I've been offerred to go shoot off an AR15, and I believe I might. God knows when I'll ever see one again...

Dudes, y'all gun folks are not compromising. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that Americans have the right to bear ANY, EVERY, and ALL kinds of arms. So we have flesh out the details and interpret the law appropriately. We American people largely support regulating firearms. Nobody is talking about banning ALL firearms, but even a small child can understand why prohibiting uber-dangerous military style weapons is a reasonable compromise. Gun owners can still have access to many firearms, just not those which are only designed to harm as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

Further, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH 100% BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL PURCHASES?

These are reasonable compromises where Americans can still express their Second Amendment rights while the rest of us Americans who prefer not can equally feel safe and secure in our neighborhoods and communities. That is the mutual compromise, those of us who feel unsafe around firearms have the right to push for control, licensing, and regulation in the name of public safety, and those who want to express their rights and own firearms accept some regulation and restriction. How is that not simple?

What is funny is y'all accuse us of not listening to y'all, and yet we are listening, and we are supporting gun ownership (albeit under restrictions), it is y'all who are not listening to our concerns ;)

I think every citizen should be required to learn how to properly care for and handle and fire a firearm. I personally do not own one, and have reservations about allowing it in my house (I ask my friends with Concealed handgun licenses to please leave their handguns in their cars,a nd they willingly do so.)
but I would kill and be killed for your right to own one.

I believe in states rights. Each community needs to dictate what is right for them. federal drug laws are all jacked up, and so will federal gun regulations.

criminals do not, by definition, give a flying fuck about the law, and will find ways to get assault rifles and other high ordinance whether or not the law abiding citizens are allowed to have such things.

Most gun owners are very responsible. Most drivers are very responsible. A certain amount of risk comes with being alive, and with all things in life.

BTW, some of the most well-armed and trained gun owners in America are descendants and family of Jews who survived or escaped the Nazi Holocaust. They did not have guns when Hitlers assholes came for them, because Hitler mandated the general populace be disarmed.

This is not a bullshit scare tactic by those who bring it up. It is historical evidence.

Everyone brings up the lack of guns in Japan, but that has not stopped the HIGH rates of suicide, or violent crime by Yakuza or other criminals. Everyone mentions the UK, but FUCK THAT SHIT. They are slowly becoming a totalitarian state, where everyone is filmed everywhere they go, where you have to pay and get a license to watch television, where only the government and their stooges have weapons.

The violent crime rate in the UK is HUGE

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. . . .
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France. . . .

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. . . .

Rob, this is an endlessly circular argument. Criminals get their weapons FROM THE EXACT SAME PLACE THAT HONEST PEOPLE GET THEM, the gun manufacturers. If the gun manufacturers STOP producing and SELLING these kinds of weapons in America, then Americans criminal, legit, or otherwise will gradually lose access. We have to stop the flow sometime, we can't always just throw up our hands and let criminals dictate the roles and rules of our society. Further I can vouch from tangible experience, that assault rifle bans worked in California, in the 1990s gangsters had common access to assault rifles, people getting shot by high volume rifles was a weekly occurrence. The LAPD and Sheriff reported annually large numbers of confiscation by apprehended criminals carrying dangerous riffles, submachine guns and of course dangerous high-velocity ammunition. SINCE California by STATE law banned ALL these weapons and munitions, both the hood news on the streetcorner and the data by the police agencies all affirm and conclude that criminals now have dramatically LESS access to assault rifles and high-velocity ammunition. See how that works? Once we get over the entire fear-mongering aspects, we can look at the data, and see that regulation has measurable results!!


Further, NOBODY HAS ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHAT THE FUCK IS SO WRONG WITH UNIVERSAL, 100% BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL FIREARM PURCHASES IN AMERICA AND ALL 50 STATES?

I thought they already had universal background checks? at least at actual gun stores. It is not illegal to sell your friend a firearm though, and there is no background checks on that

I am fine for control of assault weapons, but ex-soldiers should be allowed to own them, because they have been trained in their use.

You have noticed though that LA police have not stopped using their body armor, their high caliber assault rifles, tanks, etc.? And that nearly every mid to large size police force in the country has enacted the same exact measures, regardless of whether they actually need to?

The police forces are becoming more and more highly militarized, as the populace is becoming less capable of arming themselves.

No. What is actually frightening is that upwards of FORTY PERCENT of all firearms purchases are not background checked because of private sale loopholes and gunshows. We need to tighten and strengthen those laws to make it fair for all gun owners, some gun owners should not be exempted from laws which other gun owners have to follow :( :( :(


That is some psychological warfare. They were that shit to (a) pump up their own bravado and (b) scare the community into thinking things are still as dangerous as they were in 1992, they're not. The numbers don't lie our murder rate is down 600% over the past 20 years, and assault rifles and high-velocity ammunition is also in significant decline. Again, criminals get it from the same place legit people do, if legit people have less or no access to these weapons and munitions, criminals are equally in the long arc cut off.


Yes, but that is not because crime in increasing, it because the law is taking our kindness for weakness. You are conflating two completely separate issues. One of the increasing militarization of law enforcement and another of decrease or increase in crime. One is not always correlated with the other.

I reiterate.

The compromise is fair. 100% background checks with NO loopholes, period. Ammunition restrictions to limit the access of criminals. Bans on uber-dangerous assault weapons which serve no legitimate purpose. I don't even want decommissioned PTSD recovering jarheads (if they want these weapons, stay in the service yo) having these things in their homes to scare the shit out of their wives ;)

criminals get their guns in many ways, stealing them from gun owners is a HUGE one. The people manufacturing the guns, and ammunition, are the ones behind the NRA, not actual gun owners.

Thank you, as long as we can concede that point, we are mutually agreeing to the founding premise of gun-control in the first place. The premise of gun-control is not to punish lawful gun owners, rather the accept the statistical reality that guns universally come from one place, gun manufacturers. How do gun manufacturers distribute their products? Retailers. Less retailers = less guns by volume. Less guns by volume = naturally less access to guns by criminals. Criminals steal them from retailers, owners, and warehouses/storage facilities. If you simply have less guns around, you have less opportunities for criminals to get them. The more guns that exist, the more statistically likely it is that criminals will have them.

Between 1980-1990 there were about 4 MILLION HANDGUNS alone sold in America, a 200% increase from the previous decades. What was the homicide rate in 1992? Over 3,000 in Los Angeles alone, some 40,000 nationally.. From 1999-2010 there were less than 2 MILLION Handguns sold because of state and national restrictions. What was the murder rate in 2011? Less than 600 in Los Angeles and only 11,078 fire-arm related homicides. Numbers don't lie y'all.. Less guns equals less murders, period ;)

And having more guns on the street would bring it down? Get a grip.

And if you're gonna start throwing statistics around then here's a couple.

"The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 homicides in the United States in 2010, including non-negligent manslaughter."

And I don't know where you got your stats from but from the http://www.unodc.org/

The UK's homocide rate is 1.4 actually lower than France which is 1.6.

your numbers actually argue the opposite - when there were x+4 million handguns available, the national homicide rate was 40K, but when the number of handguns increased to x+6 million, the rate went down to 11K. Your numbers show when there are more handguns there are less murders.

Now, I'm just playing games here, because usually the economy is used to explain why murder rates went down.

See, I'm skeptical because police chiefs in San Diego are not liberals-they want to cripple the american people
"Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database."

I see what you did there, and its bullshit. Had the sale rates stayed at 1980s levels there would have been TWO MILLION MORE GUNS on the streets in the 2000s than were sold, period. That is TWO MILLION less guns than were sold in the 1980s. Further, h8kurt has already concurred with my statements.

1992 was the beginning of stricter hand gun regulations in DC, New York, and California. Low and behold after 20 years of gun control in those states what have we found?


Two-fold reduction is a bit less than California's sixfold reduction, but the national figures speak for themselves. Gun advocates are simply delusional to the reality of the past twenty years, and it is starting to get embarrassing. What I find interesting the most, is that people who have ACTUALLY experienced gun violence tend to be more realistic about guns, and folks who are simply living a fantasy/fear based life tend to have the most guns and those pussies never even have a reason or need to use them ;)

and another one, a day after someone went nuts with a gun in an office block: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21286571

not sure where all these 'good guys with guns' are?

Its a process of elimination Jon Boy, we've just got to wait for all the irresponsible ones to get shot or sent to prison, then everyone will be safe.

We're talking about taking certain kinds of weapons, Lord Jesus why is that such a big fucking deal? The NRA dude wouldn't even concede to universal background checks without private sale loopholes yesterday at the Senate committee. When Rep. Gabby Giffords spoke, I must confess, I literally teared up and fell back to my seat. It moved me beyond words. I must be getting old. Do I believe in American politics? No. Do I trust the government? Of course not. Do I believe in the sincerity of the content of the words of Rep. Giffords? To the core and depth of my being.

We will be bold. We will be courageous. Our communities are counting on this. A teenage girl was shot and killed over bullshit this weekend, she was just one of many. Gun folks sure have all the guns they want but man the rest of us, its like my man Tupac said, "Word it seems like all we got is tear drops and closed caskets."

