Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[alexava 6,973]

if the va tech shooter had used an assault rifle with multiple 30 round clips, it would have been much worse. if the 20yr old nut in conneticut had only used 2 pistols it woulnt have been as bad.

[alexava 6,973]

why is the U.S. and rest of the free world so concerned with Iraq and Iran and not allowing them WMDs or nukes? they have smaller weapons and bombs and if they are trained and use enough of them it will take longer but they could kill just as many americans or citizens of other allies? there is your logic. you limit the amount of killing power in the most feasable way. hey Iran claims their nuke program is only for energy.

[leglessdan 1,934]

if the va tech shooter had used an assault rifle with multiple 30 round clips, it would have been much worse. if the 20yr old nut in conneticut had only used 2 pistols it woulnt have been as bad.

Hmmm, that is a contradiction in itself, nice job

VaTech Killer:Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.^[13] The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred.

[AUGradinTX 0]

if the va tech shooter had used an assault rifle with multiple 30 round clips, it would have been much worse. if the 20yr old nut in conneticut had only used 2 pistols it woulnt have been as bad.

The Va Tech shooter used 2 pistols. A .22 cal and a 9 mil. Why aren't we talking about banning semi-automatic pistols? Can we not be consistent in what we want? Guns can kill people. All of them. In the case of the Va Tech killer, more people died than in CT. So, saying "if the guy in CT would have used 2 pistols, it wouldn't have been as bad" is an unknown. The Va Tech killer proved it can be worse by killing 5 more people than the CT kid.

So, should we ban all guns? If the 30 round clip is the issue. Make it illegal. Just stop this nonsense about a civilian AR being any more dangerous than any other rifle other than it having a higher capacity cartridge. It isn't. Make the limit 10.

With that being said, I have zero confidence that this will stop killings like this. If you want to stop anyone from killing anyone with a gun, make guns illegal. One this is done, watch the illegal gun trade explode like alcohol during prohibition and drugs now. There isn't a solution that involves banning guns. All you can do is limit the number of rounds someone can fire without changing cartridges and recognize troubles kids before they commit these acts.

[leglessdan 1,934]

if the va tech shooter had used an assault rifle with multiple 30 round clips, it would have been much worse. if the 20yr old nut in conneticut had only used 2 pistols it woulnt have been as bad.

The Va Tech shooter used 2 pistols. A .22 cal and a 9 mil. Why aren't we talking about banning semi-automatic pistols? Can we not be consistent in what we want? Guns can kill people. All of them. In the case of the Va Tech killer, more people died than in CT. So, saying "if the guy in CT would have used 2 pistols, it wouldn't have been as bad" is an unknown. The Va Tech killer proved it can be worse by killing 5 more people than the CT kid.

So, should we ban all guns? If the 30 round clip is the issue. Make it illegal. Just stop this nonsense about a civilian AR being any more dangerous than any other rifle other than it having a higher capacity cartridge. It isn't. Make the limit 10.

With that being said, I have zero confidence that this will stop killings like this. If you want to stop anyone from killing anyone with a gun, make guns illegal. One this is done, watch the illegal gun trade explode like alcohol during prohibition and drugs now. There isn't a solution that involves banning guns. All you can do is limit the number of rounds someone can fire without changing cartridges and recognize troubles kids before they commit these acts.

^^^^THIS^^^

[AUloggerhead 2,252]

if the va tech shooter had used an assault rifle with multiple 30 round clips, it would have been much worse. if the 20yr old nut in conneticut had only used 2 pistols it woulnt have been as bad.

Pure idiocy. You're reduced to arguing the "degree" of these massacres of innocents -- as if 10 instead of 20 children being murdered in one incident would somehow lessen the shock of these tragedies. Pat yourself on the back for your "logic."

Gun control laws are not the answer as long as people insist in deluding themselves that gun-free zones actually provide any meaningful protection from people who have no respect for laws.

Interesting that some are now seeing the light: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html

[3rdgen 2]

I understand that this is a hot topic, so I'm not trying to push any buttons or put my beliefs on others... just stating my opinion, some of which may have already been expressed by others. I only read a little of the first few pages and the last page.

The problem I have is that this guy (and the movie theater shooter) was able to gun down a large number of people in a very short amount of time with semi automatic weapons. Rather it's a ban completely on Assault Rifles or rather it's a ban on the amount of Ammo they can hold in clips I'm not really sure. I imagine there are people closer to the issue that know what is fair or unfair if we take into consideration the 'practical' uses of a semi automatic rifle in a civilians hand.

PERSONALLY - I see no practical use whatsoever, but then again I don't own a gun.

The disturbing part is these kids that shot up the school and the movie theater don't appear on the surface to have alot of training at the shooting range, but I could be totally wrong about that. My gut tells me that they were able to easily spray bullets with little skill involved.

I don't EVER want to have to take my chances against ANYONE with a gun, but if I have to choose, I'd rather take my chances against something was a little harder to use skillfully. People are missing the point on a few things. Those of us that want stricter gun control don't expect evil to be wiped away from the face of the earth forever, but it isn't a bad thing if this country is able set up laws that eliminate a degree of probability that someone can walk into a public place and easily spray 500 bullets in any general direction in the span of 2 minutes.

At the end of the day, we all have a personal responsibility to be good citizens.

I'd respond that even without semi automatic weapons with a pump action shotgun loaded with double 00 buckshot it is possible to fire the equivalent of 56-126 32 caliber bullets down range with a single run through a 7 round magazine. Those are all bigger in diameter than the 223. It takes absolutely no training to fire since it is a true point and pull the trigger application. They will not jam and in 7 shots you have the destructive power of either 2-4 of these 30 rd magazines people seem to hate. They guy in the mall shooting showed this perfectly he fired about 60 shots and hit three people then his gun jammed.

[japantiger 4,051]

Control on the magazine size is reasonable...but banning guns from law abiding citizens is a non starter. The constitution is there to prevent the government from doing this.

[3rdgen 2]

But the question is, does he have a point? This move for gun control is not going to end with people not able to own handguns or hunting rifles. So put that aside. So let's say you eliminate the AR-15 and similar rifles. The question becomes:

Have you really accomplished anything that will make a real difference or just managed to make yourself feel like you accomplished something?

The latter is the case. Any ban won't stop someone with 4 380s or a pistol grip shotgun from being just as deadly if they chose to be. As Ben Franklin said, " those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[AUGradinTX 0]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

[Ouchyfish 67]

I can try to spell out my comparison to alcohol I guess since for some reason some people aren't getting it.

People drinking alcohol=OK (No need to ban)

People driving drunk and endangering lives=NOT OK (Ban)

Law abiding people owning currently legal guns=OK (No need to ban)

Person going crazy and committing mass murder with said guns.=NOT OK (Can't ban spontaneous insanity)

So...do you ban alcohol because it's used by idiots to kill people in car accidents? No

Should you start banning this gun or that gun because some idiot goes on a shooting rampage? No

Why? Because to carry out the second ban would be as ridiculous as carrying out the first.

You're restricting law-abiding citizens because of fringe elements. If a guy who is normally a quiet loner gets drunk and crashes his car into a school bus killing 20 kids do we ban alcohol?

Put the insults and bull aside for a minute.

My beef isn't so much with this gun or that guns restrictions as it is with ANY screwing with the second amendment. I know how the government will take advantage of this and turn it into a nightmare. It's what they do best. Do I want the country to be safer? Hell yes. That tragedy breaks my damn heart every time I see those kids faces.

I just understand that there is a reality to what you're asking for. That reality is that you cannot have freedom without consequences. The drug war has shown how flawed making something illegal is. Look around. Drugs are everywhere! 10% or so children using illegal drugs! There are more people dying from illegal drug overdose in America than people dying from gun violence. How is that possible???? They're ILLEGAL!!!!!!

