That's what I figured. More histrionics. This needs to be a serious, rational discussion.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;977675]You say there are too many but you dont explain what that means.
You say that there is too much.
How can you expect that not to be taken as per person?[/quote]

Because I didn't say that. That's how.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977676]That's what I figured. More histrionics. This needs to be a serious, rational discussion.[/quote]

Then provide some yourself. No one is stopping you.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;977501]It had also dropped that much prior to the bann so what does that prove.[/quote]

Actually the study which claimed that homicide rates in Australia dropped prior to the Aussie gun ban has been debunked as a false put-on created by the gun lobby.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;977496]
How about we address the real problems at hand. Mental health and media. They play more of a factor here than do the availability of guns. These people are doing this merely for the attention it will bring to them once they are gone.[/quote]

Certainly we need to get a better hold on the roles of mental health and the media in gun violence.

But it is also true that if we also take guns off of the streets, then people would be forced to find less lethal ways to seek "attention."

Anyone watching CNN right now. Piers Morgan - i have never seen two people argue and insult each other like this. Its about gun control btw.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977703]Certainly we need to get a better hold on the roles of mental health and the media in gun violence.

But it is also true that if we also take guns off of the streets, then people would be forced to find less lethal ways to seek "attention."[/quote]

No, they will just find alternative lethal ways to seek attention.
There are so many ways to go about this I fail to see how you can predict they will be less lethal.
Tim McVeigh didnt need any firearms.

[QUOTE=punch it in;977704]Anyone watching CNN right now. Piers Morgan - i have never seen two people argue and insult each other like this. Its about gun control btw.[/QUOTE]

Piers Morgan really can be a POS. Not Bill Maher level, but a real dick. Its like Rush or Bill, from the other side.

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;977656]Exactly!
My guns have only one purpose too, to make holes in paper at 100 and 50 yards. To say that their only purpose is to kill is pretty foolish.[/QUOTE]

Missing the point really. Maybe we need to talk about how guns make it easier to kill than other weapons. Its quicker, more painless and efficient. You are pressing a trigger from yards away...kinda makes it easier to desensitize yourself.

It's a combination of capacity and easy of doing significant harm.

Why not make holes in paper using an air rifle or something? Why does it have to be bullets? If your answer is because I can, feels good, murica, etc. then I can't talk to you.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977703]Certainly we need to get a better hold on the roles of mental health and the media in gun violence.

But it is also true that if we also take guns off of the streets, then people would be forced to find less lethal ways to seek "attention."[/quote]

We're never taking all guns off the street. That's not gonna happen. How could we even do it?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977764]Missing the point really. Maybe we need to talk about how guns make it easier to kill than other weapons. Its quicker, more painless and efficient. You are pressing a trigger from yards away...kinda makes it easier to desensitize yourself.

It's a combination of capacity and easy of doing significant harm.

Why not make holes in paper using an air rifle or something? Why does it have to be bullets? If your answer is because I can, feels good, murica, etc. then I can't talk to you.[/quote]

It doesnt have to a "bullet", but thats what I choose.
I'm doing somehting quite harmless. And quite legal.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977703]But it is also true that if we also take guns off of the streets, then people would be forced to find less lethal ways to seek "attention."[/quote]

I disagree, not surprisingly. Guns are not going to magically disappear, we have to find a way to identify a potential abuser and stop them. It always seems that there are plenty of people after the fact that will attest to 'creepy eyes' or extremely anti-social behavior yet the amount of intervention by society in general and mental health professionals in particular is lacking.

There will always be a way to create a sensationalized event, using poison, explosives, even interfering with a freeway or railroad track.

