Would better gun control help?

[QueenBee]

With tragic events such as what happened in Aurora, come the people whu shout from mountains that we need more gun control, or be more aware of who we are selling guns to.

But would that help? I feel that while people do have the "right to bear arms" and such, what about better training on gun handling?
If you think about it, in order to get a license to drive a car we need to prove we know the rules, and how to follow them. We need to take classes of some sort, fill out paperwork, take written tests as well as tests behind the wheel.

Would such protocol be appropriate for gun ownership and use? While I, myself, have held a gun..I have never shot one, and do not have the first idea about handling one safely. But, so long as I have a permit, I can walk into my local WalMart and buy a gun an ammo.

I read in an article that folks should have to provide proof of what they would be using a gun for..but I do not feel that, alone, would work. I would guess that if asked, James Holmes would not have volunteered his plans or thoughts of shooting up a moving theater.

I would also guess that when George Zimmerman got his gun, he was not PLANNING to go out and shoot Trayvon Martin..justified or not.

So, from the shooters here, and gun owners...what, if any, new protocols should be in place. And would they work?

[Maggot]

I believe you have a case of CNNitis.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

While I can see that all those measures you suggest SOUND like good ideas, what they are in fact is limits and restrictions on out rights under the second ammendment and would in no time at all be used as a tool to deprive me of my rights all together. I concider myself to be of sound mine, some may disagree, but fuckem. I am also trained in the use and care of weapons and am not very likely to go on any sort of rampage and start shooting folks, much more likely to be the guy that returns fire, well controlled and aimed fire.
Your suggestion about "better training on gun handling" implies that many folks are being accidentally shot, while this may be true it is Very Rarely by someone with the requisite permit, something on the order of 1% of gun violence.
The very idea of "folks should have to provide proof of what they would be using a gun for" scares the shit out of me, Whos idea of what is an appropriate reason? What stops a person from stating it is to be used solely for target practice, then goes out and robs a 7/11?
I think Maggots interpretation of CNNitis is pretty spot on, EVERY time someone white kills someone with a gun the sheep start to bleat about more gun control.
While our gun controls are not perfect, we do have them in place in most of the country. I think we should be enforcing more of them IMHO though. Most of the gun crimes on the street are comitted by criminals who broke about 10 laws just by picking up a gun.
Tracking and traceability would have gone far to prevent some of this back in the day, but now there are far to many guns on the street to be able to get a handle on it. That boat has sailed. I think the best we can do is be aware of what the hell is going on around us, if you see something wrong, say something. If you see some asshole has a gun and you know he shouldn't, fucking report it.
I think the asault weapons ban was a good thing, it shouldn't have been repealed. I think gangs and anything gang related should be banned. I think 1 appeal and then you get the needle if convicted of a capitol crime is the ticket. I think that if an illegal is stopped for any reason he should go directly to the bus and back accross the border. I think that if you pump out 1 kid on welfare its cause for mandatory steralisation. These are things that would reduce crime on the street. They will not however stop some crazy fuck from making a pipe bomb and tossing it into a crowded train station. If they decide to wig, they are going to wig. Watch for the crazy fuckers.
rant off...
Banning guns has never been the answer, there is no "Silver bullet" to the problem.

[Jimbone]

All anyone who wants to talk about gun control has to do is look at Washington, DC. They have the strictest gun laws in the nation... from 1976 to 2008, you could not even own a handgun in DC. As such, one would expect that DC would be one of the safest cities and have the lowest incidence of gun violence in the nation.

However, that is not and has not been the case. Violent gun crime in DC has been a rampant problem for decades, and DC is consistently in the top cities with the highest gun violence rates. Christ, their NBA team used to be called the Bullets!

Chicago, IL is another city with very strict gun laws that is consistently among the top cities with gun violence rates. The list could go on, but you get the point. Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stop gun crime. Criminals and those intent on killing with firearms do not play by rules, and do not follow laws. Everyone needs to wise up and remember that.

If James Holmes couldn't have gotten a firearm and a high capacity magazine, he would have killed people anyway. He is a sick bastard. Maybe he would have burned the theater down instead. Maybe he would have used his brain to mix a deadly noxious gas instead.

Scumbags and criminals will always find a way to bring the mayhem. Laws mean absolutely nothing to them.

[Maggot]

Reminds me of the movie "The man who shot Liberty Vallance" with Jimmy Stewart and "The Duke"


A great movie by the way.

[Jimbone]

So many of those old westerns were great... had a style all their own.

