Guns in America: Is the Sandy Hook Shooting a Point For Change?

[Miccol]

There is a definite difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle.... The firing rate and overall use of the weapon. Can we agree that most assault/semi-auto weapons were originally militarily based...? Then people argue the second amendment, if we go by that amendment then every person can have an 1800s bayonet that takes 3 minutes to reload if your fast...... My sarcastic point there is that times change. It is very unlikely the founding fathers envisioned allowing assault weapons to the people. At first it was a shooting here and there (at least a major one that wasn't gang or crime related)... Now however it seems as if there is attack after attack. Aurora, Sandyhook, Albuquerque, etc..

On March 13, 1996 there was an elementary school shooting in Scotland (very similar to Sandyhook) the government in the UK then cracked down on gun laws and since then there has been no noticeable shootings.

I think we should give it a try.

[Fermat]

Kids are bringing guns to school.... Teenagers are shooting people. Why don't we start with taking away assault weapons and see what happens?

I'm guessing that a lot of Americans will go nuts because they believe that guns are the only way of protecting themselves.

[Sandwich]

Kids are bringing guns to school.... Teenagers are shooting people. Why don't we start with taking away assault weapons and see what happens?

I'm guessing that a lot of Americans will go nuts because they believe that guns are the only way of protecting themselves.

Ironically also the main reason for this paranoia that they feel they need protection in the first place.

[CJSelf]

We could try that, but define "assault weapon". Aren't all weapons technically "assault weapons", even weapons that are not guns?

... Assault weapons may have a vague specification, but obviously here assault weapons are signifying semi/fully automatic weapons....not pistols or shotguns or other bitch weapons .....derrrrrrrrr!

[Luka Petrovic]

Ultimately I think this debate boils down to a fundamental question. Not if guns if are safe or not (Obviously the more guns there are, the greater the danger), not if this is the result of a societal problem. The question is, who is responsible for your safety and well being? From this i see two factions, those who believe some sort force we put together be it a police force, etc. And then those who believe that their safety is ultimately up to them. These two sides can't really co-exist in the current state, seeing as they do not realize each others pros and cons. Thats my take on it.

[liz_lo]

criminals are criminals. Although guns are one of the more (for lack of a better term) efficient ways of killing people; serious criminals or mentally ill will find an equally fatal alternatives or find access to a gun regardless of the amount of restrictions. Limiting the access to guns might theoretically reduce the amount of shootings but what about the guns currently in circulation? if the government where to confiscate every gun of non-law enforcement,/military even more dangerous riots would emerge. I, myself, am not a fan of how guns are currently regulated but i do not see laws changing anytime in the near future. I do agree that mental testing should be done before the purchase of any gun. It's sad to say even after the deaths of 26 children a culture would not prevent the tragedy from reoccurring

[Tyrex17]

NOTE: I just kinda threw this together. I'm not sure if it makes sense or not. Just wrote as it came to me.

Personally I am all for gun control but as a native of Wyoming for those of you who do not know, Wyoming is very big on gun rights. That, in addition to our low population is why we have the highest ratio of guns to people in the country. Let me explain some of the thinking that goes behind gun rights I have been around firearms all my life. In fact, the vast majority of the state is raised around guns. They are literally part of our culture. We are taught to use them as tools for hunting, rather than weapons for self defense. We realize how lethal they can be and we are raised to treat them with the utmost caution. In larger population centers, that isn't as common. It's much more likely that guns are kept as weapons, if kept at all. That's one reason why I think we as a state and most gun-rights activists have a hard time realizing why they are not very popular everywhere else. Additionally, in getting so worked up about gun control, they fail to take into account the words themselves. It's gun control not gun abolishment.

Non semi automatic hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and small caliber handguns for self defense are really the only acceptable weapons we as civilians should be allowed to possess. Military grade semi automatic weapons as well as high capacity magazines should be banned. There isn't a real, logical use for them, and automatic weapons are should be COMPLETELY out of the question. Yes, I have shot one. Yes, it's fun as hell. But again, there isn't a logical reason for owning them (Russia will not be invading anytime soon), not to mention they are super expensive to maintain.

