Should guns be banned?

[twotonevert]

Regardless of what weapons they ban, regardless of how many bullets a magazine hold, regardless of the type of weapon used for evil, those that plan to carry out these senseless acts will do so regardless of what laws are on the books. Can I get anyone to agree to that? If so, you must realize any type of weapons ban will in fact only apply to those who care about the laws and render those that do care about the laws unable to react and defend themselves from someone who wishes to do them harm. We can argue about what makes a weapon an "assault weapon" all day long. At the end of the day it depends on what they define as an assault weapon in the ban. From what I have seen, they render anything that is semi auto an assault weapon. Go ahead and turn yours in, I am keeping mine.

 

[masterblaster]

Full auto is a waste of ammo unless you are on the DMZ and the Norks and Chicoms are attacking and for cover fire. Only amateurs of tacticool people think they need a full auto gun, fun... hell yeah, but needed for 99.9 percent of combat, nope. Remember the right to bear arms is to keep the government in check as a last line of defense against losing our freedoms, then for self defense.

I was thinking about modifying a weapon to full auto (simple change to make).

Going through the hassle of tax stamp is a waste of time for anyone wanting to break the law.

 

[Skydyvyr]

I keep going back to this over and over and it just keeps getting ignored... Enforce what we have with a vengence and make the punishment so painful that criminals won't want to get caught with a gun... A good example is this.....

While this may minimize general firearm related violence, it wil not prevent future events such as the two most recent killing sprees -- both shooters used stolen/borrowed firearms and took their own lives. No law on the books, or any that could be written would ever prevent such individuals. They did not fear punishment as they planned on dying. The only way to have prevented their actions would have been to stop them outside; most probably with deadly force as they were both well-armed.

Making the assumption that it would be impossible to remove the vast majority of firearms from the populous, the only way to prevent these types of tragedies is to spend more resources (time and money) dealing with the mentally damaged individuals who are capable of these types of acts. Alternatively, we could place armed guards everywhere with orders to shoot anyone who acted suspiciously.

I do agree that laws on the books should be enforced with a vengeance and penalties more severe but I don't think we can be timid about the fact that this would not address those who 'fear no punishment'.

IMHO, it's those who don't think things through that focus on the tool rather than the perpetrator -- remember, the largest act of terrorism perpetrated on American soil was pulled off using Box Cutters; for anyone unfamiliar with a box cutter, it is little more than a single sided razor blade with a cheap 3" handle. The second was done with a U-Haul truck full of fertilizer. In a world where individuals care so little for human life (their own included), that they will strap on a vest of explosives, walk into a crowded public area and detonate it with no deference to the victims, focusing on tools is a foolhardy waste of resources.

--Sky

 

[Skywalker]

A novel approach to the gun ownership issue...
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 YEARLY fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'.

He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."



Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state. It’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the ******** "
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns to defend themselves.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go towards paying for their defense!

 

[jphilipson]

Regardless of what weapons they ban, regardless of how many bullets a magazine hold, regardless of the type of weapon used for evil, those that plan to carry out these senseless acts will do so regardless of what laws are on the books. Can I get anyone to agree to that?

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

 

[GsxrBots]

an assault rifle is capable of selective fire and has a detachable box magazine. huge difference.

My deer hunting rifle, (and about 75% of all bolt action rifles) has a detachable box magazine..
How huge is this difference now, especially since AR15s aren't "selective fire" as you put it..

 

[captain]

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

So you think a "Time out" would have stopped him?

 

[GsxrBots]

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

What does the magazine capacity have to do with anything? I can buy 3 ten round magazines, or 2 15 rounders and reload in under a second. What's your point? Again, none of this fixes ANYTHING...

 

[masterblaster]

So you are advocating arming the janitors and staff at the school?

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

 

[captain]

I was thinking about modifying a weapon to full auto (simple change to make).

Going through the hassle of tax stamp is a waste of time for anyone wanting to break the law.

A gun tax was not my intention, but to show that when you put a penalty out there that is so severe people are willing to do whatever it takes to not be found guilty.. Make the penalty for using a gun in the commission of a crime so harsh that a criminal would rather stab them than shoot them...

 

[jphilipson]

So you are advocating arming the janitors and staff at the school?

Don't know how you got that from what I said - but, no.

 

[Skydyvyr]

an assault rifle is capable of selective fire and has a detachable box magazine. huge difference.