Yes, but murder is a task which is amplified with certain tools of destruction. Limit access to those tools to bad folks, and the opportunities for evil are diminished. That is what universal background checks do. It means that nobody can buy a gun on the down-low, in secret, or for illegitimate purposes. Will it work 100%? Of course not. But quite literally, EVERY SINGLE GUN WHICH IS PREVENTED FROM REACHING THE STREET CAN SAVE A LIFE, PERIOD. Bytor, as a Christian I implore you, seriously, think with your heart and not your ideologies! We need to find some compromise as a community. I will be perfectly honest, guns make me nervous. To make me more comfortable, couldn't we agree that y'all can have some guns, but not all the guns all the time?

that's a fair and reasoned argument.

Some really idiotic arguments ITT, hopefully you are joking, bytor.

I'm for the individual right of gun possession, but the access and namely the calibers and typology should be regulated. It is a way of protecting gun owners themselves.

There are other ways to grant people access to military grade weapons. Private possession of said weapons is not the best option imo.

Also, I think society should strive to make them less necessary, not the other way.

No one has access to military grade weapons people, except for Ted Nugent.

What about the dude from FPS Russia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw

so jelly

calibers are already regulated. anything above .50 caliber is considered a destructive device and illegal outside of military use.

typology: automatic weapons (machine guns) are NOT accessible to the public. they are not illegal strictly speaking, but they are so highly regulated and expensive to own, people can't go into a store and walk away with one.

any and all weapons are/have been "military" at some point, including the measly .22LR which can make for an effective sniper rifle. look, ma! i have a sniper rifle!


a so-called "assault rifle" is simply a semiautomatic rifle like the kind people use for hunting. semi-auto loading is a 100-year-old technology. it is NOT a machine-gun. it is one trigger-pull per bullet, just like a revolver.

look at this video-- a bit old but pretty excellent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

the "nato" caliber is actually less powerful and has less recoil and has a smaller round than the extensively popular .30-06 used by deer hunters-- which is why it's good for home defense-- it is more controllable, and has less penetration when it hits a wall (less even than many handguns).

one person's "assault rifle" is another person's "home defense carbine"-- easy to aim, easy to handle in close quarters, endowed with sufficient stopping power, and safer than a hunting rifle or a shotgun.


this-- yes. everyone, including gun owners, agrees with that.
but this is exactly the problem-- banning guns for their looks or made-up names or magazine sizes does not make guns less necessary.

especially when nearly 80% of gun deaths result from handguns/pistols NOT machine guns, or "assault" rifles.

!@#$%!

I understand that, and I'm sure there's a fair amount of mislabeling in the media.

High-capacity detachable magazines, would you consider that a military style feature or do you not?

Certainly you agree that they play a difference in the event of a mass shooting?

Bullshit. Assault-style weapons such as the Bushmaster and other carbine rifles can be readily modified with a few simple parts to go full auto. Where do you think gangsters in Chi-town or South Central get these things? By the way, the assault weapons ban worked. Machine gun and high-caliber riffle consfications by law enforcement as well as crimes committed by all declined every year here in California after 1994. Further, out state-wide bans on copy-cat rifles like the SKS also worked miracles. When I was a kid, you'd hear of machine gun killings at least monthly. Its a rarity these days that stands out noticeably.

Further, is it some kind of coincidence that the majority of mass shootings, workplace shootings, and random killings have involved the Bushmaster, a rifle which was previously banned from 1994-2004? No. Since 2005 the number of shootings with these rifles has sky-rocketed. Clearly the ban was working.

There is no place in hunting for weapons designed for combat. Just because they are slightly modified for public use, doesn't negate the reality that such weapons are not designed for personal defense, but forward combat operations.

I support banning these weapons, banning extended magazines, banning such high-power ammunition, and of course ending ALL background check loopholes. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. Why does it still have one of the highest gun crime rates? Because Michigan, Wisconsin, and even Illinois in general have lax laws in comparison, and guns flood into town. Here in LA we have a similar problem with Nevada and Arizona, but the sheer size and scale of California geography helps curb the effect some, plus California's own state-wide laws are fairly strong and strongly enforced.

using a 30-round magazine (potentially illegal) is not much different than using three 10-round magazines (unaffected by the proposed law) though it confers an advantage in a gunfight-- e.g. 3 armed intruders vs. you, it's the difference between 3 or 10 bullets for each intruder before you take a second or two to swap magazines.

i just googled "home invasion" and this came at top-- "trio suspected..." etc. i had just made up the number 3 but there you go.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...nvasion-appear

these fuckers act in groups.

the mass shootings from the news aren't gunfights though-- and therefore the size of the magazine makes little difference there. these victims are generally unarmed people in "gun free zones" so changing magazines makes little difference because nobody can return fire to the shooter. it's like they say "shooting fish in a barrel".

which is why i think this is a waste of time and political capital from the democrats-- i voted for them and supported them with work and money, but i heard nothing about guns in the campaign.

