Obama Calls For More Gun Control

[submaniac]

Don't assume. No complaints. I just cut and pasted that from an article. The body armor and silencers were more disconcerting. Dorner is poster boy for NRA with his fancy hunting rifle. Need that bullet proof hat in case deer shoot back.

More intelligent discussion from you.

Anyways, body armor is legal for purchase to the general public. (Except in California there is a law against convicted felons owning body armor.) You can obtain mail order. No background check, no nothing. It's defensive rather than offensive.

The silencers are legal if the state you live in allows them. They're NFA. Nevada allows people to own. California doesn't. All that is necessary to purchase is to fill out a form to ATF, wait 6-8 weeks, undergo background check including FBI fingerprinting, and pay $200 tax.

"Silencer" is a misnomer. Correct term is "suppressor". It lowers the decibals, but doesn't make it silent which is what people like you who watch alot of movies think. And if you are so against them, would you mind finding one example of a suppressed weapon proven (i.e. conviction) used in a crime?

Edited February 18, 2013 by submaniac

[F430murci]

I know how a suppressor works as well as subsonic rounds. No rational human being needs Kevlar helmets, body armor or 10 silencers. Dorner obviously wasn't a rationale human being so no need to rationalize or defend his mental disconnect and purchasing patterns.

[Scott]

The OP is actually about Gun Control and not about a rogue police officer. If you wish to discuss arms in a civil manner, please do so. If you are simply going to snipe, complain and make inflammatory remarks you might want to stay with the topic of the OP.

My patience are wearing thin.

[Chicog]

"Silencer" is a misnomer. Correct term is "suppressor". It lowers the decibals, but doesn't make it silent which is what people like you who watch alot of movies think. And if you are so against them, would you mind finding one example of a suppressed weapon proven (i.e. conviction) used in a crime?

"People like you who watch a lot of movies"? That's a bit patronising isn't it?

I've shot plenty of firearms in my youth, including with the Royal Marines, and I understand what they can do and how they sound, thank you.

I believe the point is why civilians would need this equipment, not exactly how you spell it or how it works.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Chicog

[zydeco]

"Silencer" is a misnomer. Correct term is "suppressor". It lowers the decibals, but doesn't make it silent which is what people like you who watch alot of movies think. And if you are so against them, would you mind finding one example of a suppressed weapon proven (i.e. conviction) used in a crime?

"People like you who watch a lot of movies"? That's a bit patronising isn't it?

I've shot plenty of firearms in my youth, including with the Royal Marines, and I understand what they can do and how they sound, thank you.

I believe the point is why civilians would need this equipment, not exactly how you spell it or how it works.

If you're not an American citizen, then this entire subject, pro and con, is really none of your business.

[Scott]

Please don't feed the troll. Everyone is invited to post, provided you have something to say.

--

[mania]

"Silencer" is a misnomer. Correct term is "suppressor". It lowers the decibals, but doesn't make it silent which is what people like you who watch alot of movies think. And if you are so against them, would you mind finding one example of a suppressed weapon proven (i.e. conviction) used in a crime?

"People like you who watch a lot of movies"? That's a bit patronising isn't it?

I've shot plenty of firearms in my youth, including with the Royal Marines, and I understand what they can do and how they sound, thank you.

I believe the point is why civilians would need this equipment, not exactly how you spell it or how it works.

Actually Suppressors are a good thing for what they do.

The reasons civilians like this is again for what they do

Suppress noise, Lessen Noise pollution

Take the sharps off the sound of the shot of most sub-sonic rounds, opening more places to target practice without creating

a noise problem.

Of course leaky noise guns like revolvers do not benefit from suppression but most pistol (non revolvers ) & rifles do.

This is probably what submaniac was referring to when he mentioned they are not all used for "movie" like actions.

Edited February 18, 2013 by mania

[Chicog]

If you're not an American citizen, then this entire subject, pro and con, is really none of your business.

Perhaps you were under the impression this is a US Citizens-only forum.

You were mistaken.

[chuckd]

If you're not an American citizen, then this entire subject, pro and con, is really none of your business.

Perhaps you were under the impression this is a US Citizens-only forum.

You were mistaken.

Little touchy tonight?

[Chicog]

Although they never found it, I think the Feds believed John Allen Muhammad used a home made silencer (as they referred to it) in the Beltway Sniper killings:

According to Robert Edward Holmes, a friend and former Army buddy of Muhammad's who was interviewed by the FBI, Muhammad recently showed him an AR-15 rifle and asked, "Can you imagine the damage you could do if you could shoot with a silencer?" Along with the AR-15, Holmes told authorities that Muhammad and an unnamed associate carried a book on how to make a sound suppressor.

