Obama calls for Gun Control Laws

[FiftyCal]

Then you'll be pretty sad when the weapon you sell is used in a crime and it wasn't transferred legally. Even if the weapon was used in self defense, they would check the license and see that it belongs to you. For a while now you have had to make sure that the person you're selling to can legally own a gun, that doesn't change - the only exception is antique weapons.

Yeah, because my friends are going to shoot up a school right after i sell gun to them... My friends all have guns and they have had them for years so i'm pretty positive they aren't going to be used in crimes unless they sold them to some stranger but most of the time they only sell to people they know personally. Just because something becomes law doesn't mean i'm agreeing with it, so i'm not going to follow any. As a matter of fact there are a few of policemen/sheriffs that wrote letters to the vice president Joe Biden about the new laws and how they aren't going to enforce them on people. It seems like nothing became law until the whole setup of sandy hook happned

[peteyt]

Most crimes are done with non-assault weapons, ie hand guns - and again, assault weapons are not automatic weapons as the media portrays. The American people aren't stupid, they know once a madman does exactly the same thing with a hand gun or a shot gun then you'll come for them aswell. A future President will stand there at a press conference with children (a sickening PR stunt if you ask me) and use exactly the same tactics as he is now - and you'll all fall for it, because what you really want in the end is all guns banned from the citizens and only the state to have guns.

No deal.

Sorry but I feel you've totally ignored my point and just went on another rant.

Yes I'll admit I'd rather have all guns banned, but as people have pointed out that will never happen, the people won't accept it. My point is that at least by banning assault rifles, larger weapons your removing the most dangerous of these while at the same time not preventing people to buy handheld weapons - basically people can still buy hand held weapons to protect themselves so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Also my second point was that nothing bad can come from tighter checks. Obviously they will never be perfect. Normal appearing people will every so often be able to fool their way through but any improvement to stop those who want to hurt people will be better.

I just see this as the best of both worlds right now - take the worst weapons out and make the tests for weapons stricter

[JoeyK.]

Show Hide

Was not expecting two essays haha



I understand that all Americans feel entitled to freedom by the Bill of Rights and I respect that Bill's morals (it's a great starting point to build a nation under). However, I don't think that they should be left unchanged for 250 or so years. So much can change in that amount of time and it can make the Bill look outdated (there weren't mass shootings of schoolchildren or of people in general when the Bill was in it's early years for example).



Then there's not a lot you can do. Even if you had an assault rifle to hand who's to say the felon isn't an ex-serviceman with pinpoint accuracy? Besides one precise shot with a handgun will kill someone just as fast as assault rifle bullets.



I totally agree about the stricter regulations, though I still can't understand why people feel the need to have an assault rifle in case of an emergency?



That is certainly horrible to hear about what your wife's family has to see on a daily basis but what happened to the police? Shouldn't they be keeping order?

Also I'm not too convinced that adding more guns into circulation will reduce gun crime.



I was being US specific or relating to a more "stable" government (if you believe one exists). I don't see how the KKK pushing for gun control is a threat that fills people with so much fear that they need to board their windows and defend themselves with whatever is necessary?

May be being stupid here, but when has the US government turned against its people?



In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

Sure, our societies have lasted a little while, but you cannot always trust the system. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years before its fall to a dictator, and I'm sure people thought the same of Rome at the time. To think that everything has fixed itself and no human being could ever obtain office in a powerful nation without being 'good' is stretching it. It's been less than 70 years since Germany fell in World War II, I wouldn't call that a long time. It's far from a peaceful world.

[Ardemax]

Show Hide

Sure, our societies have lasted a little while, but you cannot always trust the system. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years before its fall to a dictator, and I'm sure people thought the same of Rome at the time. To think that everything has fixed itself and no human being could ever obtain office in a powerful nation without being 'good' is stretching it. It's been less than 70 years since Germany fell in World War II, I wouldn't call that a long time. It's far from a peaceful world.

Though, to my knowledge, they only achieved power in incredibly unlikely circumstances. Had Germany not been involved in WW1, then there would not have been a WW2 and no Hitler. Had there been stable government for the previous 20 years or so in Italy then Mussolini wouldn't have had a chance.

I see where you're coming from with there still being a chance of a dictatorship and the likes but I just can't see that ever happening in the UK or US

[The Don]

There is absolutely no need for the guns to be legalised in the UK. The US is completely different as guns are so widespread that it would be futile trying to recall them all. Hopefully they can be slowly eradicated over the next decade or so with more legislation making it increasingly difficult to obtain one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry but I feel you've totally ignored my point and just went on another rant.

