Sensible gun control might mean fewer mass shootings

It's natural to want to do something -- anything -- after the recent shooting of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., and three police officers in Pittsburgh. Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
BJ Peppers

Waterville, OH

#1 Apr 14, 2009
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they ever confirmed that the shooter in Pittsburgh used an AK-47. The last I read is that there was an AK in the house but he used handguns to commit the murders. I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot though whether it was an AK or a pistol does it? Same results. The fact is that these gun bans DON'T reduce crime. It sounds good to people who are uninformed about guns because who really needs "assault weapons" anyway. The problem is that there really is a need for an armed society in order to preserve freedom in this country. The ban picks out certain weapons that look scary or have certain features. If the point of the second amendment is for the citizens be armed to fight off a threat whether it's foreign or domestic how can you exclude the only NON fully automatic weapons that would allow civilians to have a chance? Also, the so called gun show loophole is misleading. A licensed dealer must run a background check on EVERY gun sale according to federal law. You can go to a gun show and buy a gun from another person at the show without a background check. Or you can buy a gun at an auction, out of the newspaper, etc. The problem with making a background check mandatory on private sales is that you could become a felon for passing down your trusty shotgun to your grandson. According to the law you would be transferring a firearm without running a background check on your grandson. My brothers moved out west and I sent them with a good hunting rifle. Should I have had to go to wherever you would have to go and pay to have a background check run on my brother before I gave him the rifle? These are the issues that gun owners are concerned with. We don't need more red tape to do something totally legal and in step with the US Constitution in return for the same murder rates we have now. Criminals don't obey the laws anyway. I hope you post this for your readers so they know why any sensible person would be opposed to so called "common sense" gun laws that don't make much sense!

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2 Apr 14, 2009
There is 'no such thing' as 'sensible gun control,' unless one is specifically speaking of the PROPER handling of a firearms.
.
Since the 1968 GCA, there have been MORE crimes committed with firearms than there had been priorly.
.
It was only with the IDIOT NIXON'S so-called 'War-on-Drugs' that the matter of VIOLENT crime has become a REAL problem.
.
Does ~anyone~ remember PROHIBITION?
.
You know: 1919 - 1933?
.
Alcoholic beverages were AGAINST THE LAW.
.
But everybody still had a tipple now and again, just for the fun of it, even though it was AGAINST THE LAW!
.
Here's the deal: GET RID OF THE REASON to commit a crime, and there won't be any related crime.
.
How hard can it be?
.
Appropriate remarks:
———
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

"Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

"Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
———
———
Or, how about this:
———
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken
———
———
Yeah, pretty much explains things, doesn't it?
gabby-one

Chicago, IL

#3 Apr 14, 2009
Sensible gun control is correct and that is achieved by municipal,county, state and federal
law enforcement agencies enforcing the existing gun laws on the books. Example, North West Indiana, two young guys were observed sleeping in their car parked in gas station and on their lap was a hand gun they were arrested but a stupid judge let them go on a personal recognizance, the police did their job but the court failed, they were not sitting in the gas station for nothing.
England has strict gun control,the law abiding citizen has no guns but still the criminals do they have plenty of murders there but they try to keep it quiet. Remember your not entitled to 24 hour police protection there isn't one cop for each citizen and they usually come after your covered and maybe they will find out who killed you maybe.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#4 Apr 14, 2009
There is 'no such thing' as 'sensible gun control,' unless one is specifically speaking of the PROPER handling of a firearms.
.
Since the 1968 GCA, there have been MORE crimes committed with firearms than there had been priorly.
.
It was only with the IDIOT NIXON'S so-called 'War-on-Drugs' that the matter of VIOLENT crime has become a REAL problem.
.
Does ~anyone~ remember PROHIBITION?
.
You know: 1919 - 1933?
.
Alcoholic beverages were AGAINST THE LAW.
.
But everybody still had a tipple now and again, just for the fun of it, even though it was AGAINST THE LAW!
.
Here's the deal: GET RID OF THE REASON to commit a crime, and there won't be any related crime.
.
How hard can it be?
.
Appropriate remarks:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

"Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt.

"Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)


Or, how about this:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken


Yeah, pretty much explains things, doesn't it?

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#5 Apr 14, 2009
The article starts with "It's natural to want to do something -- anything -- after the recent shooting of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., and three police officers in Pittsburgh."

...but it's not natural to not think about one's actions.

By definition, criminals will have guns. So right off the bat, the notion of banning guns is stupid.

We already have THOUSANDS of laws on the books. THOUSANDS.

These people who commit these nasty crimes are already breaking many laws. They OBVIOUSLY don't care about the laws.

Registration is a stupid idea too. Again, by definition, a criminal will not register their gun. PLUS, the courts have ruled that the government CANNOT force a criminal to register their guns because it sets up self-incrimination!
See http://tinyurl.com/cepncv
GunShowCensored

Goodyear, AZ

#6 Apr 14, 2009
"Sensible gun control might mean fewer mass shootings"

Really? Then why hasn't the 22,000 OTHER "sensible gun control[s]" made a difference? In FACT, if all things are HONESTLY considered. With each and every [CONSTITUTIONALLY PERVERSE]'gun control' passed. Crime has RISEN accordingly. The areas of the country with the LEAST amount of 'gun control' have the LEAST amount of crime. While conversely, areas with the MOST amount of 'gun control' have the MOST amount of crime.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed". Was written for very damn good reason. As British 'gun control' is what was directly responsible for finally setting off our Revolution.
Pete

Chicago, IL

#8 Apr 14, 2009
"Sensible gun control" is often used as a euphemism for a total gun ban. Or at least to make legal gun ownership too costly and cumbersome for most people. "Sensible gun control" does not affect criminals as they do not obey gun laws, sensible or otherwise.
GunShowCensored

Goodyear, AZ

#9 Apr 14, 2009
Before the 1968 Nazi-styled 'Gun Control' Act;

*

People could mail order firearms.
*

People could acquire handguns outside their state of residence.
*

People from different states could privately sale handguns.
*

Individuals under the age of 21 could purchase a handgun, and individuals under the age of 18 could buy a shotgun or rifle.

*

People that had previously violated the law and whom were once again free, included ex-felons. Could purchase firearms and exercise their right to Self-Defense as intended.
*

The instances of "mass shootings" were extremely rare. The only memorable one being that of Charles Whitman at the University of Texas.

Since the enactment of the un-constitutional 1968 act;

- There have been more than 100 mass shootings.

- Crime has risen dramatically, especially violent crime.

[Ref.- Which came first - the gun violence or the gun control?]
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3746.ht...

“How ya doin?”

Since: Nov 08

The end of the pier

#10 Apr 14, 2009
Highlander wrote:
But everybody still had a tipple now and again, just for the fun of it, even though it was AGAINST THE LAW!
A tipple? There is a word you don't hear very often. One of the writers at the Wall Street Journal uses it upon rare occasion.

Not that I don't enjoy a strong tipple myself now and again you understand...
Anna

Montour Falls, NY

#11 Jul 20, 2012
The time is now. The killing must stop.
Poor Putz

Dallas, TX

#12 Jul 20, 2012
Anna wrote:
The time is now. The killing must stop.
The time is now for what? Killing won't stop if guns are banned.
Tim

Binghamton, NY

#14 Jul 20, 2012
The U.S. is Number one in firearm deaths. Why would we want to give up our ranking? We suck at everything else.
jake

Vestal, NY

#15 Jul 20, 2012
Poor Putz wrote:
<quoted text>The time is now for what? Killing won't stop if guns are banned.
I was going to say the same thing but anna can't understand that.
Jack

Indianapolis, IN

#16 Jul 20, 2012
Anna wrote:
The time is now. The killing must stop.
You should change your name from Anna to Polyanna. Your outlook on life is so terribly naive.

The second ammendment was included to protect the people from their government. A government that respects and fears it's populace is a good government. History, time and again has shown what governments can and will do to their people for the "common good" when their is no fear of the people.

One only has to look at the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Kahmer Rouge, The Sudan, Syria, Mao China, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Uganda, Rwanda, Somalia,..... to see the end results of what can potentially happen to an unarmed populace.

While the gun violence in this country is tragic, the death counts from these isolated incidences are minicsule compared to the genocidal body counts that have occurred throughout history when governments do not fear their populaces.
Anna

Montour Falls, NY

#17 Jul 23, 2012
I do not have a gun. Why should you? Why should anybody? Disarm now.
jake

Vestal, NY

#18 Jul 23, 2012
My gun is my friend, and i obey the law's.
Fact

Binghamton, NY

#19 Jul 23, 2012
If the Republican congress extended the assault weapons ban in 2004, many of these people might still be alive and the Republicans and the NRA wouldn't have blood on their hands.
Law

Omaha, NE

#20 Jul 23, 2012
Anna wrote:
I do not have a gun. Why should you? Why should anybody? Disarm now.
Who are you to decide what everybody needs? How long have you been a criminal enabler/victim disarmament proponent?
Law

Omaha, NE

#21 Jul 23, 2012
Fact wrote:
If the Republican congress extended the assault weapons ban in 2004, many of these people might still be alive and the Republicans and the NRA wouldn't have blood on their hands.
That's a lie.

"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."

http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
Law

Omaha, NE

#22 Jul 23, 2012
Fact wrote:
If the Republican congress extended the assault weapons ban in 2004, many of these people might still be alive and the Republicans and the NRA wouldn't have blood on their hands.
BTW, they don't have blood on their hands. You, on the other hand,are wearing stained shoes from all of the dancing you've done in the blood of the victims.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 1 hr Here Is One 11,484
The Well Armed Woman Program - where the femini... 1 hr Here Is One 84
Ferguson, Clive Bundy, and the Second Amendment 2 hr Squach 363
SAF lawsuit challenges Illinois CCW statute 18 hr Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives 22 hr Kentucky-Mitch 15
Eric Frein manhunt turns up explosives Thu Explain yourself 13
Florida's 55 Bloomberg Anti-Second Amendment Ma... Oct 21 Squach 8

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE