Gun Violence... a quest for peace

Ragetendo said:

Banning doesn't work because If you're going to break the law with a weapon why would you follow the law that prohibits the weapon in the first place. I don't mind some gun control like background checks thats just common sense.plus criminals don't get guns legally, they either steal them, buy them off the black market or straw purchase them.

Click to expand...

I know we have been having pages and pages and pages of discussions about this and how lost of murders are caused by regular people who bought the guns legally or by mentally disabled people who couldn't be considered traditional criminals so I encourage you to read the previous closed thread on this issue.

But being short and simple: if criminals are going to do whatever they want regardless of the law, and laws aren't going to stop any wrongdoing in any way, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever? Let's take them all down and let life be a wild shootout in the jungle for survival.

Went said:

But being short and simple: if criminals are going to do whatever they want regardless of the law, and laws aren't going to stop any wrongdoing in any way, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever? Let's take them all down and let life be a wild shootout in the jungle for survival.

Click to expand...

The laws are placed there for the law ABIDING citizens.The laws are there to show you what is socially acceptable, and all who break these laws are subject to punishment.In the average person the fear of prison and or death tends to keep them in line, the thought of not having freedom of your own life is scary. Criminals are by nature desperate, and a desperate mind is not a rational thinking mind."Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Banning hasn't worked, Because the Criminal does not follow the rules so he will continue his business as usual, While the law ABIDING citizen has two options become an Outlaw or submit to the law.Punishing the good guys for what the bad guy does is absurd. There seems to be this misconception that there is some rise in gun deaths in America, When the truth is that it's been in decline for the past 20 years. There is over 300 million guns in the US and just as many people,With a total of 12,664 deaths majority being handguns, In other words the whole "assault rifle" ban wouldn't do anything. The reasons for that is
1. all the rifles would be grandfathered in so they would still be there.
2. because guns deaths hardly include them.

The ban is a knee-jerk reaction, a hollow "victory"...to put it simply a feel good measure for the general public who aren't aware of statistics.The assault ban was put in place during the clinton years and yet school shootings still happened the ban ended in 04.Now I'm all for gun control, Hell i feel that gun ownership is a privilege I don't think just because you're born American that you SHOULD have a gun, If you're a proven responsible human being with no felony/or violent convictions (that include misdemeanor domestic violence)Than yes you have the right, You've earned it and shown you can handle it.Now there is cases where clean record guys snap and go a-wall but thats hard to predict but someone who has shown they cannot handle the responsibility should not own a gun.This whole 'Murica attitude where i demand to own guns because I'm 'Murican is absolutely absurd.Now I know this will offend a lot of die hard Americans, I'm American(if thats not obvious by now) and i love firearms, But I'm also aware of their lethality. I feel regulations will help curve some of the violence, But it will NOT end it, there will always be some nutjob thats dead set on killing regardless if guns existed or not.Now My post has gone on long enough I've been rambling and just over all off topic but the bottom line is,Banning isn't the solution there are other methods like combating gang violence,education, responsible gun ownership, But you will never be able to stop crazy.

Went said:

I know we have been having pages and pages and pages of discussions about this and how lost of murders are caused by regular people who bought the guns legally or by mentally disabled people who couldn't be considered traditional criminals so I encourage you to read the previous closed thread on this issue.

But being short and simple: if criminals are going to do whatever they want regardless of the law, and laws aren't going to stop any wrongdoing in any way, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever? Let's take them all down and let life be a wild shootout in the jungle for survival.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any high-profile shooters, at least in my country, obtain their guns legally. Even the Sandy Hook shooters obtained his guns illegally. It looks like even the pro-gun people here don't have a problem with background checks, so that should help to keep the mentally ill from buying guns, but Ragetendo and I are concerned with the push to ban guns altogether, or to ban so-called "assault weapons". That will never work. Prohibition never works. What works is allowing something controversial to be legal, but to have reasonable regulations in place, such as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington, and the prostitution laws in Nevada.

FreakyLocz14 said:

I haven't seen any high-profile shooters, at least in my country. Even the Sandy Hook shooters obtained his guns illegally. It looks like even the pro-gun people here don't have a problem with background checks, so that should help to keep the mentally ill from buying guns, but Ragetendo and I are concerned with the push to ban guns altogether, or to ban so-called "assault weapons". That will never work. Prohibition never works. What works is allowing something controversial to be legal, but to have reasonable regulations in place, such as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington, and the prostitution laws in Nevada.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Regulation and Education.I feel the media should stop with their saturation of the crimes, Look at that scumbag Jodi Arias all day long on new channels.

While it's true that an assault weapons ban wouldn't stop the majority of gun deaths, it would still stop a few and that's a good enough reason. Yes, people will have their guns grandfathered it, but you have to start somewhere. These kinds of guns aren't things that non-military, non-law enforcement people should have anyway.

Ragetendo said:

Criminals are by nature desperate, and a desperate mind is not a rational thinking mind.

Click to expand...

Ragetendo said:

Now there is cases where clean record guys snap and go a-wall but thats hard to predict

Click to expand...

Ragetendo said:

there will always be some nutjob thats dead set on killing regardless if guns existed or not

Click to expand...

Ragetendo said:

there are other methods like combating gang violence,education, responsible gun ownership, But you will never be able to stop crazy.

Click to expand...

