Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) But no one is proposing that this actually happens. You want to ban certain types of weapons, weapons that gang members would love to use.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) So if it's not from thefts, where are gangs getting their guns? Because we should care about cutting down on that violence as well. I would be interested in some backing for the claim that most people own their guns for self-defense as opposed to hunting or recreational target shooting or just collecting, but it's not irrelevant if I believe that's reasonable or not. In fact, it's central to this issue: is your desire to own a gun and the ease with which we let you fulfill that desire a reasonable trade-off for the increased gun violence we experience as a result of the saturation of guns in this country? edit: 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The majority of the rest are from straw-purchases, which are possible because we make it easy to get guns in this country. So if the rest come from legal purchases, what gun restrictions would curb that problem? Criminals and felons can't legally purchase guns, so you're still getting them from law-abiding people with no records.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) Eh there is no need to smuggle guns into the US as the US likely already has the most guns in the world. Smuggling is supply and demand. In the US its way cheaper to steal or buy a gun, then to try and buy one smuggled from Mexico. You dont hear a lot about heroin being smuggled into Afghanistan, you dont smuggle things where you can get them easily. The only type of weapons that the US would be smuggling in, would be military grade stuff for the very high level cartels. And those cartels dont want random gangs having that type of equipment. I think he meant if guns get banned or are made illegal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:00 AM) Only if these are laws they would normally break, which is quite a big assumption. I don't refrain from shooting up heroin because it's illegal, along with numerous other laws. If I had guns, I wouldn't need a law to keep them safely locked away. But for some who may be more lax about gun safety, a law can be persuasive, even if enforcement is rare. For the amount of crime that's committed from someone stealing a gun from a persons home and using it in a crime, I feel like that's an unreasonable restriction. Most people own guns to be able to protect themselves. Whether or not you believe that is reasonable is irrelevant. Forcing people to lock away their guns and ammo in separate places completely defeats that purpose. IMO that's an unreasonable restriction that's not going to result in a significant change in gun crimes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) a reason to curb someone's constitutional right: random-yet-frequent acts of violence. Frequent is bulls*** and you know it. These events are increasing at an alarming rate, but generally violent crime is on the decline and the majority of gun crime is still being committed by gangbangers and other criminals. The heat of passion killings and random acts of violence are still rare.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) No, they don't. http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/b...ou-in-jail.html 27 states do.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) I'm just so sick of people defending guns as if they're are vital to someone's existence. "How dare you take guns away! I will literally shrivel up and die if I don't have one! They are more important than air, food, and water!!" I don't really feel that strongly, but I don't see a reason to curb someone's constitutional right over random acts of violence.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) Strawmen? I'm sorry, that seems like a perfectly legitimate requirement for Law Abiding Citizens to follow, and one that could have prevented this massacre. Most states probably have those laws to begin with, that doesn't mean people follow it, especially when everyone in the house is an adult.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) Oh I'm sorry, he's a safe-cracker now? Yes, I've curbed peoples' ability to protect themselves in their homes (or accidentally shoot a family member, whatevs). I've also seriously curbed the ability of guns to be stolen or taken from Law Abiding Citizens and used against other citizens in random acts of violence. Like taking unsecured guns from the owner, shooting them in the face multiple times while they sleep, and then using the same unsecured weapons to kill 20 children and six adults. Capacity and rate of fire would not have meant dick. An shooter can be stopped by unarmed adults, of which there were numerous in the building. But more to the point, these are restrictions that can solve not one specific incident but the larger epidemic of gun violence in this country. Why would he have to be a safe cracker? She took him shooting on multiple occasions. He's 20 years old. It's pretty reasonable to assume he would know the combination. Is the law going to be that only owners can know the combination? GMAB.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) Which is, frankly, all defenders of the 2nd Amendment have to go on. Oh bulls***.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) I don't know how you can say that more restrictions could not possibly have stopped this from happening. If the restrictions and regulations are onerous, perhaps she never goes through the hassle of getting guns. If there's requirements that they remain unloaded in a combination-controlled safe, perhaps he can't even get at them. If the guns were restricted based on rate-of-fire and capacity, maybe less people are dead. So he breaks into it or knows the combination. This is a family that uses guns. He was 20 years old, not 6. And you've just curbed people's ability to protect themselves in their home in the case of an emergency over a random act of violence. And capacity and rate of fire would have meant dick in this situation since he's an armed guy with multiple guns going up against children.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) Because of decades of loose gun policy, we can't magically take hundreds of millions of guns out of circulation. But if you want to curb the number of guns in circulation, you need to start somewhere. I'll again point to the restrictions on automatic weapons and suppressors of evidence that gun control actually can work. The supply of new guns was limited, meaning that there's less of them in circulation now than when the law was enacted, they're very expensive to get, and they are rarely used in crimes. That's still not stopping this tragedy. He might have had to take more time killing those kids, but a single shot rifle or shotgun will still get the job done, especially when no one else in that school had anything to fight back with (not saying they should have, just saying he didn't have any resistance so timing wasn't an issue here).

