Again, let's live in reality. Banning guns isn't happening anytime soon, if ever.

 

Throughout history things change. Banning guns happened in England. It could happen here. But it requires people to have a conversation about the value of guns in society, as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and saying "never."

 

Im not a defeatist, I do believe things can change.

Throughout history things change. Banning guns happened in England. It could happen here. But it requires people to have a conversation about the value of guns in society, as opposed to putting their fingers in their ears and saying "never."

 

Im not a defeatist, I do believe things can change.

I guess I'm on the other side. I use guns on a regular basis for hunting target shooting and for the protection of the farm against coyotes and other animals. I do not think banning guns is a good idea.

 

Restrictions on people who have a history of mental illness is a must.

 

In England civilians are not banned from owning guns. They just treat it differently than here. There you need to do alot of paperwork and prove you are mentally capable. You can get a shotgun license to hunt or target shoot. You can get a handgun license for pest control. It's just that the burden is placed on the person to prove they are capable as opposed to here where the government is burdened to prove you don't deserve them.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by ptatc

I guess I'm on the other side. I use guns on a regular basis for hunting target shooting and for the protection of the farm against coyotes and other animals. I do not think banning guns is a good idea.

 

Restrictions on people who have a history of mental illness is a must.

 

I have no issue with people who want to have guns. And maybe in the end having guns is more benefit to society than not having guns. I am not really sure to be honest. In your situation I would want to know if there is any other way to accomplish the same end, without the use of a gun. Or perhaps with a gun that is less lethal. I assume that you are mainly using a rifle against animals?

 

(edit)

 

And poor word choice on banning. They severely restricted the ability of people to buy guns, especially handguns.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Soxbadger

I have no issue with people who want to have guns. And maybe in the end having guns is more benefit to society than not having guns. I am not really sure to be honest. In your situation I would want to know if there is any other way to accomplish the same end, without the use of a gun. Or perhaps with a gun that is less lethal. I assume that you are mainly using a rifle against animals?

I use mostly shotguns, the use of rifles except on target ranges is illegal in Illinois. Of course there are other means but they are far less effective (trapping) or costly (electric fencing).

 

I edited the previous post to show how the gun laws are in England and the UK and I wouldn't have a problem with the way they do it where the burden is placed on the person not so much the government.

I have no issue with people who want to have guns. And maybe in the end having guns is more benefit to society than not having guns. I am not really sure to be honest. In your situation I would want to know if there is any other way to accomplish the same end, without the use of a gun. Or perhaps with a gun that is less lethal. I assume that you are mainly using a rifle against animals?

 

(edit)

 

And poor word choice on banning. They severely restricted the ability of people to buy guns, especially handguns.

This would be appropriate. The restriction would be for the person to prove 1) they had a reason for owning the weapon; 2) had a secure place for them to be locked up and 3) had a reasonable area to use them.

I use mostly shotguns, the use of rifles except on target ranges is illegal in Illinois. Of course there are other means but they are far less effective (trapping) or costly (electric fencing).

 

I edited the previous post to show how the gun laws are in England and the UK and I wouldn't have a problem with the way they do it where the burden is placed on the person not so much the government.

 

I have no problem with that idea. My preference is probably not to outright ban guns.

I know the Fili is supposed to be reserved to serious responses but... Badger for President.

 

 

I've never owned a gun. I've never even held a gun. I can't tell you what the terms shotgun, rifle, handgun, semi-automatic weapon, or automatic weapon mean for certain.

 

I can say this: I don't think it's unreasonable to ban any weapon that allows you to get off more than 10 shots without having to take significant time to reload. The primary justifiable uses for weapons are self/property defense and for hunting, and I can't think of a need to get off more than 10 shots in those situations, though like I said, I've never used a gun so if you are aware of such situations please educate me.

 

While I think the larger issue is how we deal with mental illness in general, as it pertains to weapons I would say that we need to find a way to prevent people with certain mental illnesses from legally owning weapons of any sort while imposing as little rights infringement as possible on the rest of us.

Ban guns. No one can legally buy a gun or own a gun in the United States unless they are military/security/police.

 

And I agree with not mentioning the persons name. Which is why I dont address it in any of my posts. I will not help them be remembered.

 

So then you are banning hunting. I know a ton of people who would be incredibly unhappy about that.

 

EDIT: I see this was covered already. Move along.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by witesoxfan

I'm still waiting on what law we are missing that would have prevented this.

 

 

Here's a change I'd make: no media coverage of the killer. Cover the shooting but never make the name, photo or background info of the shooter available, unless he/she is eventually charged and it comes from the trial. When it's a murder suicide, treat it as a suicide. I'd bet a lot of these assholes do this stuff for the attention.

 

I don't know about the media thing. It's easy to say this, but we need to know who did the shootings/bombings. We need to be informed about who is on the loose or who enacted the damage. Tone it back? Sure. Just as we learn very little about the victims, we shouldn't have to hear the life story of the killers over and over. But we need to know who did it and why they did it.

I don't know about the media thing. It's easy to say this, but we need to know who did the shootings/bombings. We need to be informed about who is on the loose or who enacted the damage. Tone it back? Sure. Just as we learn very little about the victims, we shouldn't have to hear the life story of the killers over and over. But we need to know who did it and why they did it.

 

If somebody is indeed on the loose, then yes, the local media within a certain radius most definitely need to report his name. Did not apply in this case though.

 

I don't agree with "we need to know who did it and why they did it." Now law enforcement needs to know, the college/business/organization on whose property this occurred needs to know, his family needs to know, but what is gained from you and I knowing anything about this guy? I'm nowhere near an expert on anything to the point that knowing the guys name/age/background gives me any more insight than not knowing.

