• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Gun Control Laws

Deacon923 said:
The pro gun people will tell you that if you don't want to wade through life like a cow to slaughter, the only solution is to pack heat everywhere you go.
Click to expand...

And like clockwork, I already have the first Facebook post in my news feed noting that this shooting was in a "gun free zone", the implication being that if the teachers had been armed that would have helped.
 
The government orchestrated this whole thing using psychotropic mind control chemicals to advance their program of tyranny!!!

























My insane Alex Jones loving boss just told me this.
 
Wrangor said:
My thoughts on gun control and American rights:

The original intent of making sure that citizens could bear arms was to prevent government over-reach. That is really no longer applicable. Handguns and semi-automatic weapons aren't going to stop the US government if they decided to lock down on the population. The technology gap between owning a hand gun and what our military has access to is too large. So I see no need in gun laws that are supposed to ensure the safety of the population against the government. Based on that notion I see no reason for the general population to own a gun that cannot be used for hunting. Manual loading shotguns and rifles are pretty much all that need to be readily available to the public. Perhaps we could allow some handguns in rare, heavily monitored situations, but in reality the sooner we get rid of them the better. I Think it is pretty clear there is still a large need for guns to hunt both for recreation and for food (a lot of people in Mississippi kill a few deer each winter and eat off them for the next few months). But we no longer need to look at guns as a method of self defense. The sooner the cops are the only one with guns, the better in my book. That way if someone is caught with a handgun they go to jail for a LONG Time. No matter what they have done. Criminals would be afraid to get caught with a gun much less use it. The penalties should be severe.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the loud, metal sound of made by chambering a round in a bolt action shotgun should make any home invader flee.
 
I think you can boil the debate down the heart of it:

Anti-gun sentiments emerge from fear and self-preservation. Pro-gun arguments have a basis in fear and self-preservation for some, but there is also the issue of a multi-million dollar industry fighting for its own preservation and profit.
 
Wonder how a nation that kills millions of unborn children annually could produce young adults so insensitive to the lives of children? Huge mystery.
 
mebanedeac said:
Wonder how a nation that kills millions of unborn children annually could produce young adults so insensitive to the lives of children? Huge mystery.
Click to expand...

loller

How about the millions of brown people we kill all over the world in cold blood and in the name of freedom?
 
mebanedeac said:
Wonder how a nation that kills millions of unborn children annually could produce young adults so insensitive to the lives of children? Huge mystery.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that our problem with youth gun-violence stems, not from free, easy, and glorified gun availability, but from ... abortion?
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I think what Bacon was trying to say is that you should compare the crimes in the UK and the US by rate rather than raw numbers.
Click to expand...

yeah
just that comparing gun crime in a country where guns are practically illegal to gun crimes in a country where guns are legal is misleading and generally useless comparison. Comparing violent crime, or homicides is much more useful. For instance country "A" could have 10 homicides/100k people and country B could have 10 homicides/100k people. Except country A has guns and country B doesn't. You could say country A has 9 gun deaths/100K people and country B has 1 gun death/100K people, yet the homicide rates are the same so you can't draw any conclusions that gun control makes a society safer by comparing those numbers.
 
Nice that you can be so pithy and flippant about guns on a day like today.
 
RJKarl said:
Some easy ones:

No gun shows that allow sales.

No multiple purchases of mass produced weapons that were made in the past hundred years. This would allow the sale of antique collections. there would exceptions for licensed security companies and other companies that show need. These sales need to be tied to specific employees who need to be licensed.

No sale of expanded magazines.

No sale of semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic.

Every sale of every gun must be registered. If you buy a gun and want to resell it, you must go to either the police department or licensed gun dealer and get a background check of the buyer.

If you lose your gun, you must report it to the police or be held liable for anything that it is used for.
Click to expand...

Yes to this.
 
Baconwfu said:
yeah
just that comparing gun crime in a country where guns are practically illegal to gun crimes in a country where guns are legal is misleading and generally useless comparison. Comparing violent crime, or homicides is much more useful. For instance country "A" could have 10 homicides/100k people and country B could have 10 homicides/100k people. Except country A has guns and country B doesn't. You could say country A has 9 gun deaths/100K people and country B has 1 gun death/100K people, yet the homicide rates are the same so you can't draw any conclusions that gun control makes a society safer by comparing those numbers.
Click to expand...

From the study I posted: "The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher."
 
Wrangor said:
The original intent of making sure that citizens could bear arms was to prevent government over-reach. That is really no longer applicable.
Click to expand...

Ha! When the government starts running out of money and looks for easier ways to acquire (and spend) it, where do you think they're going to look? Millionaires today, your IRAs and 401(k)s tomorrow. The citizens may ultimately lose that war, but the hell if we won't take out a couple politicians with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top