CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i dont think anyone needs a gun bigger than neccesary to protect themselves from a bear. get caught w anything bigger like an ar-15 like the one the colorado shooter used = automatic jail time. anyone caught w a gun w out proper gun license = automatic jail time. people should also have yearly mental health screenings if they want to own guns.

In New York, you're close on two accounts. Get caught with a handgun without a license and its a felony. Additionally, any brush with domestic violence or mandated mental health and you risk losing your pistol permit. You are screened for domestic violence, felonies, violent crimes, and mental illness during the vetting process in NYS.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by WillHal1000
People commenting here for stricter gun control laws FAIL to realize the only reason for the 2nd Amendment is so people can be armed to the teeth against a tyrannical government.

This argument is completely bogus in the 21st-century. What good are a bunch of rednecks with crappy little Wal-Mart peashooters going to be against the might of the US (or another country's) military ?

For this Second Amendment justification to hold water, local militias would have to have the most up to date advances in military weaponry over the years, such as tanks, APCs, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, chemical warheads, etc. But I highly doubt that citizens have a legal ''right'' to possess most of these.

Also to debunk other general points that crop up in gun control debates:

Firstly, the argument that the ''bad guys will always get guns''. All of the spree/rampage killings in the UK in recent years have been instigated by legal gun owners, just as Breivik legally owned his guns. It is almost unheard of for a mass shooting to be conducted by someone who owns their weapons illegally.

Secondly, the claim that ''people will just murder each other with knives and bats instead''. If you compare the murder rate in the UK and US (excluding firearms murders), then the UK still has a lower murder rate, suggesting that the lack of availability of firearms doesn't create a huge spike in murders with other instruments. The points which people miss about guns, as opposed to other weapons, is the impersonal nature of them, and the ease in which you can kill or maim someone with them. Any coward can pull a trigger at a remote target.

Thirdly, the argument that if everyone carried a gun then it would be safer as they could stop someone shooting up a place at an earlier stage. This is ridiculous. How would the average passer-by know who was the ''goody guy'' and who was the ''bad guy'' ? Also, as I understand it, there is no legal necessity to gain firearm proficiency before you can own one, so one wannabe Rambo may cause far more harm than good in trying to take down the shooter. All in all, the more people who carry guns in public, the bigger potential for a monumental clusteryouknowwhat to occur.

You assume that the US military would fire on it's own people, in order to disarm them. When I was in the Marines (1994-1999) we were given a survey to fill out. Ten questions regarding the willingness of us to fire on American citizens, should the need arise. No names required, just fill it out and drop it in a box. We talked amongst ourselves afterwards about it, why we would be given a survey like this, and no we would not fire on American citizens, for any reason.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i dont think anyone needs a gun bigger than neccesary to protect themselves from a bear. get caught w anything bigger like an ar-15 like the one the colorado shooter used = automatic jail time. anyone caught w a gun w out proper gun license = automatic jail time. people should also have yearly mental health screenings if they want to own guns.

Banning any ONE thing out of a given group of things would set a precedent thereby making it extraordinarily easy to ban all the other things in a given group.

Our judicial system has proven that setting precedents quite often does not work out to the greater good.

Ever looked at pictures of people who had been eaten to death by a bear? And, btw, that IS what bears do - they don't kill you and eat you; they eat you to death. In my opinion (since I have friends and family in bear country), I believe an assault rifle might be a darned good thing to have if one lives in bear territory.

"Should" is a very dogmatic statement. Your sentiments are no different than Christians saying that everyone "should" believe in Christ or atheists saying that no one "should" believe in God or Muslims saying that you "should" believe in Mohammad, ad infinitum. "Shoulds" have gotten this world into a h3lluva mess. Our opinions are not "shoulds" for anyone else.

Look up the crime statistics and see how many people around the world are injured/murdered with items other than firearms. "Should" we ban all those things, too, and require mental health screenings for ownership of them? If so, you're going to have a hard time cutting your steak or playing baseball or obtaining a crowbar or ... well, it would just never end. But the banning of one thing WILL lead to the banning of others and each successive one will be easier.

