Gun possession. yes or no?

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by !JGunz_325

"If guns kill people, then...
Pencils mispell words
Cars make people drive drunk
Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

If you look at the intent of a gun, its functionality, purpose, you'd laugh at those quips as I did.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Sorry, typo on my part. There was supposed to be a might in there. Which I have fixed.

Regardless of the cause of Friday's events, tragic as they are, I do support our constitutional rights. Even when they make my job harder. Or I don't get my way. The alternative is frightening. This is a classic example of don't let one bad apple spoil he bunch. Of course, I wonder how I'd feel if this had happened closer to home?

You hit it on the head earlier when you said finding a way to keep people safe is the answer. Would one armed, trained, motivated citizen in that theater changed the outcome? Should we institute TSA like screening processes wherever people gather? Mind control? Gun bans? Each of these has their downfalls.

Its pretty easy to see both sides. It is also easy for me to see the rest of the worlds point of view on America. This latest shooting has really disturbed me. Its as if society is becoming so desensitized to this kind of event. Ive been living in Spain for 2 years now. In that time I have had the misfortune of logging onto my work computer to see news stories of mass shootings no less than 6 or 7 times. It has become absurd. Like a monthly event.

I then think about the time I have been in Spain, how many violent crimes I have heard about...none. A handful of muggings and break ins, but that is it.

It occurred to me then why the rest of the world thinks we are crazy...especially when THIS kind of news is the only kind of news that leaves our shores. They don't read about the good humanitarians that save someones life. Or the charity work that happens. Or any of the good people trying to make a difference in the US/world.

Its been eye opening living and traveling abroad....noting how different areas react to and treat Americans. I have made some friends. Without doubt locals are always hesitant to open up or talk to us, but usually quickly find out that we are for the most part good people, and just like anyone else out to try to find their way through life. It hurts me that the worlds point of view on us is based on celebrity culture, Jersey Shore, and the news that makes it to their land.

No doubt we are also unique, with our views of things like guns, health care, and taxes. But that is the country we live in. We were born into this. It is our history (yes i know it is a short one unlike the rest of the world) and our culture. And unfortunately another thing bred into us is this ridiculous notion of being the best. That the American lifestyle is the only lifestyle. People don't realize that other countries are just as modern, beautiful, and "free" as us. Ask the average person who has never left the borders what they think living in XXXXX country is like and the answers will make you want to smack yourself. However, this is also how the rest of the world responds to us. Take a trip, befriend an American. See that we are truly good people and the most of us are just trying to make our way, support our family, and enjoy life.

Back to the guns though....i fear to think what would happen if they tightened up even more on gun control. As said before, its not the presence of guns that causes this. It is society. Yes I will admit....American society is fucked. We are media driven, easily programmed, and losing our way. This guy that shot up the theater THOUGHT he was the Joker. Someone that mentally ill will do what they want and nothing will get in the way. Guns kill people...yes. I said it. However people use guns to shoot people. Someone makes that decision to pull the trigger and kill. The gun just makes an easier quicker job of it. However if they made that decision with a gun in their hand, they would have done the same with a knife. Even if the shooter had no access to guns, he sure as shit knew how to make bombs, and probably would have just done that instead.

I think part of this problem, IS the fact that there is such a negative stigma placed on carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise. People are afraid to fight back. People don't stand up for themselves or others like they used to. People will sit there and take it. Its the pacifist nature that the government is trying to push us to. Well, guess what. It doesn't work. If the bad guys know that no one will put up a fight...what is to discourage them?

Just YESTERDAY....my parents neighbor, shot an intruder who had broken into her house. The lady was a 68 year old retired school teacher. Breakins have been rampant in this neighborhood for months. If people get away with something, they will only repeat it until something different happens. Well this lady stood up for herself. Go figure she was from a generation that didn't take shit from others, and damn sure didn't back down.

Go to a state like Texas and see how often something like this happens. They have the most liberal gun laws. To say they are gun friendly would be an understatement. Well guess what. Before a criminal car jacks someone you don't think that they might wonder if they are protecting themselves?

Just as easily as guns kill, they save lives and PREVENT violence. You just don't hear about it.



I realize none of you will read that cause I wrote a damn novel but I feel better so its all good.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Should we institute TSA like screening processes wherever people gather? Mind control? Gun bans? Each of these has their downfalls.

I say no to all, but big brother is watching, and will only get more intrusive.

