[Northwoods]

I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

Yes it would. And going after the culture that encourages ownership of rifles that are made for the battlefield is something that needs to be done. They have been altered a little to be able to be sold to civilians but are still basically military rifles.

And these military weapons would probably tear apart game animals so I do not see much use of them for hunting. Home protection, maybe. But weapons long available to the general public would be just as useful for home defense.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

Because the Constitution, which was written before these kinds of weapons existed, in a world that had no technology to speak of (electricity wasn't available in households until the following century and the White House didn't have running water until the 1800s) says they can, therefore they can, and their right to do something is more important than your right to not be victimized by it.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

That leaves us with bolt and lever action rifles, shotguns and revolvers. How do you propose getting rid of all the other pistols and rifles?

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

Because the Constitution, which was written before these kinds of weapons existed, in a world that had no technology to speak of (electricity wasn't available in households until the following century and the White House didn't have running water until the 1800s) says they can, therefore they can, and their right to do something is more important than your right to not be victimized by it.

Americans have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law as they do in Mexico and other countries. If I have a gun I can hopefully shoot someone who has broken into my home rather than wait 20 minutes or more for the police to show up and discover my corpse.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Americans have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law as they do in Mexico and other countries. If I have a gun I can hopefully shoot someone who has broken into my home rather than wait 20 minutes or more for the police to show up and discover my corpse.

This is a common argument for guns, and I believe it is mostly a reasonable argument. However, the trouble is in the details:

1. The argument does not require unlimited unregistered guns of any kind to protect ones self at home or in public. One could say they need automatic weapons using this argument, since without them only bad guys would have automatic weapons. One could say they need a Challenger 2 tank to protect their family. One could say they need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against N. Korea and others. One of the fundamental reasons villages and larger groups of people were created is to provide for the common defense so individuals do not have to protect themselves from every possible enemy.

2. The argument does not require you be able to defend yourself without training and certification/licensing - neither of which would prevent your defending yourself or your family and would in fact help you do so.

3. The argument does not require you be able to accumulate unregistered guns. I personally do not believe that registering your guns would help stop mass shootings, but I see no reason it would hurt.

4. Requiring guns to be designed to only be able to be used by registered owners would not prevent you from defending yourself or your family and would prevent a bad guy from taking your gun away from you and killing you and your family (and other families) with it.

The number of lives saved by having unlimited access to guns seems to be seriously out weighed by the number of innocent people that are killed by bad people having guns. The argument that society would be safer if there were more guns would seem to have been proven wrong, since we now have over 300 million guns in circulation, that is more guns than adults.

With 300 million guns in circulation it is not possible to enforce a ban, so that is not going to happen. (Or let's just say, attempting to do so would probably make the civil war look like a peace rally). We have allowed this untenable situation to happen, and we need to figure out how to resolve it.

As has been said, the guns of themselves are not the problem. It is the undesirable uses of them that are the problem.

I find it difficult to understand why people who want to own guns are not the most vocal in trying to resolve this problem. It would be in both sides interest to work together to find a solution.

And finally, some statements from both sides from are just not useful. I have a daughter in law who said she was not worried about her son being killed in a school shooting, she was going to train him to use guns and he would be packing went he went into first grade. Seriously, I am not making that up. Can you imagine a class full of first graders all carrying guns?

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Island57

Wow. What kind of white supremacy sources news media do you get your info from? Scary and stupid.

I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

I think the same one sided theories can be spewed over and over again. But the bottom line is the fact that the USA is the prime target of several countries which crave our demise. Plus the fact that we have a wide open border and who knows who has already penetrated the population of the USA with the intent to create catastrophic damage.

Why the devil is it necessary to unarm US citizens who day in and day out uphold the law, act responsibly and store their weapons accordingly? If it is the perfect plan to unarm the citizenry does it make Russia shine as a country? Is anyone watching the squelching of the voice of the people right now in that country as they try to protest the questionable actions of their government?

When do we ban automobiles and airplanes? These two vehicles have caused far more injury and death in the US than any guns. Or maybe the most we allow is a smart car for everyone because fewer people would be killed or injured with a smaller vehicle.

To say that there is very little mental illness involved in shootings and that people are evil instead makes me laugh. A normal brain does not function on the premise that taking lives is fun. Isn’t that the main thrust of PTSD syndrome? There is something wrong upstairs when people want to commit mass murders!

It would be a huge mistake to unarm our citizenry, your freedom may depend on it someday. Why don’t those who champion government gun control champion mental health facilities and monitoring? Because grabbing guns is cheaper and easier.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I think the same one sided theories can be spewed over and over again. But the bottom line is the fact that the USA is the prime target of several countries which crave our demise. Plus the fact that we have a wide open border and who knows who has already penetrated the population of the USA with the intent to create catastrophic damage.

Why the devil is it necessary to unarm US citizens who day in and day out uphold the law, act responsibly and store their weapons accordingly? If it is the perfect plan to unarm the citizenry does it make Russia shine as a country? Is anyone watching the squelching of the voice of the people right now in that country as they try to protest the questionable actions of their government?

