Gun Control

[SaltyDawg]

I keep hearing this. And yet... I don't see any proof of it.

I don't see any proof that these "evil" people would have actually pushed through and obtained illegal weapons. We can always assume that they would have... Think Adam Lanza would have obtained the weapons he did had these weapons been either banned or strongly regulated? Would he have had those guns had his mom not owned them? I doubt it. He wouldn't have passed the exams necessary.

We can always assume that the CO shooter would have and could have obtained those weapons. But perhaps with better regulation he would have tripped up along the way and been caught?

Why not regulate (better) regulate these weapons? Why not make the process of purchasing these weapons much more comprehensive? What do you have to fear?

I think you're not seeing the forest through the trees.

He stole the guns. That's the point. He didn't buy those guns, he stole them. If he would have tried to buy them, he would not have been able to. Current regulations already in place would have prevented him from purchasing any of them.

If his mom, a legal and responsible American, would have been prevented from buying them, then he would have either stole whatever guns she had or stole someone else's guns. The fact that he had an assault rifle didn't matter in this case.

If you're shooting a bunch of little kids, a shotgun, pistol, rifle, assault rifle, doesn't matter, any of them are going to do the job.

If the guy would have got into a shootout with a bystander who was trying to help, and he used an assault rifle that he legally purchased to out gun the potential hero, that would be something to consider. But if he's executing a bunch of unarmed little kids with a gun that he stole, then putting additional regulations on legal purchasers of that type of gun is not going to help.

[The Thriller]

I think you're not seeing the forest through the trees.

He stole the guns. That's the point. He didn't buy those guns, he stole them. If he would have tried to buy them, he would not have been able to. Current regulations already in place would have prevented him from purchasing any of them.

If his mom, a legal and responsible American, would have been prevented from buying them, then he would have either stole whatever guns she had our stole someone else's guns. The fact that he had an assault rifle didn't matter in this case.

If you're shooting a bunch of little kids, a shotgun, pistol, rifle, assault rifle, doesn't matter, any of them are going to do the job.

If the guy would have got into a shootout with a bystander who was trying to help, and he used an assault rifle that he legally purchased to out gun the potential hero, that would be something to consider. But if he's executing a bunch of unarmed little kids with a gun that he stole, then putting additional regulations on legal purchasers of that type of gun is not going to help.

Had those weapons been banned, his mother wouldn't have had them and Adam wouldn't have had them. What evidence do we have that he would have tapped into the "black market" and purchased those weapons?

I'm not seeing the evidence that the "bad guys" will just end up with guns anyway. Some might. Some won't.

Regulate this stuff. If you can pass the requirements then you have nothing to be afraid of. If it doesn't affect anyone and anyone truly can just go to the black market to get this stuff then what's the big deal about the added regulation? Why cry about it if you can just go to the black market?

[SaltyDawg]

Had those weapons been banned, his mother wouldn't have had them and Adam wouldn't have had them. What evidence do we have that he would have tapped into the "black market" and purchased those weapons?

I'm not seeing the evidence that the "bad guys" will just end up with guns anyway. Some might. Some won't.

Regulate this stuff. If you can pass the requirements then you have nothing to be afraid of. If it doesn't affect anyone and anyone truly can just go to the black market to get this stuff then what's the big deal about the added regulation? Why cry about it if you can just go to the black market?

So are you saying all guns should be banned? Because if those particular guns were banned, the guys mom probably would have had whatever guns were still legal instead (or she would have had them anyway because she was legal). In that case, he would have stole those instead. And whatever type they were, they would still kill an unarmed 5 year old just as easily as any other gun.

Check this out man, 3d printed AR15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJs...e_gdata_player

Anyone can make that, right now, totally unregulated. The printers that do it are brand new. As this technology matures over the next few years, these will get better and better. The one in this video failed after 6 shots. That's not bad for a first attempt with a brand new technology.

You can bet the house that these 3d printed guns will continue to get better and better. Especially if we outlaw buying the guns. It's bad enough if criminals (who are currently very good at making fake checks and fake ids) are working hard at this. But these extra regulations would also have otherwise legal people working at it too.

It's only a matter of time until these 3d printers are cheap enough for common users to buy. And when that happens, there will be many different companies supplying the plastic for them, some stronger than others.