If only we had Skynet's behavioral prediction model to help......[COLOR=White] j/K[/COLOR]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

OMG im never giving up my gun...every time i hear someone say this it makes me cringe

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=dmek25;977800]OMG im never giving up my gun...every time i hear someone say this it makes me cringe[/quote]

Because you didn't have a gun in the first place?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977534]You did:

FRPLG: [I]".....but guns are absolutely part of the problem. Or more accurately [U][B]the fact that we own so many guns in this country[/B][/U] is an indicator of a deeper problem that is caused by many different things. But the pro-gun crowd seems to want to[U][B] ignore the "fact" that we own TOO MANY guns in this country[/B][/U]. Perhaps gun control isn't the answer to effectively [U][B]reducing[/B][/U] them but we do need to [U][B]reduce[/B][/U] them." [/I][/quote]

Too many guns. I have a buddy who has probably 20 to 30 guns which he and his father have collected over the years. Those guns are in a safe and will not harm a single person. The gang banger who has one gun has one too many so whats the correct number?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977764]Missing the point really. Maybe we need to talk about how guns make it easier to kill than other weapons. Its quicker, more painless and efficient. You are pressing a trigger from yards away[B]...kinda makes it easier to desensitize yourself.[/B]

It's a combination of capacity and easy of doing significant harm.

Why not make holes in paper using an air rifle or something? Why does it have to be bullets? If your answer is because I can, feels good, murica, etc. then I can't talk to you.[/quote]


I'll agree with the first things but the last makes no sense. Killing is killing and a bullets impact is not a pretty site most of the time.

[QUOTE=Alvin Walton;977790]It doesnt have to a "bullet", but thats what I choose.
I'm doing somehting quite harmless. And quite legal.[/QUOTE]

Just because its legal doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be. Not a valid retort IMO. We are debating the validity of existing and possible future legislation.

Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.

[QUOTE=hooskins;977758]Piers Morgan really can be a POS. Not Bill Maher level, but a real dick. Its like Rush or Bill, from the other side.[/QUOTE]

Exactly how he came across. Rush or Bill from the other side. Lol.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977832]Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts[/quote]

It's a valid argument that can be applied to anything.

[quote=hooskins;977832] I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!![/quote]

Rogue states are the problem, not the weapons themselves. If you can't see that this may not be the discussion for you. When was the last time we had nuclear ordinance activate and kill without human intervention?

[quote=hooskins;977832]See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.[/quote]

WTF is high ammo? What's the difference between a high capacity magazine and multiple 5 round magazines? A few seconds is all. Go to any range and watch people drill on mag changes.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=FRPLG;977775]We're never taking all guns off the street. That's not gonna happen. How could we even do it?[/quote]

I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977798]I disagree, not surprisingly. Guns are not going to magically disappear, [B]we have to find a way to identify a potential abuser and stop them. [/B]It always seems that there are plenty of people after the fact that will attest to 'creepy eyes' or extremely anti-social behavior yet the amount of intervention by society in general and mental health professionals in particular is lacking.

There will always be a way to create a sensationalized event, using poison, explosives, even interfering with a freeway or railroad track.

If only we had Skynet's behavioral prediction model to help......[COLOR=White] j/K[/COLOR][/quote]

We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977854]We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.[/quote]

I am not familiar with that exercise. When did that happen?

[QUOTE=Lotus;977851]I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.[/QUOTE]

And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977860]And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people![/quote]

Selected by the finest judges in the U.K. FACT!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;977479]Here's the issue with your analogy. Vehicles and Booze have primary uses. When not used, as intended, then they can have negative consequeneces. However, their value, especially that of a vehicle, is very important in our culture and society. Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.un control work in Australia?[/quote]

Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.


[quote=Daseal;977479]I say we take a note from Australia. In 1996 they had a massacre, and they reacted by banning all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. After the ban Australia saw a 59% drop in firearm homicide and a 65% drop in firearm suicide. More importantly, they saw no increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. That is real world evidence that banning assault weapons lower the murder and suicide rates in the area affected.[/quote]

Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.

[quote=Daseal;977479]No one is saying that a gun ban will eliminate gun violence. It will put a hamper on crimes that are not premeditated and make it more difficult to get the type of guns that can cause massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time, especially without red flags being raised. The gun ban is certainly no silver bullet type of situation, but it is one of many steps that can greatly reduce the amount of violence we face in this country in addition to more money spent on [b]preventitive mental health care[/b].[/quote]

Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Nancy Pelosi wants your assault magazines. (whatever that is)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLCZhiHb1m4&feature=player_embedded]Nancy Pelosi: In California 'You Can Have Three Shots' In Hunting Rifle - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977701]Actually the study which claimed that homicide rates in Australia dropped prior to the Aussie gun ban has been debunked as a false put-on created by the gun lobby.[/quote]

This source says homcide rates were droping.