Firearms with Selective Fire are already highly restricted in this country and only readily available to those in Law Enforcement or the Military. I possess a CCW permit in four states, am a lifetime NRA member and am certified as a firearms instructor in several disciplines yet selective fire firearms are not available to me.

As far as a detachable box magazine is concerned, I have a bolt action (single shot) .22 Marlin rifle that I use to teach Boy Scouts how to shoot that has a detachable box magazine. I doubt anyone would consider that an assault rifle.

If you are saying that both have to be in place to be considered an assault rifle, then Assault Rifles are already effectively banned in the US.

--Sky

 

[masterblaster]

I might add if you get shot with most any bolt gun you are going to be D.E.A.D more often than getting hit with little 223 rounds coming from black gun. People using bolt rifles rarly miss under 300 yards and the bullets are 3 times heavier.

My deer hunting rifle, (and about 75% of all bolt action rifles) has a detachable box magazine..
How huge is this difference now, especially since AR15s aren't "selective fire" as you put it..

 

[jphilipson]

So you think a "Time out" would have stopped him?

Can only speculate on an answer. I strongly suspect that if he did not have easy access to guns on that day, it would have changed the course of events.

 

[E Zurcher]

Okay so I just watched a CNN clip, a 20 yr old male kills his mother in her home.... Steals her legally purchased firearms and then commits a travesty with the guns... So let's ban the guns... Right? How would this be any different if someone unknown roke in and stole those weapons?

I am not going to minimize the loss of the children at all so I will not speak to this situation anymore...

The real problem with this scenario is that the mother knew her son who lived with her was Autistic and he had access to the weapons.. This is an issue about an unstable person having the ability to cause harm...

hindsite is 20 / 20 right? I sold all of my guns when my oldest son was born because of the risk he might try to play with them. I could not afford a safe at the time so I go rid of the guns... My youngest son came along and so we did not bring any guns into the house until I could afford a safe... Now, I have them locked up and they have no access.. I have safety precautions in place for any firearm not in the safe so that no child can use it, heck no person could use it. The problem as I see this is that people are not taking responsibility for the weapons they have...

CAp ...

Here's a good start. You will find that an autistic person is no more likely to commit this type of crime than one who is not. There are other opinions that say they are far less likely. I would posit that all guns should be kept locked regardless.

Groups: Autism not to blame for violence - CNN.com

I find it far more likely that this person, because he was different, spent a lifetime of torment by so called "Normal" people. You will find this is the case with most of these types of crime.

I think the gun control debate must happen and the sane solution is somewere in the middle as it usually is.

I sat down with my son last night and had a talk with him to prepare him for today. We discussed the incident, I let him know that because the person had aspergers doesn't mean that he is like that person. I let him know that if anyone gave him a hard time he should report it to his counselor and let us know about it right away. My wife sent off emails to his counselor and the principal with our concerns and they were already taking steps for their autisitc kids. I also let him know that if anyone gave him a hard time he should tell them that he is not that person. He acknowledged what I had to say and in his typical way expressed that he didn't think there would be a problem. I sent him off to school this morning hoping he would not have to deal with the cruelty that some most children are capable of.

I strongly believe the public would be better served if parents instilled a sense of civility and acceptance in their children of others who are different than they are and remain fully involved with their children's lives. Take firm action to reeducate them when they stray off the path. Bottom line is children and young adults can be incredibly cruel towards others who are different. Unfortunately its the parents who are too self absorbed in their own lives, who don't put their children first, who are more concerned about whether little Bessie makes the cheerleading squad than how she treats others around her. Who have no problem with handing a Rated "M" video game to their 6 year old for Christmas. Who demonstrates being a good citizen by beating up a fellow parent at a Little League baseball game. The list goes on and on. Bottom line is society created the young man who committed these horrible acts and instead of blaming it on guns we should be taking action to educate, assimilate and accept those who are different. Yes, change our culture. Better to do the hugging and healing before than after.

 

[GsxrBots]

I might add if you get shot with most any bolt gun you are going to be D.E.A.D more often than getting hit with little 223 rounds coming from black gun. People using bolt rifles rarly miss under 300 yards and the bullets are 3 times heavier.

But, but, but, but that .223 looks SOOOOOO much more deadly!!! This CAN'T POSSIBLY be true, can it??

 

[captain]

Here's a good start. You will find that an autistic person is no more likely to commit this type of crime than one who is not. There are other opinions that say they are far less likely. I would posit that all guns should be kept locked regardless.

