2nd Amendment

[VP-70]

Just seen on the news here that the Batman Premier in Denver Colorado got shot up by a gun totting madman.

I haven't checked in a while, but what is the general mood on the 2nd Amendment these days in America.

 

[Jay]

Tragic. This not the way Christopher Nolan wanted things to start off.

 

[Romero]

I'm not in America but I hope I can be excused...

The shooting is tragic, and I'm sure many voices will blame the gun as well as the gunman. But I don't think the right answer is to limit the freedom to carry arms.

After the 7/22 attacks in Norway last year, our prime minister's acclaimed response was: "[....] more democracy, more openness and more humanity. But never naivety". –Not more control limiting our rights and freedom.
We don't have a 2nd amendment and our handgun control is super tight, but getting license for rifles (which the terrorist used) and shotguns are easy.

I have a few questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer:
1) How many guns do you need to remove from your society before the risk of such shootings decrease significantly?
2) Is such a reduction in guns even feasible?

The first guns to go are of course the legal ones. Don't think illegal/unregistered guns will be the first ones to be turned in. I hear that the gunman in Denver had no criminal record, but I don't think that can be said about the large majority of killers.

(Edited)

 

[VP-70]

The first guns to go are of course the legal ones.

Thats was very true of Scotland's case.

in fact, within ten years, Crime in the home went through the roof, as crooks knew your average good goody member of the public wouldn't own a gun.

 

[Elochai]

Just seen on the news here that the Batman Premier in Denver Colorado got shot up by a gun totting madman.

I haven't checked in a while, but what is the general mood on the 2nd Amendment these days in America.

Gun ownership is up, actually. In major cities where concealed carry and/or gun ownership is allowed, violent crime is down (significantly) when compared to those cities who have banned it. It's a right that most citizens defend both openly and strongly. I am 100% for the 2nd Amendment. An old partner of mine was actually saved because someone had been carrying a pistol with him when an armed suspect pulled his rifle on my partner.

It's just like anything else.. It has it's pro's and con's. I happen to see more of the former than the latter.

I'm not in America but I hope I can be excused...

The shooting is tragic, and I'm sure many voices will blame the gun as well as the gunman. But I don't think the right answer is to limit the freedom to carry arms.
After the 7/22 attacks in Norway last year, our prime minister's response was "more democracy, more openness and more humanity", not more control limiting our rights and freedom. We don't have a 2nd amendment and our handgun control is super tight, but getting license for rifles (which the terrorist used) and shotguns are easy.

I have a few questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer:
1) How many guns do you need to remove from your society before the risk of such shootings decrease significantly?
2) Is such a reduction in guns even feasible?

The first guns to go are of course the legal ones. Don't think illegal/unregistered guns will be the first ones to be turned in. I hear that the gunman in Denver had no criminal record, but I don't think that can be said about the large majority of killers.

Romero hit the nail on the head. Taking away gun ownership will only remove them from the lawful. The unlawful will be the only ones holding the power and we will be left, for the most part, defenseless.

 

[Romero]

Gun ownership is up, actually. In major cities where concealed carry and/or gun ownership is allowed, violent crime is down (significantly) when compared to those cities who have banned it.

Do you have cities where an amendment to your constitution isn't valid?

 

[Pancham Cutie]

I think that the Second Amendment is still justisifed in my opinion, mainly due to logical reasons.

An example of logical reasoning, lets say that I own a store, I have a gun underneath the counter, someone comes in with a knife and demands my money and tells me not to call the cops, I pull that gun out and point it at him, chase him out of the store, and be able to call the cops, they look at the security footage, buglar arrested, no one is killed or hurt unless I start firing the gun and accidently hit the buglar.

An example of I didn't have the right, lets say that I own a store, I have a knife underneath the counter, someone comes in with a knife and demands my money and tells me not to call the cops, I take the knife out and try to start slashing at him, I get hurt and or killed, money gone, buglar is arrested due to the attack in the store and security footage identifies him. Yeah it got resolved, but at the cost of me, the innocent person, getting hurt or killed.

 

[KennedyKiller]

I won't lie...I feel comfortable enough with my family on here to say I'm a pretty liberal kind of guy...And typically liberals are ALL FOR gun control...But I disagree...I'm with Romeo when he says LIMITING guns is not the answer..

 

[Jay]

You can put out as many laws as you want. At the end of the day if someone wants to do something they will find a way to and do it. There's yet to be a law to prevent someone from being stupid.

 

[VP-70]

Then how do we go about limiting stupidity ?

 

[KennedyKiller]

Then how do we go about limiting stupidity ?

Public Execution...

 

[Jay]

Then how do we go about limiting stupidity ?

You can't. There's no way to monitor what everyone in the world is doing and where. All you can do its hope for the best.
That's how life is. Cruel, unexplainable, and unpredictable.

 

[VP-70]

You can't. There's no way to monitor what everyone in the world is doing and where. All you can do its hope for the best.
That's how life is. Cruel, unexplainable, and unpredictable.

Just isn't my style...

Public Execution...

Now we're talking.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Just isn't my style...

Now we're talking.

Good...I was worried people would think I was kidding...

 

[Hoady]

The shooting is tragic, and I'm sure many voices will blame the gun as well as the gunman. But I don't think the right answer is to limit the freedom to carry arms.

After the 7/22 attacks in Norway last year, our prime minister's acclaimed response was: "[....] more democracy, more openness and more humanity. But never naivety". –Not more control limiting our rights and freedom.

I agree, Its silly to blame the guns themselves. I was inquiring recently about near of fatal accidents in gun ranges.While the majority of people follow basic safety and rules, it only takes one person to punish everyone. Your prime minister has a brain.. i think banning and restricting people only creates more violence(as history so delicately shows). And thats what most these politcians do..

We don't have a 2nd amendment and our handgun control is super tight, but getting license for rifles (which the terrorist used) and shotguns are easy.

I have a few questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer:
1) How many guns do you need to remove from your society before the risk of such shootings decrease significantly?
2) Is such a reduction in guns even feasible?

I don't think its a matter of the number of guns. While guns are tools designed to kill, its a persons susceptibility to picking one up and using it for a violent purpose. If a violent man doesn't have access to a gun, he can use other means of killing. You can sure as hell do alot more with a gun,maybe easier but thats besides the point. The point is that the person would want to harm another in the first place. I think we need to address the purpose of someones motive with acceptance and support. If we succeed in helping someone, then he will have no need to use a gun.

2)I think it depends on the culture. In Australia it is rarer to hear of gun stories simply because it is hard to obtain them. Since little of us have guns in the first place, none of us are really deprived of it. But if people like in america where they even have it engraved in there constituion, then its not feasible. It is only feasible if people are willing too. I don't believe banning or force helps. Rather giving a people a reason not to use them.


Heres an interesting photo. There is sources in bottom left corner.