The main problem with Gun Control, much like DRM in a lot of media, is that the more restrictions that the government places on the purchasing of firearms, the more that the people who buy guns who should be buying guns have to jump through the most hoops. People who have gone to Gun Safety seminars, know about proper gun use, maintenance, and handling, and are everyday "normal" people with no history of mental illness or anything else have to deal with the most crap when purchasing weapons. Whereas, and this is a slight generalization, the people who should never be let near a gun ever under any circumstance (criminal behavior, history of severe mental illness, whatever) can probably get their hands on guns through back channels if they're well aware they would never pass a background check.

Overall, I agree with your idea. It's the kind of idealistic "you screw up, you're going to pay a huge price" notion that I'm generally guilty of subscribing to. I've been told that states which allow citizens to obtain concealed-carry permits have a general reduction in gun-related crimes, but I've never seen much actual data to support that. It'd be interesting to find out.

This to me seems to be a case of dealing with a symptom rather than the cause.

Banning or more guns seems to be the impending 'magic bullet' (pun intended) answer to this question of gun control.

The gun is merely a tool, it has good uses and bad uses. I'm in agreement with you Zoomba when you stated that the person owning or carrying the tool is responsible for its usage and mis usage. The people are and have been the problem.

It will be interesting to see the decision this case.

Yeah, it's definitely a simplified and idealistic approach to say "You screw up, you pay a hefty price"  Probably not workable.  The general solution to the problem though I believe is to shift the focus of legislation on penalties for gun crime.  Outlawing guns doesn't have much impact it seems on crime rates.  D.C has been gun-free for decades now and it's considered one of the most dangerous cities in the US.

Gun violence is a problem that has to be addressed though.  We've proven that limiting legal supply doesn't help.  The next step is to move on to creating so strong a disincentive to their misuse that people don't dare misuse them.

I would be one of those people.  As I have posted before, I recently trained and applied for my concealed weapons permit here in the state of Florida. 

One of the things the instructor pointed out was that you are not carrying a firearm to be a crime fighter.  If a bank is robbed, who cares, they are insured through the FDIC.  What you are carrying a firearm for is to prevent the lunatic from taking everyone into the back room and execute them.

Banning guns and putting restrictions on legal gun owners is nothing but a "feel good" tactic.  The problem isn't guns, it's the people behind them.

 

Course you know if you took Chris Rock's advice from "Bigger and Blacker" and make the bullets cost $50,000.

Hahah that was pretty fun video.

That is actually a mis-direct. The law was already there to ban nuts from getting guns.

But (always that, eh?), there is also the law of privacy. And that trumped the first. The gun sellers could not find out he was a nut! That has since been changed, but that is why it happened.

The right of Privacy trumped the right of sanity.

In the end everyone agrees; a gun, a knife, a screw driver, a welding torch, a bat, a chain, all items that by themselves are harmless but combined with the right lunatic can be dangerous weapons and could have the same end results.

It seems a common solution for people of this country to wanna deal with the objects used in the crime rather than with the person who committed the crime. I guess in most peoples minds no one would commit a crime if they didn't have a gun or a knife to give them the idea.

It may be people who kill, whoever, take away the gun and you have less chance of spur of the moment decisions, there is no need to own a gun, and those who own one have more chance of being shot than if they did not posess a gun. In most countries gun ownership is very low and highly restricted, except for the US, most countries aso havea lower crime rate. Having said this the US shares its borders with both Canada and Mexico, makes it harder to control contraband.

Whilist I support gun control, like we have in Australia, the fact that so many citizens already have guns in the US this control would be difficult to enforce, or even legislate. So I see it as a mute point for you lucky citizens.

As for putting guns in the same category as knives etc is rather stupid, an automatic or semiautomatic gun can kill a lot more people, from a distance, a knife is close combat, like I said we do not need guns, so why have them.

As for the killing of a killer by the state, it's still murder/killing, there is no justification for capital punishment, NONE. Nor does this serve a purpose, other than revenge. I would love to ask Jseus what he thought, and no I am not interested in what some so called christians may say as a justification for it, there is none.

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", this applies to all humans, not just those deemed to be deserving by the STATE. It's about time the US joined the rest of the CIVILISED WORLD.

 1.Armed Citizens are more able to preserve their rights then unarmed ones. The Wiskey Rebellion was praised by Jefferson he felt it was good for The U.S. (he is also the founder of the   Anti-Federalist party which is the direct ancestor of the modern Democrats.)                                                                                                            2.Guns started out to be weapons of war, not implements of hunters. Guns have always been for killing people, even when the the U.S. was founded people either raised or trapped for food, hunting with a gun was done for sport.                                                                                                                   

                                                                             My favorite reason to use capitol punishment is to make sure that person can never do it again.  As long as these type of criminals live they have a chance to do it again. Be it excape or when someone decides to let them have another chance, there is no such thing is life without possiblity of parole, just an improbablity.                                                                                                                                                                                       Eh, civilized is a matter of opinion.

I don't agree with that at all. You can massacre with a gun, but unless you're Hollywood good you can't make the same statement with a screw driver.

I think there's a lot to be said for banning automatic guns, even if you don't want to ban everything else. It takes more effort and time to kill lots of people with a rifle or a handgun than with an uzi. And really when it comes to crazies all you're looking for is to make it take longer, hopefully long enough for the swat team to arrive without too many casualties.

chadwbaker, thanks for your comments, I have heard these arguments many times, however I agree with none of them, if you have guns for all you all need guns, no problem there, however when you have no guns except for those who really require them, eg: sporting shooters and Farmers, then there is no need to have a gun to defend your rights. As I said before this is far easier to enforce in Australia, due to our isolation. Where as in the US you have borders on both sides, it would be hard to achieve this. It's your country and you do what you want, in my country I will support the existing laws on gun control.

As for killing convicted felons, it is not a deterrent, nor should it be seen as a way of ensuring people do not reoffend, do what the rest of the world and the US does, lock them away with papers marked never to be released. We have what is called truth in sentencing, which means life is life. The thing is no matter what the justification capital punishment is murder, and as has been shown with the advent of genitic testing, murder pf innocent people. Just look at how many people have been released recently in the US, not to mention cases of police being over zelous with interrogation of suspects, you just have to look at the example of Chicago, where several people on death row were found to be innocent, and had been forced into making confessions, that in some cases were made even after the real offender was in custody, one was a 14 year old boy. I for one would find that reason enough for No to death penality.

If ya look at history an armed people have more rights then the unarmed ones, governments tend to do more for people that can fight them. Therefore an armed poulace will more like have more rights then a disarmed one.

I dont see it as a deterrent, but yes I can and do see it as a way a person will never kill again.

Just as the death penalty has its flaws so does giving someone life without parole.  As long as the person lives there is a chance that the person can do it again, regardless of a peice of paper.  One day people may realize that life without parole is just aas torturous as killing them, and toss your scraps of paper.

yes I totally agree...

 

I agree that life without parole is just as torturous, maybe deep down inside me somewhere dark I want them to endure this torture, for as long as they live. I do agree that at any time an new party in government can exercise clemency, and it has happened here. But I still cannot counternence the willful killing of another human, except in the defence of your country or God forbid your family. To me it is against God's laws, however others will disagree, based on the premise of the statement made by Jesus. Which goes something like this, "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, and Unto God's that which is his."

I feel that the ability to buy a gun should be as unrestrictive as safely possible, because the people we worry about having guns may not always get them legally.