Gun Control: Where do you draw the line? - General

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39224110]You're right. He did. It was completely preventable and now there's people dead because of it.[/QUOTE] What legislation could you have enacted that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting? Please tell.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39224110]You're right. He did. It was completely preventable and now there's people dead because of it.[/QUOTE] The only way it potentially could have been prevented would be if the government passed legislation to confiscate all firearms, the government knew of the existence of Mrs. Lanza's firearms and confiscated them before this instance happened, Adam didn't successfully attempt to purchase an illegally obtained gun, Adam didn't adapt to the situation and create new plan to kill that didn't use guns and was instead disenchanted. Alternatively, it cloud might have been prevented if the government could force mental health checks for all individuals, they inspected Adam before this happened, Adam failed to effectively shroud his mental instability, and the govt. took appropriate action after finding this. I can go on but this is all speculation, not fact. We have no idea what would have happened if "insert event here" occurred.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39216509]Stop what? Overall homicide has been steadily decreasing for the past 5 years. Why is it a problem now?[/QUOTE] Because, media sensationalism has gotten people riled up over mass shootings and the like. People just don't care about average gang violence and murders as much since even though they are the bulk of the problem, they only care about events where a comparatively small but concentrated amount of deaths occur.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39231455]Because, media sensationalism has gotten people riled up over mass shootings and the like. People just don't care about average gang violence and murders as much since even though they are the bulk of the problem, they only care about events where a comparatively small but concentrated amount of deaths occur.[/QUOTE] Exactly. It's disgusting, really - I feel like even the news outlets are trying to sell entertainment more than a lot of other entertainment networks. Admittedly, a business needs money to function, but the media has been a huge disaster when it comes to trying to get anything worthwhile done in the U.S.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39231455]Because, media sensationalism has gotten people riled up over mass shootings and the like. People just don't care about average gang violence and murders as much since even though they are the bulk of the problem, they only care about events where a comparatively small but concentrated amount of deaths occur.[/QUOTE] Don't care about these gang members dying and the innocent people that are caught in the crossfire. Focus on this story instead and let your emotions do the thinking. -Thanks, The Media Something is wrong here. I'm not being funny but this came to mind. [video=youtube;OslRkUJgE0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OslRkUJgE0A[/video]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39224177]And you ignore the entire rest of that post. Did you learn nothing?[/QUOTE] Obviously. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=futahorse;39231872]Don't care about these gang members dying and the innocent people that are caught in the crossfire. Focus on this story instead and let your emotions do the thinking. -Thanks, The Media Something is wrong here. I'm not being funny but this came to mind. [video=youtube;OslRkUJgE0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OslRkUJgE0A[/video][/QUOTE] The world would be better if all the gang members would kill each other, and I dont care if they're white or black or mexican or whatever. (i hope you realize that most gangs are race-based, look up "brown pride" etc) If there were less gangs there would be less of a violent culture and the mental health of the nation would improve.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;39233070]The world would be better if all the gang members would kill each other, and I dont care if they're white or black or mexican or whatever. (i hope you realize that most gangs are race-based, look up "brown pride" etc) If there were less gangs there would be less of a violent culture and the mental health of the nation would improve.[/QUOTE] Oh yea? What makes you so confident that the gangs will "kill each other off"?

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;39233070]Obviously. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] The world would be better if all the gang members would kill each other, and I dont care if they're white or black or mexican or whatever. (i hope you realize that most gangs are race-based, look up "brown pride" etc) If there were less gangs there would be less of a violent culture and the mental health of the nation would improve.[/QUOTE] So you don't care about every single person's life? Having all gang members killed wont do much except create a huge vacuum for people to found new gangs. Gangs are a symptom of terrible environments they cannot escape or lack the willpower to escape from.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;38840096]There has been 3 in the UK: June 2, 2010: 12 killed 11 injured in Cumbria in random attack March 13, 1996: 16 children killed 13 injured in primary school attack August 19, 1987: 16 dead 15 injured in shopping centre, parliament banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles in response[/QUOTE] Could I see the sources for these shootings in the UK as I am uncertain if these are all of the mass shootings in Britain or just some random few you decided to pull out

[QUOTE=thelund;39275427]Could I see the sources for these shootings in the UK as I am uncertain if these are all of the mass shootings in Britain or just some random few you decided to pull out[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre[/url] Took me all of 5 minutes to google "June 2, 2010 shooting", et cetera.

*When I talk about gun culture/violence, I mean the whole lifestyle of so many Americans is shaped around owning guns, taking your kids to the shooting range etc. Most of the world's just fucked up, and we harbor people who would actually do these types of things. There's no easy or overnight fix. No legislation can greatly reduce this violence. I think it is the culture of violence which make people so comfortable around weapons and violence which really drives this. Most of the people who murder are not mentally unstable, just fucked up; they are comfortable with doing those things. On the other hand, most of the cunts who can feel comfortable killing 20 kids [I]are[/I] mentally unstable. It ties in with the issue of them feeling comfortable with murder, and at the same time is another issue entirely. This other issue is that they are not provided with the help they need. Generally, they are pushed to mass-killing by a number of this, whether it be bullying, or some sick inspiration, which have greater effects on the mentally unstable. I'm not saying that these things don't influence anyone else - of course they do. People are bullied and pushed by many things many times. It is just that people generally need more support early on. Another point that I wanted to come to were the gun laws. I know this is the most cliché category in the whole gun-violence topic, but I would just like to say one thing. As Protocol was getting at earlier on this page, no legislation could have been enacted would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. While I agree with him/her in a way (this could nit have been prevented in a country like America in recent times because of the gun culture), I do think that if the gun culture in America was not created so deeply and early, and if the 2nd amendment did not allow gun freedom, there could have. If the nation was born against guns and violence, then the country would be more like some others, being mostly anti-guns. This would have changed the gun/violence culture in America, and probably have changed the outcomes of people who thought about killing. Because of the early gun culture, there has basically been a chain reaction. The result is that everyone has guns and everyone is comfortable around them. This circles back round to my original point. Although I don't disagree with the view that all guns should be banned, in most places where there is not much of a gun culture, there is less gun violence. Guns can work, but it is extremely hard for that to work, especially in such a huge country like the US, where there is such a culture of guns and violence. In closing, I believe that most of the gun violence can be attributed to the gun culture in America, set in stone by the Second Amendment. If gun control laws had been made early on in the country's history, the gun culture would not have risen as strongly as it has. Now, there is not much we can do. What I believe are good ideas are to really limit the type and availability of guns on sale. Extensive background checks must be put in place, and only people who are in dire need of having a gun should be allowed to have one. But let's be realistic. Also, I believe more attention must be put onto violence at home in the form of funding (taken from the military of which this country is obsessed with - but that's a different rant) for action against violence in many ways. More attention must be focused at home. This is never going to happen now. It could only have happened in the nation's early years. The task of repairing the US is near impossible and would take decades of thought work. But it can be done. A study from Australia shows that after the 1996-97 buyback of over 700000 guns by the Australian Government, and array of new laws introduced, shows that: "In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre of Port Arthur (in which reaction to these new laws were put in place), Australia experienced 13 mass In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded(table1). Since Port arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia." You can read the rest of that study here: [url]http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf[/url] And more about mass shootings in Australia: [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders[/url] And more about gun laws in Australia: [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia[/url] The reason I chose Australia as an example here is because I believe the new gun laws of 1996 set an example of how to limit mass shootings and gun violence. I consider them good laws. Also, last thing, I don't think any civilian needs to own a near military grade weapon ( the 1996 laws stopped people from buying weapons even lower grade than that) Of course this is helped by the lack of gun culture in Australia. May I also say that what I have been talking about now applies to all gun violence. If some of this doesn't make sense or sound too good, sorry, but I just did this as quickly as I could. I know this has been long, but these are my personal views - thanks for reading.