As for the people who always quote the second amendment, they don't know what they're talking about. The Constitution is the law of the federal government which means that they DO have the right to regulate guns, and since the federal government is superior to the state governments, there's really nothing to be done. Wha-bam.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Tyrex17

[IBidiot]

Shootings actually rarely happen among teenagers and I don't think most of them will be carrying around large assault weapons. If I have a gun and the person next to me has one, it does not mean that we will shoot anyone, even if we get into conflict with them. If one were to evaluate what those shooters had in common, it would be easy to see that each one probably had a mental health issue. Banning guns will probably not get us anywhere (look at chicago: most guns laws, most violations), but perhaps changing the rules and laws to even have a gun could help. Maybe those seeking a permit should also have a mental health evaluation every 5 or whatever years. Taking away the guns is out of the question. I'm sorry. It's just not going to happen (willingly) and for good reason; it's our second amendment right (the vast majority will defend this whether they understand that the government has power over states or not), and after Obama announced his plans for some weapons, sales went up dramatically to the point of ridiculousness. However, if we address the ways or steps one has to go through to have access to guns, maybe that could help.

Edited February 6, 2013 by IBidiot

[IBidiot]

NOTE: I just kinda threw this together. I'm not sure if it makes sense or not. Just wrote as it came to me.

Personally I am all for gun control but as a native of Wyoming for those of you who do not know, Wyoming is very big on gun rights. That, in addition to our low population is why we have the highest ratio of guns to people in the country. Let me explain some of the thinking that goes behind gun rights I have been around firearms all my life. In fact, the vast majority of the state is raised around guns. They are literally part of our culture. We are taught to use them as tools for hunting, rather than weapons for self defense. We realize how lethal they can be and we are raised to treat them with the utmost caution. In larger population centers, that isn't as common. It's much more likely that guns are kept as weapons, if kept at all. That's one reason why I think we as a state and most gun-rights activists have a hard time realizing why they are not very popular everywhere else. Additionally, in getting so worked up about gun control, they fail to take into account the words themselves. It's gun control not gun abolishment.

Non semi automatic hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and small caliber handguns for self defense are really the only acceptable weapons we as civilians should be allowed to possess. Military grade semi automatic weapons as well as high capacity magazines should be banned. There isn't a real, logical use for them, and automatic weapons are should be COMPLETELY out of the question. Yes, I have shot one. Yes, it's fun as hell. But again, there isn't a logical reason for owning them (Russia will not be invading anytime soon), not to mention they are super expensive to maintain.

As for the people who always quote the second amendment, they don't know what they're talking about. The Constitution is the law of the federal government which means that they DO have the right to regulate guns, and since the federal government is superior to the state governments, there's really nothing to be done. Wha-bam.

Perhaps they defend the second amendment because they realize that for the government to even have to audacity to deny that right, means that they should probably be worried. The founders put that in their specifically for the people, as long as it was necessary, and if the people feel that it is right to bear arms, the national government can be overthrown whether they say so or not. That being said, I don't think that there will be any internal wars anytime soon, and with the way the government is portrayed (almost as dictators to control the people, not the other way around as in the people choose the government so that it can serve them) most people will obey without too much resistance. I do get you point, however.

[Guest]

Banning guns will probably cause more problems because Americans seem to love their guns. There are probably going to be huge riots if this is implemented.

Also, if you ban guns, how are you going to round up the millions of guns and ammunition in America? It's going to be a nightmare.

Increasing restrictions? I don't know. There will always be loopholes to exploit no matter how strict the restrictions get.

About banning/restricting assault weapons, the crazies can always turn to other types of guns to cause shootings. Not sure about this.

Armed guards? I read in an article that in real combat, even experienced shooters can miss and do irrational things. Not sure about this too.

Armed teachers? *facepalm* They'll probably end up shooting and killing/wounding one of their own students.

Any sort of restriction/ban will be a great big sucker punch for gun manufacturers/retailers and all businesses that somehow use a gun. I think that with the US still recovering from the 2008 depression, anything that will harm businesses and employment should be carefully avoided.

I'm not against something being done about guns in America, guns are one of the main reasons I don't want to live in the US or go to Uni there, but I just see so many problems with the solutions being thought of and implemented.

Edited February 20, 2013 by JYC

[Tyrex17]

Banning guns will probably cause more problems because Americans seem to love their guns. There are probably going to be huge riots if this is implemented.

Also, if you ban guns, how are you going to round up the millions of guns and ammunition in America? It's going to be a nightmare.

Increasing restrictions? I don't know. There will always be loopholes to exploit no matter how strict the restrictions get.

About banning/restricting assault weapons, the crazies can always turn to other types of guns to cause shootings. Not sure about this.

