Gun Control

[DaveFla]

If you are being honest, then it is likely that you are the only one that didn't understand what he meant...

[ArtVandelay]

Asked about the gun control issue, White House Spokesman Carney said today is not the day for "Washington policy debates."

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

Asked about the gun control issue, White House Spokesman Carney said today is not the day for "Washington policy debates."

Evidently, CNN didn't get the memo.

[corpgator]

I don't think the difference between injured and killed is splitting hairs to the people who died.

What is the point of owning a handgun or an assault rifle? They are made to kill people, not to hunt, so obviously that's what they get used for.

The argument I have seen here is that we need them to protect ourselves against the military, but it's too far gone for that. Nothing you can personally own can protect you against modern military weaponry.

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

i find it troubling that when events like this occur and people talk about taking away guns, everyone gets all up in arms (pun intended) Even if 1 life was saved today, isn't it worth it?

With all due respect for the victims of this tragedy, no. It would not be worth it if "even one" life was saved as a result of taking away guns. 43,000 people die every year in motor vehicle accidents - should we take away all cars? Countless people develop cancer due to pollution - should we take away all factories?

On a grand scale, there is a utilitarian benefit to having things like cars, factories and yes, even guns - with one cost being that yes, some people will inevitably die because we have all these things. In exchange, we get cheap and easy access to various goods, information and in the case of guns we get benefits like a plausible means of self-defense against criminals, foreign and domestic governments, hunting, recreation, etc.

What is the reason that you don't want people to take away your right to have a gun outside of your home? Do you feel unsafe on a daily basis? It's a serious question. I would like to know.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't own any working firearms (I do have a vintage firearm in my attic, however, that was passed down from a family member). I'm not a hunter or a member of the NRA. Nor do I feel unsafe when I go about my daily business.

But there are lots of people who are. There are lots of people who feel more secure (and with good reason) going to work with a firearm, or having one in their closet or night stand. There are lots of people who live in really crappy neighborhoods, where crime is rampant. Why should we disarm them because every once in a while some nutcase goes crazy and shoots up a theater or a school?

Sane and law-abiding citizens are not the people we need to be worried about, and those are the only people gun laws really affect. It's the crazies and the criminals we should focus our attention on.

I think we need a better way to identify those crazies and criminals, and to stop them from acquiring guns. I don't know how we do that, but surely with all the internet geniuses we have around here we should be able to come up with something.

[407Gator]

Originally Posted by corpgator

What is the point of owning a handgun or an assault rifle?

Protect myself and my family from others, some who don't follow the law.

But you argument make very little sense. A guys goes into a school with a gun (illegal) and kills innocent people (illegal) and your response is we should have a law that he should not be able to own a gun?

You do realize that laws do not deter suicidal right?

Unreal

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by 407Gator

Protect myself and my family from others, some who don't follow the law.

But you argument make very little sense. A guys goes into a school with a gun (illegal) and kills innocent people (illegal) and your response is we should have a law that he should not be able to own a gun?

You do realize that laws do not deter suicidal right?

Unreal

I think the question is what kind of gun with what kind of killing capacity.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

Asked about the gun control issue, White House Spokesman Carney said today is not the day for "Washington policy debates."

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Evidently, CNN didn't get the memo.

...nor did Art Vandelay. lol

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

...nor did Art Vandelay. lol

That's not bad!

But, my opinions have nothing to do with politics. It's about common sense. My only thoughts are how sad it is that these people are dead and how can we prevent stuff like this from happening again.

Plus I'm not affiliated with Washington and the White House...or am I...

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

...nor did Art Vandelay. lol

or the person who started the thread, nor any of us who made any sort of comment

[nawlinsgator]

I sometimes forget how far south this message board is.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

i find it troubling that when events like this occur and people talk about taking away guns, everyone gets all up in arms (pun intended) Even if 1 life was saved today, isn't it worth it?