They showed the design at his trial.

[Chicog]

If you're not an American citizen, then this entire subject, pro and con, is really none of your business.

Perhaps you were under the impression this is a US Citizens-only forum.

You were mistaken.

Little touchy tonight?

Touchy? No, just stating what should be obvious. I wasn't the one who sniped about "circle jerks", now, was I?

Edited February 18, 2013 by Chicog

[Joe Mamma]

Even if he can pass this, it will be too little, too late, and he probably can't pass even this. I reckon Americans are just stuck with certain unpleasant things. Absurdly high gun violence rate paired with absurdly high incarceration rates. Isn't that exceptional?

Lots of movies and films depicting all the crap too, night and day-24/7. no subtitles though.

[Joe Mamma]

Believe it or not, that big windbag, Bill O'Reilly articulated what I thought to be the most intelligent approach to gun control I've heard the other night on Letterman. He proposed registration for all guns and owners, and federalizing all gun crimes with a mandatory 10 year sentence, even for unregistered guns. That still allows everyone to own guns legally, but makes unregistered gun holders big criminals. Federalizing the crimes puts into effect a massive enforcement apparatus too. It preserves Americans rights to own guns, but solves much of the problem.

As a former gun collector and law enforcement retiree, i still see the problem of criminal behavior, ignorance, disrespect and all the other stupid things people do and have always done. Only now the numbers are staggering! The law abiding citizens have nothing to lose by registering legal weapons and being checked for cognitive abilities, medical,mental and criminal background checks. Gun safety and common sense education, could be compulsory and could only help.

Now what about all the law breaking citizens, the ones who think the laws are for everyone else! Then the non-citizen issue, if someone is not in the system,how can their weapons be accounted for? I never saw the guys who load their own ammo cause trouble or break laws and i saw gun shops trying to educate people in responsibility for all firearms .All the people i hunted and shot trap and skeet with all those years proved to be solid type citizens.

[submaniac]

I know how a suppressor works as well as subsonic rounds. No rational human being needs Kevlar helmets, body armor or 10 silencers. Dorner obviously wasn't a rationale human being so no need to rationalize or defend his mental disconnect and purchasing patterns.

I have this feeling that you know how a suppressor works as well as subsonic rounds after I posted and you looked it up in wikipedia. My opinion is based upon the previous comment you made about how normal police officers don't have AR-15 rifles save for those that sit at home drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and polishing their guns. Then I pointed out that every California Highway Patrol car is equipped with an AR-15 and shotgun, and showed you pictures of how every police officer pictured in the Dorner search was carrying an AR-15.

"People like you who watch a lot of movies"? That's a bit patronising isn't it?

I've shot plenty of firearms in my youth, including with the Royal Marines, and I understand what they can do and how they sound, thank you.

I believe the point is why civilians would need this equipment, not exactly how you spell it or how it works.

Why would a civilian need this equipment? Well, let's say you have a large parcel of land where you could practice shooting. Would be nice so you don't have to wear earplugs when you shoot. Would be nice for the neighbors so you don't irritate them/scare them with loud explosions. Definately would be useful for hunting not irritate people who live near where you're hunting or scare of the critters you're trying to kill. Those are legitimate purposes. In many countries you can purchase a silencer without regulation. Some countries require to use a silencer when hunting so as not to disturb people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Europe

I asked to find one documented instance where a suppressor was used in the commissioning of a crime. The best you could do was that DC sniper had a book on how to make a silencer and MAYBE he was going to use one. This is reality, anyone can have instructions on how to build a silencer by looking on google. The plans are very public knowledge and easy to find. Making a silencer is actually very easy too. The fact is that the DC sniper was never confirmed to have used a suppressor. A suppressor would not have helped him much. He was using a bushmaster AR-15; the bullet is comming out of that barrel at twice the speed of sound, and no suppressor can overcome physics and the supersonic crack.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE MOVIES. A SUPRESSOR IS STILL NOISY.

So here we have legitimate purposes for use, and no correlation with crime...and you want to ban them. That summarizes the entire problem with the anti-gun movement. What you want to ban has nothing to do with crime, but everyone wants to get rid of them because they don't know anything about them.

