Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

[DFIB]

This type of event is rare in a country like Norway. In other words an exception or a statistical outlier. However, such events are at a point where I would almost call them common in the United States. Such events have occurred multiple times over the past 15 years. It is not valid to compare isolated incidents in other countries to an event that continues to occur on a regular basis in the United States.

Edit: I am aware of the high levels of gun ownership in Norway; however, the stipulations such as mandatory gun safes and so on that go along with said ownership are not an inherent component of ownership requirements in the United States.

We must take into account that the USA has 314,000,000 people in it. That would skew they outlier theory a little

EDIT: I went back and read your other post. Got it.

Edited December 19, 2012 by DFIB

[Happiness]

Perhaps I did not explain my point clearly? I am not buying all the comparisions I see people making to countries such as Norway and Switzerland where gun ownership is high but gun violence is low. Unfortunately, I see people pointing to these countries as justification for the United States to not consider changes. However, what many people fail to appreciate is that the high rates of ownership come with many laws, stipulations and regulations. However, I rarely see people point that side of the coin out. Once again, this makes the situation in the United States unique among other "post-industrial" nations.

Thank you for making this clearer. I think what has to be noted is that it maybe because of these many laws etc that there is a lower chance for lack of a better word of these mass shootings happening, but then again maybe not. I do not think that guns should be banned but I do think that there is no reason for the average joe to own an assult rifle EVER. I do think that there should be more regulations in the States for people to own guns and maybe the back ground checks should be to the point of trying to aquire a security clearance, where they go and talk to the neighbours etc.

For those that want to go on a killing spree they are going to get the gun anyways and that is just a fact of life, but if they are illegal then maybe they will be just that little bit harder to get.

It is very difficult to actually think straight about the whole thing as when you do all you see are beautiful little children that will never grow up. I have actually been avoiding news for a few days but today when I read the story of the little 6 yr old that pretended to be dead, and then ran out of the school covered in blood saying "Mommy Im okay but my friends are dead" just breaks my heart.

[DFIB]

We need to start seriously talking about gun control in a rational manner. It does not mean taking away everyones guns.

There are plenty of people that jump on the second amendment. Keep the second amendment in the proper frame. In the 1700s people used their guns for food, protection from parties (Indians, French, British, etc) when the goverment could not provide that protection. They also were dealing with single shot, smoothe barrel, rifles that had the accuracy of a sling shot when they actually fired. The founding fathers were smart guys and knew that times would change. Thomas Jefferson felt that any constitution would be worthless after 19 years and would need to be rewritten by each generation. In the end, we were given the amendment process, which allows a new amendment to overrule a previous amendment. It would be interesting if we could resurect one of the writers and get their impression on our current weapons technology (as well as several other issues). I would guess that they would say, "Hey, it's up to you guys. We dealt with what we had to in our time, you have to deal with your time. That is why we gave you an amendment process."

Hey Doc, I found a little time.

There are several things that I think we should consider when we think of the 1700's. Everything you mentioned is true but I would interject that the founders had also just defeated the tyranny of England and this surely influenced their thinking. The idea of the 2nd amendment, as I understand it, and I am by no means a constitutional expert,was as much to protect from tyrannical governments as the other threats you mentioned. That anti-federalist ideology, I think, is alive and wel, even today. I do not diminish your threat list but would simply expand it.

It is also true that they were armed with weapons that are infinitely inferior to what exist now. I would simply note that the armament in the 1700's was proportional to the threat. So to speak, tyrant armies had the same single shots as the citizens. So in essence we could say that proportionality could continue to be a factor if it is perceived that the Amendment included protecting against tyrannical governments as well.

There are tons of gun laws already in existence that are not enforced or totally ignored. This creates the question, do we need discuss the constitution or the failure in enforcing existing laws?

Dialog is important. I am afraid that there are too many interest involved to come to a reasonable conclusion.

[Arctickat]

Dialog is important. I am afraid that there are too many interests involved to come to a reasonable conclusion.

A reasonable conclusion or a conclusion for a reasonable person?

[chbare]

Another issue as stated is government enforcement and government involvement in our lives. The United States government has a less than stellar record of dealing with guns, so a certain amount of concern about how a new set of laws/restrictions would actually be managed is certainly valid.

[Secouriste]

A 11-yo boy brings caliber .22 to school, "for protection"...

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-12-19/11-year-old-brings-weapon-to-school-for-protection/

[spenac]

A reasonable conclusion or a conclusion for a reasonable person?

Who is reasonable? That is way to open for opinion. It along with gun control, politics, etc will be hard to honestly determine. I would say you are extreme. You would say I am extreme. So who is reasonable? Just another unsolvable debate. The only fact is that knee jerk reactions often lead to consequences not intended by those writing laws and policy.

[Arctickat]

Oh, I agree SPENAC. I am on the extreme end of my spectrum and if the government were to force me to buy any firearm, especially an assault weapon I would probably be just as pissed as you would be if these weapons became regulated. No doubt my opinion is as unreasonable to some as yours is to others. The thing is that your extreme end of the spectrum is already what the current practice in law is and there is a long way to go to meet in the middle.

Canadians have firearms all over the place, we don't have issues with needing to protect ourselves like the States has. Unfortunately, I don't see the U.S. ever digging out of this hole. Perhaps I've lost the faith in my Southern neighbours. The criminal element already has access to all of these weapons and placing any restriction on the law abiding individuals will ultimately place them at risk.

I truly believe you do need a gun for protection because the U.S. has created this conundrum for itself and it will continue to spiral out of control. The insecurity of the average American citizen has resulted in an arms race between them and the criminal element. You don't need firearms to protect yourselves from invaders as is the intent of the 2nd amendment, you need them to protect you from yourselves from the vicious circle you've created.

Regardless, more and more people are going to die, many of them innocent.

[island emt]

There are some places that a handgun for personal protection is a necessity . I've had places I worked in the past that we had a CC permit to carry while at work,[major industrialized northeast city]. The criminal element there came out after dark and robberies car jackings and muggings were skyrocketing in the 80's.

Murders happened daily. We lived in a small city north of there that had slowly deteriorated and become a place where I did keep a pistol within hands reach of my bed at night, due to all the break ins. That was the point when my wife & I decided to move North and get away from the senseless violence & crime.

Here the occasional kid stealing change or laptops knows that the odds are high that he will encounter a homeowner that is armed and not afraid to let the lead fly.

It does cut down on the crime rate to an extent.

Now back to the original topic:: I have never seen a hunter in the fields or woods carrying a semi automatic assault rifle. Been around guns all my life. My Father was a salesman for a major sporting arms manufacturer based in New England till he retired as president of the company in the mid 80's.

I grew up target shooting and hunting for food & sport.. Had a rifle range in the back yard.

There is no need for assault weapons to be in the hands of folks with mental impairment or even the average Joe gun enthusiast.

[fab]

Why not make it obligatory to carry arms? Wouldn't that be wonderful, imagine all of the teachers armed, the school kids... How far would he have gotten?

Come on, how can you defend gun ownership and put many lives at stake eyes wide open?

Just answer one question: why do you personally need to carry a weapon?

Anyways, I guess these mass murders are simply the tip of the ice berg, they only account for a small percentage of homicides. But it's quite funny to see that Afghanistan has a lower homicide rate than the States. It does make you wonder. Surely it's not only linked to the high number of weapons and lax laws, but changing those two parameters could have a great impact.

I would say you are extreme. You would say I am extreme. So who is reasonable? Just another unsolvable debate.

Saydly that's probably the only fact we can agree to.