What is your standpoint on gun control?

1. 59

   adamknowsposted 12 years ago

   What is your standpoint on gun control?

   replyreport
2. 58

   mio cidposted 12 years ago

   I believe in the second amendment , and the right to bear arms should be protected. I also support the Brady group, and the policies promoted by mayor Bloomberg.

   replyreport
3. 73

   Jennifer Madisonposted 12 years ago

   I believe after the multiple high school shootings, gun control should be much stricter.

   replyreport
4. 81

   Attikosposted 12 years ago

   People have a natural right to the means of self-defense. That can be operationally defined in a number of ways, but possession of small arms designed for the purpose is how Americans traditionally see it. Europeans typically have different cultural histories and attitudes.
   
   US statists whose objective  is suppression of that right are opportunistic. They have their materials prepared, waiting on the shelf, and they always seize on incidents e.g. the one in Colorado to publish them in order to push their political agenda. In this case, that reaction was underway figuratively before the smoke cleared. They have no scruples about it at all, no time for reflection or mourning, no respect for dissent from their own opinions. Their view is that they will not allow a good killing to go to waste.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.

      replyreport
5. 0

   rickyliceaposted 12 years ago

   It's impossible. Just like making drugs illegal, it would make things worse than they are now.
   Some say that prohibition actually increased the amount of people drinking alcohol.
   However, it should be a regulated industry, where felons can't buy guns. Regulations could be tweaked to detect someone buying a horde of weapons.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Both those laws are already in place.

      replyreport
   2. 38

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      they are in place but not well enforced, there are many loopholes in laws that need to be closed.  For example it's much easier to get guns at gun shows than in a store etc.  Online, how could he buy that much ammo and not trip a red alert? senseless

      replyreport
6. 70

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   
   
   Is it a death-obsessed culture and not gun rights to blame for Batman Shooting?
   
   Or was this unemployed student a Manchurian Man because  there is no way this kid could afford all of the following: "Glock G22,  Glock G23, Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge, Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle, bulletproof vest and riot-type ballistic helmet/mask, military SWAT clothing  as well as leg, groin and throat protectors.."
   
   That adds up to $20,000! Where did he get the money? Where did he get the enterprise to build a series of IED's that the bomb expert has "never seen before"??????????
   
   A second man is now a person-of-interest in the Aurora theater shooting investigation.  - probably the guy who was to end brain-washed killer life - perhaps the shooter recognized he demise and snapped out of his trigger-program.
   
   I will right a hub on this but waiting to see how long this guy lives in (police?) custody - because there is no mug shot of him yet. Where is he being detained? - or debriefed, deprogrammed, reprogrammed.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting thought. I've no idea if it's true. Though rather cynical about acts revolving around political hot button issues, the possibility hadn't so much as occurred to me. I have to admit there are open questions about this case.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Equipment list is only 5k. Would not be difficult for him to have that amount of credit. While booby-traps sound like they were elaborate, there isn't any evidence, so far, that they were exotic or expensive.

      replyreport
7. 38

   ChristinSposted 12 years ago

   my personal belief is rather than trying to pass more gun laws - enforce the ones we have and close the loopholes that allow for people to have much easier access than they should. 
   
   Like any other area, you have your people that are too far to either direction.  I grew up around guns, but I choose not to own them.  I also have enough common sense to know that people don't need assault rifles for self-defense and hunting etc.
   
   I think we can keep guns in common sense ways, but common sense has seem to run astray with things like "stand your ground" and how easy it is to purchase at gun shows etc.  Guns are deadly weapons and they need enforced regulation - but no one should have to give up their guns etc. 
   
   There are always "grey areas" but people who engage in this argument rarely see them.

   replyreport
8. 68

   Bretsukiposted 12 years ago

   I would guess this question is raised because of the Colorado cinema shootings?
   
   The problem is with creating gun control legislation after such an incident is that law makers cannot legislate for all probabilities. The gun man in this case bought the guns and ammunition legally, along with body armor.
   
   OK so where do we legislate? The type of guns were legal in many states, the amount of ammunition, several thousand rounds, could be reasonable if he ws a competitive shooter. One might even claim the purchase of body armor could be reasonable if he felt he needed it.
   
   Only with hindsight can we see the route taken by the gunman.
   
   Calling for knee-jerk legislation for this incidents particular situations only leads to the creation of bad laws which prove impossible to enforce and therefore waste time.  The ultimate gun control legislation would be the removal of the Second Ammendment. Complete prohibition of guns and making them difficult to obtain. The problem is the complete prohibition of any desired product is impossible and repeal of such an important ammendment  would be impossible.

   replyreport
9. 52

   whonunuwhoposted 12 years ago

   According to the World Health Organization:2.5 million deaths contributed each year to alcohol, 1.26 million world wide due to automobiles, 250,000 drug related deaths, and 30,000 gun related deaths per year. My feelings about gun control apply to personal gun ownership and would be permissible if kept in the home or in target shooting in safe places and hunting in designated permissible areas. Gun possession in public places should not be permitted and prevented as much as possible with stiff fines or jail. Policemen should be the only ones allowed to carry weapons in the form of fire arms. Mace, sprays and warning systems that are utilized by citizens should be enough for defense in public places. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. More strict laws concerning gun buying and ownership should be emphasized and always in place. Guns in the home where there are kids should be kept under lock and key.

   replyreport
10. 59

    KK Trainorposted 12 years ago

    I find it disgusting that the politicians and media are pouncing, once again, on a tragic incident in order to declare that guns are too dangerous for us average Americans to handle. If Colorado allowed concealed carry licenses then someone in the theatre may have been able to take the shooter out before he killed and wounded so many people. There are good people out there across the country who own weapons and would defend the innocent if allowed. Those stories never make the news because the tragedy is averted, but they happen every day.
    
    Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in this country and the highest murder rate. You can't legislate safety or human behavior. Nutjobs are everywhere too, and they can't be an excuse for the rest of us to be denied our rights. We deal with the consequences of their actions and then hope it doesn't happen again.

    replyreport
11. 73

    stanwshuraposted 12 years ago

    Believe it or not, I had no inate or visceral position on this until, maybe 20 years ago now, I became aware of this strange (to me) great divide within the American populace.  Why did I have no opinion?  Because I was naive and idealistic and assumed that the "bad guys" got their guns the same way they get their money, drugs, cars, clothes, bling, et cetera:  I have no idea.
    
    I likewise assumed that non-"bad guy" gun owners were rural folk and hunters, police (I *said* I was naive!), and young, unworldly, newly urban women with no self-defense training who would shake and fumble with her firearm should she ever be in real danger, and maybe your hard-working store owners in "bad" neighborhoods.
    
    My current position is that this is a ridiculous and needlessly divisive issue.  Hunting (legal, licensed, in season, et.c.), self-defense (and I include law enforcement here as only in defense of a genuinely endangered life should a cop EVER discharge his/her weapon), and licensed and regularly monitored "sport/skill" shooting - skeet, target, et.c. are the ONLY legitimate civilian uses of a firearm, and in NONE of these contexts are automatic or semi-automatic weapons and/or "silencers" or armor-piercing ammunition appropriate, safe, necessary or, no matter what piss-poor, chest-pounding, flag-waving nonsense might be uttered in rebuttal, the least bit acceptable.  ALL gun owners should be of sound mind, have certifiably demonstrated their knowledge, skill and confident and restrained use of their weapon, and have NO history of violent or illegal use of firearms.

    replyreport
    1. 38

       ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       absolutely!

       replyreport
12. 77

    junksellerposted 12 years ago

    The AR-15 used by Holmes in the Colorado shooting, and the Ruger Mini-14 used by Breivik in Norway are tactical rifles. They are essentially designed and intended to do exactly what these two killers did with them--place highly accurate, rapid fire into the flesh of living creatures with the intent of causing severe harm. With the use of a 100 round drum, it is estimated that Holmes was able to fire at a rate 0f 50-60 bullets a minute.
    
    The only question we need to ask ourselves is whether we want to have these weapons so easily accessible. That doesn't necessarily mean a ban, it simply means we should look at the pathways by which these weapons move from factory to human and figure out a way to make sure they are placed and stay in the hands of responsible owners. To me that would require registration of all firearms, licensing for all purchases, transfer of ownership from all sales, background checks for all sales, better background checks (including mental health information), proper training, and severe punishments for anyone who can not account for weapons in their name.
    
    The NRA seems to take a position that anything other than complete and free access to firearms is unacceptable. This position is unreasonable and I will not ever vote for someone who supports this position. That doesn't mean I dislike the second amendment. It just means I am tired of gun violence and I refuse to support anyone who won't at least talk about gun regulation.

    replyreport
13. 0

    Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

    My stance is keep it on safe and in the holster.

    replyreport