Armed guards? I read in an article that in real combat, even experienced shooters can miss and do irrational things. Not sure about this too.

Armed teachers? *facepalm* They'll probably end up shooting and killing/wounding one of their own students.

Any sort of restriction/ban will be a great big sucker punch for gun manufacturers/retailers and all businesses that somehow use a gun. I think that with the US still recovering from the 2008 depression, anything that will harm businesses and employment should be carefully avoided.

I'm not against something being done about guns in America, guns are one of the main reasons I don't want to live in the US or go to Uni there, but I just see so many problems with the solutions being thought of and implemented.

I agree with everything you said but the reason they want to restrict assault weapons (full and semi automatic rifles) and high cap mags is because they are much more lethal against large groups of people as they have a much higher rate of fire. If the shooter was stuck with say...a bolt action rifle he would have to fire, pull the bolt back which ejects the empty cartridge, and slide it forward again chambering a new bullet compared to pulling it rapidly or just holding the trigger down and spraying indiscriminately. I'm not sure I completely understand it myself because semiautomatic pistols and shotguns are just as readily available and they aren't attempting to do anything with those weapons.

And don't use guns as a reason for not going to the U.S. If they are used safely and responsibly by people who are psychologically sound with no intent to kill anybody, they really aren't bad.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Tyrex17

[Guest]

I agree with everything you said but the reason they want to restrict assault weapons (full and semi automatic rifles) and high cap mags is because they are much more lethal against large groups of people as they have a much higher rate of fire. If the shooter was stuck with say...a bolt action rifle he would have to fire, pull the bolt back which ejects the empty cartridge, and slide it forward again chambering a new bullet compared to pulling it rapidly or just holding the trigger down and spraying indiscriminately. I'm not sure I completely understand it myself because semiautomatic pistols and shotguns are just as readily available and they aren't attempting to do anything with those weapons.

And don't use guns as a reason for not going to the U.S. If they are used safely and responsibly by people who are psychologically sound with no intent to kill anybody, they really aren't bad.

Well, guns from an American's perspective is usually not bad if they are used safely....but from someone who has never lived in a society where guns are legal....they'd probably be pretty scared about living in a society where guns are legal.

Just a matter of where you grew up in and what you get used to. Not disagreeing with you, just another perspective.

And about alternative firearms, well I think its quite possible to have mass murders with semi-automatic pistols and shotguns and even pump-action shotguns.

Bolt-action rifles? I think the crazy guy would start sniping people.

If I'm wrong correct me, you can get submachine guns and machine pistols in America right? They're pretty automatic too. Crazies would probably turn to that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that the government should place more heavy punishments on gun crimes.

Eg: if you get caught committing a crime with a gun, irregardless of whether you used it or not, 30~50 years should be added to your time in jail. No compromises.

Maybe that will be a big enough disincentive?

[swVen]

Well, guns from an American's perspective is usually not bad if they are used safely....but from someone who has never lived in a society where guns are legal....they'd probably be pretty scared about living in a society where guns are legal.

Just a matter of where you grew up in and what you get used to. Not disagreeing with you, just another perspective.

And about alternative firearms, well I think its quite possible to have mass murders with semi-automatic pistols and shotguns and even pump-action shotguns.

Bolt-action rifles? I think the crazy guy would start sniping people.

If I'm wrong correct me, you can get submachine guns and machine pistols in America right? They're pretty automatic too. Crazies would probably turn to that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that the government should place more heavy punishments on gun crimes.

Eg: if you get caught committing a crime with a gun, irregardless of whether you used it or not, 30~50 years should be added to your time in jail. No compromises.

Maybe that will be a big enough disincentive?

Well, I guess I might as well interject my opinion on this. As some have previously replied above, I do believe in the advocacy of legislation and restriction of the people, not the weapons.

And, to address the question of Machine Pistols and Submachine guns. No, you cannot legally purchase a fully automatic weapon, (well, not really "out of the box" in terms of if you can just walk in and purchase, there are quite a few things you'll have to settle with. It includes a $200 one-time payment, 30 day FBI background check, psychological test, and on and on.

And here's my little opinion, and I'll probably put down my background:

- Northern Virginia, Mostly Liberal

- Military Family,Conservative

- US Army JROTC Air Rifles Team

- US Army Cadet Corps

- Political affiliation, Conservative

- Major sports, Triathalon, Hunting, Bowfishing

Well, basically for me, I see that while we could enact legislation, our, (the US) society is so ingratiated with Firearms culture, and that already firearms have been sold around, there's nothing much be can do. It's kinda like cracking open Pandora, and trying to put everything back in.Not that I want a guns-Pandora analogy, but hopefully it gives a grasp of how difficult it is to revert and possibly repair the situation as it stands now.

