and more complicated for some lunatic to acquire these guns...maybe you will not stop them all but even you manage to arrest or prevent even 1 in a 100 that is better than the current situation...a psycho coward shooting children is not the ''organised crime'' who can have easy access to gun dealers

[Guest Snapptastic]

i don't think an outright ban of guns is the solution.. in the UK, you aren't allowed to own a gun, so essentially there is less gun-related crime there than there is in the US. take a closer look at crime statistics and you'll see that per capita, the UK has more crime than the US. most of the crime is knife-related, but it's still happening. now you might say, well if this guy had a knife, he definitely wouldn't have been to kill 26. that's true, but knives and guns aren't the only weapons for a sociopath. he could have used a homemade bomb to achieve the same results.

 

i'm not trying to get into politics here, i just don't think you can fault everything on gun ownership. there are millions of Americans who are responsible and use their guns in the correct manner, myself included. should there be more extensive background checks and should Class III weapons be banned? sure, but don't go and take away ALL guns. crime will go on, because unstable people will always be unstable people.

 

war on drugs --> failure, controlled by criminal element

war on alcohol --> failure, brought gang culture to the forefront of American crime

war on guns --> criminals control and distribute weapons just like drugs (failure) and the responsible citizens lose.

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

war on drugs --> failure, controlled by criminal element

war on alcohol --> failure, brought gang culture to the forefront of American crime

war on guns --> criminals control and distribute weapons just like drugs (failure) and the responsible citizens lose.

 

The war on drugs, alcohol and guns isn't a failure, its just that a different problem arose out of the solution to the first. If they were a failure, everyone would have drugs, alcohol and guns and run around like "lunatics". Its impossible to measure the success of any of these war's objectively because everyone has different experiences in life and thus everyone has their own subjective opinion on the success or failure of governmental controls. On top of all that, governments are changing and thus each government has its own objectives it seeks to meet that often differ wildly from the previous one in order to satisfy a public minority that has a large amount of influence. The result of it is policy's that constantly change, and the war turns from being about drugs, alcohol and guns into a political "vote" game.

 

Do I think drugs should be legalised?, no, because drug users are not capable of regulating their own drug use, regardless of what they may believe, if there were no controls, society would descend into chaos. Marijuana is often used as the exception to the rule in that its not addictive, etc.. but the problem lies in the fact that the drug is used to mask other problems, and thus those problems eventually become worse and worse because the problem is not being treated, only the symptoms are. The same goes for alcohol, as it's a drug, and one of the most common.

 

Do i think guns should be banned?, No. Do i think guns should be strictly controlled?, Yes. If you look at US vs UK crime statistics, you'll see that in terms of total crimes committed, the US is 82% higher than the UK. On interesting point is that the number of Murders committed with firearms is 668% higher in the US vs the UK with Murders committed by youths being 58% higher than the UK. Its clear that a trend here exists, there clearly needs to be better controlled weapons, alongside better mental health care for younger people in particular. A common argument is the fact that "If i don't have a gun, how can i protect myself?, the fact being is that you shouldn't need to. If proper regulations are put in place, people at risk will be allowed to own weapons(which is how it is in Australia(i.e. rural properties)), and those that aren't at immediate risk won't have access to a weapon. You can always claim that there will be the one individual with a gun. But that's when you call the police. The right to bear arms is based on having a colonial militia ready to defend it from a threat. Its important to note that this was written 200 years ago. And by the same principle, one should also justify that because it was written in the 1800's, that the concepts associated with modern medicine, science and economics shouldn't matter, because a 200 year old document says otherwise. All of the aforementioned fields of discovery have been changed hundreds, if not thousands of times since then, i find it hard to believe why a relic of a principle has hard and fast believers in a modern world.

