define mental illness...
- LetsGoIsles

You gotta be kidding

Sorry, guns are a problem but they are not a problem for the responsible hunter or the responsible individual. I do not hunt or even own a gun but whether they are legal or not if I wanted one bad enough I could get one very easily and do serious damage if inclined to do so. To clear up what I meant I personally could care less if all guns were banned but to be fair to those who are responsible and need guns for hunting or protection from unwanted wild life on their farms or whatever it is not for me to say.
- flyerdude17

To clear up my point... Weapons designed for war should not be accessible to the public.

Hunting, personal protection... No problem. But machines made to kill many people quickly should not be available.

I was under the impression this was more of an assault rifle... And handguns too?


I don't know all he details. But it seems difficult to fathom some getting off 100+ rounds with the type of hunting rifle I'm thinking of at least.
- robin_steele264

The Bushmaster is a Semi Auto. Meaning, it will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. Like an automatic pistol..one round per trigger pull...

.And, yes with 3 magazines, he could rip off 100 rounds in about 1 minute.

So you think it's possible to completely eliminate a psycho from getting any gun and shooting some innocent people? Sorry man, not happening. I don't care what law you pass, if someone want's to go on a rampage, he'll do just that.

I think the only possibility is to limit the damage. If law abiding soldiers in Fort Hood had their side arms, that terrorist would have barely had time to kill one or two people. Sadly, like all of these incidents, it takes time for the police to arrive....
- madmike71

We will never get rid of these actions because there will always be crazies that sneak under the radar.
We can only try to strengthen soft targets and tackle the mental health issue.
I'm all for streghtenig the types of ammo and clips these guns can have but revoking uns is not the answer

To clear up my point... Weapons designed for war should not be accessible to the public.

Hunting, personal protection... No problem. But machines made to kill many people quickly should not be available.
- robin_steele264

The laws in the US are far too sack. For example, you can purchase a 50 cal rifle that has an effective killing range of 2.5 MILES, for $ 8500 on line...That is (frank)in crazy... why can you sell these on line.????

I was under the impression this was more of an assault rifle... And handguns too?


I don't know all he details. But it seems difficult to fathom some getting off 100+ rounds with the type of hunting rifle I'm thinking of at least.
- robin_steele264

not an expert and i was not being snarky toward you.

all i know is the bushmaster did most of the damage.

then there would be no more school attacks....see how that works....Guns equal protection when in hands of good sane people. Gun = bad when in hands of mentally disturbed individuals.. How about tackling mental illness before tackling the 4th amendment.
- tmlfan17

WOW!

A lot easier to regulate gun controls than it is to "tackle mental illness." Just how would this happen?

Sane or insane, limiting/controlling guns or remove them from the equation all together where possible and huge part of the problem is easier to deal with.

Lunatics are going to do what they do, but how many people would have been killed at Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theatre, Columbine etc etc if the attacker(s) only had a knife or a bat?

How much easier would it be for police to uphold the law?

Good for you, get at it. Let me know how it goes for you.

It is the reason the long gun registry was stopped. an estimated 15 million guns in Canada unregistered, the mountain was too high to climb Robin, the US would be far harder to change.
- bixll

Long gun registry and assault weapon ban are a little different IMO.


Doin nothing just doesn't seem acceptable anymore IMO.

And your sounding so intelligent as well. Your skirt is a little short.
- tmlfan17

You've deflected and avoided every question I have asked you and provided NOTHING of substance behind your argument.

WOW!

A lot easier to regulate gun controls than it is to "tackle mental illness." Just how would this happen?

Sane or insane, limiting/controlling guns or remove them from the equation all together where possible and huge part of the problem is easier to deal with.

Lunatics are going to do what they do, but how many people would have been killed at Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theatre, Columbine etc etc if the attacker(s) only had a knife or a bat?

How much easier would it be for police to uphold the law?
- As_I_See_It

serious discussion about mental illness does not exist and it should.

The laws in the US are far too sack. For example, you can purchase a 50 cal rifle that has an effective killing range of 2.5 MILES, for $ 8500 on line...That is (frank)in crazy... why can you sell these on line.????
- bixll

I agree.

It's crazy.

I don't disagree, but the way you say it comes across as if it's an easy process to carry out, that takes little effort, and has no consequences anywhere else. The point about quick, irrational knee jerk reactions in the wake of a tragedy is a valid one. What happens if gun laws are made to your satisfaction a year from now, and another school shooting happens (and it probably will)? Perhaps the right move restricting guns would have been made, but it would be apparent that more factors were ignored or at least missed.

I'm not against stricter gun control laws. I'm of the belief that "the right to bear arms" and the "right to bear any device that's capable of projecting a bullet" are not the same thing. However, tragedies like the one on Friday, occurred because of a variety of factors, and yet only the one that is being discussed happens to be the biggest political hot button issue in the country. Yes, I know some people are referring to mental health, which is an equally important discussion, but it is not getting the same kind of attention.

