Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

This source says homcide rates were droping.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This source says homcide rates were droping.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

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:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf

Or try this source from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...pring_2011.pdf

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

[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.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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.

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.

[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!

[Alvin Walton]

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

Nancy Pelosi: In California 'You Can Have Three...

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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!

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:

• 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.

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:
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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:

• 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.

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:
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs

Daseal:

I agree 100% with your points you have made in regards to the prerequisites one would have to meet in order to obtain a firearm. I think many places require such prerequisites already, or something very similar before someone can carry a concealed weapon. So, maybe just explain that out to all weapons one purchases.

However, that's just the tip of the ice burg, and it's really just a small precaution that doesn't hit on the root of the problem. We can have the most strict gun laws in the world, but that alone won't prevent mass murders from happening. In fact, some of the worst murders in the history of this nation didn't involve guns. It comes down to treating the behavior before it even has a chance to manifest into something much worse. For instance, often times, a sign of someone with homicidal tendencies can start when they are young. The kids who thinks its funny killing dogs or cats with fire crackers or throwing them in microwaves, and etc...and then getting some sort of high or rush from watching these animals suffer. This can be a very big tale-tale sign that there is something very wrong with this person.

I can go on and on about other aspects, but the point is, people have gotten so wrapped up in arguments that really tend to become very insignificant band-aids on the problem. If we all realized that the focus and attention first goes on the behavioral health aspect, and maybe stricter gun laws once the first aspect has been reached, then we'll find real progress.