 

All in all, tragedies like this can be avoided, and have been in Australia, since the Port Arthur massacre almost 20 years ago, gun controls became much tighter and only one such incident, with far fewer deaths occurred. It seems in America that this happens yearly, and I think your lying to yourself if you say that the issue of having easy to access to guns/lethal weapons isn't a major contributing factor to this statistic, Mental health issues being the other,

[Guest RET.GEN.Darmine]

Those outside of the U.S. seem to not grasp the fact that it is our God given natural RIGHT to own a firearm. A lot of folks look at this with rage and misunderstanding. These Shooters choose gun free zones or places where guns are only allowed to FED and State agents or LEOs. This happens every time in places where guns are strictly regulated or not allowed. I can tell you right now you can regulate all the laws you want if I'm pressed to kill ppl because they offended me I will find the ammo and gun needed for that task. You can regulate the ammo, possession of how many guns I can purchase, banning of assault rifles. The criminal mind is not going to go "ohhh damn I cant get more then 10 rounds of ammo, damn assault rifle are band" their going to go to the local drug trafficker/dealer and acquire a nice illegal gun. In my state it is perfectly legal for a Concealed Carry Holder to posses a firearm in school, we had a shooting at trolley square, can anyone guess why the shooting happened there? Since EU and other country's do not recognize gun ownership as a fundamental right, I say sorry to those who do not have it. Those in the U.S. I encourage you to get your CCP and practice and become familiar with your firearm, practice, practice. Also Thieving cops in this country are 20-30min away I will be long dead without my firearm if I'm in harms way.

 

Look at the pattern here:

Schools = most states it is illegal to carry

Gun free zones= Most states require a posted sign, if no sign is posted then it is legal to carry.

 

They commit their acts of violence in places with less impact on their eventual death, they have found a weakness in our laws and exposed it.

 

If we could lift bans in places that serve the public, commercial or public, this would give LAW abiding citizens of this country a fighting chance if said wacko comes in guns a blazing.On the other hand I do think bans should remain for Court houses, Law enforcement buildings and fed buildings as well as Airports.

[Guest Snapptastic]

SGM, I respect your opinion and you've made some very good points. You said initially that the war on drugs and alcohol hasn't failed, but it has unequivocally and systematically failed in America. Now I'm not promoting the legalization of drugs, or the complete legalization of all firearms, but instead a more moderate approach towards both. Why are there so many users in the American prison system? If the war on drugs was actually working, we'd have cartels, gangs, and other dealers/distributors in jails, but we don't. Most of the people who get in trouble are caught with PERSONAL amounts of marijuana or some other drug. I really like the law that has passed in Colorado and Washington that allows someone to have a reasonable personal amount of marijuana on them. I don't use drugs or smoke marijuana, but I understand how stupid it is to lock someone up for such a pointless "crime". We waste so much money and time, just so politicians can save face, when in reality, drugs will ALWAYS be a part of life. People will always argue with Americans because we believe in personal liberties more than anything else in this country. That is what this country was founded on and what it should always strive to achieve.

 

I am a proud owner of two firearms. Both are handguns and are in my home for my personal protection more than anything else. Yes, the US might have more actual crimes committed than the UK, but that figure is so pointless. The US is a country of over 300 million people whereas the UK has close to 60 million? If you look at the per capita statistics, you will see that the UK has FAR more violent crimes per 100,000 people than the US does. The point I make is that, a murder or violent crime will happen regardless of whether there are guns or knives on the street. Homemade explosives are just as easy to make for some crazy nut who is mentally unstable and committed. It is really easy to say that you shouldn't need to defend yourself, therefore you don't need a gun, but like I said, the UK statistics say otherwise. I will never give up my guns because there are maniacs out there that just don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions.

 

You also bring up the point that the Second Amendment is a 200 year old right. That's true, but so are the rest of the first 10 Amendments, and all of them are still relevant to today. If you don't understand why Americans will always keep their guns, then you don't really understand what America is about. Those rights are the principles on which this country was founded on. While I am not justifying everything that America does these days (there are a lot of unfortunate and horrible things being done), I will always stand by the Bill of Rights. True, there needs to be some changes to how guns or acquired or what kind of guns someone can acquire, but not anymore than that. There have been many instances where a responsible citizen with a concealed weapon has prevented a crime from happening. What the General said about all of these shootings and killings being done in Gun Free Zones is so true as well. These wackos target places like schools because they know they can get away with murdering as many people as they want before they take their own lives. How different would it have been if there was an officer or security with a gun on the scene?

