The Gun Control Debate

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Why?

Seems to me many of you rise to a vocally violent defense of something that has no purpose other than violence.

But the image of pointing the weapon is distasteful.

Tsk tsk.

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

and irrational

No more irrational than you believing more of the citizenry needs more guns to protect ourselves from the 'few' of you gunowners who aren't responsible.

Four shootings at institutions of learning in two weeks.

Yes indeed. We all need more guns.

[Sister Fracas 5]

More guns in the hands/homes of responsible gun owners to be stolen by more criminals to be used to commit more heinous crimes....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My husband and I were just discussing this topic, so I'll give my 2 cents. BTW, haven't read all the pages - just talking on the suject. Bottom line to us is, something has to change. This is what how many school/university shootings now? I lost count. Comming from Texas, many men in my family own firearms, are very responsible with them, and use them for the intended purpose - to hunt animals. However, not everyone obviously is this responsible. As a side note unrelated to the last shooting, I don't think handguns should be legal (other than law enforcement) - handguns are made to shoot people not animals.

At this point my feeling is whatever it takes. If it takes incredibly strict gun control laws or airport type security at universities and malls then so be it. It's sad and probably not practical, but it's better than being killed trying to attend class. Also, I'm concerned that media attention from these shootings gives other mentally unstable people out there more ideas, but I don't have much of a solution to that.

The best thing said so far!

However, I'd focus what needs to be done on some kind of preliminary screening for gun purchases. The suicidal shooter bought the guns legally and within a week before the shoooting. I think it would be reasonable that a gun buyer's medical records be available - possibly put a hold on their purchase until their doctor who prescribed the medication can sign off and say their patient is not dangerous to themselves or others.

Secondly, I'd focus on what safety measures the campuses can do. Metal detectors, strategic security posts, some kind of alarm system that could hinder the shooter when triggered.

There certainly are ways to prevent further shootings without it being an argument of for or against guns.

[britty 1]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

[Scott & Lai 12]

One man doesn't need 18 guns.

that's my choice to make, not yours.

A Constitutionally protected choice.

Just as it is my Constitutional protection to say your choice makes no sense. Unless you have eighteen arms and are up against the Kraken, one weapon should serve your Constitutional right quite nicely.

sure, i'm certain the game warden will buy that argument when i'm duck hunting with a pistol

*flipping through the Constitution looking for your right to hunt game*

The Constitution was written to define the limits of government, not to place limits on citizens' liberty. Specific rights of citizens are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but it is not intended to be all encompassing; our rights are not limited to those explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, that's the point of the ninth and tenth ammendmens.

[Jaseball 0]

Unless you have a few armed guards around, the metal detectors and alarms do nothing. With the state of most school budgets and not being able to afford pencils and paper it would be highly unlikely most institutions would be able to implement a security plan, much less keep it funded.

Besides, that - it is sort of like terrorists picking targets. You fortify and strengthen the security here and the terrorists strike elsewhere. Same thing with psychos.

The idea of training, licensing, and allowing legal citizens to carry costs us nothing. In fact, the permit costs, licensing, training, etc., would actually generate income.

This doesn't increase the amount of guns - it just puts the idea out there that any person you see could be legally carrying and that is a proven deterrent.

In the highly unlikely case of confronting a mass murderer it would be great to see the criminal shot down within seconds of starting the rampage.

Average police response time is upwards of 5 minutes on average and that is with a crime in progress, shots fired, or some other emergency. When my house was burglarized I waited for a cop for over 2 hours and called back 2x because I told them I had already entered and cleared the house myself with a kitchen knife and night stick, otherwise I'd be sitting out in the car for the same amount of time waiting for them.

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

[britty 1]

Unless you have a few armed guards around, the metal detectors and alarms do nothing. With the state of most school budgets and not being able to afford pencils and paper it would be highly unlikely most institutions would be able to implement a security plan, much less keep it funded.

Besides, that - it is sort of like terrorists picking targets. You fortify and strengthen the security here and the terrorists strike elsewhere. Same thing with psychos.

The idea of training, licensing, and allowing legal citizens to carry costs us nothing. In fact, the permit costs, licensing, training, etc., would actually generate income.

This doesn't increase the amount of guns - it just puts the idea out there that any person you see could be legally carrying and that is a proven deterrent.

In the highly unlikely case of confronting a mass murderer it would be great to see the criminal shot down within seconds of starting the rampage.

