Gun law

I'm beginning to see that most of you think its ok that this person in Aurora could walk into a local shop and buy these firearms over the counter and get 6000 rounds on the internet. As easy as that, well apart from the check on him to license him having the weapons.

I dont know, but I would have thought some kind of far more stringent check is needed. Maybe psychological profiling, compulsory training, risk awareness or such. Tightening the net for rogue owners would be a step in the right direction. Does this make sense, any arguements for or against?

I don't know what types of firearms he was using but pretty much this was a tragic event but a pretty rare one more people die from hospital misconduct (pretty messed up) car accidents (drunk driving) ect ect the deaths incurred from driving are large prices to pay for the freedom of transport he deaths incurred from crazy people killing other people are a large one but a necessary one to guarantee our freedoms you have to look at the big picture crafty its so easy to say oh someone went and shot up a ton of people lets ban guns but its not that simple as shown in the various arguments given up above

DUI deaths are down 7% from 2007 to 2008. (source : www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-07-drunk-driving_N.htm ) Largely attributed to inceased social stigma and stronger policing. I'm unsure about medical mal-practice but I do know more people are living longer and getting fixed. Down mainly to improved technology and skills, including diagnostic.

The same is happening with smoking, and many killer issues such as bad diet, exercise etc.

So these 'liberties' are not being taken away per se, just quietly shown to be destructive. So it occurs to me that the same sort of philosophy should be applied to guns. Make people more aware they cant just buy guns and do what they like, just as we have done with DUI. Each of these topics is going to need its own methods sure.

Anywho, keeping rocking in the free world.

People don't need weapons unless it is from hunting.

Incidental comic: The Beneficence of Others

Okay .. and just how many Attack drones do YOU have for hunting?

Bazillions. I need them all. I hunt humans.

Thought the following info might be interesting in this thread.

Bill of Rights..the right to bear arms. Adopted in 1791.
The rate of fire of muskets used by the infantry at that time. 3 to 5 rounds per minute.

The number of guns per every 100 people in countries around the world.
No. 1 USA, 88.8 per hundred people. No. 2 Serbia, 58.2/100 No. 3 Yemen, 54.8/100
Iraq 34.2, Canada 30.8, Germany 30.3, Australia 15, Mexico 15, Russia 8.9, Portugal 8.5,
Russia 8.9, China 4.9, Afghanistan 4.6, Vietnam 1.7

Infantry rifle, WW1. Enfield or Springfield, 5 round internal magazine, bolt action.
Infantry rifle, WW11. M1 Garand, 8 round clip, semi auto.
Infantry rifle, Vietnam. M-14, M-16, 20 round magazine, semi or full automatic.

Rate of fire for M-16. 45 aimed rounds/minute, 120 rounds/minute-as fast as you can pull the trigger.
WW1, WW11 - No body armor. Vietnam - The flak jacket.

My opinion..you knew it was coming!

The USA will always be a country of citizens that bear arms.
Firearms are not discarded like an old 8 track or cassette tape. They are handed down to relatives and friends.
I've seen figures that estimate the number of guns in the country as high or higher than one for every man, women and child.

It's reported he had a 100 round, drum magazine, body armor, tear gas canisters, gas mask etc.
He was better armed than your Great Grandfathers, Grandfathers, Fathers and yourselves in previous wars.
This shooter was better armed and protected than the standard infantryman from the beginning of time until now.

And, he bought it all legally, right here in the good ole USA and there is a lot more out there, legally, that he could have bought.

So I wonder, when, in the past two hundred twenty years did we loose our common sense.

The right to bear arms is one thing.
Assult rifles, 100round magazines, body armor etc. We don't need it. That, is to much fire power.
Give law enforcement and the rest of the citizens a break.

Screw the law enforcement, seeing them let dogs loose on citizens in cali and firing bags at em after ANOTHER cop case of killing an unarmed man and the case just being dismissed is starting a damn war. I respect cops that do their jobs. But i've dealt with the egotistic, dirty, perverted, disrepectful cops before also and say they need whats coming to them. I like alot of cops, one around here named Saxton, hes a good officer. He helps people, not harass them. I for one think if more people started beating their u kno whats instead of running from the bean bags then maybe a revolution will sweep the world and teach them....that a man with power ( badge ) should be more respectful and outstnading than the criminals. Not just as bad as them.

I have resisted posting to this thread so far because I know I am biased. I have always been distrustful of people whose idea of a dream job involves wearing a uniform and telling other people what to do.

On which note ... Kasper, you didn't mention Officer Pike - who attacked peaceful sedentary students by spraying pepper spray directly into their faces at point blank range without 'provocation'.

I have to say to Crafty - you have my respect. As a Brit with experience of what it's like living in a country which regulates gun ownership, you're doing a good job of maintaining a non-partisan line.

But the bottom line on gun laws has to be extrapolated from the figures. Every so often, in the US, there is a mass shooting by someone ... civilians, police, it doesn't really matter who. The question is ... how often does it happen in countries which have stricter regulations on the ownership of guns? And the answer is ... not nearly as often. More regulation = fewer deaths of innocent people. End of.

Hugs and respect

Jo

mass shootings maybe but not common crime and as for your post rick its all relative our founding fathers made the second ammendment to give the people the ability to defend themselves from the government....what good is a musket going to do against the government today (there's some common sense)...our founding fathers probably knew that there were.going to be advances in technology that allow for more powerful weapons...yet they did not implement a possible sunset clause in the second ammendment...are you saying our founding fathers lacked common sense

Guns are banned in the UK so we do not have gun crime... In fact the figures for gun crime have gone up since the ban (although over the last year the figures have dropped slightly)

It once was the time that a crook would not carry a weapon if they were "Breaking and entering" because, if they were carrying, they could be shot and killed by the home owner (that has not changed) but crooks now carry guns because they know no one will be shooting back... and it is "gangsta"

Banning guns will not make them go away, it just means you can not shoot back.

Before the ban there was only one reason for a civilian to carry a hand gun in the UK and that was "For defence of Country and Crown". Strange that a Government that was trying to remove the Crown banned firearms.

I know... all a bit "conspiracy theory" to think banning guns is a downward spiral, after all, the UK has an effective body to oversee the government to ensure they do not make any stupid laws. It is called the house of lords. You know, that body the government keeps trying to get rid of.....

But the UK is good at equality, we fill in those forms listing who we employ that are black, gipsy, disabled, Jewish, gay, etc.

There can't be anything wrong, we learnt our lesson in the 40's with the Third Reich, er... 50's... no... 60's with civil rights...

It's not about whether we should have guns, it's about responsibility. I've just got back from Norway, they are not running around shouting about banning guns because of one man, they are not changing anything.... and because of that they are saying "We Win!"

Hugs

Gunther, you make an argument against things I did not say, or suggest.
I didn't say our arms should be limited to muskets.
I didn't suggest our founding fathers lacked common sense.

I rather think lawmakers lack common sense.
And I think the shooter with his legally bought equipment defies common sense.
Which brings us right back to the lawmakers.

on the stats above, vietnam has the lowest gun ownership of 1.7 per 100?
does that means the viet military would be heavily armed?

gun is a tool that empower certain mentalities of people. for over 200 years, there have been gun ownership by ordinary american people, because they do not trust those with guns (such as police officers, security officers, military, etc).

unless a nation is a dictatorship or kingdom, i highly doubt any other form of government-ship will be able to get rid of gun. that means america probably will never be able to dis-allow gun ownership by its people....because america is too democratic and no one leader is respected.

the bottomline is that guns don't use themselves to kill people, it's people that use guns to kill people. which one do you get rid of?

and would you rather live in Vietnam or America.....


rick those things were obviously implied if you cannot see that then I wonder

our founding fathers knew that advances In technology would be made (such as better weapons) yet they did not implement a sunset clause in the second ammendment.....they intended the second ammendment to continue regardless of any advances in gun technology this renders your argument about how because of better weapons we should make more gun control ineffective bunk and wrong....UNLESS your saying our founding fathers were lacking in common sense


our founding fathers were law makers except their laws persist to this very day and have a profound impact on this subject (the second ammendment)

in the 18th century as far as I know a citizen could own a cannon to help protect himself I think the second ammendment should stand regardless of any technological advances its all relative power of the government to power of the people the people need technologically advanced weapons to stand up to a government

Gunther,

I wrote the post. I know what I intended to say or imply, I told you twice, you missed on both counts. So no need to wonder.

