b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,295
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
there is no easy solution to this problem at all because guns are so prevalent in this culture...you reap what you sow...
Its Time For The United States To Have A Serious Look At Gun Control Laws
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by brandon3000,
- Start date
- 22,987
- 33,594
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
1. restrict them more and illegal purchases will rise, which are easier than legal purchases honestly.
2. AK's have single fire. many states have laws against having a certain amount of rounds in your clip for hunting. for that reason they make shortened clips for assault rifles.
- 5,264
- 30
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2000
Its being reported that there were police on the scene to help with crowd control for the midnight screening - not security, police - armed and trained. And they didn't start firing back because doing so was only go to cause more chaos. Add to the fact that this maniac was also wearing a bullet proof vest and the notion that few people with 45s in the crowd were going to in any way help the situation becomes even more specious.
Last edited:
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
It was a white guy and a medical student. You don't get more clean-cut than that in America.
If he can get a gun, anyone can.
Don't make it illegal to get a weapon just make it harder.
If he can get a gun, anyone can.
Don't make it illegal to get a weapon just make it harder.
Last edited:
- 5,264
- 30
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2000
Are you ******g serious? These people aren't even in the ground yet and you people start with this ********?
- 159,539
- 140,695
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
I understand the reaction but that is supposedly part of the plan. Situation happens, we react, the make us feel safe, they attack us, we are without. Be sure that this is what you REALLY want OP. 
So if they take our guns away and there are unreleated riots in urban areas for WHATEVER reason and we aren't able to defend ourselves in the most efficient manner. Then what? Just something to think about.
So if they take our guns away and there are unreleated riots in urban areas for WHATEVER reason and we aren't able to defend ourselves in the most efficient manner. Then what? Just something to think about.
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
This is precisely why we need to look at how Norway did things.I understand the reaction but that is supposedly part of the plan. Situation happens, we react, the make us feel safe, they attack us, we are without. Be sure that this is what you REALLY want OP.
So if they take our guns away and there are unreleated riots in urban areas for WHATEVER reason and we aren't able to defend ourselves in the most efficient manner. Then what? Just something to think about.
Anders Brevik shocked them but didn't make them change how they were going to treat their citizens.
However Norway is not as big or as diverse as the US so those things are hard to translate.
LOL
This is precisely what the news was saying.
Even the Cops couldn't start shooting because they'd just hit random people.
Theres nothing more dangerous than multiple gunmen in a dark, crowded theater full of panicky people running around.
Last edited:
- 5,264
- 30
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2000
Wearing a bullet proof vest and throwing ******g TEAR GAS into the crowd. But, no, a bunch of untrained, panicked civilians are totally going to be equipped to handle the situation.
pig love
Banned
- 2,124
- 123
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
Within hours of the tragic ‘Batman’ shooting in Aurora, Colorado, political opportunists have seized upon the incident to push for gun control, with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg demanding that both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama “stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about” mass shootings.
- 1,153
- 123
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- 17,816
- 8,075
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Truth be told...........not too much you FRAUD. These people just died a few hours ago and here you go with this propaganda, SMH.
Exactly. Folks really think a bunch of regular citizens that are focused on the movie screen would have stopped this guy before things got worse.
- 525
- 49
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
I agree. So you stop citizens from obtaining guns due to strict laws... do you really think that's going to stop lunatics from killing mass amounts of people? They can easily purchase a Hemi Ford F150 and run down people waiting in line at Black Friday. Or that dude could have easily brought in molotov cocktails and burn the entire building down. Then what? Start banning gasoline? Ban the sale of big trucks? Look at 9/11... 'they' used a passenger airplane.
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-17/politics-guns-america/transcript
Good conversation.
Edit: Also, Gunfight is a great documentary on America's gun debate. I think it canbe found on HBO/HBOGO.
Good conversation.
Edit: Also, Gunfight is a great documentary on America's gun debate. I think it canbe found on HBO/HBOGO.
Last edited:
- 21,626
- 10,244
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
I hear you man but obviously if the laws are stricter then illegal purchases will rise (by definition basically). But these nerdy kids who can go (with mental health issues) and obtain a gun legally probably don't have any connection to buying them illegally (generalization i have no clue how hard it would be to obtain a gun illegally). But i just think that if there was a waiting list or some sort of background check involved in every sale in every state it would help out some what. Maybe if the angry kid has to wait 2 weeks before he can get a fire arm he will calm down and actually think about what he is about to do. But these people are crazy and prob would just do it anyway. I just don't think it could hurt that bad to have slightly stricter laws against it.
Its good to know they have restrictions of some sort. But any gun with an automatic setting i don't see the need for. Maybe i am naive but what are you going to do with it. What good purpose can there be to shoot bullets that fast?
I wish it was natural selection some times with 0 weapons. If you wanted to take something from some one then you take your chances that person could beat you up. If you don't want to get robbed or killed hit the gym and learn some MMA moves or boxing lessons. Would help america get into better shape. But now just buy a gun because you can just shoot some one if something bad is going to happen. What ever happen to just catching a beat down. Got to get killed over the smallest things these days.