Yes I'll admit I'd rather have all guns banned, but as people have pointed out that will never happen, the people won't accept it. My point is that at least by banning assault rifles, larger weapons your removing the most dangerous of these while at the same time not preventing people to buy handheld weapons - basically people can still buy hand held weapons to protect themselves so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Also my second point was that nothing bad can come from tighter checks. Obviously they will never be perfect. Normal appearing people will every so often be able to fool their way through but any improvement to stop those who want to hurt people will be better.

I just see this as the best of both worlds right now - take the worst weapons out and make the tests for weapons stricter

The first point is dud as most attacks are done via a small hand gun, so if you really wanted to save lives then you'd be calling for a ban on all guns - infact, you'd be advocating a ban on hand guns as your number one priority as they are the weapon of choice in most crimes related to guns. As for the point on danger, the assault weapons are not automatic weapons - you have it in your head (I suspect) that it's akin to having a machine gun... it is not. A great deal of these weapons (often the same weapons) have varying designs where some such as the AK or AR have a military style look but are exactly the same as a normal hunting rifle in terms of firepower, speed and so on.

On the second point, tight checks are already in place - sadly you cannot legislate against cases such as the lady and her crackpot son, she had passed all the tests but it was her personal failure that she did not keep her guns locked away out of the reach of her son because like all mothers, she didn't and would have never thought that her son was capable of doing what he did.

I think Ted Nugent put it best in a recent interview, that you'd have to be downright stupid to argue for more laws to be put in place when the kid had broken something like 41 laws relating to guns - it's mere idiocy to suggest a 42nd would have prevented it.

Though, to my knowledge, they only achieved power in incredibly unlikely circumstances. Had Germany not been involved in WW1, then there would not have been a WW2 and no Hitler. Had there been stable government for the previous 20 years or so in Italy then Mussolini wouldn't have had a chance.

I see where you're coming from with there still being a chance of a dictatorship and the likes but I just can't see that ever happening in the UK or US

I gave a comprehensive list of other countries where the population had been massacred by the government, Germany is not the only example - there are many more recent examples, take the actions of the Assad family in Syria for the past few decades - a country where the government has remained in place for so long during the uprising due to the reason that the population were unarmed. In the 1920s themselves, the British government banned guns in the first place because it feared an uprising - it wanted to make sure that in such circumstances that it would be the only force using guns on the opposition.

Or for another example thats recent, take Japanese US citizen POWs in WW2. Completely innocent people, taken and put into concentration camps in America - 70 years ago. True in this case guns were not banned, but had war hysteria not taken importance over civil liberties then the American government would not have dared imprison these people.

An unarmed population is an invitiation to a dictator, and not all dictators wear a Generals suit or sport a moustache remember.

In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

For most of our history the population have been armed, it was only since the 1920s that we haven't been.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

Facepalm, seriously. Facepalm. The sad thing is, if most people take this frankly naive view then at some point thousands if not millions of people will pay for it as they still are around the world. President Obama afterall is currently bombing people in drone strikes in countries who haven't attacked the United States - and again, the British government banned guns in the 1920s as it feared a revolution; it wanted to be sure that only it had firepower in a hypothetical revolution or uprising.

When I read stuff like that it actually makes me sick to my stomach because it's just so unread.

There is absolutely no need for the guns to be legalised in the UK.

If people such as myself ever find ourselves in danger in areas of bad crime, don't think we won't and can't easily buy a gun from the black market. You, the anti-gun lobby or David Cameron aren't going to stop me or anybody else from protecting ourselves.

The US is completely different as guns are so widespread that it would be futile trying to recall them all. Hopefully they can be slowly eradicated over the next decade or so with more legislation making it increasingly difficult to obtain one.

That's not going to happen so long as there are people in America who value the constitution, so dream on.

In my opinion and the opinion of the Founding Fathers of America (hence why they put gun rights into the constitution), any government which attempts to take away rights enshrined in the US Constitution ought to have the guns turned on them - thats their purpose.

US Sheriffs in the news have been saying that if any Federal Agents attempts to defy the Second Amendment, they will have their officers arrest those federal agents who have been sent there on Obama's order. So let them try, the states won't have it.

[peteyt]

The first point is dud as most attacks are done via a small hand gun, so if you really wanted to save lives then you'd be calling for a ban on all guns - infact, you'd be advocating a ban on hand guns as your number one priority as they are the weapon of choice in most crimes related to guns. As for the point on danger, the assault weapons are not automatic weapons - you have it in your head (I suspect) that it's akin to having a machine gun... it is not. A great deal of these weapons (often the same weapons) have varying designs where some such as the AK or AR have a military style look but are exactly the same as a normal hunting rifle in terms of firepower, speed and so on.

