Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Lowes sells fertilizer to anyone who walks in. I don't have a problem with banning these guns but we still will have the problem.

You go try and buy quantities needed to make a bomb and see what happens.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

You go try and buy quantity needed to make a bomb and see what happens.

Only if you're really inept. Get cash, take the time to buy in multiple locations, job done.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Only if you're really inept. Get cash, take the time to buy in multiple locations, job done.

You clearly didn't read the link I provided. I would encourage you to feel stupid, read the link and re-think your post.

The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program is outlined in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and it seeks to reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack involving misused ammonium nitrate by creating a registration program for purchasers and sellers of ammonium nitrate. Each purchaser and seller will be required to apply for an Ammonium Nitrate (AN) Registered User Number with the Department, and each applicant will be screened against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). Following the screening process, approved individuals will be issued an AN Registered User Number, which will allow them to engage in the sale, purchase, or transfer of ammonium nitrate.


Transactions involving the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate will be regulated at the point of sale and procedures for reporting a theft or loss of ammonium nitrate will be established.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

You clearly didn't read the link I provided. I would encourage you to feel stupid, read the link and re-think your post.

I read your (ancient) link, it's a 'proposed' rule, not in force. Ahem.....

A 'feel good', knee-jerk piece of legislation designed to placate sheeple.

Just trying to communicate with you makes me feel more stupid.

:frusty:

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I read your (ancient) link, it's a 'proposed' rule, not in force. Ahem.....

A 'feel good', knee-jerk piece of legislation designed to placate sheeple.

Just trying to communicate with you makes me feel more stupid.

:frusty:

These are rules that are being implemented as we speak and should super seed an interim rule that is currently in effect.

Bottom line, we're sheep and terrorist and mass murderers are always going to be smarter than us. No need to create hurdles for them.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I read your (ancient) link, it's a 'proposed' rule, not in force. Ahem.....

A 'feel good', knee-jerk piece of legislation designed to placate sheeple.

Just trying to communicate with you makes me feel more stupid.

:frusty:

That's because he posts with media hype and buzzwords and emotion and not facts.
And he still doesn't know the difference between a basic hunting rifle and what the media calls an assault rifle.

[saden1]

Perfect for self-defense and hunting...7 yo children.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Only if you're really inept. Get cash, take the time to buy in multiple locations, job done.

Not even that. Just simply steal it.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not even that. Just simply steal it.

But that would be illegal!

Like getting a sketchy firearm once they're made illegal to privately own....

[saden1]

I find it interesting that you think rules for securing chemicals are pointless. I'm sure weapons grade fertilizer can be found at your local home depot.

[skinsguy]

The problem with this topic when it comes to violent acts such as what happened last week in Connecticut is the fact that you get two camps of knee-jerk arguments: More guns VS no guns. Both arguments do nothing for the root of the problem. The root of the problem is not the guns themselves. It's the people who operate them. Strict gun laws keep the honest men honest. That's about it. Those who are deranged enough to use these guns to go out and commit violent acts will do so whether they obtain the guns legally or illegally. That's just the facts.

The root of the problem is the mental health programs in the states from where these people live in. Are these mental health programs up to par, and if so, how can they be made more affordable or more available to those who need them? In every case, we can pretty much figure that there was something badly wrong, with the person who committed these acts. What if this person had been treated for his issues? I know, who's to say he wasn't, but I think this is where people need to focus on first before entertaining changing our First Amendment Rights.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The problem with this topic when it comes to violent acts such as what happened last week in Connecticut is the fact that you get two camps of knee-jerk arguments: More guns VS no guns. Both arguments do nothing for the root of the problem. The root of the problem is not the guns themselves. It's the people who operate them. Strict gun laws keep the honest men honest. That's about it. Those who are deranged enough to use these guns to go out and commit violent acts will do so whether they obtain the guns legally or illegally. That's just the facts.

The root of the problem is the mental health programs in the states from where these people live in. Are these mental health programs up to par, and if so, how can they be made more affordable or more available to those who need them? In every case, we can pretty much figure that there was something badly wrong, with the person who committed these acts. What if this person had been treated for his issues? I know, who's to say he wasn't, but I think this is where people need to focus on first before entertaining changing our First Amendment Rights.

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.

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.

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 preventitive mental health care.

Link: Did gun control work in Australia? (Has links to studies built in)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

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 preventitive mental health care.

Link: Did gun control work in Australia? (Has links to studies built in)

It had also dropped that much prior to the bann so what does that prove.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Saying guns have one purpose, killing, is kinda like saying cars have one purpose, to crash at the highest speeds possible. I doubt the guns the CT shooter used, were bought to massacre people at an elementary school.

Guns are bought for hunting, target practice, self defence (which most owners would tell you they hope never involves actually shooting), and collections. The guns bought for killing, by individuals, gangs, cartels, are a subset of that, like the kids who buy cars based on 0-60 times are a subset of all car owners.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Daseal

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 preventitive mental health care.

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!