[shitstorm]

Here's the deal on Americans' right to bear arms: It's to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. It's not about hunting and sport, it's about not being a disarmed population when the maniacs in government go out of control and start killing people. History shows that ALL mass murder and genocide is carried out by government. Government is the danger. As long as 'authorities' have weapons, the People must. It's as simple as that.




http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

[username]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

[Maggot]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

Well............People had cannons in front of their houses, battlments and gunpowder stores throughout the 17-1800's. Advanced cannons and artillery for that era were placed in and around houses back in the day. Many came from ships and were the best and most advanced of that time. When comparing 200 years and the technology at the time we as citizens are way behind what any government has or has had "back in the day"

Makes me want a tank.

[username]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

Well............People had cannons in front of their houses, battlments and gunpowder stores throughout the 17-1800's. Advanced cannons and artillery for that era were placed in and around houses back in the day. Many came from ships and were the best and most advanced of that time. When comparing 200 years and the technology at the time we as citizens are way behind what any government has or has had "back in the day"

Makes me want a tank.

Sounds like defensive versus offensive weapons. Can't imagine dragging a cannon to the local movie theatre.

[shitstorm]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

If they were alive, they would insist the People be armed as well as those who would oppress them. If the military and police have these weapons (and they have MUCH worse), We the People need to.

[username]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

If they were alive, they would insist the People be armed as well as those who would oppress them. If the military and police have these weapons (and they have MUCH worse), We the People need to.

Ugh. So all the Occupy Wall Street protesters should be as well armed as the police?

[shitstorm]

Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

If they were alive, they would insist the People be armed as well as those who would oppress them. If the military and police have these weapons (and they have MUCH worse), We the People need to.

Ugh. So all the Occupy Wall Street protesters should be as well armed as the police?

Do they have less of a right to defend themselves against tyranny?

[Donovan]

In the revolutionary war, the military was "we the people". Without those privately armed citizens, who brought their own weapons and supplies to the fighting, we would not be having this conversation.

[Jibbles]

Guns laws prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms.

Criminals do not care about laws.

The only gun law that may prohibit criminals from obtaining firearms easily would be an outright ban on firearms except for military or police force.

[Midwest Spy]

They will not however stop some crazy fuck from making a pipe bomb and tossing it into a crowded train station. If they decide to wig, they are going to wig.

Banning guns has never been the answer, there is no "Silver bullet" to the problem.

Six, I agree with you on many topics, but I really am tired of hearing your first line thrown out by all the 2^nd Amendment advocates.

The ease of the gun to commit atrocities (and mass casualties) by the crazies is what gun control advocates fear. It's so simple.

Making an effective bomb takes materials and time. Look at the nutjob in Norway last year. He used both a bomb and guns. Killed 8? with his bomb and 60+ with his guns.

I also agree with your last statement. There is no easy fix, but I think we have to try.

[Midwest Spy]

If James Holmes couldn't have gotten a firearm and a high capacity magazine, he would have killed people anyway. He is a sick bastard. Maybe he would have burned the theater down instead. Maybe he would have used his brain to mix a deadly noxious gas instead.

Scumbags and criminals will always find a way to bring the mayhem. Laws mean absolutely nothing to them.

Here we go again ^^^.

Am I missing evidence to support your theory that 'madmen will find some other way to kill people when guns are gone'??

Maybe they will really will, but until guns are non-existent, we may never actually know.

Again, I'm not saying get rid of all guns, but many, many, many guns used in crime are actually legally procured (including the mayhem you speak of in Colorado).

Until a 'gun-lover' sustains the horror of being a victim of a random gun crime, they'll never consider changing their stance.

[Duchess]

Sometimes I don't think it's so much about the type of gun but our right to it if we want it.

I saw some amazing stats last night as I was drifting off, it was the number of deaths in several different countries from guns, one was as low as 69, quite a few that had 200-300 hundred but the US was over 11,000, that didn't even count the deaths from suicide or accidental shootings.

I'm not a fanatic & there are guns in my home. I'm pro-gun.

[Midwest Spy]

I'm not a fanatic & there are guns in my home. I'm pro-gun.

Like I said, I'm not anti-gun. Both my dad and step-dad have hunted their whole lives, and they both have handguns in the home for protection. I know what responsible gun owners/users look like.

It's just sickening though, that innocent people have to wonder if they or their loved ones will one day be slaughtered by someone who has 'legally' procured his/her weapon.

There's got to be somthing that can be done. Even if it means inconveniencing responsible gun owners.

[Duchess]

It's just sickening though, that innocent people have to wonder if they or their loved ones will one day be slaughtered by someone who has 'legally' procured his/her weapon.

Agreed.