School Shooting in CT leaves several children dead.

[Magorian Aximand]

"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"

Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.

I mean that gun control does not equal the prohibition of owning any kind of firearm. Owning a weapon can and should still be legal. We just need to draw a line on what kind of weapon that can be. Drawing the comparison to alcohol, most types of alcohol are legal. But absinthe was not.

Of course, the assault weapons ban was an abject failure as a piece of legislation. Were gun control laws to be passed, they would need to be completely rewritten.

 

[Krik]

If assault weapons were banned for instance, I wouldn't lose my hunting rifles or shotguns.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

A much better mental health system would not only prevent these mass killings

I don't think it would prevent them. Not entirely. Though it would help to reduce them.

Well that's what I meant. Should've worded it differently, I guess. And as I said there needs to be more gun control but there's a medium between the two extremes that've been represented on this thread.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

 

[MadocComadrin]

And where would one steal a firearm if they are not available for purchase? 

Ammo was stolen from a university in PA not too long ago. I doubt it would be that hard.

 

[ealabor]

First, they are still not in any way comparable.

Yes they are. They show in great measure and success/failure the ability of the government to outright ban something that people feel they want and/or need, and the subsequent outcome of such legislation.

"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"

Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.

Yes that really does not compute. One cannot restrict purchase while leaving firearms in general untouched.

Furthermore, nothing akin to the notion I guess that guy is trying to make has even been suggested as a solution put forth by our dear leaders whom are flawless  .

The type of talk which is generated is magazine capacity, and banning of semi autos. Neither of these target the specific, but penalize the whole. It's not like say, suggesting the idea of doing an extensive background check on a person's mental stability prior to purchase, which would be more indicative of the individuals actions.

However, apparently we are now the Borg.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Always unwilling to actually address a point.

 

[Duh]

You seem to have misunderstood me. Singular events do not allow conclusions for the entirety. I.e. anecdotes that showcase a specific case cannot be used to prove a truth for all cases.

... that being the case how then can there be so much fanfare for this Conneticut shooting? How then can a trial be carried out against an entire nation of gun owners, for the act of a single person?

I swear man people are so ****ing hypocritical at times.

I dont think that anybody explicitly based their argument on this particular case, but if they did, their conclusion would be just as questionable. The shooting is simply the trigger for the discussion, it is not the argument that carries the debate.

With proper gun control, the shooter would not have had access to guns in the first place.

lawl.

Like drugs right? Like outlawed guns used in Chicago and D.C. crimes right?

The difference between drugs and guns is twofold. Firstly it is very unlikely that guns are of the same addictive nature as drugs and secondly the production and transport of guns presents a much larger challenge than the same tasks do for drugs.

The consequence is that one can increase the costs for illegal guns much more effectively than for illicit drugs and the industry cannot pass on these costs to the consumer (,which is the case with drugs and the crux of the US supply-side antidrug policy).

 

[MadocComadrin]

The difference between drugs and guns is twofold. Firstly it is very unlikely that guns are of the same addictive nature as drugs and secondly the production and transport of guns presents a much larger challenge than the same tasks do for drugs.

I'd buy that if it weren't for the issue about drug trafficking going hand in hand with gun trafficking. The criminal infrastructure already exists, so if one were to ban guns entirely, you've just put an entire, essentially pre-established industry into the pocket of cartels and other forms of organized crime (not necessarily mafia-style).

 

[Mage246]

Yes, I'm sure there will be many people smuggling assault rifles up their butts.

 

[MadocComadrin]

It's not that hard if you use a lot of lube. 

 

[Duh]

The difference between drugs and guns is twofold. Firstly it is very unlikely that guns are of the same addictive nature as drugs and secondly the production and transport of guns presents a much larger challenge than the same tasks do for drugs.

I'd buy that if it weren't for the issue about drug trafficking going hand in hand with gun trafficking. The criminal infrastructure already exists, so if one were to ban guns entirely, you've just put an entire, essentially pre-established industry into the pocket of cartels and other forms of organized crime (not necessarily mafia-style).

I cant say too much about the gun trafficking as the focus of my current studies is on the drug sides, but Mexico is fairly upset about the inactivity and unwillingness the US has shown in regards to stopping it. So while you are correct in saying that there are pre-established syndicates that traffick guns, it seems likely that there is much room for improvement in counter measures. Addtionally the current gun trafficking structure is focused towards Mexico.

/offtopic

 

[RalliX]

"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"

Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.

