Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Personally, I believe it would be far more sensible if ordinary citizens didn't have such easy access to guns in the first place. (legally or illegally)

Then, when a potential killer cracks under stress, looks for revenge, or suffers from an episode of instability or insanity, they might just have to find another (far less harmful to others) method of acting out their aggression or anger, or whatever it is they think they're doing..... :

i got two words for you, con fiscation

actually now that i look at it i guess it's one word

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I for one do not trust your judgment. Too many gun-toters feel that the best response to any situation which seems at all threatening is to kill. I don't want to be around that.

I am not against guns and I nearly think that every American household should be REQUIRED to own a long rifle. But I don't agree with Pistols, a coward's weapon and the cause of much of the violence we see in our modern lives.

Cycloptichorn

Pistols aren't a coward's weapon. That's silly. Pistols are just for carrying when a long gun is too bulky.

They also are not the cause of violence. People would be violent even without pistols.

Quote:

I think the largest growing segment of gun owners are more about the power guns give an individual and not the sport. Guns no longer equal food or safety from an intruder, but rather individual power and machismo. We've had a few drug raids in my area and the cops didn't find hunting rifles, but rather small sized machine guns . These military style guns are scary. I think people who crave them are not the same as the guy who owns a few guns to hunt deer or protect his family from intruders. These bigger, badder guns are designed to kill many quickly and give the user a feeling of invincibility. I think they are just want criminals crave and it's why drug lords in Mexico come to the US to stock up on weapons. I don't think we are ever going to see these guns removed from our society because the people who are attracted to them have an addiction to the feeling of power these guns offer . We could not eliminate these guns in our society anymore than we can get rid of drugs. We are saturated with them- and they are a big, profitable business based on demand.

Interesting post, Green Witch.
What are the legalities regarding these military style guns?
Who can own one (or more, I guess?) & under what sort of circumstances would ownership be allowed?
I can't imagine why any citizen would actually need a power gun, say nothing of why the state would allow it.

Quote:

We've had a few drug raids in my area and the cops didn't find hunting rifles, but rather small sized machine guns . These military style guns are scary

First off, unless you have a federal permit it is illegal to own any type of machine gun or any other fully automatic weapon.
So, since you say these guns were confiscated during drug raids, the people raided were already committing a felony.
These kind of people have no regard for the law, so why does it surprise you that they broke another law?

maporsche wrote:

I care more about my right to own guns than I do about the life that is lost because of guns.

wow, quite the misanthrope, aren't you. Fact is, gun control works in other civilized countries

and crime is just a fraction of that of the United States.

I'm going to assume that "military style guns" refers to rifles with a pistol grip on them.

In that case, people have the right to have as many of them as they want.

maporsche, of course I drive - driving a car has nothing to do withowning a gun. Yes, people die in car accidents, people die of cancer andother illnesses too, but that's not an argument to have the right to own a gun.

Quote:

I care more about my right to own guns than I do about the life that is lost because of guns.

I don't know why you feel people have to admit this, it's rather obvious isn't it?

Hell, I don't think it's even that shocking of a statement......

maporsche

You actually mean this?

Or is this some attempt a humour, or irony, or something (?) that's lost (0n me) via "cultural translation"?

If you actually do mean it, well, I honestly don't know what to say ........

Nobody is suggesting banning all guns.

Nobody is suggesting gun control stops all murders.

... banning cars would save far more lives than banning guns...

msolga wrote:

Easy access to guns leads to far too many easy killings of innocent people.:

No it doesn't. People would be killed just as easily if someone took our freedom away.

But, if you're not OK with any murder, then what exactly do you mean by your statement?:

"I care more about my right to own guns than I do about the life that is lost because of guns."

Those 24 people who died on the weekend were killed by gunmen. Using guns as murder weapons, obviously!

I don't find it particularly useful to speculate on other ways in which those 24 people might have died, instead.

you probably don´t have time to pull the trigger anyway.

David you are living in a dream world.

Policemen are trained to first aime at a person and shoot in a leg or arm not to kill.

You seem to wish something could happen so you can kill and prove you are right. What if it is the wrong person? What if it happens to be your neighbour out looking for his cat in the middle of the night in your garden?

If you are attacked from behind how will you shoot, how will you shoot if a person is using your wife or someone else dear to you as a shield? What if you are attacked standing in the shower? Do you carry a gun in the shower?

maporsche wrote:

Calamity jane suggested banning all guns, and even amending the constitution of the united states to do so.

It's not a strawman when people are actually using that as the basis of their argument.

Oy, read carefully maporsche, I spoke of amending the 2nd amendment, yes,
and the prohibition of certain firearms - not banning all guns!

What is it with you gun proponents? There seems to be absolutely no middle
ground here.

BillRM wrote:

How about a nice bomb that I could place under your seat and then walk away in a movie theater.

A bomb that can be created out of material that can be found in any home.

Sorry but we all have the ability to kill each other if we wish to and firearms are only one of many threat models.

Bombs made out of material found in the home require that the person
1. have enough knowledge to make one (It requires a lot more than buying and loading a gun.)
2. takes the time to make it.
3. Doesn't blow himself up in the process

It's kind of hard to compare the two Bill unless.... Here's a suggestion. People can carry a gun that they build themselves out of materials found in their home and ONLY that kind of gun. How about that?

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

I believe it would be preferable if no individual was in a position to instigate such a shooting spree in the first place.

And how would you do that, especially since someone with a modicum of knowledge and access to a machine shop can produce a firearm in only a few hours.

Are you going to ban all machine shops?

No need to ban machine shops. If you want to go that way, what do you think the odds are of someone being able to make a fully automatic weapon that holds 20 0r more rounds and will have no problems in extended use in just a few hours? Without a full CNC shop and the completed CNC drawings, I suggest no one would be able to do it in just a "few hours."