Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#511 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

Difference is, if your are drinking and driving you will get arrested. If you have a gun, there is nothing punitive until after you kill someone.

Also, as I have said several times, there isn't an epidemic of people getting into cars with a sole purpose of killing others. The vast majority of people that die in car crashes did not set out to crash their car that day. If they did I would be on board with stricter car regulations and the banning of certain cars.

Also comparing an object of transportation with an object of death is not a really strong comparison in my opinion.


Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.


So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.

#512 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,494 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:24 PM

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.


So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.


There is some truth to what you are saying. But people aren't taking bottles of Vodka and throwing them at kids and killing them.

That is also why there is preventative measures like making it illegal to drive while you are fugged up.

With guns they only arrest you after you kill a bunch of people, with alcohol they try to arrest you before that can happen.

#513 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,724 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:30 PM

Guns are designed to do one thing, kill things.

Alcohol is designed to do one thing, impair people.


So why don't we ban alcohol, if it is sold with the sole purpose of causing a huge risk to both those that consume it, and those that are just at the wrong place at the wrong time when someone consumes too much and kills them? Alcohol serves no other purpose other than to fug you up.

Because in America there are things that have an inherent risk that we trust the citizens to take care of responsibly, and when one of those citizens doesn't do that, it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to fug everybody else.


Firearms and alcohol when used responsibly (not together) are unlikely to pose a threat to innocent bystanders.

Both firearms and alcohol are safer today because of federal, state and local government regulations.

Current federal, state and local regulations for firearms are still not sufficient and need to be revised.

#514 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:34 AM

There is some truth to what you are saying. But people aren't taking bottles of Vodka and throwing them at kids and killing them.

That is also why there is preventative measures like making it illegal to drive while you are fugged up.

With guns they only arrest you after you kill a bunch of people, with alcohol they try to arrest you before that can happen.


There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.

#515 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,102 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:39 AM

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.


Very rational and logical response...well done.

Given that, I am interested in seeing your views on improving the laws around purchasing and owning firearms.

1 We all know that laws around purchasing firearms is very inconsistent across state lines and is lacking (especially the Gun Show Loophole). Would you be in favor of more consistent laws....requiring backgroudn checks and a waiting period?

2. What do you think about requiring people to be required to take and pass a gun safety/ownership course to purchase them? Maybe a periodic renewal.....like we do for a driver's license.

I agree with you that banning guns is not the answer. But, I also agree with many here that the regulations around purchasing and owning guns does need some work.

#516 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,311 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:59 AM

My proposal has been, based on what someone purchases and the frequency etc, let that drive the scrutiny. Take the mom of Adam here. As she buys what she buys let that raise a red flag and then some questions have to be asked.

I have seen alot of people mention a yearly renewal and gun courses etc or paying fees or taxes and to a point thats fine. It still doesn't get at the heart of someone.

If you buy body armor or high powered rifles and or ammo, you will get a certified letter in the mail and you will have an appointmen. Fill out a form and various questions are asked.
If you pass the mental illness piece or criminal record piece you can move forward. You will be asked if you have kids and as delicate as you can let the person doing the interview ask questions to at least see if they can get a sense of the person. Make notes and much like social worker create a file and go from there.

The state of CT had supposedly good gun laws and yet this happened. Everything from buying the guns etc were done legally.



I want to go back to the drunk driving part again because I brought that up early on. The sheer # of deaths that happen with DD is light years worse than random killings. It's not even close. But the social stigma is significantly skewed towards gun deaths? The reason?
Most everyone drives a car or may have something to drink. At some level more are connected with that.

But as a society, from 1982 and on, we had to make social and cultural changes. Cars and alcohol wasn't banned, but meaures were put in place to counter all the deaths that were going on. It was close to 30k a year dying.Think about that staggering #.

The 3 common denominators at play here are this. Mental Illness. Guns and violent video games. All three can remain while all three can be tweaked from a social lense as well as how, who and when a person is given or exposed to each.

#517 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:53 AM

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.



Well stated!

#518 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:25 AM

Very rational and logical response...well done.

Given that, I am interested in seeing your views on improving the laws around purchasing and owning firearms.

1 We all know that laws around purchasing firearms is very inconsistent across state lines and is lacking (especially the Gun Show Loophole). Would you be in favor of more consistent laws....requiring backgroudn checks and a waiting period?

2. What do you think about requiring people to be required to take and pass a gun safety/ownership course to purchase them? Maybe a periodic renewal.....like we do for a driver's license.

I agree with you that banning guns is not the answer. But, I also agree with many here that the regulations around purchasing and owning guns does need some work.


Didn't ask me, but I'm going to play along =)

1. The Gun Show Loophole (unless I'm missing something about it) doesn't seem to be addressing the real issue, or addressing it well enough... I try to ask myself how closing that loophole would have helped to prevent any of the recent shootings, and I simply don't know that there is a correlation, and don't believe the loophole would be effective... I'm fine with closing it, I just don't think it addresses the issue in that none of the recent shootings (to my knowledge that is, and I could be wrong) had their firearms obtained in that manner... It's like saying there were 12000 alcohol related deaths, so we need to close Buffalo Wild Wings... I just don't think it addresses the problem adequately... But I'm in favor of it (not closing BWW), and it's a start... I think point #2 could have more effective results...

2. We have to have licenses for fishing, hunting, driving, and tons of other things, but don't have to have one to own a firearm... I think that requiring a license for the purchase of any firearm is a good start... Obtaining that license needs to be a comprehensive process of a background check, education and potentially some sort of psych evaluation (even if it's just cookie cutter questions it's more than we have now)... Gun safety education should be mandatory, IMO, and should include not only safe handling of the weapon, but also should educate on safe storage and responsible ownership...

I also think that the gun industry could help out a bit as well going forward (this would not address the guns currently out there, of course)... I think that more innovative safety measures could be included into weapons going forward... Imagine if you didn't need an actual 'gun lock' to make your weapon inoperable... Perhaps a locking mechanism on the trigger that could only be deactivated by matched key, or one that would make it impossible for the hammer to engage the firing pin, or load the weapon... Now that's just an off the top of my head idea, and not practical for legacy firearms of course, but the hallmark of mankind has been innovation, and I'm sure that there are answers to be had...

#519 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,141 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

*great post*



Thank you for that.
Well said.

#520 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,102 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:55 AM

Didn't ask me, but I'm going to play along =)

1. The Gun Show Loophole (unless I'm missing something about it) doesn't seem to be addressing the real issue, or addressing it well enough... I try to ask myself how closing that loophole would have helped to prevent any of the recent shootings, and I simply don't know that there is a correlation, and don't believe the loophole would be effective... I'm fine with closing it, I just don't think it addresses the issue in that none of the recent shootings (to my knowledge that is, and I could be wrong) had their firearms obtained in that manner... It's like saying there were 12000 alcohol related deaths, so we need to close Buffalo Wild Wings... I just don't think it addresses the problem adequately... But I'm in favor of it (not closing BWW), and it's a start... I think point #2 could have more effective results...

2. We have to have licenses for fishing, hunting, driving, and tons of other things, but don't have to have one to own a firearm... I think that requiring a license for the purchase of any firearm is a good start... Obtaining that license needs to be a comprehensive process of a background check, education and potentially some sort of psych evaluation (even if it's just cookie cutter questions it's more than we have now)... Gun safety education should be mandatory, IMO, and should include not only safe handling of the weapon, but also should educate on safe storage and responsible ownership...

I also think that the gun industry could help out a bit as well going forward (this would not address the guns currently out there, of course)... I think that more innovative safety measures could be included into weapons going forward... Imagine if you didn't need an actual 'gun lock' to make your weapon inoperable... Perhaps a locking mechanism on the trigger that could only be deactivated by matched key, or one that would make it impossible for the hammer to engage the firing pin, or load the weapon... Now that's just an off the top of my head idea, and not practical for legacy firearms of course, but the hallmark of mankind has been innovation, and I'm sure that there are answers to be had...


I agree with you 100% on all accounts. My point about the Gun Show Loophole was as an example of an issue.

I think that regulations and policies over gun purchase and ownership should be the same....across states, no matter who the seller, etc.

#521 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,102 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

I agree with you 100% on all accounts. My point about the Gun Show Loophole was as an example of an issue.

I think that regulations and policies over gun purchase and ownership should be the same....across states, no matter who the seller, etc.



#522 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 10:05 AM

I have a 12 Ga pump shot gun. Its probably the most popular choice for home defense. Mine is a Benelli nova that has a capacity of 7 rounds, but it is plugged for Duck Hunting so 3 rounds max. Even After I shoot 3 rounds I can reload all 3 shells in less than 5 seconds if I'm wearing my ammo belt/ vest.

