With recent shootings, gun control has become a hot topic of discussion in this section. Instead of having the argument rehashed in thread after thread, we're creating this topic as a central place to discuss it.

Any post you want to make about gun control should go here, not in any other thread. This includes things like gun-free zones, even if they're established by a private business and not the government. As with everywhere on LCPDFR.com, please keep things civil and respectful.

Looking forward to see others thoughts on the issue.

 

Following.

Thanks for making this thread. I guess I'll open up with my thoughts:

I am a right wing conservative, so you'd expect me to believe we should have guns. Well, I do believe we should be able to own guns as it's our right here in the US. However, I feel that strict restrictions / background checks are needed. If: you're under some sort of criminal investigation, suffering from mental health issues, or you have some sort of violent criminal history, you should not be able to purchase / own a firearm.

It's common sense that taking guns away completely will only help out a little. People will still acquire guns illegally, just like they acquire drugs illegally.

Just my two cents.

Edited July 18, 20169 yr by tanu1215

There is absolutely room for debate about the constitutionality of gun ownership in the US, and what level of weapon ownership the found fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to defend. 

There is precious little room for debate about whether a drastic decrease in gun ownership would save lives. The facts back this up. Australia is perhaps the most obvious example; their drastic gun control measures have reduced murders involving a gun by 72% and they have had 0 mass shootings since these measures went into effect. 

On a personal level, I fail to understand how anybody who wishes to own a gun for personal use of any of the commonly cited reasons (self defense, hunting, sport, etc.) needs high-capacity magazines, semi-auto fire, or any other weapon technology designed for the rapid elimination of human life. AR-15s are the most frequently used particular weapon in US mass shootings, including recent mass shootings of law enforcement. 

If you value human life over a personal affinity for high-powered weapons, you can't morally support the status quo of gun control in the US. I'm not suggesting that all weapons should be taken away, but clearly something needs to change. The constitution was meant to evolve over time. Slavery was legal when the 2nd Amendment was written. Women couldn't vote. If our only argument for unfettered access to guns is the mere existence of the 2nd Amendment, that's not a very strong position to argue from. 

Edited July 18, 20169 yr by PNWParksFan

25 minutes ago, PNWParksFan said:

On a personal level, I fail to understand how anybody who wishes to own a gun for personal use of any of the commonly cited reasons (self defense, hunting, sport, etc.) needs high-capacity magazines, semi-auto fire, or any other weapon technology designed for the rapid elimination of human life. AR-15s are the most frequently used particular weapon in US mass shootings, including recent mass shootings of law enforcement.

Because you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, and you are then more likely to be attacked by multiple people. Police shootings have shown time and time again two things to me: How inaccurate people can be under stress (police tend to miss 80% of their shots in shooting incidents) and how many bullets people can take with no effect. Just look at this case for example. Some one hopped up on pure adrenaline takes 14 hits from a .45 caliber handgun across the torso and still continues a shootout with the lone police officer for 56 seconds.

Some things to keep in mind regarding this incident:

-This was only one suspect, and the officer discharged nearly all of his 39 rounds before subduing him. Another suspect, the cop likely wouldn't of survived.

-The human body is an incredible thing, and can still fight despite severe trauma based purely on a will to live. Had the officer had a slower firing weapon, he would of died.

-Pistols are ineffectual at stopping people. The only reason they are carried is because they can be worn on a hip. Rifles are a superior weapon, and its because of this almost all PDs in the US have some sort of patrol rifle program in place.

-The officer had backup coming to support him if he didn't stop the suspect. The average citizen doesn't.

 

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by c13

I love firearms, and I plan on purchasing them when I move to PA next year.

I found out that in the Midwest you can go and buy a firearm -- an AR-15, pistol, etc; with ONLY a valid drivers license.

This is what's wrong, in my opinion.  I know that won't stop mass shootings, but I know that someone shouldn't walk out with a firearm the same day, especially without a permit/license/thorough background check.  I didn't do that for my car, I shouldn't do it for a gun.

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by Fiskey111

1 minute ago, Fiskey111 said:

I love firearms, and I plan on purchasing them when I move to PA next year.

I found out that in the Midwest you can go and buy a firearm -- an AR-15, pistol, etc; with ONLY a valid drivers license.