 

Last point I want to make: The shooter from yesterday ILLEGALLY obtained his weapons. He did NOT go out and buy those guns. They were purchased by a law abiding and completely sane citizen who happened to be his mother. If he wanted to kill those children, he would have found an illegal weapon off the street or use another method if guns were illegal in this country.

[Guest RET.CDR.CrAzY_NuTtA=US=]

GEN your point is give more people guns so that when a crazed gunman comes along they can shoot back?

 

From a non-US POV i find it abnormal to have guns, designed essentially for military, wars and i guess other global conflicts and task force teams, to just go un-restricted to the general public. It's a flawed theory to say we need more guns to stop killings with guns.

 

Just my opinion, i know the US has some crazy laws especially since every state has it's own law about different things. I always thought Driving and owning a gun at 17-18 but not being able to drink till 21 was a really strange way of doing things. Of course, the UK isn't perfect either. Underage drug useage and drinking and teenage parents are very common, but all those things dont get people killed nor are designed to kill. I 100% think going to a gun range and having a hobby of owning a gun is a cool thing, heck i would love to have the ability to do that. There are gun clubs over here but not very many. But i say if you want to have a gun, you should have to have it stored at a gun club or something.

 

All this is just thoretical anyway, you can't just change the law in a second. Else you will have even more crazed people.

[Guest Phantomb]

[Guest Snapptastic]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

I rest my case. Even the most dangerous city in America has a lower VIOLENT crime rate than the UK. A country like South Africa has a lower crime rate than the UK. So how exactly is making guns illegal and setting up surveillance cameras everyone making the UK safer? It's not.

[Guest Phantomb]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

I rest my case. Even the most dangerous city in America has a lower VIOLENT crime rate than the UK. A country like South Africa has a lower crime rate than the UK. So how exactly is making guns illegal and setting up surveillance cameras everyone making the UK safer? It's not.

 

Because when i walk down the street, take my brother to school i'm pretty confident there wont be any mad men with guns there. Seeing as its pretty much impossible for a normal person to even find a gun.

[Guest RET.CDR.CrAzY_NuTtA=US=]

3 July 2009 <-

 

Still not gonna knock you though.

 

The thing i will say is this - there are certain areas of England that are perfectly pleasant, and certain areas that are not. I would say 75% of the UK is fine and there are 25% areas you simply don't want to go to. Similarly to how in the US you have places like Detroit or Memphis which are also renowned for the same (correct me if i'm wrong on those).

 

In that respect we are not so different, but you can't solely base those figures on reported crimes either. These are crimes, not deaths. I'm sure the death counts would be a different story.

[Guest RET.GEN.Darmine]

GEN your point is give more people guns so that when a crazed gunman comes along they can shoot back?

 

From a non-US POV i find it abnormal to have guns, designed essentially for military, wars and i guess other global conflicts and task force teams, to just go un-restricted to the general public. It's a flawed theory to say we need more guns to stop killings with guns.

 

Just my opinion, i know the US has some crazy laws especially since every state has it's own law about different things. I always thought Driving and owning a gun at 17-18 but not being able to drink till 21 was a really strange way of doing things. Of course, the UK isn't perfect either. Underage drug useage and drinking and teenage parents are very common, but all those things dont get people killed nor are designed to kill. I 100% think going to a gun range and having a hobby of owning a gun is a cool thing, heck i would love to have the ability to do that. There are gun clubs over here but not very many. But i say if you want to have a gun, you should have to have it stored at a gun club or something.

 

All this is just thoretical anyway, you can't just change the law in a second. Else you will have even more crazed people.

