Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[Munson]

Originally Posted by TrebMaxx

I posted this a few years ago and some of it may be outdated but I like to bring it up when all the B.S. about gun control pops up.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...14#post4197214

Rep

But no matter what you say, you'll never change the mind of a gun control nut.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm doing the opposite of that. I'm saying I wouldn't fight against criminals not being allowed to buy guns legally. I don't give a shit about it, because I'm not a criminal.

The problem with your point of view is that you think all regulations are unconstitutional except the ones you agree with.

That's too arbitrary of a line to draw. I would understand it if you approached it from the "that's wise/not wise," at least then we'd be starting from common ground. But instead you invoked a radical absolutism and went full retard with it by claiming the Constitution supported you. Which, it doesn't. Neither in its text nor through any interpretation by the courts.

All due respect, but I'm passing on your question. I've already done the "gun controls I'd prefer thing" a hundred times on this forum. The only reason I'm continuing the discussion here is because (a.) we're talking about somebody else for a change (in this case, yourself), and (b.) people go hysterical in conversation when somebody advocates stricter gun regs. It's come off the rails a bit already in this thread, so I'm keeping it at arm's length this time around.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

It doesn't have to be specifically in the second amendment if it is upheld by common law and the supreme court. Committing a crime , being arrested& convicted of a crime means you forfeit your rights (freedom...etc..) and always has.

I understand that completely. That's not the argument I am/was making.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

It does say "well-regulated."

Bingo.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Which do you think they meant?

Regulations.

[CoMoChief]

Guns don't kill people. Never have, never will.

You can't stop someone from going into public places with strapped bombs to their chest, or some random nutcase going into a Walmart etc and opening fire. That shit is always going to happen.

This is nothing but a liberal knee jerk reaction. The Clintons tried to use Columbine as a preface to restrict gun laws. This being no different.

[topher79]

79% of school shootings worldwide since 1996 have happened in the US. To say the 300,000,000 firearms for civilians in this country don't have something to do with that is downright ignorant.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by notorious

I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.

I do not believe this will be the case. It will be a discussed topic for a few weeks because the media will feel compelled to put it there, but the discussion will die by September or so.

Gun control is politically DOA.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by topher79

79% of school shootings worldwide since 1996 have happened in the US. To say the 300,000,000 firearms for civilians in this country don't have something to do with that is downright ignorant.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.


Guns save lives, a lot of them.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Regulations.

well, no. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court addressed this in the D.C. vs Heller ruling. well-regulated, in the context used back then, basically meant well-trained.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

well, no. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court addressed this in the D.C. vs Heller ruling. well-regulated, in the context used back then, basically meant well-trained.

I'm aware of the SCOTUS ruling. As I've said already in the thread, SCOTUS is very clear on this issue.

I was responding to what the Founders intended. My guess is, when they meant well regulated, they wanted things regulated well.

[Iowanian]

Originally Posted by topher79

79% of school shootings worldwide since 1996 have happened in the US. To say the 300,000,000 firearms for civilians in this country don't have something to do with that is downright ignorant.

Your'e right, the rest of the world prefers car bombs and suicide bombers for mass killings.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm aware of the SCOTUS ruling. As I've said already in the thread, SCOTUS is very clear on this issue.

I was responding to what the Founders intended. My guess is, when they meant well regulated, they wanted things regulated well.

SCOTUS aside, that is simply incorrect. It is not reasonable, at all, to reach that conclusion, the only reason you would is because of today's use of the word regulated in the English language.

Well-regulated, way back then, meant well-trained especially in the context of a militia.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

SCOTUS aside, that is simply incorrect. It is not reasonable, at all, to reach that conclusion, the only reason you would is because of today's use of the word regulated in the English language.

Well-regulated, way back then, meant well-trained especially in the context of a militia.

That's fair.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by jspchief

When the Constitution was written, it would have taken half a day to shoot 50 people. I can't imagine the people writing that document ever imagined the impact it would have on the future.

All that being said, this is the price we pay for technological advancement. Everything becomes more efficient, even killing.

I don't subscribe to the notion that if everyone was carrying guns, the world would be a safer place. There's a reason the wild west was wild, and it wasn't just injuns gassed up on firewater. People are stupid and make bad decisions. Increasing the amount of those people that carry guns won't make the world a better place.

It's not all crystal clear for me. I support the right to own guns. I own guns. But I can't help but examine those beliefs when you recognize the amount of firepower any person has within reach these days, and see the harm that can be done.

Objectively,how would you suggest the issue be handled?