I think there should be some kind of gun control. Im not into politics/current events and not sure exactly what Obama is trying to eliminate, but I see no reason why someone would need a sniper rifle, a 30 round clip, more than one clip for a gun, a shot gun that shoots more than 5 rounds.


btw: here is my 1911

.

DEFCAD

.

the gun control is rediculous. as a Ma resident we have to go through hoops to get our permits. simply but there should be a legit backround check, including a check on mental illness not just a simple questionair, and an interview with a cop/doctors note. No need to limit ammunition or the guns ones can buy. think about it instead of a shooting someone can just toss in a tank of gas, use a car, and a millione and one other options. plus when one looks at the facts licensed gun owners arent the real issue here

-what is the possible reason that a citizen should need an assault rifle or a clip with more than 10 bullets?
(inb4 zombie apocalypse)
-what is the possible reason that anyone would be against background checks?
(do you want people who wouldn't pass such checks to be able to get guns anyway?)

those are the 2 main elements that are being fought over at this point. So if you are going to call those things "ridiculous laws" i guess you and i have a different understanding of what ridiculous is.

And my last question for people who support the NRA side of this- have you looked at statistics about gun ownership and how that correlates to gun related deaths? the correlation is very strong. to say that it is otherwise is to ignore blatant facts.

Background checks exist now(even at gun shows). What they want to make illegal is for me to be able to sell my guns without putting the buyer through a back ground check(gun show loophole). The problem I have with that part is we are adding another layer of bureaucracy that is going to do absolutely nothing to stop criminals and nuts from obtaining guns and killing people.

The mass killings in CO and in CT were committed with legally obtained weapons. In either case the killers could have done the same damage with revolvers since they choose to attack generally unarmed crowds in closed in spaces.

Stats can be manipulated and interpreted to a specific result but I would like to see what your talking about

Finally I believe that we Americans tend to have distrust of Gov, and view the 2 amendment as protection against tyranny. This outright gun grab is just reinforcing that.

Originally Posted by trickykids

-what is the possible reason that a citizen should need an assault rifle or a clip with more than 10 bullets?
(inb4 zombie apocalypse)
-what is the possible reason that anyone would be against background checks?
(do you want people who wouldn't pass such checks to be able to get guns anyway?)

those are the 2 main elements that are being fought over at this point. So if you are going to call those things "ridiculous laws" i guess you and i have a different understanding of what ridiculous is.

And my last question for people who support the NRA side of this- have you looked at statistics about gun ownership and how that correlates to gun related deaths? the correlation is very strong. to say that it is otherwise is to ignore blatant facts.

Do these stats adjust for growth in the population ?

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Homicide

Walker Bragman: Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths

the people who want their magical sky fairies to be president scare me more.

Originally Posted by Coltzy

I think there should be some kind of gun control. Im not into politics/current events and not sure exactly what Obama is trying to eliminate, but I see no reason why someone would need a sniper rifle, a 30 round clip, more than one clip for a gun, a shot gun that shoots more than 5 rounds.]

so real murrcans can take back da guvment from that socialist mooslim..

and ps.. he sucks at socialism..

http://mashable.com/2013/03/05/dow-j...s-record-high/

are you talkin bad about magic sky fairies? you'll be sorry... oh yes, you will be sorry.

Originally Posted by Bronkko

so real murrcans can take back da guvment from that socialist mooslim..

and ps.. he sucks at socialism..

http://mashable.com/2013/03/05/dow-j...s-record-high/

The second amendment actually was put into the constitution -first and foremost- to ward off tyranny.

Not that Obama is particularly better or worse than the string of dictators that came before him, but the general trend is painfully evident.

Originally Posted by Bronkko

the people who want their magical sky fairies to be president scare me more.

Irrelevant to the gun discussion however could be useful should a Flying Spaghetti Monster thread pop up

Originally Posted by trickykids

Walker Bragman: Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

Here is a couple interesting facts from that article

Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Originally Posted by gracian1601

The second amendment actually was put into the constitution -first and foremost- to ward off tyranny.

Not that Obama is particularly better or worse than the string of dictators that came before him, but the general trend is painfully evident.

The thing is that arguing that we need guns to "ward off tyranny" is a little bit far fetched don't you think?
I understand that at the time the constitution was written it was not far fetched. In fact, it was our militia who won the revolutionary war and as such the 2nd amendment was written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The problem is that this is no longer true. If the US military wanted to take over by force, no amount of guns is going to stop them. Should we let citizens own f-16s and nuclear arms to make it a fair fight?
We don't have militia's any more.

Now having said that, I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't be able to have guns. NO ONE is arguing that.
All that is being said is that it might be better if we made sure that the people who could legally obtain guns are not people with mental problems or other red-flag issues and that maybe we ought to regulate some of the assault weapons, which were only created for the purpose of taking out large numbers of humans in a short burst.
I just don't see how that is anything but sensible.

im gonna debunk the myths, debunking the myths that are debunking the myths.

Originally Posted by trickykids

The thing is that arguing that we need guns to "ward off tyranny" is a little bit far fetched don't you think?
I understand that at the time the constitution was written it was not far fetched. In fact, it was our militia who won the revolutionary war and as such the 2nd amendment was written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The problem is that this is no longer true. If the US military wanted to take over by force, no amount of guns is going to stop them. Should we let citizens own f-16s and nuclear arms to make it a fair fight?
We don't have militia's any more.

Now having said that, I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't be able to have guns. NO ONE is arguing that.
All that is being said is that it might be better if we made sure that the people who could legally obtain guns are not people with mental problems or other red-flag issues and that maybe we ought to regulate some of the assault weapons, which were only created for the purpose of taking out large numbers of humans in a short burst.
I just don't see how that is anything but sensible.

Hypothetically speaking it is likely that half of the military would also those fighting tyranny. Still and armed population makes for a very difficult fight . History shows that even in the face of a superior force an armed resistance is capable of inflicting a bloody toll.

I agree with you that we need to take measures to make sure people who shouldn't have guns don't get guns.


When you say "short bursts" I want to point out that recent mass killings were all with semi auto guns (one trigger pull , one bullet fired) not automatics.


Check this link out it give a more detailed look at crimes in the US from 2000-2010
Murder in America - WSJ.com

It is fairly easy to make adjustment to this gun stuff. If the government doesn't want the peps to have guns (or they want to restrict scary guns) they need to amend the constitution.
#2 clearly states that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, until the constitution is amended they should all suck sod, and quit the bull shit.

#4 and #10 are good ones, too.

Originally Posted by trickykids

The thing is that arguing that we need guns to "ward off tyranny" is a little bit far fetched don't you think?
I understand that at the time the constitution was written it was not far fetched. In fact, it was our militia who won the revolutionary war and as such the 2nd amendment was written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The problem is that this is no longer true. If the US military wanted to take over by force, no amount of guns is going to stop them. Should we let citizens own f-16s and nuclear arms to make it a fair fight?
We don't have militia's any more.

Now having said that, I'm not here to argue that people shouldn't be able to have guns. NO ONE is arguing that.
All that is being said is that it might be better if we made sure that the people who could legally obtain guns are not people with mental problems or other red-flag issues and that maybe we ought to regulate some of the assault weapons, which were only created for the purpose of taking out large numbers of humans in a short burst.
I just don't see how that is anything but sensible.

First off, you are a fucking idiot ...sorry, it just had to be said.

While there is so much that I could pick apart in your reply, I simply do not have the patience for it. Suffice to say that the second amendment's function of warding off tyranny is every bit as important today as it was when it was first written, it is timeless. Google the Khmer Rouge if you want an example of what can easily happen to a disarmed populous.

Also, our militias did not win The Revolutionary War, The Continental Army did that ...and quoting the second amendment after that blather doesn't support anything you said, it just comes off as an attempt to sound knowledgeable on the matter, which clearly you are not.

Oh, and just a little fyi we do still have militias today.

Yep no Tyranny here , nothing to see here move along

President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil' - Telegraph

Originally Posted by Hank!

When you say "short bursts" I want to point out that recent mass killings were all with semi auto guns (one trigger pull , one bullet fired) not automatics.


Check this link out it tells a bigger story
Murder in America - WSJ.com

interesting link.

I think the thing about the recent mass killings is that, to me, they are really neither here nor there in this argument. The sandy hook shooting in particular has brought this issue into the public eye. And while I am very much a fan of the Obama administration, I think that in this case they have used the public outcry as a tool to move their agenda forward.
Again, I agree with their agenda, which is to reduce the amount of assault weapons and to further mandate background checks. But neither of these things is definitely going to have an effect on the next nut who wants to kill school kids.
(it might, but not necessarily)
Where it will have an immediate effect is in the area where there is a real problem with guns, which is in violent urban crime. The thing is that as terrible as Sandy Hook was it is not really indicative of anything except that sometimes people go nuts and do terrible things. But the public can relate to this tragedy, where many can not relate to the daily tragedies that go on in neighborhoods with gang violence problems. I guarantee you that in the next year many more people will die of gun violence in cities than will be killed by crazy people in schools.
But all of those deaths will not have the same impact on the public that the school tragedy did.

And again to my main point- what possible reason does anyone have for being AGAINST regulating assault weapons or mandating stronger background checks?