What is the reason that you don't want people to take away your right to have a gun outside of your home? Do you feel unsafe on a daily basis? It's a serious question. I would like to know.

Not to minimize the news of the day, but gun control laws remind me of the silly locks they now put on car doors (no knobs at the ends). Somehow someone got the idea that since you can get a coat hanger down though a slightly open window and put a hook on the end, you could open up the door without a key. So let's take that away from the criminal.

Now the only times I have seen a coat hanger and car window it is an owner who is trying to get into their own car after locking themselves out. You see a coat hanger is too slow for a real criminal. They use a slim jim instead. So instead of making cars safe for the owners all they have done is made it harder on them and it doesn't do a thing against the car thief.

That is gun control laws: they make it harder for the responsible persons but it doesn't do a damn thing against the criminal element. And getting back to the crime at hand: why did he kill so many? Because he could get away with it. Arm a few people in public places and those odds go WAY down. But since you can't prove something that doesn't happen - how do you know that when 5 people die that the number could have been 25? - the liberal thinkers are not going to give up.

[407Gator]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

My only thoughts are how sad it is that these people are dead and how can we prevent stuff like this from happening again.

It is a terribly sad day for the affected families. The real issue is that the anti-gun crowd seems to take this opportunity to make this "if only there was a law" argument.

In my opinion the press should take the opportunity to:

1) Refer to the gunman as a twisted and sick individual

2) Never say their names. I do believe that on some level that these sicko's are out for 15 minutes of infamy.

Of course most of the press are candy asses and what to explore why this happened and what might have caused someone to do this.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

This is like asking how many drug shops are in the US. I'll give you a hint, there are two countries that border each other with the ability to easily fill the demand in both cases.

How many gun shops?

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by 407Gator

It is a terribly sad day for the affected families. The real issue is that the anti-gun crowd seems to take this opportunity to make this "if only there was a law" argument.

In my opinion the press should take the opportunity to:

1) Refer to the gunman as a twisted and sick individual

2) Never say their names. I do believe that on some level that these sicko's are out for 15 minutes of infamy.

Of course most of the press are candy asses and what to explore why this happened and what might have caused someone to do this.

What? You don't see value in exploring why this happened and what might have caused someone to do this?

Maybe to try to stop it from happening again in the future?

Not worth it?

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by 407Gator

It is a terribly sad day for the affected families. The real issue is that the anti-gun crowd seems to take this opportunity to make this "if only there was a law" argument.

In my opinion the press should take the opportunity to:

1) Refer to the gunman as a twisted and sick individual

2) Never say their names. I do believe that on some level that these sicko's are out for 15 minutes of infamy.

Of course most of the press are candy asses and what to explore why this happened and what might have caused someone to do this.

Actually, they say the same thing everyday. I don't need an event like this to make me think that something needs to get done.

It's disturbing to me that something like this happens and the people that love guns don't blink and say "it's not the guns" instead of saying "something needs to be done"

I'm not saying I think we need to take away everyone's guns.

[gator996]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

Eleven facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

What follows here isn’t a policy agenda. It’s simply a set of facts — many of which complicate a search for easy answers — that should inform the discussion that we desperately need to have.

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the last three decades. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally:



2. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

Time has the full list here. In second place is Finland, with two entries.



3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland.

As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’”

4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.

That doesn’t include Friday’s shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The AP put the early reported death toll at 27, which would make it the second-deadliest mass shooting in US history.

[407Gator]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

What? You don't see value in exploring why this happened and what might have caused someone to do this?

Maybe to try to stop it from happening again in the future?

Not worth it?

Sure but it seems that they love to go over the shooters background in detail.

Its been more than 10 years and I still cant forget that the names of the shooters were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I don't think that giving this persons name publicity help and invite copy cats.

[PITBOSS]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

You're splitting hairs...

I anticipate most would not call the difference between injured and killed as just splitting hairs

[gator996]

61 in 30 years...The USA averages 2 mass shootings a year...for 3 decades...