Gun possession. yes or no?

[carve]

Originally Posted by panicos81

i know this might angry some coming from a non American that doesnt know the situation/culture in the U.S, but looking at the events last yesterday with the Aurora killings i thought i may ask.
dont you find that being able to buy guns and ammo freely, i mean this guy bought a lot of ammo and guns all legal, is damaging to the society? wouldnt gun control assist in reducing crime? someone might argue that "the bad guys" would still find guns, which is true. But it will also prevent events like someones gets angry at their teacher and then takes a gun killing people in schools and such.

i would like to here your point of view on this? Should gun pocession be illegal? why? why not?

1) He only needed between a few dozen to a few hundred rounds to do this
2) All this stuff is already illegal in Norway, and Breivik used similar hardware to kill 70 vs. 12 for Holmes.
3) Therefore, laws limiting gun and ammo possession only apply to those who intend to follow laws. Murder is already illegal.
4) Having so many guns readily available might increase the rate of crimes of impulse/passion (which this was not), but the way most Americans see it is the one primarily responsible for defending yourself from all the rest of crimes is YOU
5) Our right to bear arms is based on the utility of using them to ensure the security of a free state (from foreign and domestic adversaries)- not on home defense or sport

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

The point about prescriptions is not that it's foolproof, but it has controls for the law-abiding individual. This guy went about his gun & ammo purchases legally, but no one questioned the quantity of ammo or the frantic purchase of many firearms in a short time.

Rules regarding frequency of purchase vary from state to state.
If they start tracking ammo, that would most definitely be a big brother rights infringement.

How much ammo I own for my legal firearms is none of the governments business.

Your point is sort of invalid, because there are controls for law abiding citizens.
Remember though...its not the law abiding citizens that we are worried about.

Also, I would hardly consider his purchases "frantic" I have purchased more firearms in one legal transaction than he used for the shooting. Guess that makes me a criminal.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

The point about prescriptions is not that it's foolproof, but it has controls for the law-abiding individual. This guy went about his gun & ammo purchases legally, but no one questioned the quantity of ammo or the frantic purchase of many firearms in a short time.

... and if there were controls in place and if his purchases were considered above whatever thresholds, he'd probably have bought ammo and guns illegally. Not to mention his purchases, to my understanding, weren't all that "outrageous" as some claim, and even if tracked, his activity wouldn't really stand out. And even if it did, again, I'm sure he'd chosen different means of obtaining what he needed.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by Sauce

Lol lighten up dude before you get owned. This is a BMW forum, not congress. Good post, good post... LOL

Your posts have been well thought out. Don't be so condescending just because I didn't put together the time to write a post at the level of you guys. I've had this conversation millions of times, pardon me for not really getting into it for leisure.

Your last sentence though... Again exuding arrogance. So you live 200 years later than the men that wrote the constitution, are you saying you have better judgement on what is best for people currently? How about in 50 years. Will your opinions be outdated? With the risk of getting slightly philosophical, people do NOT change. What surrounds them does. The constitution is aimed directly at what we do and require at the core of ourselves, not what we need in the world surrounding us. Someone earlier made an extremely interesting point branched of the real meaning of the second amendment: arming ourselves against the government. While slightly cynical, he said that our elected representatives are actually pleased about shootings like this, giving them firepower to support their campaigns and ultimately give them more power. I believe the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that we shouldn't be reliant on others to help us, but rather self sufficient. YOU may choose not to be, but the other person may they want to. I understand the huge variable that unknown people carrying weapons brings in, but understand that your feelings have an exact opposite as well. The people that do want to have it in their own hands think- why would I not take action for my own life, others shouldn't tell me how to protect myself- and I believe that is just as morally right as you not wanting someone else taking action, especially since it is backed by the constitution. So there you go, no dudes-LOL's-or owned('s?) in that paragraph for you to whine about .

Own me? online? Isn't that an oxymoron

[Uber V8]

Not sure if this was posted in this thread yet, but perfect RECENT example of why we should all be allowed to carry (CCW)

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Not sure if this was posted in this thread yet, but perfect RECENT example of why we should all be allowed to carry (CCW)

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Now, in MOST situations, hell yah I want the innocents to be armed.

http://theinterrobang.com/2012/07/sh...internet-cafe/

There is a perfect example. This is a different situation though, there aren't 300 people running around in a dark, tear gas filled auditorium.