This is what's wrong, in my opinion.  I know that won't stop mass shootings, but I know that someone shouldn't walk out with a firearm the same day.  I didn't do that for my car, I shouldn't do it for a gun.

What does a waiting period possibly prevent? Anyone determined to kill someone will just hold off on it.

12 minutes ago, c13 said:

What does a waiting period possibly prevent? Anyone determined to kill someone will just hold off on it.

The waiting period would allow the FBI to correctly, efficiently, and thoroughly perform background checks, to ensure individuals are "safe" to purchase firearms.

They aren't meant to "stop" attacks just by time. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Read this article, and check out the sources they cite. I don't own a gun because I care about my safety.

In this country, we have a MASSIVE firearms industry made up by billion dollar corporations. Corporations have one purpose: to make as much money as possible. They actually have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. They give very large sums of money to lobbying groups like the NRA, who ensure the election and re-election of politicians who will in turn refuse to pass gun control legislation. The NRA and similar groups then spread misinformation and fear, which leads Americans to purchase guns at record high rates. Its a trick, and its working wonders for them. Its all marketing. But we're no safer now, are we?

And if you're interested in the Second Amendment, go ahead and read this as well. It's very long, but absolutely worth the read.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

32 minutes ago, c13 said:

What does a waiting period possibly prevent? Anyone determined to kill someone will just hold off on it.

It makes a huge difference in two particular areas: 

• Suicides. If somebody can buy a gun immediately, they can use it immediately. "Research published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that states with a law in place that required a waiting period for the completion of handgun sales had 27% fewer suicides per capita and 51% fewer firearm suicides." 
• Heat of the moment shootings. Same principle, but with domestic violence and related cases. If you just walked in on your spouse cheating on you, you could go buy a gun, then go shoot the person they were cheating with. With a waiting period, it's more likely that by the time you got the gun, you'd have calmed down a bit and realized murder isn't the answer. 

33 minutes ago, c13 said:

Because you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, and you are then more likely to be attacked by multiple people. Police shootings have shown time and time again two things to me: How inaccurate people can be under stress (police tend to miss 80% of their shots in shooting incidents) and how many bullets people can take with no effect. Just look at this case for example. Some one hopped up on pure adrenaline takes 14 hits from a .45 caliber handgun across the torso and still continues a shootout with the lone police officer for 56 seconds.

Some things to keep in mind regarding this incident:

-This was only one suspect, and the officer discharged nearly all of his 39 rounds before subduing him. Another suspect, the cop likely wouldn't of survived.

-The human body is an incredible thing, and can still fight despite severe trauma based purely on a will to live. Had the officer had a slower firing weapon, he would of died.

-Pistols are ineffectual at stopping people. The only reason they are carried is because they can be worn on a hip. Rifles are a superior weapon, and its because of this almost all PDs in the US have some sort of patrol rifle program in place.

-The officer had backup coming to support him if he didn't stop the suspect. The average citizen doesn't.

 

Your answer completely ignores the point that the officer would be much less likely to be exchanging fire with the suspect if the suspect didn't have access to guns in the first place. Also, if the suspect had a rifle, it would've been an even worse situation for the officer. Would you honestly prefer to live in a society where everybody carries a rifle around with them all the time, to defend themselves against all the other people carrying rifles?

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by PNWParksFan

Gun laws only hurt the law abiding citizen.Why? Because,most people here should know that criminals do not follow the law. They couldn't give a shit less about it....These shootings in Orlando,South Carolina and Texas...Did the gun walk in there and start plowing down people?Of course not!It's the nut behind the gun.....If you were a criminal wanting to rob a house...Which neighborhood are you going to go to?The one that has a sign saying "Gun Free Zone" or the one that doesn't.....Oh.........You chose the one with the sign that says "Gun Free Zone"?...Wounder why.....Who cares what kind of gun I want?You try telling the guy whose house being robbed and all he has is a 9mm and the other guys as an assault rifle...But, why would he have an assault rife????Doesn't he know that's against the law???Criminals will always find a way to get the weapons they need to do their crime..