If you believe the second amendment was intended to keep US citizens on a par with US government forces, you should write your state representatives and tell them we need quite a bit more weaponry to become available to the public. As it stands today we are not even remotely comparable.

If that is not what you believe, maybe we just disagree on where the bar should be set.
I think assault rifles, magazines larger than those originally issued with the weapon, body armor and a few other items should not be available to the public.
Just my opinion, simple as that.
Where do you think the bar should be set?

I am not a military specialist but if the government became blatantly evil and disregarded our constitution that allows the majority to change it through voting then 300 million people or so with various small arms could easily topple the army marines national guard FEMA whatever other government agency was used to subjugate us and it doesn't have to be 300 million 50 million idk I think on the contrary the government is not even remotely comparable

I personally would not get all up in a rage if the government decided to implement limited gun control rather I think it should be more universal I know where I live many of the things you suggested are illegal idk about other places but maybe 300 miles away I could get all of those things and simply transport them back to where I live it kind of defeats the purpose


in my ideal society guns are freely available to everyone capable and people are trained to respect and utilize these weapons in a reasonable manner I think it would be good for America as a society if all people became responsible for their constitution instead of having a lumbering yet elitist military that allows for bitches to toss their haughty asses around central park without any idea on how to defend that right

Australia banned guns after the Port Arthur Massacre. Since then, violent crime rates and shootings have declined remarkably.

Guns are the reason America has the highest homicide rate of any developed nation. Lots of Americans seem to deny it, but strict gun control (especially on rifles) decreases crime significantly. FACT.

As for the age-old rebuttal on self defence, it's illogical. If someone has a gun to your head, good luck defending yourselves. The same goes for massacres. Who would bring a gun into a theatre?

Port Arthur was a scam for gun control everyone forgets the people are the masters not the government.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Guns are the reason America has the highest homicide rate of any developed nation. Lots of Americans seem to deny it, but strict gun control (especially on rifles) decreases crime significantly. FACT.<!-/Quote-!>

Wrong, your argument is the same one that has missed the point for decades. Gun control laws are not and never have been a deterrent to violent criminals.

Now what base cause for violent crime just happens to be could be argued for hours.

In many areas it's probably simple economics, nobody seems to factor in that many areas with high crime are economically depressed, have the lowest number of high school graduates which tends to feed that particular cycle, Drug use, etc.

In just my area alone about the only time firearms are used illegally are when the Mexican, Russian, or local home grown gangs are pushing against each other. These people do NOT care if firearms are illegal or not. Most have little to lose either way.

Having said that, all forms of crime from simple B and E to murder have dropped in the last 10 years. Why? can't be the economic situation getting any better. It could be that's when concealed carry became legal and now one out of every 20 people in my state from the age of 27 up have at least taken a course which if they completed the process would allow them to carry.

I doubt many have as I know a lot of people that took the course but never completed the process. Most claim not to do so for reasons of privacy.

They think the government already knows too much about them, and see it as a way to mark them as firearm owners should the government ever outlaw personal ownership of firearms.

Even the Police do not as a general rule have a problem with people having firearms they are legally entitled to carry.

For those of you that do not know this, except for one state in the US where everyone legally able own a firearm is allowed to conceal carry, it is expensive and you must meet certain requirements.

1. You take and pass a basic course.
2. You register yourself. This means fingerprinting which goes not only to the State data base but also the FBI.

3. You have to be approved by the Sheriff of the county in which you reside. Mandatory in Missouri and most states unless the Sheriff has cause.

