second amendment

[CptStern]

Many shootings where the shooter got the gun legally happened because the gun dealer did not do the proper checks, like a background check and a medical history. Take V-Tech; if the gun dealer had checked his medical history, he would have seen the history of a mental problem.

If psychological exams were required to possess a weapon, the amount of criminals with legal guns would decrease dramatically.

not the gun dealer:

The report also confirmed that Cho was able to purchase two guns in violation of federal law because of Virginia's inadequate background check requirements

blame the state for not having enough gun control



oh and people who have the proper documentation still commit crimes

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

not too mention that on average 300,000+ guns are stolen each year

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

 

[Kinslayer]

not the gun dealer:

blame the state for not having enough gun control

Still a problem easily resolved. My point stands.

oh and people who have the proper documentation still commit crimes

But after they commit a crime they won't have the proper documentation anymore. Not to mention that people who DON'T have the proper documentation still commit crimes, so it would nonetheless cut down on it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Again, this is a problem with the legal system of obtaining guns. If this were fixed, criminals who didn't have the connections to get guns illegally would not have them anymore.

not too mention that on average 300,000+ guns are stolen each year

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

Nothing you can do about this except encourage gun owners to lock their stuff up or get an adequate alarm system. Unless you have a grand idea to stop burglary altogether.

Edit: Unless that implanted locking-chip thing ever comes into production.

 

[No Limit]

He basically fired a burst or two then shot himself. No time for anyone to react. If he had instead kept shooting, I'm sure something would have happened.

Umm...you can't just make shit up. Wikipedia says the shooting lasted at least 6 minutes. 6 minutes is a very long time. So try again.

One guy would have been shot and killed. Instead four were wounded.

Wounded critically. One of them shot in the head. Do I need to find another story where someone actually died as a result of a shootout? How about you find one where your rambo scenerio actually played out.

 

[CptStern]

Still a problem easily resolved. My point stands.

not really because as I've already proved crimes are commited with legally obtained firearms

But after they commit a crime they won't have the proper documentation anymore.

that distinction is lost on the victems

Again, this is a problem with the legal system of obtaining guns. If this were fixed, criminals who didn't have the connections to get guns illegally would not have them anymore.

I dont understand this last sentence, come again?

Nothing you can do about this except encourage gun owners to lock their stuff up or get an adequate alarm system. Unless you have a grand idea to stop burglary altogether.

if guns are for home defense then they're ineffective locked away ..and if they're not locked away then they're still a danger. And simply ignoring the problem does not in any way dismiss it as a valid argument. They still have access to legal firearms

 

[Kinslayer]

Umm...you can't just make shit up. Wikipedia says the shooting lasted at least 6 minutes. 6 minutes is a very long time. So try again.



Wounded critically. One of them shot in the head. Do I need to find another story where someone actually died as a result of a shootout? How about you find one where your rambo scenerio actually played out.

Cite sources, please. Neither of your articles which you cited said anything about either of those.

By the way, you're dead wrong on the first article. From your own source.

"All of us were slightly confused because we didn't know what it was," said mall employee Charissa Tatoon about the first burst of gunfire.

"Immediately after that, there was a series of maybe 20 to 25 more shots up on the third floor.

He expended the majority of one magazine (estimation is an eyewitness account, may be slightly off), then shot himself. Doesn't take a long time with a full-auto rifle.

The shootings began about 1:42 p.m. Seven people were found dead at the scene by officers arriving six minutes later; two others, a male and a female, died after being transported to Creighton University Medical Center, said Fire Chief Robert Dahlquist.

THE OFFICERS arrived after six minutes. Please, actually read the articles you cite.

The second article says nothing about anyone dying, and nor can either of us speculate on what would've happened after he shot the owner.

not really because as I've already proved crimes are commited with legally obtained firearms

And fewer crimes would be committed if the background check laws were followed.

that distinction is lost on the victems

Read my edit in my previous post.

I dont understand this last sentence, come again?

