Thread: My Thoughts on Gun Control

I am not a fan of gun control but I do realize there is some merit to the opposition's side. Anti gun control is really the lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

On one hand you could let the State take away all guns and trust the government to keep us safe. That does not sit well in many people's minds, even if the government was 2x as efficient. The fact of the matter is eventually corruption would seep into the system, and then what would we be able to do? Tyranny would have quite the advantage and it would be difficult to stop. I'm not saying that gun control would bring about immediate tyranny; that scenario isn't logical at all. It would happen over a very slow period of time; it would hardly be noticeable until the government is truly corrupt, then it would not be pretty. But equally important is preserving the second amendment itself. Our Bill of Rights should never be tampered with because they are what makes America... America! The geniuses who founded our country knew much more about the human condition than most of us do now. It is a very wise idea to put your faith into their knowledge in regards to the Bill of Rights.

So without gun control we are left with something like our current situation. Maniacs are extremely few in number, but they are still capable of buying a heavy arsenal wherever they please and wreaking havoc on the public. This is the price we must pay to have such protection against tyranny and other forms of corruption. Like I said, it is the lesser of two evils. Would you prefer the rare maniac or the slow but inevitable government takeover? Maybe not even by our government, but a foreign government. Still, the point remains the same. Both choices are horrible but it is common sense to choose the rare maniac over the government takeover. And we can only hope in the future that people who have concealed weapons will be able to defend the public against any other maniacs out there. If they are wearing ballistic armor from head to toe like this man was, well then it may be futile. But most attackers are not so resourceful, so all we can do is hope and have faith in people.

Determining what kinds of weapons the public is allowed to use is an interesting predicament. It used to be so simple with those single shot guns and our very small militias. Do I really believe people need to carry around automatic guns to "defend themselves from government tyranny"? Not at all. Semi automatic? Maybe. All I know is that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but at the very least semi automatic weapons and down should be permitted. Perhaps semi automatic should be restricted, only time will tell. But if semi automatic is eventually restricted, the people must fight to make sure that nothing else is thrown into that group. Otherwise we will see the second option that I mentioned give rise to a very powerful and corrupt group of people.

How does everyone else feel? Does anyone else think that in another 30 years we may have to admit that semi automatics create a risk too great for public safety? Obviously they would be sold publicly again if we had the same types of attacks on the civilians of the U.S. with maniacs using semi automatics, but if it did prevent them what would you say?

Let me know what you guys think. It is a very fine line so it is a tough debate.

My guess is that psychological background checks will become more common, and gun registries will exist in more states.

I doubt any major blanket bans on the federal level will pass, because it's been consistently shown that these bans significantly decrease the likelihood of being re-elected.

Originally Posted by Serfin' USA

My guess is that psychological background checks will become more common, and gun registries will exist in more states.

I doubt any major blanket bans on the federal level will pass, because it's been consistently shown that these bans significantly decrease the likelihood of being re-elected.

back in the 1960s they didnt have a mri or cat scaners they would of stoped the texas bell tower sniper,Whitman' because he showed signs of a tumer in the prefrontal cortex.
http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/whitman-charles.htm

When Whitman bought the Ammunition for the days activities a clerk askerd him why he needed so much, he replied, "To shoot some pigs."

Whitman's auytopsy showed that he a small brain tumour in the part that controls emotianal responses. From here there were two different findings. One report says that the tumour was malignant and would have killed him within a year, and contributed to his complete loss of control. But another report released prior to that one says that the tumor was benign and could not have caused any pain.

Either way, at least it proved that Whitman wasn't crazy by thinking he had something wrong in his head.

First off there is a difference between homeowner guns and guns manufactured for war. Realizing this split could end tons of arguments. Assault Rifles are made to kill lots of people, fast. No one needs an Assault Rifle to kill the snake in the yard. Even more, if my house is broken into, I am not grabbing a long range Assault Rifle. I am grabbing a close range weapon. I personally don't see any reason to have an Assault Rifle except the fear of invasion of another country.

That being said, I don't believe we should ban them. It takes a long course full of classes, video's and tests to get a hunting license. To get an Assault Rifle you should have to go through a long course, a test AND the background check. Maybe even a basic psych evaluation. This wouldn't end situations like Colorado, but would minimize them.

Originally Posted by CSWorden3

...It is a very fine line so it is a tough debate.

There is no fine line and the debate is very easy. There are three basic types of firearms and each has a different purpose:

1. Sport rifles and long-barrel shotguns for target shooting and hunting;
2. Handguns and short barrel shotguns for personal and home defense;
3. Tactical rifles to defend against those who wish to confiscate the first two.

Originally Posted by Southern Man

There is no fine line and the debate is very easy. There are three basic types of firearms and each has a different purpose:

1. Sport rifles and long-barrel shotguns for target shooting and hunting;
2. Handguns and short barrel shotguns for personal and home defense;
3. Tactical rifles to defend against those who wish to confiscate the first two.

I wholeheartedly agree with you at this point in time. But if attacks like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora Theater, and others become much more common then we may have to reconsider assault weapons. I don't think they will... But it is a possibility.

Until that point keep your guns close. Nobody should be able to take them away from you.

Originally Posted by woodystylez

That being said, I don't believe we should ban them. It takes a long course full of classes, video's and tests to get a hunting license. To get an Assault Rifle you should have to go through a long course, a test AND the background check. Maybe even a basic psych evaluation. This wouldn't end situations like Colorado, but would minimize them.

I agree. Make it hard as hell to get those types of weapons if they aren't banned. It just makes sense.

You present a false dichotomy.

It's not either have no one have guns or everyone have guns. You could set up a way to screen people and not allow certain people to own guns, such as people already convicted of certain crimes, people with certain mental illnesses, etc.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

You present a false dichotomy.

It's not either have no one have guns or everyone have guns. You could set up a way to screen people and not allow certain people to own guns, such as people already convicted of certain crimes, people with certain mental illnesses, etc.

Yes I was a bit too black and white with my quick post, my apologies. Screening and other limitations would certainly precede actual bans. I don't think any limitations could have caught our most recent attacker, though. He is very intelligent and appeared normal until he snapped. However, they would still create a safer environment overall.

Originally Posted by CSWorden3

Yes I was a bit too black and white with my quick post, my apologies. Screening and other limitations would certainly precede actual bans. I don't think any limitations could have caught our most recent attacker, though. He is very intelligent and appeared normal until he snapped. However, they would still create a safer environment overall.

Maybe routine checks, by an independent body, to decide if you can own certain weapons?

It's a hard basket to be sure.

I live in Australia and think our gun laws are too strict. Do I think everyone should be allowed to own an Assault Rifle or a machine gun? No, of course not. Do I think reasonable people should be allowed to? Sure, why not?