-
@erinbaderin: What countries are you talking about? The USA is such a different country than any other country. So Australia, for example. Australia is an island with tight immigration laws and a tiny population. Much different than the United States. But I do think there is room for stricter gun control laws. Like people flagged by the FBI for terrorist tendencies shouldn't have the right to own weapons.
-
@agold: they did freak out and report him. But he didn't have any ties. He's not linked to them in any tangible way. That becomes a freedom of speech issue, which for the most part you can say what you want.
-
@Adira: @lilyann: I've seen this video all of facebook and I like it. But I did see a comment from a friend of a friend (who clearly was a critic of President Obama) ask why he can't just do the research without NRA's permission. I dismissed the blatant hatred she had for POTUS but it does bring up a good point. What is holding him or the CDC back? Why can't it be done? Or is it they need information from the NRA and the NRA is unwilling to help or give up info.
-
@erinbaderin: We have so many issues in this country that I think feed into it...I dont think I could properly articulate or name them all. Issues with mental health and inability to get proper treatment - for various reasons , family/support issues, hate, media, the list could go on and on...
And sadly I dont see them changing much in the future...its a scary world we live in...
-
@Adira: That ban expired in 2004. Congress wasn't willing to renew it.
-
@bluestriped bee: the govt funds the CDC. NRA lobbies congress. Congress blocks money they give CDC from being used to study guns.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence -
@bluestriped bee: he didn't say the NRA won't allow it but congress won't allow it. Presumably because so many are in the NRA's pocket and accepting money hand over fist from them...but that's an important distinction.
-
@Maysprout: @Mrs. Carrot: @MrsSCB: Thanks!
-
@agold: I mean, every first world country I can think of? Australia, the U.K., Canada...name me any other country that routinely has mass murders. It's so easy to say the US is different but all countries are different, at some point that seems like an excuse to not do anything. I'm Canadian. We have gun control. A few weeks ago a man walked into the Canadian Forces recruiting centre in the lobby of my office building armed with a knife, 2 people received minor injuries. If that guy had been able to get his hands on an AR15 that story would have had a very different ending.
-
@erinbaderin: I think you're forgetting France, which has very strict gun control laws, and horrific levels of terrorist violence. Some grim reminders: Paris, Charlie Hebdo, and Ile de France.
-
@erinbaderin: There is no real evidence that firmly suggests that getting rid of guns has actually led to lower homicide rates. It has possibly led to lower gun related deaths, but not the overall homicide rate.
ETA: first world countries, such as UK, Australia, have not seen a dip in homicide rates due to limiting gun ownership.
-
@honeybear: but those were perpetrated by terrorists with illegal guns. Many of the recent massacres in America were done using legally obtained guns. I think that is an important distinction.
-
@MrsSCB: @Mrs. Carrot: Yeah, I was referring to the Firearm Owners Protection Act which includes the ban on "new" machine guns (1989 or later).
-
@sunny: Why do you think that?
-
@Eko: And yet there's a direct correlation between number of guns and gun deaths.
http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735 -
@sunny: they were done by french and belgian citizens.
-
@Adira: but assault rifles and automatic weapons are not banned, just subject to increased regulations.
@Eko: what sources say that?
-
And to add to the discussion, "assault weapon" is a relatively new term, that isn't defined well. There isn't an "assault weapon" class of guns that we can just look at and ban. The AR-15 is a very similar weapon to ranch rifles and shotguns and pistols.
Assault rifle = machine gun = fully automatic weapon that is strictly regulated and essentially banned.
-
@Maysprout: Being a citizen of a country doesn't disqualify someone from being a terrorist.
-
@MrsSCB: The FOPA bans the civilian ownership of new machine guns (after 1989).
-
@Adira: I suppose you're technically right, but the definition has changed in the public eye and that's what I was referencing. Something that can fire 24 shots in 9 seconds is classified as an assault weapon in my head, though that isn't the legal definition.
-
@kiddosc: I understand. I just think that it's important that we use the correct terms for things, especially if we want to ban something. We need to be able to clearly define what we're trying to ban. That's part of the reason the AWB failed. It was trying to do what we want - ban assault weapons, but it didn't have a good definition for them, so it made some up that were very easy for manufacturers and people to just go around, and it didn't solve the problem at all.
-
@Mrs. Carrot: Yes there are. But what I am talking about is just because you take guns out of the equation doesn't mean the homicide rate drops, or if it does, it isn't caused by other reasons.