 

Llink

 

I'm ok with both of those.

If somebody is indeed on the loose, then yes, the local media within a certain radius most definitely need to report his name. Did not apply in this case though.

 

I don't agree with "we need to know who did it and why they did it." Now law enforcement needs to know, the college/business/organization on whose property this occurred needs to know, his family needs to know, but what is gained from you and I knowing anything about this guy? I'm nowhere near an expert on anything to the point that knowing the guys name/age/background gives me any more insight than not knowing.

 

Agreed. We don't publish information about suicides, but we do with murder suicides. It makes no sense.

NSFW language

 

So then you are banning hunting. I know a ton of people who would be incredibly unhappy about that.

 

EDIT: I see this was covered already. Move along.

 

What I'm about to say is either really smart, or really dumb.

 

For hunting, how about they set up shops that rent guns near the forest preserves where hunting is legal? Throw some tracking devices on the guns and track it to make sure the gun doesn't leave the preserve. If it leaves the area the cops are called.

What I'm about to say is either really smart, or really dumb.

 

For hunting, how about they set up shops that rent guns near the forest preserves where hunting is legal? Throw some tracking devices on the guns and track it to make sure the gun doesn't leave the preserve. If it leaves the area the cops are called.

 

A lot (if not most) of hunting is done on private land. Farmers who are done with their crops let hunters they know (or don't) come on their land and get what they can, or they charge a nominal fee, or ask for a bird, or ask for meat, or whatever. That makes it quite a bit more difficult to rent guns, and it's not like the possibility for shootings are decreased based solely on that.

A lot (if not most) of hunting is done on private land. Farmers who are done with their crops let hunters they know (or don't) come on their land and get what they can, or they charge a nominal fee, or ask for a bird, or ask for meat, or whatever. That makes it quite a bit more difficult to rent guns, and it's not like the possibility for shootings are decreased based solely on that.[/b]

 

So in other words, the post was dumb.

 

As for the bold part, the point was to keep the hunters somewhat happy while banning guns as a whole to the general public.

 

I'm "Anti-gun" so I obviously don't know the first thing about hunting.

Because there is no solution. You can't fix crazy. One side of this issue needs to accept that.

 

Australia and every other civilized country on the planet say hi.

 

gmafb

Australia and every other civilized country on the planet say hi.

 

gmafb

 

Because nobody gets mass murdered in Australia.

 

So say hi to Australia, Reddy, as they went from doing it with guns to doing it with arson in the recent years. But the fact is they still do it.

 

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

 

...and let's keep in mind Australia is almost the size of the US in land mass with a population of ~24 million, as compared to our ~315 million, so yes, it will obviously occur with less frequency.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Y2HH

Because nobody gets mass murdered in Australia.

 

So say hi to Australia, Reddy, as they went from doing it with guns to doing it with arson in the recent years. But the fact is they still do it.

 

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

 

...and let's keep in mind Australia is the size of the US in land mass with a population of ~24 million, as compared to our ~315 million.

And they do so at 20% of the rate of the United States.

 

If the United States had Australia's murder rate, there would be about 250,000 fewer homicides per decade in this country.

And they do so at 20% of the rate of the United States.

 

If the United States had Australia's murder rate, there would be about 250,000 fewer homicides per decade in this country.

 

...with less than 20% of the population.

 

You're a smart guy Balta, but this is another instance of posting an apples or oranges comparison because it fits your argument. Unfortunately, population size and density matter in cases such as this, whether you wish to ignore it or not.

 

Allow me to reiterate...

 

AUSTRALIA HAS ~ 23 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING ON A LAND MASS NEARLY THE SIZE OF THE US.

 

THE US HAS ~ 315 MILLION.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Y2HH

...with less than 20% of the population.

 

You're a smart guy Balta, but this is another instance of posting an apples or oranges comparison because it fits your argument. Unfortunately, population size and density matter in cases such as this, whether you wish to ignore it or not.

 

Allow me to reiterate...

 

AUSTRALIA HAS ~ 23 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING ON A LAND MASS NEARLY THE SIZE OF THE US.

 

THE US HAS ~ 315 MILLION.

 

The vast, vast majority of the Australian population lives on the coasts. The interior is virtually uninhabitable... so the land mass argument doesn't really hold water.

...with less than 20% of the population.

 

You're a smart guy Balta, but this is another instance of posting an apples or oranges comparison because it fits your argument. Unfortunately, population size and density matter in cases such as this, whether you wish to ignore it or not.

 

Allow me to reiterate...

 

AUSTRALIA HAS ~ 23 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING ON A LAND MASS NEARLY THE SIZE OF THE US.

 

THE US HAS ~ 315 MILLION.

You can't possibly believe that I gave a number that wasn't normalized for population, can you?. I even gave the link if you were seriously that confused.

 

Murders per 100,000 people:

 

United States: 4.8

Australia: 1.0.

You can't possibly believe that I gave a number that wasn't normalized for population, can you?. I even gave the link if you were seriously that confused.

 

Murders per 100,000 people:

 

United States: 4.8

Australia: 1.0.

 

Wow, that was lame.

 

Account for gang violence now.

 

We are taking about mass murders and the fact that they happen everywhere. So like I said, you built a straw man apples to oranges comparison and then tried -- and failed -- to defend it. You completely and convienently ignore the sheer population difference and the complexities it adds to the equation. Sorry but you can't just "normalize" something like that as it ignores the complexities added.

 

Try harder.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Y2HH

Funny how in his rantings the killer mentioned that he seeked out a gun free zone. Guess those pesky signs didn't deter him very much.