Gun Control - New Bills

[gplaydee]

Thanks for the clarification, puss.

I think if people want to continue owning guns, a very rigid and robust gun policy needs to be in place to ensure the legislation is neither encroaching on Constitutional rights nor leaving room for mentally unfit people to own/wield guns. That means that every gun owner should be mentally assessed on a regular basis and their arms-related purchases tracked. Privacy issues in this matter are irrelevant since the CIA is allowed to rummage through people's private information anyway.

I don't mean to be insulting, but the current gun regulation in place is starkly insufficient - a rehash is needed. And while policy may never be sufficient, it will always be necessary.

[gplaydee]

Also, let me clarify: the law is not always ethical. So on that, Puss, I agree. But it's the only enforceable tool to address socially recognized crimes, is what i mean.

[hitlerscow]

I believe the "Keep the mental people away from owning guns" is dreamy idea, but a slippery slope. What constitutes no gun ownership? Who decides? If this is required you could be denied basic human rights based on "professionals'" opinion on your mental health. Say you served in Iraq and you witnessed some horrible things...PTSD. What about an emo teenager who changed his outlook? If a professional says so they cannot arm themselves? So now you're denied the 2nd amendment for life? My point is the psychological map is just undeveloped - we don't know enough about the brain and mental health to make those judgements. As it is "professionals" are taking wild guesses at why these people go on rampages. It's all speculation. Have you read the DSM? It is extremely vague. Do not let labels rob you of your rights. There are already laws on the books prohibiting people with certain diagnoses from purchasing a firearm, at least here in Texas. More are not necessary.

[areyouholdin]

[quote name='M.E.R.C Janos' timestamp='1359135190' post='7387']
Puss and gplaydee, you two make very good points.

1.) Yes that quote is a bit weak from how it was said but in some cases it is the truth. If a law abiding citizen has the legal means at their disposal to defend the lives of them and others, they should act on their legal right. As ive said above if there was a teacher or individual at that school with a CHL it would have end there and then and maby no one would have been hurt or killed.

2.) Stats have shown that when theres no guns crime goes up and viceversa. Also as ive said more guns might not be the answer to every problem but pending the situation gun do good and not just bad.

3.) The Second Amendment was written for the common person to Bear Arms and if nessary to fight the threat government tyranny.
[/quote]
[quote name='Puss in Boots' timestamp='1359122760' post='7369']
The implication of their statement regarding what constitutes as a "good guy" is very concise: Someone who carries a gun but wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were a threat to the well being of themselves or others. They have specified this before as well in other speeches/statements. It's not as lazy as it first sounds.
[/quote]

The idea that "more guns solves the problem" is flawed, in my opinion. Take an example that occurred within my city a couple of days ago:

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/lone-star-college-shooting_n_2527806.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_2527806.html[/url]

Two men got into a verbal altercation that lead to each of them drawing weapons and firing upon one another. If people were allowed to carry guns on campus, then it is feasible to assume that a teacher and a few students would be armed in such a situation. While not everyone would respond by pulling out their weapons, the theory postulating "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" emphasizes the need for responsible gun carrying citizens to utilize their arms to defuse the situation (ie. kill the two gentlemen). As a person who works at a university, I cannot begin to explain the implications of such actions. What if multiple people joined the fire fight in order to mollify the situation? Such a scenario would undoubtedly take a turn for the worse. What if some of the individuals were poor shots, or fired with proper intention and missed and hit an innocent bystander? Who would take responsibility? The proliferation of guns is a serious problem in this country and simply adding more to the mix is not the solution.

[atari]

In regards to your question about having kids enrolled in school with trusted, armed individuals - no, I would not. I wouldn't not want anyone in my child's school to own or carry a gun. Part of my reasoning for a drastic change in how guns are handled is because I think a lot of gun violence stems from the fact that gun ownership is part of the country's "history". It's part of culture, society. It's idolized in music and movies. Hell, I'm posting this on a CS forum! haha. I don't know how to change that. Maybe stricter guns laws isn't the answer. Maybe it is. Who knows. If it was my choice, it would be a start. I'm not saying it's going to magically solve the problems. But I fundamentally disagree with you guys and I honestly think that a country with fewer guns is safer. A country that can change it's image to not glorify arms seems safer. Canada does it too - don't get me wrong. We're basically America's wannabee little brother in a lot of issues, just without the scale to see the same problems. But, without question, I feel safer walking around the streets of almsot any Canadian city than I do any American city I've ever been (and I've been all over the U.S... in fact i'm going to Columbus and Detroit in 2 weeks).

Another issue I have with saying all citizens should have arms is that not everyone has the psyche to use them. Yes you can go to school and train proper technique - but I'm sure even officers who've had years and years of training probably don't always feel comfortable with a gun or have great aim. So how can you expect Mr. Smith, the 65-year old science teacher, to have the confidence and steady aim to shoot down a crazy lunatic? For me, it comes down to the fact that if everyone has access to guns, there are not enough trained, suitably equipped people (mentally and physically) to wield them in a proper scenario than there are whackos who will misuse them, or people who are ill-equipped and will cause accidents like Holden mentioned above. Also, a majority of people who can use firearms properly are already likely in the police force or something. (i have no actual stats to back this up, I'm just speaking from thought).

Also when I was saying comparison countries, I was thinking first world. So Brazil woudn't exactly cut it for me (they have some pretty big issues to tackle before gun control i'd say). Switzerland it seems to work, I'll give you that. Although almost every webpage I've visited regarding gun ownership #'s and gun-kills show's the U.S. to be pretty much in a group of their own.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2012/12/death-innocents-murder-and-guns-usa
http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
(that last article states that tighter gun laws do mean fewer murders - which kinda just shows that you can warp almost any argument you want with stats these days haha)

That's just the first three articles i saw when i did a quick google search on gun ownership and gun murder.

Again, I haven't studied this so perhaps the graphs have been skewed to prove the author's point. I don't know. And frankly, I don't care too much because it's not my problem to deal with (thank god - good luck Obama!).

It'd be interesting to see a study though on mass shootings and where they take place. But I feel like an unusual majority of them seem to be from the States. I'm not completely privy to the gun laws by state, so maybe they are stricter than I am aware of.

Finally - WD even the way you joked "ooooh, so dangerous" about a full-auto, kinda builds on my point. Guns are a source of pride and machoism. I know you were probably just being facetious, but there are many others who aren't. To me, guns just aren't respected. Knives, bats, other potential weapons...they aren't glorified. They are just items people use in every day life. No one posts facebook pics with their kitchen knife trying to look powerful or sexy. But throw some glocks in there, and some drugs, and some alcohol... and suddenly it's a different game. Bats and knives just aren't seen as sexy. Guns are.

P.S. I have a feeling we'll never actually convince each other of our own views hahaha. One of those topics with just differences of opinion.

[hitlerscow]

[quote name='atari' timestamp='1359157607' post='7414']
In regards to your question about having kids enrolled in school with trusted, armed individuals - no, I would not. I wouldn't not want anyone in my child's school to own or carry a gun. Part of my reasoning for a drastic change in how guns are handled is because I think a lot of gun violence stems from the fact that gun ownership is part of the country's "history". It's part of culture, society. It's idolized in music and movies. Hell, I'm posting this on a CS forum! haha. I don't know how to change that. Maybe stricter guns laws isn't the answer. Maybe it is. Who knows. If it was my choice, it would be a start. I'm not saying it's going to magically solve the problems. But I fundamentally disagree with you guys and I honestly think that a country with fewer guns is safer. A country that can change it's image to not glorify arms seems safer. Canada does it too - don't get me wrong. We're basically America's wannabee little brother in a lot of issues, just without the scale to see the same problems. But, without question, I feel safer walking around the streets of almsot any Canadian city than I do any American city I've ever been (and I've been all over the U.S... in fact i'm going to Columbus and Detroit in 2 weeks).

Another issue I have with saying all citizens should have arms is that not everyone has the psyche to use them. Yes you can go to school and train proper technique - but I'm sure even officers who've had years and years of training probably don't always feel comfortable with a gun or have great aim. So how can you expect Mr. Smith, the 65-year old science teacher, to have the confidence and steady aim to shoot down a crazy lunatic? For me, it comes down to the fact that if everyone has access to guns, there are not enough trained, suitably equipped people (mentally and physically) to wield them in a proper scenario than there are whackos who will misuse them, or people who are ill-equipped and will cause accidents like Holden mentioned above. Also, a majority of people who can use firearms properly are already likely in the police force or something. (i have no actual stats to back this up, I'm just speaking from thought).

Also when I was saying comparison countries, I was thinking first world. So Brazil woudn't exactly cut it for me (they have some pretty big issues to tackle before gun control i'd say). Switzerland it seems to work, I'll give you that. Although almost every webpage I've visited regarding gun ownership #'s and gun-kills show's the U.S. to be pretty much in a group of their own.

