What is your solution to the gun debate in America

[HeXen]

1) Meth isn't a constitutionally protected right (or is it? could be someone else's "pursuit of happiness")

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't, that wasn't my point but protected? lol, since when has our constitution been a guarantee of anything?

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution

It's words on paper, could get changed at any point, then it's no longer a violation.

3) You highlight a perfect example to my point none the less: making and using meth is illegal and highly controlled. You CANT buy it at the store. Yet people still do it on an epidemic scale. If a highschool dropout crack head can understand chemistry well enough to distill meth components out of commonly available items, it will happen with gunpowder too.

Of course, however you seem to be saying we should do nothing about anything just because of the black market.

 

[BigBarney]

 

[Venix]

Anti-Gun Control people spend a disproportionate amount of time coming up with one liners like "Osama wouldn't be dead if we used a paper towel roll" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

We both know that this is a strawman.

Pro-gun control people just want assault weapons - weapons only designed for killing people and not hunting - off the market. There is no practical need for a private person to have an assault weapon.

Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is and how it differs from a "hunting rifle?" Hint: It has nothing to do with power, capacity, range, accuracy, or any other measure of effectiveness or lethality.

There's a reason "assault weapons" are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes and mass shootings: other weapons are more effective.

 

[Joepublic2]

The obvious solution is to shoot anybody who doesn't have a gun.

 

[randomrogue]

The gun control idiots dont even know what an "assault rifle" is though. They just want to ban guns that look scary. As well they want to start slowly and eventually get rid of all guns

That POS moron feinstein wants to BAN ALL GUNS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd3I7Q-NOCM

I think some people are going overboard on both sides. No doubt.

I'm not a hunter myself (so you'll excuse me if I use the term assault weapon or anything else wrong for that matter) but I'd say half my American friends are. Weapons of choice? Shotgun and rifle. Single shot. A couple use a bow and some a revolver. Duck, Pheasant, Deer, Bear, Boar. None of them need a semi-automatic weapon. None of them need a weapon with a cartridge. A few have semi-automatic handguns for target practice but if that's so important I'm sure people could compromise and lock them up there.

Now whether you're a fast shooter is another thing. Are most people? Are many? If we don't have high capacity magazines does it matter?

I don't get the infatuation with weapons that kill lots of people. If we truly needed to defend ourselves or overthrow our government we'd rely on the military. If I needed a weapon to clear out my neighbors house I could build one for less than $10 with household supplies. It might not kill them but it would maim them. If it truly came down to it I'd rather wound the enemy than kill them anyways.

Hunting is part of our culture. Guns our part of our culture. You can't take them all away. However we don't need guns that are designed to kill lots of people quickly.

 

[irishScott]

I think some people are going overboard on both sides. No doubt.

I'm not a hunter myself (so you'll excuse me if I use the term assault weapon or anything else wrong for that matter) but I'd say half my American friends are. Weapons of choice? Shotgun and rifle. Single shot. A couple use a bow and some a revolver. Duck, Pheasant, Deer, Bear, Boar. None of them need a semi-automatic weapon. None of them need a weapon with a cartridge. A few have semi-automatic handguns for target practice but if that's so important I'm sure people could compromise and lock them up there.

Now whether you're a fast shooter is another thing. Are most people? Are many? If we don't have high capacity magazines does it matter?

I don't get the infatuation with weapons that kill lots of people. If we truly needed to defend ourselves or overthrow our government we'd rely on the military. If I needed a weapon to clear out my neighbors house I could build one for less than $10 with household supplies. It might not kill them but it would maim them. If it truly came down to it I'd rather wound the enemy than kill them anyways.

Hunting is part of our culture. Guns our part of our culture. You can't take them all away. However we don't need guns that are designed to kill lots of people quickly.

No, if we had to form an armed rebellion we're rely first on an armed civilian population, then the military would hopefully follow. You'll note none of the rebellions around the world (Egypt, Libya, etc) started within the military. Nor did our founding revolution.

Besides, look at how much trouble we're having in Afghanistan, and then consider that Afghanistan is about the size of Texas. And all of those forces feed from one, strongly defended supply line running through Pakistan, while the military would have to worry about hundreds domestically (thousands including minor routes).

Americans are brought up to revere the military, and our military is the mightiest the world has ever seen; but as it is currently structured it could quite plausibly be defeated by an armed civilian revolution, it's simply not designed to fight that kind of conflict for any sustained period of time. I've had similar discussions with friends in the military and they all agree on that general point. Never mind defections would undoubtedly be rampant.

I'm also so sick of hearing about "need." Are we going to start limiting people to only what they "need" now? I find it funny how some will put that argument forth on guns, yet when applied to any other context (even in the context of items that kill and are arguably more dangerous than guns) they refuse; usually saying some variation of "guns are different."

Yeah, well so long as "if it saves one life, it's worth it." is a valid argument for guns, how about we ban SUVs unless you can provide evidence that you "need" that kind of load-bearing capability? Because there are legitimate studies on fatalities due to SUVs colliding with smaller vehicles, and if the antagonistic vehicle had been smaller the victim might have survived. "If it saves one life, it's worth it."

Of course, the supposed counterargument to that is that "well SUVs aren't designed to kill". SO. WHAT. Seriously, so what? Is this about what things are designed to do, or about what they actually do? Because cars, alcohol, and a bunch of other things, actually do kill more people per year than guns; and we do nothing about any of them. Why? Because we largely just chalk it up to nature or the fault of the human being, as the case many be. So why don't we do that for guns.

/frustrated

 

[randomrogue]

Well articulated post.

If you were going to fight the government would you take your semi-automatic rifle into the streets and start shooting? Would you hit the treeline and start picking off government workers? Would you hijack government vehicles? I mean what exactly would you do? What do these guns truly bring to the table in an armed revolt? National Guard Humvee with armor plating rolls up and you have your rifle? Destroyer bombards your coastal town. Thunderbolt takes out a mob. Now what?

This is not like the Revolutionary War where we had the same weapons as our enemy.

A real revolution with us out in the streets with rifles and potato guns is going to look just as silly as it does in other parts of the world. We'll just be an angry mob getting gunned down until the military steps in and says enough is enough.

 

[irishScott]

Well articulated post.

If you were going to fight the government would you take your semi-automatic rifle into the streets and start shooting? Would you hit the treeline and start picking off government workers? Would you hijack government vehicles? I mean what exactly would you do? What do these guns truly bring to the table in an armed revolt? National Guard Humvee with armor plating rolls up and you have your rifle? Destroyer bombards your coastal town. Thunderbolt takes out a mob. Now what?

This is not like the Revolutionary War where we had the same weapons as our enemy.

A real revolution with us out in the streets with rifles and potato guns is going to look just as silly as it does in other parts of the world. We'll just be an angry mob getting gunned down until the military steps in and says enough is enough.

Ever hear of guerrilla tactics? They've been surprisingly successful when well executed, even against superior mechanized forces.

I'd say the first step would be isolating the military bases and cutting supply lines. Raid national guard supply depots and other lightly defended military outposts for heavy weapons to help deal with light armor and such, keeping things fluid and dynamic throughout. As few fixed bases/positions as possible.

It would hardly be a simple or easy thing, but if the numbers and organization are there it's plausible enough. If the government cracks down too hard and causes a massacre (which would get out assuming the modern internet is still around), it could very well spur further revolution.

Of course all of this is just a bunch of "what ifs" and could be tossed any which way if you switch up the variables; and there are thousands of significant variables.

 

[Agent11]

Yes it is 'possible'. It would take suspension of elections, persecution of political rivals and the disregarding of the constitution to truly make it happen however.

That is the reason for the 2nd amendment, TYRANNY. It has happened in history, so there is no reason to believe it could not happen in the future.

A wise man once said any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

 

[marvdmartian]

Access to guns are obviously the problem. Many people and governments would disagree with you. Fact is, IMHO, it's time to take states' rights away from this. Our state lines are porous and anyone can travel from one state to another. It's not the 19th century anymore where going from one town to another or carrying goods across state line took days. That makes it easier for anyone to break state laws. So, either make it extremely easy for EVERYONE to get guns or make it very difficult. This has worked for many countries.

Yeah, our southern border is pretty porous too. You might remember, that's where the Obama administration supplied the Mexican drug lords with the same weapons they want to take away from you and me.

Frankly, I trust the idiots in DC about as much as I trust the drug lords. Not at all. No way I support strictly federal control over firearms. They've tried to control illegal drugs too, and look how well that's worked out in this country.

Here's an idea. Put a donut shop next to every school. Someone walks in and starts shooting, the cops will be there in seconds! :thumbsup:

Makes just as much sense as federalizing the problem.

 

[max347]

I'll lay my cards on the table:

The only people who should have access to guns are:

1. Those vetted to serve in the public interest.
2. Hunters, but they should not be permitted to keep them as private property. IOW, hunting with guns should be tightly regulated.

Everyone else having a gun should go to prison.

You will likely object, you'll complain that it won't work, but I guarantee you that given enough time it will work great.

Yes, all the criminals will eagerly turn in their firearms. You've solved it!

....or missed the point that some people want firearms as protection from those who don't follow laws anyway (criminals), and will have guns regardless of what you 'decree' (criminals)

 

[randomrogue]

Is there a statistic on how many gun owners have them turned on themselves when they try to defend their homes/self?

 

[Incorruptible]

Gun control will not work because the people who want to kill others wont obey the law along with banning all guns wont work either and cause unintended consequences. IF all guns were banned then criminals would still be able to get guns or they could switch to knives, then will knives be banned then?

If you really want to stop the killings then ending the War On Drugs would be a good idea, there would be much less crime and murders if it were to happen. It wont happen though since the politicians are corrupt. Making massive changes to welfare would also help, Blacks and hispanics are minorities in the US but they account for significant amounts of the prison population. Welfare encourages the mothers to not get married and get a husband, more kids in single families are at higher risk of becoming criminals, not all of them but they have a higher risk. Gangs replace the fathers in these single parent families. If you really care about decreasing the murders then welfare reform is a must.

