Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[irishpat183]

You keep saying this, but no one is inferring it but you. It is the same scare-tactic type rhetoric that NRA types spew to dillute the debate. No one is suggesting that we take away all guns and crap on the second amendment. But the majority of Americans believe that we are not managing that right correctly and need to work on how to fix the problem of escalating violence with assault guns.

And I've heard 3 times today on the news (CBS to be exact), while getting ready for work, that there are already talks about banning AR's.

So it's not just me.

 

[irishpat183]

The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting are no greater than you getting struck and killed by lightining.

 

[irishpat183]

"Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century."

 

[woolybug25]

The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting are no greater than you getting struck and killed by lightining.

I wonder how many people have been struck by lightening in Newton, CT and Aurora, CO? Under that philosophy, it should be about 40 people right? With about 50 others that barely got missed by the lightening?

 

[irishpat183]

I wonder how many people have been struck by lightening in Newton, CT and Aurora, CO? Under that philosophy, it should be about 40 people right? With about 50 others that barely got missed by the lightening?

The point is, it's not as common as what people are saying. It's just not.

Terrible and tragic? Absolutely. And I feel so bad for those families.

 

[woolybug25]

The point is, it's not as common as what people are saying. It's just not.

Terrible and tragic? Absolutely. And I feel so bad for those families.

How common are people saying it? I think the general public has a pretty good grasp on how often these mass killings are happening, and its way too often.

 

[irishpat183]

How common are people saying it? I think the general public has a pretty good grasp on how often these mass killings are happening, and its way too often.

As opposed to what? How it used to be (because it was happening a lot more back then as I noted)?


So will strict gun laws help as it did with the AR ban in the 90's? Numbers say no.


I guess the big question is, what will prevent this from happening? My opinion is that more legislation won't do a bit of good (and I'm backed by facts).

Spend more time raising your kids. Education about gun safety. Things like this are the ONLY thing that will help.

 

[PraetorianND]

I think this thread needs a poll.

 

[chicago51]

The point is, it's not as common as what people are saying. It's just not.Terrible and tragic? Absolutely. And I feel so bad for those families.

So 20 kids getting blown away is tragic but it doesn't happen very much so we should just write it off as tragic but an accpetable loss?

The thing is though is that it is getting worse. What happen in Newtown is happening just days after there was a shooting in a large shopping mall in Oregon. Then the Batman shooting and several more this year. Yes it was the norm to hear about a mass shooting once every 3-5 years. Now its like 3-5 mass shootings a year. We got enough envidence to see trend here.

In regards to point you brought up earlier that limits on types of weapons and ammunition does not matter because the crazys don't care about the law. Many of crazys act on impulse. Its not like they have these long elaporate plots of mass murder. They get a feeling to do this and they act. So when mr.angrcrazy gets a feeling start shooting but his daddy only has a hand gun with 5 rounds in the clip, instead of an assault riffle 30 rounds in a clip a lot less people get killed.

Yes if mr.angrycrazy was a cerebral killer yes there is nothing we can do and is going to break the law and buy an illegal weapon. However if he is just some nut that one day just loses it he is not going to be able to go out and suddenly acquire an assault weapon (at least not before the impulse is gone) if we as a society don't make them readily available to people. I mean I don't thing the average person has even the slightest idea how to aquire an illegal firearm on a moments notice.

 

[BobD]

I can't do it because I'm at work. Someone should try finding out how many criminals are shot or detained by civilians each year in the United States. I'm just guessing, less than 200??

Then we can look up accidental shootings, fit of rage shootings, domestic violence shootings, people killed with stolen guns etc,etc Anyone want to guess that total?

 

[Irish#1]

As opposed to what? How it used to be (because it was happening a lot more back then as I noted)?


So will strict gun laws help as it did with the AR ban in the 90's? Numbers say no.


I guess the big question is, what will prevent this from happening? My opinion is that more legislation won't do a bit of good (and I'm backed by facts).

Spend more time raising your kids. Education about gun safety. Things like this are the ONLY thing that will help.

IP, I'm sorry, but I think you're truly missing what's important. Just because the chances of getting killed in a mass shooting is similar or less than getting struck by lightening doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made. First, we can't control mother nature so the comparison isn't valid.

I used to hunt and have always supported the second amendment until this happened. The reasons the NRA has given for keeping gun legislation as is are pretty lame IMO. The second amendment was written at a time when this country was still fighting for its freedom and it didn't have a large and efficient military. It needed civilians to participate in defending their rights and property. We don't have that issue anymore. I have to admit we now need stronger gun laws because losing just one person (let alone a classroom full of children) to a senseless killing is one too many.

 

[Grahambo]

I feel like we are running circles in this thread.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I feel like we are running circles in this thread.

That is what most people do when they try to get in shape.

 

[chicago51]

I feel like we are running circles in this thread.

Some else mentioned that this thread needs a poll. Otherwise this thread as run its course and we are all just beating our heads against the wall trying to change people's minds that won't change. My mind won't change and neither will someone else that is anti gun restriction.

We should have a poll and whoever is the majority wins the debate.

 

[DSully1995]

The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting are no greater than you getting struck and killed by lightining.

But you cant do anything to stop lightning, but mass shootings, if your looking globally, are much higher than anywhere else in the US

 

[chicago51]

But you cant do anything to stop lightning, but mass shootings, if your looking globally, are much higher than anywhere else in the US

Yes with the exception of 3rd world countries. Not other industrialized nations though you are right the US is the highest . Great Britain, Japan, and Canada all have much less mass shootings than the US. They have tougher gun restrictions. Canada despite tougher restrictions and checks has a righer rate of gun ownership. Proving that tougher laws won't stop people from having guns but it can stop the wrong people from having them. Not trying to be un American here and say those places are better than US but I think gun control is one area they got right.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes with the exception of 3rd world countries. Not other industrialized nations though you are right the US is the highest . Great Britain, Japan, and Canada all have much less mass shootings than the US. They have tougher gun restrictions. Canada despite tougher restrictions and checks has a righer rate of gun ownership. Proving that tougher laws won't stop people from having guns but it can stop the wrong people from having them. Not trying to be un American here and say those places are better than US but I think gun control is one area they got right.

Wrong. Japan has LESS strict gun laws and less gun crime.


Again, it's OUR CULTURE. Not guns.


And yeah, we're running circles. LOL. But I"m right so it's ok....

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Wrong. Japan has LESS strict gun laws and less gun crime.

That's not true.

Japan vs U.S. — Can stricter gun laws reduce shooting deaths?

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

The Japan lesson: Can America learn from the country that has almost zero gun deaths?

It's actually exactly the opposite.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. …

First, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years. …

 

[Greystoke]

Save this garbage for twitter. I'm here to talk ND football....Good God.

 

[Irish#1]

Wrong. Japan has LESS strict gun laws and less gun crime.


Again, it's OUR CULTURE. Not guns.


And yeah, we're running circles. LOL. But I"m right so it's ok....

Agree it's not guns, it's the culture. Our countries culture on guns is derived from the second amendment and today's gun laws. You change the culture by changing the gun laws.

Now I'm right! :swordfigh

 

[Irish#1]

Save this garbage for twitter. I'm here to talk ND football....Good God.

You do realize the name of this thread is "Opinions/Discussions on Guns" don't you?

 

[phgreek]

You do realize the name of this thread is "Opinions/Discussions on Guns" don't you?

...maybe thought it was another quarterback controversy????

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Save this garbage for twitter. I'm here to talk ND football....Good God.

Then don't open any of the threads in the Lep Longue. Problem taken care of for you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishpat183
The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting are no greater than you getting struck and killed by lightining.

But you cant do anything to stop lightning, but mass shootings, if your looking globally, are much higher than anywhere else in the US

Chances of getting hit by lightening are greater.

Don't kids yourself, there are places that this wouldn't even make the papers, if there were any papers, because all of the journalists have been killed.


HEY I HAVE AN IDEA: Pass a law making it illegal to disclose the name or any details of a mass shooter. Ever.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Adequately secured is in a gun safe, with trigger locks. And not in a home where there is mental illness, even if its just your kid.

That depends. Laying loaded under a pillow, no. Gun lock, or safe yes, if you have kids that could get into it. As my six year old gets older, I will take mor secure means.

If I had a child with a suspected or diagnosed mental illness, I would store it at my local range/gun shop.

The rules: A) nobody other than owner or licensesed, franchised adults should have ready access to wepons and amunition; B) No owner should be responsible for a weapon after they report it stolen, and the gun owner may be ticketed at the disgression of the police if the stolen weapon was not adequately stored. That would follow "seat belt" laws or "door lock" rules for insurance payout.

Heller v DC was shot down because of the statute stating it was unlawful to not have them locked, which isn't being suggested. What is being suggested is that if the firearm is used in a crime, then the person owning it is liable because they didn't protect the public from their dangerous piece of equipment. If you want to keep your guns unlocked, then go ahead. But remember that it is used in a crime, then you are personally liable for how your firearm is used. Regardless of who is pulling the trigger.

You are talking about two different things.

No DC's law was to keep a gun disassembled even when in your house.
Demanding some one locks up their guns in their house is unreasonable.
What good does a gun locked in my gun safe do when I need it. '' Oh I'm sorry Mr criminal I need a minute to get my gun.''
Again just because you'you're willing to wait 6 minutes for the police to show up and protect you. Don't try to force your choices upon me. I'm not forcing you to have a gun.
Demanding that the victim of a crime be locked up because someone used a stolen item to commit a crime is unreasonable.
Are you willing to be locked up if someone steals your car to commit a crime. How about an ax since those have been used as weapons of war for years.
That's what your advocating for.
If your stolen property is used in a crime we're gonna lock you up.
Why because I don't feel safe a criminal stole a law abiding citizens gun.

 

[woolybug25]

No DC's law was to keep a gun disassembled even when in your house.
Demanding some one locks up their guns in their house is unreasonable.
What good does a gun locked in my gun safe do when I need it. '' Oh I'm sorry Mr criminal I need a minute to get my gun.''
Again just because you'you're willing to wait 6 minutes for the police to show up and protect you. Don't try to force your choices upon me. I'm not forcing you to have a gun.
Demanding that the victim of a crime be locked up because someone used a stolen item to commit a crime is unreasonable.
Are you willing to be locked up if someone steals your car to commit a crime. How about an ax since those have been used as weapons of war for years.
That's what your advocating for.
If your stolen property is used in a crime we're gonna lock you up.
Why because I don't feel safe a criminal stole a law abiding citizens gun.

My bad, same point though. It is unconstitutional to force someone to lock/disassemble their gun, but it is certainly not unconstitutional to demand an owner to have legal responsibility for their firearm.

Axes and Cars aren't used to commit mass murder or to kill dozens of kids in a school. If you want to endanger other people by keeping your firearms unlocked, then you should bare the responsibility of what happens if it gets taken and used in a violent crime. If you didn't report it stolen, or even worse didn't know it was stolen, then you are being negligent with other people's lives. Plain and simple. It is an instrument designed to kill people (we are talking about assault rifles) and you have a responsibility to keep its dangers away from innocent people. Again, some of you don't realize the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

I really don't get how someone would argue that it's not their responsibility to keep people safe from their weapons. Many of you have claimed that "gun owners are mostly very responsible", but in the same breath don't feel like anyone should have to take responsibility for the actions done with their weapons. Makes zero freeking sense.

 

[Greystoke]

Then don't open any of the threads in the Lep Longue. Problem taken care of for you!


Fair enough. Somehow thought "Leprechaun" might have somehow related it to ANYTHING IRISH! But I'll leave... continue convincing each other that your opinions matter. Peace!

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Tennessee Considers Training And Arming Schoolteachers To Protect Against Shootings - Yahoo! News

 

[goldandblue]

Tennessee Considers Training And Arming Schoolteachers To Protect Against Shootings - Yahoo! News

Now we are talking! I'm from Tennessee and I would be perfectly fine with this bill.

 

[irishff1014]

I am trying to fina as many stats that i can on gun crime so that you ll can look at it. I will put all of them in the very first comment i made when i opened the thread. If you all find any please post for all us to read.

 

[phork]

The point is, it's not as common as what people are saying. It's just not.

Terrible and tragic? Absolutely. And I feel so bad for those families.

Not common? 31 school shootings since Columbine. Here is a map for you:

Interactive map of school shootings since 1996. | canada.com