So much for our "freedom"

[smyles]

Originally Posted by panicos81

wouldnt gun control assist in reducing crime?

Yes, it would assist in reducing crime committed with guns; however, it would consequently increase incidents where other means have been used - knifes, machetes, etc. etc. Just like wide availability of nukes would probably increase # of 'hiroshimas'; but since nukes are controlled, we don't have many of those.
The only positive I could see is potential reduction in overall victims, as guns by default are more effective... but even this is questionable, as we don't know how many crimes were prevented or stopped early by armed victims/bystanders.

As for the stricter gun controls, from what I've read the Aurora shooter was an exemplary citizen, w/o any prior convictions, so any filters would hardly prevent him from legally buying a gun.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by smyles

As for the stricter gun controls, from what I've read the Aurora shooter was an exemplary citizen, w/o any prior convictions, so any filters would hardly prevent him from legally buying a gun.

I'm not sure if this guy had ever seen a mental health provider, but despite the intrusion into personal medical records, I think there should be a way for background checks to see if you have ever seen a mental health specialist, and then investigate for what.

Sorta the same thing with the VT shooter. He was already a troubled individual who had been seeing IIRC the school psychiatrist prior to the events of 4/16/07.

I think having a certain diagnosis should be reported. Not necessarily what the diagnosis was but have a guideline for which conditions would not be wise to give a gun, such as paranoid schizophrenics. And then just flag them with the ATF or something.

[Cdnrockies]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Regardless of the cause of Friday's events, tragic as they are, I do support our constitutional rights. Even when they make my job harder. Or I don't get my way. The alternative is frightening. This is a classic example of don't let one bad apple spoil he bunch. Of course, I wonder how I'd feel if this had happened closer to home?

You hit it on the head earlier when you said finding a way to keep people safe is the answer. Would one armed, trained, motivated citizen in that theater changed the outcome? Should we institute TSA like screening processes wherever people gather? Mind control? Gun bans? Each of these has their downfalls.

Originally Posted by .b0link

I'm not sure if this guy had ever seen a mental health provider, but despite the intrusion into personal medical records, I think there should be a way for background checks to see if you have ever seen a mental health specialist, and then investigate for what.

Sorta the same thing with the VT shooter. He was already a troubled individual who had been seeing IIRC the school psychiatrist prior to the events of 4/16/07.

I think having a certain diagnosis should be reported. Not necessarily what the diagnosis was but have a guideline for which conditions would not be wise to give a gun, such as paranoid schizophrenics. And then just flag them with the ATF or something.

And this is where the discussion becomes very, very murky.

At what point do you start infringing on the rights and freedoms of every individual to "protect" them???

I think we would all be in agreement that something needs to change. As Mike pointed out so convincingly, it might not necessarily be the guns.

Another poster pointed out some outsider observations of how America and it's culture is perceived. Unfortunately, as someone who is non-American and has travelled throughout Europe, the characterization/perception of Americans is undeniable. I had an opportunity to travel a couple times to Europe with an American teammate. He felt much more comfortable "being Canadian" and avoiding some of the negative reactions that many had towards Americans.

I would agree with Mike that going down the road of taking away freedoms to protect the greater good is an extremely slippery slope that could dramatically alter who the USA is by definition.

The alternative is to alter the psychology of US society in a way that brings citizens together in a positive way. Not to get too political, but the venom that is spewed between the political parties is about as far from what the founding fathers envisioned as possible. How do people identify themselves as solely Dem/Rep??? Shouldn't the bigger picture be built around being American??? Making decisions based on what is best for the country??? Not to simply oppose the other party???

Cleaning up the political mess that has developed and changing the attitudes of it's citizens to drop the sense of entitlement/arrogance/superiority complex is the only way to right the US ship, imho.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by Cdnrockies

And this is where the discussion becomes very, very murky.

At what point do you start infringing on the rights and freedoms of every individual to "protect" them???

I think we would all be in agreement that something needs to change. As Mike pointed out so convincingly, it might not necessarily be the guns.

Another poster pointed out some outsider observations of how America and it's culture is perceived. Unfortunately, as someone who is non-American and has travelled throughout Europe, the characterization/perception of Americans is undeniable. I had an opportunity to travel a couple times to Europe with an American teammate. He felt much more comfortable "being Canadian" and avoiding some of the negative reactions that many had towards Americans.

I would agree with Mike that going down the road of taking away freedoms to protect the greater good is an extremely slippery slope that could dramatically alter who the USA is by definition.

The alternative is to alter the psychology of US society in a way that brings citizens together in a positive way. Not to get too political, but the venom that is spewed between the political parties is about as far from what the founding fathers envisioned as possible. How do people identify themselves as solely Dem/Rep??? Shouldn't the bigger picture be built around being American??? Making decisions based on what is best for the country??? Not to simply oppose the other party???

Cleaning up the political mess that has developed and changing the attitudes of it's citizens to drop the sense of entitlement/arrogance/superiority complex is the only way to right the US ship, imho.

The graphs you provided are frankly, disturbing. I linked mine just before leaving the house, and hadn't done any more research than seeing that on wiki and linking it.

I agree with your post, it is the American mentality that needs to change. In a way, I think it is our strong sense of freedom that has lead us here. We [American's] generally feel entitled to things, that we shouldn't. We also treat human life with total disregard until it's a family member or friend, and suddenly we make a huge deal over it. It kind of get's back to the other tread here, "tasteless classless and crude.". It's this mentality that IMO is destroying the country. You can make guns illegal, and you may see a drop in firearm homicides, but you won't see a decline in crime until the peoples perception and belief system changes.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by panicos81

i agree to a certain degree.

i live in an occupied country, we are not exactly at a state of war, but we all have guns and ammo at home provided to us by the army in case something happens. also people here like to go hunting. so we also have guns for that as well. but we are not allowed to have hand guns. so we cannot go anywhere with a concealed weapon.. we never had an incident like that (then again we are a small country) but we often have incidents between criminals "handling their business". innocents law abiding citizens rarely get killed.
my thinking is that since hand guns are allowed, and people are allowed to buy them freely, allows people to "derail" more often.

I see what you mean, and to be honest there isn't a whole lot of reason to own a handgun [other than self defense]. Even as a Texan I must admit, it is a bit ridiculous that I can go out and buy an assault rifle and take it home today. I personally wouldn't mind seeing more gun control in Texas, like I just said there isn't really a reason for a handgun, an ak47, or a sawed off shotgun, unless your intent is to shoot another human. However there are a LOT of people in this state that would starkly disagree and would not take such a change in law, sitting down. It is this stubborn view, that unfortunately an overwhelming number of people in the south have, that this is the way 'merica' is and screw you for trying to change it.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Cdnrockies

And this is where the discussion becomes very, very murky.

At what point do you start infringing on the rights and freedoms of every individual to "protect" them???

I think we would all be in agreement that something needs to change. As Mike pointed out so convincingly, it might not necessarily be the guns.

I would agree with Mike that going down the road of taking away freedoms to protect the greater good is an extremely slippery slope that could dramatically alter who the USA is by definition.

The alternative is to alter the psychology of US society in a way that brings citizens together in a positive way. Not to get too political, but the venom that is spewed between the political parties is about as far from what the founding fathers envisioned as possible. How do people identify themselves as solely Dem/Rep??? Shouldn't the bigger picture be built around being American??? Making decisions based on what is best for the country??? Not to simply oppose the other party???

Cleaning up the political mess that has developed and changing the attitudes of it's citizens to drop the sense of entitlement/arrogance/superiority complex is the only way to right the US ship, imho.

I am absolutely in agreement with everything you just said. And this is the fear that most sane, informed Americans share. Once it starts, where does it end.

Just recently they determined that the new Healthcare law was constitutional based on the fact that the fee for those whom do not comply, is not actually a fee, but a "tax"

This is a very very scary ruling. What happens from here? The precedent has now been set. The government can live under the "guise" of everyone having personal freedom. But as it turns out, freedom will come at a cost. Only those wealthy enough to afford to be "free". Essentially they can control the population into doing whatever they want based on the principal that refusal constitutes a "tax"

The following quotes are all from none other than the author of our declaration of independence, and one of the framers of the US Constitution. It hardly seems like he would agree with where we are right now.


"The Government has absolutely grown beyond what it was ever meant to be. The founding fathers never intended for this."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

All these show how Jefferson had envisioned the government. I think that is pretty clear.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

This shows where we are really failing. It scares me how much our education is failing and how clueless people are of what is *actually* happening in the government, as the take our rights away and infringe on the Constitution one step at a time.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed
of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in
politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for
myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and
moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I
would not go there at all."

And this would be my personal favorite, and something that you hit on. Parties will be the destruction of America. In order to achieve a majority vote on anything, one must decide which of their morals is more important than others, thereby sacrificing things that they believe in, in order to identify with Democrat or Republican. There is no cookie cutter way for America to be. If it were actually the interest of the MAJORITY than we would not be in the mess we are in. That is to say, if the general populations opinions mattered. But instead the must pick someone whom will be the lesser of two evils. Its a shame that we will more than likely never see an independent elected into office unless more Americans wake up. That is what would be in our best interest.

Dissolve the parties. These aren't black and white issues. Its not one or the other. America was never meant for that. But here we are.

I personally refuse to identify with any party, because when it comes down to it, they don't represent all of my ideals and morals. I don't need someone to make decisions based on what "they feel" is in my best interest.

[kevinbahnz]

no poll?

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

The graphs you provided are frankly, disturbing. I linked mine just before leaving the house, and hadn't done any more research than seeing that on wiki and linking it.

I agree with your post, it is the American mentality that needs to change. In a way, I think it is our strong sense of freedom that has lead us here. We [American's] generally feel entitled to things, that we shouldn't. We also treat human life with total disregard until it's a family member or friend, and suddenly we make a huge deal over it. It kind of get's back to the other tread here, "tasteless classless and crude.". It's this mentality that IMO is destroying the country. You can make guns illegal, and you may see a drop in firearm homicides, but you won't see a decline in crime until the peoples perception and belief system changes.

Before I begin, I'll just mention that my bias is towards gun control.

I agree - those statistics are certainly shocking, albeit not surprising. One might argue that even though our firearms-associated homicide rate is higher than other modern societies, this is just a reflection of people using guns rather than other means to kill.

Then, you look at the overall homicide rate in the United States, as compared to other nations.



And the number of law enforcement that we have (total, followed by number per 100,000):

Cyprus 5,280[4] 2008 668
Italy 324,339[4] 2006 552
Spain 224,086[4] 2008 494
Portugal 51,584[4] 2008 485
Turkey 341,770[4] 2008 484
Greece 50,798 2008 452
Bulgaria 33,800[4] 2008 442
Czech Republic 42,117[4] 2008 405
Hong Kong 27,117 2007 393[10]
Netherlands 65,133[16][17] 2010 392
France 228,402[4] 2008 369
Mexico 393,084 2009 366[15]
Belgium 38,068[4] 2008 356
Ireland 14,411[4] 2006 342
UK 181,580[4] 2008 333
Israel 22,440 2004 330[14]
Luxembourg 1,555[4] 2008 321
Austria 26,623[4] 2008 320
South Africa 150,982[20] 2010 306
Germanyy 247,619[4] 2008 301
Slovakia 14,059[4] 2008 260
Singapore 10,755 2007 239[10]
United States 708,569[4] 2008 233
Australia 49,242[4] 2009 217
Switzerland 16,326[4] 2008 214
Iceland 646[4] 2008 204
Sweden 18,321[4] 2008 199
Japan 251,939[4] 2006 197
Denmark 10,743[4] 2008 196
South Korea 93,600 2004 195[14]
Canada 65,283[4] 2008 195
Norway 7,505[4] 2008 158
Finland 7,800[8] 2011 146


Regardless of your stance, you have to admit that there is something inherently wrong with our system. Perhaps the simple answer is that we simply have too FEW police. Anecdote: I live in New York, a city which is notorious for having a high police presence per capita. And I have to admit, I appreciate the extra security. But I'm not convinced that increasing the number of law enforcement alone is the solution. It will really take a concerted effort to bring down our homicide rate - one that will likely require gun control, increased law enforcement presence, and other means (eg. poverty-reducing measures)

Here are some other interesting relationships, to add to the discussion.





https://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/w.../SPSSREG26.JPG

As you might guess, each data point represents a state.

Obviously, what causes crime is incredibly complex, and not down to any single factor. That being said, all of these data paint a rather clear picture.

[3_runner]

I don't really care about the argument, I'm just curious who here has a 100 round clip? What do you use it for?

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by 3_runner

I don't really care about the argument, I'm just curious who here has a 100 round clip? What do you use it for?

Turning bad things into dead bad things?

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by 3_runner

I don't really care about the argument, I'm just curious who here has a 100 round clip? What do you use it for?

I don't, but I do know a couple people with them. They are pointless unless you just need to compensate.