Average police response time is upwards of 5 minutes on average and that is with a crime in progress, shots fired, or some other emergency. When my house was burglarized I waited for a cop for over 2 hours and called back 2x because I told them I had already entered and cleared the house myself with a kitchen knife and night stick, otherwise I'd be sitting out in the car for the same amount of time waiting for them.

I couldnt have said it better

[rebeccajo 14]

One man doesn't need 18 guns.

that's my choice to make, not yours.

A Constitutionally protected choice.

Just as it is my Constitutional protection to say your choice makes no sense. Unless you have eighteen arms and are up against the Kraken, one weapon should serve your Constitutional right quite nicely.

sure, i'm certain the game warden will buy that argument when i'm duck hunting with a pistol

*flipping through the Constitution looking for your right to hunt game*

The Constitution was written to define the limits of government, not to place limits on citizens' liberty. Specific rights of citizens are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but it is not intended to be all encompassing; our rights are not limited to those explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, that's the point of the ninth and tenth ammendmens.

Sure.

But why should collecting a large collection of deadly weapons be construed as a 'liberty' more precious than say - my right to walk into a classroom and fear not having one turned on me?

[britty 1]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

No one has ever pointed a gun at me. You only ever point at something if you are prepared to fire. The people I know would never point a gun at anyone unless their life, family's life, or home was threatened. Thankfully I have not been put in this position. I certainly don't stockpile weapons. The number of firearms I have is irrelevant in that they are properly stored and I can use each one responsibly and safely. Gun owners are some of the most responsible people you will meet.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

This doesn't increase the amount of guns - it just puts the idea out there that any person you see could be legally carrying and that is a proven deterrent.

In the highly unlikely case of confronting a mass murderer it would be great to see the criminal shot down within seconds of starting the rampage.

I'm learning about deterrent theory currently. Peace through strife is the heart of deterrence theory. Deterrence is maintaining the status quo.

Deterrence: To prevent an action by threating an action.

One real world example is the Cold War. Following the creation of nuclear weapons was to deter using them.

The fact that we have these weapons available doesn't deter the matter of them being used. That is unless the defender has the capabilities, the willingness, and communicated the cost to the challenger.

However, there are some challengers that can not be deterred and that is when we have to examine rationality.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Olivia*

[rebeccajo 14]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

No one has ever pointed a gun at me. You only ever point at something if you are prepared to fire. The people I know would never point a gun at anyone unless their life, family's life, or home was threatened. Thankfully I have not been put in this position. I certainly don't stockpile weapons. The number of firearms I have is irrelevant in that they are properly stored and I can use each one responsibly and safely. Gun owners are some of the most responsible people you will meet.

Most gunowners may be responsible. But I think it's safe to say (from what we are witnessing in society) than many are not.

I brought up the pointing of a weapon for a reason and it's a simple straighforward reason. That's all guns are good for. They are nothing more than an implement of destruction.

If you want to hunt, you could do that with a bow and arrow. If you want to aim at targets, you could throw darts. If you want to protect yourself you MIGHT need a gun. If you want to rise up against an oppressive government, you might need a gun.

Overall, I think the public good and safety should take precedence over an individual right that needs to change with the rest of the times. And that right should have been questioned whenever the first genius decided to design a pistol that could fire itself multiple times with one pull of the trigger.

[garya505 2]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Yep. I think that one comment alone makes me win by default.

That comment is unacceptable. Responsible gun owners do not point their guns at others, EVER. Maybe if you understood more about gun ownership, you would understand this.

I'm sorry if you feel it is unacceptable.

But those guns you own have no other purpose than to be aimed at something and fired.

You defend your right to own these weapons with such tenacity. Has anyone ever pointed one at you? Would you still feel the way you do if someone had?

Your right to own those weapons was given to you in a day and age when automatic weapons were unheard of. And before guns could be manufactured by the truckload.

The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again. Yes, citizens should be able to protect themselves. But it doesn't need to be with a handgun or an automatic weapon. And citizens don't need to stockpile guns to protect themselves. You have two hands - two weapons registered legally in your name is all you need.

Your ignorance of showing. Ownership of automatic weapons is already very restricted and requires special BATF licensing. Perhaps you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon?

The pump shotgun the perp in Illinois used would be neither automatic nor semiautomatic. The Glock pistol was semiautomatic, the same weapon used by many law enforcement and military organizations around the world.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

Unless you need me there live so you can point your weapon at me.

that's uncalled for.

Why?

Seems to me many of you rise to a vocally violent defense of something that has no purpose other than violence.

But the image of pointing the weapon is distasteful.

Tsk tsk.

so quick to throw away your rights in this, but so quick to also pitch a fit about your rights with the patriot act are you?