I mean that gun control does not equal the prohibition of owning any kind of firearm. Owning a weapon can and should still be legal. We just need to draw a line on what kind of weapon that can be. Drawing the comparison to alcohol, most types of alcohol are legal. But absinthe was not.

Of course, the assault weapons ban was an abject failure as a piece of legislation. Were gun control laws to be passed, they would need to be completely rewritten.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY&list=FL6BNicSb2vkvaC5ZC8JjjZQ&feature=mh_lolz

"... Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development; yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense, with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty, may prosper together."

I also tend to agree with these two videos, and the men being interviewed in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EYaW1HZhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtkgoGY4Cm4

The reason for the quote and the videos is simply to say this: The right to bear arms was not added to the US Constitution for the prevalence of hunting. It wasn't for target shooting.
It was to allow the citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, should the situation ever arise where they would have to.

Spoiler

 

[Bromden]

Firearms in the hands of random anybodies is misplaced power alright.

 

[RalliX]

Firearms in the hands of random anybodies is misplaced power alright.

In the third video, Mr. Selleck himself says that he doubts the US may be a nation responsible enough to have the liberty of arms.
Again, this all points to the need for a change to the culture. The average person can't be trusted with a firearm, and that is a poor reflection of the responsibility of the people.

 

[ealabor]

Oh, I see now.


Some of you folks' misconceptions about the ability of a law enacted to control and/or eliminate guns you are basing off perceptions of today's industry. That the means of transport and production and their limits would apply to such a market if it went underground.


I'm afraid you are mistaken if you perceive this. The reality is that should the legal market collapse, then there is something far more unaccountable and MUCH MORE prolific waiting to take the reigns, and that market is the printable gun, also known as the wikiweapon.

So, at the disdain of haters, I'll have to draw another correlation to prohibition, in that instead moonshiners, you have "gun printers" or some other fashionable name for individuals that with easy to aquire materials, can print out any gun from schematics aquired from a torrent, website, etc.

A gun that is easy to make, no longer abides to regulation, can be made of plastic, and does not have a serial number.

http://defensedistributed.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqzJlBcCsow

 

[MadocComadrin]

To be fair, 3D-printable weapons is an issue regardless of what side you're on (unless you're for total weapons freedom or anarchy). As much as I'm for 3D printing, even for firearms, it's only practical to acknowledge that there are problems across the board with them--mostly because it's an entire new medium of (semi)mass-production.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"

Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.

I mean that gun control does not equal the prohibition of owning any kind of firearm. Owning a weapon can and should still be legal. We just need to draw a line on what kind of weapon that can be. Drawing the comparison to alcohol, most types of alcohol are legal. But absinthe was not.

Of course, the assault weapons ban was an abject failure as a piece of legislation. Were gun control laws to be passed, they would need to be completely rewritten.

Ah, right. Yeah, certainly makes sense. Honestly, when I sometimes watch this National Geographic series of "Doomsday" preppers, it irks me that most of those lunatics are clear hillbillies that spend all their income on guns and a bunker. They show their semi-military hardware, all proud. Sure thing a couple needs a sizable arsenal of shotguns, high caliber pistols, high-powered rifles to "defend" themselves... Even though they are preparing for a post apocalyptic scenario with possibly no law enforcement in the early days, I'm sure there are many like them doing the same without the same mentality. Not that even such mentality is okay. These people are armed to fight a small war, not ensure protection. 

 

[ealabor]

To be fair, 3D-printable weapons is an issue regardless of what side you're on (unless you're for total weapons freedom or anarchy). As much as I'm for 3D printing, even for firearms, it's only practical to acknowledge that there are problems across the board with them--mostly because it's an entire new medium of (semi)mass-production.

Like any new technology, it will be ironed out in time. And should the legal traditional industry collapse, the need and want for them will just accelerate its progression.

Anyways, as the youtube video points out, there's already been one successfully made  which fired 200+ rounds

 

[Sir Saladin]

Where are all of you great champions for liberty when it comes to brothels and drugs and the right to own a pet komodo dragon? It's OK to ignore the bill of rights and the constitution as long as you are allowed to buy and own semi-automatic weapons I guess.

 

[Mad Vader]

Is this gun-wankery part of the whitey culture? The guys and gals that cried when Romney lost?
I can't seem to remember a black mass murderer.

 

[Sir Saladin]

They just shoot each other in dribs and drabs instead of a whole bunch at once. There have been a couple of spree killers who were black but it's normally a young white man.