Taking an incident that, while horrifically tragic, happens so very infrequently given the number of gun owners in the U.S. and turning it into an excuse to deprive those innocent of any wrongdoing of owning something is tantamount to taking cars away from everyone because drunks and texters kill with them. So, which vehicle kills most frequently? Pick ups? SUVs? Prius'? Toyota? Is it the fault of the vehicle? Perhaps you "should" require toxicology testing to be administered at all places of vehicle registration? That way, anyone with an ounce of anything possibly bad for driving in their system can be denied vehicle ownership. Did you know it is possible to get a citation for driving with too much caffeine in your system? Yep; in some states, too much caffeine CAN be used to issue a DUI citation. Does it happen often? Of course not ... but, you never know. Cr*p, now everyone "should" stop drinking coffee.

Do you drive safely and obey traffic laws? Do you refrain from drunk driving and texting while driving? Do you abstain from the intake of caffeine? Too bad! I don't care! I've been twice run over by people carelessly driving cars; therefore, I don't think YOU "should" be allowed to own one unless you live so far out that it is impossible for you to even take delivery of merchandise. That doesn't make a d*mned bit of sense, does it? Yet it mimics your logic.

so what are you saying? that people should be able to legally have a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute and carry it around in public?

if you need a gun to protect yourself from bears, criminals and your home fine, i am all for that. imo people should have to pass an annual mental health exam if they want to concealed carry in public. get caught without the proper paperwork and or a gun that is too big to be used for protection = automatic jail time. maybe people will think twice before running around armed to the teeth.

tell me what purpose does having a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute serve? the general public should not be alowed to obtain a $20,000 cache of the size that an unemployed college student was able to obtain.

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
What makes my crazy is they call this "Horror at Theater 9"

Likes its a damn movie of the week.

You said # 9 one of the favorite number of the Illuminati

We all know that if we get rid of guns or just certain guns that people will no longer have a reason to kill eachother! The only reason anyone kills anyone is because they have access to weapons right? Look at how the samurai-sword ban put a stop to sword related deaths in the UK. Now that guns and swords are illegal the UK has the lowest crime rate in the entire world! Now nobody is being killed anymore! And once we get rid of these drug-cartels then the world will be safe. Because the only reason anyone commits a crime is because the criminals are creating it and we are all innocent victims right?

People sbould be allowed 1 handgun for self and home protection and nothing more.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


WOW! I am a Master in Korean Martial Arts and have taught for a living for over 15 years, I studied for over 30. Your answer is a bunch of crap. Unless you train every day for 8 hours a day for years the chances of you taking that knife off of someone without being seriously wounded not to mention killed are very slim.

It has to become a reflex as natural as breathing and that only comes from the amount of training I described. I also have been a bouncer in bars since 1997 I have taken several weapons from people and I have seen people like you stabbed and shot thinking a few months or years of training would be enough to do the same.

I would always want to carry a firearm if I was not trained like I am. Heck I still do. Pure genius, that's what you are.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Guess we should ban Martial Arts as well? Seeing as I could kill as many if not more people than he did in a theatre with just my hands and or a stick. A lot quieter also. It wouldn't raise as much alarm and it would make it easier that way.You are a freaking genius

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i dont think anyone needs a gun bigger than neccesary to protect themselves from a bear. get caught w anything bigger like an ar-15 like the one the colorado shooter used = automatic jail time. anyone caught w a gun w out proper gun license = automatic jail time. people should also have yearly mental health screenings if they want to own guns.

AR15 is a small caliber rifle i dont know where you get the AR15 is a "big rifle". It does not have enough power to reliably kill a bear. 5.56/.223 the AR15 is chambered in is a .22 varmint caliber. The military went to the M16 because you could carry more ammo and the rifle was small and light. You need a big full size caliber to stop a bear like .30-06, 7.62x51mm, .45-70 the list goes on.

People who are ignorant of guns have no place telling people who are knowledgeable what kind of gun they are allowed to own or be thrown in prison.

reply to post by jeepthing07


Yeah, when a bear is in my yard, I pull out the "elephant gun", the one I shoot moose with

Originally posted by muse7
People sbould be allowed 1 handgun for self and home protection and nothing more.