When do we ban automobiles and airplanes? These two vehicles have caused far more injury and death in the US than any guns. Or maybe the most we allow is a smart car for everyone because fewer people would be killed or injured with a smaller vehicle.

To say that there is very little mental illness involved in shootings and that people are evil instead makes me laugh. A normal brain does not function on the premise that taking lives is fun. Isn’t that the main thrust of PTSD syndrome? There is something wrong upstairs when people want to commit mass murders!

It would be a huge mistake to unarm our citizenry, your freedom may depend on it someday. Why don’t those who champion government gun control champion mental health facilities and monitoring? Because grabbing guns is cheaper and easier.

No one wants to disarm the people of this country. Stop the manufacture and further sale of assault type weapons like those used in many recent shootings. Yes. And develop buy back programs with local police departments for assault like weapons.

Many terrorists are fanatics. They look mentally ill to "normal" people. The 9/11 terrorists were not mentally ill nor the Boston Marathon bombers. They were radicalized though by propaganda. I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

...I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

Wow.

I don’t even know what to say about that observation.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

And while we are at it, we need to address the 68,000, that is correct, sixty-eight thousand people that died last year, 2018, from illegal drug overdose in the United States. This is despite laws that make it illegal to sell and to buy drugs to make yourself high, to make your thoughts disordered. Perhaps we should start taking guns away from people who have ever been caught with illegal drugs. I think most people would stand behind that. Oh wait. Felony possession of drugs does not allow the felon to own a gun. Watch one hour of live P.D. on A&E and see how many guns are found on people with illegal drugs. Maybe we should think of something else. Maybe if people who did not have much money were given money by the government from a fund taken from people who worked hard all of their lives. AND from some rich jerks who just woke up and found it or worked 14-16 hours a day at a high paying very stressful job?

Complex issues are not easy to solve, but are often averted by moral parents making sacrifices to be with their children when they are small and being tough on their tots when they steal, lie, and do all of the things little humans do.

This post won't last long. Good morning everyone. It is a beautiful day in The Villages where the large majority of folks agree with what I just said.

deaths in the u.s. due to overdose in 2018 - Bing

Disclaimer. I don't own a gun.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

No one wants to disarm the people of this country. Stop the manufacture and further sale of assault type weapons like those used in many recent shootings. Yes. And develop buy back programs with local police departments for assault like weapons.

Many terrorists are fanatics. They look mentally ill to "normal" people. The 9/11 terrorists were not mentally ill nor the Boston Marathon bombers. They were radicalized though by propaganda. I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

Stop the manufacture and sales... that is disarming, plain and clear and the offenders will still find those arms for themselves. They are mentally ill, not stupid.

“Radicalization” is, in studies, defined with mental health issues as the risk factor along with psychoses and autism are reported as common.

As reported earlier in this thread, shootings have increased slowly since the 1960’s. Guess when mental health institutions began to close, the 1960’s.

Do online searches for: how release of mental health patients began. It has been admitted that it was a huge mistake and I think more than likely responsible for the mass murders the US has suffered.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Wow.

I don’t even know what to say about that observation.

You do know I am using the legal definition of mental illness whether the actor knows right from wrong and had full control of his or her actions. Both of these men planned their evil in advance and carefully and have no history of mental illness that I have seen.

Mental illness used by the average person could mean many things-- depression, addiction, etc.

Some seem to be using these two men's evil actions as yet another ruse not to actually address the gun problem in the US as well as the hate problem. These are connected.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Stop the manufacture and sales... that is disarming, plain and clear and the offenders will still find those arms for themselves.

“Radicalization” is, in studies, defined with mental health issues as the risk factor along with psychoses and autism are reported as common.

As reported earlier in this thread, shootings have increased slowly since the 1960’s. Guess when mental health institutions began to close, the 1960’s.

Do online searches for: how release of mental health patients began. It has been admitted that it was a huge mistake.

Most mentally ill people are the victims of violence and not those that carry it out. Do some research.

And look at the practices at some of those institutions. Many of these people had no clue about how to treat people. And there are still problems. There's a Psychiatrist Crisis in America That Few Are Talking About

[Two Bills]

We in UK banned hand guns many years ago, after a mass shooting of children in Scotland in 1996.
Banning guns was not a big deal, as we never really had a 'gun culture' anyway.
Stict laws were put onto shotgun ownership for sport, ie. blowing birds out of the sky every fall for a few months.
Our major problem now is knives.
Stabbings, singular and mass, are daily occurences, and amongst the young in most major cities, being stabbed is sadly, a normal risk if you get into an argument.
Most tpypes of knife, with few exeptions are banned from being carried, but it has made not a jot of difference to the number of incidents, in fact numbers of stabbings are on the rise.
So just banning certain types of weapon is not always the panacea.
It takes a whole lot more, and that 'more' is the major stumbling block, and the million dollar question in getting a ban to work.