"Gun Control" that isnt directed towards handguns will not do anything

Murder VictimsCircumstances and Weapons Used or

Handguns definitely are the bigger concern. They are pretty much flat out banned here. 

education is keydave123321

Yup, and I agree with Adam too, for once. All this assault ban crap won't do anything significant except make a certain segment of the population feel better.

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

I am from connecticut, who just introduced this intense gun control law.

But yeah, hand guns definitely are an issue. I think background checks and centralized registries on crazies will help stop the things like Newtown (and yes, I know that his mom owned the guns and my suggestions wouldn't have changed what happened), but that they need to do soemthing about these cheap handguns that any thug can grab for some street crime.

I am from connecticut, who just introduced this intense gun control law.

But yeah, hand guns definitely are an issue. I think background checks and centralized registries on crazies will help stop the things like Newtown (and yes, I know that his mom owned the guns and my suggestions wouldn't have changed what happened), but that they need to do soemthing about these cheap handguns that any thug can grab for some street crime.

IronBeaver

Yeah.  There's all the hype about assault weapons, but they really arent the main cause of gun deaths.  It's handguns by far.

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

airshocker

I don't get why politicians are going after assault rifles when handguns are used to kill a lot more people. Maybe assault rifles became more popular among criminals, but handguns still kill more people than assault rifles, SMGs, and shotguns combined. Not to mention gun suicides outnumber gun homicides, yet no one says a thing about that. 

I don't get why politicians are going after assault rifles when handguns are used to kill a lot more people. Maybe assault rifles became more popular among criminals, but handguns still kill more people than assault rifles, SMGs, and shotguns combined. Not to mention gun suicides outnumber gun homicides, yet no one says a thing about that. 

gamerguru100

I don't oppose 'assault weapon bans' and magazine restrictions, but clearly gun legislation needs to be primarily focused on keeping  guns of all kinds from slipping onto the black market.

Gun control should be about making it harder for criminals to get guns.

 It's never going to be a simple thing to stop the more determined criminals from getting hold of guns, but if there's the right mix of hoops and hurdles, it'll keep more guns out of the hands of average lazy criminals.  The majority.  The guys just looking to make a quick buck.   

If it inconveniences legal gun owners, then boo hoo.  That's just the price you pay.  If you're going to have great power, you're going to have to demonstrate some responsibility.

The US/state governments could just legalize drugs or most illegal activities such as prostitution or gambling and regulate them to insure not only that there is a market for it but also there is a safe way to purchase such items or engage in such services. Also continue to improve and reform our education system as well as any social services that are corrupt or inefficient. In the meantime, perhaps there should be a temporary tightening on purchasing handguns (not a ban, more like a "may issue" type of law) until there is a decrease in crime.

Obviously there is always going to be a crime rate and some days we'll see the worst of the worst such as Aurora or Sandy Hook but we can make at least decrease the rate of crime by being reasonable in our goals instead of giving into our fears or whatever seems "popular."

this subject will never get anywhere with these things in mind:

- the inability for many politicians and some citizens to educate themselves on weapons and their details (See: "assault weapon" and mag size limits)

- the huge massive stockpile of guns and ammo in the US already

I don't get why politicians are going after assault rifles when handguns are used to kill a lot more people. Maybe assault rifles became more popular among criminals, but handguns still kill more people than assault rifles, SMGs, and shotguns combined. Not to mention gun suicides outnumber gun homicides, yet no one says a thing about that. 

gamerguru100

You mean assault weapons. :P

this subject will never get anywhere with these things in mind:

 

- the inability for many politicians and some citizens to educate themselves on weapons and their details (See: "assault weapon" and mag size limits)

- the huge massive stockpile of guns and ammo in the US already

wis3boi

Ya, a lot of people forget hand guns can be semi automatic, are easy to conceal, and extremly lethal in the right hands. That being said, I'm for them remaining legal to own.

