5 year old shoots and kills 2 year old sister.

[Master Maverick]

@Cassanova, I think that it is great that an appropriately aged person can walk into Walmart and buy a rifle, the advantage of living in America is in many states and areas even if you did wish to use it for some sort of ****ed up plan the other people are capable of protecting themselves.

On the idea of getting more laws, many criminals are first time offenders so background checks would do nothing, and even in this situation. Besides, criminals will get guns even if they are not allowed to, no criminal follows the law. That's why they are called criminals. I think it is a shame that you have to have a permit to carry a gun anyways, the Constitution say to keep AND bear arms. (That does not apply to muskets alone, but firearms in general.) Also notice that almost every shooting/massacre occurs in a gun free area (such as a school). Also known as law abiding citizens can not carry weapons.


Don't step on my rights, they protect yours.

I'm honestly not sure if you're serious or not... >.>

 

[Kiro]

Don't step on my rights, they protect yours.

No they don't. Not once has a private citizen owning guns ever prevented a crime.

And take a peek at the first few lines of the Second Amendment. It mentions that the right to bear arms should be with a "a well regulated militia". Not every Tom, Dick, and Jane.

And like Cassa said earlier: Stricter gun control, like in Australia and Norway = Very, very, very, very few gun related crimes and deaths. While in the US, gun related deaths are extremely high. Now which country has the right idea, I wonder...

 

[Cassanova]

In Australia, in the 1990's every fully-automatic weapon in the country was collected and destroyed.
Trying going 'spray-and-pray' on school kids with a bolt-action .22 calibre rifle that takes you 2 months to get your hands on.

A lot harder than you suggest, Jason. Furthermore, your IQ-draining comment involving the fact that background checks do NOTHING? My uncle got a speeding fine as he passed through a red light last year. As a direct result of this he was charged with negligent driving, had his gun license revoked, and his weapon impounded, and was then sold. A background checks stops careless, reckless or malicious individuals from getting their hands on guns - especially when doing it properly.

When a bank does a more thorough background search to borrow $1,000 than a gun store does - i think its time to wake up.

 

[Green Ranger]

Don't step on my rights, they protect yours.

Calling an apple a potato doesn't make it a potato. Calling a privilege a right doesn't make it a right. That's why a gun can be taken off you.

 

[Skyway]

One, I dislike guns not because they kill but because they kill to easily. I'm more of a sword person. That out of the way. I am not much of a explainer so ya.
Stricter gun control dose nothing. As Jason has some right in his post; The USA Constitution dose say to keep AND bear arms. Some people are willing to up peace to keep arms. I am one of these people. If some dum person kills or gives a kid a gun than they should be shot. RULE ONE of guns, make sure there is NO BULLET IN THE GUN upon hostler, clean, or ect. I would also like to point out that most these gunman have been on drugs for for mental thing.

 

[Kiro]

So, you'd rather let everyone walk around with swords, have people die in agony as they bleed out or become crippled as amputees, and drain the US treasury?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

the Constitution say to keep AND bear arms.

The USA Constitution dose say to keep AND bear arms.

For the purpose of a well regulated militia, but nice try. Better luck next time.

Don’t come out with this so-called “strict” interpretation of the constitution and try to word lawyer everyone here by emphasizing only the words that work in your favor. Although the Supreme Court has upheld private gun ownership, a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment only allows for the keeping and bearing of arms for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. The word “regulate” is in the amendment, so the whole “boo hoo you’re stepping on my rights” argument falls completely flat.

You are free to hold the opinion you hold, but at least maintain intellectual consistency while doing so.

(That does not apply to muskets alone, but firearms in general.)

Actually, it says "arms," not firearms. If you're going to come out with this inane, "strict" interpretation of the constitution, then all arms are on the table for private citizens to own. In which case, I know what I want for Christmas this year.

If you don’t think that I should be allowed to have that, then you’ve already bought into the premise of gun control and we’re just debating the specifics of implementing it.

 

[Vaanes]

No they don't. Not once has a private citizen owning guns ever prevented a crime.

I'm fairly certain you are incorrect on that regard.

Actually, it says "arms," not firearms. If you're going to come out with this inane, "strict" interpretation of the constitution, then all arms are on the table for private citizens to own. In which case, I know what I want for Christmas this year.

That's hardly the same thing, the difference between atomic arms and any type of firearm is completely different by several magnitudes if not a lot more.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written there weren't things like that around, though nor were there such things as a semiautomatic handgun or a machine gun. A militia as described in the 2nd amendment would have no such need in any circumstance for a weapon of mass destruction, though in some/many circumstances depending on your point of view, the types of firearms that have evolved from the humble matchlock would be.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'm fairly certain you are incorrect on that regard.