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) I am trying my damnest to follow this thread but I'm not seeing anyone saying to outright ban guns. More restrictions, yes. I don't understand the back and forth debate occuring. Poll anyone? More restrictions doesn't stop this from happening. I don't understand why people believe that. She did everything by the book (allegedly) and even with more difficult restrictions she still could have obtained guns. Shotguns, handsguns, rifles, whatever. A deranged, mentally unstable kid stole his mother's weapons and went on a pre-mediated murder spree. No new law you want to impose except an outright ban would have stopped him.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:04 AM) because a lot more people agree that you should have the right to vote in this country than believe you should have the right to own an assault rifle. democracy remember? Link? Because I really doubt that's true nor relevant to the point. Are we now basing decisions on majority rules? I guess gay marriage and abortion really should be illegal now...

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) 5 year old child: "But I WAAAANT it!" Grown Ass American: "But I WAAAAANT it!" pathetic. it is not your inalienable right to have a semi-automatic weapon. the founders who wrote the constitution had NO IDEA what a semi or automatic weapon was because they didn't exist. they wrote that as a member of a militia your right to keep and bear a weapon should not be infringed - referring to muskets and single shot rifles. you really don't think it deserves to be updated for 2012? how do you feel about leviticus? do you have a wife or girlfriend? when she's menstruating do you keep her outside and burn the sheets? if not, you're not following the laws of an ancient text to the letter! What you're missing though is why can't I turn that exact logic back on you with regards to voting rights? The response to any argument that you should have an ID to vote is "ZOMG! Voting is a right in the constitution and it cannot be infringed! Ever! No matter what!"

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) his mother wouldn't have been able to own the guns. take off the blinders. Stop changing the argument. You gave a list of 4-5 additional restrictions, not outright bans.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) This hasn't been the case in other countries. I still consider Japan and U.K to be very free countries. With severely limited personal freedoms. Those governments are insanely intrusive with search and seizure laws for example. UK's government watches everything (and sadly, we're following that trend)

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) 1) his mother bought them legally 2) there was nothing in his background that would have set off a red flag on his check. he had no criminal record. So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) how do you know it won't prevent mass shootings? can you give me the research that proves that assumption? See my edit and look at this most recent example. None of those restrictions would have stopped this guy.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) Here's my view: *Regulations governing how guns are attained* Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns. Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns? None of that would prevent mass shootings so I don't see the point. You're going to allow people to own a gun, but if they own too many, what? Have police on constant surveillance? You want to keep someone with mental disorders away from guns? How's that going to stop a mentally unstable 20 year old taking his mom's guns? Take away any relatives guns too? What mental disorder would apply here? I think it's smart to make it more difficult to obtain guns, as that might keep a few innocent people from being killed every year. But I'm just surprised how many smart people out there actually believe that those restrictions would stop these types of mass shootings. This Newton tragedy basically skirted every one of those restrictions you want in place.

Wow, Homeland goes out with a bang.

So IU and Zeller overrated? Illinois crushed Butler by 17 in case anyone was wondering...

Leading with your shoulder is cool if you're zeller

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) Well to be fair kindergarten kids getting shot is alot different than what is going on in Chicago. However even when it happens in a nice area its ho hum here. A couple of years ago on my bday a guy was gunned down right down madison st 2 blocks from my house. Nobody even discussed it on the news. Looking at that list that SS posted, I didn't remember a lot of those. The big ones from the last few years - Gifford (high profile victim), Colorado (school, movie theater) and this one (school, young kids). The rest are just people going postal and getting revenge and killing other people in the way.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) Stop with the facts. NRA YEE HAWWWW Yeah these posts are productive.