[QUOTE=Cobra Bukkake;39276267]Also, last thing, I don't think any civilian needs to own a near military grade weapon ( the 1996 laws stopped people from buying weapons even lower grade than that) [/QUOTE] [img]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576727052416391833/BFA98111D97D6D5A93F9D10B999E899F6A023898/1024x639.resizedimage[/img] "bane asalt knaves dey look scary nd r military grade" "military grade weapon" or "assault weapon" basically just means "generic weapon with cosmetic modifications like adjustable stocks, forward grips, pistol grips, etc" I don't get how SO MANY PEOPLE can't get this through their head. [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] I swear, I'm going to post an exact duplicate of this post every time I see someone talking about "assault weapons" or "military-style weapons" from now on [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - Strike 2" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Cobra Bukkake;39276267]*When I talk about gun culture/violence, I mean the whole lifestyle of so many Americans is shaped around owning guns, taking your kids to the shooting range etc. Most of the world's just fucked up, and we harbor people who would actually do these types of things. There's no easy or overnight fix. No legislation can greatly reduce this violence. I think it is the culture of violence which make people so comfortable around weapons and violence which really drives this. Most of the people who murder are not mentally unstable, just fucked up; they are comfortable with doing those things. On the other hand, most of the cunts who can feel comfortable killing 20 kids [I]are[/I] mentally unstable. It ties in with the issue of them feeling comfortable with murder, and at the same time is another issue entirely. This other issue is that they are not provided with the help they need. Generally, they are pushed to mass-killing by a number of this, whether it be bullying, or some sick inspiration, which have greater effects on the mentally unstable. I'm not saying that these things don't influence anyone else - of course they do. People are bullied and pushed by many things many times. It is just that people generally need more support early on. Another point that I wanted to come to were the gun laws. I know this is the most cliché category in the whole gun-violence topic, but I would just like to say one thing. As Protocol was getting at earlier on this page, no legislation could have been enacted would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. While I agree with him/her in a way (this could nit have been prevented in a country like America in recent times because of the gun culture), I do think that if the gun culture in America was not created so deeply and early, and if the 2nd amendment did not allow gun freedom, there could have. If the nation was born against guns and violence, then the country would be more like some others, being mostly anti-guns. This would have changed the gun/violence culture in America, and probably have changed the outcomes of people who thought about killing. Because of the early gun culture, there has basically been a chain reaction. The result is that everyone has guns and everyone is comfortable around them. This circles back round to my original point. Although I don't disagree with the view that all guns should be banned, in most places where there is not much of a gun culture, there is less gun violence. Guns can work, but it is extremely hard for that to work, especially in such a huge country like the US, where there is such a culture of guns and violence. In closing, I believe that most of the gun violence can be attributed to the gun culture in America, set in stone by the Second Amendment. If gun control laws had been made early on in the country's history, the gun culture would not have risen as strongly as it has. Now, there is not much we can do. What I believe are good ideas are to really limit the type and availability of guns on sale. Extensive background checks must be put in place, and only people who are in dire need of having a gun should be allowed to have one. But let's be realistic. Also, I believe more attention must be put onto violence at home in the form of funding (taken from the military of which this country is obsessed with - but that's a different rant) for action against violence in many ways. More attention must be focused at home. This is never going to happen now. It could only have happened in the nation's early years. The task of repairing the US is near impossible and would take decades of thought work. But it can be done. A study from Australia shows that after the 1996-97 buyback of over 700000 guns by the Australian Government, and array of new laws introduced, shows that: "In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre of Port Arthur (in which reaction to these new laws were put in place), Australia experienced 13 mass In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded(table1). Since Port arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia." You can read the rest of that study here: [url]http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf[/url] And more about mass shootings in Australia: [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders[/url] And more about gun laws in Australia: [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia[/url] The reason I chose Australia as an example here is because I believe the new gun laws of 1996 set an example of how to limit mass shootings and gun violence. I consider them good laws. Also, last thing, I don't think any civilian needs to own a near military grade weapon ( the 1996 laws stopped people from buying weapons even lower grade than that) Of course this is helped by the lack of gun culture in Australia. May I also say that what I have been talking about now applies to all gun violence. If some of this doesn't make sense or sound too good, sorry, but I just did this as quickly as I could. I know this has been long, but these are my personal views - thanks for reading.[/QUOTE] Does the number of mass shootings really matter? Whether you have 10 single death shootings or one ten death shooting you at the end of the day have 10 dead people. The murder rate in this country has been declining since the early 80s, it kept declining at the same rate before and after Pt Arthur. I looked at your study and it only discusses death by firearms following Pt Arthur. Has it made any difference is they just substituted one murder method for another? I also would suggest considering how effective the buyback was in removing firearms from the community. At the moment there are about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia. The SSAA did a rough count going by imports, production, exports, buybacks and such and they came to the conclusion there should be at least 6 million firearms on the books [url]http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-12_the-great-australian-gun-buyback.html[/url] So it pretty much means there are more unregistered firearms in Australia than registered, and that is before you consider firearms smuggled into the country illegally. It's also wrong to say there have been no mass shootings since. That is incorrect. In 2003 a guy shot up Monash university and bikie gangs regularly shoot up peoples houses. Was the buyback that cost us $600 million (in '96 dollars) really worth it then? Even if we inflate numbers and say it saved 10 lives per year, couldn't that money have been spent in a way that saved many more lives? A new hospital in an area that lacks one would easily save more lives every year and would cost about the same

