add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube
piemancoder

37 months ago

What is your position on gun laws? Do you think they should be fully allowed, completely git rid of them, or something in between?

IMO, I don't think that we should completely get rid of guns, and people should still have the right to buy guns, however, there definitely should be much, much stricter background checks and stuff.

PS, as with any thread with such a sensitive topic, please please please please keep it civil, polite, and respectful

Comments

  • 37 months ago
  • 5 points

(sticks head out of bomb shelter), Gun control means hitting your target. (ducks back into shelter)

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

This made me lawl

  • 37 months ago
  • 5 points

We need MUCH stricter background searches, we need to limit the amount of mags/clips you can buy, you need a REASON to buy a gun, and no, I just want one, does not count. Getting a gun needs to be a chore, and that way only people who REALLY need them will end up going through the process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/mall-in-columbia-on-lockdown-amid-reports-of-shooter/2014/01/25/4b3e8fb2-85e2-11e3-b85b-b305db87fb90_story.html

This happened at the mall where I worked for 6 years during highschool and on breaks from college. My family and I had frequented this mall hundreds of times. I grew up going to this mall and getting frozen yogurt. When I was in highschool I was a "mall rat" and hung around there. Probably spent over $1000 in total at that Zumiez of the years. Went into that store hundreds of times. A buddy in my group of friends was even sponsored by that Zumiez location. It is 3 miles from my parents house, where I grew up. I knew both Brianna and her boyfriend well. The guy that killed them wrote in his journal that he had mental problems but could not get help. He then later wrote about how Obamacare was going to be able to help him see a therapist and how excited he was. Turns out the insurance fell through and one day after writing about how sad he was about this, he bought the shotgun and went to the mall and killed my friends. MD has no wait period on anything but handguns. If there had been even a 7 day wait period, this guy would have had more time to think about it and possibly get the help HE WANTED. Mental disease is real. No we should not ban guns, but it needs to be MUCH more difficult to get one.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

and no, I just want one, does not count

Dammit

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah it was. I'm curious who downvoted it.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

So I'll upvote it

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah man. When they read his diary, it was VERY clear he WANTED help and was just pushed over the edge when his hopes of getting help were swindled.

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

In my opinion those who advocate maintaining access to guns would have a valid argument...if there wasn't countries in the world with highly strict laws or a outright ban and their systems have been proven to work.

If other countries can implement strict gun control systems why can't the US? The amount of gun massacres in the US in recent years have reached a ridiculous level. Even just this year there have already been 133 mass shootings, what seriously needs to happen for something to change?

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I really like that the second link lists out their methodology and compares it to others right at the start. I appreciate that greatly.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I completely agree.

  • 37 months ago
  • 3 points

I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think it's like wallpapering over a hole in your wall. Sure, it looks nicer, but you haven't fixed the underlying problem. People always cite other countries comparative lack of gun deaths, and they're right; it technically will reduce killings. It may even be worth it to use that imperfect solution to save some lives. But you're still going to get crazies, and terrorists, finding ways to kill. You can't ban everything.

I think instead that getting a gun should be as difficult as getting a security clearance, and as difficult to hold onto. If you're chatting it up with terrorist sympathizers online, you shouldn't have a gun. If you're an abusive spouse and your wife has to flee into the night, you shouldn't have a gun. You should have to prove yourself capable of the responsibility.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I think instead that getting a gun should be as difficult as getting a security clearance, and as difficult to hold onto.

This.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

The problem is the mentality of our politicians, the Democrats say that Guns kill people and need to be restricted from the population and heavily checked. While the Republicans say that People kill people, especially mentally challenged people.

Now think for a moment, take both their "opinions" and sqush them together.

"People with guns kill other people."

The only way to combat this problem is to work together to solve the problem. (Which our government can't do because the system is broken)

  • Better background checks
  • Better enforcement of laws
  • every law abiding citizen that meets requirements should be allowed the option to purchase or obtain a gun for self defense or recreational purposes (I.e hunting, shooting sports, etc)
  • Restriction of automatic and semi automatic weapons
  • combined effort to combat the black market
  • Anyone on the terrorist watch list needs to be monitored and should not be allowed to obtain or maintain a weapon of any kind at all.