 

Never said giving guns to everyone is ok. What I said is these criminals know that if they go to a No gun zone or place where it is illegal to have a gun they have a better chance of making the news and maximizing damage. Those who legally own a gun should have a gun and if the state they reside requires a CCP then they should get one and train with the pistol they carry. Again the criminal or a man with criminal intent doesn't care about your restriction. Well he does to a point because restrictions for "no guns allowed zones" are advantageous to him. The UK does allow guns, but would that stop a criminal from beating your face in with a bat or knife or figuring a way to sneak a gun and shoot people?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20082325.html

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-mall-shooter-jacob-roberts-quit-job-hawaii/story?id=17946938#.UMytOSAudrE

 

All these places are restricted heavily or "no gun zones" I can keep going on stories like this.

[Guest Snapptastic]

Crazy you make a good point. Yes, there are good and bad areas in all countries across the world. I am also not advocating full legalization of all guns. I am simply saying that making all guns illegal in the United States will never work. There is no reason why a responsible citizen who is worried about the safety of his family shouldn't be able to own a gun. Yes, you have these anomalies where a nutcase goes on a mass killing spree, therefore something needs to change. I think that change should be an extensive mental health check and a more thorough background check with a longer waiting period. Also, we should tightly regulate or ban outright the Class III weapons.

 

In the states, we don't like having our government controlling every aspect of our lives. Personal liberty is everything. That's why individual states have their own laws on different matters. That doesn't mean that we don't want things to change to make issues like guns more practical, but we certainly will never give up our weapons in totality. When you give the government too much power, you create an easier avenue for corruption and abuse of power. Our nation was founded on personal liberty and it has been a model that other countries have tried to adopt in their own constitutions.

 

edit: General, don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre, also a Gun Free Zone.

[Guest RET.GEN.Darmine]

GEN your point is give more people guns so that when a crazed gunman comes along they can shoot back?

.

 

Would you rather have a means to defend yourself equally or just cower in a corner and hope death is swift and painless? Because in my country there are gun wielding crazies and our Constitutional right is not going away anytime soon. Yes I want to be able to shoot back with equal force. Do I want every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a gun, nope. We have laws in place that prevent gun ownership to felons, violent crime offenders, molesters and sexual assault/domestic violence. The only laws that should change are ones restricting LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from carrying responsibly.

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

The only laws that should change are ones restricting LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from carrying responsibly.

 

The point of gun control, is to allow law abiding citizens to own a weapon responsibly, but to also control the flow of illegal weapons. Every citizen that owns a weapon should only be allowed to own that weapon after they have been trained in the use and ethics of that weapon. That's how it is in Australia and it works pretty well, everyone who owns a weapon is responsible with it. Nobody should be allowed to carry a gun in a public place, for the simple fact that you shouldn't feel the need to have to constantly defend yourself from a threat. Its clearly a failing by the government that the people don't feel safe enough that they feel the need to walk around with weapons. Guns aren't the problem, its the attitudes that need to change. A Law abiding citizen can turn into a criminal in the snap of a finger and in a moment of anger kill someone. The idea of gun control is to place a time gap between the period where the person can obtain a weapon to prevent them from making a rash choice and allowing them to cool off.

 

Also out of interest, how many times, in owning a gun personally(not in the army/police force/other jobs), have you had to defend yourself with the gun?

[Guest RET.GEN.Darmine]

The point of gun control, is to allow law abiding citizens to own a weapon responsibly, but to also control the flow of illegal weapons. Every citizen that owns a weapon should only be allowed to own that weapon after they have been trained in the use and ethics of that weapon. That's how it is in Australia and it works pretty well, everyone who owns a weapon is responsible with it. Nobody should be allowed to carry a gun in a public place, for the simple fact that you shouldn't feel the need to have to constantly defend yourself from a threat. Its clearly a failing by the government that the people don't feel safe enough that they feel the need to walk around with weapons. Guns aren't the problem, its the attitudes that need to change. A Law abiding citizen can turn into a criminal in the snap of a finger and in a moment of anger kill someone. The idea of gun control is to place a time gap between the period where the person can obtain a weapon to prevent them from making a rash choice and allowing them to cool off.