If states followed the background check laws, fewer criminals would have legally obtained firearms.

if guns are for home defense then they're ineffective locked away ..and if they're not locked away then they're still a danger. And simply ignoring the problem does not in any way dismiss it as a valid argument. They still have access to legal firearms

Have it in reach when at home, locked away when not. Burglar breaks in when you're home, he's not getting it. Burglar breaks in when you're not home, he's still not getting it.

 

[No Limit]

Yeah, the officers showed up after 6 minutes and that's when he shot himself, because there were no heros with concealed carry permits that day (they all took off along with everyone else, bullets flying at you is kind of scary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting

At approximately 1:43 p.m. CST (19:43 UTC), Robert Hawkins stepped out of the elevator on the third floor and opened fire. He killed eight people and wounded four others over the course of six minutes, before dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head near the customer service desk

I told you my source above, sorry I forgot to link to it. Wikipedia cites the sources which you can read yourself.

So again, explain why in that 6 minutes nobody saved the day; the cops had to come instead and put an end to it.

 

[Kinslayer]

Yeah, the officers showed up after 6 minutes and that's when he shot himself, because there were no heros with concealed carry permits that day (they all took off along with everyone else, bullets flying at you is kind of scary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting



I told you my source above, sorry I forgot to link to it. Wikipedia cites the sources which you can read yourself.

So again, explain why in that 6 minutes nobody saved the day; the cops had to come instead and put an end to it.

The first 911 call came in at 1:42 p.m., and the shooting was already over when police arrived six minutes later, authorities said.

In all, police say, more than 30 rounds were fired ? with victims apparently chosen at random.

30 rounds over 6 minutes; he should have had better aim than 13 casualties, eh?

Later, she told the dispatcher she'd moved into the security office -- where she appears to have seen Hawkins' dead body on a surveillance camera.

"Oh my gosh! It looks like the gun is laying over by customer service -- it looks like he might have killed himself," she said, breaking into tears. "I see him laying by the gun!"

Conclusion: He killed himself before police arrived.

 

[No Limit]

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

During the entire 70 seconds of that first call, all the dispatcher heard was gunshots. Audio tapes and transcripts of the 911 calls, along with images captured by mall security surveillance cameras, were released by the police on December 7, 2007.[16]

That's atleast 70 seconds. And thats after the first call was made, so it would have to be quite a bit more than 70 seconds.

 

[Kinslayer]

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

That's atleast 70 seconds. And thats after the first call was made, so it would have to be quite a bit more than 70 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

I'm getting tired of you ignoring every word and reading what you want to read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1NKRqLAno

Here's the FIRST 911 call. The time matches: 70 seconds is 1:10.

During the entire 70 seconds of that first call, all the dispatcher heard was gunshots.

ENTIRE 70 SECONDS. Meaning 70 second call. And the caller in the video reported seeing the guy kill himself at 40 seconds. There were about 15 gunshots in the video, 15 less than reported by police. As a high estimate, that took about 20-30 seconds. So the shooting could not have gone on for more than 90 seconds, 40 seconds of the call + 20 seconds of the other 15ish shots + the time it took for the person to get to a phone.

You can also tell that this was one of the first calls because the guy didn't know what was going on when he heard gunshots. If others had called, he would have been aware of it.

This might actually be the first call, as you hear about 10-15 shots in the video and the caller reports 10-15 shots.

 

[CptStern]

And fewer crimes would be committed if the background check laws were followed.

it didnt require that background check so the gun dealer was following the law as provided.

Read my edit in my previous post.

what you are in essence are saying is that with tigher control comes less crime ..extending that logic further one could rightfully conclude that if guns were banned all together then crime would decrease relative to the gun ban.

If states followed the background check laws, fewer criminals would have legally obtained firearms.

and if they had no access to guns, fewer criminals would have legally (or illegall) obtained firearms. the choice has always been pretty obvious here. I mean you really dont have think to hard as to how to dramatically decrease gun crime

Have it in reach when at home, locked away when not. Burglar breaks in when you're home, he's not getting it. Burglar breaks in when you're not home, he's still not getting it.

which means it's alo in reach to anyone in th ehome, which could include children, the elderly, simians with itchy trigger fingers. Outside of a safe it's a danger, inside it prevents it from being used for what many gun owners claim to be their right: self protection

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Now picture this- another conventional army is able to invade the united states due to a thinly stretched US army in the hypothetical future "World in Conflict style".

