• 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

Time also gives people a chance to find out about the plot and stop it... recently a kid had ordered guns for a Columbine like shooting and was found out and arrested while waiting.
 
This is semi-related to the Conn. shooting and I'm not here saying we need more guns to combat the problem we have. I agree that we really need to get rid of assault weapons in this country but here's another perspective that the media has trouble reporting for some reason.

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

How many of you knew this about the recent mall shooting because I sure didn't.
 
This is semi-related to the Conn. shooting and I'm not here saying we need more guns to combat the problem we have. I agree that we really need to get rid of assault weapons in this country but here's another perspective that the media has trouble reporting for some reason.

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

How many of you knew this about the recent mall shooting because I sure didn't.

Lbe's boyfriend works there. He was like 50 yards from this.
 
This is semi-related to the Conn. shooting and I'm not here saying we need more guns to combat the problem we have. I agree that we really need to get rid of assault weapons in this country but here's another perspective that the media has trouble reporting for some reason.

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

How many of you knew this about the recent mall shooting because I sure didn't.

Tough to take an article seriously when it uses the word "Obamamedia".

Also, it is far from clear that the armed citizen changed anything.
 
Last edited:
I guess when it comes down to it I'm just in the old camp of you're only taking the guns away from the people who won't inappropriately use them. Thank you for your responses

not necessarily true. each of the last two events were done with stolen weapons. it's possible- however slight- that neither of the two people whose guns were used would have had them at all, or at least would have had them better secured if the regulations of ownership were tighter. there is a problem with accessibility, and not even just the 'anyone can buy a gun'. there are background checks, but so many people can pass those because they don't have a criminal record [yet]. i think the issue is that the guns that are out and circulating already are not secure enough.

yeah, you're right that lots of regulations would "punish" people who are playing nicely. it's a slippery slope that should be carefully navigated. however, you HAVE to agree that more can be done.
 
Bullets, care to explain your neg about how I misinterpreted FYC's post? My understanding of it was that even well constructed data like yours can be misread because of people's preconceptions. I believe that was the cognitive dissonance he was talking about (though it's probably closer to confirmation bias).

I wasn't even disagreeing with you about your main point that gathering evidence/data seems lacking in many of the loudest voices. Only suggesting that data is only one tool towards framing policy.
 
This is semi-related to the Conn. shooting and I'm not here saying we need more guns to combat the problem we have. I agree that we really need to get rid of assault weapons in this country but here's another perspective that the media has trouble reporting for some reason.

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

How many of you knew this about the recent mall shooting because I sure didn't.

i want this news piece to be much more widespread than it is.

THIS is why people carry and an example of the right decision. It's not about running out and chasing people down because you also have a weapon; it's making sound decisions that can hopefully impact the situation for the best.
 
People take their guns out in public ALL THE FUCKING TIME. That's the problem, perhaps not for mass murders, but certainly for loads of other homicides in this country which, mind you, produce a higher death toll than mass murders.

are there stats for CHL holders that commit homicides?
the statement you're making too easily sounds like "people who carry are the problem." i just want to point out that CHL holders are not the ones committing these crimes, and those who are likely DO know how to get something on the underground market.
 
are there stats for CHL holders that commit homicides?
the statement you're making too easily sounds like "people who carry are the problem." i just want to point out that CHL holders are not the ones committing these crimes, and those who are likely DO know how to get something on the underground market.

To your last point, I would be really surprised if this kid had any black market connections.
 
To your last point, I would be really surprised if this kid had any black market connections.

i agree, which is why i said two posts up that i'm all for more stringent regulations on gun ownership and do believe they could have made this a different story.
 
i agree, which is why i said two posts up that i'm all for more stringent regulations on gun ownership and do believe they could have made this a different story.

No doubt. I like to believe that most gun owners share your reasonable sentiment. That is probably not fair as you routinely indicate and above average possession of awesome sauce
 
thanks. i really do try to be reasonable and see both sides of the situation, but also realistic.
 
Tough to take an article seriously when it uses the word "Obamamedia".

Also, it is far from clear that the armed citizen changed anything.

Listen man I didn't didn't even pay attention to the Obamamedia thing you metnion. Yes we do not know that this armed citizen changed anything but my point in posting that was that maybe an armed citizen did have an effect. The only person the shooter killed after seeing the armed citizen was himself. I found the link on another forum and figured I would give a different pespective here.

Just offering a different perspective on what we are talking about.
 
Any article that uses such terms is immediately discredited as being a total bunch of extremist hacks.
 
A few random observations:

First, there is no point discussing a ban of all guns or even all handguns. There is no political will for it, and, even if there were, it would be patently unconstitutional. If you think that it is going to happen, you are living in a fantasy land.

Second, while the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States is high (~31,000), this number is artificially inflated because over half of these deaths are suicides (~17,000). These deaths really aren't attributable to the ease of access to guns because, for the most part, suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves anyway. The fact that they do so by guns in the United States skews the numbers.

Third while incidents like Sandy Hook capture our national attention (as they should), the reality is that the vast majority of gun deaths are perpetrated by criminals (i.e., people who were criminals beforehand) and gang members. When we think about what regulations to enact, we need to assume that only law-abiding citizens are going to comply. Gang-bangers aren't going to register or buy insurance for their guns.

Fourth, and related, on the assumption that criminals aren't going to self-report their gun ownership (which is a safe assumption considering the Supreme Court has held that criminals have a constitutional right to avoid registering their illegal guns under the self incrimination clause), I don't really see what a national registry would accomplish. In any event, the idea of a national registry is problematic because one of the principles underlying the Second Amendment is that, just as a jury in a criminal trial interposes a human buffer as a weapon between the state and the individual, a gun interposes a literal weapon between a tyrannous regime and the individual. It defeats the point to have that tyrannous regime keep a log of who owns the weapon against tyranny. And yes, I'm fully aware that a gun isn't going to prevail against the United States war machine, but that really isn't the point. The point is that I have the right to go down swinging, and, thus, possibly deter the tyranny to begin with. And if you think the idea of the United States attacking its citizens is loony bins, I suggest you read a little history.
 
Let's start with an assault weapons ban. You people had your chance and you blew it - a bunch of kids were killed with one. :noidea: sorry, shit happens. your idea sucked

signed, WakeandBake - owner of a shotgun a .22 rifle and a 30/30 rifle
 
Back
Top