Groups: Autism not to blame for violence - CNN.com

I find it far more likely that this person, because he was different, spent a lifetime of torment by so called "Normal" people. You will find this is the case with most of these types of crime.

I think the gun control debate must happen and the sane solution is somewere in the middle as it usually is.

I sat down with my son last night and had a talk with him to prepare him for today. We discussed the incident, I let him know that because the person had aspergers doesn't mean that he is like that person. I let him know that if anyone gave him a hard time he should report it to his counselor and let us know about it right away. My wife sent off emails to his counselor and the principal with our concerns and they were already taking steps for their autisitc kids. I also let him know that if anyone gave him a hard time he should tell them that he is not that person. He acknowledged what I had to say and in his typical way expressed that he didn't think there would be a problem. I sent him off to school this morning hoping he would not have to deal with the cruelty that some most children are capable of.

I strongly believe the public would be better served if parents instilled a sense of civility and acceptance in their children of others who are different than they are and remain fully involved with their children's lives. Take firm action to reeducate them when they stray off the path. Bottom line is children and young adults can be incredibly cruel towards others who are different. Unfortunately its the parents who are too self absorbed in their own lives, who don't put their children first, who are more concerned about whether little Bessie makes the cheerleading squad than how she treats others around her. Who have no problem with handing a Rated "M" video game to their 6 year old for Christmas. Who demonstrates being a good citizen by beating up a fellow parent at a Little League baseball game. The list goes on and on. Bottom line is society created the young man who committed these horrible acts and instead of blaming it on guns we should be taking action to educate, assimilate and accept those who are different. Yes, change our culture. Better to do the hugging and healing before than after.

A couple of things...

1. Good on you for being the dad willing to sit down and talk with your son about it, I hate that you even had to send the note to the school about the situation...
2. I 100% agree that the "hero's" and role models most kids have today are pathetic...
3. I pulled my son out of baseball 2 years in a row because of the coaches and other parents. Arguing with the ref, throwing coffee, having fits... I met with the coaches and told them ALL that they were there to show the kids how to behave when the wrong call is made. How to deal with an unfair situation and it's okay to lose as long as you worked hard... I then took my son aside and explained to him how we are to behave and how to respect authority regardless if the call was fair or not.
4. We have to work with our communities and kids to get this figured out, this is why I work with the youth at my church, this is why we attend church with our kids... They are in a positive environment surrounded by other positive supportive kids that all want great things for each other....
5. Banning guns will be no more effective than banning alcohol.... people will find a way....

Your a good man, I hope that you can see that I meant no disrespect to you or your family. There will be some tough discussions over the coming months and in no way would I ever single out you or your son.... Thank you for educating me on your viewpoint and if you feel I ever cross the line I beg you to call me out on it in public....

Thanks,

cap

 

[GsxrBots]

. Thank you for educating me on your viewpoint and if you feel I ever cross the line I beg you to call me out on it in public....

Thanks,

cap

Well said Cap...

 

[Skydyvyr]

No, because it's not true. It's a lot easier for a someone to snap and grab a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags and drive to a school to shoot it up, than it is for them to, let's say, build a bomb on the spur of the moment.

So recent reports say this guy had 100s of rounds of ammo on him (atleast several boxes) -- I don't think he just grabbed a "a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags" and committed this. There was at least some degree of planning involved. If there was some planning, then it would have been just as easy to purchase several 1' long sections of 1" steel pipe, and a bunch of gunpowder and fuse, or glass bottles, dish soap, gasoline and rags and done at least as much damage.

I don't believe this dude or anyone who does this "just snapped" this is something that had been brewing in his mind for a while.

--Sky

 

[jphilipson]

So recent reports say this guy had 100s of rounds of ammo on him (atleast several boxes) -- I don't think he just grabbed a "a bunch of unsecured firearms with high capacity mags" and committed this. There was at least some degree of planning involved. If there was some planning, then it would have been just as easy to purchase several 1' long sections of 1" steel pipe, and a bunch of gunpowder and fuse, or glass bottles, dish soap, gasoline and rags and done at least as much damage.

I don't believe this dude or anyone who does this "just snapped" this is something that had been brewing in his mind for a while.

--Sky

Yeah - because it's not at all common for gun "buffs" to have 100's of rounds in their houses. Tell that to Flicka - https://www.hayabusa.org/forum/random-thoughts/170057-should-guns-banned-5.html#post2970838