Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Y2HH]

Guns have a wide range of purposes:

 

- Kill people

- Kill animals

- Practice shooting at targets so that you can one day kill a person/animal if you have to

 

Or shooting at targets never having an intention of using it for any other purpose. People like this DO exist.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[CanOfCorn]

As does a gun/bow/crossbow. It CAN be used for a purpose outside of deadly harm, whether you like it or not.

 

What is that purpose? Target practice? What's the point of target practice? To be better at shooting AT SOMETHING. Sorry but we have to agree to disagree.

[BigSqwert]

Or shooing at targets never having an intention of using it for any other purpose. People like this DO exist.

If this purpose is the best one you can think of for having such lax gun control laws then what the hell is wrong with this country?

[Y2HH]

What is that purpose? Target practice? What's the point of target practice? To be better at shooting AT SOMETHING. Sorry but we have to agree to disagree.

 

No, for some people, and I know people like this, the point of target practice is the point itself. They find it fun.

 

They don't even take the guns home with them. They leave them at the ranges locked up. So, whether you want to admit it or not, this DOES happen.

[StrangeSox]

No, for some people, and I know people like this, the point of target practice is the point itself. They find it fun.

 

They don't even take the guns home with them. They leave them at the ranges locked up. So, whether you want to admit it or not, this DOES happen.

 

I'm perfectly fine with this sort of regulation to enable recreational shooting of guns I would otherwise like to see restricted.

[Y2HH]

If this purpose is the best one you can think of for having such lax gun control laws then what the hell is wrong with this country?

 

I never said having such lax gun control was a good thing.

 

As a matter of fact, not long ago I said it needs to be federally mandated, no state laws, no local laws, etc...without that, there will never be real gun control here. I'm absolutely for effective restrictions on gun use/ownership, etc...I'm not arguing against it.

 

I'm arguing against silly "bans" or restrictions that are local law only...they mean nothing.

[Balta1701]

I never said having such lax gun control was a good thing.

 

As a matter of fact, not long ago I said it needs to be federally mandated, no state laws, no local laws, etc...without that, there will never be real gun control here. I'm absolutely for effective restrictions on gun use/ownership, etc...I'm not arguing against it.

 

I'm arguing against silly "bans" or restrictions that are local law only...they mean nothing.

I actually kind of like the local laws...but they'd actually need to be backed up by state and Federal laws and enforcement of laws against transport (preferably along with registration).

 

Chicago ought to be able to have more stringent gun laws than some ranch in West Texas, for example. I can totally find logic in that. The issue winds up being the one you've pointed out...that a ban in Chicago only works as long as the cities next door aren't deliberately undermining it, and if the ban itself has teeth.

 

If you had registrations for handguns, a handgun ban in Chicago, and confiscation+fines+prison for the owner if the handgun gets picked up in the city of Chicago...you could have a system that would work well. And I see no reason why the middle of Wyoming needs the same restriction.

[Y2HH]

I actually kind of like the local laws...but they'd actually need to be backed up by state and Federal laws and enforcement of laws against transport (preferably along with registration).

 

Chicago ought to be able to have more stringent gun laws than some ranch in West Texas, for example. I can totally find logic in that. The issue winds up being the one you've pointed out...that a ban in Chicago only works as long as the cities next door aren't deliberately undermining it, and if the ban itself has teeth.

 

If you had registrations for handguns, a handgun ban in Chicago, and confiscation+fines+prison for the owner if the handgun gets picked up in the city of Chicago...you could have a system that would work well. And I see no reason why the middle of Wyoming needs the same restriction.

 

My point was addressed in your second sentence. The problem is they ARE undermined by neighboring areas.

[Soxbadger]

I never said having such lax gun control was a good thing.

 

As a matter of fact, not long ago I said it needs to be federally mandated, no state laws, no local laws, etc...without that, there will never be real gun control here. I'm absolutely for effective restrictions on gun use/ownership, etc...I'm not arguing against it.

 

I'm arguing against silly "bans" or restrictions that are local law only...they mean nothing.

 

I think most people understand this. But when you live in a reality where I can not change the minds of everyone in the US, you have to do what you can do. So if all I can do is protect my little hut, then I am going to protect my hut, even if it means I cant stop the other hut owners from doing what they want.

 

It just has to start somewhere.

[Balta1701]

My point was addressed in your second sentence. The problem is they ARE undermined by neighboring areas.

That doesn't undermine the concept of differing levels of gun safety in different areas...that just means you need to have some level of cooperation to make it work...or you need a registration system to just bypass the local dealer's jurisdiction.

[ptatc]

It is not false. A car has a purpose outside of deadly harm. I agree with you about drinking and driving. But...a gun has no other purpose.

Guns serve an important purpose for livelyhood of many people. I use them to keep the coyotes away from the chickens. The ground squrriels and rodents who destroy crops also fall in this category. There was a cougar once that was threatening the cattle. This is why you need local laws. Weapons do serve a purpose other than killing for fun as many people are stating.

Edited December 17, 2012 by ptatc

[StrangeSox]

All guns with biometrics and GPS tracking to disable them based on location

[Y2HH]

That doesn't undermine the concept of differing levels of gun safety in different areas...that just means you need to have some level of cooperation to make it work...or you need a registration system to just bypass the local dealer's jurisdiction.

 

Agreed. But getting that kind of cooperation is next to impossible. Especially with neighboring suburbs, cities, and states constantly undermining each other for a multitude of reasons, including trying to lure businesses there with promises of less tax, better services, etc...

 

If it's not done federally, it will never happen.

[StrangeSox]

Guns serve an important purpose for livelyhood of many people. I use them to keep the coyotes away from the chickens. The ground squrriels and rodents who destroy crops also fall in this category. There was a cougar once that was threatening the cattle.

 

Right, and that's why balta's talking about different restrictions based on where you live making sense.

[StrangeSox]

Agreed. But getting that kind of cooperation is next to impossible. Especially with neighboring suburbs, cities, and states constantly undermining each other for a multitude of reasons, including trying to lure businesses there with promises of less tax, better services, etc...

 

If it's not done federally, it will never happen.

 

We obviously need better baseline federal regulations, but you can still modify on the state or local level from there.

[RockRaines]

Or shooting at targets never having an intention of using it for any other purpose. People like this DO exist.

And if they want they can buy Duck Hunt for nintendo.

[ptatc]

Right, and that's why balta's talking about different restrictions based on where you live making sense.

Correct but it also means that guns do have a use and people not only have a right but need them for various reasons.

[Y2HH]

We obviously need better baseline federal regulations, but you can still modify on the state or local level from there.

 

This was more my point.

[mr_genius]

And if they want they can buy Duck Hunt for nintendo.

 

actually, i think that will fall into the violent video game ban.

[Soxbadger]

Correct but it also means that guns do have a use and people not only have a right but need them for various reasons.

 

Depends on your definition of "need". All of the examples you used could be solved through other methods (compound bow, fence, trap, etc.) But the gun is an effective tool. Most reasonable people recognize this. Its just there needs to be some recognition that you dont need a 30 clip magazine to effectively prevent squirrels or any other animal.

 

A bolt loading rifle could handle many of those jobs, and unless someone has great proficiency they are unlikely to get as many shots off as they would with a semi-auto.

[knightni]

And if they want they can buy Duck Hunt for nintendo.

[BigSqwert]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.

 

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

 

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

 

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

 

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

 

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

 

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There i

s

more to thi

s

than merely the lobbying

s

trength of the National Rifle A

s

s

ociation and the proximity of the November pre

s

idential election. It i

s

hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murder

s

in Aurora had ta

k

en place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney.

S

o deeply embedded i

s

the gun culture of the U

S

, that million

s

of law-abiding, American

s

truly believe that it i

s

s

afer to own a gun, ba

s

ed on the chilling logic that becau

s

e there are

s

o many gun

s

in circulation, one'

s

own weapon i

s

needed for

s

elf-protection. To put it another way, the

s

ituation i

s

s

o far gone there can be no turning bac

k

.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

[StrangeSox]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-73733082/

[Y2HH]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-73733082/

 

Also called natural selection.

[Soxbadger]

Bigsqwert,

 

There is another pretty famous example, Dunblane, Scotland, 16 students, 6 adults.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/

Edited December 18, 2012 by Soxbadger