Guns are used in many cases in the US where the LEGAL gun owner is able to defend themselves, If this happens why would they call 911 and it probably isn't tracked. Take away the guns and you will see crime increase.

Lastly a very important issue that the majority of the media and advocates have not mentioned is the mental health issue, It is difficult to lock people up who are mentally ill. These people need to be kept in a place where they cant harm others. This is the real issue that isn't being addressed.

Also with the Newtown shooting it wasn't confirmed if the shooter had used an AR-15 since there were different reports from the media over this. The vast majority of gun crimes involve HANDGUNS so wouldn't it make sense to ban handguns? Not that it would work though.

 

[Mixolydian]

What is your solution to the gun debate in America

I don't have one because I don't care.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, all the criminals will eagerly turn in their firearms. You've solved it!

....or missed the point that some people want firearms as protection from those who don't follow laws anyway (criminals), and will have guns regardless of what you 'decree' (criminals)

But I thought those who trade freedom for security deserve neither...

I'm only kidding. I know people who want their guns don't see themselves giving up any freedom.

 

[Greenman]

Can't vote in your poll as you don't have the answer I would choose.

 

[cubby1223]

I know no one who reads these forums gives a fuck about others' opinions, but I'm gonna give it anyway

My opinion is that it is overall better for our society to have relax gun laws than it is to have very strict gun laws, or outright banning guns.

Why? Must be because I hate children!

With fewer gun restrictions, we as a society must always be cautious and motivated to help others around us. Take care to make others feel a part of society.

Without weapons, without the fear of retaliation, we could happily ignore other people, we can shun the mentally unstable, turn a blind eye to injustices done to individuals.


Pay little attention to the rantings of anti-government nutjobs, and guns are not all that bad in this country.

 

[randomrogue]

You live in fear of retaliation? roflmao

 

[xj0hnx]

I was thinking today, if someone has a CHL they get their card, which is tracked by the DPS, so, why not incorporate the NICS into the CHL card. So instead of them having to run a NICS and fill out a 4473 every firearm you buy, just scan the license, boom, instant background check. Tie it into local LE database so if you get picked up for whatever violates your CHL it instantly shows up. In order to tie it into any mental health issue some things would have to change. Of course in return as I have said before repeal of the NFA, and 86 import/manufacture ban. If we have to jump through hoops, I want to be able to buy a suppressed machine gun for less than $9000 damn it.

 

[Ackmed]

My solution about the gun debate is to stop debating about guns. Guns aren't the problem.

And that's the bottom line. But there are too many idiots who think they are. Sadly, a lot are in office.

 

[michal1980]

Well articulated post.

If you were going to fight the government would you take your semi-automatic rifle into the streets and start shooting? Would you hit the treeline and start picking off government workers? Would you hijack government vehicles? I mean what exactly would you do? What do these guns truly bring to the table in an armed revolt? National Guard Humvee with armor plating rolls up and you have your rifle? Destroyer bombards your coastal town. Thunderbolt takes out a mob. Now what?

This is not like the Revolutionary War where we had the same weapons as our enemy.

A real revolution with us out in the streets with rifles and potato guns is going to look just as silly as it does in other parts of the world. We'll just be an angry mob getting gunned down until the military steps in and says enough is enough.

Lets just go after free speech with this kind of stupid logic. Who needs that. What has that accomplished. Just shut the FUCK up, the government masters know best.

 

[randomrogue]

Lets just go after free speech with this kind of stupid logic. Who needs that. What has that accomplished. Just shut the FUCK up, the government masters know best.

What is your argument exactly?

His response was appropriate. Yours offers nothing.

I just don't believe that people need these guns to fight the government. It's a fools errand to think that your guns will be able to do shit. I thought about the whole over running an armory but even if you got half a dozen tanks you would be useless against the Army.

It's Military support or bust.

This is all a stupid discussion since our system is designed to be changed politically.

 

[diesbudt]

The obvious solution is to ban murder.

Exactly. Make murder and suicide illegal and ... oh wait.

 

[nehalem256]

What is your argument exactly?

His response was appropriate. Yours offers nothing.

I just don't believe that people need these guns to fight the government. It's a fools errand to think that your guns will be able to do shit. I thought about the whole over running an armory but even if you got half a dozen tanks you would be useless against the Army.

It's Military support or bust.

This is all a stupid discussion since our system is designed to be changed politically.

So that is why the US was able to suppress uprisings in Iraq so easily?

 

[michal1980]

What is your argument exactly?

His response was appropriate. Yours offers nothing.

I just don't believe that people need these guns to fight the government. It's a fools errand to think that your guns will be able to do shit. I thought about the whole over running an armory but even if you got half a dozen tanks you would be useless against the Army.

It's Military support or bust.

This is all a stupid discussion since our system is designed to be changed politically.

The right to own guns is in our constitution.

/End thread.