Gun possession. yes or no?

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

But, the part of the constitution that is flawed isn't the 2nd Amendment. If we did a better job at preventing the import of illegal firearms into the wrong hands, some of the issues would be resolved.

When you deal with 300 million people, not everything can go perfectly. You have to do what you can to help as a whole, not fix one single issue by punishing everyone as a group.

I agree, and am not suggesting outlawing guns is the answer. Just that gun control laws should be updated for the world we live in. He brought an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine, and had it not jammed he likely would of killed many more people.

Originally Posted by SouthpawE46

I own all 3 of the firearms that James used in the attack, but that doesn't make me a criminal at all.

Criminals will always find a way to inflict pain on the good people of society. If no weapons ever existed, they would find a way. That's why gun control doesn't work. It takes guns away from the law abiding citizens.

How many massacres occur in areas where there are many guns, such as police stations, military bases, gun shops, gun ranges (besides the occasional murder/suicide), and gun shows. I also find it interesting that the areas where guns are banned, such as that theatre, colleges, malls, etc, are the locations where these massacres take place. Why? Because criminals prefer unarmed victims. If ONE person in that crowd had a LTC of CCW (license to carry, or conceal carry permit), the outcome could've been drastically different.

I'm a hardcore supporter of the 2nd amendment, and an owner of 9 guns in the state with the strictest gun laws, where CCW permits are extremely scarce, where bullet buttons are required on "assault weapons", and where ANY magazine is limited to 10 rounds. Why? Personal defense, home defense, national defense. Not to mention that it's a Constitutional Right, and a right not exercised is a right lost.

If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective.

Ok, I live in a state with almost no gun laws, and what can be bought by someone who can pass a background check is ridiculous. I'm not just talking guns, but magazines, certain ammunition, certain body armor, etc. Maybe more states should adopt strict gun control laws. Sure a criminal can inflict pain a multitude of different ways, but it doesn't get much easier and faster than with a gun.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Sure it was. If two well armed men can hold off an entire police force, including swat, regardless of their caliber of guns, would you still argue that more guns in a situation will yield favorable results? It didn't. It prolonged it and made for a more volatile situation.

http://m3post.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=101

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Again, hypotheticals aren't answerable. But I can tell you I've been traversing this earth for quite a while unarmed in many places and it served me well. If you want to hypothesize about a worst case scenario, I would like you to do the same for the best case scenario.

Did you just say that hypothetical questions aren't answerable? Really?

I too have walked around for some time and a good portion of that time i was armed. Not always with a firearm, but i'll call a pocket knife armed. What is the relevance of this statement? What is the best case scenario for the people in that theater? What was the best case scenario for the 10th, 11th, or 12th person who died in this incident? The best case scenario was for that kid to enter that theater to watch the movie rather than kill as many random people as he could. I would argue that at least some of the families of the departed would opt for a CCW holder to attempt to end the needless shooting. What happens at that point is all speculation but just like a ripple in a lake that would have altered the gunman's course by some measure.

It's quite simple as far as questions go. If you were unarmed and someone was armed and intent on killing you for a family member and no trained professional were available would you mind if an armed citizen interjected on your behalf?

Also, just because we're not all professionals doesn't mean we're all untrained trigger happy yahoos.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Quite simple. If a violent incident can be avoided and/or at least delayed by the absence of an anonymous ccw jumping to conclusions, I'd imagine most would prefer that route as opposed to the other option, which is to possible allow an anonymous citizen take the position that is for those in LE.

I can't speak for others, but the only way i'm interjecting on someone else's behalf would be because that person was in imminent danger of loosing their life. I won't pull a gun on someone beating the hell out of you. I'd just try and help stop that from happening. Unless you'd rather me go find a trained professional.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

In theory.

That is in fact the theory, that's why the word likely is used in that sentence.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

It doesn't make sense because you are erroneously comparing to very different entities. Now, if you said you have to train longer with one weapon type compared to another, then you'd have an argument.

This doesn't make sense to me, no need to clarify. I'm beginning to think you've missed my point.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Which returns to my point. Me as a citizen would want a trained professional making life-altering decisions when they arise as oppose to one of those folks. That's what I meant by non-carrying citizens eliminating their options.