10 rounds, 30 rounds, molotov cocktails, fertilizer trucks-- killers will kill with whatever they can.

i'd much rather we were focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and improving education and health care, which have a much greater chance to reduce social violence than randomly slapping at the symptoms with hysterical reactions.

now, i do agree 100% with universal background checks and penalizing straw purchases (that's when you buy a gun for someone who can't buy it themselves), and i'm for mandatory safety training even though people say "a right shouldn't be licensed" & so forth (still, felons are deprived from the right to vote in many states, and there are limits to free speech, etc).

ultimately gun control is about risk/reward for the individual and for society. and some times what's good for the individual is not good for society and viceversa, but the thing is that, in the u.s., minority and individual rights are traditionally more respected vs. society at large-- other countries have a tradition of more centralized control which is why people are more willing to accept government control, etc. plus there is a long tradition of guns that goes back to the first settlers (whereas in europe only nobles were allowed to carry weapons).

additionally, the media overlooks the benefit, and only looks at the cost, and it's hard to get real actionable data. nobody reports on "5 rapes and 12 robberies prevented by guns today" because it doesn't get high ratings on tv.

edit: but look at this for example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-says-yes.html (she's against home defense carbines though)

the reason i have come around to this side of the issue (i used to be heavily anti-gun) is because in this debate, when you remove the hysteria and paranoia on both sides (both sides have their fools and lunatics), the pro-gun people have made better rational arguments to me than the anti-gun people.

aren't there already 1000 laws banning what these gangsters do in the first place?

the law only restrains law-abiding people.

I disagree with that. Armed or not it creates a chance to attack the shooter.
Wasn't that how they stopped Giffords' shooter?

And I'm with you, I'm for individual freedom, but I think in this case (due to the sheer weight of the problem in the US) some compromise has to be made.

Of course gun legislation is only part of the problem, and as an outsider I do see that there's a lot noise surrounding this debate, certainly working in the interest of some.

One curious thing about the media is how you often hear them criticizing the videogame industry, but you never hear a word about Hollywood.

now today i heard that most of the shootings in us happens by people under influencial of anti-depresiva

the reaction comes from the idea of obama to have more mental health cheks for students

when these students/childeren are targeted they have to take anti-depressiva
wich gives only more chance for these kinds of shootings


it is not the school or the country that has to put his nose in the ass of childeren, no regime that massa manipulates it's population
the parents are head responsible for their child to live peacefull with all other humans

the parents are goddamned responsible
look at your kid
talk with your kid

who else is going to give a fuck about other peoples childeren

yes, while he was changing magazines, but you're thinking about "shooter" as a criminal exclusively. there are thousands many more home invasions (1 in 5 homes gets it) than gun massacres and you have to consider that "shooters" are much more likely to be law-abiding citizens facing armed criminals.

mira: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI
and another
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2013/...home-invasion/
etc
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Ho...z/-/index.html (this one kinda bungled it but still won)


i'm for that too but i think this has to be in the form of universal background checks, mental health screenings and mandatory safety training, which are currently inexistent.


it's a political orgy with little or no chance to benefit the public in any way. same kind of hysteria as "let's invade iraq for 9/11"


it's a bullshit issue. another red herring that the gun lobby uses to draw attention away from themselves. and while i'm against a good chunk of the proposed restrictions, and against the demonization of weapons, i'm also against this totall bullshit. it's like the twinky defense. i'm telling you-- stupidity, hysteria and nonsense all-around.

there is a good argument these mass killings are always done by young white men, and many are on meds.


But people are getting insane over this, they're criminalizing childhood - its their last market to exploit


Panicked parents rushed to the two schools on Fulton Avenue and East 174th Street today after heavily armed police were called to respond to reports of a gun on campus. The alarm was caused by a campus aide overhearing a student say “something about a gun.”
The “gun” turned out to be a brightly-colored toy nerf gun that fires harmless foam bullets, and the child in question hadn’t even brought the toy to school.
“The 12-year-old boy told police he was talking to a classmate about his toy Nerf gun, which he left at home,” reports the NY Post, meaning the object that caused the panic was never even on campus.
The two schools were locked down for over an hour with pupils kept inside as police with weapons drawn hunted down the deadly non-existent toy gun.
“It’s nerve racking. There are police officers here with assault rifles and there are helicopters flying around. It’s really scary out here,” said parent Jacklyn Williams.
“Two students from P.S. 171 said they were told to crouch under their desks during the sweep,” reports MyFoxNY.
The lockdown ended at 9:30am.
The boy “could face some kind of discipline from the school” for merely discussing the toy gun with his classmate, reports the NY Daily News.

