Jump to content
Redd Dawg

Gun Violence

Recommended Posts

We all know what just happened, and what has happened in the past. What is the best approach to this problem? I am a gun owner and have been for years. My personal arsonal consists of a double barrelled shotgun circa 1915 and a .22 revolver and a .22 short derringer which I inherited from my late father. My big problem with gun bans and such is simply that when they are enacted, the one guaranteed effect that they will have is that come the next election the Republicans will take everything, not to mention that while bills are pending manufacturers will step up production to light speed, knowing that they will sell everything that comes off the line. I personally do not understand why anyone would need, or desire an AR-15 type of rifle, but If they wish to own one, wouldn't a mandatory psyche eval be a good idea for society at large? I think so. Police officers, and military personel have to undergo them so I see no reason why civilians should not as well. But how would it work? Should I be required to be evaluated in order to purchase a 107 year old shotgun that is mostly just a decorative wall hanger? What ideas do you guys have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not anti-gun but we should do what is necessary to keep them out of the hands of people who wish to do harm. Anyone wishing to purchase a weapon like the AR-15 should have to have a psychological evaluation before they can be licensed to purchase one & should have to have that license renewed every x amount of years to be allowed to purchase ammo. Background checks should have to be done before the purchase of those and handguns. Also we should close the gun show loophole that allows people to purchase guns without going through the steps & restrictions they would usually face at a gun store. Antique weapons that pose minimal risk would be an exception.

To me this incident & those before it speak to a much larger problem. After all, in Canada they have a ton of guns, including handguns, and they don't have these problems. And yes, they watch the same violent movies & play the same violent videogames that we have in the United States. I read that there are millions of guns in Switzerland, but only 24 gun homicides in 2009. In my opinion the real solution can be summed up best by this Michael Moore quote: "The long term solution to reducing gun deaths is to change our society from one of perpetual war and fear to one of peace and tolerance."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt about that. Actually the gun that's selling like wildfire right now is the same one used by the killer. Don't you just love this country??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one needs a semi-automatic weapon or the large magazines.

 

'Needs', not 'wants'.

 

Gun violence in this country is obscene and getting worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being lenient with gun restrictions has not changed the amount of gun violence in this country for the better. It has gotten worse and worse as time has gone by. We need to try something new. Permanently banning the sale of all semi-auto weapons and handguns would be a great place to start. If violence goes down as a result of the ban (which it would), put even tougher sale bans in place, and start limiting the quantity of guns people can posses (confiscate and destroy the excess), and then just keep enacting tougher restrictions. Violence would go down like crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't think anyone would try to take away the kind of arms traditionally favored for hunting or self defence. It's interesting to me that the round these guns fire. the 555 NATO, or .223 in civilian terms only has one civilian use. In the western state they are effective for sniping prairie dogs and other varmints, with a good bolt action rifle. It is too light and hence illegal for deer sized game, and small game would be decimated if hit by it. Out of an AR-15 it has one single purpose. To kill humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a pistol. I have it to hurt or kill someone whom I felt threatened by at my home. That has never happened and probably never will. I am more at risk of bing killed by someone I love than having my house broken into by a stranger. Those are the facts. I personally do not feel "Free" becasue I can own a gun when I have to fear being killed by a gun while shopping or watching a movie. Guns and gun violence are so tightly woven into our psyche I don't see how we can eliminate guns in our country. People who have gone out and bought guns, especially after this tradgedy are the very people I loath - the stupid, its all about me and what I can get type of person. Our government should make it so hard and so expensive to get and keep a gun that less and less people will do it. Gun ownership is already down in this country. Any gun related purchases should be taxed sky high and the money used to pay for additional security at places like schools etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My standing is to not allow automatic assault weapons to the public, and to have gun licenses have to be renewable

That could be a start to the solution to a much bigger problem. More people are killed by revolvers than assault weapons (ie semi and auto weapons).

