Children shot and killed at Connecticut school

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Interesting. Do you hold the same view for the NRA?

I'm not a member of the NRA, nor am I a supporter of the NRA. While they are right on many issues, they are wrong on others. They primarily lobby to support the rights of hunters and sport shooters and use the 2nd Amendment as a vehicle to do so. They do not however support the 2nd Amendment in its totality and have proven as much when they remained quiet during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and while they supported legislation like the National Firearms Act.

As others have surely said, the American 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

All that said, the two organizations are quite different. One is trying to restrict an enumerated and constitutionally protected right, the other is not.

As such, a higher burden must be placed on the organization that attempts to restrict a freedom than should be placed on the group that attempts to preserve it.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

I agree, it only works for legal gun owners. The criminals and gang bangers will find a way to purchase a firearm.

But where would they get such firearms, if they weren't sold legally in the first place? Please note that I'm not advocating anything about the Constitutionality, morality, whatever, of gun ownership - I'm just exploring the argument that making guns illegal will not do anything to reduce the number of guns posessed and used by criminals. As far as I can tell, and Mak47's post reinforces my thought on this, most illegally used guns were at one time legal. Therefore, it seems perfect logical that a reduction of legal gun sales will eventually lead to a reduction illegal gun use. Not immediately, and to an uncertain degree, but certainly eventually a reduction.

----------

Originally Posted by Mak47

The vast majority of legal gun sales go to perfectly qualified individuals for their own personal and lawful use.

Illegal weapons come from various sources. Guns that are stolen from legal gun owners, guns that are trafficked into the country illegally and straw purchases. A straw purchase is when someone who is qualified buys a gun, but has no intention of keeping it for themselves, instead they intend to give it to a prohitibed person who may have bribed them to make the purchase.

Thank you very much for your response. Do you happen to know a general number for the percentage of guns in the USA as a result of international trafficking?

[million7]

Originally Posted by Mak47

That's an interesting idea, but it doesn't solve the problem. As we can see based on the number of gun deaths in Chicago, despite all of their gun control efforts.

The only way it would work would be to actually establish manufacturing standards, thereby removing those guns from production altogether.

Simply prohibiting legal ownership does nothing, criminals are already prohibited from owning guns of any type and shooting people is also quite illegal. That doesn't stop them from doing these things.

I agree with you on the Chicago thing.

But the Manufacturing part wont work since criminals will find a way to bring guns inside the country from Mexico and other countries where guns are available.

[OneMike]

Originally Posted by elistan

But where would they get such firearms, if they weren't sold legally in the first place? Please note that I'm not advocating anything about the Constitutionality, morality, whatever, of gun ownership - I'm just exploring the argument that making guns illegal will not do anything to reduce the number of guns posessed and used by criminals. As far as I can tell, and Mak47's post reinforces my thought on this, most illegally used guns were at one time legal. Therefore, it seems perfect logical that a reduction of legal gun sales will eventually lead to a reduction illegal gun use. Not immediately, and to an uncertain degree, but certainly eventually a reduction.

Based on your message one would assume there are no drug addicts and illegal drugs in America. I think that's a perfect comparison, because in both cases there are existing laws. Law abiding people are following them. Go after the people that don't follow the law and you'll fix most of the problem.

[obeygiant]

I think everyone knows here that banning something outright doesn't decrease its availability. As long there still is a constitution and a 2nd amendment there will be guns in the US

[WestonHarvey1]

Question for all of you who think we need to "do something" about the guns - what do you think you can accomplish?

We defenders of gun rights have had major victories in the courts in the last decade. Every time you push us, we seem to win, and your losses are permanently enshrined in legal precedent.

You want to ban "assault weapons"? Let's say you succeed at the federal level. What will you win? You'll get a new "assault weapons" ban. It's almost guaranteed to sunset after 10 years. So what do you get for 10 years?

Did you know that the federal government only has the authority to prevent sales of new "assault weapons", and cannot regulate private individuals exchanging existing firearms with each other? Do you realize the weapons that exist today, exist in great numbers, and are so durable and repairable that they'll easily outlast your 10 year ban?

If you want to ban ownership, period, you'll have to do that at a state by state level. Do you really think you can accomplish that? And do you really think you'll get a confiscation law, and not just a "no new sales" law? We gun owners are, at this very moment, buying up all the scary-looking black rifles we can. We're stocking up in anticipation of what you're trying to pull. What are you going to do about that? How does it feel to know you've inspired so many new gun purchases?

And what's the cost? You're not going to see any reduction in shootings. If you're intellectually honest, you'll admit that to yourselves. Columbine happened during the last Assault Weapons Ban. What you are going to do is annoy gun owners, who are more numerous and powerful than ever before - and there is going to be political hell to pay.

We'll come out of this momentary burden even stronger, and with more rights. And you'll be very sad and frustrated. I hope you know what you're in for.

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by elistan

But where would they get such firearms, if they weren't sold legally in the first place? Please note that I'm not advocating anything about the Constitutionality, morality, whatever, of gun ownership - I'm just exploring the argument that making guns illegal will not do anything to reduce the number of guns posessed and used by criminals. As far as I can tell, and Mak47's post reinforces my thought on this, most illegally used guns were at one time legal. Therefore, it seems perfect logical that a reduction of legal gun sales will eventually lead to a reduction illegal gun use. Not immediately, and to an uncertain degree, but certainly eventually a reduction.

There are a few things to consider here, and please note that I respect that you're approaching this from a logical perspective and not one based on emotion and fear.

First, most estimates put the number of legally owned firearms in the US at 280 million. I believe that number is low. This means that there is still a huge stockpile of legally owned weapons that criminals can steal and later use in crimes or resell illegally. This number is far higher than the number of gun crimes that would conceivably committed in hundreds of years.

Eliminating legal gun sales does nothing to stop the flow of illegal guns, which would likely increase upon such a ban. Criminal organizations have no problem smuggling drugs into the country, it's unlikely that they'll have any additional trouble smuggling guns in.

Any law put in place would allow currently owned firearms to be "grandfathered" in. Ownership would remain legal and as such, transfer of ownership would remain legal. You cannot own something and not have the legal right to sell it. Therefore, sales of firearms would continue in some capacity.

If the transfer/sale of legally owned firearms were prohibited, then they would simply move to a newly prosperous black market. Again, drug sales are illegal, prostitution is illegal, selling bootleg DVD's or knock off handbags is illegal--but all of these things still happen. Guns would be no different.

Where I'm going with this is that we can have our current system, where criminals are prohibited from buying guns and must do so through a small underground network--or we can move the entire thing to the black market where it will be entirely unmanageable.

[balamw]

MOD NOTE: I've re-merged the threads as it became clear that keeping them apart wasn't working. The non-gun thread kept drifting back to guns.

B

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by million7

I agree with you on the Chicago thing.

But the Manufacturing part wont work since criminals will find a way to bring guns inside the country from Mexico and other countries where guns are available.

In the case of a total ban on production of all guns, I would agree.

What I suggest is a manufacturing standard that would eliminate only the super-cheap pistols --"Saturday Night Specials" --from legitimate production.

While it could simply move some illegal gun purchases to the black market, it would at least get them out of gun shops where they're readily available to aspiring young gang-bangers and straw purchasers.

It would be a standard that wouldn't affect legitimate gun owners at all, because we don't have any interest in those guns, but could have some impact, however minor it may be on crime.

Personally, I'd prefer we do away with all gun laws, including the one I suggested--but it doesn't look like that's going to happen--so if we must have some form of legislation, it might as well be something that could potentially have a positive impact without infringing on the rights and practices of law abiding gun owners.

[million7]

Think of it like this

1.The Poor would suffer from a gun ban the most.
2.They live in poor neighborhoods, which are infested with drug dealers and criminals. And house break-ins, robberies and RAPE are rampant.

- If someone breaks in to a poor person's home with a gun, what are the ways of protecting themselves and family?
- If a poor woman is about to get raped by a creepy pervert with a knife or gun, how can she prevent the rape from happening?

If they called 911, the police would take on average 10-25 minutes to come to the rescue. Ample time for a rape or robbery to take place.

Violent criminals and Rapists only prey on the weak who can't protect themselves,

if guns are banned the poor will be disproportionately subject to rapes and robberies.

I know it's cool to say "Ban the Guns" when you live in the suburbs where the only thing you fear is whether or not you should get the White or Black iPhone.
But think of the poor just this one time...

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

And what's the cost? You're not going to see any reduction in shootings. If you're intellectually honest, you'll admit that to yourselves. Columbine happened during the last Assault Weapons Ban. What you are going to do is annoy gun owners, who are more numerous and powerful than ever before - and there is going to be political hell to pay.

We'll come out of this momentary burden even stronger, and with more rights. And you'll be very sad and frustrated. I hope you know what you're in for.

This isn't about winning or losing. It's about trying to find a solution to a problem that we so obviously have.

The problem in this case, and with this country as a whole, is that everyone is so firm in their stance and refuses to budge at all. It shouldn't be reduced to a right / left , conservative / liberal , pro-gun / anti-gun fight. We should all be fighting to make this country a better and safer place for our children to grow up in.

Banning guns totally is completely unrealistic and most of us realize this. We also realize that we need to do something about mental health care for the citizens of this country. Some of this could have been prevented had people stepped in and done what they were supposed to do.

Also, some of these could have been prevented (or at least lessened the severity) had gun owners been more responsible. Where did the Columbine kids get their weapons from? Where did Adam Lanza? What can we do to ensure that these weapons don't end up in the wrong hands? And not just for these killing sprees - but in the cases of accidental shootings and suicides.

Ignoring the outlying issues and focusing on only guns isn't going to help. And neither is ignoring the guns and focusing on the outlying issues.

I also wonder what you mean when you say you'll come out with more rights. What more do you want?

[million7]

Originally Posted by Mak47

Personally, I'd prefer we do away with all gun laws, including the one I suggested--but it doesn't look like that's going to happen--so if we must have some form of legislation, it might as well be something that could potentially have a positive impact without infringing on the rights and practices of law abiding gun owners.

This! Yea your exactly right!
They're going to do something about it in the form of legislation. So I guess what people like us can do is offer up some common sense ideas, instead of a full on ban.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by million7

1.The Poor would suffer from a gun ban the most.

They would?

Originally Posted by million7

2.They live in poor neighborhoods, which are infested with drug dealers

So legalise drugs.

Originally Posted by million7

And house break-ins, robberies and RAPE are rampant.

- If someone breaks in to a poor person's home with a gun, what are the ways of protecting themselves and family?
- If a poor woman is about to get raped by a creepy pervert with a knife or gun, how can she prevent the rape from happening?

Source on the number of RAPE's prevented by gun ownership?

Originally Posted by million7

If they called 911, the police would take on average 10-25 minutes to come to the rescue. Ample time for a rape or robbery to take place.

Not for rape they won't.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

The problem in this case, and with this country as a whole, is that everyone is so firm in their stance and refuses to budge at all. It shouldn't be reduced to a right / left , conservative / liberal , pro-gun / anti-gun fight. We should all be fighting to make this country a better and safer place for our children to grow up in.

I'm not being political when I say I want schools to have an armed response available if anyone comes in with intent to kill. I don't care how people want to implement it, but I want it implemented. That's not so my politics are affirmed. Being against this is like banning vaccines in the middle of a plague, and complaining about people dying. It's baffling. We all seem to agree that police should have guns. So put police in the schools, put armed guards in the schools, arm teachers, arm faculty. Pick one, any or all. But this deliberate, willful helplessness is insane and immoral.

Banning guns totally is completely unrealistic and most of us realize this. We also realize that we need to do something about mental health care for the citizens of this country. Some of this could have been prevented had people stepped in and done what they were supposed to do.

Agree on mental health care.

Also, some of these could have been prevented (or at least lessened the severity) had gun owners been more responsible. Where did the Columbine kids get their weapons from? Where did Adam Lanza? What can we do to ensure that these weapons don't end up in the wrong hands? And not just for these killing sprees - but in the cases of accidental shootings and suicides.

All gun owners should be hyper vigilant and responsible. I don't know how you enforce this, though. In the gun community we enforce it through shaming, when we see a friend doing something stupid. Most legal solutions proposed sound intrusive and unconstitutional.

I also wonder what you mean when you say you'll come out with more rights. What more do you want?

In Illinois, for instance, just having any meaningful ability to defend myself outside my home would be nice. We've almost won that in the courts, but this shooting has emboldened our governor and Rahm so they'll be delaying the inevitable by going to the Supreme Court.

[dscuber9000]

Originally Posted by million7

Think of it like this

1.The Poor would suffer from a gun ban the most.
2.They live in poor neighborhoods, which are infested with drug dealers and criminals. And house break-ins, robberies and RAPE are rampant.

- If someone breaks in to a poor person's home with a gun, what are the ways of protecting themselves and family?
- If a poor woman is about to get raped by a creepy pervert with a knife or gun, how can she prevent the rape from happening?

If they called 911, the police would take on average 10-25 minutes to come to the rescue. Ample time for a rape or robbery to take place.

Violent criminals and Rapists only prey on the weak who can't protect themselves,

if guns are banned the poor will be disproportionately subject to rapes and robberies.

I know it's cool to say "Ban the Guns" when you live in the suburbs where the only thing you fear is whether or not you should get the White or Black iPhone.
But think of the poor just this one time...

A total gun ban would be a disaster, yes. A normal U.S. citizen should be able to protect him/herself with a gun, and that's where the logic and necessity of the 2nd amendment comes from.

However, there obviously HAVE to be some limitations, just like there are some limitations on free speech. Background checks need to ALWAYS be done (not just 60% of the time), potential gun-owners need to be trained in caring and storing guns, and there need to be harsh penalties against people who do NOT properly store their gun.

There is a good compromise somewhere.

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by elistan

Thank you very much for your response. Do you happen to know a general number for the percentage of guns in the USA as a result of international trafficking?

I don't know a number and there isn't much publicly available information to go on. By definition, illegally trafficked guns are off the books.

Given the growing influence of militarized Mexican drug cartels in the Southwestern US, it stands to reason that the number of these guns is growing. Those weapons, while sometimes smuggled into Mexico from US straw-purchases, come largely from Central and South America, where they are acquired from sources like North Korea, Former Communist Bloc states and other illicit international arms traders.

[million7]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

They would?

They would...

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So legalise drugs.

Yes Legalize them!!! All drugs for that matter, not the ones you prefer.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Source on the number of RAPE's prevented by gun ownership?

I don't need a source, I'm using common sense, If I was a woman being raped I think I'd rather have a gun in my purse than not. And many women carry guns in their purse for protection.
The gun gives the woman a sense of power and independence.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Not for rape they won't.

How do you know? have you raped someone before? lol just kidding
But guessing by how long it takes for a man to "relieve himself" these days I'm guessing that's enough time.

----------

Originally Posted by dscuber9000

just like there are some limitations on free speech.

What are some limitations on free speech?

[dscuber9000]

Originally Posted by million7

What are some limitations on free speech?

Hate speech, libel, slander, obscenity, copyright violation, etc.

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by million7

This! Yea your exactly right!
They're going to do something about it in the form of legislation. So I guess what people like us can do is offer up some common sense ideas, instead of a full on ban.

Agreed. Sadly, I don't think there will be much of an ear for common sense in the coming debate. What will happen is that the anti-gun side will push for strict regulations that they can't pass through congress in the first place. The pro-gun side will insist on making no changes at all.

In the end, we'll have no action.

I'm a gun owner and a vehement supporter of the 2nd Amendment. We have the infrastructure and technology today to implement an entirely new system and make many positive changes that could be consistent nationwide, but unless both sides are willing to consider new ideas, nothing will change.

The only idea coming from the left is a reinstitution of the 1994 AWB, which did nothing to prevent crime. The talking points I'm hearing on the right revolve around arming teachers and reinstituting school prayer. None of these ideas are going anywhere.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by Mak47

I'm a gun owner and a vehement supporter of the 2nd Amendment. We have the infrastructure and technology today to implement an entirely new system and make many positive changes that could be consistent nationwide, but unless both sides are willing to consider new ideas, nothing will change.