More bullshit. When did an Obamaphile like you join the dimwitted NRA?

You've already argued in favor of 100% background checks with out loopholes and I believe you suggested strengthening punishments for straw purchases, you're contradicting yourself here. Criminals get their guns from the same places law-abiding citizens do, gun retailers and manufactures. Straw purchasing, theft, and out-right corruption are where guns hit the street. When we BAN assault weapons OUTRIGHT, the criminals by default lose access. "Law-abiding people" that is a crock of shit. The fundamental premise of gun-restrictions including background checks is to limit the flow to criminals from legitimate sources. Law-abiding citizens are rightfully restrained because such restraint further limits criminals. After all, what do Americans really want, less crime or simply more opportunities to shoot and harm criminals vindictively? If we want less crime, we need to have less guns, period. Now if folks want to increase "stand-your-ground" and carrying permits well, that is an opposite proposal. That will only increase criminals appetite for destruction, and further arm and tool them for the task.

Law-abiding people who want public safety should make the communal sacrifice of certain aspects of their Second Amendment rights. Universal Second Amendment rights by definition enable criminals. If we honestly want to restrict crime, we need to look in our mirrors in our own homes first. It is an entirely circular argument for a reason, because until we close the loop, guns will continue to cycle around our communities, often times ending up with the very people we all agree shouldn't have them. Its truly all or nothing here, and for the past 9 years we've had nothing.

i said above i'm against obama on this one. he's wasting energy while we are stuck with 8% unemployment and an economy that shrank again due to defense cuts (i'm for defense cuts but they should be replaced by infrastructure builds/repairs/rebuilds). guns weren't a part of his campaign.

gangs get their guns currently at gun shows that require no background check. barring that, they'll go to the black market. i'm for universal background checks, yes. and i'd add mandatory safety training (which isn't in the law i believe). but there's always going to be a black market, like there is for drugs.

[edit: this is much more recent, about straw purchases: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ngs/?mobile=nc ]

however, i'm against the ar15 and high capacity magazine bans, as i consider them a red herring to get votes from gun-phobic people. also the term "assault weapon" is idiotic. you could call a car an "assault car" if you decide to get drunk and run people over with it. assault hammers!

Assault hammers? That is just childish. They are called assault weapons because they were designed by the military for forward military operations, also called an assault. Duh ;)

He is from Chicago, trust me, guns were part of his campaign, just on the down low. Chicago right now is the perfect example of why we need national laws. Chicago's laws are the strictest in the nation, yet gun violence is increasing. Why? Again, because gun laws in neighboring states and even within Illinois itself are lax compared to Chicago's city and county ordinances. Its like the healthcare reform and universal insurance, we either all jump in the pool together and succeed, or we don't all jump in and we all fail together regardless.

right, it's all or nothing-- but because you can't eliminate all guns in america, it's abusive to demand that only certain citizens relinquish their right to self-defense, giving the criminals free rein. so what happens is that states with castle doctrine and more prevailing conceal carry there is less crime.

now look what happened in DC "the murder capital" of the 90s

http://washingtonexaminer.com/d.c.-m...4#.UMoyQW881OL

------

edit:
the gun ban was lifted in 2008. now lawful citizens are allowed to own gun. did the city turn into the wild west? no it didn't. prosecute the criminals not the innocent.

That is ridiculous use of hyperbole, surely you know the situation better than that. Giving criminals a free-reign? Nonsense. No one is talking about relinquishing self defense, but what the fuck do assault style weapons designed by the military? How exactly is that self-defense? I didn't mean to imply ALL GUNS banned or ALL guns allowed, we're talking about the entire nation ALL in on certain restrictions (like 100% background checks and bans on assault-style weapons and munitions). If a few states or cities enact stict legislation that other regions scoff, then the guns from the scoff-laws will trickle down into the communities who are trying to be safer. Interesting that trickle-down theory only seems to work in negative circumstances :/

not hyperbole, i agree with trama that we should reduce the need for guns; however, where criminals can procure guns at will, it's criminal to deny citizens the right to self-defense. sorry, we disagree. no ar-15 or magazine ban for me. the other stuff, okay.

notice the sharp peak of crime drop in DC right after 2008 btw.