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

[F430murci]

I know how a suppressor works as well as subsonic rounds. No rational human being needs Kevlar helmets, body armor or 10 silencers. Dorner obviously wasn't a rationale human being so no need to rationalize or defend his mental disconnect and purchasing patterns.

I have this feeling that you know how a suppressor works as well as subsonic rounds after I posted and you looked it up in wikipedia. My opinion is based upon the previous comment you made about how normal police officers don't have AR-15 rifles save for those that sit at home drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and polishing their guns. Then I pointed out that every California Highway Patrol car is equipped with an AR-15 and shotgun, and showed you pictures of how every police officer pictured in the Dorner search was carrying an AR-15.

"People like you who watch a lot of movies"? That's a bit patronising isn't it?

I've shot plenty of firearms in my youth, including with the Royal Marines, and I understand what they can do and how they sound, thank you.

I believe the point is why civilians would need this equipment, not exactly how you spell it or how it works.

Why would a civilian need this equipment? Well, let's say you have a large parcel of land where you could practice shooting. Would be nice so you don't have to wear earplugs when you shoot. Would be nice for the neighbors so you don't irritate them/scare them with loud explosions. Definately would be useful for hunting not irritate people who live near where you're hunting or scare of the critters you're trying to kill. Those are legitimate purposes. In many countries you can purchase a silencer without regulation. Some countries require to use a silencer when hunting so as not to disturb people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Europe

I asked to find one documented instance where a suppressor was used in the commissioning of a crime. The best you could do was that DC sniper had a book on how to make a silencer and MAYBE he was going to use one. This is reality, anyone can have instructions on how to build a silencer by looking on google. The plans are very public knowledge and easy to find. Making a silencer is actually very easy too. The fact is that the DC sniper was never confirmed to have used a suppressor. A suppressor would not have helped him much. He was using a bushmaster AR-15; the bullet is comming out of that barrel at twice the speed of sound, and no suppressor can overcome physics and the supersonic crack.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE MOVIES. A SUPRESSOR IS STILL NOISY.

So here we have legitimate purposes for use, and no correlation with crime...and you want to ban them. That summarizes the entire problem with the anti-gun movement. What you want to ban has nothing to do with crime, but everyone wants to get rid of them because they don't know anything about them.

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

Wow. You right, but I already admitted I wrong about whether LAPD have AR-15s in every single squad car. Actually, I was talking about city my brother was a cop in . . . Any way, there are lots of things I don't know about, but I can tell you all about blowing up a 23b3 class in a derivative action by filing a dec action on behalf of MY company!!!! against all shareholders, including my officers accused of looting, in front of my favorite small town Chancellor during sec 220 and later file Motion to Abstain and Dismiss under Colorado River Water Conservative District arguing derivative class claims in Fed Court are parallell to my first filed Dec action in state court. Whodda thunk of that one. I did and we settled about an hour ago for less than 30 cents on the dollar . . . After Fed Court abstained last week. Doubt Cir Ct would have affirmed under Perez v. Ladesma my use of a dec action to thwart forum selection of class counsel.

Guns , wah wah wah. Starting sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. I bet I can name more rounds below 1350 fps than you and I am probably a buyer shot than you.

My family had insane gun collections including those consecutive serial 1 & 2s in fancy boxes together for a whole bunch of Colt 45 manufacture years. Dad used to build those black powder kits you could from Sears in late 70s and I hunted deer with 45 or 50 cap and ball or bow as more of a challenge. I had everything from 22 to 30.06 and an 8mm rifle for deer at one point which was not worth a dam_n for deer.

Grandfather had, now uncle has, some of short barrels you screw into the end of a Colt 45. I think they were called something like Ginty barrell and supposed to be very rare. He had a couple of sets of thise. Uncle has sharps and a bunch of old black powder, but my favs are Winchester lever action and this unusual 32 cal I think black powder that looks Mexican. I cannot remember name but I used to hunt squirrel and rabbit with it. Reminds me also that grandfather had a 22 auto pistol we used to hunt rabbit. That was pretty cool.

Don't assume just because I think gun laws should be stricter I am anti gun. I am just against morons and whack jobs having them and dint thunk assault weapons are necessary.

Edited February 19, 2013 by F430murci

[chuckd]

Some people will never understand that the more they try to impress....the less it does impress.

[submaniac]

Yes chuck. The efforts to impress result in a questioning on grasp of reality.

[F430murci]

Some people will never understand that the more they try to impress....the less it does impress.

Ah, don't be such a sour pus. Big victory today and a lot of hard work went into it. Gums stuff about family not me. Have you ever anything nice to say. Be happy.

[submaniac]

Yeah... I still don't think your a lawyer. Of course I didn't take my Prozac today. Got too busy polishing my guns and attending Montana freeman meeting.

[Scott]

Please address your comments to the topic and not other posters, particularly if the comment has nothing to do with the thread.

[Chicog]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

[chuckd]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

[Felipesed]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

If you consider that the number of people having legally held firearms is a problem, can you please explain, in simple terms, why the states and city with the most restrictive firearms laws, i.e. Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philidelphia, have the highest rates of armed crime?

States with fairly liberal laws, and high rates of firearm ownership, e.g. Arizona, Florida, Montana, Alaska, have very low rates of homicides and burglaries.

Do you not think that there just might be a connection with a high level of legal firearm ownership and a low crime rate?

Perhaps there might be a link between the demographic make-up of cities with high crime rates and those with lower rates?

Legally-owned guns are not a problem, criminals are the problem!

[F430murci]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

If you consider that the number of people having legally held firearms is a problem, can you please explain, in simple terms, why the states and city with the most restrictive firearms laws, i.e. Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philidelphia, have the highest rates of armed crime?

States with fairly liberal laws, and high rates of firearm ownership, e.g. Arizona, Florida, Montana, Alaska, have very low rates of homicides and burglaries.

Do you not think that there just might be a connection with a high level of legal firearm ownership and a low crime rate?

Perhaps there might be a link between the demographic make-up of cities with high crime rates and those with lower rates?

Legally-owned guns are not a problem, criminals are the problem!

Might have more to do with racial demographics, gang activity and drugs than gun laws. Funny how you pick whole states and compare to cities with a high incidences of the above factors I cite.

For instance you cite Florida is being an example of how "liberal" gun controls work, yet Miami and Orlando are two of the most dangerous cities in the country.

I also believe Phoenix may be up there at or just past LA in murder rate per 100,000. Have to look up current data. California may also be below both Florida and Arizona on murder rate.

I thought I read that New York City murder rate dropped fell to 4 or less per 100,000 in 2012. Compare that to Phoenix, Miami, Orlando and etc. Seems like when I was in Phoenix recently news said rate was around 15 per 100,000 and they were becoming LA or worse than LA.

Haha, I really get a chuckle out of throwing Montana and Alaska on the list and comparing those states to largest US cities. That's wilderness country and not really representative of US in general.

I am afraid it is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.

Edited February 20, 2013 by F430murci

[Morden]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

If you consider that the number of people having legally held firearms is a problem, can you please explain, in simple terms, why the states and city with the most restrictive firearms laws, i.e. Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philidelphia, have the highest rates of armed crime?

States with fairly liberal laws, and high rates of firearm ownership, e.g. Arizona, Florida, Montana, Alaska, have very low rates of homicides and burglaries.

Do you not think that there just might be a connection with a high level of legal firearm ownership and a low crime rate?

Perhaps there might be a link between the demographic make-up of cities with high crime rates and those with lower rates?

Legally-owned guns are not a problem, criminals are the problem!

The any-gun-anywhere-any-person lobby is running short of smoke with which to screen the glaringly obvious. Gun crime is rampant in the US. Individual State laws do not work, if only because guns bought in a State with weak laws or law enforcement are feeding crime in other States as well as their own. It's unbelievable that in a country that regards itself as civilised, open gun law advocates have been so immovable in the face of so many recent massacres.

It's not just about guns, of course, but the easy availability of mass killing machines is a major part of the problem. Knives won't kill 26 children in a school in a few minutes. Guns can and do. It will never be possible to identify all of the mentally ill people who want guns and, even then, they can steal guns from family members.

The gung-ho culture in the US will stand in the way of reason for many years to come and many more lives will be lost as a result. Much needs to be changed, including the types of guns civilians may own, but it will be a long time before the US respects life sufficiently to do much about the problem.

[Felipesed]

F430 wrote:

"Might have more to do with racial demographics, gang activity and drugs than gun laws. Funny how you pick whole states and compare to cities with a high incidences of the above factors I cite."

Exactly! Though you can extrapolate the crime figures from city to state and you will still get the same result. Bear in mind that some cities/towns have enacted more onerous restrictions on the possession of firearms than would apply in other areas of the state. New York State is a good example of this.

But please explain why cities like Chicago, Washington D.C, Boston, Philadelphia have very strict laws on the possession of firearms and also have very high crime rates?

Could it be that criminals do not take any notice of laws, either regarding firearm possession, or any other laws?

Could it be that, in Florida or Arizona for instance, a high proportion of the citizenry are likely to be legally carrying a firearm, thus a high deterrence factor?

[F430murci]

F430 wrote:

"Might have more to do with racial demographics, gang activity and drugs than gun laws. Funny how you pick whole states and compare to cities with a high incidences of the above factors I cite."

Exactly! Though you can extrapolate the crime figures from city to state and you will still get the same result. Bear in mind that some cities/towns have enacted more onerous restrictions on the possession of firearms than would apply in other areas of the state. New York State is a good example of this.

But please explain why cities like Chicago, Washington D.C, Boston, Philadelphia have very strict laws on the possession of firearms and also have very high crime rates?

Could it be that criminals do not take any notice of laws, either regarding firearm possession, or any other laws?

Could it be that, in Florida or Arizona for instance, a high proportion of the citizenry are likely to be legally carrying a firearm, thus a high deterrence factor?

And Miami and Phoenix and Dallas and Orlando and Atlanta.

Memphis, Tennessee where every one has guns, good or bad). I know that city too well and thank the lord I don't live there.

I don't think you understand that most of the gang violence in cities you mention is not directed toward unarmed innocent surnurbanites. These guys shoot each other regardless as to whether other is armed. Having a gun might just get you shot quicker if your perceived as a possible threat. Dudes on crack also don't care if someone is armed. Where most of these violent crimes occur almost everyone is armed. If they want you dead there is not much you can do about it.

[Chicog]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

If you'd bother to read my posts on this subject I have never said that gun control on its own will have the desired effect. And you obviously did not read the Whitehouse recommendations that cover "much more than the availability of guns", so please look in the mirror before you start throwing around charges of ignorance.

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

• Require background checks for all gun sales.
  
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
  
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
  
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
  
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
  
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  
• End the freeze on gun violence research.
  
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
  
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
  

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

[beechguy]

This entire thread is a massive circle jerk. It's going around in circles with the anti-gun crowd making arguments which are based on a whole lot of people talking out of their butt without knowing what they're talking about.

It's going round in circles with the gun crowd repeating the tired old mantras of the amendment, cars kill people, axes kill people, etc., and showing complete intransigence when it comes to taking steps to reduce the senseless deaths.

As I've said before, it's as if the gun lobby consider the odd mass murder an acceptable price to pay so they can have their phallus substitutes.

...and the anti-gun nuts are offering new reasons for solving the problem besides banning guns?

Get medical care for mentally disturbed young people and much of this would stop. Madmen have been creating these shootings with inanimate objects yet it is still the gun's fault?

What are your solutions for getting the mental health issue addressed? Given that any thought or is it all about guns?

What about the violent video games this kid grew up addicted to? Any opinions on that or is that something that doesn't compute either?

There is much more to this than the availability of guns and if you don't realize that, then you are sadly adrift in a sea of ignorance.

If you'd bother to read my posts on this subject I have never said that gun control on its own will have the desired effect. And you obviously did not read the Whitehouse recommendations that cover "much more than the availability of guns", so please look in the mirror before you start throwing around charges of ignorance.

The Whitehouse position has been clearly stated: "No single law – or even set of laws – can prevent every act of violence in our country. But the fact that this problem is complex can not be an excuse for inaction."

They have proposed a number of measures that can hardly be called unreasonable:

• Require background checks for all gun sales.
  
• Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
  
• Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
  
• Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
  
• Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets.
  
• Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  
• End the freeze on gun violence research.
  
• Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.
  
• Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.
  

Now tell me what is so unreasonable about this list that you wouldn't even consider it as a starting point?

The first problem is those guys are idiots and just playing politics, and none of those things have much to do with the murderers that are actually pulling the trigger. But, it's easy enough to BS people who don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, have you ever bought or old a firearm in the U.S.? Or fired a weapon in the U.S.? For that matter, have you ever even been in the U.S.?

Edited February 20, 2013 by beechguy

[Chicog]

The first problem is those guy are idiots, and none of those things have much to do with the murderers that are actually pulling the trigger. But, it's easy enough to BS people who don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, have you ever bought or old a firearm in the U.S.? Or fired a weapon in the U.S.? For that matter, have you ever even been in the U.S.?

What an articulate argument. Not.

And no, no, yes many times. Does that actually have anything to do with this discussion or are you just going to bleat about how non-Americans are not allowed to talk about it?

Grow up man, it's a discussion, not a pub argument.