Guns

This would be the assaul weapons ban with the giant loop holes which the NRA is actively trying to dismantle, and which, if memory serves, the Republican Congress didn't extend. False. It may be illegal to own an "unregistered" handgun. But owning a gun in NYC remains legal. Also false, with the exceptions of heads of state there are no individuals capable of wracking up the numbers we see at VT by themselves. Not the best swordsman in the world. Not the best spear thrower. Not the best muzzle-loading rifleman. It just doesn't happen.The CLOSEST you can come is Jack the Ripper who's 5 victims (add another 12 if you wanna include everyone who died during the period) were killed over a couple of years, not a couple of minutes. Your monumental assumption here is that there is no gun crime save repeat gun crime. That is massively in error.There are plenty of deaths via gun (accidental and deliberate) in which the person pulling the trigger is shooting another person for the very first time.If those people had not had those guns lying around, it's extremely unlikely they would have accidently shot someone with a knife.Or in their moment of passion, gotten their keys, gotten in their car, driven into the city, found a guy on a street corner, asked him who they could buy a gun from, follow his directions to another guy, hand over the cash, pick up the gun, go to another guy to get some bullets, then drive all the way home, rush in and blow away their cheating husband.Would a career criminal, for whom it's already illegal for him to have a handgun, continue to use a handgun? Yes. Do they do that now under this system? Yes. This is not a valid counterargument against me. This is one of those ridiculous statements the conservative shock troops like to parade around.How many gun weilding maniac home invasion cases happen? Is it more or less than accidental shootings. And to use your own glib bs (hint: the vice president SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE!) Or.Now you answer one. How many people were beaten to death by the first of enraged students at VT over the last, let's say 50 years?

As an American from the midwest (where 2nd Amendment issues are debated most hotly), it's been my understanding that the pro-gun crowd interprets it to mean that "because it's necessary for private citizens to be asked to form a spontaneous, irregular civil defense force, private citizens shall be allowed to own firearms."So it's not that you have to join a militia in order to own a firearm; it's that you own firearms so that you can join a militia, if needed.That said there's never been a civilization in the history of mankind where you didn't have to earn the right to bear weapons. So I think barriers to gun ownership are a good idea. I think sweeping bans on weapons aren't necessary, but I support measures like a national ballistics database and other technological means (including mandated retrofitting of weapons) that would mean that every fired bullet could be matched to a gun and a fingerprint.

So you hold to the belief that EVERYONE is a homocidal maniac waiting to kill as many people as they can, but the ONLY thing holding them in check is the thought that MAYBE one of the people they are intending to kill MIGHT have a gun.You are EXACTLY the type of person who should not have a gun.

Although I know this is a contentious issue, and as a participant I shouldn't attempt to moderate the thread, I want to warn you and the other participants to keep the rhetoric to a tolerable level and avoid attacks on other posters. This is uncalled for. Tone it down or refrain from participating (abe: even if it IS your topic).Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given.

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

I think that fingerprinting is less about background check than it is about preparing to solve the upcoming criminal case when the gun nut kills someone.Coming from a state that takes a fingerprint when you get your drivers license, I find it hard to imagine an objection to fingerprints for gun (particularly hand gun) purchases.

Choo obtained his hand gun without having to go through much of a hassle. That's easy access. It's not like he had to take a mental exam, or wait six months for a background check.

Although somewhat off-topic for this particular thread, I personally believe that fingerprinting for other than criminals (or certain types of high-security employment) is overly intrusive. If you are fine with fingerprinting for such routine things as driver's licenses, then I guess I can understand why you feel that it is warranted for firearms purchases. The measures nator outlined, plus the national ballistics database crash mentioned (fingerprinting the weapon rather than the individual as it were) would seem to be otherwise more than adequate.ABE: Perhaps this is just poorly worded, or maybe intended as a rhetorical device, but you seem to be implying that anyone who purchases a weapon is automatically going to go out and commit mass murder. Is this what you meant? Given that I've owned firearms for over 30 years, and have thus far refrained from murdering anyone, I find the rhetorical flourish to be a bit much, donchaknow.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

I never said the shooter did not have easy access to weapons. I mentioned that there was a ban on gun posession on campus. A prevalence of easily obtainable guns in an area surrounding a place with less easily obtainable guns strikes me as warm breeding grounds for suicide by massacre.