[tmppgh]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I don't, but I do know a couple people with them. They are pointless unless you just need to compensate.

That argument is just like saying anyone with a high horsepower sports car is trying to compensate also. There is no issue with owning a high capacity magazine unless you misuse it. Just like owning a high performance automobile is fine until you misuse it.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by tmppgh

That argument is just like saying anyone with a high horsepower sports car is trying to compensate also. There is no issue with owning a high capacity magazine unless you misuse it. Just like owning a high performance automobile is fine until you misuse it.

No it's not. Besides I'm basing my opinion off the people I know who have them. They don't take it to the range, they don't hunt with it, they have it for bragging right, nothing more.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

People like to think that the human race is so far evolved that violence is only due to the fact that guns make it easier to kill. But, if guns were magically removed to the earth, humans would still find a way to kill each other.

If an outraged student or coworker really wants to cause problems, and guns are gone, I think people will turn back to poison or explosives for mass murders. It really wouldn't be hard considering mass transit, sporting events and the like, so your question is a moot point. Guns are only the mechanism. People are the cause of the deaths.

When swords were the most effective weapon, everyone carried one for self protection, duels etc. The only difference is after killing about five people on a rampage you'd get tired and maybe have to stop for a bit, thereby allowing everyone else to stab you back or flee.

If someone started killing people with Bic pens, (Yes its possible) would you rush in to ban the pen? What about the compound bow? Good range, decent rate of fire if you train hard enough? Should bows be illegal?

These arguments always come up after a man caused event such as this because people are scared. Unfortunately, fear and the lack of perception of events as they are unfolding cause far more deaths than might otherwise have happened in any particular event. If a single, well trained person had been in that theater, I expect the whole thing would have been minimized.

As I said, people are the problem. Not guns.

I believe that this is true. For some reason, as stated in the Batman thread, people tend to believe that unless you're a police officer or prior military you are inept when it comes to handling a pistol. This is simply incorrect. Not only are there plenty of civilians out there who are well capable of handling a pistol, but there are military personnel out there who have never fired a pistol. I took two Iraq Army vets to the range the other day and neither one of them had ever fired a pistol. Just because you can't effectively control a fire arm does't mean other people can't.

Originally Posted by smyles

Yes, it would assist in reducing crime committed with guns; however, it would consequently increase incidents where other means have been used - knifes, machetes, etc. etc. Just like wide availability of nukes would probably increase # of 'hiroshimas'; but since nukes are controlled, we don't have many of those.
The only positive I could see is potential reduction in overall victims, as guns by default are more effective... but even this is questionable, as we don't know how many crimes were prevented or stopped early by armed victims/bystanders.

As for the stricter gun controls, from what I've read the Aurora shooter was an exemplary citizen, w/o any prior convictions, so any filters would hardly prevent him from legally buying a gun.

I believe the bolded statement to be the opposite as you stated and history supports my belief. When only one nation had nuclear power two were used as a weapon of war. When multiple nations had nuclear power they were never used as a weapon of war again. Cold war is another story. Also, you might be completely shocked at the number of nukes in our soil, floating in our boats and nestled in bomb bays of planes. Not to mention how many exist world wide. There was a balance of power and the fact is, we didn't have another hiroshima because everyone knew that if you shot one of those nukes at your enemy, you knew they would shoot their's back you and vise versa.

The person in the batman thread said that the NRA will try to convince all of us that if there were more armed people in that theater they would have defused the situation with their own firepower. While that is a plausible scenario. What the NRA would likely rather have you believe is that if the shooter knew that 20% of the people in that theater were armed he might have thought twice about doing what he did. Seeing what happened with opposing nuclear nations, that idea may hold merit. Although, it really depends on just how messed up in the head the perp is.

Originally Posted by panicos81

i agree to a certain degree.

i live in an occupied country, we are not exactly at a state of war, but we all have guns and ammo at home provided to us by the army in case something happens. also people here like to go hunting. so we also have guns for that as well. but we are not allowed to have hand guns. so we cannot go anywhere with a concealed weapon.. we never had an incident like that (then again we are a small country) but we often have incidents between criminals "handling their business". innocents law abiding citizens rarely get killed.
my thinking is that since hand guns are allowed, and people are allowed to buy them freely, allows people to "derail" more often.

This shooter had 2 long guns and 2 pistols. According to witnesses, he busted in first using a shotgun and then switched to a rifle.