 

Also out of interest, how many times, in owning a gun personally(not in the army/police force/other jobs), have you had to defend yourself with the gun?

 

I have had to use my pistol to deter a man who began a road rage and began to come after me. My country is not socialist so more government involvement is only going to make things worse.

So yes I have had to use mine for self defense and to deter a forcible felony.

[Guest RET.LCDR.2DyESaMuRi=US=]

Again I bring up that mall shooting in Oregon was stopped by an armed Civi, not police. People need to learn that guns are not bad. They are protective equipment which save lives. Bad people can use any weapon to kill. Tim Mcvey, for example...... And let me state that if any teacher or person in that school was armed, it would never have taken place. Gun free zones are dangerous. I blame the ignorance of people for what happened there. To be frank, It should open their eyes, but blind fear controls them, this is caused by media BS about 'guns are bad' stigma. Take this how anyone wants, honestly I do not feel bad for them there. I do for the police and ems that responded and had to see it, but no one else. Reason being, gun free zone; know that any armed civi would have stopped that from even happening. People need to stop spinning it in other directions that is called propaganda....

[Guest RET.CW4.ThievingSix=US=]

Again I bring up that mall shooting in Oregon was stopped by an armed Civi, not police. People need to learn that guns are not bad. They are protective equipment which save lives. Bad people can use any weapon to kill. Tim Mcvey, for example...... And let me state that if any teacher or person in that school was armed, it would never have taken place. Gun free zones are dangerous. I blame the ignorance of people for what happened there. To be frank, It should open their eyes, but blind fear controls them, this is caused by media BS about 'guns are bad' stigma. Take this how anyone wants, honestly I do not feel bad for them there. I do for the police and ems that responded and had to see it, but no one else. Reason being, gun free zone; know that any armed civi would have stopped that from even happening. People need to stop spinning it in other directions that is called propaganda....

 

I don't think you can really call guns protective equipment because that just depends on which side of the gun your on. I'm not entirely sure but don't most schools in the US have security guards?, if anything they should be armed. But in my opinion teachers shouldn't, because having weapons around young children 6-7, is just not a good idea, its too high a chance that some kid will accidently shoot someone if the teacher leaves it on their desk or drops it.

 

The solution your proposing is essentially, because people have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves, and thus the people get even better guns, and then you need better guns to protect yourself. Its a very similar approach to treating MRSA. Initially the bacterium became immune to penicillin, so they got more powerful methods of treatment in the form of methicillin, but then it became resistant to that, so now they must use vancomycin. The inevitable is going to eventually happen where it gains resistance to that. The problem of eradicating the bacterium isn't being achieved(for numerous reasons) so like guns, we need better, more powerful, stronger antibiotics to treat the infection.

 

I'd like to use the line "you need to treat the problem not just the symptoms", but that doesn't really apply to MRSA. However in the situation of guns the number of fatalities can be reduced by introducing things like time-delay in between purchasing weapons, and better background checking(which exists in some states i believe), to prevent rash decision making and increase the time for identification of underlying mental health issues. Obviously no solution is entirely effective, but any that prevents situations from this happening should be trialled at a minimum.

 

I do think the idea of gun free zones is rather pointless though, if anything its more targeted at getting votes for elections. I don't think however that you can generalise that a teacher if they were armed would have stood up and shot the guy. This would have certainly caused psychological trauma for the kids, seeing someone they trust shoot someone else. But that of course must be weighed against the trauma they experienced from the gunman in the end.

 

On the flip side i don't think its possible to see the positive effects of gun control in the short term, its a 30-40 year commitment before it starts to work.

[Guest RET.LCDR.2DyESaMuRi=US=]

I don't think you can really call guns protective equipment because that just depends on which side of the gun your on. I'm not entirely sure but don't most schools in the US have security guards?, if anything they should be armed. But in my opinion teachers shouldn't, because having weapons around young children 6-7, is just not a good idea, its too high a chance that some kid will accidently shoot someone if the teacher leaves it on their desk or drops it.