 

We all know what just happened, and what has happened in the past. What is the best approach to this problem? I am a gun owner and have been for years. My personal arsonal consists of a double barrelled shotgun circa 1915 and a .22 revolver and a .22 short derringer which I inherited from my late father. My big problem with gun bans and such is simply that when they are enacted, the one guaranteed effect that they will have is that come the next election the Republicans will take everything, not to mention that while bills are pending manufacturers will step up production to light speed, knowing that they will sell everything that comes off the line. I personally do not understand why anyone would need, or desire an AR-15 type of rifle, but If they wish to own one, wouldn't a mandatory psyche eval be a good idea for society at large? I think so. Police officers, and military personel have to undergo them so I see no reason why civilians should not as well. But how would it work? Should I be required to be evaluated in order to purchase a 107 year old shotgun that is mostly just a decorative wall hanger? What ideas do you guys have?

If a weapon can kill someone, it should count even if it is 100 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be a start to the solution to a much bigger problem. More people are killed by revolvers than assault weapons (ie semi and auto weapons).

 

 

If a weapon can kill someone, it should count even if it is 100 years old.

I could support an assault rifle ban. I could not support a handgun ban. Though I do believe it should be much harder to get one. Every gun that has ever been made, for the most part anyway, has the ability to kill someone. Banning the most standard hunting guns is never going to happen. You would be unlikely to find enough politicians to support that even if every seat in congress was held by the Democrats. And I don't think it's the right thing to do either. If you're talking about an assault rifle ban I can see your point. If you're talking about a handgun ban I disagree but I can see your point. But if you're talking about eliminating any antique gun that has the potential to kill somebody, that's when arguments about banning anything that can be used as a weapon start to hold water. Honestly if I was going to kill somebody and my choice was a musket (which could potentially kill someone) or a butcher knife, I'm going with the knife.

So while I respect your opinion and know it comes with the very best of intentions, I strongly disagree.

 

My standing is to not allow automatic assault weapons to the public, and to have gun licenses have to be renewable

Completely agree with having to get the gun licenses renewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could support an assault rifle ban. I could not support a handgun ban. Though I do believe it should be much harder to get one. Every gun that has ever been made, for the most part anyway, has the ability to kill someone. Banning the most standard hunting guns is never going to happen. You would be unlikely to find enough politicians to support that even if every seat in congress was held by the Democrats. And I don't think it's the right thing to do either. If you're talking about an assault rifle ban I can see your point. If you're talking about a handgun ban I disagree but I can see your point. But if you're talking about eliminating any antique gun that has the potential to kill somebody, that's when arguments about banning anything that can be used as a weapon start to hold water. Honestly if I was going to kill somebody and my choice was a musket (which could potentially kill someone) or a butcher knife, I'm going with the knife.

So while I respect your opinion and know it comes with the very best of intentions, I strongly disagree.

 

 

Completely agree with having to get the gun licenses renewed.

You have inferred wrongly - I do that too sometimes. I agree assualt weapons should be banned because, even though revolvers kill more people overall, assualt weapons do so much damage in so little time. Banning revolvers and hunting rifles is not something I said I support. I do however support making gun ownership so difficult and so expense that it will dramatically decrease. I also support all guns be registered, regardless of where they are purchased, banning private sales, annual registration and training and taxing the shit out of all gun related purchases to pay for increased security in public places. I also support anyone who owns more than a few weapons should be put on a watchlist and be considered a potential domestic terrorist. Visits to gun ranges should be monitored. If we don't get serious about reducing gun violence and ergo gun ownership, none of us will ever be safe - even from the well meaning "armed citizen" who ends up shooting innocent people while trying to be a John Wayne hero at the mall. Its gonna happen with all these new carry/conceal laws being passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to sound like an NRA parrot squawker, but extremist stances on this issue in my humble opinion would only prove to be counterproductive in the long run. I want tighter controls on heavy firepower in the streets as much as anyone, but when you talk of banning handguns, and/or traditional sporting arms..........well many Liberals such as myself do own them, and we have seen the backlash before.