@MrsSCB: I have read a lot of scholar articles on the facts, but this article sums up a lot pretty well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ -
@Maysprout: Yes I know they were EU citizens. I call them terrorists because they fought (and likely trained) with ISIS.
@honeybear: because there are different approaches to attack the problem. IMHO stopping terrorism is done through education and cutting off their funding. Stopping gun massacres (that have been done by lone perpetrators with legal guns) starts with banning weapons that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes.
-
@Adira: If assault weapons and machine guns are the same thing and machine guns are banned, why are would it even be necessary to have a Federal Assault Weapons Ban? Wouldn't the other Act take care of it, if it bans machine guns and machine guns are assault weapons? It was my impression that assault weapons and machine guns are not the same thing.
-
@Mrs. Carrot: to me it just seems like 'a Muslim did it' catchphrase. With respect to gun control I guess nothing was acquired from France but from Belgium, which also has tight gun control laws. So whatever hate group they belonged to they still acquired the guns from strict access areas.
-
@MrsSCB: Assault RIFLES and machine guns are essentially the same things. Assault weapon is essentially a made-up term to cover guns that look like machine guns and other guns that scare us.
-
@Maysprout: No, it means that one's citizenship (and religion) is irrelevant when it comes to terrorism. Terrorism is defined by intent (to cause great harm and violence), not ideology or any other affiliation to anything. The guys who blew up the Oklahoma City federal building are no less terrorists than people who shot up Paris.
-
@Adira: Alright, my mistake, I thought you'd originally said assault "weapons" were banned. Although frankly, a law that supposedly bans machine guns--oh except for those made before a certain year and you can also transfer ownership of those--hardly seems like a ban anyway...but that's a different topic.
-
@sunny: yeah that's true but as far as gun control goes they still acquired their weapons from Belgium, which also has tight gun control laws. So, if hate groups made up of their own citizens can acquire them in these areas, I guess maybe that restricts the people that are having a psychotic break from acquiring guns. You just have to belong to an organized hate group to have the right connections
-
@Eko: But that doesn't talk about Australia or England. Comparing homicide rates between states is useless. We have no border control. Just because gun laws are strict in Chicago doesn't mean a person can't get one in Virginia and drive it there. Any place in the U.S. is only as good as the most lax laws.
-
@Mrs. Carrot: with that definition then every mass murderer is a terrorist, which doesn't differentiate the situation in France from that of the US
-
@MrsSCB: I'd obviously need to do more research on the subject, but I don't think machine guns are often used in these types of situations. It's more often semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15 or similar, which is why there are proposals to ban it.
My point is really that we need to very clearly define what we are banning (if we ban anything) and it needs to make sense. A law that bans weapons that just "look" like other weapons, but can easily be worked around doesn't work. And the AR-15 is a very common gun for hunting and competition, so there will be a lot of push-back if someone tried to ban them.
Personally, I think civilians don't need semi-automatic weapons that use magazines. It's just too easy to kill people with them, and you can hunt and do competitive shooting with other types of weapons that require single bullet loading. But I also recognize that I don't know very much on the subject, which is why I strongly believe the CDC should be allowed to study it.
-
@ShootingStar: signed.
I am not necessarily 100% against gun ownership, but I will never own one myself and I think it is absolutely insane to allow automatic assault rifles to be owned outside of warzones. I did a quick google search and found nothing. Like, because it's fun? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it.
-
@smocks: There is essentially already a ban of automatic assault rifles (a.k.a. machine guns).
-
From a few months back, but it's just as relevant now.
-
@SugarplumsMom: I definitely agree with the author's sentiment that guns should be regulated like cars. But it's so hard because the NRA (and therefore Congress??) is so against it. I have to register my car, but gun owners don't want to register their guns because that might lead to their guns being confiscated (that's the fear anyway).
-
I am in the midwest so I have a lot of pro-gun family. I've shot guns and I can see why they are fun but it wouldn't bother me if they were all gone. But I don't mind guns for hunting. I'd like to see us follow Canada in a similar policy/stricter measures.
Although I find the fetishation of guns that this country has to be disgusting.
-
@Adira: yeah I didn't read the rest of the thread prior to responding. Either way, my sentiment is the same. Why is a weapon that can discharge in the manner as it did in this and similar attacks allowable? I'm admittedly uneducated on guns and distinctions between them, but if you can spray a crowd with bullets, I do not believe a civilian needs to have their hands on a weapon like that.
If you need a gun to hunt, or to protect your home (although I'm not really a fan of hand guns either), it doesn't need to be able to fire hundreds of bullets.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
256 comments