 

The solution your proposing is essentially, because people have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves, and thus the people get even better guns, and then you need better guns to protect yourself. Its a very similar approach to treating MRSA. Initially the bacterium became immune to penicillin, so they got more powerful methods of treatment in the form of methicillin, but then it became resistant to that, so now they must use vancomycin. The inevitable is going to eventually happen where it gains resistance to that. The problem of eradicating the bacterium isn't being achieved(for numerous reasons) so like guns, we need better, more powerful, stronger antibiotics to treat the infection.

 

I'd like to use the line "you need to treat the problem not just the symptoms", but that doesn't really apply to MRSA. However in the situation of guns the number of fatalities can be reduced by introducing things like time-delay in between purchasing weapons, and better background checking(which exists in some states i believe), to prevent rash decision making and increase the time for identification of underlying mental health issues. Obviously no solution is entirely effective, but any that prevents situations from this happening should be trialled at a minimum.

 

I do think the idea of gun free zones is rather pointless though, if anything its more targeted at getting votes for elections. I don't think however that you can generalise that a teacher if they were armed would have stood up and shot the guy. This would have certainly caused psychological trauma for the kids, seeing someone they trust shoot someone else. But that of course must be weighed against the trauma they experienced from the gunman in the end.

 

On the flip side i don't think its possible to see the positive effects of gun control in the short term, its a 30-40 year commitment before it starts to work.

 

 

 

You are buying too much into this propaganda. The stigma of guns are bad is just silly. How many people have guns in this country vs people who do bad...... ya.. The reason we have mrsa would be due to the fact that its a living organism which learns. Kinda like a squid losing its shell. That argument is a point that has no sense here.

 

Its not treating symptoms to have guns, its a good solution. Again you fail to see that people who cause harm, will do it any way they can, knife, bomb, chain, chainsaw, fire, ied etc.. guns is one in a list of many. but the media makes it look like the only one, which you seem to believe. Just because you think that its a bad bad tool, dont forget it cant fire itself, which leads to my previous statement, anything can kill.

 

Armed teachers are a good thing. Kids should not fear guns, they should learn to use them and be safe with them from the day they are old enough to walk.

 

Armed security in every school? ya that does not happen in more than a handful of areas, mainly high crime areas, and notice, those school dont have shootings.

 

Give me a break, telling me guns are bad, and not a tool of defense, when in reality I bring up the mall again, it sure stopped that shooter, dont ignore that one like the mainstream media is doing right now. Thats called propaganda.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/2dyesamuri/262648_560524167295442_244352798_n_zpsd4eeca8a.jpg

[Guest RET.LCDR.2DyESaMuRi=US=]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/2dyesamuri/16060_551269721567248_1704859737_n_zpsbab06b93.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/2dyesamuri/399282_552136381480582_693085990_n_zps2e4fd553.jpg

If you want a copy of the study that created these numbers, let me know. I can provide it.

 

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/2dyesamuri/282909_551256874901866_1147476412_n_zps4a471b66.jpg

[Guest RET.Capt.DoggyRanger=US=]

Totally lost reading this thread.

 

Never pulled a trigger in my life.. Not sure I could if I had to take a life..

 

Somebody enters your home.. Defend at any cost.

 

Not sure I agree with requiring teachers to go to work armed to teach kids..

 

That's why we have folks that are trained to carry guns..

 

I'm visualising my teachers from school days.. Thinking which one would I trust to hold a hand gun..

 

I'm visualising mall cops now carrying around guns as deterrents.

 

I'm visualising somebody getting very nervous while performing running block patrol.

 

If you have been trained to carry a gone no issue. Seen too many instances where a weapon was pulled out unnecessarily which is the heart of the matter.

 

Teachers teach.. They aren't spending time training to use a firearm.

