Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[dmek25]

and thats where he got his weapons^^^^

[firstdown]

For the record. Personally I think everyone should have to go through a back ground check to purchase a gun even if its a private sale. The person selling the gun would have to ID the person then call in to make sure the person had passed the back ground check. I'd say you make the back ground check good for a period of 6mon, 1 yr, or maybe up to 5 yrs depending on how detailed the back ground check was. As for assult weapons I'd say stop the sale or limit the clips. Personally I don't think that will help but if it makes people sleep better then they can have the bann. I'd also add as part of the back ground check you have to pass a gun safty course. I also think the mentally ill need to go on the list as people ban from purchasing a gun. That's suppose to be done now but it did not happen in the VT shooting so it need to be revised.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by mredskins

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

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

They were her guns? If only she was more responsible with them it wouldnt have happened.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by punch it in

They were her guns? If only she was more responsible with them it wouldnt have happened.

He would have found other guns.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He would have found other guns.

Um in Newtown CT it might have been difficult for someone in his mental state to do so. I think that due to his mental state this was maybe not premeditated as much as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that they wound up in his hands. Regardless i was just pointing out the fact that Mrs Lanza did own guns.

[RedskinRat]

I agree with this article, for the most part:

The roots of mass murder

The irony is that over the last 30 years, the U.S. homicide rate has declined by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We’re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

And:

But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

That’s a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there’s no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the Transportation Security Administration invades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?

[punch it in]

Im not really on a side here. Its about containment, clean up, and preventitive maintenance. Since bad guys have guns the good guys need guns too - its the chicken and the egg. We cant just make them all disappear. One thing i would be in favor of is stiffer penalties for a lost or stolen gun. Also stiffer requirements for buying guns. If i purchase a gun to have in my house to protect my family from some nutjob who decides to break in with his own gun there certainly should be no issue with that. However if that gun turns up missing or stolen than i should be in serious trouble. It is my responsibility to keep that gun out of the hands of some nutjob. Mrs Lanza obviously was not responsible and the result was catastrophic. There are no easy answers. There are way too many guns already in circulation. Distribution of any and all guns going forward need to be funnelled through one source so they can be traced back to that source. On top of that we need some sort of task force to try and recover all the guns in circulation. The key though is the stiff penalties for the irresponsible. It would make other gun owners think twice about keeping their own weapons secure. If Mrs Lanza had survived she should have been made example of. When you choose to buy a gun you are obligated under heavy penalty of the law to keep it out of the hands of anybody else. And if you fail to do so than you will be made example of.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Im not really on a side here. <snip>

Ok, but where do you stand on Unicorn Leash Laws or the cock snorting epidemic on WP?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Ok, but where do you stand on Unicorn Leash Laws or the cock snorting epidemic on WP?

The unicorn leash law is ridiculous because anybody who has ever had one knows they can easily bust out of the leash with their horn. I once saw a unicorn open a can of soup with his horn. Also there used to be really good lsd tabs in circulation called purple unicorns.
Cock snorting is purely mythical mumbo jumbo and not even possible if you think about it so i really pay it no mind

[firstdown]

Everyone is looking at and talking about guns but the real problem is the fame these people want through the media. I'll be happy to give in on some gun control when the media is restricted from printing the name and face of these killers. I have seen several major news outlets talking about this issue and then they turn around and show his pic and spend 10 min talking about his back ground. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Everyone is looking at and talking about guns but the real problem is the fame these people want through the media. I'll be happy to give in on some gun control when the media is restricted from printing the name and face of these killers. I have seen several major news outlets talking about this issue and then they turn around and show his pic and spend 10 min talking about his back ground. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

That's part of it as well. In some sick way, they become celebrities even if they don't live to "enjoy" the fame.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

That's part of it as well. In some sick way, they become celebrities even if they don't live to "enjoy" the fame.

But the next mass killer is sitting there looking at the fame this guy is getting and knows he/she will get the same fame.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Everyone is looking at and talking about guns but the real problem is the fame these people want through the media. I'll be happy to give in on some gun control when the media is restricted from printing the name and face of these killers. I have seen several major news outlets talking about this issue and then they turn around and show his pic and spend 10 min talking about his back ground. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...tml#post977247


I posted this a few pages ago and people simply ignored it. You want to stop mass murderers? Stop giving them their fame and glory. The media and our culture are solely responsible for these types of attacks continuing. Guess what? They are going to continue to happen and it's not be because guns are available. It's going to be because these people have psychiatric problems and want to live in infamy. They are going to continue to strike places that that offer no resistance. They are going to continue to strike people that are innocent. They are going to continue committing suicide once they are being closed in on.


This quote from the NRA's top lobbyist is spot on.

"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark," LaPierre said. "A dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"

While I'm not really "pro" NRA or even a member of theirs, what he said is 100% accurate.

Maybe instead of banning or regulating guns, we start regulating media and how they report these type of events.

[NC_Skins]

Everyday, a average of 30 people die in the US that involve a alcohol impaired driver.

In 2010, 211 children were killed by alcohol impaired driver.




So why isn't the media or our politicians calling for stricter regulation on alcohol? Why isn't this a bigger focus when it consumes more lives? Why is one deemed such a problem with our county while the other one is glorified and celebrated?


Media. That's why. You control the media, you control the message, and ultimately you control the people. It really is that simple.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...tml#post977247


I posted this a few pages ago and people simply ignored it. You want to stop mass murderers? Stop giving them their fame and glory. The media and our culture are solely responsible for these types of attacks continuing. Guess what? They are going to continue to happen and it's not be because guns are available. It's going to be because these people have psychiatric problems and want to live in infamy. They are going to continue to strike places that that offer no resistance. They are going to continue to strike people that are innocent. They are going to continue committing suicide once they are being closed in on.

I hope a lot of people saw it and agreed with it as a well said truth, (like I did), and didn't think a reply was necessary. Still a good post on your part.

I think it's worth mentioning that we should defend the First Amendment as well as the Second, while dealing with the pants-on-head stupidity of glorifying mass murderers. But your link is spot on.