Now first strike may get foreign troops occupying inland, but this cannot last. Americans will heavily resist in urban and particularly rural areas. Hamas, Iraqi Militias- none of them will come close to whats capable of happening in America resistance wise. ESPECIALLY if the US military even provides what tactical aid they can to American militias resisting a first strike.

So yes, it is necessary for the security of a free state. And as was meant by our forefathers as well they are necessary for personal security as well.

 

[Cornerstone]

Pascal's wager for gun rights is the best you can come up with?

 

[No Limit]

So the shooting could not have gone on for more than 90 seconds

I won't get in a pissing match with you on the details, in fact I already gave you 70 seconds above. Okay, lets say it was 90 seconds. Plenty of time for a hero with a carry permit to respond. So back to my question, why did nobody save the day? If you need context for how much 90 seconds is start counting to it now and see how long it takes.

 

[jverne]

Now picture this- another conventional army is able to invade the united states due to a thinly stretched US army in the hypothetical future "World in Conflict style".

Now first strike may get foreign troops occupying inland, but this cannot last. Americans will heavily resist in urban and particularly rural areas. Hamas, Iraqi Militias- none of them will come close to whats capable of happening in America resistance wise. ESPECIALLY if the US military even provides what tactical aid they can to American militias resisting a first strike.

So yes, it is necessary for the security of a free state. And as was meant by our forefathers as well they are necessary for personal security as well.

sure, maybe.


but what would you do if your government went totalitarian (gradually) on your asses? would you revolt? if the right to bear arm would be taken away...would you make an armed revolt?

 

[Cornerstone]

If you need context for how much 90 seconds is start counting to it now and see how long it takes.

That is absolutely absurd. You fail to take into consideration the body's natural fight or flight response with the release of epi/adrenaline in sympathetic nervous system. Have someone firing bullets around you and see how 90 seconds appear under extreme stress.

 

[Eejit]

Now picture this- another conventional army is able to invade the united states due to a thinly stretched US army in the hypothetical future "World in Conflict style".

Now first strike may get foreign troops occupying inland, but this cannot last. Americans will heavily resist in urban and particularly rural areas. Hamas, Iraqi Militias- none of them will come close to whats capable of happening in America resistance wise. ESPECIALLY if the US military even provides what tactical aid they can to American militias resisting a first strike.

So yes, it is necessary for the security of a free state. And as was meant by our forefathers as well they are necessary for personal security as well.

Someone's been watching too many Michael Bay films.

Not even worth discussing a hypothetical scenario so very, very unlikely in this thread. It's just gun-nut wish fulfilment wet/day-dreams.

 

[No Limit]

That is absolutely absurd. You fail to take into consideration the body's natural fight or flight response with the release of epi/adrenaline in sympathetic nervous system. Have someone firing bullets around you and see how 90 seconds appear under extreme stress.

Well see that's kind of my point. Any normal person that hears gun shots being fired will flee long before they fight, even if they happen to be packing heat. The only cases of where I have heard different (although Im sure there might be other isolated cases) was when an off-duty cop was involved since cops are trained to deal with a situation like that.

What I am trying to explain to rambo over there is that 90 seconds is more than enough to respond; but for some reason nobody responded (because they were all too busy shiting their pants while running for the nearest exit). And lets remember this is in nebraska, I would guess every women, man, and child was packing heat that day. Anyone that thinks they would save the day in that situation has seen way too many Bruce Willis movies and needs to grow up.

 

[Krynn72]

I agree with No Limit's post above me. Not many people will actually react in a way that protects themselves or others unless they are trained to do so and have the "I'm responsible for the safety of these people" mentality of Police officers and security personnel. And the few times it does occur doesn't nearly outweigh the negatives.