 

In New York, we have had enough oops, sorry we missed episodes from law enforcement so I'm not sure increasing the number of fire arms would be a deterrent.

 

We have 1 million people that head to the City each day who are already on edge.. I would hate to see each one carrying a weapon..

 

Don't get me wrong, I think I don't know what it is like in the rest of the country or the world. But let's not apply what works in my neighborhood works everywhere.

 

It doesn't.

 

Been shot at.. Damn right I ran.. If you have been trained, god bless you, we hope you know what your are doing. But most folks aren't built for that moment and the hope is we never need to.

 

Don't think the thread should be a gun-debate. A tragedy has occurred. We should leave it there. Our personal agendas and belief really don't have anything to do with it.

[Guest Peace]

I understand the importance for gun control in the USA, I don't understand why officers in our police force and military enlisted must undergo extensive psychological evaluations and weapon training in order to use a gun. When all I have to do is go to a gun shop with my Driver's License sign a paper and wait 2 days for my bullets. Heck I could save myself the trouble and go to walmart and buy a shotgun for $100. I could go to a sporting store and buy a bow. I'd never ask or dream of a ban on weapons, just that in order to get a gun, one should have to do the same as police and military.

[Guest xprowlerx]

With all my respect to either side and having said that this is just my humble opinion and nothing goes personal to any1 :

 

Propaganda goes both sides ... the pro and the anti gun control supproters.

I know it is not my country but i believe it hurts the same when i read that children were shot dead in US, china, Norway or anywhere else ...

 

Both sides are pulling their ''logic'' arguments from what it seems to be sporadic and individual events that choose to hook on.

 

''Catchy'' phrases and how more likely is to die from falling down your stairs or getting hit by a plane engine are completely irrelevant to the topic IMO... here we don't address alternative ways to die..we are trying to see if less guns can bring down the GUN related deaths.

 

Arguments of the type:

States with gun controls experienced mass shootings, or mall shooting prevented by armed civilian

or ''Statistics'' of the type average ppl killed in MASS shootings are not valid simply because the sample is too small to extract any meaningful figure. It is just wrong and misleading if you build your conclusion on a single event or a theoretical scenario...

You need to look at the gun possession vs average number of gun related crime per population unit. This number looks at the overall picture nomatter if the incident was a mass killing or an individual murder.

 

On the other hand allowing gun possession but declaring schools as a gun free zone is also stupid imo cause it automatically makes these premises a primary target for any madman.

 

But if we look the actual facts:

 

a) There is a positive correlation between gun possession and gun related crime/deaths, regardless if these were individual or mass homicides ( if anybody has full access to the UK times webpage http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3633638.ece can see the relevant figures which shows that states e.g. california with stricter gun laws has less related crime)

 

b) A pistol and a couple of 10 bullet magazines would be a reasonable self defence weapon. Assault riffles and thousands of bullets is not '' means for self defence '' unless you think you can defend a Chinese invasion (which WILL NOT happen), and if it happens the aforementioned loadout will not be sufficient to change anything. Unless you decide to buy and park a patriot battery and a tank in your back yard.

 

c) Guns are MORE lethal than other means. Mass killings will not happen with a knife, a baseball bat, a bottle or your bare hands. See China...20 children stabbed, none of them died.

 

d) Banning guns will not vanish guns but your police can focus to a much smaller group of people (the organised crime) to monitor and control them ... That makes it harder or at least more complicated for a guy who went mental overnight to acquire a gun...he has to spent more time...he has to talk to more people...he has to spent more money...and all these are of course not eliminating 100% the thread but are increasing the probability of this guy to get spotted/flagged and arrested.

 

e) these mass killings are becoming an annual event in US ...more than anywhere else. If you can't see this clearly then you need to question yourself about the possibility of being victim of the pro-gun propaganda

 

f) IF a gun is soulless and has no willing of it's own, so is a bomb, a toxic gas, a biological weapon <-- all these are tools made by definition to KILL other people for either ''good or bad reason''. The ''maths'' that say more good people exist than bad is simply misleading and bad taste propaganda because this is not a question if 10 good people can outshoot 1 bad. As SGM said we are discussing how to prevent any shooting from happening in the first place and not how we are eliminating the shooter. And the 1 bad in a 100 if and when he turns mad can cause a disproportional damage and killings. 1 assault riffle,2 pistols and determination that he is going to kill as many people as he can and then suicide means that the 99 good armed ppl are not a real threat to him. Even if he kills 1 person the damage is done.

 

I have to stand by the stricter gun control

[Guest RET.LCDR.2DyESaMuRi=US=]

Let me state it like this. You are preaching to remove my rights, not a good way to preach. Nazis? gun control, no murder huh?

 

Those numbers I posted were actually taken over a period of 5 years. Please stop trying to downplay reality.

 

Do not quote news sites, they are biased crap. Quote me police reports, college studies, about numbers of relations.

 

 

Now on to you theory about mass murder only by guns. Here are just a few found in 5 min of searching:

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province;

 

 

An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010; early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks.

 

BEIJING (AP) — A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.

 

The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.

 

The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.

 

Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.

 

Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.

 

Article from the NYT....china needs to ban knives!

 

 

 

 

 

Now on to you theory that guns dont help:

There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.

 

Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack cocaine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back.

 

The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.

 

The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.

 

The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one

 

July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier.

 

Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots.

 

College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.

 

Two gunman entered a party and ordered the men separated from the women. Then they started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

 

When one of the assailants prepared to rape a girl, a student was able to access a handgun and engage the two attackers in a firefight, driving one off and killing the other before the thug could rape his girlfriend.

 

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

 

College Park Link

 

Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation.

 

I have about 100 more of these, that do not make the bias controlling news.

 

The reason for thousands of rounds, to protect my self from being oppressed by anyone. As it does happen in other countries, and please do not tell me it does not when you have cctv on every corner, when people are being forced into slavery in africa, killed outright in syria. So many gun control countries. The argument of third world is wrong, people are people, get that through all

 

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

 

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

 

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

 

 

 

Here is a LINK which shows that countries with gun control have higher gun crime rates, and the top one is not third world

[Guest Snapptastic]

I think there are things that we can do to limit the amount of deaths there are due to gun violence or violence in general. First off, we need to have extensive training for those who wish to own a firearm. I can't tell you how many dumb***** i see at the shooting range on a weekly basis. These are people that probably mean well, but have no idea what they are doing with their guns. Secondly, we need to make sure that a person's mental health is in order before we let them purchase a firearm. There needs to be an extensive background check and not some half-***ed one that doesn't do anything to deter criminals from getting weapons.

 

I will never agree that Americans should flat-out give up their weapons. Our country was founded on the basis of individual freedoms and there are some that I just will not tolerate being taken away. Should we have a more sensible gun policy? Sure. But if that means there are going to be serious infringements on our rights, then I would rather there be no control than any. The same goes for CCTV. That would NEVER fly here in the states and it never should. How much crime does that actually prevent? There is still a great deal of knife violence and muggings that still exists in the UK. In a statistical sense, the UK, per capita, is the most violent place in the world.

 

Does that mean it has the most murders, per capita? No it doesn't. But there are so many more factors that contribute to murders than gun ownership or control. Perfect example of this, as LCDR brought up, is Switzerland. Every male between the ages of 20-30 are required to undergo training and are then issued a firearm. Why then, does Switzerland not see the same amount of violence that the US does? It clearly promotes the ownership of guns in every household, which is a HUGE deterrent for crime. Would a robber/thief break into a house if he/she knew that the family had a gun in the home? I highly doubt it.

 

Now we move onto the issue of mass shootings in the industrialized and developed world. Sure there have been a disproportionate amount of mass shootings in the US, I won't argue with that. But I don't think you attribute that on there being too many guns in the country. There are a lot of mental health problems in this country and our culture/society is going to **** to be frank. It has a lot more to do with the culture of a nation than it does with there being guns on or off the street.