Linked to it on the last page, however as I said, what took place in that internet cafe and what took place in Aurora are vastly different. The only similarity is that both involved an armed gunman. That might sound identical on the surface, but shooting in a well lit coffee shop with 20~ people, is worlds different than shooting in a dark auditorium with 300 people that are all running in different directions at the same time. Not to mention the tear gas, shooting indoors without ear protection and in the dark is extremely difficult for the average person carrying a gun. Innocent people would be running and shoving past you while your lining up your shot, not to mention the confusion in the crowd when someone else start shooting. it's just far, far too likely that more people would of been hurt or killed. We can argue back and forth all day about the merits of a trained individual, but most people who are carried are not very well trained. This isn't conjure, this is what I've noticed over the past 20 years of being an avid shooter.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Seems to me there's an angle that's been neglected in all this. This guy got all his guns and ammo legally. Say instead of guns, it was prescription drugs. If you try to double-up on your lipitor or percoset, you'll get shut down by the pharmacy. Even the DMV does a better job of tracking your auto registration and driving record.

Everyone acknowledges that his rapid accumulation of arsenals should've raised red flags. Except we don't have the same system in place for guns as we do for prescription drugs or vehicles.

I think this is a valid point. Your not posing a solution or condemning anything, just making a comparison to controls and limitations set on other items in our country. Similar to OSHA requiring someone who's been working in construction for 17 years to take a 30 hour safety class before they can get on a government job site. While it's a simple background check to get a firearm.

However, i'm not interested in paying the government to track private ammo sales. But agree that there is somewhat of an imbalance with the controls. I'm curios now to see what the death toll of abused prescription drugs are compared to shootings of this sort. I'm quite sure cars kill more people than guns across the line though. As i'm typing i'm thinking maybe the imbalance is perceived due to the media attention things like the colorado shooting get. I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I do agree, I was talking about the average Joe. I wouldn't say most people that carry are even close to trained.

I still stand by the fact, that in a crowded dark tear gas filled room, it would be difficult to get an accurate shot off without risking hitting another innocent. People would be pushing you as your lining your shot up, people would be running near the gun man, bullets do go through walls.

Sure the emotional part of me wishes that someone in that theater had a gun to blow the fuckers head off. I just honestly don't see it happening with most of the people that carry. I would find it much more likely that someone would slip and there would of just been another casualty. For anyone saying that I wanted them to be defenseless in the situation clearly doesn't know a damn thing about me.

I'm still not sure about this. Clearly it's all hypothetical but I'm not convinced of this.

Originally Posted by .b0link

Rules regarding frequency of purchase vary from state to state.
If they start tracking ammo, that would most definitely be a big brother rights infringement.

How much ammo I own for my legal firearms is none of the governments business.

Your point is sort of invalid, because there are controls for law abiding citizens.
Remember though...its not the law abiding citizens that we are worried about.

Also, I would hardly consider his purchases "frantic" I have purchased more firearms in one legal transaction than he used for the shooting. Guess that makes me a criminal.

Again, i don't think he's making the point you assume he's making but another thing to consider with regards to tracking ammo sales is that the amount of ammo he purchased is well within normal quantities purchased by most other people. I, for instance, typically purchase ammo at 1000 rounds at a time. I just recently came across a deal on .45 ACP that i had just purchased 1000 rounds for the week before. So i bought that too. 2000 rounds in 14 days. Maybe his purchases shouldn't raise any flags. I didn't purchase any guns or ammo for 6 years. Then in a matter of a month i bought 2 pistols and 2800 rounds of ammo.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Linked to it on the last page, however as I said, what took place in that internet cafe and what took place in Aurora are vastly different. The only similarity is that both involved an armed gunman. That might sound identical on the surface, but shooting in a well lit coffee shop with 20~ people, is worlds different than shooting in a dark auditorium with 300 people that are all running in different directions at the same time. Not to mention the tear gas, shooting indoors without ear protection and in the dark is extremely difficult for the average person carrying a gun. Innocent people would be running and shoving past you while your lining up your shot, not to mention the confusion in the crowd when someone else start shooting. it's just far, far too likely that more people would of been hurt or killed. We can argue back and forth all day about the merits of a trained individual, but most people who are carried are not very well trained. This isn't conjure, this is what I've noticed over the past 20 years of being an avid shooter.

There are countless differences between the internet cafe and Colorado. The MAIN difference is that the perps in the Internet Cafe didn't open the door and start shooting people. Second is that one was armed with a bat and the other turned his back on some of the patrons. The wrong one to be specific.

I think that the lighting conditions play into the hypothetical outcome far less than you suspect. Just opinion of course.

Another point that has been overlooked. What if all the criminals knew that at least 15 to 20 percent of Americans were carrying a pistol and were better trained in using it. Do people think that criminals may think twice about pulling the great internet cafe heist? Colorado is a bit different depending on how screwed up this kid really is. But with the steps of protection he took and by not turning the gun on himself it seems he didn't want to die. Maybe if he thought the probability of someone shooting back was higher he would opted for something different?

The crime rate in Kennasaw GA might provide some preliminary answers....

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Linked to it on the last page, however as I said, what took place in that internet cafe and what took place in Aurora are vastly different. The only similarity is that both involved an armed gunman. That might sound identical on the surface, but shooting in a well lit coffee shop with 20~ people, is worlds different than shooting in a dark auditorium with 300 people that are all running in different directions at the same time. Not to mention the tear gas, shooting indoors without ear protection and in the dark is extremely difficult for the average person carrying a gun. Innocent people would be running and shoving past you while your lining up your shot, not to mention the confusion in the crowd when someone else start shooting. it's just far, far too likely that more people would of been hurt or killed. We can argue back and forth all day about the merits of a trained individual, but most people who are carried are not very well trained. This isn't conjure, this is what I've noticed over the past 20 years of being an avid shooter.

Sorry for the repost, but you make good points. I'd still stand by my argument to say that yes CCW may not solve a situation as in Aurora, but should decrease the typical amateur gunman situations. IMO

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Sorry for the repost, but you make good points. I'd still stand by my argument to say that yes CCW may not solve a situation as in Aurora, but should decrease the typical amateur gunman situations. IMO

I'm glad you did re-post it, as it serves as a good argument for CCW.

[UncleWede]

"and I had been noticing how MPOWER was getting all worked up on the internet, and started to really worry that he was going to do something rash. THEN he bought those guns and all the ammo. I know something was wrong, but I didn't do anything"

j/k


But didn't this fool live with roommates, who must have noticed all this going on???

[smyles]

How much ammo the Colorado shooter
a) had on him?
b) used?

I doubt either a) or b) were anything outrageous that would raise flags, etc.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Again, i don't think he's making the point you assume he's making but another thing to consider with regards to tracking ammo sales is that the amount of ammo he purchased is well within normal quantities purchased by most other people. I, for instance, typically purchase ammo at 1000 rounds at a time. I just recently came across a deal on .45 ACP that i had just purchased 1000 rounds for the week before. So i bought that too. 2000 rounds in 14 days. Maybe his purchases shouldn't raise any flags. I didn't purchase any guns or ammo for 6 years. Then in a matter of a month i bought 2 pistols and 2800 rounds of ammo.

I agree he probably wasn't, however the only way to be able to track sales of ammunition would be for the government to be keeping a file and logging each purchase by every citizen. This is not something I am comfortable with.

Theres other considerations too, as in if there is a cap, and you expend rounds legally at the range or whatever, you have to turn in your brass? Is is serialized?

The idea of the government having a register with every gun owner and ammunition stored does not sit well with me as it serves to derail the purpose of the 2nd amendment IMHO.

Also to spin the prescription parallel another way, by restricting the ammo sales and tracking, you only create a larger black market, and more illegal sales. The only ones that will be negatively effected by it will be law abiding citizens.

[BMWinNorthdakota]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

The point about prescriptions is not that it's foolproof, but it has controls for the law-abiding individual. This guy went about his gun & ammo purchases legally, but no one questioned the quantity of ammo or the frantic purchase of many firearms in a short time.

Your posts are nearly as entertaining as 48's.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Linked to it on the last page, however as I said, what took place in that internet cafe and what took place in Aurora are vastly different. The only similarity is that both involved an armed gunman. That might sound identical on the surface, but shooting in a well lit coffee shop with 20~ people, is worlds different than shooting in a dark auditorium with 300 people that are all running in different directions at the same time. Not to mention the tear gas, shooting indoors without ear protection and in the dark is extremely difficult for the average person carrying a gun. Innocent people would be running and shoving past you while your lining up your shot, not to mention the confusion in the crowd when someone else start shooting. it's just far, far too likely that more people would of been hurt or killed. We can argue back and forth all day about the merits of a trained individual, but most people who are carried are not very well trained. This isn't conjure, this is what I've noticed over the past 20 years of being an avid shooter.