Clearly most people would rather have this be the ideal situation. But when one isn't available the only person left making life-altering decisions is the murdering criminal. Not a good spot to be in.....

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by ideliver

the CO killing was well planned...without access to guns...the only difference would have been his method of destruction....

look at the destruction that 19 motivated individuals caused on 9/11 with boxcutters....and the subsequent wars were part of their plan

Right, but the people killed in incidents like this is very small compared to the total firearm related homicides. In most instances a bomb would be very unpractical.

The hijacking of the 9/11 planes is also special circumstance, for example, it'd be difficult to rob a bank by hijacking a plane and crashing into it. Oceans 14?

[SouthpawE46]

I find it odd that that theatre, Virginia Tech, Columbine, all those areas were "gun free", yet, criminals took guns in!

HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?! THAT'S BLASPHEMY!

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by bimmerjph

Hell if we are going that far lets remove people's limbs so they can't beat other people to death.
Guns don't kill people. Fucked up people kill people.

A person that crazy would have killed even if all guns were banned. What he probably would have done then is make a bomb.

How about the largest terror attack the world has ever seen...

Any guns used?

/argument

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by ideliver

look at the destruction that 19 motivated individuals caused on 9/11 with boxcutters....and the subsequent wars were part of their plan

...beat me to it

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

The hijacking of the 9/11 planes is also special circumstance, for example, it'd be difficult to rob a bank by hijacking a plane and crashing into it.

Missed the point.

They had a clear objective yes.

Im sure their objective would be much easier if there were no gun control. But, being that there was security and rules and laws in effect...they adapted and found another way to accomplish what they wanted to do in the killing of thousands of people.

With box cutters none the less. The plane itself was not a weapon, but a tool that they needed to gain access to. The weapon is what they needed to gain access. Box cutters.

So naturally....we need to ban anything sharp.

Edit: And I think it also just goes to prove. They could have done several things to have the same end result. Namely explosives. But they didn't. They ended up using a plane to kill thousands. So in this event, had there been, say, very strict laws regarding the obtaining of explosives or the materials used to create them or better yet...that bombs did not exist, would it have prevented this catastrophe?

A determined lunatic will always find a way.

[.b0link]

First off, sorry for the back to back to back to back postings...

But I want to say that I appreciate this thread and everyones opinions. USA Citizens and others alike. The difference in point of views is what drives change. I think to be close minded to others is what stifles growth.

There is no clear cut solution. No one line answer. It will always be a blend of several ideas that will enable us to move forward. Collaboration. So though tempers may get flared, people may get heated, its all in the interest in preventing things like this from happening.

[bimmerjph]

Originally Posted by .b0link

How about the largest terror attack the world has ever seen...

Any guns used?

/argument

+1


I am pretty sure that high capacity clips will be gone soon though. But honestly (and I am a big gun person) I don't see why anyone would need anything past 20 or 30.

[The J-Man]

The most disturbing thing about this thread is that only one person has brought up the issue of gun ownership to protect against the government. This was and is the purpose of the second amendment, and should thus be preserved for that reason. Do you all believe that tyranny does not exist in the 21st century? In the course of human history, it was a blink ago that Hitler and Stalin were rounding up and exterminating millions of unarmed people. The people pulling the strings in this world are generally very bad people, and have much to gain from gun control. These shootings make said people very happy. Strangely enough, there is a major gun control treaty coming up in a few weeks. Very convenient timing.

Bottom line is that government has killed exponentially more people in the past one hundred years than any sort of terrorist. The second amendement in the United States does more to promote freedom and deter tyranny around the world than most people have ever even considered. Once the 2nd amendement falls, what dpes anybody have left to defend themselves with?

[.b0link]

^ That goes without saying. IMO. I am by no means one of the survivalist people with underground bunkers or anything...but lets just say I am prepared.

Also talking about the government, I am surprised this has not been brought up. Excuse the wiki link but if you have doubts on it then just follow the reference links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

I don't believe in this story one bit. It sounds like a convenient coverup to me.