Only together as a country can we solve this problem, but our "representatives" refuse to work together which means that they are only there for their own well being. Screw them.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Guns don't kill people

People kill people guns!

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

In Soviet Russia, gun shoot you!

Oh wait...

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't even need to say.

IMO, I don't think that we should completely get rid of guns, and people should still have the right to buy guns, however, there definitely should be much, much stricter background checks and stuff.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I think there should be much stricter backgroud checks and regulatiins on who can have what type of guns

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

look at Chicago

look at their gun laws EDIT: just discovered that in January the courts finally ruled Chicago's gun ban unconstitutional

this is why gun laws don't work, the criminals and those who would use them for malicious intent are going to get them illegally anyways, especially when there are other places near wherever they want to be stationed where they can buy guns (read: go 50 miles, buy gun, come back.) (this can still happen)

i don't feel we need stricter background checks, we need to better implement the system we have. Example: gun shows. when i go to one they check you as you go in for felonies and crap and then you go have fun or do whatever.

then there's switzerland

imma not start because i'm tired

SOURCES FOR MORE INFO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/605498

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151027/downtown/does-chicago-have-strictest-gun-laws-country-its-complicated

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Comparing to Switzerland, like comparing to any other country (which opposing viewpoints love to do as well), is fraught with caveats and exceptions. For example, Switzerland also has compulsory military service.

this is why gun laws don't work, the criminals and those who would use them for malicious intent are going to get them illegally anyways

The guy who prompted all this gun talk was a law-abiding citizen with legal firearms.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah i know all that nonsense now. i literally posted that before bed when i was exhausted and i wish i had thought it out more. I'll leave it because it's no one's fault but my own

also i just really like Switzerland. they're neat. :D

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

It is a neat place! It's high on my list of places to visit. I can practice my broken French too since they speak so many languages, depending on where you are.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

It might have been stated before, but I'll state it again, gun control laws will only be obeyed by those that aren't the ones targeted by those laws. Criminals by definition will ignore those laws and do whatever they want, that's why they're criminals. With the advent of 3D printers capable of using media that can withstand the pressures ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_printed_weapons_and_parts ), even if you banned ALL gun sales, those who were so inclined could just make their own and cause mayhem.

Those who are bent on mass murder aren't limited to guns. Boston was a perfect example. I'm still waiting for pressure cooker control. Someone suitably motivated can cause horrific harm with a knife ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ ). Just bad driving can kill many people ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Farmers_Market_crash ) even without intent.

Insisting on focusing on guns as the cause of crime and assaults and killing is a guaranteed way to make sure that such things continue to happen. Australia had instituted a complete ban on all guns, and they still had many, many gun crimes and deaths. If you want to reduce crimes and violence we need to impose serious, harsh penalties on those who would offend. As long as the focus in on the weapon and not the wielder, we're doomed to the same repetition of tragedies.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

I keep coming back to this thread to shoot down this argument (one which I used to employ myself):

gun control laws will only be obeyed by those that aren't the ones targeted by those laws. Criminals by definition will ignore those laws and do whatever they want, that's why they're criminals.

The guy who prompted all this gun talk was a law-abiding citizen with legal firearms. He had broken no laws and was not by definition a criminal. However, he had all the warning signs needed, but there was no legal authority to prevent sale of weapons to him.

Insisting on focusing on guns as the cause of crime and assaults and killing is a guaranteed way to make sure that such things continue to happen. [...] If you want to reduce crimes and violence we need to impose serious, harsh penalties on those who would offend.

This makes no sense. Many major shootings end with the perpetrator dead, often enough killing themselves. I think we can all reasonably assume that Mateen didn't enter the club thinking about what he would cook for dinner that night, or if he had remembered to DVR Game of Thrones. This would be about as effective as the law against suicide is at stopping suicide.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

This makes no sense. Many major shootings end with the perpetrator dead, often enough killing themselves. I think we can all reasonably assume that Mateen didn't enter the club thinking about what he would cook for dinner that night, or if he had remembered to DVR Game of Thrones. This would be about as effective as the law against suicide is at stopping suicide.