I wish this guy would have used his ability to acquire a hand gun to simply end his own miserable life rather than inflicting countless other with pain and anguish.


I learned of this incident late friday afternoon. It really stopped me in my tracks. Feelings of shock, confusion, sadness and anger filled me up rather quickly and still are effecting me now. I think Mike hit on one important factor in one of his posts. The fact that we celebrate mediocrity is playing a huge role creating a false reality for young people as the grow up and experience this world. For most, almost certainly for this kid, the first 18 to 20 years of his life was a lie. Having a ceremony for a kid moving from the 4th to 5th grade is ludicrous. This is something that is expected, there will be no ceremonies for those kids as they simply do what their employer expects them to do. Most of the time these days employers are so busy these new kids won't get as much as a pat on the back. As a society we're setting them up for at most failure and at least a huge let down.

But without trying to change the views of all parents in this country, as Mike said, a single well trained armed citizen who was lucky enough to not get hit in the first 5 to 7 shots would have likely mitigated much of the carnage that took place. Unless this well trained person, was a law abiding citizen who wasn't allowed to carry a firearm.

What took place was a misguided, senseless act, the cause of which we will probably never know. But if we break down this tragedy in an effort to try and prevent it from happening again, logic seems to point to more law abiding citizens carrying firearms. We can't have cops sitting in every movie theater, gas station, restaurant, grocery store, connivence store, bank, appliance store, furniture store, classroom, parking lot, etc.... Depending on our police officers had no effect on the outcome of this incident.

If we all agree that recalling the 2nd amendment rights will not stop criminals from accessing and using guns. Then in this particular case our right to keep and bare arms had 0 effect on the outcome of this incident either. Because no one was carrying a firearm or no one carrying was willing to use it. So without demonizing firearms how do we prevent someone from taking a dive into the deep end? The answer is we can't. We can't make a bubble for us to live in. Even if you do, someone in your bubble will eventually pop it.

I believe our hope lies in parents of today. They are the ones who need to instill decency, honor, morals, along with the other traits and life lessons that will mold the children of today in to responsible, grounded, adults who will contribute to our society in a positive way. See the Tasteless, crude, classless thread but these kids today are brought up being taught to get all they can for themselves. That entitlement mentality, along with the PEOPLE WHO CONTROL our political system, are killing our nation.

For the families of the dead there is hardly anything that can console them. The wounded they will forever be changed by this tragedy. Some will have their lives completely derailed by this while others might have slight affects. Those who escaped without injury will also be affected and all will never forget. To think that a kid, of 24 years of age decided to do this for who knows why just rips my heart out. I pray all affected by this will some how find comfort and peace as they try to cope and move on with life. It must truly be a near impossible task for some.....

[IFX]

This s such a touchy subject, I don't even know anymore.

I think the types of guns people can readily access is what worries me the most.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by IFX

This s such a touchy subject, I don't even know anymore.

I think the types of guns people can readily access is what worries me the most.

What types of guns worry you most? And what do you mean by readily?

[Chrisruf911]

I believe in moderate gun control. I own several myself which include hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols and assault rifles. I enjoy shooting as a sport and I carry a Springfield xd. I was a victim of an armed robbery about 10 years ago and I feel a lot more secure carrying. I am well aware there are many people who are unfit to responsibly own a firearm. The problem I see is that you can enforce stricter screening on newly purchased firearms but not firearms that have been privately sold or traded. In many states, including my own, it is perfectly legal for private parties to buy or sell guns. There is no registration process or data base that keeps track of the serial numbers. I would say if the government could track even 10% of existing firearms that would be optimistic. That being said, tighter gun laws would probably not have much impact on overall gun related crime.

[schoy]

I think we'd all have to agree that some form of gun control is necessary. For example, if someone invented a gun that shoots mini-nuclear projectiles, should that be legal? Obviously not, nor any other weapon of mass destruction (e.g. RPGs, grenades). But then are automatic rifles WMDs? Semi-automatic rifles? Pistols? Even with a pistol and multiple clips, I would think one could put down quite a few in a crowded theater. It seems that the question is one of degree -- where should we draw the line? The problem is that -- short of a complete ban on projectile weapons -- wherever you do draw the line would seem somewhat arbitrary.

[ChaneRZ]

California has a strict gun control. But nonetheless, there is always a black market for guns. People who need to do something WILL acquire guns no matter what. BTW people