RRC Archives

camhead wrote:

whoneedsfeet wrote:Criminals don't follow laws/rules, how will gun control change any of that?

The same ways that laws against speeding, theft, murder, and spousal abuse cut down on (but do not 100% prevent) those things. Next question, please?

Murder? Lets not forget how successful outlawing drugs have been. That previous gun ban and "Gun free zone act" has worked wonders.

i'm for allowing guns if we can agree that cops are superfluous

The "all or nothing debate" is absolutely fucking stupid. Is increased control over who can have a gun necessary? obviously it is, that does not mean they should be banned all together. Guns are ok, they are constitutionally defended, but it should not be harder to adopt a puppy than it is to buy a gun.

i went to petsmart and adopted a puppy in 15 minutes....you think that is hard...wow.

In hard just thinking about that puppy.

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Now for my own thoughts (not that anyone cares):
The change that Obama is seeking is "military style" weapons. But he's misleading in his wording because military style weapons are already illegal, those being fully automatic weapons. But the "military looking" weapons such as the civilian AR and AK-47 are internally the same as any semi-automatic sporting rifle with a wooden body. They have the same internals, fire the same bullets. So they're the same firing mechanism, but yet he focuses only on the weapons that "look scary." Why? I'll let you do your own investigation and form your own opinions. But one thing is for sure. He can't say what it is he's really after and that's a ban on all semi-automatic weapons because that will never pass. So this leads me to come to one of three conclusions: 1. Either he is so naive that he can't accept the research quoted above and actually believes that making it illegal to carry weapons will decrease crime 2. He isn't that naive and is trying to shove his own personal agenda down our throats like he has done with healthcare or 3. Is actually communist and believes that if we're going to have guns, everyone MUSt have the same one.

Now, I'll admit that this stance is a bit overarching, but I can't stand the Socialist-communistic pig. So there.

krampus wrote:The "all or nothing debate" is absolutely fucking stupid. Is increased control over who can have a gun necessary? obviously it is, that does not mean they should be banned all together. Guns are ok, they are constitutionally defended, but it should not be harder to adopt a puppy than it is to buy a gun.

If you go to Buds, wal mart or any other store that sales guns you are required to have a background check. I dont see how it can get anymore thorough. But, I think they could definitely tighten things up at the gun shows. But the truly sad part is listening to the libs (Feinstein) and the rest of this socialist government define "assault weapon" along with the media and hippies screaming "hunters shouldnt need weapons that belong in the hands of the military". The fact is those weapons are already illegal, and you have a better chance of getting aids then getting one of those.

Thanks sammy!

i could always go to the simpsonvlle flee market, pay cash, and leave in less than five minutes. Of course, i could probably buy a dog in that amount of time there too. The guy I saw leaving the machine gun shoot with an rpg was interesting, i bet the back ground check there was thourough. And of course the jeep mounted 50 cal semi automatic guns they used to desimate the used cars are probably useful for self defense and small game hunting

krampus wrote: The guy I saw leaving the machine gun shoot with an rpg was interesting, i bet the back ground check there was thourough. And of course the jeep mounted 50 cal semi automatic guns they used to desimate the used cars are probably useful for self defense and small game hunting

the guy with the RPG? Thats difficult to believe, ill take your word for it. Where you at knob creek? Im sure the fine patriot which owned the 50 cal was properly licensed, just letting the rest of less fortunate Americans enjoy that fine weapon system. As far as its use on small game i dont think its a good idea which is clearly outlawed. However for self defense....well, why not?