Gun Control - Your stance, views, and recent developments

[Shining Raikou]

With the recent developments in the news, and new laws taking effect I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.

- What is your stance on gun control? For / against - Why?
- With the recent school shootings, has your views on guns changed?
- Have you read any articles about it recently that were interesting or a poor argument for/against gun control?

 

[Haunted Water]

Ah yes. Gun control. The only time I'll ever consistantly share a conservative view no matter the case.
I believe that a stricter gun control is in order, but not the way they are doing it in DC.
First off, I used to support Obama, but now he is looking like a doof. Let's get this straight. You want to ban the sale of popular guns while still trying to fix the economy? Then don't ban them.
The whole idea of the ban is stupid, and will do more harm than good, imo. Law-abiding citizens will not be able to own guns that they know how to use safely, while criminals, who are notorious for not even caring about laws, will find some way of obtaining banned weapons illegally.
I think they should have stricter background checks and safety courses (and a possible psych eval). I know guns kill. That is their main purpose. To inflict harm. Americans have the unchangeable right to bear arms, and a ban is kind of stepping on this right.

 

[Poseidon]

I think that:
Outlawing guns won't keep them off of the streets. Look at drugs for instance.
Guns don't make people kill other people. People do. You can leave a loaded gun sitting out, it won't stand up and kill people.
More people are killed by hammers every year than guns. Are we going to outlaw hammers as well?

Those are just my opinions. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they will find a way. Making guns available to the public saves lives. I think that they should just leave it as-is. That is just my opinion.

 

[Equinox]

Look at what happened in Australia, the problem is worse there, and we're already spending tons of money, if we ban guns, that's going to be more money down the drain, no. I'd rather see stricter use, hunting only, and should only be available via special license or if they get a license for hunting.

Edit: lol also ironic to see a gun control ad in the thread

 

[Bootortle]

My word of advice:
Guns don't kill people
Bullets kill people

But seriously, instead of getting way too strict and enraging a ton of people, why not have better reinforcements for what we have now?
If we do that, we could at least have a 'meet somewhere in the middle' thing. The one thing I'm sure of though is that you can't make everyone happy, no matter the topic. If one thing happens (good or bad), someone will be there, and jump at the chance to fight.

 

[Nigel]

Outlawing guns aren't going to take them off the street

Just like drugs.

So if you think outlawing them is going to change anything, think again.

 

[PDC]

How about we, gee I don't know, take out certain models of ARs off the market in addition to making guns harder to get.

I can cook up meth but not guns.

 

[Guts]

Putting tighter restrictions on the types of guns/ammo you can buy and on gun dealers themselves would certainly help the problem, and I hope the federal government can get the right people on the job. So no, I don't think big ol' scary Obama is gonna kick your door down and take your guns, but something needs to be done about the mess we're currently in. I'll gladly go into detail if some discussion comes along in this thread.

 

[One Approved]

Outlawing guns aren't going to take them off the street

Just like drugs.

So if you think outlawing them is going to change anything, think again.

Outlawing murder and Stolen doesn't stop either of those from happening either.

I'm all for gun control because even if we can't stop it 100%, putting a low with hefty fines and/or jail sentences in place will honestly cut down the amount of weapons going around. People will be intimidated by them. I do agree with Nigel that it is not going to stop guns from going around on the streets nor will it stop shootings from happening, but that is not a good reason to stop a law from being put into effect, in my opinion.

 

[Equinox]

Outlawing guns aren't going to take them off the street

Just like drugs.

So if you think outlawing them is going to change anything, think again.

Outlawing murder and Stolen doesn't stop either of those from happening either.

I'm all for gun control because even if we can't stop it 100%, putting a low with hefty fines and/or jail sentences in place will honestly cut down the amount of weapons going around. People will be intimidated by them. I do agree with Nigel that it is not going to stop guns from going around on the streets nor will it stop shootings from happening, but that is not a good reason to stop a law from being put into effect, in my opinion.

They tried this with alcohol and look what happened - they can't contain guns, people will get them one way or another, and we'll only spend more money that we shouldn't be spending on preventing having guns, which many people in America own. And making a law that bans guns is violating the 2nd Amendment, so, yeah.

 

[Haunted Water]

And not all the guns they are banning (or fit the requirements of the ban, but are exempted from it) are as dangerous as thought.
I use a .22 Semi-Automatic Long Rifle with a 14 capacity non-detachable magazine utilizing Hollow Point rounds while hunting small game. Stopping power = 150 pounds on a good day. Sure, it'll hurt a hell of a lot if you are shot by it, but in order for it to be deadly, it has to be shot twice, and/or hit a vital organ.
Now my dad's small game hunting gun, of the same caliber, and he uses the same round, is legal under the ban (so is mine, only because it's a huntng firearm). Why? For starters, it's a bolt action. It also utilizes a 7-round detachable box magazine.
His, however, has a longer barrel, making it far more lethal. A lot of the stuff they are throwing in the ban doesn't make the gun anymore lethal than it already is. It just limits their usefulness.
TL;DR: The ban is useless and ineffective against gun violence. It'll still happen.

 

[safariblade]

I think that:
Outlawing guns won't keep them off of the streets. Look at drugs for instance.
Guns don't make people kill other people. People do. You can leave a loaded gun sitting out, it won't stand up and kill people.
More people are killed by hammers every year than guns. Are we going to outlaw hammers as well?

This is why I support targeting the people. Background checks should be required & punishment for selling weapons without checks should become higher.
These are some things that Obama is doing that I support.