There's no real way to measure it anyway, so an argument one way or another seems fairly pointless. We can measure crimes that were stopped by a gun while the crime was in progress, but whether a gun stopped a crime from being committed is something in the head of a would-be criminal. We'd only have anecdotes to go on when someone happened to say "oh yeah I was gonna do that, but then there was a gun so no thanks."

 

[Kiro]

I'm fairly certain you are incorrect on that regard.

Then give me a concrete example of a situation where a private citizen has helped hinder a threat, instead of escalating it? Store robbery: Person draws firearm on store clerk, store clerk draws firearm. Let's do the math on it.

(Gun + Desperate Person) x (Gun + Desperate Person) = Someone ends up dead, rather than the store clerk or the robber living. Yes, the clerk would have lost money, but both of them would have been alive, which would be a better result no matter how you look at it.

EDIT: Besides, I never said GUNS never stopped crime. I'm saying guns in the hands of private citizens don't prevent crime.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Then give me a concrete example of a situation where a private citizen has helped hinder a threat, instead of escalating it? Store robbery: Person draws firearm on store clerk, store clerk draws firearm. Let's do the math on it.

(Gun + Desperate Person) x (Gun + Desperate Person) = Someone ends up dead, rather than the store clerk or the robber living. Yes, the clerk would have lost money, but both of them would have been alive, which would be a better result no matter how you look at it.

I think it's the word "prevent" that's causing some confusion here. With the word prevent, then prevention would be a would-be robber noticing a gun and then changing his mind. However, the scenario you posed in this quoted post depends on a crime already occurring. By the time the store clerk pulls their gun, a crime has already been committed.

 

[Kiro]

I think it's the word "prevent" that's causing some confusion here. With the word prevent, then prevention would be a would-be robber noticing a gun and then changing his mind. However, the scenario you posed in this quoted post depends on a crime already occurring. By the time the store clerk pulls their gun, a crime has already been committed.

Eh, I think if you're desperate enough to rob a store using a gun, you're desperate enough to risk a store clerk pulling a gun.

But stricter gun control would help to prevent stuff like that happening. Again, take Norway as an example. Stuff like the situation I mentioned earlier never happens over here, because we've got very strict laws for the control and regulation of guns.

Hell, I don't think private citizens in Norway are even allowed to own pistols/handguns. Only shotguns and single-action/semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Jax Vos]

I don't mean to be rude to anyone who's adressed this or who dissagrees with this, but if they took away guns owned by private citizens, then only government officers and criminals will have them. The only people who are in danger then will be the standard every day citizen. I don't see how that is a good thing.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Eh, I think if you're desperate enough to rob a store using a gun, you're desperate enough to risk a store clerk pulling a gun.

Like I said, it's not really something we can know one way or another. We can't measure What Ifs. We can see if gun laws correlate to a decrease in crime, but we can't know if a gun being on the premises or not being on the premises deters anyone.

 

[Kiro]

I don't mean to be rude to anyone who's adressed this or who dissagrees with this, but if they took away guns owned by private citizens, then only government officers and criminals will have them. The only people who are in danger then will be the standard every day citizen. I don't see how that is a good thing.

Remember, criminals are private citizens. If you prevent private citizens from ever purchasing them, then you'd severely limit a criminals' access to guns, either through proxy or not.

 

[Vaanes]

Then give me a concrete example of a situation where a private citizen has helped hinder a threat, instead of escalating it? Store robbery: Person draws firearm on store clerk, store clerk draws firearm. Let's do the math on it.

(Gun + Desperate Person) x (Gun + Desperate Person) = Someone ends up dead, rather than the store clerk or the robber living. Yes, the clerk would have lost money, but both of them would have been alive, which would be a better result no matter how you look at it.

EDIT: Besides, I never said GUNS never stopped crime. I'm saying guns in the hands of private citizens don't prevent crime.

I'll try to answer the best I can, but it seems to me that everyone has made up their minds on the matter anyways. And as Brandon has said there's no definitive proof to either side so it is just a lot of finger pointing when the chickens come home to roost.

One thing that stands out in my mind was a shooting that occurred many years ago, in 1966 I believe at the University of Texas. A man went up into the bell tower and began firing at people. As I recall private citizens brought firearms from their homes and attempted to aid the police who were lacking in weapons that could match the gun mans range.

"Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and other armed citizens." Taken from wikipedia, I view it as pretty credible, open for debate on that however.

It seems to me that in this case an armed populace helped hinder the threat posed by this man.