Here's an AK 47 with 3d printed parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWrp-...e_gdata_player

Seriously man, taking guns from legal people is absolutely not going to stop the bad guys from getting them.

[SaltyDawg]

These guys explain the process. They also claim they made one that fired off 200 rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqzJl...e_gdata_player

I'm telling you, taking guns away from the good guys is absolutely the wrong thing to do right now. The bad guys have always been able to get guns, but they are about to have a totally unregulated and unlimited supply, for very little cost and very little effort.

[JimLes]

I'm telling you, taking guns away from the good guys is absolutely the wrong thing to do right now. The bad guys have always been able to get guns, but they are about to have a totally unregulated and unlimited supply, for very little cost and very little effort.

That's the risk I'd be willing to take. At least I could then easily assume that everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Right now, I'm supposed to trust you when you claim you're not.

[gregbroncs]

That's the risk I'd be willing to take. At least I could then easily assume that everyone with a gun is a bad guy. Right now, I'm supposed to trust you when you claim you're not.

So you would be willing to identify the bad guys. But who would stop them? This country would be at the mercy of criminals and police if they were the only ones with firearms.

Every store would be vulnerable and unable to have their own security. Every nut job would be able to get a gun and have confidence that they could do a lot of damage before getting stopped.

We don't take cars away from people because of drunk drivers. Why do we need to take guns away from people because of criminals? It makes no sense to me.

[fishonjazz]

So you would be willing to identify the bad guys. But who would stop them? This country would be at the mercy of criminals and police if they were the only ones with firearms.

Every store would be vulnerable and unable to have their own security. Every nut job would be able to get a gun and have confidence that they could do a lot of damage before getting stopped.

We don't take cars away from people because of drunk drivers. Why do we need to take guns away from people because of criminals? It makes no sense to me.

Cars and guns are different from one another.

[Bronco70]

So it sounds like we dont want it to be any harder for the "good guys" to be able to get guns, but i think we would all agree that we do want it to be more difficult for the "bad guys" to get them.

So anybody have a good way to make this happen?
Bronco, you seem to be pretty smart and know your gun laws... do you have any thoughts on how this could be achieved?

Unfortunately, as Salty pointed out, bad guys don't generally use legitimate channels to acquire their guns. IMO, laws constructed to make it more difficult to get one have more impact on law abiding gun owners. That's not to say there shouldn't be any. I'm all for background checks, waiting periods, and such. Some who shouldn't own will stopped this way. But those who procure guns for malicious reasons, there isn't a lot that can be implemented that will have significant effect. There are just too many guns out there. I wish I had a better answer, but I think simply being more diligent about enforcing current laws would make a difference. As far as private transactions go, well, they're going to happen. If I were selling a gun, I would require a CC. You can found negligent if a gun used in a crime is traced back to you w/o proper paperwork. In theory, that should be enough incentive to take care in who you sell to, but again, the bad element doesn't regard the law anyway.

[fishonjazz]

Unfortunately, as Salty pointed out, bad guys don't generally use legitimate channels to acquire their guns. IMO, laws constructed to make it more difficult to get one have more impact on law abiding gun owners. That's not to say there shouldn't be any. I'm all for background checks, waiting periods, and such. Some who shouldn't own will stopped this way. But those who procure guns for malicious reasons, there isn't a lot that can be implemented that will have significant effect. There are just too many guns out there. I wish I had a better answer, but I think simply being more diligent about enforcing current laws would make a difference. As far as private transactions go, well, they're going to happen. If I were selling a gun, I would require a CC. You can found negligent if a gun used in a crime is traced back to you w/o proper paperwork. In theory, that should be enough incentive to take care in who you sell to, but again, the bad element doesn't regard the law anyway.

Great post.... this is the conclusion that i have come to as well.

[Stoked]

had those weapons been banned, his mother wouldn't have had them and adam wouldn't have had them. What evidence do we have that he would have tapped into the "black market" and purchased those weapons?

i'm not seeing the evidence that the "bad guys" will just end up with guns anyway. Some might. Some won't.

regulate this stuff. If you can pass the requirements then you have nothing to be afraid of. If it doesn't affect anyone and anyone truly can just go to the black market to get this stuff then what's the big deal about the added regulation? Why cry about it if you can just go to the black market?

hahahahaha

[moevillini]

...There are just too many guns out there. I wish I had a better answer, but I think simply being more diligent about enforcing current laws would make a difference....

...but again, the bad element doesn't regard the law anyway.

for the most part, the "bad element" sort of sticks to its own kind...

it's the unbalanced (who are generally not what I think of when someone refers to the "bad element) that go out and randomly shoot strangers for no apparent reasons

we know how Adam Lanza got his guns, but what about Jared Loughner, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, the VaTech and NIU shooters - where did the system break down as far as they are concerned?

at any rate, the key part of your statement - that there are "just too many guns" is critical

and not just that, but it seems to me (despite everyone's arguments here to the contrary) that there are just TOO MANY GUN OWNERS who have TOO CAVALIER an attitude about their weapons.

definitely needs to be mandatory jail time for anyone whose gun is used in a crime, whether it was stolen or lost - - especially if they failed to report it

and no more internet sales or sales at gun shows or other less regulated venues in my opinion, at least not without some very stringent checks and balances in place

I know some of you will howl at that, but come on...

is there any room for compromise on this issue?

[SaltyDawg]

for the most part, the "bad element" sort of sticks to its own kind...

it's the unbalanced (who are generally not what I think of when someone refers to the "bad element) that go out and randomly shoot strangers for no apparent reasons

we know how Adam Lanza got his guns, but what about Jared Loughner, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, the VaTech and NIU shooters - where did the system break down as far as they are concerned?

at any rate, the key part of your statement - that there are "just too many guns" is critical

and not just that, but it seems to me (despite everyone's arguments here to the contrary) that there are just TOO MANY GUN OWNERS who have TOO CAVALIER an attitude about their weapons.

definitely needs to be mandatory jail time for anyone whose gun is used in a crime, whether it was stolen or lost - - especially if they failed to report it

and no more internet sales or sales at gun shows or other less regulated venues in my opinion, at least not without some very stringent checks and balances in place

I know some of you will howl at that, but come on...

is there any room for compromise on this issue?

Did any of the mass shooters get their guns at a gun show or from the net?

The left attacking those things to me are like the right pushing for restrictive laws to curb voter fraud.

It seems like we're headed for minority report. Isn't that the movie about punishing for crimes that haven't been committed yet? That's pretty much the same thing, to me, as telling someone, "You're okay right now, and haven't done anything wrong, but we think you might do something wrong someday, so you're not allowed to buy any guns."

[fishonjazz]

Did any of the mass shooters get their guns at a gun show or from the net?

The left attacking those things to me are like the right pushing for restrictive laws to curb voter fraud.

It seems like we're headed for minority report. Isn't that the movie about punishing for crimes that haven't been committed yet? That's pretty much the same thing, to me, as telling someone, "You're okay right now, and haven't done anything wrong, but we think you might do something wrong someday, so you're not allowed to buy any guns."

In your post say "You're okay right now, and haven't done anything wrong, but we think you might do something wrong someday, so you're not allowed to buy any guns."
I dont think he was saying that.... you and i and most people can still buy guns, we just have to go to stores that sell them and pass background checks..... He said "no more internet sales or sales at gun shows or other less regulated venues in my opinion, at least not without some very stringent checks and balances in place."
So stop putting words in peoples mouths..... you are acting as if he said Ban guns, no guns for anyone. which is not at all what he was implying.

[fishonjazz]

Most of the gun control ideas that people are suggesting will not even effect most of us so i dont understand why pro gun people are freaking out.

Oh no ksl stopped selling guns..... So what? just go to a gun store to get your guns. Whats the big deal?

If ksl stopped selling coffee tables, then i would go to wallmart or rc willey or something to get a coffee table... and i like coffee tables and use them all the time but i would't freak out if ksl stopped selling them.

[JimLes]

So you would be willing to identify the bad guys. But who would stop them? This country would be at the mercy of criminals and police if they were the only ones with firearms.

Every store would be vulnerable and unable to have their own security. Every nut job would be able to get a gun and have confidence that they could do a lot of damage before getting stopped.

We don't take cars away from people because of drunk drivers. Why do we need to take guns away from people because of criminals? It makes no sense to me.

There are countries that function just fine without a gun-to-people ownership of nearly one. They aren't Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic wastelands.