[QUOTE=futahorse;39230998]The only way it potentially could have been prevented would be if the government passed legislation to confiscate all firearms, the government knew of the existence of Mrs. Lanza's firearms and confiscated them before this instance happened, Adam didn't successfully attempt to purchase an illegally obtained gun, Adam didn't adapt to the situation and create new plan to kill that didn't use guns and was instead disenchanted. Alternatively, it cloud might have been prevented if the government could force mental health checks for all individuals, they inspected Adam before this happened, Adam failed to effectively shroud his mental instability, and the govt. took appropriate action after finding this. I can go on but this is all speculation, not fact. We have no idea what would have happened if "insert event here" occurred.[/QUOTE] See one of my issues with this argument is the appropriate action part. What is the appropriate action exactly Take him away and lock him up? I'm pretty sure that's a bigger breach of human rights than removing killing machines from peoples homes. Or, of course, you could take the guns away from his mother but she's done nothing wrong herself and it'd be pretty unfair on her. I think my biggest problem here is that you literally just said how much easier, cheaper and potentially quicker it would be to simply confiscate everyone's guns and yet you're willing to suggest the alternative of mental health checks for every single person. Do you have any idea how much more resources that would take, how many mental health specialists. How much time it would take for every single person to be tested. And even then, it's not going to be a perfect test. You'll still get loads of mad people slip through. I just think its crazy how the obvious solution is staring you in the face and yet you suggest other totally unreasonable, farfetched situations so you can keep your guns.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;39295300]See one of my issues with this argument is the appropriate action part. What is the appropriate action exactly Take him away and lock him up? I'm pretty sure that's a bigger breach of human rights than removing killing machines from peoples homes. Or, of course, you could take the guns away from his mother but she's done nothing wrong herself and it'd be pretty unfair on her. I think my biggest problem here is that you literally just said how much easier, cheaper and potentially quicker it would be to simply confiscate everyone's guns and yet you're willing to suggest the alternative of mental health checks for every single person. Do you have any idea how much more resources that would take, how many mental health specialists. How much time it would take for every single person to be tested. And even then, it's not going to be a perfect test. You'll still get loads of mad people slip through. I just think its crazy how the obvious solution is staring you in the face and yet you suggest other totally unreasonable, farfetched situations so you can keep your guns.[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea how much of a waste of lives and money trying to take 300 million guns out of the US would be? It is literally an impossible task, regardless of the 2nd Amendment, not to mention it wouldn't stop crime. You'd be lucky if you got 50 million guns if every single one was banned suddenly, and there'd be plenty of people who would take the "cold, dead hands" phrase literally and that would result in a number of dead police officers and citizens. Taking America's guns away is neither as cheap nor as easy as some seem to think, and those who think it is are truly ignorant of the scope of what they're talking about and the culture of the nation they're talking about. Not to mention that such a plan wouldn't just violate the 2nd Amendment, it would also violate the 4th at least.

Getting rid of guns won't be an overnight thing. Legislation would be passed to discourage it, and to reduce the overall production of them. True it may be hated today, but policy change would come gradually. It's how tobacco is being targeted at the moment, along with inner city car driving (in the car case, they would gradually pedestrianize certain roads and make it a bigger hassle to drive around whilst simultaneously making it easier for public transport or bicycles). It would be a hassle yes, but with gradualism even the deepest things can be changed given enough time.

But nobody wants to be President and pass a law that will make millions unemployed in what is currently the best performing sector of the economy.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39296320]But nobody wants to be President and pass a law that will make millions unemployed in what is currently the best performing sector of the economy.[/QUOTE] This is why it's called gradualism. These things happen slowly and over time.

Passing laws to discourage people from a hobby that doesn't harm anyone else is wrong. [editline]b[/editline] They also shouldn't be passing laws to discourage people from smoking. It's a persons choice, though it is another topic

[QUOTE=download;39298246]Passing laws to discourage people from a hobby that doesn't harm anyone else is wrong. [editline]b[/editline] They also shouldn't be passing laws to discourage people from smoking. It's a persons choice, though it is another topic[/QUOTE] Well it's what's happening, and if people in a country vote for it, then their wishes are to be respected.

If people want to talk about effective legislation: Mrs. Lanza was a law-abiding citizen. Her lack of common sense was what got her and 26 other people killed. Here's some good legislation for people who lack common sense: Any gun owner living in a household where dependents are present who cannot legally posses the weapons should be required to secure the weapons in a locked, hardened container such as a gun safe. Furthermore, any police officer or doctor with probable cause to show that an individual is a danger to themselves or anyone else should be required by law to list them as such, where said individual would no longer be able to pass a background check, and furthermore subject them to confiscation of their weapons until they are no longer deemed a threat to themselves or anyone else. Currently private sales are the only way to avoid a background check when legally purchasing firearms. For this reason anyone privately transferring firearms should either do so in the presence of an FFL holder, where a background check and change of title can be conducted, or other measures should be in place where the buyer can provide proof that they can pass a background check. I would say the majority of gun-owners would support this as it is common practice already, and only really regulates those who lack common sense. And seriously? "killing machines"? These so called "killing machines" are called title II weapons, or 'destructive devices' and are either A) Banned or B) Heavily regulated and extremely expensive. Regardless, the [I]real[/I] military style weapons are almost never used in crimes. Banning an AR because it [I]looks[/I] like an M-16 is a magical word that I like to call [B]profiling[/B]. But I guess many of us are missing the point. First off, the word INFRINGED means LIMITED. Our constitution says in black and white "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". For those too lazy to get a dictionary: The RIGHT of the CITIZENS to OWN and Posses WEAPONS shall NOT be LIMITED. There is no room for argument. The constitution is the law of the land, and it has been for the past 200 years for a reason. Every soldier, policeman, and politician took an oath to [B]protect[/B] the [B]constitution[/B] from enemies, foreign and [B]domestic[/B]. Therefore, anyone who aims to limit the right to own and posses weapons by instating [I]any[/I] sort of ban is in direct violation of the second amendment. Anyone who violates an amendment is an enemy of the constitution, and therefore poses a threat to the American people. Remember that the next time your representatives votes in favor of gun control like they did here in New York.

[QUOTE=viper720666;39306692]If people want to talk about effective legislation: Mrs. Lanza was a law-abiding citizen. Her lack of common sense was what got her and 26 other people killed. Here's some good legislation for people who lack common sense: Any gun owner living in a household where dependents are present who cannot legally posses the weapons should be required to secure the weapons in a locked, hardened container such as a gun safe. Furthermore, any police officer or doctor with probable cause to show that an individual is a danger to themselves or anyone else should be required by law to list them as such, where said individual would no longer be able to pass a background check, and furthermore subject them to confiscation of their weapons until they are no longer deemed a threat to themselves or anyone else. Currently private sales are the only way to avoid a background check when legally purchasing firearms. For this reason anyone privately transferring firearms should either do so in the presence of an FFL holder, where a background check and change of title can be conducted, or other measures should be in place where the buyer can provide proof that they can pass a background check. I would say the majority of gun-owners would support this as it is common practice already, and only really regulates those who lack common sense. And seriously? "killing machines"? These so called "killing machines" are called title II weapons, or 'destructive devices' and are either A) Banned or B) Heavily regulated and extremely expensive. Regardless, the [I]real[/I] military style weapons are almost never used in crimes. Banning an AR because it [I]looks[/I] like an M-16 is a magical word that I like to call [B]profiling[/B]. But I guess many of us are missing the point. First off, the word INFRINGED means LIMITED. Our constitution says in black and white "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". For those too lazy to get a dictionary: The RIGHT of the CITIZENS to OWN and Posses WEAPONS shall NOT be LIMITED. There is no room for argument. The constitution is the law of the land, and it has been for the past 200 years for a reason. Every soldier, policeman, and politician took an oath to [B]protect[/B] the [B]constitution[/B] from enemies, foreign and [B]domestic[/B]. Therefore, anyone who aims to limit the right to own and posses weapons by instating [I]any[/I] sort of ban is in direct violation of the second amendment. Anyone who violates an amendment is an enemy of the constitution, and therefore poses a threat to the American people. Remember that the next time your representatives votes in favor of gun control like they did here in New York.[/QUOTE] You are implying that gun safes are infallible and can never be broken into. This is not true, especially if you [b]live in the home where the gun safe is[/b]. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yr6ATdaDQ8[/url]