 

[One Approved]

I think that:
Outlawing guns won't keep them off of the streets. Look at drugs for instance.
Guns don't make people kill other people. People do. You can leave a loaded gun sitting out, it won't stand up and kill people.
More people are killed by hammers every year than guns. Are we going to outlaw hammers as well?

This is why I support targeting the people. Background checks should be required & punishment for selling weapons without checks should become higher.
These are some things that Obama is doing that I support.

Right. I meant this. I should have made my views a tad more clear. I'm all for gun control, not for gun outlawing, because Equinox is right. People have the right to arm themselves by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[sillykyle]

Now, obviously that amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon, but you do have to consider how old it is. Think about it, even guns that are considered no good or whatever today are waaaaaaaay more advanced than anything they had in the 18 century. Back then a "mass shooting" would have been more like: Shooter fires a shot or two, then has to reload. Maybe they get off a 3rd or 4th shot if they're lucky, then someone takes them down and it's over.

Come at me haters.

 

[Guts]

Now, obviously that amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon, but you do have to consider how old it is. Think about it, even guns that are considered no good or whatever today are waaaaaaaay more advanced than anything they had in the 18 century. Back then a "mass shooting" would have been more like: Shooter fires a shot or two, then has to reload. Maybe they get off a 3rd or 4th shot if they're lucky, then someone takes them down and it's over.

Come at me haters.

That's another good point; personal arms during that time period were limited to muskets and clunky pistols. Those aren't nearly as deadly as the weapons we have in the modern age, so it's something to take into consideration.

 

[Porygon-X]

Now, obviously that amendment isn't going anywhere any time soon, but you do have to consider how old it is. Think about it, even guns that are considered no good or whatever today are waaaaaaaay more advanced than anything they had in the 18 century. Back then a "mass shooting" would have been more like: Shooter fires a shot or two, then has to reload. Maybe they get off a 3rd or 4th shot if they're lucky, then someone takes them down and it's over.

By that logic, we should ban the internet and televised media stations because they were invented after the first amendment was written.

Here's my opinion on the matter.

In 1942, Adolf Hitler wrote:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

Now I know to some it seems like the United States wouldn't fall into a tyranny like that, but there is no guarantee it won't. It's a very slippery slope, and one that our founding fathers wanted to make sure we would never slide down.

Look, making it harder to own a gun won't stop shootings, and outright banning them sure as heck won't stop anything. The tragedy at the Columbine school shooting happened in a place that already banned guns. The Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings were also in areas that did not allow guns.

Do you think that people with the intent to kill other people would go into a building where most individuals carry a gun, or a building with signs posted advertising "Gun Free Zone"?

I would rather my hypothetical tax dollars go to programs that identify and bring help to those who are mentally ill, than programs that try and crack down on and regulate gun owners.

Banning just assault weapons is pointless. As long the victims cannot defend them selves, it does not matter what weapon is used.

 

[Kecleon-X]

Alright. Here is how it goes.

Drugs: Illegal.
DUI: Illegal.
Killing People: Illegal.
Theft: Illegal.

I hear that people still do everything on this list.

Defacto the matter is that laws will only limit the law abiding, not the criminals. Criminals will always be just that: Criminals.

I hear that rocks are also a very nice weapon for killing people, along with knifes, plastic bags, cars, crossbows, bats, and of the sort. No matter what you do, you will only be limiting the law abiding who are trying to get protection against the criminals. The point is, if you give an evil man a gun, he will use it for evil, whereas if you give a gun to a good man, he will use it for good. It is always the nut behind the wheel.

Don't ban guns. You might as well be signing a bill that could kill thousands.

EDIT: Whoa. My brother is a ninja.

 

[sillykyle]

Alright. Here is how it goes.

Drugs: Illegal.
DUI: Illegal.
Killing People: Illegal.
Theft: Illegal.

I hear that people still do everything on this list. Does that mean we should just go ahead and make them legal since people do them anyway?

Defacto the matter is that laws will only limit the law abiding, not the criminals. Criminals will always be just that: Criminals.

I hear that rocks are also a very nice weapon for killing people, along with knifes, plastic bags, cars, crossbows, bats, and of the sort. You can't exactly kill 20+ people with a knife or a bat... No matter what you do, you will only be limiting the law abiding who are trying to get protection against the criminals. Just because people could still potentially get their hands on illegal guns doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. If they're much harder to obtain, less people who want to do bad will be able to get them. The point is, if you give an evil man a gun, he will use it for evil, whereas if you give a gun to a good man, he will use it for good. And how do you know if a man is "good" or "evil"? There's no clear cut line, and it's impossible to tell in many cases. These mass shooters are generally people with no criminal records... It is always the nut behind the wheel.

Don't ban guns. You might as well be signing a bill that could kill thousands. Personally I think that if people really want to have guns that badly, they should be allowed to have them, just not insanely fast ones that can kill tons of people in just a few seconds. If you have a gun that fires just 6 shots or whatever before you have to reload, that's plenty to stop one person who's attacking you.

EDIT: Whoa. My brother is a ninja.

Replies in bold...

 

[Porygon-X]

You can't exactly kill 20+ people with a knife or a bat...

Funny you should mention that, because a man stabbed 22 schoolchildren in China the exact same day as the Sandy Hooke shooting.

 

[Haunted Water]

Don't know if Kecleon-X is for or against the ban.
Also note: insanely fast guns are illegal to be sold completely. Full autos and burst are illegal. Semi-autos aren't. A gun isn't insanely fast because of how long it takes to empty a magazine. The fire rate determines that. Using a six capacity magazine is a horrible analogy, because only revolvers and shotguns hold that much/less. And they are semi-auto.