Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You may be right. It may have lessened the casualities. It may, however, created more given the panic that was occurring.

More panic? Knowing he's the only one with a gun and can get a shot at everyone isn't scarier than knowing someone is on your side and is trying to stop him?

There's a madman with a gun. There's going to be mass panic regardless of the circumstances. Not really an argument.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Seriously? That's your argument?

Just let him empty his guns on the crowd then. Don't let responsible, trained gun owners try to stop him.

People who obtain a C&C license typically take their responsibility very seriously. They get trained. They practice. Most of all, they realize they need to use only when necessary and are typically smart about it because they know acting irresponsibly with a weapon will get them in huge trouble. They're not a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks like the anti-gun activists like to paint them as.

So are we then giving guns only to trained people then? And making sure they're at the movie too? Or are we, as you seemed to imply, on your first post, giving it to anyone who wanted a gun?

I think SolidSnake's anecdote in the other thread (I believe about his friend) who got a gun and now is spooked by anything and ready to just fire and will one day unintentionally seriously hurt someone innocently was on point.

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer. Nor do I think we should cling so blindly to the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. If we're not willing to evolve from the past...well then, 12thMan would be 4thMan

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer.

John Lott does and he's actually taken the time to substantiate his position. If you have some time please read 'More Guns, Less Crime' and you may change your position.

[12thMan]

Monkeydad, can we drop the anti 2nd Amendment hyperbole? Not a single person in any thread that I've participated in has advocated against the 2nd Amendment.

You ask why do liberals jump to the assault weapons argument. Well that's because in all of the most recent mass murders, the perpetrator used an assault weapon. That's why.

[NC_Skins]

I do think this.

1) people should have to enroll in a training course and pass it before owning a gun

2) no felons or people with mental issues should be allowed to own a gun


Just like a car, a person has to be trained and tested before he's given access to drive down the road. I see no qualm with having a person go through the same type of training for something that could potentially kill another(just like a car) if improperly used.

Now, I don't think people should be allowed to own bazookas or surface to air missiles...lol

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.

Again with the smarmy BS. Nice. If you contest the alternative, prove it with verifiable data and not hypotheticals. If you are not contesting the alternative and just stating an obvious truism - yeah for your grasp of the obvious.

Just b/c you or Monkeydad say it is so doesn't make it true. It's an unprovable hypothetical based on many assumptions going you're way.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

... People should have the right to buy and use what they choose. Enforce the laws that we already have.

Other than your usual smugness, I agree with most of your post. Enforce the laws on the books with the caveatthat local communities ought to have some ability to regulate for their locality and concerns of their group. Again, as with all things in civil society, it is a balancing of individual v. group rights.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

More panic? Knowing he's the only one with a gun and can get a shot at everyone isn't scarier than knowing someone is on your side and is trying to stop him?

There's a madman with a gun. There's going to be mass panic regardless of the circumstances. Not really an argument.

So neither of my scenarios could possibly happen? More unidentified shooters might not create more panic? In the confusion, no one could possibly mistake a friendly shooter for a second gunman? In the midst of the screaming, smoke and rushing people, multiple friendly shooters might not mistake each other for other gunmen?

I mean, if you want to play the hypothetical game (hypothetically, trained shooters would not have made this worse), we can do it all day. As for no argument, you haven't stated any argument except "It wouldn't have been as bad b/c I said so."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

So are we then giving guns only to trained people then? And making sure they're at the movie too? Or are we, as you seemed to imply, on your first post, giving it to anyone who wanted a gun?

I think SolidSnake's anecdote in the other thread (I believe about his friend) who got a gun and now is spooked by anything and ready to just fire and will one day unintentionally seriously hurt someone innocently was on point.

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer. Nor do I think we should cling so blindly to the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. If we're not willing to evolve from the past...well then, 12thMan would be 4thMan

You just can't walk into a gun store and buy a hand gun and then get a carry permit. See the attached. All we have to do is look at the states and cities where guns are illegal. If I'm correct they have on average much higher crime rates. More liberal gun laws in areas seem to have lower crime rates. Its one thing to break into a house knowing they don't have guns and another to break into a house not knowing.

Instructions

1. • 1 Pass the concealed weapon training class and be over the age of 21. You must pass the training course prior to submitting an application for your gun license. The costs and training depend on the permit you are trying to acquire.
     
     
   • 2 Go to the circuit court and complete an application in person. You will need your training certificate and photo identification. Most jurisdictions require fingerprints for residents and non-residents. You cannot send your license application in the mail. The court clerk has 45 days to deny or approve your permit application. If your application hasn't been processed within 45 days, the court clerk will issue you a temporary permit that will expire in 90 days.
     
     
   • 
     
   • 3 Renew your permit. Every five years residents and non-residents must renew their permit. Non-residents must provide fingerprints, but residents do not.
     
     

Read more: How to Obtain Gun Licenses in Virginia | eHow.com How to Obtain Gun Licenses in Virginia | eHow.com

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I do think this.

1) people should have to enroll in a training course and pass it before owning a gun

2) no felons or people with mental issues should be allowed to own a gun


Just like a car, a person has to be trained and tested before he's given access to drive down the road. I see no qualm with having a person go through the same type of training for something that could potentially kill another(just like a car) if improperly used.