Seriously. This ALSO doesn't work for most of the "gang thugs" who kill each other on the street. They don't care about consequences and are not scared to die. The only way to make a difference to them would be to say something like "If you kill someone, we will you, and a close family member". But this is super unrealistic and would never happen. People WILL kill people no matter the consequences.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes but but with your argument, you're saying that since that guy couldn't be trusted, no one can have them. Remember that that individual was a federal security personnel and according to news accounts in training to become a law officer. Even with stricter laws and background checks he STILL would have been able to buy all the weapons he wanted. The calls that someone can't buy a weapon because he was under investigation are violating his rights. Until being PROVEN guilty you can't just punish people (no matter how much I'd like to). Just like you can't jail someone until they've been convicted in court, you can't restrict their Constitutional rights to own a weapon just because of suspicion. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue a couple of times on this recently. If I was sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that banning weapons and such would stop these tragedies I'd maybe change my mind, but that's not the case.

I know others disagree with my viewpoint. We'll have to agree to disagree, since I'm sure they hold their beliefs as strongly as I hold mine.

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

He wasn't a federal security personnel, he was a private security personnel for a retirement community.

And no my argument isn't that no one can have them, it's:

I think instead that getting a gun should be as difficult as getting a security clearance, and as difficult to hold onto. If you're chatting it up with terrorist sympathizers online, you shouldn't have a gun. If you're an abusive spouse and your wife has to flee into the night, you shouldn't have a gun. You should have to prove yourself capable of the responsibility.

He had a background that would have prevented a security clearance. We prevent people from getting those all the time. We also put people on no fly lists if we think they're dangerous. Guns have been way more damaging than either of those. I don't believe in banning guns, as I highlighted in my post, but I do think they're far too easy to get into the hands of anyone.

Again I don't want to ban weapons. But as tiny_voices highlighted, you can be held in prison temporarily if you are under suspicion. Why can't we delay the sale of a gun until someone is cleared?

  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Why can't we delay the sale of a gun until someone is cleared?

I love your security clearance analogy. I totally 100% agree with you on that one.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

My local news had reported he was also in training for law enforcement (I take that with a grain of salt). I have no problem with a delay of sale and an extension of the delay already in place (depending on where you live) might be an idea worth looking at, but I do have a problem with an undefined delay "until the investigation has been completed". All it would take is an bureaucrat who has a lack of ethics to deny someone. The IRS does this all the time. While I want to be reasonable about our safeguards, I refuse to allow myself (or others) to just hope that some investigator somewhere will act honorably without clearly defined rules. Sure 99% will, but it's that 1% that keep me up at night. There have been far too many examples of gov't personnel who have demonstrated that they can't be trusted when they have domain over others.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Well I guess then it comes down to a choice:

-Slightly increasing the chance that you are unfairly denied sale of a gun

vs

-Slightly decreasing the chance of someone randomly murdering you and/or your family and/or friends

Of course if you are denied sale due to a faulty background check you would likely have an avenue of recourse.

There have been far too many examples of gov't personnel who have demonstrated that they can't be trusted when they have domain over others.

There have been far too many shootings too.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

So don;t let it be the government. If you gave the control of who gets guns to the gun stores a lot could come from it. The gov't would say, "ok you MUST have a wait period and a background check process but how it works is up to you". Then, gun stores will be MUCH more stringent with who gets what, because their livelihood is on the line. If a guy shoots up the mall and was decidedly mentally unstable, and the serial number on the gun is traced back to your store, and the logbook says YOU were the one who OK'd the guy for the gun, YOU should be prosecuted. This will cause gun store owners to be WAY WAY stricter because THEY are on the line now. Let the problem police itself in a way. It goes the other way as well. Say a guy goes to buy a gun, but you stop him at the store and tell him no you fail the mental health screening, then he tries to go on a rampage with a sword, but is taken down by police before anyone is killed, the gun store will look great in the public light because they prevented him from getting a gun and doing more damage. Definitely an idea that could be run with.

