In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 665
Online now 629 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This is not exactly what I was looking for, but it may do, although the source will be discredited by those that disagree:
ok, going to have to take the AKs to the range tomorrow for some practice.
There are no solutions to gun violence in America other than attempting to resolve our underlying social issues and possibly tighten up the background check process to better screen those diagnosed with serious mental conditions.
Assault weapons ban - based on cosmetic features, also does nothing for the tens of millions already in circulation.
High capacity magazine ban - minimal change in the effectiveness of the firearm (reloading takes 1-2 seconds for an experienced individual), also doesn't do anything about the hundreds of millions already in circulation. Also doesn't address the relative ease of making or enlarging a magazine.
Restrictions on bulk ammunition purchases - just plain silly, most shootings use less than one box of ammo. even extreme events like today use less rounds than the average person would expend on one range trip. It doesn't take a lot of bullets to do a lot of harm.
Ammunition/gun taxes - the aurora shooter was able to spend thousands without issue. If we talking about someone willing to plan and carry out something like this, they are not above maxing their credit cards.
Waiting periods - those implemented have not had a significant impact on crime rates. in particular, VA repealed their handgun waiting period earlier this year and crime rates with no significant impact.
any sort of confiscation plan - would largely be voluntary. many guns are not on any registry. Plus the possibility of large scale civil unrest, there is a small but significant percentage of gun owners who will not disarm willingly.
This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by Dr_Hobo 16 months ago
If we are talking about a ban on guns this is what you are talking about correct or am I mistaken? Do you think that if you tried to take guns away from the population that everyone would willingly turn their weapons in? If you think it would be a peaceful process you are naive, that is what I meant and maybe it was a misinterpretation of what some people are asking for and if so I apologize.
Pic Sigs are for losers.
This isn't what I'm talking about.
You can't reasonably conclude the chances of a violent gun incident in your home don't go up when there's a gun in your home vs. not having a gun in your home.
And, sure, in theory you're more likely to stop an intruder in your home with a gun than without.
My point is the two percentages aren't scientific and they both go up when you own a gun. I guess I'm saying I think the chances of that violent incident in a non-protection capacity outweigh whatever increased chances you would have with an intruder.
I think if you break it down to a hypothetical, academic type argument then you could very easily make the case that banning guns eliminates most crimes like this. Clearly this isn't a practical exercise, but a kid with Aspergers or an Anti-Social Asian college student aren't hitting up Weebay on the black market to get a few guns. The same could be said for the Harvey Updyke types who get into the bottle after a Bama loss and blast their wife in a domestic dispute.
Obviously this hypothetical does very little to address organized and street violence that is gun related, but I think that's an entirely different realm of violence that you're never going to be able to legislate to an end.
If the question is "Is there legislation that could prevent acts like this?", then I think the answer is technically yes, ignoring whether or not it's feesible or within the confines of the constitution.
The China point wasn't really an argument for more gun control. Just something I found interesting from my travels.
Regarding recreational shooting and hunting, I had a problem with this line "But if you're going to legislate away the rifle this shooter reportedly used, you're going to legislate away hunting rifles and target shooting rifles" which I feel implies that legislating away hunting and target rifles is some sort of hangup.
Those uses for guns should have no place in the debate at all.
Hunting is still very popular. In the country the opening day of High Powered Rifle season is like a holiday.... and I'm not talking just adults. Kids miss school as early as age 12 to take part in it. It's a cultural thing and I wouldn't expect people who grew up in a city or the 'burbs to understand.
I was taught to hunt at age 11 (although I don't hunt anymore). I went through a State Hunters Safety Course and had to pass a test at that age. It's something of a tradition and my old man was very proud to take me hunting. I'm sure that seems ludicrous to a lot of you but, again, it's a cultural thing.
For hunting the AR-15 is crap. People buy them because A) They look cool B) they're fun to shoot recreationally. Practically, they don't have a lot of use. A shotgun for home defense is head over heels better for home defense.
