Leaderboard

I don't even understand how anyone can pay attention to what the NRA says. I'd rather ask Kim-Jong-Un's advice than NRA's... I'm just bringing a little piece of news: The same day as the shooting in the US, a man attacked a primary school in China... with a knife. He started assaulting the kids in front of the school, then was able to get inside, armed with a butcher knife. In the end: 2 light wounds / 0 death and the criminal was subdued by teachers and people passing by. The children were able to safely escape the place. It's as simple as that: no matter how crazy the person is, the nature of the weapon will play a great role in the actual damages. I'm not putting aside the mental illness issues and all the others problems that can lead to such tragic event. My point focuses on the guns on purpose.

The reason I assume people (myself included) are focusing on assult weapons, is primarialy it WAS an assult weapon that took the like of 20 kids under 7 at Newtown......most mass murders in situations like this use assult weapons to do their damage (not just the USA either). In Australia in Port Arthur, it was a military assult rifle that was used, I Norway it was a assult weapon that killed the kids at the camp on the island. in Newtown it was an AR15 assult weapon (that the killer took after killing his mother) that committed this heanous crime. if there are as many hand gun killings in the USA, then why do you (not you personally, but the USA in general) not want guns regulated to assist in minimising this number? Surely saving ONE life would have to be a bonus.....

Chbare, I've heard all of them for just about every piece of equipment that you could possible strap on to a firearm of any sort. Except for folding stocks, that is. I have yet to hear a practical use for folding stocks except for concealing a large capacity, high power weapon, and the only reason you need to that is if you plan on ambushing someone, which is only appropriate in a combat situation. There is no situation in the civilian realm that a normal, level headed person would need something like that. You know what also cuts down on the noise made by firearms? Earplugs. They're cheaper and you can't screw them onto the end of a Ingram Model-10 and go tooling around the neighborhood. You know, once upon a time, even before Greenpeace existed, people noticed that a lot species of game were getting wiped off the map by poaching and over-hunting. So hunters came together and helped create laws to protect wildlife and habitats so that they could enjoy their sport responsibly, and thus the conservation movement was born. I think its time that hunters, sports shooters, and others who want to own firearms come back to the same point. If you want to protect what you have, come up with your own plans to regulate, enforce, and keep the people who shouldn't be in your area of expertise out of it. You can either say "look, there's a difference between a break open shotgun and a military grade high capacity rifle" or you can say NO NO NO WE WANT IT ALL, and then one day you'll wake up and have lost it all. You don't think amendments can be changed, enacted, or repealed? I assure you they can. Prohibition was enacted by constitutional amendment 18, and then repealed by amendment 21. 54% of the population is for gun control right this very minute, and unless this nonsense stops, its only going to get higher.

low percentages really wouldn't make the families at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine any happier.... As I said before, gun control is NOT making all guns illegal, but rather contolling guns that REALLY DO NOT need to be in the hands of joe public.....

This right here says a lot to me, and is the reason why the Constitutional argument holds very little sway in my opinion. Ultimately, my opinion will depend on what the science says. Unfortunately, trying to conduct a study comparing the effects of gun ownership and gun violence is going to yield varying results, depending on the location, as so much of gun violence seems to be tied to culture. I know there are some countries with high gun ownership and low violence, and others with low gun ownership and low violence. Which one would hold true in America? No clue. I will say that I agree with the President when he says that assault weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. Sorry, guys, I just don't see where civilians need such high-powered war machines for their personal use. I would like to see less emotion, less hyperbole and more evidence-based, outcomes-oriented discussion among folks when it came to the gun-control debate. Judging from the media and Facebook, however, that may be too much to hope for. Asys, that post was so great that I think it just about sums up my views on the issue completely.

Here's my take on this. I grew up on a farm in the country, around various forms of firearms. Part of my medical training is the effects of various firearms and the injuries they cause. Part of my operational training deals with the aftermath of sudden catastrophic events. I have personally dealt with more gunshot wounds than I can remember. So any argument that I'm some sort of limp wristed gun grabbing liberal do-gooder is pretty well null and void. I am not against private firearm ownership. I am against the private ownership of military type firearms, namely, semi-automatic large capacity rifles, and accessories like folding stocks and suppressors, which have no legitimate application. No where in the constitution does it guarantee unrestricted access to any style firearm that is in production. These weapons contribute not only to the amount of casualties per incident but also in the lethality of the wound. The .223 round and the AR-15 style rifle was specifically designed to produce the best chance of achieving a lethal wound against an armed opponent at medium range. There is no place other than a battlefield that such a weapon is appropriate. The fact that a good proportion of these weapons in private circulation are owned by people who harbor anti-government and by into paranoid ideologies should be a cause for great concern. I have no great use for the term "law abiding citizen" because not only have I seen what supposed "law abiding citizens" are capable of; fist fights, road rage, bar brawls, domestic violence, virulent racist sentiment, just because you've never been convicted of a crime doesn't mean you are any person who should be allowed to own a weapon capable of taking out an armored fire team. I'm not sure which Wal-Marts you've been to, but the people at the Wal-Marts I've been to, the ones getting in pushing matches over the next generation iPad, those are the people who shouldn't be allowed to have access to sporks, let alone a gun. I don't care if they've never been convicted of a crime or not. Nancy Lanza was a law abiding citizen. So was Jared Lee Loughner. So was Charles Whitman. So was Seung-Hui Cho. So was Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. What I think though, what needs to change more than gun laws is gun attitudes. I am so sick of pseudo-macho, jingoistic wannabes and their stupid sayings. I know why guys like that have guns. Its not so they can respond with deadly force if necessary. That's not why they want to bring their concealed weapons to Starbucks or Wal-mart or even on an ambulance. No, they want it for when someone cuts them off in traffic, or calls them an asshole, or spits on them. That's when they want to know they have a gun on them, and they are disgusting people. I am also sick of the NRA. The NRA was once an organization for sportsmen and other firearm enthusiasts. Now it is a haven for domestic extremists and their paranoid, hateful views. If you're a hunter, I suggest joining Ducks Unlimited instead. They're about hunter's rights, wildlife conservation, and you won't find many mentions of the United Nation's invasion plans or who the media's really run by, or where the president was born. The NRA needs to go. What if you substituted flamethrowers for the type of weapons I'm talking about? Flamethrowers are perfectly legal. Flamethrowers have uses other than killing, like clearing brush or doing controlled burns on fields and stuff, and you know, I'm willing to bet they make pretty effective self-defense tools, too. But no one demands they be allowed to walk into Starbucks or Wal-mart with a flamethrower. No one shows up at political rallies with a flamethrower holding up a sign about tyrants. We'd recognize that as really dangerous behaviour. No one says "You can have my flamethrower when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers," and if the guy in front of you in the checkout line was muttering about his concerns of the government taking away his flamethrower, you'd be probably pretty concerned. Well, that's my view on guns, I consider them to be like flamethrowers.

I just want to understand this quote and see if my interpretation of your comments is accurate. Please see my changes in Red. I'm not trying to dis you or your sidearm, that's not what this particular topic is about. It's more regarding assault weapons I believe. I don't really see a big problem with carrying a Glock or a Beretta on your belt. Up here it could only be transported in a lock box to and from a gun range, but I would take issue if you were carrying a P90 around everywhere you went.