Not a perfect idea, just a concept.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Just like you can't jail someone until they've been convicted in court

What are you talking about? You can be held in jail when charged with a crime even if you later win and aren't convicted.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Only in very specific circumstances and even then for a very limited amount of time. In such cases if you can show that there wasn't sufficient probable cause for you to be held, you have standing to take action against the agency who held you (admittedly such action isn't common since the bar is set high, and for good reason). Some officer can't just roll up on you and put you in a cell, and say you're being charged. There are specific, clearly defined steps that have to be followed before your liberty can be deprived. Suspicion isn't one of them.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Really, much more stringent background checks are required, in addition to felons being unable to own or possess firearms, those convicted of certain misdemeanors related to violence should be unable to be in possession of a firearm. For those who wish to buy a gun, their families background should be checked as well, so if a guy wants to buy a rifle for hunting, but one of his parents was convicted of a felony and he is living with said parents, the person wishing to purchase a gun must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to an officer of the law, that the felon would not have access to the firearm, in addition, their must be certainty that the buyer of the gun would not provide the felon with the means to access said weapon. In addition, prospective gun purchasers must provide recent and legitimate psychiatric tests showing that they do not have any sort of mental condition which could cause violent, impulsive actions, If there is a family memebr with a mental condition, then the person wishing to purchase a gun must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to an officer of the law, that the family member would not have access to the firearm, in addition, their must be certainty that the buyer of the gun would not provide the family member with the means to access said weapon.

Also, semi automatic weapons should not be available in calibers larger than .22 LR. No 7.62 Nato firing weapons. In addition, any magazine sizes above 10 rounds should be banned, except in the case of certain target practice shooting ranges, where said magazines are rented out for the duration of the patron's stay, there should also be exit checks, and a police officer or sheriff's deputy to act as a deterrent. The magazines should also be valued at over $500 dollars, so that any conviction of purposeful theft will be a felony, and as such, the thief will be unable to be in possession of firearms.

IF you ban all guns, what's to keep the kid from going to a garden supply store, and bringing in a machete or other similar deadly weapon. So we also need to increase funding for the best solution to this problem, the same solution that works for just about any problem, prevention.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I feel the issue here is less so about gun restriction, and moreso on all of the other factors, such as...

  • General education
  • Black market activity
  • Government intervention
  • Average mental health

Etc. etc. Gun restrictions can cause great things to happen, and can also completely screw a country over, prime example Honduras, dubbed murder state of the world.

There is no right answer to something, and it's not as black and white as people would like to believe.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Of course he does. He is just saying this for attention/shock value.

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

But communism is the next best thing since burnt toast :P

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Can't tell if serious or sarcasm. :P

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 2 points

Reported for downvote spamming.

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Well someone did.

What did your post mean then? Just clicking away.

[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

hmmmmm........ok. Fair.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

because it's not the law abiding citizens that go and shoot up places,

Not true. MANY of the mass shootings in US history were committed by people who legally owned their guns. The one I posted about which claimed my friends was committed by someone who legally purchased the gun and ammo.

This pertains more to gang violence because these people have illegal guns/ammo so that will still happen. What most people are focusing on with tighter gun control is preventing mass shootings like this one. Not some thugs killing each other in the hood or backwoods.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

There really isn't a universal fix to this problem, as there is too many contributing factors to it.

The problem is we all see things either one sided, or we don't all see things the same, as what we both said is true depending on the person you ask.

I agree with you, but removing guns and ammunition only solves a small part of the problem.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

There really isn't a universal fix to this problem, as there is too many contributing factors to it.

Thats what I'm saying. lol

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

I guess this proves both our points lol

I deleted it cause I don't want to have a political discussion with like 20 people at the same time a couple of hours from now...

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

The guy who prompted all this gun talk was a law-abiding citizen with legal firearms.

  • 37 months ago
  • 1 point

Ah **** it, I hate politics and discussions anyway

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube