Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[NC_Skins]

In lieu of the movie theater shooting, I figured this article and thread is a appropriate place to discuss this topic. That way, we can focus on the victims and crime itself in the other thread.

Gun control surfaces in CT, VA Senate debates following Colorado shooting | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[Monkeydad]

This again...

If more people carried guns legally, this idiot would have had a bullet in his head after his first shot...not after he shot 71 people and killed 12.


End of discussion.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

This again...

If more people carried guns legally, this idiot would have had a bullet in his head after his first shot...not after he shot 71 people and killed 12.


End of discussion.

You sir are preaching to choir. I think the knee jerk reaction of many are to "ban this" or "ban that" when something tragic happens. Truthfully, had the guy really wanted to kill more people, he would have loaded his car full of those explosives he had in his room and drove his car into the showing. Either that or threw them into the theater like he did the gas bomb. You don't need a gun to kill a lot of people, that much was proved by Timothy McVeigh. (even Al Qaeda)

[SmootSmack]

Or people may have still panicked and forgotten they even had a gun.

Or even worse yet, more people could have been hurt or killed in the cross fire.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 (which I believe was once federally banned), and I don't know anyone should be allowed to sell/buy ammunition over the Internet.

[NC_Skins]

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Or people may have still panicked and forgotten they even had a gun.

Or even worse yet, more people could have been hurt or killed in the cross fire.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 (which I believe was once federally banned), and I don't know anyone should be allowed to sell/buy ammunition over the Internet.

The gun control nuts don't target assault weapons, they are typically afraid of ALL guns. They're called Hoplophobes.

Gun control will only empower and enable criminals like this guy to kill more people and make these mass murder jobs easier. People like this guy will still be able to get guns, they're not concerned about the law obviously. If a murderer still wants to kill people, he'll use another weapon or just block exits and start a fire. The best way to combat these criminals is to arm ourselves responsibly and legally.

President Obama threw out the statement "what if my daughters were in there..."

Mr. President, with all due respect, we both know this jerk would have had a bullet between his eyes when he tossed the smoke bomb, before he fired a single shot. Why? Because someone on the right side of the law had a gun. If the President was honestly affected by this and thinking about his daughters and OUR children, he's realize the error of his thinking with his extreme anti-2nd Amendment stance.

Guns do not kill people. Guns save people when criminals who want to kill people get their hands on guns. They'll still get their guns. Knowing they are walking among a helpless, unarmed population who can't defend themselves will only help their goals.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Or even worse yet, more people could have been hurt or killed in the cross fire.

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm not sure why anyone needs to buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 (which I believe was once federally banned), and I don't know anyone should be allowed to sell/buy ammunition over the Internet.

Why do we need weapons like that? To fight off a corrupt government.




I think many of you forget why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. It was so that the armed people could keep it's government in check

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

...and I could continue the list of quotes from our former countrymen on why we should and need to be armed. If you don't think our country is going to come to a point where it clashes with its people, then you haven't been paying much attention to history or the evolving situation.


Where is FD and Slinging Sammy at to proclaim what a liberal I am?...lol

[12thMan]

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them. Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

I will agree with this part. Because a crowd was armed, you possibly can't prove that the amount of people killed would have been reduced. Quite simply, that's something we don't know. My guess on the odds or percentages in favor of lesser deaths would be much higher though. Realistically, I imagine 20 trained people carrying firearms would have somehow dampened this guy's plans. If some old dude can carry one and act accordingly, not sure why a even much younger crowd wouldn't have been even more effective.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them. Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

Why do anti-2nd Amendment people always sprint to the assault-weapon argument? It's the extreme, not the intentions of most gun owners who are being targeted.

[JoeRedskin]

Pretty much said all that I have to say on the topic here: http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...n-control.html

Mostly, I am in agreement with 12th.

What a concept ... local laws/regulations for local situations.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened.

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

Originally Posted by 12thMan

That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, due to ignorance most people DO have a discomfort around guns. It wouldn't be mandatory to carry a gun, but it should be a choice.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them.

We already have enough laws n the books, lets have them enforced.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

Because that's their right. Why should people be allowed to own and operate a vehicle capable of exceeding the speed limit by 3X?

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

and others would have been killed when they went into his apartment. I mean, hindsight is 20-20 and saying filling the air with lead is the solution simply assumes all the variables break your way.

Trained shooter gets jostled by panicked crowd - misfires.
Trained shooter mistaken by panicked crowd member as a co-conspirator and then steps into someone else's line of fire.
etc., etc. There are a billion ways that your scenario breaks bad.

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

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Pretty much said all that I have to say on the topic here: http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...n-control.html

Mostly, I am in agreement with 12th.

What a concept ... local laws/regulations for local situations.

Damn you JR for making me search for your post...lol


For those of you that are lazy.

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...tml#post328702