Personally, I do believe in some regulation, no one has need of a M2 Browing and such after all and all attempts should be made to keep firearms from the hands of those who are unfit or incapable of handling the weapon with the respect it deserves. But I was raised around firearms and taught to respect them and what they can do. I also believe I have a right to defend myself, property, and family if need be, the gun just happens to be the most effective tool for that and I dislike the idea of having that tool removed from me for no good reason.

Tear into it all you like and call me stupid or foolish if you want, I really do not care I have given my honest opinion. Had I been born in a different part of the world would I feel differently? Maybe.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

The guy in the bell tower was an Eagle Scout, one of the youngest in the world.

:(

 

[Green Ranger]

The guy in the bell tower was an Eagle Scout, one of the youngest in the world.

:(

Ah, but he was a part of a well-regulated militia, so it's all good.

>.>

<.<

 

[Vaanes]

From what I read of him he was very accomplished in many things. It's a shame how he ended up. words can't really do that much justice, especially over the internet in the form of text.

 

[Jiang Winters]

I ranted. It's in a spoiler.

Note that I've grown up using and shooting everything from BB guns to assault rifles to high-powered military rifles capable of putting a 200-grain slug through a thin plate of steel or 30 inches of oak. I've hunted before. I've spent many an afternoon target shooting. I clean and maintain my own firearms, and I load my own ammunition. I'm very well-versed in the fine old hobby that is shooting, and it is a hobby that I have a very personal interest in.

Anyways, rant. It's my opinion, take it for what you will. TL;DR available under the spoiler.

Spoiler: Kitty Rant

I think that the problem here is, believe it or not, not the gun but the parenting. Make sure it is unloaded. It takes literally one second to check if a gun is loaded or not, one second. I disagree that it is bad to make guns for children and that increased laws would have prevented this, just teach the kid. I was five and I knew where the guns were in the house, I never even considered playing with them. If I wanted to hold them I would just ask and my dad would bring them out and let me hold it (after he had cleared the chamber repeatedly I might mention. On that note, I always clear it three times after handling one and before as well as giving visual inspection.) I blame this entire thing on the parents.

Were the parents stupid? Maybe. Did they make a mistake? Yes, definitely. Would tighter gun control have prevented this? Depending on the laws passed and the strictness with which they were enforced, possibly.

The bottom line, however, is that America's gun culture is the problem, a problem which is only compounded by a lack of education and truly effective gun control. We view and treat guns with an air of irreverence. A gun isn't viewed as weapon meant to maim and kill from afar - it's just a 'gun'. We see it on TV all the time. We use it in games and movies, read about them in books, and chit-chat about them around the water cooler. But we don't respect them, not one bit.

We don't see a problem with providing a child with a firearm capable of slinging a 38 grain projectile out to an effective distance of 150 meters and a maximum distance of 2400 meters - that's about one and a half miles. That tiny little bullet, that .22 Long Rifle round, is more than capable of bringing a swift and violent end to any human being on this earth in a single strike. It is a fast-moving little glob of metal that will deform into a swirling mass of razor-sharp metal claws on impact. It is not designed to shoot pop cans or blast milk jugs. It is designed to rend and rip living tissue and deliver a killing blow in a quick, efficient manner. And what do we do? We allow companies to build and market guns of that same little caliber to our children. We don't see anything wrong with that.

Yet we wouldn't tolerate the manufacture of a pint-sized car marketed to children. We wouldn't buy our kids a quarter-ton car capable of doing sixty miles an hour. God forbid we even let the thing out onto the speedway. They're too young, too immature to handle such responsibility - most Americans agree, which is why we have a minimum age on driving permits and licenses. A child operating a car essentially has a quarter-ton missile filled with fuel capable of smashing into someone at highway speeds. It's a grave responsibility, and as it can affect other people's lives and safety, we'd never tolerate a child behind the wheel of a car.

But a bullet's just as capable of affecting other people. Step out onto your back porch and look around - unless you really do live in the middle of nowhere, you probably have a neighbor within a mile of your house. A neighbor, a road or highway, maybe even the nearest town. You might have a farm within a mile and a half, or a logging site, or a water way, or any number of things which humans occupy on a daily basis. A bullet fired into open air doesn't cease to exist - it continues along a ballistic trajectory until someone or something gets in its way, and it won't much care what catches it.

Every shot fired could damage property. Could hurt someone. Could end a life. Are the risks as great as a vehicle? No, no, probably not. But they're just as real.

For some god-forsaken reason we still think its just jim dandy to entrust a rifle to a child. They cannot comprehend the lethality of such a weapon. They are not old enough to understand it, or to be responsible in its use. And yet American gun culture still enables us to justify the purchase of a rifle for a child.

So no, I don't blame the parents. Not entirely. They created this specific situation, but we as Americans gave these parents the tools they needed to create this situation. We do not respect or fear the gun, and tragedies like this will continue to happen until we change our views on guns and begin treating them as weapons, not toys.

@Cassanova, I think that it is great that an appropriately aged person can walk into Walmart and buy a rifle, the advantage of living in America is in many states and areas even if you did wish to use it for some sort of ****ed up plan the other people are capable of protecting themselves.

When I went to buy my AMD-65 here a few years back, I went with my father. He wanted to pick up a Romanian-built WASR. (Looking back, that was a terrible idea on his part. WASR's are god-awful guns.) The store owner chose to run a background check before selling either of us a rifle. Maybe it was state law? I don't know. It might have been his own volition, which makes much more sense given the area and this state's generally lax gun laws. He sent us out of the shop for a little bit while it was being run. We came back a couple hours later, paid for our rifles, and went on our merry way. We picked up a few boxes of ammunition from a walmart on our way home, and ended the day having brought about the demise of a few milk jugs. A little late-afternoon target shooting's always a hoot.

However, that's not the point. What I'm getting at is this: In two hours, we purchased a pair of rifles capable of holding thirty rounds of 7.62x39MM ammunition. That round can smash cinderblocks and kill men outright. It can defeat body armor, penetrate cover, and is accurate and lethal out to many hundreds of meters. It was designed for war - the Soviets built it to kill, and it does so very admirably. Imagine that rifle in the wrong hands. Imagine that sort of horrifying destructive power in the hands of someone who bought it on a whim from Walmart. That thought should strike a little fear into you.

I look back on that now, and it scares me to no end. America needs gun control. It needs regulation, it needs limitations. Boli hit the nail on the head - gun ownership isn't a right, it's a privilege. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't automatically give us the right to charge into the nearest Wally-World and demand an assault rifle - a purely military weapon - and a hundred and fifty rounds of ammunition. We need to make it harder to acquire firearms, and keep close tabs on those in circulation. Yes, it'll inconvenience those of us trying to buy a neat little .22 for plinking. But a 30-day waiting period, or a quick interview with a police officer, is a very small price to pay.

On the idea of getting more laws, many criminals are first time offenders so background checks would do nothing, and even in this situation. Besides, criminals will get guns even if they are not allowed to, no criminal follows the law. That's why they are called criminals. I think it is a shame that you have to have a permit to carry a gun anyways, the Constitution say to keep AND bear arms. (That does not apply to muskets alone, but firearms in general.) Also notice that almost every shooting/massacre occurs in a gun free area (such as a school). Also known as law abiding citizens can not carry weapons.

Don't step on my rights, they protect yours.

Your rights don't protect mine. They give you the ability to purchase a firearm, which puts my safety in your hands. That is all they do.

Background checks keep previous offenders from obtaining firearms. They ensure that wildly irresponsible people or those who have been denied the right to carry a gun cannot purchase one. They are currently our first, best defense against guns falling into the wrong hands, but they are a woefully inadequate defense. Waiting periods, face-to-face interviews with a ATF agent or local law enforcement, mandatory government inspections, careful tracking of weapons; there's a lot we could do to make America safer. We're just not willing to deal with a few minor inconveniences in order to make our country safe.

Oh, and gun permits? Kind of a necessary thing. A CCL, for example, gives basic instruction and tutelage to a gun carrier. That's basic instruction that could help them safely use their concealed weapon. Take that away, and you have people carrying concealed sidearms without any training whatsoever, and that's a powder keg waiting to happen. There's only one thing worse than a madman on a shooting spree, and that's a gaggle of untrained civilian shooters opening fire on a madman. Contrary to popular belief, armed civilians don't stop gunmen - police action, gun control, education, and general preparedness stop gunmen.

I wrote that with a kitten trying incessantly to climb in my lap. I swear, cats are out to get me. ;-;

Anyways. Long story short, we create most of our own problems here in America, but we're too stubborn and too blind to admit to that. Nevermind fixing our problems - we can't even admit to them yet, and trying to solve our myriad issues would probably be too divisive and too painful for us to handle.

Are guns our problem? No, no they're not. But they contribute to it. Is that contribution immense or tiny? I don't know. But I do know it's a factor.

You might say that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," and on a level you'd be right. But guns sure make the process of killing a hell of a lot easier and a whole lot less personal. If we took guns out of the equation, what would we be left with? Knives? Poison? Our fists?

Yeah, we'd still have murders. We'd still have madmen. But guns are part of our problem, and loose and poorly-enforced gun laws only compound that issue. Tighter gun controls wouldn't solve our myriad issues here in the U.S. of A., but it might help. It (probably) couldn't make anything worse.