33 minutes ago, Gump said:

Gun laws only hurt the law abiding citizen.Why? Because,most people here should know that criminals do not follow the law. They couldn't give a shit less about it....These shootings in Orlando,South Carolina and Texas...Did the gun walk in there and start plowing down people?Of course not!It's the nut behind the gun.....If you were a criminal wanting to rob a house...Which neighborhood are you going to go to?The one that has a sign saying "Gun Free Zone" or the one that doesn't.....Oh.........You chose the one with the sign that says "Gun Free Zone"?...Wounder why.....Who cares what kind of gun I want?You try telling the guy whose house being robbed and all he has is a 9mm and the other guys as an assault rifle...But, why would he have an assault rife????Doesn't he know that's against the law???Criminals will always find a way to get the weapons they need to do their crime..

That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help me GOD!!!!......

3 hours ago, Fiskey111 said:

The waiting period would allow the FBI to correctly, efficiently, and thoroughly perform background checks, to ensure individuals are "safe" to purchase firearms.

They aren't meant to "stop" attacks just by time. 

It takes 15 minutes for them to do that. Either some one gets flagged as meeting one of the dis-qualifiers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or they don't. The FBI does not have the manpower, funding or time to launch an investigation into every purchase.

3 hours ago, PNWParksFan said:

It makes a huge difference in two particular areas: 

• Suicides. If somebody can buy a gun immediately, they can use it immediately. "Research published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that states with a law in place that required a waiting period for the completion of handgun sales had 27% fewer suicides per capita and 51% fewer firearm suicides." 
• Heat of the moment shootings. Same principle, but with domestic violence and related cases. If you just walked in on your spouse cheating on you, you could go buy a gun, then go shoot the person they were cheating with. With a waiting period, it's more likely that by the time you got the gun, you'd have calmed down a bit and realized murder isn't the answer. 

Your answer completely ignores the point that the officer would be much less likely to be exchanging fire with the suspect if the suspect didn't have access to guns in the first place. Also, if the suspect had a rifle, it would've been an even worse situation for the officer. Would you honestly prefer to live in a society where everybody carries a rifle around with them all the time, to defend themselves against all the other people carrying rifles?

There's more ways for people to kill themselves than just a firearm. Countries like Japan have much higher suicide rates, and firearms are virtually non-existent there.

The same study you cite over suicides also shows that there is no discernible pattern when it comes to homicide. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc/

You're going to argumentum ad absurdem. Just because people are allowed to carry a gun doesn't mean that they are going to. I've lived in open carry states all my life. I worked at a gun store for a year. Maybe one out of 200 people that came in openly carried a firearm, and I have never seen some one open carry a long gun of any type. Out in public, I can't remember ever seeing more than 2 people open carrying.

But you remind me of a good point. There is an old saying, that "God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." The fact is, whether gun control advocates want to admit it or not, that firearms are a great equalizer. Without firearms, a decent sized man could take on most people, especially with a weapon like a club or a knife.

However, firearms give weaker members of society a fighting chance:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/80-year-old-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-attacked-husband-article-1.2628602

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

http://www.unionleader.com/Grandmother-65-says-she-shot-man-who-tried-to-mug-her

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481507/Woman-leaves-attacker-bloody-wounded-shot-neck-tried-rob-knife-point.html

http://ktla.com/2016/06/08/man-stabs-woman-then-her-boyfriend-fatally-shoots-attacker-in-koreatown-police/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812 Note how she fired all 5 shots at her intruder, hitting him multiple times in the head, and he still was able to stumble to his car and drive a block. What if there were multiple attackers? What if he didn't believe her bluff?

 

There are literally hundreds more, all it takes is a google search of "gun self defense" or something similar.

According to various studies, defensive firearms use happens on a low side, over 100,000 times a year and some higher estimates saying 2.5 million times a year. The reason why there is no specific number is because the police need to be involved for it to be documented, but many times, the crime is prevented simply by the criminal knowing that some one has a gun, which will not result in the police being called or filing a report.

Additionally, violent crime has been dropping in the US for decades, and there are more guns in private citizens hands than ever before. Every single state has some sort of concealed carry permit available to people in their state, with some states not even requiring people to have a permit as long as they meet a certain age.

Firearms crimes are dropping, gun ownership is increasing, and I feel confident when back home knowing there is probably some one near me with a concealed firearm.

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by c13

2 hours ago, Riley24 said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Read this article, and check out the sources they cite. I don't own a gun because I care about my safety

And that's your right to do that. No one is saying you have to have a gun. All that I am requesting is that my natural right to self preservation remains in tact. Many people have had training in how to handle firearms, be it private courses, state mandated concealed carry classes before carrying, law enforcement or military. Every single one of the millions that carry in their every day life, including outside of work, care about the personal safety of themselves and their loved ones, and many would be willing to put themselves in between you and some one else intending to harm you.

2 hours ago, Riley24 said:

In this country, we have a MASSIVE firearms industry made up by billion dollar corporations. Corporations have one purpose: to make as much money as possible. They actually have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. They give very large sums of money to lobbying groups like the NRA, who ensure the election and re-election of politicians who will in turn refuse to pass gun control legislation. The NRA and similar groups then spread misinformation and fear, which leads Americans to purchase guns at record high rates. Its a trick, and its working wonders for them. Its all marketing. But we're no safer now, are we?

So it was misinformation and fear every time California passes strict new gun laws. It's misinformation and fear that for a while, it was illegal to step outside of your home with a firearm in Chicago unless it was disassembled (something all the gangbangers followed). It's misinformation and fear that an Assault Weapons Ban happened in the past (that accomplished nothing by the way) on a national level.

The NRA has 4.5 million people that are members of it. That's one of the top 3 influential lobby groups in Washington DC, and it's certainly more popular than any gun control organization. People join every time a political pundit who has armed security tells them that they are more deserving of protection than them because they can use tax dollars to afford it.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

And if you're interested in the Second Amendment, go ahead and read this as well. It's very long, but absolutely worth the read.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

Right. The founding fathers, who just fought a tyrannical government, in militias made of locals using their own guns, didn't intend for people to have guns. The 2nd Amendment is made up of things called clauses. These separate different points inside a sentence. The first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," calls for a militia, a military force that is raised from the eligible members of a civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency, to be a requirement to maintain a free state.

During this time period, the government was broke. Citizens would have to provide their own arms for this militia, which, at the time, tended to be the same as the military. A musket. The citizens were on equal footing, and it was needed so that they could support the military in times of war in order to maintain the security of the free state.

The second part, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," clearly states that the people, not the militia, not the army, not the government, have a right to keep and bear arms, as in weapons and ammunition typical to the average service member. They aren't talking about .22 caliber pistols, they aren't talking about nukes, they are talking specifically about equipment similar to what the troops at the time have.

I believe in gun rights, guns are simply a tool. Although a vast majority (when the math is done out, over 99%) of guns are used legally, those who are willing to use them to the harm of others will obtain them no matter the laws. Weather this be from straw purchases, black market purchases, smuggling, illegal manufacture, or even the occasional completely legal purchase. However, regardless of laws they will obtain them. As they have in every country with gun control, if they want one, they can get one. The trick to solving the problems we have now is like treating a virus, you can either treat the root cause in prevention or treat the symptoms. Most gun control is treating the symptoms. 

To solve the problems we have with guns we can do these following things: education for those old enough to understand it, secure storage for those who shouldn't be able to get into firearms, reforming the NICS system by mandating states to flag felons and DV offenders (somewhere around 80% of them aren't put into the system due to negligence, sorry for forgetting the source), ending the war on drugs (which ends a vast majority of gun crime overnight), and reform the mental health system. Currently I cannot support proposed bans on guns for people on the terror watch list due to the lack of due process, the mis-identification that occurs, and the fact that it would tip off the suspects that they are under surveillance. I will never support no guns for people on the no fly list because they don't have to be terrorists, or even dangerous to be on that list.

With that I leave us a prayer:

Hail Garand, full of grace; John Browning is with thee.

Man among gunmakers, and blessed are the wares of Springfield Armory.

Hail Garand, father of the M1; pray for us shooters now, and at the hour of bending our op-rods.

Amen.

I can't cope with the bigotry of pro-gun people in this thread, so instead, I'll just sit and watch people with more qualified speech abilities speak my mind...

Gun regulations might not stop black market sales, but black market sales will be much more expensive, meaning the everyday gangbanger cannot afford a gun in the first place. Germany has one of the strictest gun laws of all countries in the world, if you want to carry a gun in germany you either have to be a leo or a highly endangered person. Therefore buying guns on the black market means putting at least 4 digit sums of money on the table to have access to a handgun, and therefore, shootings in Germany are almost non-existent.

