Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[leo3375]

And what bugs me the most, I think, is that the gun nuts tend to oppose universal health care. They don't have a problem with someone being able to get an AK-47 but there will be hell to pay if a poor family uses taxpayer money to pay for treatment for a schizophrenic relative.

Here's where I stand:
1. Reinstate the assault-weapon and automatic-firearms ban. Restrict how many firearms someone may purchase to one or two per year.
2. Tax the snot out of ammunition. Chris Rock once said, "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control." Limit how much ammo someone can buy at any given time and keep track of their purchases.
3. Require licensing, certification, and background checks for all gun purchases, even at gun shows and game fairs. Regulate it like driver's licenses and selling a car, where a transfer of ownership is required and must be registered with the state.
4. Gun licenses would require not only a criminal background check but also a psychiatric evaluation and proper training on how to use a firearm and how to safely store it. These would have to be renewed and updated on a regular basis.
5. Expand Obamacare to include mental health treatment and mandate all private insurers to cover mental health.

This is not taking guns away but it would ensure responsibility, help make it harder for those with malicious intent to obtain firearms, and is well within the constraints of the Second Amendment.

EDIT: Here's Chris Rock talking about gun control. This was after Columbine in 1999 but it's still relevant:

[xmd 5a]

And why does gun control have to be a left v right issue? The Prime Minister who enacted the gun control legislation here was a climate change denialist, union-hating, right wing shithead who was ultra chummy with Bush and responsible for terrible xenophobic and homophobic policies. So hardline Republican material in other words.

[Hazekiah]

For anyone who missed this interesting and important detail:

Following hours of uncertainty during which many media outlets reported the shooter's identity as Ryan Lanza, officials identified the gunman as Adam Lanza. According to WNBC, Adam Lanza was carrying his brothers' identification, which led to the initial misidentification. Adam Lanza's brother, 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, is being questioned by police in New Jersey.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...#slide=1887056

[Presideo]

[Elke]

From what I can gather these shootings are happening in an ecosystem. There is no single solution be it more guns, gun control or access to mental health.

I think one thing that should become mandatory is for each teacher to get a proper introduction into teen and adolescent psychology. School shooters aren't always suffering from a mental illness, but the strain put on a growing and changing brain combined with n environmental factors (there are so many of them it's impossible to ever fully comprehend the phenomenon of school or workplace shootings completely) can lead a child with a healthy home life and no prior or developing illnesses to snap as easily as a child who actually is suffering from a mental illness. Understanding the psychology of teenagers and adolescents can lead to spotting early warning signs and taking them seriously.

[Shnoorum]

(flame suit on)

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

Looking back at my post it was a pretty ignorant thing to say and I appologize. However I can't help but feel animosity to all these murderers, regardless of why they did it. I just get tired of hearing about all these shootings and murders. It seems to just be getting worse and worse. At any rate, sorry for the comment and sorry to hear about your loss

[DigitalChaos]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

[DigitalChaos]

Dumbest stats ever. Look at rates, not absolute numbers. That's a classic trick that people use when trying to make a point that they are otherwise unable to. Only the gullible believe it.

Secondly, if you are concerned with "murder" you should look at... murder. Not a collection of things like suicide. Go look at homicide rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate


Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm...


Finally, this image also comes in a different flavor with a glock. Somehow, all the numbers are different. Anyone know where can I get a glock with that finish? It is hilarious.

[allegro]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

Yeah, but I guess at least one of those guns was a Glock. Nobody "needs" a Glock. Sure, they're "fun" to those of us who like to go shoot up old laptops at a range, but not "fun" enough to worry about keeping them legal. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if possession of anything bigger than a revolver got you 100 years in prison.

I own two revolvers. One is a .22, one is a .357. Each revolver holds exactly six bullets. Six. There is no magazine. If I run out of bullets, I have to stop and dump the spent shells and individually load six more bullets. Both revolvers are "double-action" which means all I have to do is pull a trigger to fire the revolver (I don't have to cock the gun). However, it takes several seconds to fire off each round. My point? It'd be pretty hard to knock off a shitload of people in a small amount of time with a six gun.

