Dr_Rez

I agree with every word Freebase said. No point in arguing with you Lord because it is obvious you have your mind up and only pick the statistics and facts that benifit your agenda of guns being the problem. You listed a bunch of sources in which people hurt people they knew or themselves with guns...I am not arguing that doesnt happen, but it ure hasnt happened to me or anyone I know, and hasnt happened to Freebase.

Why not punish enforce current laws rather than banning and changing things. Kids in the house who got your gun...Felonly with heavy sentence. Metally ill or clinically depressed person in house who gets gun? Felony. Stuff like that actually being enforced would go a long way.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

Lord Larehip

Rez, the majority of people who are murdered in this country are murdered by guns and majority of people who are murdered KNEW the person who murdered them.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: How People Are Murdered in the United States

Saying it hasn't happened to you or anyone you know is irrelevant to the point I am making which is:

The odds are much greater that you will kill or be killed with a gun in your house than that you will kill an intruder with that gun.

If you buy a gun because you are a hunter, I have no problem with that as long as you lock your guns up when not in use. I know people that disassemble them when they don't use them and that's even better. But buying a gun for protection is questionable because the statistics show you will never use it for that purpose and that if you do fire it in a situation outside your control that situation will be accidental discharge, suicide or murder. Sorry but those are the stats, baby. Ignore them at your own peril.

I only want to ban assault weapons. And I think handguns need to be more rigidly controlled (and, yes, some need to be banned). Hunting rifles and shotguns I have no real beef with. You can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. And you can't punish someone who guns down a bunch of innocent people with an assault weapon and then shoots himself. All that happens is some other unbalanced idiot wants to do the same thing.

Felony against whom? Take Sandy Hook. They were his mother's guns and he killed her and himself. So who gets punished? Wouldn't it have been better if nobody could have an AR-15? Sure, there still would have been a tragedy but not of this magnitude.

Besides that, Rez, you know they plead down all the time. Killers rarely get what they deserve because they are almost always allowed to plead down. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

Dr_Rez

..

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

John Wilkes Booth

I agree that allowing teachers and school staff to carry weapons would be a good counter measure against school shootings. Of course there would need to be mandatory training for the safe handling of weapons on a school campus, but all in all I can't think of a better solution.

I also agree with Lord Larehip that there's not really a good reason to leave AR-15s and guns like that legal. For me the main reason is because there's not a really apparent practical need for an ordinary citizen to own such a gun, meanwhile the cartels and gangs do seem to find them very useful.

Dr_Rez

The reason AR15's are legal isnt for self defense or for hunting.....Tyranny is why. people laugh but how many times has history shown us that it certainly does. Our country was founded on that exact principal when breaking away from Britain.

And gangs cartels are NOT using legal rifles...Sure maybe a few stolen ones here and there but the VAST majority are illegally gotten and a ban would do nothing to stop that.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

John Wilkes Booth

I've hear this argument before, but I don't find it very convincing. Citizens generally don't have access to the type of military hardware that would actually allow them to overthrow the US govt. Maybe when the most advanced technology was a musket or a canon, that was a feasible idea. Nowadays, not so much.

Besides, what really puzzles me about this argument is the idea that I'm supposed to trust an unorganized mob of citizens with guns with my fate more than I should trust the US govt.
Take a look at this.

U.S.: Gun raids show cartels at work in Ariz. - TODAY News - TODAY.com

Whether they were obtained legally or illegally, the legal gun market ultimately supplied them.

Dr_Rez

.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

John Wilkes Booth

Those rag tag terrorists rely heavily on explosives, fully-automatic weapons and RPGs. They also have no hope of actually defeating the US military. So if the plan is to have a long drawn out civil war with tons of dead and no practical hope of victory, then sure.

Also, I wasn't saying the govt is really all that trustworthy. I was saying that a mob of citizens is less trustworthy. I do believe in fighting corruption but I don't think an AR-15 is the right tool to do so. I think this is a line that NRA types have been putting out there and honestly I think it's quite harmful to encourage that kind of thinking.

Maybe. I think we can and should do a better job at monitoring gun sales. And for guns which pose a risk but also have practical legitimate uses like handguns, that is the method I would endorse. But like I said... I don't think these kinds of rifles are serving an important practical need. They're basically a sporting item. I don't think the recreational use they might serve justifies keeping them legal given the side effects. That's just my opinion. I'm not saying it's the only answer. I would compromise and support a measure to increase the regulation on their sale while keeping them legal if it was either that or nothing.

Dr_Rez

You realize an AR15 works the exact same way any semi automatic gun doe right? And the only difference would be the high capacity. Changing a few magazines in some other rifle would not be hard. Why demonize one particular gun because it happens to be the face of the slanted news.

I could at least respect an argument that said I want to ban ALL guns, because really the vast majority of crimes and deaths are lower capacity handguns. If you really want to stop violence then get rid of the ones doing the most damage. Do I think that will work, absolutely not but I can at least respect the opinion.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

John Wilkes Booth

I've been avoiding using the term 'assault weapon'. I use the AR-15 as an example of the type of gun I mean. I'm not saying to just specifically ban AR-15s.

edit - Maybe if there's no way to work out a coherent definition on which guns should be banned, it should be taken more on a case-by-case basis. I'm not demonizing it just for the fact that it's efficient and dangerous. Hand guns are arguably more deadly. For me the relevant factor that makes banning it seem like a good idea is that it's extremely useful for crime and not really useful for much else. Another example would be tear gas grenades. Are they inherently more dangerous than other legal weapons? No. But they're basically only useful in a combat situation. Which makes them both dangerous and virtually useless for legitimate purposes. Which in my view makes them a good item to ban.