Okay, did I say I agree with everything the NRA or the republican party does? Still doesn't make guns the reason people get killed in cold blood. That I'll have to look up, because the source I listened to on that is questionable. I don't think many presidents could go on a bare-handed rampage successfully. If by head of state you mean people who can get more people? Pfft, try every violent group of people in history (let's think about the huns, the romans, the vikings... the list goes on, and it's downright slaughter/genocide, not just a few people.) When did I say that? I said what I said; it won't undo the underground trafficing. How is this not an effective arguement? You want to tie our hands so that big timers can pick us off when we try to defend our homes? I guarantee you more than 32 people would die over the course of this slow and tragic bloodbath that I think you're proposing. No, I believe that they would be accidently stabbed; if a kid's not taught that playing with weapons is wrong, who's to say the kid won't pick up a knife?If we're talking 'accident' like kids playing with guns, then the gun owners need to 1.keep it out of the kids reach and 2.teach their kids gun safety and its importance. Not one of these things changes the facts that guns themselves don't kill people, they just make it easier for crazies and possibly kids that need help/ need to be taught better by their parents.Gun safety won't protect us from lousy parents who don't teach their kids that weapons aren't toys. Course not. She'd go after him with a knife, axe, or whatever else is lying around the house. That'd be an even messier way to go, too. You can only shoot as many bullets as you've got; you can make somebody suffer a lot more easily with a blade... not what I'd want a psycho ex girlfriend trying to get at me with. Okay... but you're acknowledging that it does happen, right? Do you think that, in all time, the death toll from this has been less than 32? Come on, now.You know why it's less? Because nobody wants to invade a home and get in a shootout! Too much evidence of a struggle, harder to win in court if the criminal does... wonder if we could find a statistic on this?As for accidents, if people are adhering to gun safety it wouldn't happen. That's due to human error, not guns. Okay, probably none. I believe you have a question to answer, too. Yes or no?

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

No, I didn't say that. What I meant by "removing the second amendment or adding another restriction to it' would make VT look like a drop in the bucket within weeks" was what I just mentioned: people would wait for the confiscations, and clean house (no pun intended) across the country, a little here and there, a lot in the major cities. The death toll would be in the hundreds across the nation pretty quickly. Why? Because I feel the need to defend myself against very real threats? Because I'd be willing to teach my children that playing with guns is wrong? Because I don't try to ban everything that people abuse?What IS your solution to this gun problem, anyway? Please be specific and actually answer the question unlike last time.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

Okay, so you're suggesting better background checks before owning a gun? I'm fine with that; innocent people have nothing to hide. You want background checks? Great. But don't you dare say that the guns themselves need to be taken away from private citizens. What do I say to the families? I don't know, but I would say we need to figure ways to reach out to people like Cho before they do things like this, because all the bans in the world won't prevent people from losing it one way or another.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

What does that mean to me? It means we should, within reason, get our guns. I do not oppose background checks and screenings, along with waiting periods of 6 months while all of that goes down. That's not much of an infringement, really. And besides, it could prevent another VT, in theory.and 'arms' means weapons, so if we say no to people who want guns for legitimate problems we find in their background, who's to say they can't buy an axe from Home Depot, or Swords Online?Putting restrictions on which guns are allowed to the public is an iffy subject... in California, we have 8-gauges and handguns above .357s banned. I don't see the point; you can kill someone with a .22. Now if we're talking AKs, Mortarts, or hand grenades? They're not practical defense weapons(granted neither are huge handguns), and so I believe (although it isn't in the constitution) that careful, careful restrictions should be placed on impractical defense weapons.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

Not my intent. Unlike One_wing I don't believe that everyone who has a gun is hellbent on mass murder. I do believe that everyone hellbent on mass murder, however, is very likely to go out and get a gun.

Yeah, we here this so much it's a cliche. "I don't know what happened officer, I was holding the knife and all of the sudden it just went off." Right. But preventing those same lousy parents from stockpiling assualt rifles and glocks will. And I'm suggesting that she not have bullets.Guess what. If a housewife goes after her husband with a knife he stands a chance to get away. Believe it or not, you can outrun a knife. You can not outrun a bullet. I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but believe me the deathtoll from accidental shootings in the US is WAY higher than 32 this year. And you are claiming it's been less than 32 over the 200+ year history of the country? come on. Wait, you are contradicting yourself. You say this type of crime happens now, when people have easy access to guns, but also say that criminals wouldn't do it because we have easy access to guns. Pick a side and stay on it. Either the criminals are afraid of hte guns and therefore this type of crime doesn't happen, or the criminals aren't afraid of the guns and this type of crime does happen. Again, pure insanity. You are suggesting that if someone were simply in error but NOT holding a gun, there is a equal chance of an innocent victim being shot in the head. False. If there is no gun, there is no accidental shooting.

No, because you feel the need to defend yourself against IMAGINED threats. You are suggesting that the only thing keeping criminals from instituting a nationwide killing spree is the off chance that someone might have an assault rifle under their trenchcoat.That's ridiculous!