I support dissolving the second amendment, but it will have to happen over the course of like, 80 years. I believe that anything even slightly drastic may spark a revolt. I mean, most of the gun owners believe the second amendment is still valid, so when the government tries to take it away (for the safety of its citizens) then that will appear to the gun nuts as an action intended to be stopped with the second amendment. I really doubt there would be large scale riots, but once they feel backed into a corner, things may get nasty.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm glad you brought this point to the discussion. yes there was a rise in the consumption however most of it was home made, only a small portion of the booze during prohibition came from canada. Same would be true for guns, except you cant make a gun in your garage ...so simply taking this into account it stands to reason that over time the amount of guns in the US would drastically reduce

Guns are not consumables, there is no need to produce new guns there are already a suficient quantity in the world (1 for every 12 people) and ammunititon is fairly easy to make at home.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

sure, maybe.


but what would you do if your government went totalitarian (gradually) on your asses? would you revolt? if the right to bear arm would be taken away...would you make an armed revolt?

I think state gvts. would do so first. I would. If anything like that does happen in the future it will just take either a state/states or one group that's already a bit extreme to spark it but once it's sparked if it's justifiable the populace will join in.

 

[Saturos]

True you can't make a gun in your garage but the criminal organizations made boatloads of money during the prohibition. If you ban guns the same thing will happen--drug organizations and the black market will flourish. You can't outlaw guns, because people will then just turn to the outlaws to get them.

^This

 

[Solaris]

But we have very few guns in Britian.

 

[Seppo]

Man I don't believe that for a second. It doesn't make any sense. Why would honest people suddenly be willing to break the law just to get their grubby mitts on an illegal gun?

this post was a response to the quote in Saturos' post above.

 

[Saturos]

Man I don't believe that for a second. It doesn't make any sense. Why would honest people suddenly be willing to break the law just to get their grubby mitts on an illegal gun?

this post was a response to the quote in Saturos' post above.

You missed the point.

We're talking about outlaws who don't give a shit about "the law" in the first place. Those who are more likely to own guns (outlaws) are those "people" he was referring to who would turn to the outlaws (in this case, smugglers). There are too many guns in circulation in America for a total gun ban to work. If guns had been banned from the time of America's beginning, then maybe it would work. The founding fathers obviously were concentrating on the "here and now" back in the days when local militias were neccessary to keep the peace. It seems they hadn't an eye for the future during the 18th century.

True, the likelyhood of an armed robbery/break-in is slim now, but there's no predicting how outlaws would react to thousands of citizens who are suddenly disarmed. They may take advantage of the situation and crime would then skyrocket. If that happened, I guess I'd be an outlaw too because I'd rather have a gun over kitchen utensils. Or I'd just use a makeshift gun such as an air powered nail gun, lol. Better than throwing forks and knives. I'm not ninja enough for that BS. A total gun ban would have to be a very slow process that takes place over a course of a century in America's case.

I personally like the idea of a partial gun ban, that is, keeping them away from retards who can't properly handle a gun without shooting their friend in the face or proper stowage so a would-be gun owner's 9 year old doesn't accidentally blow his/her head off because their parents suffer from profound retardation. This would be accomplished via strict educational courses and psychoanalysis procedures before a license can be issued, and strict penalties (such as life sentence) would be in place to dissuade those who would try to cheat the examinations. The exams would somehow have to be next to flawless in the first place though.

 

[CptStern]

Guns are not consumables, there is no need to produce new guns there are already a suficient quantity in the world (1 for every 12 people) and ammunititon is fairly easy to make at home.

yet ...

Number of firearms produced by US manufacturers every minute: 8

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html


525 948 x 8 = 4 207 584 per year. this does not include imported firearms


there is no disputing the fact that if guns were conpletely banned in the US there would be a substantial decrease in the number of guns entering the market.

 

[Mr Stabby]

But the market won't contract it will grow at a slower rate, which still means millions of guns in America, making a ban pointless.

 

[No Limit]

You missed the point.

