hello, its enough to show it hasnt changed anything, in fact in most that have any form of gun control in the us, crime increased, not decreased.
toldailytopic: Do you support or oppose tightening gun control laws in USA?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
hello, its enough to show it hasnt changed anything, in fact in most that have any form of gun control in the us, crime increased, not decreased.
Did it increase? The only thing you posted said it stayed the same. If a location is already violent I highly doubt that limiting firearms in THAT location will change anything. "Oh, can't buy a gun in Chicago? Ok, fine, let me hitch a ride 30 miles west and buy a gun there where there are no restrictions."
My argument is this. Will putting new legislature in place to restrict certain guns/ammo/whatever stop tragedy? No, it won't. But I certainly don't think it would escalate. The alternative, according to this thread, is for everyone to arm themselves which, I believe, will escalate violence.
You didnt read the link did you.
When someone wants to kill someone they will do it, gun control or not, and then only the criminals will have them.
No, they won't. You seem to be ignoring the obvious: gun control =/= the banning of guns.
Of course, its certainly not possible for someone to obtain a gun when its banned or drive a car without a license or registration, or stab someone with a knife meant for a chef, or literally beat someone to death, nah cant happen since those things are banned and against the law right?
How idiotic.
But guns are not banned and they will never be banned on a national level. So for you to make the ridiculous argument that there will be a time when "only the criminals will have [guns]" is absurd.
I was never arguing that they should be outlawed so... not sure what you are excited about.
bigbang123
New member
A conservative case for an assault weapons ban
If we can't draw a sensible line on guns, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.
By Larry Alan Burns
December 20, 2012
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.
And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.
I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.
Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?
...Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.
...It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.
Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
Oppose.
And those who abide by the law should be able to protect themselves from those who break it.
Knight said it best:
You forgot, "holding the gun with both hands."I support gun control, I just don't see how you'll make every gun owner an expert shot!
Gun control=hitting your target!
Exactly!
Or Enoch "Nucky" Johnson [the man upon whom the character of Nucky Thompson on Boardwalk Empire is based].
If someone comes up to you with one while dressed in body armor what would you want to have by your side for protection?
That's just what we need, to lock down schools like we do prisons.
If someone comes up to you with one while dressed in body armor what would you want to have by your side for protection?
If someone comes up to you with one while dressed in body armor what would you want to have by your side for protection?
You first.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
but that was 25+ years ago right now there is no viable threat to the US.
and you owning as rifle is going to do what in regards that issue?, its a red hearing. The issue is what do citizens need rifles for, is your argument really 'to deal with planes being flown into buildings ?'
Your source does give his source here, and he obviously is an interpreter of data not a reliable neutral source.
But think of this your murder rate is about 3 times the equivalent of the UK and other European countries if you believe guns save 4 times as many as die, do you really think Americans are 12 -15 as murderous as us Europeans?
That doesn't ring true to me, however it would be good to see a good reliable source of data
But you create policy for the problems in front of you. If Russia had invaded Canada, Japan and had a vastly superior army at the borders, there becomes an argument for arming the populace with the best weapons you can.
This isn't the situation. Currently there is no viable military threat, which threatens an invasion of the US, and the american gun death toll is 5 times every year that which happened in 911.
In the 12 years since approx 60 times the amount of people have died from gun crime than 911, would it be prudent to spend 60 times the resource looking that issue to see if a solution can be found?
And we are back to Einstein. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."
Thanks for raising the salient point. We do know what is behind the gun-control movement. It is NOT preventing mass shootings.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
But has america being doing gun control or not?
From the outside its a very very light touch compared to everyone else.
So we think you haven't be restricting guns, and refuse to look at doing something different is the outsiders view.
strange how different perceptions can give you a completely different take on the same logic.
From the outside its a very very light touch compared to everyone else.
So we think you haven't be restricting guns, and refuse to look at doing something different is the outsiders view.
strange how different perceptions can give you a completely different take on the same logic.
A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips is fine by me. Background checks for all purchases (so an end to gun shows). Also some training and even a psych test for those seeking concealed carry. I would also suggest a five-year moratorium on the sale of all firearms (excluding extraordinary circumstances) to stop the arms race we keep escalating amongst ourselves. A national time-out, so to speak.
So you're saying "people won't be crooks." Uh, most people aren't crooks now. Guns or not. Being "polite" is one thing, being a "crook" is another.
I live in a will carry state.:yawn:
he does this just to get a positive rep from me
oatmeal
Well-known member
If Obama and the other lunies in government want to take away guns,they should set the example.
Have Obama deny the Secret Service that protects him and his family any firearms what so ever.
Then announce that the White House and anywhere that he and his family are will be gun free zones.
For that matter, what does he need Secret Service protection for whatsoever?
What does the anti Second Amendment Senators and Congressmen need protection from? Let them get rid of their protection and announce that all security will be removed.
I am sure that there is some evil crazy, probably a Muslim, who thinks that Obama has not done enough for Muslims who would love to send Obama a message.
Obama wants to take away guns, let him start with the Secret Service that protects him and his family.
Let him set the example.
No more bullet proof vehicles. None of that stuff.
Why should he be afraid?
He is, after all, Obama.
oatmeal
Have Obama deny the Secret Service that protects him and his family any firearms what so ever.
Then announce that the White House and anywhere that he and his family are will be gun free zones.
For that matter, what does he need Secret Service protection for whatsoever?
What does the anti Second Amendment Senators and Congressmen need protection from? Let them get rid of their protection and announce that all security will be removed.
I am sure that there is some evil crazy, probably a Muslim, who thinks that Obama has not done enough for Muslims who would love to send Obama a message.
Obama wants to take away guns, let him start with the Secret Service that protects him and his family.
Let him set the example.
No more bullet proof vehicles. None of that stuff.
Why should he be afraid?
He is, after all, Obama.
oatmeal
:doh:
They aren't going to take your guns away. The 2nd Amendment is going to remain intact. This over the top stuff doesn't help your cause.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
If America was an unarmed populace, you think that it could arm and train its people in time to stop an invasion that is on the continental border? Even if Canada was invaded, do you really think we wouldn't go to their aid long before a foreign army could take control and make final preparations to invade America?
You do remember that Japan said (after the war) it wouldn't attempt an invasion on American soil because it was a well armed populace?
Our founding fathers made sure the right to bear arms was established due to what we learned in our revolution with you guys.
This is not to say that we will not evolve over time the way we feel about weapons and the civilian population but this country will never become unarmed through government decree/mandate.