Sounds like a nice way to justify clamping down gun laws by intentionally feeding US guns south of the border. Just looks like the wrong people found out about it.

And in anycase, coverup or not. Extremely reckless and cost an ATF agent their life after being shot with a gun that the government placed in Mexico.

[panicos81]

Originally Posted by .b0link

But I want to say that I appreciate this thread and everyones opinions. USA Citizens and others alike. The difference in point of views is what drives change. I think to be close minded to others is what stifles growth.

There is no clear cut solution. No one line answer. It will always be a blend of several ideas that will enable us to move forward. Collaboration. So though tempers may get flared, people may get heated, its all in the interest in preventing things like this from happening.

+1
there are some really great posts in here that are well thought. i.e Augenbrauezug´s posts.
Collins and 48laws discussion got derailed and served nothing but dropping the level of this discussion. i think we all agree that guns dont walk by themselves and kill people, people with guns do. What should be discussed is what can be done to prevent incidents like that. One thing is more srict gun control, the amount and types of gun/ammo someone can buy is a major issue.
My greatest concern is what is done on a cultrural level (this applies not only to the US).

[immiketoo]

Sorry for the lengthy post, but some of the ignorance here offends me. Read on if you want. Or not.

Someone mentioned earlier that the second amendment was out dated due to the advances of firearm technology and suggested we keep legal firearms limited to those available at the time the constitution was written.

This concept is so patently offensive I feel it necessary to point out a few things. First, the people who wrote the constitution were smarter than everyone in this discussion by a factor of ten, myself included. If any of you have read the constitution, or any of the other documents written by this group of men, it is clear that their grasp of the English language and of the human psyche is far beyond any of us here.

Upon closer inspection, the second amendment could not be better written if the greatest minds of today tried to start fresh and create a new second amendment. They wrote it and the rest of the document in such a way as to be timeless. Technology changes, but the import of the constitution and its amendments is profound. Why? Because they were a bunch of highly motivated individuals.

After suffering centuries of tyrannical oppression at the hands of the monarchy, they swore to never let the fears of petty, power hungry individuals have control over an entire nation. The first, second and fourth amendment speak most to this issue.

Would you like to eliminate the fourth amendment just because it was written long before the technological advances of today were even conceived? How about the first? This entire discussion would likely not be happening without it, and it provides remedies so that 48laws can have his opinion regardless of accuracy, experience or supportable fact.

The reality of the situation is that a single, deranged person took action, albeit horrific action and what people are truly afraid of is their feelings of helplessness at the situation. Anyone prepared for that situation would not have felt helpless and therefore would be able to manage their fear far better than those who depend on others for ensuring their safety.

Understand this. Your best form of protection is you, the skills you have on-board at the time of the incident, and your ability to think through stress encounters mean far more than your ability to dial a phone for help.

To speak to another inane comment posted earlier, where someone said they didn't want some gun toting civilian CCW person handling the problem in lieu of a trained professional, think of the response time required for all the people in the theater to a) realize what was happening b) collect themselves enough to make the call to the police c) wait patiently for the police to arrive, assess the situation and take action.

If I wasn't motivated enough to prepare for this scenario myself, I would gladly accept the help of an individual who had because they are there in the shit, and are far more likely to end the problem in a few moments.

People in this thread have said that a gun would be less effective since the assailant was wearing body armor. So what? Getting shot hurts. With or without armor. Plus, it takes an exceptionally motivated individual to stand there while return fire is coming at them. Most people lose their resolve when they aren't the only one with a gun.

The solution to the Colorado shooting isn't just about gun control, although that will be the focus. The reason killers use guns is because most of them don't have the stomach to get up close and personal and use a blunt force or edged weapon.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by .b0link

Missed the point.

They had a clear objective yes.

Im sure their objective would be much easier if there were no gun control. But, being that there was security and rules and laws in effect...they adapted and found another way to accomplish what they wanted to do in the killing of thousands of people.

With box cutters none the less. The plane itself was not a weapon, but a tool that they needed to gain access to. The weapon is what they needed to gain access. Box cutters.