Once you start stepping on constitutional rights, you enter a very dangerous place. I simply do not want the government to open that door and start nibbling away at this right and that right all to appease people that think the problem is worse than it actually is. You screw over law abiding people for nothing and leave their hands tied.

[leglessdan 1,934]

I can try to spell out my comparison to alcohol I guess since for some reason some people aren't getting it.

People drinking alcohol=OK (No need to ban)

People driving drunk and endangering lives=NOT OK (Ban)

Law abiding people owning currently legal guns=OK (No need to ban)

Person going crazy and committing mass murder with said guns.=NOT OK (Can't ban spontaneous insanity)

So...do you ban alcohol because it's used by idiots to kill people in car accidents? No

Should you start banning this gun or that gun because some idiot goes on a shooting rampage? No

Why? Because to carry out the second ban would be as ridiculous as carrying out the first.

You're restricting law-abiding citizens because of fringe elements. If a guy who is normally a quiet loner gets drunk and crashes his car into a school bus killing 20 kids do we ban alcohol?

Put the insults and bull aside for a minute.

My beef isn't so much with this gun or that guns restrictions as it is with ANY screwing with the second amendment. I know how the government will take advantage of this and turn it into a nightmare. It's what they do best. Do I want the country to be safer? Hell yes. That tragedy breaks my damn heart every time I see those kids faces.

I just understand that there is a reality to what you're asking for. That reality is that you cannot have freedom without consequences. The drug war has shown how flawed making something illegal is. Look around. Drugs are everywhere! 10% or so children using illegal drugs! There are more people dying from illegal drug overdose in America than people dying from gun violence. How is that possible???? They're ILLEGAL!!!!!!

Once you start stepping on constitutional rights, you enter a very dangerous place. I simply do not want the government to open that door and start nibbling away at this right and that right all to appease people that think the problem is worse than it actually is. You screw over law abiding people for nothing and leave their hands tied.

+1 well said.

[alexava 6,973]

Ok, how many more deaths due to drunk driving would we have if not for dui penalties? Hint a whole frigin lot. We cant eleminate all dangers, that dont mean you dont try.

[FatherUppercut 48]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Ok, how many more deaths due to drunk driving would we have if not for dui penalties? Hint a whole frigin lot. We cant eleminate all dangers, that dont mean you dont try.

How can you place absolutes on drunk driving? That's silly. Majority of DUI are repeat offenders.

[3rdgen 2]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

They can be used for defense, as part of a 3 gun competitor's sport, and in hunting. Especially when hunting hogs if they are chambered in the larger .308 or .458 SOCOM.

http://www.3gunmatch.com/

http://www.3gunnation.com/

[alexava 6,973]

Wher are you getting your #s? You dont think the consequences deter dui

[alexava 6,973]

What does "AR" stand for? And finally i see one thing i woukd use one for... Hog hunting.. From a helicopter.

[BornaTiger 0]

What does "AR" stand for? And finally i see one thing i woukd use one for... Hog hunting.. From a helicopter.

ARmalite. Name of the co. that originally made them. Then Colt bought them out and has sort of revised history so now its, Automatic Rifle.

[BornaTiger 0]

Learn something.

http://www.armalite.com/ click the history link.

This too.

http://www.ecis.com/~mraudio/AR15_Ammo_FAQ.htm

[leglessdan 1,934]

Wher are you getting your #s? You dont think the consequences deter dui

No I don't.

[3rdgen 2]

What does "AR" stand for? And finally i see one thing i woukd use one for... Hog hunting.. From a helicopter.

Or on the ground. A lot of people down on the border especially farmers and ranchers carry them on a daily basis because of all the smugglers that cross their land are armed.

[AcUmen 242]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

[BornaTiger 0]

Surprised no one has brought up Kennesaw, GA.

Here you go.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

[japantiger 4,051]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Use mine for hogs and other varmints on the farm. And it's just plain fun.