 

Believe me......it aint pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have inferred wrongly - I do that too sometimes. I agree assualt weapons should be banned because, even though revolvers kill more people overall, assualt weapons do so much damage in so little time. Banning revolvers and hunting rifles is not something I said I support. I do however support making gun ownership so difficult and so expense that it will dramatically decrease. I also support all guns be registered, regardless of where they are purchased, banning private sales, annual registration and training and taxing the shit out of all gun related purchases to pay for increased security in public places. I also support anyone who owns more than a few weapons should be put on a watchlist and be considered a potential domestic terrorist. Visits to gun ranges should be monitored. If we don't get serious about reducing gun violence and ergo gun ownership, none of us will ever be safe - even from the well meaning "armed citizen" who ends up shooting innocent people while trying to be a John Wayne hero at the mall. Its gonna happen with all these new carry/conceal laws being passed.

Oops, sorry Nancy. As I've said before I post really late on here, usually after work so my brain isn't exactly operating at full strength. I never meant to make it appear that you said something you didn't. And sometimes I go off on my own rants & accidentally tie others in where they don't belong. Not intended.

 

I am completely for tightening gun laws & using psychological tests and background checks to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands those who seek to do harm. I do have to disagree with decreasing gun ownership by making it overly expensive. I believe that a mentally sound, law abiding citizen should at least have the right to have a gun at home for protection. But a wealthy person wouldn't need that, they could hire security. Really the better off financially you are the less you need defense because police response times to your property are usually greatly increased. But if you're someone who is say lower middle class & lives way out in the country where police would take forever to get to, if anyone needs a weapon for defense it is you.

Also in hunting it would not be fair to say that a wealthier person has more of a right to hunt than a poorer person, simply because they can afford the gun. Especially since there are still people in that hunt all the meat they consume.

And Im not alone on the liberal side in saying that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes with a gun. Even Bill Maher, who agrees with tougher gun laws, has said that if you break into his house you will have a gun in your face.

 

What we need to do is keep guns away from the mentally unstable and criminals as much as possible. Now in your idea of a potential terrorist watch list, what weapons do you suggest will put someone on this list? Assault & handguns or all weapons including very basic hunting guns like single-shot bolt action rifles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to sound like an NRA parrot squawker, but extremist stances on this issue in my humble opinion would only prove to be counterproductive in the long run. I want tighter controls on heavy firepower in the streets as much as anyone, but when you talk of banning handguns, and/or traditional sporting arms..........well many Liberals such as myself do own them, and we have seen the backlash before.

 

Believe me......it aint pretty.

I don't want to come off as NRA either, but I'm also not anti-gun. What sets you and I apart from the crazies in groups like the NRA is that we actually want to be responsible with this issue. I know for a fact that a society can have guns & be responsible enough to not have over 10,000 gun murders a year. I know this because Canada exists. For a country so close, they seem so far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the difference between an assault weapon and one made for other purposes than assault. I find that very confusing.

 

I guess my "love gun" isn't made for assualt.

 

... Or is it... :wub:

 

And that brings me around to hate crimes. Are there any "love" crimes?

 

I can only think of one, and it involves my "love gun." :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am completely and totally anti gun. Guns were invented with the sole purpose of one thing- War. That's it. Take them away. Take them far away. They're good for nothing more than killing people. This purpose was the driving force behind their invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the difference between an assault weapon and one made for other purposes than assault. I find that very confusing.

 

I guess my "love gun" isn't made for assualt.

 

... Or is it... :wub:

 

And that brings me around to hate crimes. Are there any "love" crimes?

 

I can only think of one, and it involves my "love gun." :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, totally and completely dangerous. Should even take the guns away from the police. They end up shooting people too. It's insanely scary.

 

Exactly. Remember that shooting in New York? The cops caused just as much damage as the one murderous jerk. ALL guns should be banned. They are instruments of war, and as such, belong only in the hands of those who are meant to fight our wars for us, the US Military, and only while they are on foreign soil, except for a single training range on each major American base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that shooting. Crazy. Why should they have them when they can't use them?!?!?!

 

Just need to ban everything and melt them all down!!

Quite right. I'm all for a complete and total ban and confiscation. Take them from the right wing nut cases by force if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...