Surprising a gun control person would be pro hand gun since they are usually more controlled. The ability to conceal one makes them a favorite for robberies.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
so what are you saying? that people should be able to legally have a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute and carry it around in public?

They do in several states and those who do so legally don't seem to have any problems. Here is a list of state gun laws I found doing research on the subject (it's Wiki; so subject to flaw but seems to line up with other sites I read): Gun Laws in the U.S. (by state)

Another even more informative site with specific type-of-carry maps: OpenCarry.org

But to answer your question: Yes, I believe that people have the right to own whatever they believe will best protect them and, yes, I believe they have the Constitutional right to carry it and I find laws nullifying that Constitutional right to be very dangerous. The AR-15 used by the suspect can shoot as many times per minute as one can pull the trigger, so 100 times? 30 times? I don't know. I know nothing about them except that part that I just researched. He also had a rifle and pistols. Would you ban those, too?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if you need a gun to protect yourself from bears, criminals and your home fine, i am all for that. imo people should have to pass an annual mental health exam if they want to concealed carry in public. get caught without the proper paperwork and or a gun that is too big to be used for protection = automatic jail time. maybe people will think twice before running around armed to the teeth.

Again, "should" = OPINION. I respect your opinion; however, I disagree with you that there needs to be so much control - there's too much control as it is. Again, you're penalizing the many for the actions of the one or two. Guns don't do damage; PEOPLE do damage.

Few law abiding citizens go "running around armed to the teeth." That is a gross overstatement and I don't know why you believe it to be truth. The incident in question IS tragic and my heart goes out to all involved, including the parents of the shooter because their lives are forever changed. But it was the PERSON(S) who did it ~ NOT the gun(s).

An annual mental health exam is NOT going to determine when someone is going to snap. Schizophrenia, psychosis and other mental illness are present from fetal development and do not "break" until a specific stressor is activated and it simply cannot be predicted what that individual's stressor is or whether or not it will activate and to what extent. It could happen at age 15 or age 35 or it could never happen at all. Pre-punishement (denial of rights) is about the same as "pre-crime" or "thought crime," is it not? That's not a slippery slope; that's stepping right off into an avalanche.

It seems you're reacting to an event that has touched you deeply. I sympathize; however, I really don't want to take YOUR car away just because two other irresponsible people ran over me 20 years apart. It is in that light that I believe you are being unreasonable. Not putting words in your mouth, but you give me the impression that you believe the gun was evil; therefore, all similar guns will make all their owners evil. There's no sound reasoning there.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
tell me what purpose does having a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute serve? the general public should not be alowed to obtain a $20,000 cache of the size that an unemployed college student was able to obtain.

That type of gun could have any number of purposes and I doubt that I could think of all of them even if I wasted my day considering it. That said, competition shooting comes to mind. Citizens being prepared to protect their own Country comes to mind (research why Japan and Russian ever invaded the U.S. and why Germany never invaded Switzerland).

And, yet again, you defaulted back to "should." Who is anyone to decide what anyone else should do? Personally, I very much believe that people *should* have better manners, but no matter how much I think that, I do not see manners improving! Do I have the right to demand or enforce better manners? Nope.

Now, at the very end, you bring up what I believe is your best point: How, INDEED, did an unemployment college student come up with some $20k worth of that stuff in a couple of months time? And 6k rounds of ammo? $$!!!! THAT is something that needs to be considered by anyone interested in this event, including law enforcement. There is a REAL follow-the-money situation and, if followed, someone will find the pony under that pile.

But what about others who can easily afford it or who are willing to sacrifice other items in order to obtain it? Who is anyone to tell them what they may/may not (should/should not) have?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
so what are you saying? that people should be able to legally have a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute and carry it around in public?

If you need a gun to protect yourself from bears, criminals and your home fine, i am all for that. IMO people should have to pass an annual mental health exam if they want to conceal carry in public. get caught without the proper paperwork and or a gun that is too big to be used for protection = automatic jail time. maybe people will think twice before running around armed to the teeth.

tell me what purpose does having a gun that shoots 100 rounds per minute serve? the general public should not be allowed to obtain a $20,000 cache of the size that an unemployed college student was able to obtain.

If all of your ideas were implemented into law perhaps those laws would have prevented this massacre
and other future massacres. But criminals with the ability to obtain weapons (and kill) would still remain...

Disarming a society of their ability to defend themselves does not disarm the criminals or their intent
...it only disarms the innocent and the honest.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You are more likely to get more gun control under Romney than you will under Obama.

I know all you Romney people are shaking your heads right now (but you have proven you are dumb more than once).
...

wow...first of all who is saying that being pro-guns means being pro-Romney?...

Second of all, not only is that a stupid argument, but it seems to be your only argument which makes it obvious that you don't understand how to properly argue your point, and the fact that you have no real argument at all...

Well, you surely proved that the only dumb person is you by making that statement...

Originally posted by muse7
People sbould be allowed 1 handgun for self and home protection and nothing more.

You have the right to limit yourself. You do not have the right to decide the limitations of others.

I think you *should* be allowed one trip in your vehicle per month and nothing more. After all, I don't know what driving skills you possess, if you took driver's training, whether or not you drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, use your cell phone, text, play Angry Birds, etc., while driving. Driving is a privilege; not a right. For all I know, you could snap at any moment and go careening into a sidewalk full of pedestrians.

Nope; not safe for you to drive more than once per month.

Originally posted by AtcGod

People do not NEED guns.

Humanity does not need guns anymore.

I say we get rid of them all. And any other killing machine. Just scrap them and use all the metal to build a spaceboat to get us the hell off this rock. Then you could hunt snargles.

Then you don't NEED your right to speech either... You don't NEED your right to choose and exercise your religion... You don't NEED ANY of your rights since obviously you don't know that you have rights because of FIREARMS and people's willingness to fight for justice and freedom...

Just like you won your rights because our ancestors decided to FIGHT for them with FIREARMS, you can only preserve them if you are willing to FIGHT for them including with FIREARMS...

So, you are wrong, firearms are NEEDED to preserve every right you enjoy...

Originally posted by jeepthing07

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i dont think anyone needs a gun bigger than neccesary to protect themselves from a bear. get caught w anything bigger like an ar-15 like the one the colorado shooter used = automatic jail time. anyone caught w a gun w out proper gun license = automatic jail time. people should also have yearly mental health screenings if they want to own guns.

AR15 is a small caliber rifle i dont know where you get the AR15 is a "big rifle". It does not have enough power to reliably kill a bear. 5.56/.223 the AR15 is chambered in is a .22 varmint caliber. The military went to the M16 because you could carry more ammo and the rifle was small and light. You need a big full size caliber to stop a bear like .30-06, 7.62x51mm, .45-70 the list goes on.

People who are ignorant of guns have no place telling people who are knowledgeable what kind of gun they are allowed to own or be thrown in prison.

Thank you for that information. You've given me a few more things (the calibers) to look up in order to gain a better understanding.

Obviously, from one of my previous posts, I did not know that the AR15 wouldn't take down a bear .... though I do think the ability to make a bullet go with each pull of the trigger would certainly help the bear go down faster, especially if it's possible to pull that trigger 100 times in a minute as the one individual claimed. I'm sure my friends/family in bear country know what to use, though.

Thank you, too, for addressing the aspect of ignorance on the subject. There's far too much use of ignorance portrayed as fact on ATS these days and the old 'deny ignorance' motto seems to be dwindling at a sadly rapid rate. I willingly admit to ignorance where guns are concerned but I also willingly research for the purpose of educating myself, whether I will ever use the information or not. That researching often results in me being late in a thread or missing being a participant altogether, but I *do* learn something.

This sentence is a little difficult for me to understand: "5.56/.223 the AR15 is chambered in is a .22 varmint caliber" - are you saying the ammunition used in the AR15 is about the same thing as that used in a .22 rifle? My grandfather used a .22 rifle to shoot squirrels, so that is something I could relate to if I'm understanding you correctly. And, if I'm not, please enlighten me if it's not too much trouble.

i think u guys are missing my point, i think its ok to have a gun big enough to take down a bear if u live in bear country. i dont think its ok to have a gun capable of killing and wounding 71 people in the span of 2 minutes. i dont think its ok for an individual to have enough arms to take on a small army.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


I could take out just as many unarmed people if not more with my .22......
Caliber is not really an issue.