Gun Control

If the majority of law-abiding citizens owned guns, the psychological evaluations wouldn't really be necessary. Furthermore, most gun dealers are centralized in local communities. Those dealers will know their customers rather well, so psych evaluations would be less than necessary.

Prince Doebler wrote:

If the majority of law-abiding citizens owned guns, the psychological evaluations wouldn't really be necessary. Furthermore, most gun dealers are centralized in local communities. Those dealers will know their customers rather well, so psych evaluations would be less than necessary.

Second degree murder is severely lessened with these tests, almost guaranteed. People that shoot someone in the heat of passion, do you think they honestly are thinking "oh shit does he have a gun?" or is he really thinking of the consequences of his actions? No, not really, because most of the time they just snap and go YOLO with their gun.

Copy and pasting this because it's epic and true. This is in response to Eric Holder saying that Obama decides who's 'entitled' to Second Amendment Rights

Wow, they're arguing about guns knowing the intent of having guns on a constitutional basis has nothing to deal with mental health, convictions, ect. It's militia. It's self preservation. It's about looking out for one another. Gun ownership is suppose teach and expand a human being's responsibility and direct them to a greater state of civility. Growing up in boy scouts, around farms, and my father carrying a gun (I knew about and had access to it at a young age,) I never in my right mind could think to cause harm to an individual and want to use the power of taking another man's life. It's good that they are making arguments about people that have a good heart and head on their shoulder, but at what point can we call the point of no return...The drones, the 2nd amendment infringement, the fact that we've declared war on our own soil under the guise of countering terrorism...we live in a light form of martial law and with the current and future legislation in place, we will without a doubt continue to lose freedoms as the government continues to use the emotions of individuals through the power of the media along with lobbying as a way to force on a day to day basis a stronger police state...some of the decisions being made upstairs should make people have a hard time swallowing their meals and should cause tears to be shed over the amount of uneducated voters being hijacked by misleading information.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Copy and pasting this because it's epic and true. This is in response to Eric Holder saying that Obama decides who's 'entitled' to Second Amendment Rights

Wow, they're arguing about guns knowing the intent of having guns on a constitutional basis has nothing to deal with mental health, convictions, ect. It's militia. It's self preservation. It's about looking out for one another. Gun ownership is suppose teach and expand a human being's responsibility and direct them to a greater state of civility. Growing up in boy scouts, around farms, and my father carrying a gun (I knew about and had access to it at a young age,) I never in my right mind could think to cause harm to an individual and want to use the power of taking another man's life. It's good that they are making arguments about people that have a good heart and head on their shoulder, but at what point can we call the point of no return...The drones, the 2nd amendment infringement, the fact that we've declared war on our own soil under the guise of countering terrorism...we live in a light form of martial law and with the current and future legislation in place, we will without a doubt continue to lose freedoms as the government continues to use the emotions of individuals through the power of the media along with lobbying as a way to force on a day to day basis a stronger police state...some of the decisions being made upstairs should make people have a hard time swallowing their meals and should cause tears to be shed over the amount of uneducated voters being hijacked by misleading information.

The quote is extremely biased, considering both sides of the argument try misleading information. In just about every aspect of politics, people do this and every party acts like it's only the other side doing it. I'd also like to point out the scariness of the bolded. It's the other way around. People need to be taught and expand their responsibility before they can carry something that requires as much.

I liked Obama's proposal at the State of the Union address. Really the only thing he wants to limit for existing gun owners are magazine amounts and of course the assault weapons. For future gun owners, background checks. I see nothing wrong with background checks. He also mentioned something about reinforcing schools, so we might see a few firearms sent that way, possibly.

No, it is true. A gun is a very powerful tool and valuable when used the right way. Also, the lack of lessons on the value of human life is further pushing it. The only reasons people are killed because of carelessness around guns are due to the parents either not teaching their kids about guns, or not locking them up properly.

Also, 20-round weapons have been around and popular for about 150 years. This prejudice against them is only a recent form of flattery.

Also, no citizen should be barred from having assault weapons. Why? Because mass murderers carry those, and you'll have a better chance protecting yourself and others from harm with an equally powerful weapon as opposed to a simple Colt .22

Prince Doebler wrote:

No, it is true. A gun is a very powerful tool and valuable when used the right way. Also, the lack of lessons on the value of human life is further pushing it. The only reasons people are killed because of carelessness around guns are due to the parents either not teaching their kids about guns, or not locking them up properly.

Also, 20-round weapons have been around and popular for about 150 years. This prejudice against them is only a recent form of flattery.