So naturally....we need to ban anything sharp.

Edit: And I think it also just goes to prove. They could have done several things to have the same end result. Namely explosives. But they didn't. They ended up using a plane to kill thousands. So in this event, had there been, say, very strict laws regarding the obtaining of explosives or the materials used to create them or better yet...that bombs did not exist, would it have prevented this catastrophe?

A determined lunatic will always find a way.

I didn't miss the point, I think you missed mine. Yes the hijackers killed a lot of people with box cutters, I don't deny that at all. These kind of attacks do not make up the majority of homicides. You wouldn't change gun laws to stop 1% of crime, which is where things like Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings fall.

I'm arguing a change in gun law to affect the majority of firearm homicides. Robberies, crimes of passion, etc. Situations where, sure someone could try to use a knife, or a sword, or insert object here. However, a gun is just too easy to conceal and too deadly, to fall under the same category as any other weapon.

For example, of something I think should change. I can leave my house right now, and have an assault rifle, or any other gun for sale at any of the very numerous gun shops around me, in a matter of hours. There isn't really any need to be able to decide you want a gun, and have one a few hours later. IMO there should be a several month waiting period.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Sorry for the lengthy post, but some of the ignorance here offends me. Read on if you want. Or not.

Someone mentioned earlier that the second amendment was out dated due to the advances of firearm technology and suggested we keep legal firearms limited to those available at the time the constitution was written.

This concept is so patently offensive I feel it necessary to point out a few things. First, the people who wrote the constitution were smarter than everyone in this discussion by a factor of ten, myself included. If any of you have read the constitution, or any of the other documents written by this group of men, it is clear that their grasp of the English language and of the human psyche is far beyond any of us here.

Upon closer inspection, the second amendment could not be better written if the greatest minds of today tried to start fresh and create a new second amendment. They wrote it and the rest of the document in such a way as to be timeless. Technology changes, but the import of the constitution and its amendments is profound. Why? Because they were a bunch of highly motivated individuals.

After suffering centuries of tyrannical oppression at the hands of the monarchy, they swore to never let the fears of petty, power hungry individuals have control over an entire nation. The first, second and fourth amendment speak most to this issue.

Would you like to eliminate the fourth amendment just because it was written long before the technological advances of today were even conceived? How about the first? This entire discussion would likely not be happening without it, and it provides remedies so that 48laws can have his opinion regardless of accuracy, experience or supportable fact.

The reality of the situation is that a single, deranged person took action, albeit horrific action and what people are truly afraid of is their feelings of helplessness at the situation. Anyone prepared for that situation would not have felt helpless and therefore would be able to manage their fear far better than those who depend on others for ensuring their safety.

Understand this. Your best form of protection is you, the skills you have on-board at the time of the incident, and your ability to think through stress encounters mean far more than your ability to dial a phone for help.

To speak to another inane comment posted earlier, where someone said they didn't want some gun toting civilian CCW person handling the problem in lieu of a trained professional, think of the response time required for all the people in the theater to a) realize what was happening b) collect themselves enough to make the call to the police c) wait patiently for the police to arrive, assess the situation and take action.

If I wasn't motivated enough to prepare for this scenario myself, I would gladly accept the help of an individual who had because they are there in the shit, and are far more likely to end the problem in a few moments.

People in this thread have said that a gun would be less effective since the assailant was wearing body armor. So what? Getting shot hurts. With or without armor. Plus, it takes an exceptionally motivated individual to stand there while return fire is coming at them. Most people lose their resolve when they aren't the only one with a gun.

The solution to the Colorado shooting isn't just about gun control, although that will be the focus. The reason killers use guns is because most of them don't have the stomach to get up close and personal and use a blunt force or edged weapon.

If your talking about my post, you vastly misconstrued it.

I also starkly disagree with the bold area. In a dark, tear gas filled movie theater, with people screaming and shoving, the likely hood of someone stopping this with their own gun was highly unlikely. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked ANY of the officers that responded that night, none would say they wish someone ELSE had been carrying a gun.

Now in 99% of situations I do agree, I'd rather the random guy next to me be carrying. As you said police response time isn't quick enough to keep someone from shooting me. I'm not arguing we change the constitution, or ban guns.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I didn't miss the point, I think you missed mine. Yes the hijackers killed a lot of people with box cutters, I don't deny that at all. These kind of attacks do not make up the majority of homicides. You wouldn't change gun laws to stop 1% of crime, which is where things like Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings fall.

I'm arguing a change in gun law to affect the majority of firearm homicides. Robberies, crimes of passion, etc. Situations where, sure someone could try to use a knife, or a sword, or insert object here. However, a gun is just too easy to conceal and too deadly, to fall under the same category as any other weapon.

For example, of something I think should change. I can leave my house right now, and have an assault rifle, or any other gun for sale at any of the very numerous gun shops around me, in a matter of hours. There isn't really any need to be able to decide you want a gun, and have one a few hours later. IMO there should be a several month waiting period.

That was just an example of how gun control laws don't matter, to those determined to get them.

Also both mass shootings you just described had at least several months of planning. A "cooling off" period would have prevented anything.

Also, the shooters at columbine broke just about every gun law there was on their way to killing 12 people.

Show me some statistics that support the belief that a waiting period does ANYTHING to curb gun crime. You really think someone is going to go, ya know what, that guy I just caught nailing my wife...hes gonna get it....drive to a gun shop...find out that they can't walk out with a gun, then go...eehhhh never mind.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked ANY of the officers that responded that night, none would say they wish someone ELSE had been carrying a gun.

What are you smoking?

Are you a LEO or prior military, or had ANY sort of professional training or been in that line of work?

The fact that you are GLAD no one else had a gun in that theater really disturbs me as to the type of individual that you are.

Oh yeah, totally glad no one in there was capable of defending themselves.


Asshat

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by .b0link

What are you smoking?

Are you a LEO or prior military, or had ANY sort of professional training or been in that line of work?

The fact that you are GLAD no one else had a gun in that theater really disturbs me as to the type of individual that you are.

Oh yeah, totally glad no one in there was capable of defending themselves.


Asshat

To answer the bold, yes.

Really? Offended by your post.

I'm totally glad that a 2nd shooter didn't accidentally inflict more damage.

Have you ever fired a gun without ear protection in a dark environment? The gun deafens you and the flash blinds you. To say that a civilian would of done anything but potentially hurt the situation in a dark, crowded [there were 300 people in this theater all screaming and shoving each other], tear gas filled environment shows your utter lack of knowledge about firearms.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

To answer the bold, yes.

Really? Totally offended by your post.

I'm totally glad that a 2nd shooter didn't accidentally inflict more damage.

Have you ever fired a gun without ear protection in a dark environment? The gun deafens you and the flash blinds you. To say that a civilian would of done anything but potentially hurt the situation in a dark, crowded [there were 300 people in this theater all screaming and shoving each other], tear gas filled environment shows your utter lack of knowledge about firearms.

I play with guns for a living kind sir. Thank you.

There is no way you, I, or ANYONE else can say what a legally armed and trained citizen could or could not of done. But I can say with 100% certainty it would have been better than nothing.

However, interestingly enough, Cinemark does not allow concealed carry on their premises.

Really like how that worked out for them....lets see....didnt discourage the shooter, but prevented anyone from possibly being able to defend themselves.

EDIT: Also, sorry for offending you. Im heated.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by Prince300

I guess it should be more restricted. Why would any citizen be allowed to buy 2 guns, a rifle and a shot gun over a span of 2 months, I mean come on, this should ring a f**** bell.

I bought 2 handguns and 2 shotguns within 40 days or so (there is a 30 day wait in CA between handgun purchases). Does it make me a criminal?

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Have you ever fired a gun without ear protection in a dark environment? The gun deafens you and the flash blinds you.

And to answer your question, yes, and much more than that.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by solefald

I bought 2 handguns and 2 shotguns within 40 days or so (there is a 30 day wait in CA between handgun purchases). Does it make me a criminal?

Ive bought more than that in one trip.

Guess I am a criminal too.