Assuming I had my ammo belt/vest on I would have about 35 rnds of quick access ammo plus 3 in gun for a total of 38. Lets say I shoot 3 rnds in 10 seconds(actually targeting stuff). So basically I can shoot 38 rnds of buckshot in 3 mins and 15 seconds give or take. Thats a lot of destruction. So yeah Assault weapons be darned. Sure I wouldnt' want to face a guy wielding a Assault Rifle vs my shot gun but this isn't a face off its a guy going into a unprotected area firing on defenseless people. I'm not saying a shot gun is as effective in a massacre as a Assault Rile but It wouldn't be far off. So would you ban shot guns. As it has been mentioned before you could take 2 6shooters (revolvers) Western Style and do pretty much the same thing. You cannot control guns enough to stop this unless its a full ban on all weapons and that'll never happen. Ok so a gunman killed 15 instead of 25. Its terrible either way no matter who's child it is.
I'm just posting this because people see Assault RIfle and assume its ripping through people like a mounted 50. Cal Machine gun.

He shot one kid 11 times? The guy is sick that had nothing to do with the weapon being an assault rifle. With buck shot its entirely possible he could have killed multiple victims with alot less shots to.

A good question to ask is why does the UN want a weapons ban in every country? Why do they fear civilians with weapons? Does that make any sense.? It sure makes you think somethings up. I'm not a person who believes every conspiracy theory I hear, but something about the UN disarming us scares me

Hope this comes off readable I ramble sometimes

end/ ramble

#523 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

I agree with you 100% on all accounts. My point about the Gun Show Loophole was as an example of an issue.

I think that regulations and policies over gun purchase and ownership should be the same....across states, no matter who the seller, etc.

The gun show loophole is really a liberal farce. All it is is a sale between two private sellers. That happens thousands of times a day across the country, not just at gun shows. If your dumb enough to sell your gun to some guy that randomly approaches you in the gun show parking lot, then you deserve to be locked up with him when he does something stupid with it.

#524 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Very rational and logical response...well done.

Given that, I am interested in seeing your views on improving the laws around purchasing and owning firearms.

1 We all know that laws around purchasing firearms is very inconsistent across state lines and is lacking (especially the Gun Show Loophole). Would you be in favor of more consistent laws....requiring backgroudn checks and a waiting period?

2. What do you think about requiring people to be required to take and pass a gun safety/ownership course to purchase them? Maybe a periodic renewal.....like we do for a driver's license.

I agree with you that banning guns is not the answer. But, I also agree with many here that the regulations around purchasing and owning guns does need some work.


In respect to what just happened, no amount of gun control legislation would have prevented the tragedy IMO because the person that legally owned the weapons passed all requirements to purchase them. This particular case involved stolen weapons, so regardless of how stringent the new laws are, the mother would probably still pass and be able to obtain them. This is where things are dicey I think. I'm all for all weapons having the California bullet button, having reduced magazine size, etc. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I think we need bullet control as much as gun control. Maybe you can only purchase ammo that fits a gun you have registered in your name. So little billy can't steal moms AR after spending $200 on ammo at bass pro shop. Maybe they stop allowing the sale of extended clips on eBay.

Again, I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am all for tighter laws and closing loopholes. The crux of this issue is that a heinous crime was committed with stolen weaponry that was civilian owned, so should civilians have access to the weapons that were stolen in the first place? As cliche as it may sound, I truly believe in this case that better parenting could have gone farther to prevent what happened then a ban on "assault weapons" would have. Unless the shooter was just crazy from the start, in which case this becomes a mental healthcare issue.

#525 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,494 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.


You have to look at the purpose of a law. There is no law on the books that is broken until it is broken. So to say DUI are reactionary and not preventative is not true.

Drinking and driving laws are not a preventative measure to drinking and driving; it is a preventative measure to death and general public safety.

Since drunk driving came to the forefront in the early 80's and laws were greatly stiffened for drinking and driving, alcohol related deaths have steadily and significantly declined.

Since 1982 (when statistics started being kept by NHTSA) with the efforts of such groups like MAAD, the number of overall deaths by alcohol impaired drivers in car accidents have been reduced nearly 50%. The number per capita is well over 50%. And that is with more cars on the road since '82.

The number of overall fatal crashes that are alcohol related went from 55% of all fatal crashes in 1982 has now come down to 38% of all fatal crashes are alcohol related. Only 32% of which the driver was deemed alcohol impaired (meaning BAC > .08)

The efforts to prevent opportunity and ability to kill other people by drinking and driving has saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives.

Unfortunately, we can't really stiffen the penalties for murder as they are capital crimes and carry the longest sentences.

So other preventative measures have to go into place, and the best way to do that is to prevent access to all assault weapons and excessive ammunition capacity clips as well as excessive destruction capacity ammunition (like armor piercing bullets). Will that stop all of these tragedies. No it won't.

Does it have the potential to reduce these types of tragedies and reduce the amount of people that are killed when these things do happen, i think it does.

And if it can save even a marginal amount of lives it need to get done now.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.