Gun Control 3

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I oppose blanket gun bans not reasonable regulations and reasonable restrictions.

[The Progressive]

Scot,

all the reasonable restriction and regulations on the book so far have been ineffective, and i dont think that limiting magazine clip like you proposed is a bandage, let alone a solution, but at least it not as dumb as raidne proposal to ease restrictions even more. it is now time for more regulations with serious teeth.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

And I'm sure they will give it a whirl. We'll see what stands and what does not. I'm confident door to door warrentless sweeps for illegal firearms are going to be seen as unreasonable.

[Kelli Fury]

I would love to know why the teacher did not use the weapon. Wouldnt it be horridly ironic if she or he did not bring it inside the building as it was a "gun free zone"?

Because her son had taken them, using them to kill her and faculty and students at her school.

[Addien]

We all bleed red!!!!11!!

Wait, generic cliche answer to the wrong topic.

[Jaxom 1974]

I oppose blanket gun bans not reasonable regulations and reasonable restrictions.

You may have to accept that "reasonable" is going to be stricter and harsher than you'd like...and if that doesn't work, legislate to repeal.

Scot, what's your stance on higher taxes for ammuniton?

[The Undead Martyr]

So many assumptions, so little time. First, you are assuming armed criminals all got their guns legally. Second, you are trying to convince everyone these cannot be obtained in the UK. Third, bringing a cricket (or baseball) bat to a gun fight, is an incredibly bad idea. Third, the fantasy is believing I'd be better off unarmed, against an armed assailant. Fourth, I've trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, under a variety of circumstances with targets at a variety of distances. How, disadvantaged, do you think I'd be on familiar territory at a range of twelve feet?

I don't think banning guns in general is a practical solution, but really... home invasion is simply not a major cause of death, hence the FBI statistics etc on burglary etc. Note that despite 500K burglaries, only 90 murders were committed during burglaries.

What's your neighborhood like? Do you have alarms, dogs, locks etc.? More importantly have you done "home invasion" drills etc. to plan for the event?

I've never held a firearm, but I really think that you're not adequately empathizing with the hypothetical 2AM victim and burglar; I highly doubt either of them would be expecting a fight, nor acting as methodically and dispassionately as you're assuming.. Yes, one can shoot at the range: so can a soldier, but people still freeze up, make mistakes, and get blindsided, and it only takes one shot to end a life or leave a man bawling on the floor. Big difference between theory and practice, and between fear, grogginess, surprise and adrenaline you'd better be sleeping with a loaded gun within arm's reach.

Anyway, I think there should be a draconian cap on ammunition. For the threats you're likely to encounter a few shots should be more than adequate.

[Lord O' Bones]

In a macabre bit of irony for me, a friend took me to a shooting range this week. I fired a handgun for the first time in possibly a decade.

First sad note, I discovered that it is illegal here to rent a gun at a range if you are by yourself. Think about that for a second.

Secondly as we were loading the magazines my friend had to stop me from loading the 17 round .22 magazine because it's against CA law to load more than ten rounds. Now I'm looking at the loaded and FAR more deadly 8 round .45 mag and thinking to myself "that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of." I could easily cause 8 fatalities with that 1911 where even with 17 rounds in the pea-shooter I might struggle to cause one.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jaxom,

Ammunition taxes may be reasonable, but not if they are so high as to opperate as bans.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

The fact is the less guns on the streets, the less shootings, if you were a serious criminal of course you can get your hands on one if you really wanted to (if guns were banned). But it makes it almost impossible for fucken crazy lunatics who hear voices in their heads to buy and use one. We in Australia have next to no major shootings due to the fact GUNS AREN'T LEGAL! I know you could argue that the demographic is alot smaller but i would bet that gun-related crime percentages are lower hear than they are in the US. Pro gun people just need to open their eyes and stop living like it's the wild west.

Actually a Harvard study shows you wrong: the more restrictive the gun laws are, the MORE violence we see. "If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates." (p. 661)http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

This article is interesting because of a statistic it provides. It relates how states with LAX gun laws have seen MORE cases of justifiable homicide....and says that in 2006-2010 there were 1,528 justifyable homicides, but the article was unclear if that figure was nationally or just in a few states. BUT, lets take that number. That means every year about 300 people had their lives saved because of the gun they had and fired. That beats by far the 20 dead kids this madman shot. If you ban guns, far more will suffer as they will not have a way to defend themselves. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/05/stand-your-ground-gun-control-data

People are hardly interchangeable. Gun control may save one life somewhere, but endanger far more elsewhere as it takes away peoples ability to properly defend themselves. The answer to crime is not making people better victims...taking away guns from the law abiding would do just that.

[Jaxom 1974]

Jaxom,

Ammunition taxes may be reasonable, but not if they are so high as to opperate as bans.

Well there in lies the rub, eh? Because I certainly suspect your level of reasonable equating to a ban isn't the same what I think...

[andrew_]

Actually a Harvard study shows you wrong: the more restrictive the gun laws are, the MORE violence we see. "If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates." (p. 661)http://theacru.org/a...nterproductive/

This article is interesting because of a statistic it provides. It relates how states with LAX gun laws have seen MORE cases of justifiable homicide....and says that in 2006-2010 there were 1,528 justifyable homicides, but the article was unclear if that figure was nationally or just in a few states. BUT, lets take that number. That means every year about 300 people had their lives saved because of the gun they had and fired. That beats by far the 20 dead kids this madman shot. If you ban guns, far more will suffer as they will not have a way to defend themselves. http://www.guardian....un-control-data

People are hardly interchangeable. Gun control may save one life somewhere, but endanger far more elsewhere as it takes away peoples ability to properly defend themselves. The answer to crime is not making people better victims...taking away guns from the law abiding would do just that.

Yes because a harvard study proves decades of no mass shootings in Australia wrong, it also relates to the gun culture in the US as well, a nation built on violence is always going to be a violent nation, whether or not its with another country or itself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jaxom,

Very likely.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Because her son had taken them, using them to kill her and faculty and students at her school.

Is that true? How ironic. And why, I wonder did the mom HAVE a carry permit? Did she have a gun BECAUSE she knew she had a psychotic child? And did she, because the school she worked at FORBID GUNS leave her gun at home for her disturbed son to find? Had the woman HAD HER GUN ON HER, perhaps those kids would be alive...and so would she.

Abolish "gun free zones". Those kill more than guns do, it seems.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RiL,

If I don't want guns on my property that's my call.

[Aemon Stark]

A "psychotic" child? That is experiencing disorganized thoughts, delusions, and hallucinations? So elementary school teachers should arm themselves against schizophrenic children (???) with apparently violent tendencies?

[Ravenhair]

A "psychotic" child? That is experiencing disorganized thoughts, delusions, and hallucinations? So elementary school teachers should arm themselves against schizophrenic children (???) with apparently violent tendencies?

I think that some are assuming the carry permit belonged to the mother of the shooter. I have not heard anything confirming the assumptions.

[Lord O' Bones]

Had the woman HAD HER GUN ON HER, perhaps those kids would be alive...and so would she.

She was murdered in their home. So SHE HAD IT ON HER more or less. Unless you are seriously suggesting she wear one on her hip in her own home, having the weapons in her home clearly did the opposite of helping her defend herself.

[Addien]

I really don't see how armed adults (presumably with handguns, not assault rifles), with potentially minimal training, in a stressful, traumatic situation, with kids who with or without lockdown training may be freaking out and running around - yeah, that's really going to stop the shooter!!1!

Not to mention, should we expect civilians in a public school to be armed at all times? I'm going into teaching. No way do I feel comfortable with that responsibility, nor should it be asked of me.

We tell ourselves that if everyone was armed, it Would All Be Ok because it's a way of staying in denial that it could happen to us, at any time. It's a way, no matter how implicit, of "blaming the victim". It's no different than telling women to carry around pepper spray, as if a spritz of a chemical is enough to ward off all that is evil in the world.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

I really don't see how armed adults (presumably with handguns, not assault rifles), with potentially minimal training, in a stressful, traumatic situation, with kids who with or without lockdown training may be freaking out and running around - yeah, that's really going to stop the shooter!!1!

Not to mention, should we expect civilians in a public school to be armed at all times? I'm going into teaching. No way do I feel comfortable with that responsibility, nor should it be asked of me.

We tell ourselves that if everyone was armed, it Would All Be Ok because it's a way of staying in denial that it could happen to us, at any time. It's a way, no matter how implicit, of "blaming the victim". It's no different than telling women to carry around pepper spray, as if a spritz of a chemical is enough to ward off all that is evil in the world.

Women SHOULD carry pepper spray, its quite sensible. While it does not and can not ward off ALL that is evil, it surely might have a good effect on savage dogs (and other critters) and savage men (and savage women; women can be violent criminals as well). To say a woman should be sensible is not blaming a victim; and yes, it does imply shes NOT sensible if she lacks it...but even that doesnt blame a victim for being attacked as that's rarely the victims fault; I cant think of ANY time a victim would be at fault if her or his attacker were human. Animal attack, yes...thats why the caveat.

No, we should not expect anyone to carry a weapon...ONLY if they wish to. That goes for guns as well as pepper spray. Carrying a weapon can be sensible and rational and logical...but someone who does not wish to do so should never be forced into it.

As for training its also sensible for those who have weapons of any type to be trained in their use. With NO guns other than the shooters, we see and saw what happened, even an adult with "minimal training" is better than none, and may be able to shoot the attacker. Yes, you are right that some may die in cross fire, it may be far less though had the shooter been able to shoot unhindered.