education is keydave123321

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

this subject will never get anywhere with these things in mind:

 

- the inability for many politicians and some citizens to educate themselves on weapons and their details (See: "assault weapon" and mag size limits)

- the huge massive stockpile of guns and ammo in the US already

AdamPA1006

I know the problem with the assault weapons and aesthetics, but whats wrong with getting rid of big mags?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]education is keysurrealnumber5

On that note, there should be a little something done to address the process people go through to utilize an inatimate object. Some kind of license thing, y'know? I need one to catch fish and drive a big hunk o' metal around, so I think I should have to go through a licensing process to use a handheld device that shoots metal fragments at 10,000 feet per second.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="dave123321"]education is keyTHE_DRUGGIE

On that note, there should be a little something done to address the process people go through to utilize an inatimate object. Some kind of license thing, y'know? I need one to catch fish and drive a big hunk o' metal around, so I think I should have to go through a licensing process to use a handheld device that shoots metal fragments at 10,000 feet per second.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] poverty is key, but they go hand and hand, but even that pales in comparison to the vague concept of "happiness" or "well being" and other such fluff. but yea, addressing the motives and decision making process is infinitely better than "addressing" inanimate objects. surrealnumber5

On that note, there should be a little something done to address the process people go through to utilize an inatimate object. Some kind of license thing, y'know? I need one to catch fish and drive a big hunk o' metal around, so I think I should have to go through a licensing process to use a handheld device that shoots metal fragments at 10,000 feet per second.

I think it would teach me how to use it better since there's a kind of test that can go along with it.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

On that note, there should be a little something done to address the process people go through to utilize an inatimate object. Some kind of license thing, y'know? I need one to catch fish and drive a big hunk o' metal around, so I think I should have to go through a licensing process to use a handheld device that shoots metal fragments at 10,000 feet per second.

THE_DRUGGIE

I think it would teach me how to use it better since there's a kind of test that can go along with it.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i am sorry you feel you need those things in order to use those things, i do not share your emotions on the subject of my utility. surrealnumber5

I think it would teach me how to use it better since there's a kind of test that can go along with it.

I was talking more about driving than fishing. I bought a fishing license back in '06 and didn't have to do anything other than pay the dude.

ALSO, it would be a cool idea to give a gun accuracy test and give the person with the highest score that month a vintage Single Action Army.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I think it would teach me how to use it better since there's a kind of test that can go along with it.

THE_DRUGGIE

I was talking more about driving than fishing. I bought a fishing license back in '06 and didn't have to do anything other than pay the dude.

ALSO, it would be a cool idea to give a gun accuracy test and give the person with the highest score that month a vintage Single Action Army.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i see you have never got a fishing or hunting license, there is no teaching just paper work and payment and i dont know about the DMV where you live but the MVA might spend all of 5 mins with you in the car, when i took the test many moons ago your time maxed out at 10 mins to go through a little course. is that your Litmus test for use? to me it just sounds like a payment scheme, you can argue that the payments go directly to apt related causes, and i will not argue that, but there is little to no skill or safety checks involved. surrealnumber5

I was talking more about driving than fishing. I bought a fishing license back in '06 and didn't have to do anything other than pay the dude.

ALSO, it would be a cool idea to give a gun accuracy test and give the person with the highest score that month a vintage Single Action Army.

Are...you okay?

For some reason, I can't help but think that if control of handguns is increased, then the criminals that normally use them will continue to use them, and the other people that may commit a violent crime may use other weapons, like a shotgun, a rifle, a pen, a pencil, their fists... etc. Perhaps I am completely mistaken.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I was talking more about driving than fishing. I bought a fishing license back in '06 and didn't have to do anything other than pay the dude.

ALSO, it would be a cool idea to give a gun accuracy test and give the person with the highest score that month a vintage Single Action Army.

THE_DRUGGIE

Are...you okay?

Big black weapons are a lot scarier and easier to be banned because less people own them and they look more lethal. A lot of people own handguns in this country. Going after them would get you absolutely nowhere.

It's funny. A lot of the mass shootings that happen in this nation happen with little .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol with 10-12 round magazines. 

Caliber and how many rounds your gun carries doesn't mean squat really. Most people can't hit jack squat after 50 feet even with an extremely accurate rifle. When they are in a rampage accuracy goes to hell. Even US soldiers in combat have like a 1 to 10,000 bullet hit ratio. Yes, that's 10,000 bullets for every enemy kill. At the point-blank ranges that the vast majority of shootings happen, caliber is completely irrelevant. 

Doesn't even matter how many bullets you have in your gun. In the past people just carried multiple magazines and could fire off just as many rounds as if they were carrying higher capacity magazines. 3 smaller 10 round magazines can be loaded and fired nearly as quickly as a single 30 round magazine. This is something most non-gun owners don't understand. It's not hard to reload a magazine. You lose maybe a half a second of time inbetween reloads. Fire 9 rounds, pop the mag out, pop a fresh one in, keep firing. Don't even have to recock the thing. So in the end it doesn't make any sense to ban "hich capacity" magazines. They don't increase or decrease your performance. They are just yet another thing that people believe will somehow change the outcome of a shooting. 

There is no easy solution, despite what a lot of politicians and the media is trying to convey.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] in the 60's and prior shooting was, in many high schools, a class. it may have been a white thing..... that was phased out because of that whole phasing out of segregation, but a connection like that takes a serious tin foil hat and assumed mastermind alex jones level conspiracy with race being the motive.( i dont know what triggered the phasing out of guns classes in schools. ) that is unless the reptilian eugenics spider kings did it all in a plot to disarm the middle class so they could implement the final invasion from the planet x on 24/24/24 because that is the Illuminati number..... and on their special calendar with 36 months, the real one, it happens to be two days from now. so lock and load people, and dont forget to buy my survival food, because i am the only one you can really trust. totally surreal guys. surrealnumber5

Are...you okay?

Fun knows no age range, you silly billy.

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

airshocker

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

MakeMeaSammitch

I feel like the gun debate here in the U.S is going to be ongoing for decades.. and decades.. probably a century. .. lol.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

AdamPA1006

Sounds like a pretty good reason for a blanket ban imo.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Gun control directed towards legal handgun owners won't really do anything either. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.

surrealnumber5

For instance, before modern guns, the most popular method of suicide was gas stove. It was quick, painless, and everybody had one. As soon as those were made obsolete by other models, suicide rates dropped by 1/3 and never recovered. 

Why do you think there are suicide bars on bridges? Putting them there to delay a suicide by 30 seconds can be all it takes to stop a suicide. for example, when they put those bars on the golden gate bridge, suicide rates dropped in the city.

The thing with guns is it's fast, easy, and painless. It's basically just a thing with a button that insta kills. There's no delay. No chance for rational thinking. That's why one of the primary indicators for suicide is whether or not somebody owns a gun. Suicides by gun more than double all other deaths by gun in the U.S. combined. Reason enough for a ban.

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

this subject will never get anywhere with these things in mind:

 

- the inability for many politicians and some citizens to educate themselves on weapons and their details (See: "assault weapon" and mag size limits)

- the huge massive stockpile of guns and ammo in the US already

IronBeaver

I know the problem with the assault weapons and aesthetics, but whats wrong with getting rid of big mags?

*Mental Olympics*

MakeMeaSammitch

lol

Taking the gold here buddy.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"] *Mental Olympics*

Slashless

lol

Taking the gold here buddy.

Guess you aren't too bright.

It's pretty straitforward.

Guess you aren't too bright.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]It's pretty straitforward.

Guess you aren't too bright.

Slashless

seriously, even if you disagree, it's pretty strait forward logic.

that a yes?MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]that a yes?Slashless

seriously, even if you disagree, it's pretty strait forward logic.MakeMeaSammitch