For me on the Assault rifle issue, I feel like it would be extremely restricted, maybe to a point where it is purchasable, but extremely difficult. Probably on the same level as purchasing a machine gun, (Uncle owns a Gunsmithing Business, and a M2 Decomissioned Browning. Told him it was a pain in the *** to get it.)

Atleast have a 20 round magazine restriction, semi-automatic selling, that's my opinion. Those 30 rounds, 100 round mags. are just ridiculous.

I personally own a 20 round AR-15, but, I guess you could say I'm a "special case". I only shoot it to keep my skills sharp, and being mentored by relatives on proper military shooting, shooting drills, etc. I don't do it "for the lulz", and I keep it locked tight.

Ultimately, it's the people. And, it's just a pit the US has placed itself and the society.

[IBidiot]

Hands down, even if you tell people who feel they are entitled to owning a weapon that they can't own a gun anymore, that won't stop many. Gun restriction is punishing very few offenders and a lot of good people who obey the law. Just like the drug trade, if you want a hard drug, you're going to get some; if you want a gun, you will get one. The illegal selling of certain guns will certainly be profitable for those who take advantage of any law prohibiting certain guns.

Oh and for those people who keep making comments about how Americans love their guns, stop. That's a generalisation and an arrogant comment. The reason that they are even considering banning guns is because many citizens of the United States do not love guns, hence the argument within the states. No offense but sheesh.

[Sandwich]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23691146

...

Honestly though, what's wrong with Illinois that people think they have to carry concealed handguns around?

[Luka Petrovic]

Personally I wouldn't conceal carry any weapon (that's what my fists are for, just kidding ) as where I live feels safe and its not even legal, but lets pretend it was. it's a lot of responsibility and risk and well I would probably get tired of carrying a clunky I thing either under my arm or on my belt.

That being said I speak for myself and my personal experience which I am very lucky to have. Many people don't have it as well off. I am not sure about Illinois, but I know that places like Detroit Michigan are basically collapsing societies. In Detroit, it takes police on average over 50 minutes to respond to a 911 call. What that means is, if you hav a break and enter, and you call the police, you are on your own for what could be an hour. So it's not even a matter of right wing or left wing politics, it's a practical necessity to survive. Of course people don't agree in California, New York, Canada, the UK etc because they are great and safe places to live where you don't need guns.

[Guest Positron]

The odds of dying in an assault by firearm is over 1000 times greater than dying as a result of terrorism in the USA.

In the USA, there are annually about 11 000 gun homicides, over 50 000 non-fatal gun injuries, over 130 000 gun aggravated assaults, and over 120 000 gun aggravated robberies. In 2012, 10 private US citizens were killed, two were injured, and three were kidnapped by terrorists. The death rate is about the same as the number of people killed by vending machines each year (13).

I find it tragicomic how the same people are eager to pass any law restricting privacy in the name of national security, but will fight to death to stop any law from passing that would increase gun control. Seriously, the US spies on people's emails, internet use, phone calls, EVERYTHING, yet they can't even implement a register of people owning guns? If national security is what you want, gun control should be on the very top of your list.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Positron

[Luka Petrovic]

The odds of dying in an assault by firearm is over 1000 times greater than dying as a result of terrorism in the USA.

In the USA, there are annually about 11 000 gun homicides, over 50 000 non-fatal gun injuries, over 130 000 gun aggravated assaults, and over 120 000 gun aggravated robberies. In 2012, 10 private US citizens were killed, two were injured, and three were kidnapped by terrorists. The death rate is about the same as the number of people killed by vending machines each year (13).

I find it tragicomic how the same people are eager to pass any law restricting privacy in the name of national security, but will fight to death to stop any law from passing that would increase gun control. Seriously, it's justified to spy on people's emails, internet use, phone calls, EVERYTHING, but it's unthinkable to even have a register of people who own guns? If national security is what you want, gun control should be on the very top of your list.

The entire point is to have less government control... No one reading your email, no one keeping track/ controlling your firearms. There is no logic to what the US government does, look at what the people have to say, usually makes more sense.... If its coming from someone who actually reads politics, doesn't just browse the "news" ( CNN and FOX are a joke)