Also, no citizen should be barred from having assault weapons. Why? Because mass murderers carry those, and you'll have a better chance protecting yourself and others from harm with an equally powerful weapon as opposed to a simple Colt .22

That's what I'm talking about @ bolded. You teach someone about responsibility before you let them handle something. You don't let someone handle something dangerous and expect them to just learn responsibility. That's why that quote is off. In driving, you teach them how to drive, how to drive safely, what the rules are, how to be responsible on the road. Accidents still happen, but it would be a lot better than if we just gave every 18 year old that wanted to go for a drift a Mercedes and just let them figure out how to be responsible on the road. There are laws regarding cars and options to take away licenses if someone is deemed too dangerous on the road.

Question: How do you carry an assault weapon without people freaking out at every turn? A huge ass briefcase is really the only option, and by the time you've opened the case and motioned to assemble or load it, there's no way you can possibly defend yourself against someone who has already begun shooting everyone up with an automatic. If you are properly trained and have a 1911 in your coat pocket, you can take out a maniac much faster.

The rationale behind a lower magazine limit is sound. If you can carry 100 bullets, you can potentially kill 100 people or more depending on the surrounding area.

Exactly. The parents must be involved in educating their children. That's what makes responsible youths. Also, you've talked yourself into a circle; how do you teach someone responsibility on principle alone? They have to know about the power and danger of guns to properly respect them.

You don't carry them around like that. You keep them in the trunk of your vehicle or in a safe at home.

On the flip side of the ammunition: in order to kill 100 people, you have to shoot them manually one by one, or fire them off through a machine gun. The former will get you killed before/during your third victim, the latter has no guarantee of accuracy, and you'll still get killed all the same, managing only to take three lives, at most. (This is provided a law-abiding citizen is standing by with their own gun). In either situation, the capacity of the weapons aren't going to make that much of a difference.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Exactly. The parents must be involved in educating their children. That's what makes responsible youths. Also, you've talked yourself into a circle; how do you teach someone responsibility on principle alone? They have to know about the power and danger of guns to properly respect them.

I didn't talk myself into a circle. You teach them on principle first. The guy you quoted said it the opposite, where the gun is supposed to teach. If they've proven responsible, then possessing a restricted firearm is the next step. I don't believe in total gun restriction to where the second amendment is being violated. Don't take me for someone who does. Personally, I'd like to have a handgun. BUT, I do believe that there has to be restriction and there has to be control. I would not be opposed to undergoing a background check or anything like that. In fact, I would be more proud and safe with a gun after the process, knowing that society has deemed me trustworthy enough to possess this thing.

Quote :

You don't carry them around like that. You keep them in the trunk of your vehicle or in a safe at home.

How is that going to protect you from a theater shooting or a school shooting if you were a teacher, substitute or whatever have you? I'd much rather have a pump action shotgun than an M16 in the narrow corridors of a home (Granted an AA12 would be better than a pump action, but I'm fine with that). Any other spot is irrelevant for an AR.

Side note: This is a funny take on it.

Quote :

On the flip side of the ammunition: in order to kill 100 people, you have to shoot them manually one by one, or fire them off through a machine gun. The former will get you killed before/during your third victim, the latter has no guarantee of accuracy, and you'll still get killed all the same, managing only to take three lives, at most. (This is provided a law-abiding citizen is standing by with their own gun). In either situation, the capacity of the weapons aren't going to make that much of a difference.

Exactly why ARs don't need to be on the streets. No guarantee of accuracy means that there's no guarantee that you'll hit your target and no guarantee you won't be doing a little friendly fire on the side. The former means that if a maniac is shooting with a handgun, you have a chance to take him out, even without a gun. Even a pump action shotgun out in the open is manageable. If someone has a TMP, crowd control is simple. The point is that there are generally speaking more citizens up against less criminals in that situation. The crowd control is not needed on a citizen's side, but on the shooter's side. I realize that we can't eliminate the black market, but even bringing that number of people being able to get their hands on them by a few percent is better than nothing.

If you're only allowed to carry 10 bullets in a Glock or whatever, you're lowering the damage limit that this firearm can do. You don't violate the second amendment since you can still bear arms. Like anything, there has to be a limit and there has to be control.

They can't know anything about respect if they don't know what they're respecting. It's impossible to have one without the other.

The teachers in question had a trunk nearby they kept it in. The manager or another staff member of the theater would have access to such a weapon, likely at least one in every projection booth. As far as which one you'd have, that'd be up to personal preference. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Regardless, the casualty count is going to be about the same. You might see some fluctuations based on the population/crowd, but not significant enough to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

You talk like shooting deaths are a totally normal thing.

As far as murders are concerned, they're the least common of the methods used. Murders with knives are much more common than murders with guns. Hell, people murder other people with their bare hands more than they murder each other with guns.

Also, Ten Terrifying Facts Ignorant Lies About Guns in the US