I have no doubt that there is a great potential for collateral damage if someone pulls a CCW and returns fire against the gunman in this scenario. However, if I'm in that theater watching as some guy with an AK/AR walks up and down the stairs unopposed while someone in the theater is carrying, you're damn sure I'm going to feel more comfortable and supportive of someone making the attempt to return fire against this person rather than watch him walk around firing on innocents unopposed. That's a risk I'd take, and being a potential collateral victim is also a risk I'd be willing to accept. Most CCW holders regularly shoot, and while it's not a trained police officer, military officer, swat team member, or federal agent, I'm sure as fck happy that SOMEONE else in that theater besides the shooter is prepared and willing to defend human life.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by Draven

I have no doubt that there is a great potential for collateral damage if someone pulls a CCW and returns fire against the gunman in this scenario. However, if I'm in that theater watching as some guy with an AK/AR walks up and down the stairs unopposed while someone in the theater is carrying, you're damn sure I'm going to feel more comfortable and supportive of someone making the attempt to return fire against this person rather than watch him walk around firing on innocents unopposed. That's a risk I'd take, and being a potential collateral victim is also a risk I'd be willing to accept. Most CCW holders regularly shoot, and while it's not a trained police officer, military officer, swat team member, or federal agent, I'm sure as fck happy that SOMEONE else in that theater besides the shooter is prepared and willing to defend human life.

Which is why I said...

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Sure the emotional part of me wishes that someone in that theater had a gun to blow the fuckers head off. I just honestly don't see it happening with most of the people that carry. I would find it much more likely that someone would slip and there would of just been another casualty.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by .b0link

I agree he probably wasn't, however the only way to be able to track sales of ammunition would be for the government to be keeping a file and logging each purchase by every citizen. This is not something I am comfortable with.

Theres other considerations too, as in if there is a cap, and you expend rounds legally at the range or whatever, you have to turn in your brass? Is is serialized?

The idea of the government having a register with every gun owner and ammunition stored does not sit well with me as it serves to derail the purpose of the 2nd amendment IMHO.

Also to spin the prescription parallel another way, by restricting the ammo sales and tracking, you only create a larger black market, and more illegal sales. The only ones that will be negatively effected by it will be law abiding citizens.

Not only do i not want them tracking ammo sales because of an infringement of my rights, i don't want to pay for it!! Can you imagine the amount of tax dollars that would be spent to control this?!?! I doubt this will happen. More likely is the government making it more difficult / expensive to purchase ammo.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

"and I had been noticing how MPOWER was getting all worked up on the internet, and started to really worry that he was going to do something rash. THEN he bought those guns and all the ammo. I know something was wrong, but I didn't do anything"

j/k


But didn't this fool live with roommates, who must have noticed all this going on???

My wife hasn't reported me to anyone yet.

[kmarei]

if guns don't kill people
why do some of you approve of civilians owning them?
i mean i buy a gun that doesn't kill people?

[kmarei]

i can honestly say if it wasn't for the NRA paying large amounts of money to politicians
guns would have been banned here many years ago

i still fail to see the logic
we allow people to own guns because it might protect them from bad guys
and yet now almost on a monthly basis we lose innocent people that are killed by some idiot who got a gun LEGALLY from a STORE. but that's ok, because maybe one day a good guy gets to use his gun to kill a bad guy
that, to me at least, sounds like a losing proposition

i think its a crying shame we lost those 12 people
and to me stopping guns from being sold legally is well worth it
you want to protect yourself get a stun gun or some other defensive weapon
but owning an assault weapon?
seriously?

[BMWinNorthdakota]

Originally Posted by kmarei

i can honestly say if it wasn't for the NRA paying large amounts of money to politicians
guns would have been banned here many years ago

i still fail to see the logic
we allow people to own guns because it might protect them from bad guys
and yet now almost on a monthly basis we lose innocent people that are killed by some idiot who got a gun LEGALLY from a STORE. but that's ok, because maybe one day a good guy gets to use his gun to kill a bad guy
that, to me at least, sounds like a losing proposition

i think its a crying shame we lost those 12 people
and to me stopping guns from being sold legally is well worth it
you want to protect yourself get a stun gun or some other defensive weapon
but owning an assault weapon?
seriously?

After reading 12 pages of intellectual debate you still maintain that the guns are the problem?

[ideliver]

the problem is simple...humans are evil...evil is something that can reside deep in our hearts and sometimes there are no solutions for such evil...haters gonna hate and killers gonna kill