My problem with the issue isn't that gun control is being looked at as a way to prevent something like this happening again. My problem is that, more often than not, it is being looked at as THE way to prevent this from happening again. The answer is never that simple.
- buffalofan19

agreed...it will be very difficult and world peace wont come of it, but it is DEFINITELY a part of the problem...if i can fix a part of it, im doing it. if it saves 1 life, its worth every second devoted to stricter laws.

He only used a hunting rifle?
- robin_steele264

Technically it wasn't a hunting rifle. The gun he used was a Bushmaster, It's considered an assault rifle even though the one he possessed was just a hair above a .22 caliber. For the average owner these are mostly used in shooting competitions and long range varmint shooting like prairie dog hunting.
They have the ability to fire rapidly and can house extended magazines up to 30 to 40 rounds.

Certain law enforcement agencies favor this type of weapon for certain tactical confrontations and take downs. ie. Swat.

The Bushmaster is a Semi Auto. Meaning, it will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. Like an automatic pistol..one round per trigger pull...

.And, yes with 3 magazines, he could rip off 100 rounds in about 1 minute.
- bixll

I don't think people should have access to such killing machines.


Do you need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt?

WOW!

A lot easier to regulate gun controls than it is to "tackle mental illness." Just how would this happen?

Sane or insane, limiting/controlling guns or remove them from the equation all together where possible and huge part of the problem is easier to deal with.

Lunatics are going to do what they do, but how many people would have been killed at Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theatre, Columbine etc etc if the attacker(s) only had a knife or a bat?

How much easier would it be for police to uphold the law?
- As_I_See_It

Unfortunately, guns give lunatics a great tool for a coward to kill many, and then not face any consequences or feel guilt by imeaditaley killing oneself.


That being said you still can't just legislate guns away and think the problems are solved.

You gotta be kidding
- flyerdude17

is that your argument??

serious discussion about mental illness does not exist and it should.
- Fountain-San

I agree 100%

WOW!

A lot easier to regulate gun controls than it is to "tackle mental illness." Just how would this happen?

Sane or insane, limiting/controlling guns or remove them from the equation all together where possible and huge part of the problem is easier to deal with.

Lunatics are going to do what they do, but how many people would have been killed at Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theatre, Columbine etc etc if the attacker(s) only had a knife or a bat?

How much easier would it be for police to uphold the law?
- As_I_See_It

At the same time, how many more would have been killed if he didn't had access to a gun, and instead, decided to look to Timothy McVeigh as a role model? The problem with both the "more gun control" and "less gun control" crowds is that everyone keeps looking at it as a simplistic "one or the other" scenario. If you think tightening gun laws will work, fine, you probably have a compelling argument, and one I probably won't disagree with. However, situations like this are rarely as simple as looking at only one factor and changing the law to fit. When you do that, other problems often come out of the woodwork.

Never thought I'd miss everyone arguing about the lockout till they were blue in the face..

You missed the point. The Va tech shooter killed 30 or so people with only handguns. Didn't have an assault weapon. Same with Fort Hood. Same with that nut who shot the congress woman. If they ban assault guns, what's next when the murders don't stop?

Give anybody a gym bag full of handguns and he'll do similar damage when nobody is around to shoot back.....
- madmike71

Did the Va tech shooter kill all 30 at the same time in a matter of minutes? Nobody wants to ban guns completely! Nobody thinks that banning Assault rifles will completely end violent crimes commited with guns! I didn't miss the point at all!

Very doubtful that someone with a handgun can do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time then someone with an Assault weapon with high volume magazines can.

then there would be no more school attacks....see how that works....Guns equal protection when in hands of good sane people. Gun = bad when in hands of mentally disturbed individuals.. How about tackling mental illness before tackling the 4th amendment.
- tmlfan17

How about doing both? As if there has to be a choice made. I'm in favor of anything that will help or contribute in any way, no matter how small, to stopping what happened on Friday!

I agree 100%
- As_I_See_It

for the record i'm a heavily medicated schizophrenic.

Never thought I'd miss everyone arguing about the lockout till they were blue in the face..
- mrhattrick27

Were going to argue gun control until the lockout ends!

agreed...it will be very difficult and world peace wont come of it, but it is DEFINITELY a part of the problem...if i can fix a part of it, im doing it. if it saves 1 life, its worth every second devoted to stricter laws.
- LetsGoIsles

What if it saves one life at the expense of another (and I'm not talking about the shooter, either)? Putting restraints on gun laws are going to make people, who were once legally able to carry a gun, and responsible enough to do so, ineligible. They may make it difficult to get a hold of by the wrong person, but they could, and inevitably will, keep it out of the right person's hand as well, one that could save lives as well. Does the benefit outweigh the cost? Perhaps, but that's not a decision you and I can simply make by discussing it in this forum.

I don't think people should have access to such killing machines.


Do you need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt?
- robin_steele264

I actually hunt with a single shot Ruger #1 45-70..