4. You have to notify the Sheriff and the State of any change of residence. Which means of course register with the Next Sheriff of any county you change residence to.

You cannot have a criminal history.

You cannot use or be in possession of illegal drugs.

You cannot have a complaint against you for threat of physical violence.

You cannot have a history of mental illness.

You have to be of legal age.

All of which other than the registering and finger printing are nothing more than the requirements to legally own any type of fire arm in the first place.

Does any of the above mean anything to someone that is already committing a crime by simply owning a fire arm? Of course not.

If I am stopped and the police run my license, they will immediately know I am licensed to conceal carry.

Since I am already bound by law (along with everyone else) to answer as to whether or not I am armed if asked, they don't even need to run my license. As long of course, as I'm a law abiding citizen.

So who the hell do you have to worry about? Certainly not someone obeying the laws of this country.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

As for the age-old rebuttal on self defence, it's illogical. If someone has a gun to your head, good luck defending yourselves. The same goes for massacres. Who would bring a gun into a theatre?<!-/Quote-!>

If someone is able to get close enough to stick a firearm INSIDE your ear, then there is probably not much you can do other than decide how you want to die if it is their intention to kill you.

Up to that point there are a lot of variables depending on who you are and the situation in general.

Anyone that wants to carry a firearm had better think long an hard about options long before something happens.

The use of deadly force is always a last ditch option. For someone using deadly force there are several conditions that better stand up in court you they themselves are going to be the ones going "up river".

There needs to be a threat against someone's physical well being.

An attacker must show intent.

An attacker must have the ability.

An attacker must have the opportunity.

I am male, 6'7" and weigh 210 lbs. Chances are I'd be going to jail for blowing away a 160 lb crack head even with a knife for threatening me, or anyone else on the street.

As far as asking "who would bring a gun into a theatre"? If you scroll back to the top of this thread you'll find where I stated: I'm never more than arms reach away from a firearm unless I've disarmed myself before going into an area where they are banned (or something similar to that anyway).

I won't go to any commercial place of business where the owner bans firearms and spend my money. I go see movies all the time.

Government Facilities, (Police stations, Prisons, Courthouses, Schools, etc) Post Offices, or Airports where due to the course of business I have no choice but to go, are the only places you'll find me without a firearm. Any commercial venue where the owner posts a ban, I won't be anyway.

You want to hit the town and party? Hell I'm the perfect designated driver.

It's a Misdemeanor to to be in possession of an unloaded firearm while under the influence, a felony if it's loaded after which being convicted, I could no longer legally own a firearm.

Mine are always loaded so consequently I won't be drinking.

Drugs, alcohol, or firearms you can't make them go away by making them illegal history has proven that. Enforce the laws already on the books .. but then who's going to do that?, the criminals don't care in the first place.

u still around yankee

No! Don't be fooled! That is a Yankee Clone! The real one is lurking in the dark, dank recesses of the forum.

I like yankee

i've lived in america,thailand,australia, vietnam, and few other countries.

i feel australia is the safer place to be. i don't worry if the guy/gal next to me would pull out a gun at me.

i have had bullets thru my cars, windows, fence post, etc in america.

the debate of to have or not to have gun by ordinary citizens has been on forever. i don't think there will be a solution for all, so live where you're comfy. you just cannot have it both way. if you don't trust those you elected to governed you, such as in usa, then why elect them in the first place.

in countries such as thailand, a kingdom, the king has the last say. either you follow or you're gone. you don't like it, then get your own kingdom.

people such holmes should just be terminated right away, no need to waste tax dollars on him while in jails.

"Port Arthur was a scam for gun control everyone forgets the people are the masters not the government."

What? I take offense to that. Many people died that day, and the Howard Government didn't take away the rights of the citizens. The Gov reacted to a massive public push for the outright ban of automatic and semi-automatic weapons back in 1997/98. Of course, the push for such bans came primarily from city folk. Regional, rural and outback areas were marginally against it. Furthermore, the Administration that banned automatic firearms back then is one of Australia's most respected. Ever.

Most people in Australia are glad that guns are gone, retrospectively.