But GANG members are carrying Glocks and such, now. Why?

Scarface and his Little Friend. Looks "cool," and they don't have to actually "aim" (or be any good at shooting) - they just fire off a shitload of shots from a giant magazine.

Your best "protection" at home? Shotgun.

[allegro]

disregard, sorry.

[orestes]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.

[PooPooMeowChow]

EDit: shit double post.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Obamo gets inaugurated for 2nd term in Jan, gun control will be his first major legislation.

EDIT: Also, guess who doesn't care if guns are legal or not?

Criminals.....

[Presideo]

Dumbest stats ever. Look at rates, not absolute numbers. That's a classic trick that people use when trying to make a point that they are otherwise unable to. Only the gullible believe it.

Then give me stats that discredit that picture instead of childishly shrugging away facts as 'dumb'. Do you think gunshot deaths per capita look any better for the U.S?

Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm...

That's because those countries are models for gun control that the U.S should copy. There's a reason why Columbia and Mexico aren't listed; we don't want to be like them, we want to be like Japan and Great Britain.

Go back to comparing gun control to 20's-era prohibition and Chinese law, then backtrack on the statements for half a page. That worked really well for you before. But seriously, make a clear, concise argument instead of going all over the map with your rhetoric. Einstein once said that if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. You should take heed of that quote in the future.

[allegro]

Also, guess who doesn't care if guns are legal or not?

Criminals.....

Well, yeah, exactly. The gang members with guns get them from the same place they get the illegal drugs. It's just as easy to deliver giant crates of shiny brand-new assault weapons made in other countries as it is to deliver giant crates of marijuana, heroin and cocaine from other countries.

What's missing from this current discussion is that we feel really helpless to protect ourselves and our families from violence in this country. In the Chicago area, a woman stabbed her own 7-yr-old son *100 times* and then stabbed the 5-yr-old girl she was babysitting 50 times. In NYC, a nanny stabbed two little kids to death. Even the babysitters and nannies with a ton of good references can stab your kids to death? A sleepy little town in Connecticut isn't safe for Kindergarteners? This seems to be about much more than weapons; it seems like everything is off-kilter, nothing is safe. But, was it ever safe? I'm not sure. I was pretty much raised by babysitters, so when we read about babysitters stabbing children to death, my mother (who was a single mother who had to work) cries at the thought of it.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeah, but I guess at least one of those guns was a Glock. Nobody "needs" a Glock. Sure, they're "fun" to those of us who like to go shoot up old laptops at a range, but not "fun" enough to worry about keeping them legal. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if possession of anything bigger than a revolver got you 100 years in prison.

I own two revolvers. One is a .22, one is a .357. Each revolver holds exactly six bullets. Six. There is no magazine. If I run out of bullets, I have to stop and dump the spent shells and individually load six more bullets. Both revolvers are "double-action" which means all I have to do is pull a trigger to fire the revolver (I don't have to cock the gun). However, it takes several seconds to fire off each round. My point? It'd be pretty hard to knock off a shitload of people in a small amount of time with a six gun.

But GANG members are carrying Glocks and such, now. Why?

Scarface and his Little Friend. Looks "cool," and they don't have to actually "aim" (or be any good at shooting) - they just fire off a shitload of shots from a giant magazine.

Your best "protection" at home? Shotgun.

You just described why a glock is better for home defense Faster to go from locked gun to loaded when you need it. Unless you are one of those people who keep a loaded gun around the house?

Glocks perform on par with guns 2-4x the price. That is why tons of people have them, not just criminals. Hell, that's exactly why I bought one If you want to use the guilt by association fallacy, you might want to know that revolvers are THE most commonly confiscated guns.

[DigitalChaos]

A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.

...
dude took his mom's 2 handguns (Glock and Sig) and a 22 rifle. I recall that he left the rifle in the car and did the damage with the handguns? Doesn't really matter though. The rifle was also legally owned by his mom.

Many people are looking to go after handguns with their emotional response (see "god bless america" graphic a few posts up)

[DigitalChaos]

Then give me stats that discredit that picture instead of childishly shrugging away facts as 'dumb'. Do you think gunshot deaths per capita look any better for the U.S?

"I can't prove my point without heavy flaws. Can you prove anything against my point so I don't have to make a solid case? I don't understand how burden of proof works."

[slave2thewage]

Why on earth would you need a handgun to protect your home? You have knives and frying pans to knock them out just hanging ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' PLACE.

[Presideo]

"I can't prove my point without heavy flaws. Can you prove anything against my point so I don't have to make a solid case? I don't understand how burden of proof works."

Facts = Heavy Flaws? This is news to me. Maybe it's my "LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN" that you don't like. Again, show evidence into why those facts are wrong. If I give you stats, you've gotta give me something solid to debase my stats if you want to discredit them. You can't just say, "Those stats are dumb because they don't adhere to my side of the story." This isn't elementary school.

Also, do you really think you need more than six bullets to defend yourself in a home invasion? Do you think it's a movie? One bullet is a warning shot, which usually gets an intruder to leave (they want your valuables, not a gunfight.) The other five shouldn't be fired unless you're sure you can fatally wound the intruder. If you don't hit him in five shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place; you clearly don't know how to use it.

[DigitalChaos]

Well, yeah, exactly. The gang members with guns get them from the same place they get the illegal drugs. It's just as easy to deliver giant crates of shiny brand-new assault weapons made in other countries as it is to deliver giant crates of marijuana, heroin and cocaine from other countries.

What's missing from this current discussion is that we feel really helpless to protect ourselves and our families from violence in this country. In the Chicago area, a woman stabbed her own 7-yr-old son *100 times* and then stabbed the 5-yr-old girl she was babysitting 50 times. In NYC, a nanny stabbed two little kids to death. Even the babysitters and nannies with a ton of good references can stab your kids to death? A sleepy little town in Connecticut isn't safe for Kindergarteners? This seems to be about much more than weapons; it seems like everything is off-kilter, nothing is safe. But, was it ever safe? I'm not sure. I was pretty much raised by babysitters, so when we read about babysitters stabbing children to death, my mother (who was a single mother who had to work) cries at the thought of it.

exactly. the issue that has everyone up in arms* goes WAY beyond guns.



*lol

[DigitalChaos]

Facts = Heavy Flaws? This is news to me. Maybe it's my "LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN" that you don't like. Again, show evidence into why those facts are wrong. If I give you stats, you've gotta give me something solid to debase my stats if you want to discredit them. You can't just say, "Those stats are dumb because they don't adhere to my side of the story." This isn't elementary school.

Also, do you really think you need more than six bullets to defend yourself in a home invasion? Do you think it's a movie? One bullet is a warning shot, which usually gets an intruder to leave (they want your valuables, not a gunfight.) The other five shouldn't be fired unless you're sure you can fatally wound the intruder. If you don't hit him in five shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place; you clearly don't know how to use it.

It's ok dude. I wasn't expecting you to back yourself up with solid data. My point was that your data is heavily flawed. I already explained why. Do tell me about elementary school while trying to make your point with pictures again!

Your views of "home defense" are insanely lacking. A "warning shot"?!?! You must know very little about gun laws. Ironic, considering you seem to want more of them. You do not brandish a gun (or fire it for that matter) unless you are going to kill someone. Intent to kill someone in self-defense has a very strict set of requirements. Otherwise, you land in jail. If you feel a "warning shot" is sufficient (compared to killing) means you do NOT meet the requirements. Your dumb ass would be in jail in most states. :lol: You must also have no idea that you are responsible for EVERY bullet you fire. Bullets go far. "Warning shot" is more like "I accidentally shot someone that I didn't intend."

wow... Please do tell me more about your expert view in home defense! You are basically a text generator for this thing http://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Wonka/

[Presideo]

It's ok dude. I wasn't expecting you to back yourself up with solid data. My point was that your data is heavily flawed. I already explained why. Do tell me about elementary school while trying to make your point with pictures again!

