Gun Control

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by big_arrow_up, Apr 22, 2007.

  1. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    If Our Government Were Able to Ignore the Constitution and Make Gun Ownership Illegal Would It Make the Country Safer?
     
  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    No, because then the bad guys will still have the guns and we'll all be unarmed. :sad:
     
  3. Crazy Diamond

    Crazy Diamond Robot Extraordinaire

    I don't believe it would. Seems to me, the vast majority of criminals that acquire guns, do so illegally anyway. Not all, but most. There's always the nutjob, criminals to-be, that obtain weapons legally. I think making guns illegal would only keep them out of the hands of people responsible enough to own them. Besides that, if someone has the will to do something, that person will find a way to carry it out. Making guns illegal wouldn't stop violent crimes from happening, it would merely be small obstacle for an offender to move around. A law like that would only be a paper tiger, used only to advance one party's political agenda. No real winner in legislation like that, except for criminals themselves. Now they know that the average law abiding citizen is virtually powerless to defend their family and property. But that's just how I see it.
     
  4. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    They have been trying to do that for decades. In answer to your question.
    No.
     
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Here's an excerpt from Darrell Scott's testimony after Columbine. His daughter, Rachel, was killed at Columbine.

    "Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

    "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

    "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began t o be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.


     
  6. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    If anything the crap that went on at Va Tech should initiate a trend towards more people arming themselves. To depend on the police to come bail you out of situations like at Va Tech is simply wishfull thinking. I'd say the Va Tech incident is a good example of why. There are tiny towns all over the country that don't have police departments at all. They don't even rely on the county sherrifs for help. Most of the people in these towns own guns and that is enough to discourage people from picking up a gun with the purpose of causing trouble. Look at areas of the country that have tighter gun control. They have high murder rates. Washington D.C. is a good example.
     
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    First off, let's pretend here for just a moment. It's clear from the video images and words that the VT shooter had a serious mental problem and I believe it was reported he was prescribed various drugs for this. I happen to believe many of these drugs make things worse but that's for another time.

    OK, we know in effect our shooter's heart so now let's tinker with his environment. Let's pretend for a moment that everything is still the same but the big difference being that all guns are and have been illegal in the US. No one and I mean no one has access to any type of firearm whatsoever. Now our young man is still loaded with hate with warped images of life around him so what are his options if he still wanted to commit the same level of violence that he exacted with a firearm?

    One only need look to Iraq and specifically the Green Zone in Baghdad that has the highest level of security to get a pretty good answer. Last week, there was a massive bombing within the Green Zone but with so many guns, especially automatic weapons with very powerful effects available in that area that the insurgents, terrorists or more likely civil war combatants choose bombs instead of guns. Why? With all those checkpoints in the area, how hard is it to get a gun through? My guess is it's nearly impossible and even more so for someone to even branish one in public. This makes using a firearm of any type nearly impossible so those bent on massive destruction must resort to the most aweful of means to carryout the evil intent that resides in their hearts.

    Could we ban firearms and install police checkpoints in every area to effect total protection for the US? Sure but 2 questions. What would the cost be to the citizenry for this level of protection (monetarily, physically and mentally)? And for those bent on evil because of the content of their hearts, where would they then turn to exact their violence on society? In all of the emotionalism of the post period of these horrific events when the cries for gun control come forth, I never hear those same people making the gun control call explain to me how to effect the cost, prevent a new monster from taking the place of guns and in some cases the monster is even worse than the gun itself. Lastly and most important, how is the gun law going to effect a change in the heart of the person out to committ such acts in the first place?

    What is the root cause of such acts of extreme violence to begin with? If it were the gun itself and with a nation who pocesses more guns in private hands than all the armies of the world combined, I'd say it's a fair statement that not many of us would still be alive today and those that were would have much blood on their hands. However the opposite in fact is true that for such a large amount of firearms on hand, it's amazing we have such a low percentage of these types of events. If you look across the course of human history and it's recording of nutcases out to harm society, I say in our world today we have even less than in past history when guns were not around so what's the root cause? The content of the human heart. Why not spend the time to resolve that and it's just possible those swords just might become plowshares all on their own without gov't edict!

    Now IMO that would be a great world to live in! Step one,
    "Love thy neighbor as thyself!"

    JMHO
     
  8. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "If Our Government Were Able to Ignore the Constitution and Make Gun Ownership Illegal Would It Make the Country Safer?"

    God, no. We'd be defenseless at the hands of evil. Evil people do not get guns legally, so laws preventing gun ownership wouldn't apply to them.

    Unfortunately, schools like Va Tech have rules that prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns on campus. It is rules like this that got 32 people killed. One armed law abiding student or faculty member could have saved so many lives.

    The one reason there are rules like this that get people killed?

    Liberal Democrats
     
  9. 30andout

    30andout New Member

    Is there a possibility they could ban cars if the next nutcase decides to ram his car into a crowded area and kills a bunch of people.
     
  10. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    Good question, but that already happened on a campus, but it was a muslim student, so they didnt ban cars, didnt suggest it, and you dont hear much of it on the media, now or before.
    And the answer is No.
     
  11. Crazy Diamond

    Crazy Diamond Robot Extraordinaire


    Maye they could ban muslims?? jk:laugh:
     
  12. DS

    DS Fenderbender

    This subject could be debated forever.As a Canadian I feel almost unqualified to have an opinion on this but I do anyway.

    Our laws are stricter than in the US,but we are the second most well armed people per capita.
    We have shootings too but not nearly as many.

    American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

    But America is America...and theres no going back on your gun laws now.The right to bear arms inclusively makes it a necessity.

    America,the land of the free
    and the home of the brave.
     
  13. SmithBarney

    SmithBarney Well-Known Member

    Water Causes drownings.... ban water
    knives cause stabbings.... ban knives
    Mcdonalds causes obesity... ban Mcdonalds
    see a trend here?

    Of course I think there should be some reform
    the ball was definitely dropped with this kid.

    Education is what the country is in need of.
    Not just book education.
    Life, Family, Values, and more...
    It comes from the home, and parents
    need to stop depending on the schools
    to teach things that should have been taught at home.
     
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    On Sunday I had to run an errand so when I got in the car I decided to flip through the radio dial just to see what was on. I flipped by one station and it was a lady talking to Sean Hannity on the VT shooting. This lady IMO raised a very interesting point related to gun control but it was not the usual course however. She suggested that one way to regulate was not via the guns but rather the ammo and to avoid the natural 2nd amendment recourse, conduct the ammo regs under the pretext of the commerce clause. As she really was getting into the meat of her reasoning, Sean cut to a commercial break and that was the end of that. Really ticked me off that he did that so I turned the channel again to some music since I was taking my daughter to get some timpani mallets and gave up on the radio.

    In the 1930's or maybe the 20's (my sometimers is kicking in) the US enacted federal laws regulating machine guns. Reality at the time told them an all out ban would likely fail if a Constitutional challenge was leveled but a heavily regulated provision would hold and it has. I do think the precedence is there to move forward with handguns or any firearm for that fact but right now the political will is just not there. Even Harry Reid who last week said that a new federal gun law was not gonna happen knows the reality of politics in America. I do think however that it is just a matter of time before the tide will turn and pistols and so-called assault type weapons will face the pressure of being regualted much to the extent as we now see with Class 3 weapons. You'll still be able to have your gun but only after going through a more thorough background check and paying a transfer tax to own such weapons.

    I still ask the question, what would our VT shooter have done in his state of mind had no firearms been available? Would this in itself have prevent any form of violence? The even scarier answer IMO is found on the streets of Iraq almost on a daily basis. The problem is in the heart people, not in a tangible object!

    Wait, I get it! I get it! I get it! Get rid of all guns and all wars will stop too! Right? Does it really work like that?
    :confused:1
    :wink:
     
  15. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    It could...assuming that "Ignore the Constitution" applies to the whole Constitution (more specifically, all the Amendments), there would be no restrictions on search & seizure, dissenting speech could be suppressed, travel could be restricted/denied, courts could be streamlined or even eliminated, and we lose a whole bunch of other things I take for granted to the point that I forget they are protected by our Bill of Rights.

    We could end up safer from guns, but how do we get there? I think the path to becoming "gun-free" in the US would involve prying a lot of cold, dead fingers....

    I do not want to be caught in the crossfire.


    I had trouble verifying this quote from a reliable news source, so it may be someone's fabrication that has spread across the web:

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, speaking in Portland, Oregon (May,2001), when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

    I think the Dalai Lama knows that the hardware does not act.
     
  16. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

    Susie got all over me for posting that!!! Anyone remember?
     
  17. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member





    Perfect example, and no racial bias here, both black. The guy defended himself, and hes the bad guy. The poor 15 yr old is dead. If the intended victim had been shot, it would have been just another problem in the hood. But since it was a youth, its the legal owner of a guns fault. Regardless that he was defending himself in his home. And if you care to read further at www.plain dealer.com You will see he is the one being run out of the HOOD. More citizens on their porches with guns, will put an end to the people who grow up criminal, and it was the parents fault, not the almost victim.



    Time to save Cleveland's lost boys

    Posted by Phillip Morris, Metro Columnist April 25, 2007 19:59PM

    Categories: Metro
    Let's dispense with the obvious.
    Saturday night, Arthur "Ace" Buford, an unregistered "gunman" with a rap sheet, lost badly in his porch confrontation with Damon Wells, a trained and registered gunman.
    It would appear that the law won.
    As a result, a 15-year-old boy -- and would-be robber -- is being prepped for embalming. A 25-year-old, law-abiding Cleveland man and his fianc e are alive, but have been chased from their Kinsman Road neighborhood.
    Depending on where you stand, this outcome is either cause for tempered celebration or profound grief. That is where the community conversation seems to have stalled.
    But merely harping on the elementary facts of this sick encounter does little to provide illumination.
    So, without using polarizing language, let's talk about the sad consequences, pathetic spectacle and lack of leadership reflected in the aftermath of Saturday's high-profile shooting of Arthur, a boy who thought he was a man.
    The conversation can start with a dissection of the disturbing etiquette of young, urban street grieving now on display. Then, a community-based discussion on right and wrong seems appropriate. A primer on the futility of misguided revenge is also in order.
    Ideally, Mayor Frank Jackson would start this conversation. Whether such a town hall meeting would be centered in Slavic Village or Mount Pleasant, he needs to address his emerging public relations problem:
    Namely, how can he get people to buy into cutting back on tax abatement if they don'tbelieve they can sit safely on their front porches?
    Jackson needs to signal that it's acceptable to grieve for this slaughtered boy, while he somehow reassures residents of this town that it's a legal and moral imperative to defend life and property. That's fundamental.
    Instead, children are leading the parade. The children are speaking out for their dead. They are turning utility poles into impromptu mausoleums and are holding televised memorials. They are grieving hard -- especially the girls.
    But the adults -- the leaders -- are mostly silent whilewe all watch the flight of an innocent man and the destruction of his rental property. And we watch as critical life lessons are being lost or unspoken in the din of the latest rage:
    "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
    Community activist Khalid Samad is a prince in this city. He fluently speaks the language of gang-bangers and foundation grant makers. He tirelessly promotes "peace in the 'hood."
    But the dike is bursting around him. He needs help. He had counseled "Ace" in recent weeks. Tuesday, he could do little more than curse.
    Samad cursed an amoral culture. He cursed the spiritual deprivations that placed him on the corner where "Ace" died. He cursed a community's warped embrace of violence.
    His rage momentarily shook the neighborhood. To what end?
    Too many Cleveland boys are being posthumously memorialized with stuffed animals. It's an infantile spectacle: Gun-toting, wannabe men buried with toys.
    It's time for strong black men in the city, led by Jackson, to come off the porches and save their own generation of "lost boys."
    To reach Phillip Morris: pfmorris@plaind.com, 216-999-4070
    Previous columns online: cleveland.com/columns




    [​IMG]Post a comment | View comments (
     
  18. UPSwannaB

    UPSwannaB not yet worthy

    Banning guns would be stupid. I highly doubt that a person that plans on shooting someone cares that there's a law against having the gun.... And even if the gun ban prevented guns from being in the area, the criminal would just improvise and find some other weapon to use.