I don't think criminals are so clear-cut. There are shades of grey between a total law-breaking criminal and a total law-abiding citizen. Criminals do follow most laws because they can think rationally and know that some laws are, in their minds, worth the risk of breaking. It's not that they disrespect all laws because they're criminals - there are plenty of people who don't have respect for some or all laws who aren't criminals - it's that they're weighing the risks, weighing the pros and cons, and are taking a chance. I mean, we've all broken some laws or rules at one time or another, usually because the punishment wasn't very strict and/or we weren't likely to be caught and/or we didn't think the law should apply to us in that situation. That's just what your "criminals" think, only they're willing to take biggest risks than most of us. There is still a lot of grey where you'll find your domestic abusers and other violent types who aren't as far gone as gang members, but aren't exactly what you'd want to use as your example of a law-abiding citizen. These people are also ones who we should expect, from time to time, to use guns to attack people. Most of the time they follow the law, and would probably pass a background check without a problem, but they shouldn't have access to guns.

What I'm saying is, everyday people like you and me who follow the law most of the time can be criminals and break other laws when we think it suits us. That's part of why I think lots of restrictions on guns is appropriate, because almost anyone could be a bad egg who might do something bad with a gun. I'm not necessarily arguing for an all-out ban, but since guns rarely protect people and much more often harm people on accident it's not like we'd be putting people in jeopardy if we banned gun ownership, and it would protect us from that group of "criminals" who won't risk breaking the law for a gun. Of course since guns are so prevalent they're easy to get. One problem which I don't think gets addressed enough is that we make so many guns. If guns were rarer, if you had to order one and wait for it to be made, then there wouldn't be so many extra ones floating around being hard to track.

I agree that education is important. I don't believe in putting all our eggs in one basket. We should do all the things to reduce gun violence, including restrictions, education, combating gang violence and all the rest.

Scarf said:

These kinds of guns aren't things that non-military, non-law enforcement people should have anyway.

Click to expand...

Well, These so called "assault weapons" are no different than a hunting rifle, they are just smaller caliber & have the looks of military grade weaponry it's actually a federal crime to make these weapons automatic, the only way to own the automatic version is to have a license which is very limited.I can see what you mean by saving lives even though they kill less than 400 people annually, But if thats the case why don't we focus on more pressing issues that kills more people.Drunk driving is one of the most preventable deaths in the US, Yet 30% of all traffic deaths are caused by it.Now I'm not trying to push blame elsewhere I'm just saying that banning a weapon isn't going to have an effect, the "assault" weapon ban of 94 did not do anything. these bans are just feel good measures...if we actually regulated with background check and had people take a firearms safety class not only would a lot of accidental deaths would be prevented we could make it more difficult for bad people."I'm not necessarily arguing for an all-out ban, but since guns rarely protect people and much more often harm people on accident it's not like we'd be putting people in jeopardy if we banned gun ownership, and it would protect us from that group of "criminals" who won't risk breaking the law for a gun" I've seen and had guns protect me, I grew up in a very bad area out house was robbed multiple times, I've been jumped. I've had guns and knives pulled on me. I know how desperate the street level criminal can be, and they are the ones going in houses, stealing cars, raping women.I remember being a kid and we dented some guy car and so he went ape **** and was trying to get into our house and was threatening us, so my little bros dad brandished his Legal pistol and the guy knew that coming in would be an unhealthy choice. There is cases of guns protecting people and banning the ability for people to protect them and their property is very shameful. We all have the right to protect ourselves and loved ones.Take it from someone who grew up in the "hood" its not a nice place its scary you don't go out at night.Also out right banning guns won't work anyways because then criminals will get them from mexico, and mexico would have to get them imported from other countries, Or criminals would steal them from Canadians...then the law abiding citizen would not be able to protect himself unless he wants to become and outlaw.Theres the saying "When guns are outlawed, I will be an Outlaw". All in all we cant stop the violence outlawing would only create more outlaws and end up killing more good guys, flip side is regulation and education wont get rid of it either but at least it makes most sense. Don't get me wrong I'm not a red blooded republican conservative I'm just a guy who believes in his constitutional rights, I feel we have the right to live a good life and protect it from those who are willing to take it. I'm no fool i know guns aren't a guarantee but they are an equalizer and thats all i ask for is an equal chance to protect my life.

Can we look into this? Can the NRA also not be against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

If were going to have people purchasing firearms for self-defense or even just for sports like target shooting, I think it would be good to make sure the gun in question is something only the owner and a select few people he trusts (and even then, not likely) can fire. Although it's inevitable that someone with criminal intent might find some way to bypass it, I think this can help alleviate the "guy-kills-with-stolen-gun" problem. I do think this is something worth trying.

CarcharOdin said:

Can we look into this? Can the NRA also not be against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

If were going to have people purchasing firearms for self-defense or even just for sports like target shooting, I think it would be good to make sure the gun in question is something only the owner and a select few people he trusts (and even then, not likely) can fire. Although it's inevitable that someone with criminal intent might find some way to bypass it, I think this can help alleviate the "guy-kills-with-stolen-gun" problem. I do think this is something worth trying.

Click to expand...

"Some smart gun technology uses a Verichip which is permanently embedded under the user's skin in order to activate the gun "

Hell no. There ain't no way I'm gonna get some chip planted into my body if I want to go deer huntin'. All that's doing is turning it into a 4th Amendment problem instead of a 2nd.
I'm all for that high-speed finger print tech as long as it's embedded in the the weapon itself.

I've never agreed with firearms. but i don't deny that they do make one feel safer.
Ever heard the term a gun is only as dangerous as it's user?
Anything can be used in a violent manner it just depends on the individual.
Yes a gun was made for the purpose of killing, but they can be used under restricted circumstances.
Like a person has to go through a police enforced training programme to make that individual fully aware of the implications.
But no matter what sort of law gets thrown out there will always be hidden transactions and black market schemes.
I think the majority of firearms a person weilds in their own home should be replaced with the stun guns given to police.
Effect quick and doesnt kill the assailant.