Gun laws in America

[crapcat]

With the recent topic of the Connecticut shootings and Adam Lanza, we've had a pretty sizable debate going on in this forum, it's been heated, there's been pathetic attempts at insults, and well - almost everyone's opinion was different. Many I quote 'far fetched'.

 

Sadly the idea of how Adam Lanza acquired a semi automatic weapon with ammunition meant to inflict the most damage possible on soft targets, still remains a mystery. Because honestly, I don't think anyone should have a need for such weaponry. It is absurd. No one should need assault weaponry!

 

So here comes the topic of how easy it is acquire weapons in America. Especially those with a history of mental illness.

 

So basically, I want your idea of more effective gun control laws. While this wouldn't solve all our problems, it would certainly help in preventing that high grade ammunition from reaching those children's heads, wouldn't you agree? Maybe stop that rabies inflicted teenager from killing all his classmates out of some diabolical reasons.

 

So go on, give me your thoughts.

 

But wait, my thoughts? Yes, what's a debate without an initial thought.

 

Firstly, guns are too hard to acquire in general, there needs to be more background checks before just anyone can get them.  There's no reason why someone with a low IQ, and a history of mental illnesses, should have even been granted a gun.

 

Basically, what I'm trying to say - without totally banning guns from the public, we should have a massive variety of background checks on a person, not just limited to criminal and personal history, but also expanding to one's personal life, and one's training with a certain class firearm.

 

We should also limit the type of firearms and ammunition used. Now you're going to say 'a gun is a gun, and it's just as effective as any other gun.' Now look, I hate to say this, but the weapon Adam Lanza used was not meant to injure, it was meant to kill. One should not be able to acquire weaponry that's meant for such a purpose. I'm not going to be the judge of what weapons one should be gained access to. But I think a pistol would be far less effective at mass murders.

 

One should also, have a limit on how many firearms they can own at one time. As for the amount of ammunition one owns, that may prove to be more difficult, but there's no reason why someone should own enough ammunition to gun down an entire school.

 

And of course just 'laws' won't stop people from acquiring guns entirely, because naturally people will break laws. Adam Lanza broke plenty of gun control laws, but it honestly just boils down to how easy it is to acquire a firearm here in the united states. There's countless situations to name in which one may go on a mass killing spree, you may live with someone that owns a gun, that's possible. To stop shootings would be largely impossible due to the complexity of our culture, and each individual's life.

 

But that's straying from the topic.

 

It is obvious that the united states has inefficient gun laws, how in your opinion, could we improve our laws in comparison to the rest of the developed world? It's a fact, that we have more fatalities due to guns, than most of the developed world combined.

[Arashikage]

He got the gun from his mother, he didn't buy the gun legally, he STOLE it.  But by this logic here, if there were more background checks, he wouldn't have been able to steal his mother's guns.  Another thing, people hunt.  The Bushmaster XM-15, the rifle used has a .223 caliber cartridge, that's a hunting caliber.  I don't know if his mom hunted, or if she just appreciated firearms, but that's a perfectly normal round.  

 

Another point, criminals get guns anyway.  "We should put more restrictions on firearms so criminals won't get them" because criminals just LOVE to follow the law!  Am I right?  While we're at it, we should ban DRUGS too!  That'll teach them!  The only thing banning guns or putting more restrictions on guns will do is stop law abiding citizens from acquiring weapons to defend themselves with.  Yes, that's right, people use firearms for good too.  

 

It does not boil down to the simplicity of acquiring firearms, it boils down to people, and how they think and act.  If his mother didn't keep these guns locked away in a safe, the ammunition out of the guns and the magazines, something bad was just WAITING to happen.  

 

How would we regulate these things any more anyway?  Regulate, everyone throws this word around but nobody has a clue what the hell it means.  If by regulate you mean make it tougher for law abiding taxpaying American citizens to get them, we're doing that now.  If you mean ban completely by regulate, I wish you the best of luck.  But honestly, I'd rather fend off an AK47 with a handgun than a pencil.

[crapcat]

My error on the fact that Lanza stole the weapons.

 

But anyway, as I said we'll never solve this situation entirely. Adam Lanza by history, was not a criminal. His mother possessed considerable firearms, more so than what she really should have possessed in her circumstance. She actually had a fascination for firearms. Also, Adam Lanza used frangible bullets, which basically fragment apart causing a maximum amount of damage. His configuration, was obviously meant to kill and severely injure, however you want to look at it.

 

You can also argue about the black market and how one might acquire firearms anyway, even if there were more strict regulations on the possession of legal firearms. You can also say that it depends on each person's thought process and how they might act. I did say Adam Lanza broke several gun control laws, but I feel our laws at the moment are largely ineffective, considering how easy it is for almost anyone to get a firearm. In this situation though, it was largely his mother's fault, since she obviously gave Adam Lanza access to the weapons in some shape or form. Unintentionally, or not.

 

I also don't see any purpose in Adam Lanza's mother possessing more than one firearm, let alone hundreds and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. We could theoretically limit the amount of firearms and ammunition one may possess based on a computerized system, but honestly that may be ineffective at this point. And even if such a system was introduced, there's no stopping people from illegally acquiring ammunition and more weapons.

 

So in the end, it's two separate wars, one against illegal weapons, and one against how easily one can acquire a legalized weapon.

 

I honestly have no idea where one should start in situations such as this. When we look at other developed nations, the shooting rates are nearly close to zero, all I can ask myself is - why? Maybe they had their systems in place  early enough so that it could be effective, It's never too late to correct a certain issue, especially gun control in america, but what are we to do about the school shootings here in America? When will it end? I don't think any of us have the straight out answers.

 

I'm actually against firearms in possession of the general public in general, if Adam Lanza had not had access so many weapons, or no weapons at all. The effect and extent of the tragedy would have been a lot less depending on Adam Lanza's thought process, or maybe the tragedy may not have happened at all.

 

So you are right about one's thought process, but the actual bullets scare me a bit more than each person possessing a firearm in general.

[DZComposer]

I think we need to first look at the second amendment and what it actually means, in context with the rest of the constitution.

 

This whole "The second amendment is there to provide for the people to rise up against an oppressive government" argument is false. Let's look at Article III, Sec. 3:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

 

 

The FIRST item defined as treason by the constitution is "levying war". Either this is a blatant contradiction, or the second amendment does NOT grant the right to rebel.

 

So, what does it mean if not the right to rebel?

 

Let's take a look at Article I, Sec. 8:

 

The Congress shall have power to...

 

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

 

To provide and maintain a navy;

 

 

This restriction is inspired by the constitutions of North Carolina and Pennsylnavia at the time, both of which contained "As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up."

 

If the idea is to discourage standing armies, what about foreign invasion? That is why the navy has no such restriction. That is also why we have the second amendment:

 

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

 

 

Thus, we need a regulated and trained militia to fight while an army is raised, but there is an important thing militas need: Arms. Thus, the ammendment continues:

 

 

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Thus, the government cannot disarm the militia.

 

The second amendment is there to enable people to fight FOR the government, NOT against it.

 

The War of 1812, however, proved that all of this, while a novel idea, was not practical. Thus, every two years the congress re-authorizes the army. Today's congress calls such bills "National Defense Authorization Acts," or NDAAs.

 

I personally think we need a new amendment to adress this for a couple of reasons:

1. Clarify the vague wording of the second amendment

2. Get rid of a popular bill for attaching riders to and allow the military to funded as part of the budget like any other government agency.

 

I think a three-section amendment would work:

Sec. 1:

Strike the langauge "but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years" from Article I Sec. 8. [Allow congress to fund the army as long as it desires]

 

Sec 2:

All military and defense appropriations must be itemized in the national budget except in cases where such disclosure demonstrably endagers national security. No cost of war or military excursion shall be hidden from the congress or the people through accounting practices. Every two years the president shall deliver to congress a full audit of military and defense spending. The congress shall have the power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation. [stop the black-hole pentagon budgeting and no more "off the books" wars like Iraq]

 

Sec. 3:

The congress and the several states shall have the power to regulate the sale, manfacture, and possession of arms, including but not limited to caliber, round capcity, and rate of fire, but no person shall be denied the right to bear arms reasonalbe for personal defense or sport without due process of law. [Allow regulation of guns while maintaning a right to bear arms]

[crapcat]

@DZcomposer

 

Well that was well thought out, lol.I can only agree with it to be honest.

 

But all these debates are ruining my perspective on things, too many sides to fight for, so I shall remain silent concerning these subjects for awhile. I'll leave the thinking to the lawmakers.

 

/leaves thread

 

But by all means, continue on.

[TCPeppyTc]

It might actually happen this time! It seems people are fed up with the loose gun laws. If The killer tried to do this with anything but an assault rifle ( even a handgun or a bomb) It would not have been nearly as lethal.

[Arashikage]

But all these debates are ruining my perspective on things

I'd use the term "Enlightening"

[Snys93]

I can only say that technology has advanced while our moral reasoning is struggling to catch up.

 

 

Is this the legacy of mankind?

[Prince Elite]

I think DZ summed my thoughts pretty well with his views, but I'll put my two cents in anyway.

 

The government needs to have more gun control, because unfortunately, people kill each other and minimizing the casualties and if possible, preventing them is the best way to go.

 

In 1996 a Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 21. Using an AR-15 to commit the massacre, he also happened to possess a USAS-12, but he didn't use it. He will never be released from prison and has been diagnosed with many intellectual and social disorders.

 

Gun laws were tightened severely since then and it is almost impossible to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic rifle, and the acquisition of a handgun or similar is extremely difficult and higher powered handguns are practically impossible to acquire through legal means. If a gun is distributed, the type caliber and other technical aspects must be pre-approved officially first.  More severe punishments were given for illegal gun holders and distributors and a buy-back scheme was enacted which resulted in over 600,000 guns being destroyed.

 

Since then there has only been one significant scale shooting which occurred in 2002 where a university student killed 2 of his classmates and 5 others in the belief it was his destiny. For something to be defined as a mass shooting, 4 fatalities must occur. (not to say this event wasn't tragic) Since then handgun restrictions have also been put in place too. Over the course of ten years since 1991 to 2001, during which these laws were enacted  the rate of firearm related deaths dropped 47%. According the the bureau of statistics, the majority of firearm related deaths on Australia are suicides. On average, knives are used as the weapon of choice for robberies three times more than guns are.

 

Not to say that these laws went perfectly. Although they affected mass shootings extremely well, suicide rates remained static for several years and figures of alternate methods of suicide rose, particularly hanging due to the lack of guns and the situation is still an issue to be corrected. 

 

My view is that tighter gun control through increased and tougher laws, and programmes to remove unlawful weaponry and prevent unnecessary sale and distribution of overly powered firearms is necessary and advisable in order to prevent mass shootings from being able to take place in other countries apart from Australia and help reduce gun violence. 

[crapcat]

I'd use the term "Enlightening"

Or "broadening"