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39308628]You are implying that gun safes are infallible and can never be broken into. This is not true, especially if you [b]live in the home where the gun safe is[/b]. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yr6ATdaDQ8[/url][/QUOTE] Actually, central storage makes your guns an even bigger target for criminals, because they know where all the guns are.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39308628]You are implying that gun safes are infallible and can never be broken into. This is not true, especially if you [b]live in the home where the gun safe is[/b]. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yr6ATdaDQ8[/url][/QUOTE] I am implying that gun safes are a much better alternative to just leaving your guns in your closet or under your mattress.

[QUOTE=viper720666;39308836]I am implying that gun safes are a much better alternative to just leaving your guns in your closet or under your mattress.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't make a difference. If someone wants to get your guns, they're going to get them.

[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39308847]It wouldn't make a difference. If someone wants to get your guns, they're going to get them.[/QUOTE] Yeah, well leaving them lying around knowing that a nut lives in your house isn't exactly a better idea.

Other than us having the right to bear arms in the constitution. Slowly taking U.S. citizen's guns away won't do anything. When criminals realize that they don't have to worry about civilians having a concealed weapon/license they'll cause more chaos then ever before. These "shootings" are bad yes, but there has been many shootings for as long as guns have been created. Taking guns away won't do anything other than give cops and criminals the only form of weaponry of that nature. Criminals will obviously buy the guns illegally, and there will always be someone, somewhere, trying to sell guns for a high price too make money. I don't think citizen's need assault rifles/etc. But shotguns/handguns should never be banned whatsoever. Me personally, I'm into archery, but if someone broke into my house I wouldn't be going for my bow first.

[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;39318464]Other than us having the right to bear arms in the constitution. Slowly taking U.S. citizen's guns away won't do anything. When criminals realize that they don't have to worry about civilians having a concealed weapon/license they'll cause more chaos then ever before. These "shootings" are bad yes, but there has been many shootings for as long as guns have been created. Taking guns away won't do anything other than give cops and criminals the only form of weaponry of that nature. Criminals will obviously buy the guns illegally, and there will always be someone, somewhere, trying to sell guns for a high price too make money. I don't think citizen's need assault rifles/etc. But shotguns/handguns should never be banned whatsoever. Me personally, I'm into archery, but if someone broke into my house I wouldn't be going for my bow first.[/QUOTE] ^^^ This exactly; If you gradually disarm the populace (which is just disturbing and wrong) criminals will have some guns saved up some where. And when those dissapear, criminals will just steal them off of the police force. And when those dissapear, criminals will just make Stens or something and handload ammunition. Point being if someone wants something they're going to get it, and "weaning the populace off of it" it isn't going to help. Plus why would you WANT to?

Why do people feel the need to ban "assault style" weapons anyway? Can we emphasize [B]style[/B]? Like, aesthetics? A Mini 14 will do the same amount of damage as any AR or AK out there, but it will never be the subject of a ban because it doesn't [B]look[/B] like an assault rifle. Crimes committed with long guns are exponentially less than those committed with handguns. The only reason they have managed to restrict 'assault' weapons to this point is because of the correlation to [I]actual[/I] military weapons, and the emphasis of the ominous looks of them. It's just the first step gun grabbers took in chiseling away away at our gun rights. Anyone who thinks they plan to stop at 'assault' weapons is lying to themselves.

Just some discrepancies about Sandy Hook that may be able to reduce it's credibility when put forth in this argument. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrtNd5h2L_Q[/media]