General Chat / Another mall shootout (Oregon/Portland)

I think assault weapons should be banned from ownership by a civilian, but a lot of people are still really interested in owning/shooting them. I think a good compromise would be to ban assault weapons from individual ownership entirely, but shooting ranges and other businesses may be licensed to own them for civilians to go and shoot at gun ranges only. Nobody needs to own an assault weapon--it's not going to protect you any better than a handgun would. But those who like them and want to shoot them can still do so with reasonable and appropriate limits.

Nobody needs to own an assault weapon--it's not going to protect you any better than a handgun would.

That's just not true. For me, it's an every time situation that 15 armed robbers try to storm my house and I can only protect myself by owning a assault weapon.

Guns are bad...

Every time the gun control debate starts this McwWeaksauce BS car comparison argument turns up. The PURPOSE of a car is transportation. The PURPOSE of a gun is KILLING as it is a WEAPON and not a transportation device.

I'll argue that personal cars aren't necessary for transportation. Public transportation could completely alleviate risks with cars, and if people cared about being safe, public transportation would be the only means of getting from point A to point B. But cars give people a sense of freedom, fun, and enjoyment of owning the car, so they're sticking around. I get these same things from my gun.

^IMO that what's wrong. A gun should never give people a sense of freedom, fun and enjoyment. In my opinion at least. If you say that on a street in Europe people think your crazy.

"MFG"

A dog *snapping* is different than a human *snapping*. One is a physical act of snapping the jaws together (attacking) and the other is a human mentally breaking down and losing self control (there is no literal snapping of the jaws). The dog is still in full self control when it decides to attack someone whereas the mentally *snapped* person is not.

People do what they want and don't think of the consequences of their actions. Everyone has free will and people are naturally going to break laws just because they can.

QUIT THIS BULLSHIT!!!!! What happened in conneticut is bad but nothing can change that. NOTHING can change the fact that all of these crimes/shootings are moral descisions. they have nothing to do with stupid gun laws, because they are all moral descisions. I am tired of ignorant people trying to argue the truth. Why in this f***ing world can't anyone ever just except that they are wrong it just doesn't make any sense at all. Also if you are so pumped up about this why are you all just complaining about it on the internet. Last time I checked complaining doesn't fix anything. It's just so stupid to fight over something this simple.


This is snapping btw.

How cute...

QUIT THIS BULLSHIT!!!!! What happened in conneticut is bad but nothing can change that. NOTHING can change the fact that all of these crimes/shootings are moral descisions. they have nothing to do with stupid gun laws,

How can you possibly say that? That it has nothing to do with gun laws? NOTHING?
I hope you're just trolling because if not this is shocking.
As has been said time and time again, The guy snapped, US gun laws meant the had easy access to 3 guns in the house. US gun laws meant the was able to get those guns and use them.

If I mentally snapped can I do that? Nope, Can I go into Central London from where I live and buy a gun? Nope not really, I'm sure I could get one off a gang if I tried hard enough but it wouldn't be easy. I simply couldn't do what that guy did.

Not because I couldn't make that moral choice (i couldn't but that irrelevant) but because the gun laws here mean i can't just go and get a gun without going through a long protracted process to get one, And as said before people who snap aren't going to go through a long protracted process, they act on spur of the moment decisions.

Also if you are so pumped up about this why are you all just complaining about it on the internet. Last time I checked complaining doesn't fix anything. It's just so stupid to fight over something this simple.

Have you ever heard of a debate? Its pretty common and they are good and healthy in a society, they allow you to see and appreciate other peoples opinions. You may notice many of us in this debate aren't in the USA, so no complaining won't achieve anything for us in this context. But you know what. I enjoy debating this with some of the level headed intelligent people on here. A category you clearly don't fall in to.

if you are trolling, ignore the above but please stop.

So much for that reasonable debate thing

I think assault weapons should be banned from ownership by a civilian, but a lot of people are still really interested in owning/shooting them. I think a good compromise would be to ban assault weapons from individual ownership entirely, but shooting ranges and other businesses may be licensed to own them for civilians to go and shoot at gun ranges only. Nobody needs to own an assault weapon--it's not going to protect you any better than a handgun would. But those who like them and want to shoot them can still do so with reasonable and appropriate limits.

This is a good idea. As said before you couldn't just outright ban guns in the US it wouldn't work. But measures like this would help. There is no reason for access to an assault weapon in the house. I think A limit to the number of guns in a household would also help, That woman didn't need 2 handguns and a semi-automatic rifle.

Hey, I have just a question for people who want guns to be outright banned. How exactly do you propose we go about this?

You can't really, See response to above quote. />/>/>

Honestly I just don't even understand what this gun debate is. On one extreme there's zero gun restriction and on the other there is a zero gun policy, but I'd say every sane human is somewhere in the middle. The only problem is that there's so many different levels in between whether it be for law enforcement, hunting, constituionality, protection, sporting guns, hobby guns or whatever that it's going to be impossible at this point to find a policy that a majority can agree upon. It's easy for people in countries that already have policies in place that seem to be working for you to say 'why don't you just do what we're doing over here it's working fine'. But I'd hope you could understand that it isn't that easy to change a culture that's been around for hundreds of years.

Agreed whole heartedly, Most of this has really been about which level of gun control is correct,
I completely agree that it isn't easy to change something that has been part of your culture for so long, but at the same time in my opinion it can't stay as it is.
I think most people agree that there has to be a level of gun control its just a risk evaluation thing.

If as a country the US want Guns so readily available you can have 3 guns in your house for whatever reason, then as a country its got to be expected that events like this shooting will happen from time to time.

I thankfully live in a country where I can't get a gun, And I happily trade that right/freedom because I know that there is a much lower chance of a similar event occurring.

The US just needs to find its middle ground, You may already be there, but you might not in which case it can and should change, But that can't happen without healthy debate and action. Thankfully that's what Democracy is good at

Ignore this. had issues with replying function.

How is getting yourself purposefully hammered, and into a car accident, even remotely comparable to someone who is troubled mentally with guns shooting children? You guys can argue about this forever but the bottom line is guns have no useful or kind purpose. If they vanished off the face of the planet any normal human would be grateful.

QUIT THIS BULLSHIT!!!!! What happened in conneticut is bad but nothing can change that. NOTHING can change the fact that all of these crimes/shootings are moral descisions. they have nothing to do with stupid gun laws, because they are all moral descisions. I am tired of ignorant people trying to argue the truth. Why in this f***ing world can't anyone ever just except that they are wrong it just doesn't make any sense at all. Also if you are so pumped up about this why are you all just complaining about it on the internet. Last time I checked complaining doesn't fix anything. It's just so stupid to fight over something this simple.


This is snapping btw.

what makes you think anyone here isn't politically active? and i'm not sure what the solution is anyway, that's the whole reason i'm following this discussion. if people were arguing about gay marriage i wouldn't bother

-

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=OuX-nFmL0II

@Jaguar: You clearly misread my post. My main point is that many people act as if the shooters involved in shootouts like this one are more criminally involved and sophisticated than they are. They say stuff like ''even with guns being illegal they'd get their hands on a gun'', whereas people like this shooter usually just flip. If someone like that would have the same thing in the Netherlands/any other western-European country for that sake they would nót know how to get their hands on a gun any time quickly in most cases, let alone semi-automatics and the like. Only if already involved in the weapons circuit, like sadly happened in the Netherlands a year/ couple of years ago, they'd have the means and connections. Thát's the point, people misread the type of criminal that commits these kinds of deeds, which leads them to believing that gunlaws would not make a difference.


@Austin55:
The question of hów to disarm a country like the USA is indeed one that's very interesting and serious. I think there are in fact a lot of strategies, which you should combine as much as possible. First off: stop the sales and repairs of weapons. Furthermore, have voluntary handin days every month or so for at least the first year. All registered gun owners can get monthly letters, calls etc. about their civic duty to hand in their firearms. Use media campaigns to change the image of firearms, which wíll in fact work over time, although not for everyone. But trust me, there are a lot of facts about gun-related child death, homicide etc. that wíll shock a lot of people that 'just have a gun to defend their family'. If you've been doing all this for a year or maybe two you can start offering rewards for people that still hand in their weapons, as the amount of weapons in the country will have probably seriously diminished by then, and offering cash could be yet another incentive for some.

After all this you'll probably still end up with a country that has quite some firearms in it, more than most western countries for sure, but it'll be drastically less than atm. I understand it's difficult, a long and expensive process, and I will not say that complete disarmament is the right way to go for America (just yet?). (possible inbetween step could be banning semi's, big clips etc.) Just want to point out that there are in fact a lót of strategies a country could use for this kind of action, and that the effects would probably be more significant than most people would expect.


@Mrbuckeye: Long story short = 'moral decisions' with a baseball bat hurt less than 'moral decisions' with an AK47. That's why gun laws áre relevant. That simple.

I promise you this won't work and will probably cause an outrage. After all, it isn't their fault that people are murdered, right?

-

"Sure it isn't, but I think there are more people willing to hand their gear in if you ask them nicely, and later on forcefully, than you'd expect."

When your father, like many others, says that he will die before the government takes any of his guns... well I doubt this will work smoothly...

I don't think there needs to be a reason for gun ownership. If you want one just to want one, it's your right, so long
as you are a good citizen. I don't believe you can blame them.

When a mass murder like the one in Connecticut happens, there are red flags that if someone pays attention to, things like this shouldn't happen. If someone is starting to buy a mass amount of ammo at once, sure we check that guy.

I think also that one should be allowed to own as many guns as he/she can afford. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes this backfire (e.g. Casey Anthony) but I think it's the fairest way to go.

I want to see a statistic: the percentage of legal owner of registered firearms that maim or kill someone in their lifetime in comparison to other countries. I'm curious ( and no, don't lmgtfy pls).

^^ @ Ruben
Yea, I'll agree with that. I'd argue some of your points but it's not like we will ever get close to a full on ban, atleast in the next ~200 years. They are just to much a part of society here. Check out these statistcs on hunters.

I'm all for "control" in terms of education and banning auto weapons. You should have to take classes in order to be able to obtain one (legally) and more so if you want something semi auto. Things like learning to keep locked away, proper trigger and muzzle etiquette, etc can help a lot of times. Part of the course ought to be mental related. Lots of jobs require mental evals, so should be able to purchase a gun.

Just personally, I feel like the government and other citizens should be able to trust each other even when they are armed.

-----

@Shotguns-
"You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead guns" is a popular phrase 'round these parts.
You're going to need a damn good advertising campaign to say "look, these kids got shot up in school, you should give us your guns" and not have it go the opposite way here, with people going out and buying them to "protect themselves"

I don't think there needs to be a reason for gun ownership. If you want one just to want one, it's your right, so long
as you are a good citizen. I don't believe you can blame them

As a non gun owner, I agree.

How is getting yourself purposefully hammered, and into a car accident, even remotely comparable to someone who is troubled mentally with guns shooting children? You guys can argue about this forever but the bottom line is guns have no useful or kind purpose. If they vanished off the face of the planet any normal human would be grateful.

Sure there's a difference in the individuals in those situations, but the car and the gun are no different in that they harmed others.

and um hunting, recreation, or for sport? all some other purposes.