Now, I don't think people should be allowed to own bazookas or surface to air missiles...lol

Here is sunny CA that's exactly what we have to do.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

So are we then giving guns only to trained people then? And making sure they're at the movie too? Or are we, as you seemed to imply, on your first post, giving it to anyone who wanted a gun?

I think SolidSnake's anecdote in the other thread (I believe about his friend) who got a gun and now is spooked by anything and ready to just fire and will one day unintentionally seriously hurt someone innocently was on point.

Sorry, but I don't think more guns is the answer. Nor do I think we should cling so blindly to the 2nd amendment as an excuse for it. If we're not willing to evolve from the past...well then, 12thMan would be 4thMan

Don't forget they would need a gas mask too in order to shoot down the CO gun man. Night vision would probably help too. Not even Rambo would have stopped that guy. He had the element of surprise, tear gas, darkness and no fear for his own life. To say the deck was stacked in his favor is a understatement.

I really don't care if folks (sane law abiding) have guns but to think if you could carry around a gun in your township as though you were Charles Bronson cleaning up the streets of crazed gunman is just quit humorous to me. Unless you have a military or police training most likely you are going to freeze up in that situation or worst shoot a innocent person. The crazed person is not going to stand there like a paper target waiting for you to be the hero.

CO movie shooter, VT, Columbine are sucker punches; no way to defend them. Even Bruce Lee could have been sucker punched if he didn't know it was coming. How can I defend against a sucker punch? Keep my hands up during the whole day protecting my face? Look kind of silly. If some one wants to sucker punch you they are going to do it.

I swear some of you most day dream like Ralphie from a Christmas Story with his Red Ryder taking out the robberies in his backyard.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Here is sunny CA that's exactly what we have to do.

Even for rifles and shotguns?

[12thMan]

It's so weird how people hear what they want to hear when they're passionate about an issue. I clearly stated most gun owners are law abiding and responsible. Yet I'm still considered a knee jerk, anti 2nd Amendment liberal.

I will say this, I'm concerned about who foots the bill for mental health screenings. This is where I'm probably more right leaning or libertarian in my thinking.

*Are the screenings now part of the cost of doing business for gun store owners?
*Do these same rules apply to sporting goods store owners that happens to sells guns?
*Who deems you mentally competent? The government? Well that's another can of worms.
*If a gun purchaser aces the mental screening, goes out and blows up the town, who's legally culpable? The gov't or the gun store owner? See where this is going?

I just have concerns about mental healthcare screenings as a way to weed out the loons. The last few systematically planned their shootings with a high degree of planning and had some college. I'm skeptical, though not completely opposed to the idea.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

John Lott does and he's actually taken the time to substantiate his position. If you have some time please read 'More Guns, Less Crime' and you may change your position.

In general, I agree with the Lott's conclusions. My biggest dispute, at this point, is the assertion that, in the Aurora shooting, casualties would have been undeniably lessened if they there had been trained gunmen in the audience.

Lott asserts gun ownership promotes deterence. Deterence, however, does not work for crazy folks.

Everyone should just go back and read the Ted Nugent thread. Lots of good stuff in there.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

It's so weird how people hear what they want to hear when they're passionate about an issue. I clearly stated most gun owners are law abiding and responsible. Yet I'm still considered a knee jerk, anti 2nd Amendment liberal.

I will say this, I'm concerned about who foots the bill for mental health screenings. This is where I'm probably more right leaning or libertarian in my thinking.

*Are the screenings now part of the cost of doing business for gun store owners?
*Do these same rules apply to sporting goods store owners that happens to sells guns?
*Who deems you mentally competent? The government? Well that's another can of worms.
*If a gun purchaser aces the mental screening, goes out and blows up the town, who's legally culpable? The gov't or the gun store owner? See where this is going?

I just have concerns about mental healthcare screenings as a way to weed out the loons. The last few systematically planned their shootings with a high degree of planning and had some college. I'm skeptical, though not completely opposed to the idea.

No one does a mental check. With that said the VT shooter should have been on the list of people who cannot buy a gun. Some how his name was never given to the state and so he was able to purchase his guns.Either way I can think of plenty of ways to kill people without a gun if that's what I wanted to do.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Don't forget they would need a gas mask too in order to shoot down the CO gun man. Night vision would probably help too. Not even Rambo would have stopped that guy. He had the element of surprise, tear gas, darkness and no fear for his own life. To say the deck was stacked in his favor is a understatement.

I really don't care if folks (sane law abiding) have guns but to think if you could carry around a gun in your township as though you were Charles Bronson cleaning up the streets of crazed gunman is just quit humorous to me. Unless you have a military or police training most likely you are going to freeze up in that situation or worst shoot a innocent person. The crazed person is not going to stand there like a paper target waiting for you to be the hero.

CO movie shooter, VT, Columbine are sucker punches; no way to defend them. Even Bruce Lee could have been sucker punched if he didn't know it was coming. How can I defend against a sucker punch? Keep my hands up during the whole day protecting my face? Look kind of silly. If some one wants to sucker punch you they are going to do it.

I swear some of you most day dream like Ralphie from a Christmas Story with his Red Ryder taking out the robberies in his backyard.

I have two friends who have a carry permits and I'd bet that both could take the guy down and pretty quick. AAs for the sucker punch. No cannot stop a sucker punch but you can kick the dudes ass after he sucker punches you.