[url="http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2012/12/death-innocents-murder-and-guns-usa"]http://rabble.ca/blo...er-and-guns-usa[/url]
[url="http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12"]http://www.businessi...un-laws-2012-12[/url]
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/"]http://www.washingto...-united-states/[/url]
(that last article states that tighter gun laws do mean fewer murders - which kinda just shows that you can warp almost any argument you want with stats these days haha)

That's just the first three articles i saw when i did a quick google search on gun ownership and gun murder.

Again, I haven't studied this so perhaps the graphs have been skewed to prove the author's point. I don't know. And frankly, I don't care too much because it's not my problem to deal with (thank god - good luck Obama!).

It'd be interesting to see a study though on mass shootings and where they take place. But I feel like an unusual majority of them seem to be from the States. I'm not completely privy to the gun laws by state, so maybe they are stricter than I am aware of.

Finally - WD even the way you joked "ooooh, so dangerous" about a full-auto, kinda builds on my point. Guns are a source of pride and machoism. I know you were probably just being facetious, but there are many others who aren't. To me, guns just aren't respected. Knives, bats, other potential weapons...they aren't glorified. They are just items people use in every day life. No one posts facebook pics with their kitchen knife trying to look powerful or sexy. But throw some glocks in there, and some drugs, and some alcohol... and suddenly it's a different game. Bats and knives just aren't seen as sexy. Guns are.

P.S. I have a feeling we'll never actually convince each other of our own views hahaha. One of those topics with just differences of opinion.
[/quote]

When it comes down to it, the same reasons you prefer gun control, most prefer to be armed in the context of self defense. You don't trust other people to be responsible with one? Well, neither do I. And that is why I choose to defend myself with a firearm. I believe I can trust myself to not do any of the moronic things you've brought up that some gun owners do. I weigh 140 lbs. I'm pretty skinny. My .45 puts me on equal footing with a 250 lb body builder. The Great Equalizer, if you will.

It appears you've left violent crime out of yours statistics. Of course there is going to be more gun crime where there are more guns - simple arithmetic. But is there more violent crime? No. Just have a look at the top 10. [url="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg"]http://i.dailymail.c...677_468x636.jpg[/url] The UK, Australia, and Canada are all well known for having strict gun laws and they are #1, 2, and 6 respectively. Where are you more likely to get mugged? I prefer not to live in fear and know I have the means to defend myself, my property, and my family against any belligerence - including a most unlikely tyrannical government.

[Walking-Decoy]

[quote name='areyouholdin' timestamp='1359153458' post='7410']
The idea that "more guns solves the problem" is flawed, in my opinion. Take an example that occurred within my city a couple of days ago:

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/lone-star-college-shooting_n_2527806.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_2527806.html[/url]

Two men got into a verbal altercation that lead to each of them drawing weapons and firing upon one another. If people were allowed to carry guns on campus, then it is feasible to assume that a teacher and a few students would be armed in such a situation. While not everyone would respond by pulling out their weapons, the theory postulating "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" emphasizes the need for responsible gun carrying citizens to utilize their arms to defuse the situation (ie. kill the two gentlemen). As a person who works at a university, I cannot begin to explain the implications of such actions. What if multiple people joined the fire fight in order to mollify the situation? Such a scenario would undoubtedly take a turn for the worse. What if some of the individuals were poor shots, or fired with proper intention and missed and hit an innocent bystander? Who would take responsibility? The proliferation of guns is a serious problem in this country and simply adding more to the mix is not the solution.
[/quote]

There will be scearios like that eventually. It's silly to say that it would NEVER happen. However what I can say to counter your argument is that if you think that this will become the wild wild west where everyone draw's their gun over every single argument... Then we should *already* be seeing that in areas where concealed or open carry is permitted, correct? However the fact remains that we rarely see situations like that. Gun holders tend to be very careful with their guns, and the fact remains you have more of a chance to be shot and killed by someone illegally carrying and intending to harm you than you do some legal gun owner that got mad at you for giving him a bad grade, or some other various reason. That is 100% a fact. Postulating otherwise is ignoring the statistics and facts of what we have seen in real life.

If a kid walked into your classroom with guns blazing. Wouldn't you like a chance to defend yourself in that particular scenario? Or would you just prefer to hide behind your desk waiting for him to shoot you, or *AT BEST* not see you? It's a tough question to ask but the fact still remains you have a higher chance of that happening to you than a legal gun owner putting you in a situation like that.