On the second point, tight checks are already in place - sadly you cannot legislate against cases such as the lady and her crackpot son, she had passed all the tests but it was her personal failure that she did not keep her guns locked away out of the reach of her son because like all mothers, she didn't and would have never thought that her son was capable of doing what he did.

I think Ted Nugent put it best in a recent interview, that you'd have to be downright stupid to argue for more laws to be put in place when the kid had broken something like 41 laws relating to guns - it's mere idiocy to suggest a 42nd would have prevented it.

I never denied it wasn't hand guns causing the crimes and never did mention anything about automatic guns. As you know if it was up to me all would be banned in most situations but it looks like that will never happen as America has had them legal for far too long. But I do think that you can make it better by banning the other types of weapon if you can protect yourself with a handgun then other guns won't be needed. It just feels like people are trying to take guns too far as if they need all guns legalised.

Also do regular re-checks happen as I don't know myself? If not then a good idea would be to regular check people who have weapons. It won't obviously 100 percent solve the problem but it might allow for people to be spotted who are unbalanced, removing their guns before they can do something. You mentioned drug use and guns what about a law banning users of certain drugs from using weapons because drugs and weapons is never a good mix. And finally there should be a law written in that gun users should keep their gun locked at all times and are responsible for it. Yes I know people e.g. children will try and get hold of them just like children get hold of alcohol but its better than nothing.

[Jake]

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape.
Wikipedia Article, fully cited. Not what I would call 'halted'

You cannot quote wikipedia..

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone as long as its not offensive.

I could claim that my name is josiffi trebormint and im the richest person in the world and i invented the tripopod.

It is not a valid source!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never denied it wasn't hand guns causing the crimes and never did mention anything about automatic guns. As you know if it was up to me all would be banned in most situations but it looks like that will never happen as America has had them legal for far too long. But I do think that you can make it better by banning the other types of weapon if you can protect yourself with a handgun then other guns won't be needed. It just feels like people are trying to take guns too far as if they need all guns legalised.

You backtrack and then go on to state your point again, that guns such as the one used in the Sandybrooks massacre (which is again a semi-automatic which fires one bullet per trigger pull like a hand gun and not an automatic weapons) ought to be banned. But you're not using logic on this. The overwhelming majority of deaths due to gun violence in the United States are not caused by semi-automatic weapons such as the ones you are seeing plastered all over the news, the majority are done by the likes of hand guns, pistols and shot guns.

Therefore, why is your argument (alike Piers Morgan) that we should ban the guns which are only used in a tiny minority of violent gun crimes in the US as opposed to the likes of hand guns which are used in the vast majority? it doesn't add up, in reality you should be arguing for a ban on hand guns with semi-automatics remaining exempt.

I think I know the reason - that being uneducated on guns (and I freely admit I am too, I don't own one at the moment and have never fired one as of yet) means that when you see a picture of an AR/AK on the television - it does look scary, it looks downright lethal. But as I explained earlier, a little research and you'll find that these weapons are merely designed like that for looks and not for any added power or automatic function.

Also do regular re-checks happen as I don't know myself? If not then a good idea would be to regular check people who have weapons. It won't obviously 100 percent solve the problem but it might allow for people to be spotted who are unbalanced, removing their guns before they can do something. You mentioned drug use and guns what about a law banning users of certain drugs from using weapons because drugs and weapons is never a good mix. And finally there should be a law written in that gun users should keep their gun locked at all times and are responsible for it. Yes I know people e.g. children will try and get hold of them just like children get hold of alcohol but its better than nothing.

At present the United States has strict gun laws and amazingly it's the states/cities which have the tougher gun laws which have the biggest problem with guns, whereas places out in Texas and the southern states have the lower crime rates where conceal and carry is legal. But let's relate this to the Sandyhook killings - the mother was vetted perfectly fine for guns, and the son wasn't on the mental health radar nor did the mother seemingly suspect anything (because after all who would, who saw Raoul Moat coming?). So here you have a system which cannot be fixed because human error will always occur - a clearly evil, calculating and insane madman made the calculated choice to go out and kill innocent people. I'm afraid no such law can prevent cases such as this occuring, ie Raoul Moat here in the UK.

I take it back to the Ted Nugent point, in this case the kid had already broken 41 laws - what makes anybody think that a 42nd law would have made the slightest bit of difference? it's madness to even suggest it.

[The Don]

If people such as myself ever find ourselves in danger in areas of bad crime, don't think we won't and can't easily buy a gun from the black market. You, the anti-gun lobby or David Cameron aren't going to stop me or anybody else from protecting ourselves.

I don't believe for a second that you would would be able to purchase a gun. I'd love to watch you approach a shady character in a criminal wasteland and get laughed at and then proceed to get mugged . I'll leave you to your dreamworld though!