[url=http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html]Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=skinsguy;977864]Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.




Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.



Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL![/quote]

Skinsguy, you're right. Guns have other purposes. It was wrong for me to insinuate there was a single purpose. Let me rephrase, they are designed to kill. When guns are invisioned, most of them are designed to kill people or animals. I'm sure there are some designed for target practice, etc. That said, I don't believe those are the weapons we're having issues with in this country. However, the point of my original post stands, people are grasping at straw man arguments to defend it. You're grasping at banning cars, knives, and baseball bats. No one is saying violence stems from a single form, but firearms are the easiest and most efficient. Secondly, all of the above are not being used as intended, where assault rifles are being used as intended.

Switzerland is certainly the exception to the rule. However, let's be clear. Each person that owns a gun there also has military training to go along with the gun. They have very few automatic weapons, only active militia personnel are given access to automatic weapons. They strictly regulate all ammunition. If you need ammunition you are forced to get it from the military armory in the event of an emergency, except the ammunition sold at the shooting range which has strict regulations on using that ammunition at the range. Finally, to carry a gun in public you must get a permit which you have to justify your need to carry a firearm and pass an exam. So, all of your folks talking about how utopic Switzerland is... I agree. Let's enact their system. I'm fine with it. I'm guessing most of the pro-gun crowd isn't though. So how about we stop using Switzerland as an example.

What about a bit of a compromise, what about the laws Japan has in place? To buy a shotgun or an air rifle (handguns/assault rifles banned) you have to:[LIST][*]Take a class and exam.[*]Skill test at shooting range.[*]Pass a drug test.[*]Comprehensive mental evaluation.[*]File your firearm with the police, who run a background check.[/LIST]
This ensures only qualified individuals own a firearm. Japan had 11 gun-related homicides last year. It brings mental health into the picture as an equation. It causes someone who wants a gun to clear multiple hurdles to get a firearm. That's enough to deter those who don't deserve a gun.

When it really comes down to it, if children getting slaughtered by a crazy man with an assault rifle won't convince you to change your stance, nothing I can type on a football forum would change that stance.

LINKZ:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland]Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
[url=http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/?hpt=hp_c4]Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs[/url]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;977910]This source says homcide rates were droping.

[url=http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html]Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)[/url][/quote]

And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
[URL="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf"]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf[/URL]

Or try this source from Harvard:
[URL="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf"]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf[/URL]

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977958]And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
[URL]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf[/URL]

Or try this source from Harvard:
[URL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf[/URL]

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.[/quote]

Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ"]Lee and Suardi [/URL]which would suggest otherwise.

[I]Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.[/I]

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977813]Because you didn't have a gun in the first place?[/quote]
because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=dmek25;977962]because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture[/quote]

From the point of self defense, I am exceedingly self absorbed or as I prefer to look at it: Proactive.

I live in a remote, high crime area. There is no way that cops are getting to my location, should I need their help, in under 30 minutes [U][B]at best[/B][/U]. I choose to have a defensive solution to hand.

I could understand your stance if I was out brandishing my handgun and big pimpin'.

Tell me what you think the bigger picture is? Kumbayah around the firepit with marshmallows? Eff that!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=hooskins;977832]Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially [COLOR="Red"]high ammo [/COLOR]and [COLOR="Purple"]high fire rate[/COLOR], make killing people easier and really are [COLOR="SeaGreen"]not needed for practical purposes[/COLOR].[/quote]

[COLOR="Red"]What does that mean?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]If they are used for practical purposes, why should it matter, they are not harming anyone. You say they are not needed, do you really think you are qualified to speak for every law abiding citizen that owns one?[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Please explain what legal guns you think have high fire rate.[/COLOR]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977961]Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ"]Lee and Suardi [/URL]which would suggest otherwise.

[I]Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.[/I]

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.[/quote]

And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977987]And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?[/quote]

One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;977989]One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc[/quote]

The Harvard study that I provided discusses this exact issue.

We can learn from the Aussie experience and still create our own, uniquely American solution. The current American status quo clearly is not working.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;977987]And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?[/quote]

There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

[I]It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.[/I]

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;977989]One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
[B]Different history,[/B] different culture, different etc etc etc[/quote]


Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.