You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates (I'm sure you have them next to your Glock and bible - I'll wait for you to get them.)

Your views of "home defense" are insanely lacking. A "warning shot"?!?! You must know very little about gun laws. Ironic, considering you seem to want more of them. You do not brandish a gun (or fire it for that matter) unless you are going to kill someone. Intent to kill someone in self-defense has a very strict set of requirements. Otherwise, you land in jail. If you feel a "warning shot" is sufficient (compared to killing) means you do NOT meet the requirements. Your dumb ass would be in jail in most states. :lol: You must also have no idea that you are responsible for EVERY bullet you fire. Bullets go far. "Warning shot" is more like "I accidentally shot someone that I didn't intend."

If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws. If you have to worry about every legality levied on firing a gun in a time of survival, why have one in the first place?

wow... Please do tell me more about your expert view in home defense! You are basically a text generator for this thing http://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Wonka/

There's this cool website called Reddit that might be more your speed. Go back to the kid table and leave the adults to their discussion.

[Magtig]

The shooter used four handguns at the school; the .223 rifle was left in the car, but here's the real shocker: he was really intelligent and had a history of mental illness.

edit: Also, he tried to legally buy an assault rifle several days before the attack, and was rebuffed.

[jessamineny]

The reported facts keep changing -- they're saying now that the assault rifle was actually inside the school and used in the shooting. There was a fourth gun in the car.

You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates

He had a link to them in his original post. Scroll down to the chart "By country" and then sort "Rate" by "descending"

[DigitalChaos]

You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates (I'm sure you have them next to your Glock and bible - I'll wait for you to get them.)


If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws. If you have to worry about every legality levied on firing a gun in a time of survival, why have one in the first place?


There's this cool website called Reddit that might be more your speed. Go back to the kid table and leave the adults to their discussion.

"glock and bible" ahahah. Yea..... no. I enjoy your sophomoric attempts to stereotype. I bet that counts as quality debate for you. Such an "adult"!!! I already linked you to intentional homocide rates. That, alone, destroys your hyperbolic pictures.

Yea, who expects a responsible adult to know the laws. Laws are are too hard to read. Can't they make them in picture format? I don't know what the current laws are but... Eh fuck it, give me more laws!


please continue. I just got some more awesome quotes from you. "If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws" may indeed be the best one yet from someone wanting more gun laws.

[DigitalChaos]

The shooter used four handguns at the school; the .223 rifle was left in the car, but here's the real shocker: he was really intelligent and had a history of mental illness.

edit: Also, he tried to legally buy an assault rifle several days before the attack, and was rebuffed.

Yea, stuff keeps changing. So far it still looks like all guns were legally acquired (aka the gun control "worked").
The mental illness part is a very big part. Why do so many people take the incredibly selfish stance of "taking guns away will fix the problem"?? Very few are concerned with helping the people who have mental illness. Nevermind the fact that many of these people are bent on causing harm, with or without guns. A crazy idea would be to make mental care more easy to access than guns are... and NOT by increasing the barrier to guns because you think it protects YOU.

A much better handling of mental health would fix so many other issues in this country.

[Presideo]

He had a link to them in his original post. Scroll down to the chart "By country" and then sort "Rate" by "descending"

Ok, I did the legwork. Here's the homicide rates for the countries mentioned in my image.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.6
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.2

This supports my original image, it doesn't discredit it. I assumed he had stats to discredit the image.

[DigitalChaos]

Ok, I did the legwork. Here's the homicide rates for the countries mentioned in my image.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.6
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.2

This supports my original image, it doesn't discredit it. I assumed he had stats to discredit the image.

The numbers aren't so hyperbolic, are they?
Gun control is good. I don't know anyone who will disagree with gun control with those numbers. Don't go spreading around insanely flawed data, it discredits you and everyone else trying to make the case.

[Tiz]

If this tragedy does not evoke serious gun control reform -- what will?