Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[JellybeanJay]

[QUOTE=staropeace;557796]I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.[/]

I should clarify my last post, when I say hard time understanding what I mean is a hard time understanding the difference in laws between Canada and the US and a hard time understanding how firearms are so easy to get (Walmart) for example, I don't even think firearms are for sale in my local Walmart/Bass Pro Shop ect.

[Moderator]

Ms. Mod, I'm not taking a side on this, just pointing out that people can and do get guns illegally, guns of all types. and a bomb is easy enough to make...people around blow themselves up all of the time trying to make drugs...
And I'll also point out that there is many a person who would argue with you guns being a want and not a need.

Just sayin'

I've said I believe the second amendment should be upheld and I'm not advocating for a complete ban on guns. What I do believe is a want and not a need is the types of assault weapons and clips that are being discussed right now to be controlled in the future or by reenacting the ban that had been allowed to lapse in 2004. They can argue all they like but they won't convince me. Who other than military and law enforcement needs those? Just sayin'

[Moderator]

[QUOTE=JellybeanJay;557819]

I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.[/]

I should clarify my last post, when I say hard time understanding what I mean is a hard time understanding the difference in laws between Canada and the US and a hard time understanding how firearms are so easy to get (Walmart) for example, I don't even think firearms are for sale in my local Walmart/Bass Pro Shop ect.

And that's one piece of what the majority of gun control advocates want stricter controls about, not banning guns altogether.

[JellybeanJay]

I've said I believe the second amendment should be upheld and I'm not advocating for a complete ban on guns. What I do believe is a want and not a need is the types of assault weapons and clips that are being discussed right now to be controlled in the future or by reenacting the ban that had been allowed to lapse in 2004. They can argue all they like but they won't convince me. Who other than military and law enforcement needs those? Just sayin'

That's exactly what I am trying to wrap my brain around, why does a regular John Q Public need an assault rifle? The gun that was primarily used in Newtown was the same make and model that my hubby used on his tour of duty in Afghanistan. I really don't get it.

[GNTLGNT]

I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

...but somehow they always seem to get them....

[guido tkp]

some nice ideas about school security...but ask yourself this...will your congressman vote to fund that...especially if it means increasing taxes...which, considering the sad shape of nearly all public school budgets, it most likely would....

[CareBear]

I am from CT (not Newtown), so this tragedy hits home for me. I don't believe gun laws will do anything to prevent violence and hate. Timothy McVeigh used fertiziler in his bomb that killed over 100 people in Oklahome City. Criminals don't obey laws, that's why the are criminals.

[mjs9153]

Just look at the faces of these sweet kids..really look. You cannot tell me anyone really NEEDS these types of weapons,unless it is police and military..not minimalizing the adults either..but GD it,enough is enough of these tragedies..

[Tery]

Well, I'm pleased to see that we are staying reasonable and respectful here.

clownshooter, I do know that folks use these kind of weapons for competition, which is why I mentioned that the large ammo magazines should be available at shooting ranges. But they should stay there. Perhaps the weapons themselves should be treated that way For purposes of further discussion I am going by the definition of an assault weapon that is used in Connecticut: “any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user.” This article is quite informative on the topic.

I did see one comment here that made me facepalm: arming teachers is the stupidest thing I've heard in the wake of this incident. Are you freaking kidding me?! A teacher friend of mine put it like this:

I think the idea of arming teachers is idiotic as well. How do you keep that loaded gun out of the hands of the kids? If all classrooms have guns, then how many schools will be broken into so that some criminal can be armed?I work in the inner city. The reality of thieves breaking into places is real. One of the schools in our area has been broken into 5 times in the last 9 months. Imagine if there had been guns in the building?

On top of that, teachers -- who are recently on the list of "moochers" according to Tea Baggers -- have enough on their plates. They have years of college to get a certificate. Then they have a whole raft of duties and responsibilities in the classroom and out. And now they should train to be, essentially, a police officer? Please!!

Regarding the NRA... I was careful to note that the leadership and the organization is the problem, not the members. I linked to information showing that the members actually support tougher regulations. The problem is that it went from an organization dedicated to hunting and target shooting to become a political one, lobbying and taking money from manufacturers. That is wrong.

I did an article on the UK's laws as compared to our own and how much it makes a difference in the statistics. Here's one thing I discovered:

The rate of civilian firearm possession in the UK is 6.7 per 100 population. Annual deaths resulting from firearms in the UK in 2009 was 138: the UK is ranked 29th in that category while the U.S. is ranked number one with 688 times more murders! The number of handgun homicides in the UK currently averages 2.5 per year. Think about that for a minute: in the UK an average of 2-3 people are murdered by handguns every year. We surpass that every day.

This was my conclusion:

Do we have to be as strict as the UK to bring gun deaths under control in our country? No, of course not. That would be impossible for several reasons, not least of which is that it would be unconstitutional. But we can apply sensible, reasonable laws to enable the tracing of guns and ammunition. We can ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. We can make gun shows require background checks — this is the 21st century and everyone has a computer now. It’s not difficult to do a quick check. We can ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying firearms. We can agree that something must be done and do it. Before more children pay with their lives.

[Moderator]

...but somehow they always seem to get them....

That's true, Scott, and I don't think anyone is naive enough to think it won't still happen even with stricter gun control laws but at least that would make it a lot harder for them to get legally than it currently is (e.g. from the gun shows and internet sites that don't do background checks) and possibly keep them out of the hands of more criminals than have them now.