The only idea coming from the left is a reinstitution of the 1994 AWB, which did nothing to prevent crime. The talking points I'm hearing on the right revolve around arming teachers and reinstituting school prayer. None of these ideas are going anywhere.

Then why aren't you talking about armed security in our schools? That's a real idea, and the only one that will have any real effect.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by k995

...ANd how big is a typical magazine of such an assault rifle compared to a normal pistol or handgun? Let alone what is max capable.

There are magazines for the AR-15 that can hold 100 rounds. I think the max for a 9mm is the 33 round magazine that Jared Loughner used.

Originally Posted by NickZac

...Do you honestly think that the European model will work in the US?

No. But, I wonder about the Australian buyback program which appears to have had a sharp affect on the number of gun deaths and suicides.

Something for everyone to keep in mind is that the US can choose the best program or option, but that's not the only way to do it and gun control isn't the only tool we have for this problem. There's a tendency to make a simple argument that an outright ban won't work and think the conversation is finished. It's not. Some bans, such as the limit on fully-automatic firearms, works quite well.

Also, keep in mind that the weakness of the AWB was by design.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

...Virtually every modern handgun which has a magazine (i.e. not a revolver) is a "semi auto", as are many rifles (as opposed to bolt or lever action, etc.).

The public, through (deliberate, I believe) misinformation or fuzzy reporting, simply reacts to the evil sounding words, without any knowledge of what the real differences are.

Guns aren't particularly special in this regard. There's confusion about all manner of subjects, which is why it's important for reporters to be clear about terminology and then boil away the jargon.

Gun folks can harm their case in this regard, however, by making arguments such as the one that the 5.56mm is a "weak" round or that the AWB wouldn't work because the AR-15 can easily be converted to full-auto by any decent gunsmith.

I think it's a good time for gun folks to decide what they're more worried about, better registration and backgrounds (which could include licensing) or bans.

Originally Posted by rdowns

A well thought out post but it just doesn't work for me. First, can we please bury this 200 year old canard about fighting government tyranny? We have police departments that are better armed than many nations. Second, from what I've seen, the pro-gun crowd is disinterested in fighting the government on anything other than gun laws.

Yeah, I don't trust the argument either. Those who hold the Second Amendment as sacrosanct while disavowing the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments won't be on the frontline of a future revolution.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Mak47

Those weapons, while sometimes smuggled into Mexico from US straw-purchases, come largely from Central and South America,

Source? I was watching a BBC documentary who claimed the opposite.

Originally Posted by million7

Yes Legalize them!!! All drugs for that matter, not the ones you prefer.

This is a position I agree with.

Originally Posted by million7

I don't need a source, I'm using common sense, If I was a woman being raped I think I'd rather have a gun in my purse than not. And many women carry guns in their purse for protection.

This is true, but if this kind of event doesn't actually occur then it isn't really very useful. I agree that if substantial numbers of women are empowered by owning a gun and carrying one then that is probably worthwhile - if they know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by million7

What are some limitations on free speech?

EDIT: dscuber9000 puts it better.

[Mak47]

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

Then why aren't you talking about armed security in our schools? That's a real idea, and the only one that will have any real effect.

Let's talk about it.

My only concern with this is how far does it go? Do we have naked body scanners in the halls? Do these solutions get implemented everywhere a mass shooting takes place? Will I have to submit to a search and groping every time I go to the movies? Will my children be felt up by security personnel when they go to school each day?

At what point are we trading too much liberty for security?

An armed security patrol in each school is not a bad idea, even better would be if it were staffed by volunteer parents or off duty police.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by million7

They would...

Sorry, that wasn't reasonable of me to say.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by Mak47

Let's talk about it.

My only concern with this is how far does it go? Do we have naked body scanners in the halls? Do these solutions get implemented everywhere a mass shooting takes place? Will I have to submit to a search and groping every time I go to the movies? Will my children be felt up by security personnel when they go to school each day?

At what point are we trading too much liberty for security?

An armed security patrol in each school is not a bad idea, even better would be if it were staffed by volunteer parents or off duty police.

The beauty of allowing conceal carry by teachers/faculty is that it *is* liberty. Right now, laws are in place that deny them that liberty.