We're talking about outlaws who don't give a shit about "the law" in the first place. Those who are more likely to own guns (outlaws) are those "people" he was referring to who would turn to the outlaws (in this case, smugglers). There are too many guns in circulation in America for a total gun ban to work. If guns had been banned from the time of America's beginning, then maybe it would work. The founding fathers obviously were concentrating on the "here and now" back in the days when local militias were neccessary to keep the peace. It seems they hadn't an eye for the future during the 18th century.

But I think a large percentage of gun crimes are not done by "outlaws" they are done by regular people that were pushed over the edge for whatever reason and just happened to own a gun. If these people didn't have access to guns in the first place I think a large number of these crimes would never have occured.

 

[CptStern]

But the market won't contract it will grow at a slower rate, which still means millions of guns in America, making a ban pointless.

millions of guns a year? smuggling only accounts for a few thousand a year, there's no way they'd be able to funnel in 4 million a year every year. it's not like since 9/11 they've been lax in what comes into the country. And wouldnt the government put a high priority on the only means of getting a gun in the US after banning it? you assume they're just going to sit on their laurels and not shore up that particular hole in their ban plan

 

[Eejit]

Some of the guns they'd make for export would be 'lost' I'm sure.

A gun ban in the USA would take an awful long time to be fully effective, too many guns around.

 

[CptStern]

I doubt they could ban guns without shutting down the manfucturers. I'm sure the market for american made guns is larger in the US than the rest of the world combined ..traditionally companies exports of products are only a tiny fraction of what they sell to their own markets

 

[Eejit]

There's still the gun companies with US defense supply contracts too.

 

[CptStern]

ya but most of those have exclusive military contracts or make firearms that are not for the consumer market . for example:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division is a division in the military that produces a rifle (as well as other ordinance) used by the navy seals. they dont make civilian firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Crane_Division

now obviously they're not all under the military's command. however civilan contracts and military contracts are two different markets

 

[Eejit]

I know. I'm saying in the absence of legal civilian firearms there'd probably be a bunch meant for the military falling off the backs of trucks

 

[CptStern]

ya just like how palestinian militants sometimes get their guns directly from the israeli military

http://www.netanyahu.org/bigbatmaybeb.html

if there's a will there's a way

 

[xcellerate]

Anybody who is willing to kill somebody else over the $300 they'll get from a gas station is NOT going to NOT rob the place, simply because guns are hard to find, they'll find another way.

Even if crime dropped due to a gun ban, it would only be a small amount. If the gun ban worked ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY, it would save about 10,100 lives per year. But we all know it will never perfectly work. So we're talking about a ban on something that might, maybe, almost, possibly save about 5,000 people per year? And how many MILLIONS of non-murdering gun owners would that piss off?

It just sounds like an amazing amount of effort is being spent for a small gain.

 

[Mr Stabby]

millions of guns a year? smuggling only accounts for a few thousand a year, there's no way they'd be able to funnel in 4 million a year every year. it's not like since 9/11 they've been lax in what comes into the country. And wouldnt the government put a high priority on the only means of getting a gun in the US after banning it? you assume they're just going to sit on their laurels and not shore up that particular hole in their ban plan

The millions of guns which already exist in circulation in America.

 

[cleverendeavouR]

Thought most of you will disagree I'm sure but whether we have more gun control laws or not, people will still be able to get their hands on them.

Gun control laws usually just keep them out of the "right" person hands, people just trying to protect themselves.

It's just like drugs, they're illegal. But don't people still get them? Of course they do.

 

[CptStern]

The millions of guns which already exist in circulation in America.

223 million and an additional 4 million a year in sales of firearms. banning the sale of guns would immediately decrease that number by about oh I dont know, 4 million a year

Thought most of you will disagree I'm sure but whether we have more gun control laws or not, people will still be able to get their hands on them.

omg really?

control =/= ban

 

[Mr Stabby]

223 million and an additional 4 million a year in sales of firearms. banning the sale of guns would immediately decrease that number by about oh I dont know, 4 million a year

223 Million + 0 = 223 million.

 

[CptStern]

223 Million + 0 = 223 million.

that figure is from 1995, the number of guns today is relatively the same even though there's been a 14 year time lapse. Obviously some guns are lost/stolen/fall into disrepair etc ..eventually that number would decrease