 

However, if you want to buy a crossbow or a musket in Germany, you don't even need an ID, so even us Germans enjoy or "2nd Amendment" haha, I wouldnt have a problems if every american had the right to bear a musket, as the 2nd Amendment originally meant it :P

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by Coltsmith

3 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

However, if you want to buy a crossbow or a musket in Germany, you don't even need an ID, so even us Germans enjoy or "2nd Amendment" haha, I wouldnt have a problems if every american had the right to bear a musket, as the 2nd Amendment originally meant it :P

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment specifically said 'arms' rather than 'musket'. The wording was meant to include the future innovations in firearms, the writers of the Constitution weren't stupid, they knew that technical innovation would occur. It used to include artillery too, but that was gradually taken away with the NFA of 1934. 

Oh and twelve years before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, the Grandoni Rifle was invented. This rifle could fire twenty two rounds in thirty seconds. Thomas Jefferson himself equipped Louis and Clark with this rifle for their expedition. Then there's the Belton Flintlock, which could fire up to 20 rounds with one trigger pull within about five seconds, and this was invented during the American Revolutionary War. Then there's the Puckle Gun, which was invented 60 years before the war, and could fire the equivalent to full-auto. They knew these existed too.

With the logic that all amendments need to be updated, then the 1st Amendment needs to be updated to include all the inventions we've made over the years to include the internet, radio, television, and phones because they only had voice and the printing press then.

I'm neither here nor there on this topic, people on either side of the debate have equal and understandable arguments. I firmly believe harsher gun control is not the answer, but on the other hand I believe a country wide law on the matter is something that is perhaps worth looking into, as I think it would reduce the "loop-holes" these people are getting their weapons based on a specific State's law. But, again, on the other-other hand, it won't stop terrorist or terrorist-like thugs from obtaining a weapon or causing some sort of harm on a large scale. The terrorist attacks in France prove that having strict gun control does not stop terrorists from gaining the upper hand, even if it's just for a while and that is all it takes is 1 person with a gun, a firm belief in their reasons to kill and not an ounce of sympathy for their actions. 

I don't know what the overall answer is, but the situation as a whole is a helluva a lot more complex and needs tons of attention to come up with a solution to a greater problem. To me though, imposing harsher laws in the end just hurts those whom have a genuine love for a firearm and mean no harm. The problem is that it's difficult to decipher genuine people from those willing to shoot you in the back, literally and figuratively. 

4 hours ago, crkinnh said:

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment specifically said 'arms' rather than 'musket'. The wording was meant to include the future innovations in firearms, the writers of the Constitution weren't stupid, they knew that technical innovation would occur. It used to include artillery too, but that was gradually taken away with the NFA of 1934. 

Oh and twelve years before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, the Grandoni Rifle was invented. This rifle could fire twenty two rounds in thirty seconds. Thomas Jefferson himself equipped Louis and Clark with this rifle for their expedition. Then there's the Belton Flintlock, which could fire up to 20 rounds with one trigger pull within about five seconds, and this was invented during the American Revolutionary War. Then there's the Puckle Gun, which was invented 60 years before the war, and could fire the equivalent to full-auto. They knew these existed too.

With the logic that all amendments need to be updated, then the 1st Amendment needs to be updated to include all the inventions we've made over the years to include the internet, radio, television, and phones because they only had voice and the printing press then.

Well, we can't look into the heads of the lawmakers then, so we don't know what they meant exactly, some sources even claim it is meant that every state can form a militia and that it is mainly restricted to that. We have airburst full-auto grenade launchers (XM 25) today, but nobody has aquired them in these days, and most people don't know about those, furthermore were those full-auto cannons highly ineffective and maintenance heavy, that citizens couldn't afford those easily, so I guess the lawmakers then had muskets in mind not your "special" weapons.

And the world has changed since these times and the first amendment has evolved in times, so should the second amendment, and that doesn't mean including full-auto rifles but maybe also restrictive sales, because the whole world has proven to you, that it works, but no, America is sooooo special it wouldn't work there, gimme a break!!!