- 1,948
- 835
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
Theres a huge difference between someone who is angry and someone with mental health issues.
You have no idea how prohibitive it is to own 'automatic' weapons. I'm not worried about the guy who spent $18,000 on the gun, $200 on a federal background check, submitted picture, fingerprints, and application for local law enforcement signature, then waits an additional 4-7 months to take possession of the gun. Plus if you know what your doing, you can a run a semi auto almost as fast as a select fire gun.
(fyi-and gun that automatically feeds another round after a bullet has been fired is an automatic, i.e. any gun with a clip is an automatic, just want to clarify, what youre talking about is generally known as select fire).
The way i see it, Pandora's box has been open for the 500 years. Theres literally no way to regulate the movement of guns in America now (other than door to door searches, which i guarantee will lead to revolts and probably much worse). Think about it like this. If we stopped importing, producing, and selling guns to civillians, there are still enough legal guns in America to arm every adult. If you take into account illegal/unregistered guns, i'd bet there are enough guns for every person living in this country.
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
edit* Jking, i know your from the Urea. You can see how successful the DC gun ban has been preventing firearms from falling into criminals hands....
Last edited:
- 5,686
- 529
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
Richie, I assume you're a legal gun owner so you know a lot more about the process than I do....but what could be done to somehow regulate access to guns that haven't been sold yet? The founders of this country didn't have tragedies like this inmind when they drafted the constitution obviously, and the ship has sailed on prohibiting guns as you said....is it even realistic to have a stringent process where you have to go trough the same sort of thing you mentioned with a self fire weapon to get any firearm? Or would that just drive up the illegal gun market....I hope it doesn't eventually come to everyone needing to be strapped out of fear
Last edited:
- 10,618
- 10,923
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
This right here is dead on.Anything that has been regulated....alcohol, drugs, online file sharing, etc. does not stop someone who wants it from getting it. There are always ways of obtaining what you want and if someone is that determined to commit such a heinous act, then you should not be naive enough to think that stricter gun laws would prevent this clown from obtaining a firearm.
- 9,141
- 1,797
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
excellent question and one that isn't asked enough. many developed countries have hugely lower murder rates/gun crimes than us. what is it about american society (legal/socio-economic...) that make's guns more prevalent and more utilized than any other country? why can canada post lower numbers than us? they're our next door neighbors, so it can't be geographic. is the gun problem a by product of the unregulated capitalist economy in the sense that more guns = more $$ for those who make them?
is it poverty? we aren't the only country with a poverty line...
is it that we as a government live by the guns/$$ > citizens opinions mentality?
srs btw...there really shouldn't be a reason why we can't be like other countries with minor gun problems...
jhawk826
Banned
- 3,001
- 621
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Old article, but its worth checking out due to it being brought back in the spotlight.
[h1]National Review: Gun Control Doesn't Work[/h1]
by David Rittgers
Enlarge Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
McDonald v. City of Chicago brings the law up to speed with reality. According to David Rittgers, a generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been.
text size A A A
June 29, 2010
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute. He served three tours in Afghanistan as a Special Forces officer and continues to serve as a reserve judge advocate.
The Supreme Court's rejection of Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.
McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.
Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.
Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities.
Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.
Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago's streets.
Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with "illegal" guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man's home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.
The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich's veto.
In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the de facto ban against self-defense will be overturned and Chicagoans will not have to rely on the discretion of prosecutors and the benevolence of legislators to affirm their inalienable right to self-defense.
Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court's holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control "saves just one life" it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.
A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.
runningfishy
Banned
- 2,874
- 19
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
America is a rather civilized society where people aspire. One thing many don't realize is that these people that have commited these acts are mentally skewed. They are victims who have lost rationale, judgement and conscience.
Like I said, these people use 'arms', because it's easy. But even if you take away 'arms', the intent to hurt someone will be there. They drive a car into a public area, infect people w/ a disease, or create their own arms.
Do you see why now? While owning fire arms is our right, I would suggest tighter controls as a preventitive measure.
Like I said, these people use 'arms', because it's easy. But even if you take away 'arms', the intent to hurt someone will be there. They drive a car into a public area, infect people w/ a disease, or create their own arms.
Do you see why now? While owning fire arms is our right, I would suggest tighter controls as a preventitive measure.
- 9,946
- 11,243
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
Simple, it's the american mentality.
This country was founded off killing people and forcefully taking ****, and slave labor so why would it be different now.
quik1987
Banned
- 7,735
- 434
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
Handguns should be banned
- 735
- 33
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
this thread is pointless and stupid.
u ban guns.
then what?
people are still gonna get hold of guns no matter what.
plus the NRA wont let the giverment ban them.
u ban guns.
then what?
people are still gonna get hold of guns no matter what.
plus the NRA wont let the giverment ban them.