Hence, most, not all.
Er, guns are not banned in Norway.
I understand your premise, and I respect it. I feel that there is at least a slight advantage to ownership based solely on your premise. Your premise doesn't factor recreational enjoyment of my guns or the possibility that they may not be legally attainable or more necessary at some time in the future.
This post was edited by WTF 16 months ago
The hanging curve ball line was more to do with you talking about pain and suffering caused by new gun laws when the status quo is consistently resulting in tragedy.
And yes, shit would hit the fan in the short term if any extreme gun control was enacted. Blowback would fall far short of an NRA revolution imo. Do you think otherwise?
If you are taking peoples guns you are going to have to do so by force for a large part of the population. If you are using the kind of force on that large a percentage of the population then you are a tyrannical government and the rest of the people need to be armed. I'd say 10k plus people would die if you tried to take back guns. I know it may sound crazy but I think it is the powder keg topic and given the firepower people have is probably one of the few things that could cause a small armed uprising in the United States.
I want to know what people want done? What more can be banned? I'm all for tougher laws for obtaining and I'd even be for an upkeep charge, raising the cost of owning a gun to where it wouldn't be a lightly thought of purchase.
This post was edited by jgdomino 16 months ago
Fair enough about the China example. I will say that people from other countries also think it is laughable that in American criminal courts that if the police violate the 4th amendment that the evidence is excluded.
I disagree about hunting and recreational shooting not having a place in the debate at all. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and when the vast majority of them are used for responsible, peaceful and lawful activities like target shooting or hunting I do think that is relevant if we're talking about a supposedly broken gun culture in America. I'll be honest that on a day like today where someone took a gun that was apparently lawfully purchased and maintained and used it to commit unspeakable acts of terror, it does make me question the concept that owning guns for recreation and sport is a good idea. But then again I do think about the millions of gun owners that go their entire lives without harming anyone other than a paper target at the end of the range. I think the fact that guns can be owned and used safely and that that is the rule rather than the exception is relevant.
No need to take back people's guns. Just outlaw the sale of ammunition. Done.
If the government came and tried to take peoples guns away in these parts I don't know what would happen but I can't imagine my father giving up the guns he owns. He CC's everywhere he can legally. I don't think he would do anything stupid but I would bet there would be quite a few people that would. I don't think you quite understand how much pride some people take in gun ownership.
also would cause armed revolt. Even if it didn't, plenty of people have stockpiles of thousands of rounds, plus reloading equipment.
Yeah I don't know that I would say recreational uses are not relevant. The way I would phrase it is that if you're comparing the value of preserving a recreational activity for people, however valued and cherished in certain parts of the country, with the value of saving thousands of lives every year from reduced gun violence, it's hard to say the former should outweigh the latter.
and then killing thousands of people to enforce that law..
It doesn't have to be stereotypical street gangs providing the black market, I just don't see the socially and mentally disturbed types who are perpetrating most of these school shootings entering any black market, period. These are people who have trouble with normal everyday interactions and interpersonal relationships, much less locating and entering deals with the criminal underworld.
That is fair, and I would respond that tougher laws that react to a tragedy like this will probably inhibit recreational gun use without curtailing gun deaths. At least if reactionary legislation's track record continues.
Well, yeah, I'm on record as saying I think it's kind of an all or nothing deal. I think the only way to meaningfully reduce gun deaths is to ban them entirely.
Maybe longterm but in the meantime there will be open armed conflict in the United States. As Pants mentioned before there are parts of this country who will not give up their guns, and its not just in the south, the midwest. Its the Eastern Shore, its Central PA, its Rural NY. You get the picture. Lots and Lots of people would die and it would be at the governments hands.
I'm not talking about "the government" doing it. I'm talking about passing a constitutional amendment through the normal process. I realize that is very unlikely, but if it happened, do you think there would still be a "full on civil war?"
What are people going to do, carry their guns around with them all the time? Why can't the police just get a search warrant and go seize the guns when people aren't home?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports