Will tougher Gun Laws reduce the number of mass shootings and killings in our Country?

SPC Andrew Griffin — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:34:13 -0400

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 24 at 2015 12:36 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:36:55 -0400

Not right this second, no. Our country is saturated with weapons, and they are ingrained in our culture. It would take a generation or two to change the culture that glorifies and worships firearms..

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 12:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:37:43 -0400

Criminals do not obey laws. If gun control actually worked, Chicago and Washington D.C. were be herald as the safest places on earth!

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 12:43 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:43:03 -0400

Absolutely not, this theory has been b proven time and time again yet every couple years the debates begin. Changing gun laws has no positive or negative effect on crime rates. Period. All it does it make it harder for people to legally purchase and own guns. When it comes down to it the bottom line is that if someone wants to break the law and they need a gun to do it, they will get one by any means necessary. Mostly likely by stealing or off the black market. To ensure there is nor traceability. This argument is tiring. Can't people just look at the data and make an informed decision and leave it at that.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 24 at 2015 12:45 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:45:37 -0400

Anything would be an improvement. With our Gun Culture and the amount of Firearm Murders in this Country we are the Disgusting Laughingstock of the Western World, They Barely consider us "Civilized".

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Jul 24 at 2015 12:47 PM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:47:44 -0400

No Sir - plain and simple - in fact, just the opposite!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 12:55 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:33 -0400

It depends on the laws, how evenly they are enforced, and what specific goals are intended beyond just "make the country safer". Specifics needs to be addressed, and benefits and drawbacks examined rationally. It's possible to enact laws that can help, but unfortunately the public debate is dominated only by the two extreme "ban them all/arm them all" sides, which guarantees that anyone else won't get a fair review.

Response by SPC Greg K. made Jul 24 at 2015 12:59 PM

SPC Greg K. — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:59:27 -0400

You can't legislate "Crazy"...A commentator on CNN today said that he's not advocating the appealing of the 2nd ammendment and the privlelge to own guns. From the way I read the CONSTITUTION, it reads "the right to bear arms" not "privlege". Maybe we should outlaw drugs, that way the bad guys won't need the illegal guns to protect thier stash. Oh...wait...."Gun control is not crime control" -John Stossel.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 1:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:11:05 -0400

No. History has shown that these tougher laws are no more effective than a piece of tape trying to stop a leak on a dam. Why? Criminals do not follow the laws....hence the term criminals.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 1:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:28:28 -0400

First, I just want to put right out front that discussions of gun *rights* are a separate matter from the question asked. This is about the effect of gun *restrictions*.

That said, there is a considerable amount of social science research devoted to this exact question, though the gun lobby has successfully lobbied to prevent any research on the question from federal money. Time and time again, when sound methodology is used, the question is answered in the affirmative: gun restrictions reduce overall violent crime slightly, reduce gun-based violent crime significantly, and reduce accidental gun injuries and deaths most notably.

Loosening gun laws has been linked notably to the exact opposite. No matter how you want to cut it, more access to guns means more deaths and injuries from guns. In fact, the presence of a gun in the home alone is linked to a higher chance of gun-related mortality, and carrying a gun actually makes you more likely to be killed in an altercation with criminals than not carrying. The research goes so far as to demonstrate that even open-carry is linked to an increase in violent crime, as now the guns are simply more accessible at all times.

The main objections to this are two-fold, and I will address each: one, that criminals won't follow the law anyway so why bother; and two, something about certain major cities, almost always using Chicago as an example. A third objection sometimes centers on the fact that most gun violence is gang-on-gang, which is true but also irrelevant as it does not modify the core fact that more guns = more gun crime.

On the first one, the evidence is clear that restricting the flow of guns themselves also restricts the flow of them to criminals. It's true, you can't do much about the ones already out there (at least not until they are captured again), but you can prevent new ones from being as likely to get into criminal hands in the first place. This is a big problem, as with less than 5% of the world population the U.S. accounts for around 40% of all private ownership of guns. It takes a while for a change in gun supply to therefore filter down, and that has an artificial delaying effect on the efficacy of gun restrictions. That said, gun buy-back programs have been fairly effective.

On the second one, there are two factors never mentioned in the areas with strong gun restrictions that also have strong gun supply. First, when you look at the crime rates per capita, the effect isn't as large as you are led to believe, and second (and more importantly) those areas have a rather strong gun influx from a neighboring area that has few restrictions. Cities with strong gun control embedded within a larger geographic area also with strong gun control never get used as the examples, because their gun crime rates are lower. Chicago, on the other hand, has plenty of guns available with almost no restrictions right across the line into Indiana; likewise, D.C. has Virginia, which has more lax laws. Crime analysis has strongly demonstrated that the significant amount of the guns recovered in those cities came rather recently from immediately neighboring areas lacking such laws and controls.

So the real question shouldn't be whether gun restrictions reduce violent crime, especially gun-related crime; they do. The real question is what to do given that information. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for that. The courts have largely taken the position that gun ownership is widely presumed an unfettered right, and ignored the specific fettered nature of both the wording and original intent of the Second Amendment (contrary to popular belief, it was NOT EVEN REMOTELY about ensuring the states could defend against encroachment by the federal government, or about preserving individual personal ownership outside of militias; it was a paean to Southern states who wanted to make sure the federal government wouldn't make their slave patrols -- a largely conscripted force of white men that was the primary use of Southern militias -- illegal). But as long as that is the legal understanding, what can be done *within* that understanding? For me, it comes down to this: 1) make ownership require you to be licensed, just like if you wanted to use a car, and make regular background checks as well as regular training a required component of the license; 2) make all sales be registered, including private sales, and blocked if both parties are not licensed; 3) make unmarked/unregistered firearms a federal class-a or b felony to possess or manufacture; 4) make unlawful possession of a firearm, to include possession by an unlicensed individual, a federal class-a or b felony; 5) make all licensed owners pay for insurance, but rather than liability insurance like with a car make it be a general injury-compensation pool for victims of gun violence.

For all the gun enthusiasts who would scream bloody murder at the perfectly sensible recommendations in the preceding paragraph, I say screw you. You have a right to be an ammosexual jackass, or buy into all the idiotic take-away-all-the-guns conspiracies, but you don't have a right to be reckless, and if you aren't in support of those items then you are by exclusion in support of allowing reckless behavior that costs people lives.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 24 at 2015 1:31 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:31:25 -0400

It will not. In fact, in my opinion, the more "gun free zones" that are created, the potential for increased mass shootings goes up. These are ripe zones for mass shootings as only the criminals will have the firepower and nobody to stop them until cops arrived. Also remember, cops do NOT carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves....says something doesn't it?? They carry guns to protect themselves..... seldom do they arrive at the scene of a crime where the crime is still going on. They arrive to investigate the crime. If the bad guy is still there, they will arrest/shoot (as determined as by actions/reactions). If the crime scene is a mass shooting and you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are already dead. Cop did nothing to protect you. Only investigate and help mop up.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 1:32 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:32:12 -0400

No. Hell no. Absolutely not. The "tougher" gun laws have existed for years. Most are already enforced, a few are not. The only unwritten gun law that's left is complete and total abolishment. Pretty darn sure I want no part of that America!!!

Response by MSgt John Grollimund made Jul 24 at 2015 1:58 PM

MSgt John Grollimund — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:58:22 -0400

No. There are sufficient gun laws in place, they just need to be better enforced. As stated, criminals don't obey laws anyway.

With the mass shootings, (probably gonna start a flame) I look at it like someone that is suicidal. The ones that want help, can be helped. The ones that have the means, and are determined to do so, will.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 24 at 2015 2:12 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:12:47 -0400

Per another recent thread.

Mass shootings are generally not the result of "Criminal" acts, which are Socio-Economic in nature. They are generally the result of Mental Health or Terrorist acts instead. This creates an issue in how you deal with them.

The "cure" for Socio-Economic problems is one thing. The "cure" for Ideology is another. The "cure" for Mental Health is a third.

Gun Laws, and enforcement of existing Gun Laws is a piece of that. HOWEVER, the Right to Self Defense is a fundamental Civil Liberty that cannot be ignored.

The Police are not here to protect us. They aren't. They can't. They are a reactionary force. We even use the word "police" as a verb to denote "clean up" as in Police Call. Think about that. They can be a deterrent (passive protection), but active protection will eventually fail, and passive protection will never be enough.

There will always be some whackjob. There will always be someone out there who means to do us harm. Your best defense is self reliance.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 24 at 2015 2:32 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:32:17 -0400

You can have lall the laws you want.... It won't stop criminals. Look at Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the country with the highest murder rate.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 24 at 2015 2:39 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:39:27 -0400

No.

Fairly easily tested: per capita gun murders in a city with draconian gun control compared with those of a city with liberal gun rights. Hold constant most other factors (city size, ethnic diversity, average income and distribution, per capita policing etc). Suggested test cases: Miami and Chicago. Results, essentially equal per capita murders. Conclusion: gun control laws do not prevent murders.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 24 at 2015 2:43 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:43:11 -0400

No. We need to control the criminal, not the tool.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 24 at 2015 3:06 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:06:00 -0400

Arming of the populace is part of the second amendment (yes I know there's more to it), but with that it HAS to be tempered with who is suitable to have a weapon? If you cannot manage your own finances, or person, have a disability that impairs your mental capabilities, have documented mental issues (with no record of treatment with positive improvement), a person is known for instability, a drug user (even in states that are legal), do we really want them with a weapon? I've seen posts on FB where folks are up in arms over the President's possible policy of taking weapons from those on SS who aren't in charge of their finances, and the letters VA was sending out saying the same thing, but again are those who can't control themselves in real need of a weapon that someone else is going to use? Give the honest the right to bear (within reason....who needs an AT4 for home/personal defense), and give the legal system the FULL weight to lay the smack down on the criminal element that ALWAYS seems to find a way to get a weapon where it isn't needed. But if we're going to take it to the point where everyone gets a weapon, then I want an A-10 and a Specter gun ship following me as my personal bodyguards ;0) I live not far from one of those cities that have weapons issues with the criminal element.

Response by RADM Jay Yakeley made Jul 24 at 2015 3:21 PM

RADM Jay Yakeley — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:21:38 -0400

No, almost without exception, mass shootings occur in "Gun Free Zones"
If the military were armed on/off base the Ford Hood shooter (workplace violence?) would have been dead after his first shot. Same for the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made Jul 24 at 2015 7:44 PM

SSG Paul Setterholm — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:44:13 -0400

I wish we could have both sides sit down and have rational discussion of gun control that both protects gun owners right and reduces gun violence. I am of the school of thought that we get assault weapons out of the hands of civilians and get rid of high capacity magazines. I am not trying to stir anyone up. Just welcome sensible responses to eradicate the mass shootings. Another idea is if a gun owner "is" irresponsible with his weapons he/she should be held accountable making them liable for injury. Perhaps even have their right to own suspended for a period of time. We need to put protection of our citizens ahead of ownership. With rights comes responsibility.

Response by SGT Mike Rudd made Jul 25 at 2015 2:57 AM

SGT Mike Rudd — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 02:57:54 -0400

No and no , as we all know if someone is going to shoot one they will find a way to get a gun . I would rather be given a chance to defend my self rather than just let it happen . That why I'm a strong supporter of gun permits they way the world is getting I'm not leaving home without one . Guns don't kill people people kill people!!!!!

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Jul 25 at 2015 3:03 AM

PO1 Shahida Marmol — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 03:03:02 -0400

Oh yeah, because, you know, criminals follow gun laws!

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jul 25 at 2015 6:35 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:35:41 -0400

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 25 at 2015 6:47 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 06:47:03 -0400

NO.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jul 25 at 2015 8:03 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:03:26 -0400

NO. Guns laws only stop honest people from getting guns legally. If someone wants a gun, that is not legally available to them, they will get one.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 9:08 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:08:39 -0400

Why do people care so much about "gun violence" and not violence in general? Guns are just a tool, and criminals will use another tool (bombs, arson, knives, machetes, etc...) if you manage to take one type away. What you end up doing is taking away an equalizing factor for those who are weaker than or in less numbers than their attacker(s). Good luck to anyone who has to take on the next Michael Brown w/o a gun.

Response by SSG Ronald Williams made Jul 25 at 2015 10:17 AM

SSG Ronald Williams — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:17:43 -0400

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 26 at 2015 11:13 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:13:23 -0400

I am willing to go out on a limb and say that the majority of the firearms currently owned by criminals stated life as a lawfully purchased firearm and at some point it was privately sold or stolen. This is always going to happen .. a certain percentage of lawful firearms are going to migrate to criminals. So it follows that if the base number of firearms goes up, then the number for firearms flowing to criminals will go up.

That being said, I would be very, very happy if we could keep firearms from the hands of Emotionally Disturbed Persons and insure that the lawful firearm owners have had the barest level of training.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2015 11:32 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:32:42 -0400

No it won't criminals don't pay attention to gun laws as is!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 26 at 2015 2:42 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:42:25 -0400

Am I prescient? No. But I don't have to be prescient to respond. Indeed, I'll let you respond for me. America has the fourth highest rate of violent crime/gun violence in the world. Now let's agree that is unacceptable. Next, if the largest cities in America were extracted and formed into their own country, they would have the highest rate of gun violence in the world (Yeah, they're #1!). The rest of America? It would be fourth from the bottom in the world hall of shame. So, what are our largest cities doing differently from the rest of us? They're attempting to control guns, to take them out of the hands of citizens. Meanwhile, the rest of the nation, the places where gun violence is virtually unknown? They have almost as many guns - large caliber rifles, small bore rifles, shotguns, pistols, pointy sticks. So which example should be follow? You tell me...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 10:26 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:26:25 -0400

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 11:12 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:12:25 -0400

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 2 at 2015 12:38 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 12:38:10 -0400

Gun laws may or may not reduce the number of guns out there, but other than domestics (which are still too numerous to count) most gun violence is perpetrated with illegally acquired weapons. Thus gun laws won't make a dent.

What is really needed is a change in our culture, to recognize the value of life, to reduce the horrors of ghetto life, to confront racism and domestic violence head on, to have adequate mental health care for all who need it, less emphasis on gun culture in all media (TV, Movies, games, etc)...

Sadly, none of this will happen, because people on the left and right have their heels dug in and won't consider doing the hard work that needs to be done...

Note: I'm not a gun owner or NRA member, and I'm a political independent. I call them like I see them...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 1:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 13:08:28 -0400

I say no. To me that's kinda like saying that because drugs are illegal, we have less of an issue with them. I feel that they will find a way to get them if they want them bad enough

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 2:20 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:20:54 -0400

Oh hell no! That is not the problem. Irresponsibility to others is. How about politicians do their jobs and get jobs, create jobs and stop with Pork Barrel Spending. We can't even feed our own people and we are letting dangerous criminal in this country.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2015 3:47 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:47:20 -0400

NO.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 3 at 2015 10:17 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 22:17:12 -0400

Not helping D.C. and Chicago at all.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 4 at 2015 12:12 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:12:58 -0400

Not at all. Until we as a nation are ready to fully take on the criminal element of this, nothing will come of any new gun laws. We already have some of the strictest laws in the world, and it does us no good. We need to take on those that illegally supply the weapons, those that illegally buy the weapons, and those that use them in a conjoined effort to stem the tide. The only thing we're successful at doing is litigating and making laws that only penalize the law abiding people. As of late all of the mass shootings have been done with weapons legally bought. Now the day to day street crimes are done with weapons that are in some way shape or form illegally gotten. We need again comprehensive plans on how to deal with the day to day being we are loosing a considerable amount of people to senseless violence. Another thing that hampers gun reform is the flooding mentality of the news with bad news regarding weapons. Make it seem as bad as it can be, and watch folks flock to buy weapons. Watch people flock to get CCW's as if that's going to solve everything. Flooding the homes and streets with more weapons doesn't always solve anything, and it's not going to stop burglars from going in your house and taking them when you're not there. Also a proper gun reform would teach those who CAN carry, that carrying isn't always the best solution. It would also teach that carrying an "assault style" weapon in public places with beta or extended mags isn't a safe practice, for the owner or the person on the business end of it. We need access to weapons yes; but do we need to carry them like it seems today? No. People survived centuries in the US with weapons in the homes as self defense measures, weapons to defend the nation in time of need, and now with social media and 24 hour news, we have to be scared of every and anything.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 1:04 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:04:11 -0400

Not at all.

Laws only effect law-abiding people.

IF criminals obeyed the laws on the books now we wouldn't have any crime, no drug problem, no rape...

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Aug 9 at 2015 10:33 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:33:37 -0400

I believe that stricter gun laws will only make legal acquisition of firearms more difficult for law-abiding people. Historical record shows us that criminals will always find illegal channels to acquire firearms. Criminals, by definition, don't obey any laws, much less gun laws. How many times do we have to debate this failed concept? Another failed "progressive" policy won't help us.

Regards,

Hugh

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 9 at 2015 10:36 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:36:21 -0400

SPC Andrew Griffin IMO it will not. Because the bad people will get their guns anyway they can and do whatever they wanted with them.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 9 at 2015 10:37 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:37:56 -0400

Simply put, NO

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made Aug 9 at 2015 11:13 PM

MSgt Michelle Mondia — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 23:13:16 -0400

Um...no. Weapons trafficking yes. But then that's cramping the style of real criminals who vote and lobby in congress.

Response by SPC Greg K. made Aug 20 at 2015 1:46 PM

SPC Greg K. — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:46:51 -0400

"Gun control is not Crime control" -John Stossel

Response by SGT Glenn E Moody made Aug 29 at 2015 7:59 PM

SGT Glenn E Moody — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:59:19 -0400

nope look at the stats all of the shootings are done by criminals or people with mental illness it will just make it harder for the good guy to get his or her gun supply's and wont stop the bad guy from getting them. a little military history the only way to invade a country is to disarm its citizens who said it and when ill give you the answer in a reply

Response by SPC Bill Earley made Aug 31 at 2015 11:02 PM

SPC Bill Earley — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:02:34 -0400

I don't think it will. A criminal will steal a weapon from someone's house are buy it from the trunk of someone's car. It's the individual who is doing the killing. It only makes things tougher for the honest citizens. I think we should have more emphasis on weapon safety if anything !

Response by SPC Pablo Montañez made Aug 31 at 2015 11:49 PM

SPC Pablo Montañez — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:49:34 -0400

Off course. Same way prohibition stopped people from drinking and tough drug laws prevented people from abusing drugs. One of the biggest misconceptions is that by enacting more, as the called it, "sensible gun controls laws", it will prevent alot of these mass shootings, but what there failing to realize is that, these laws do not deal with one of the main issues behind majority of these shootings. Which is mental issues. No matter how tough you make the gun laws, without dealing with the mental issues behind some of these crimes, there going to find other ways to kill people, if they can't get a gun. All of these laws are going to do is prevent law abiding citizens from getting a gun, it's not going to do anything from getting a criminal getting a gun. Majority of the major cities, like Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, D.C., have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and they have some of the highest crime rates in nation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 12:14 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:14:15 -0400

This is one of the worst arguments out there. I do believe in gun control but I also believe in criminal control. We should be addressing the issue of mental instability in our society. These attacks go on other countries. They don't use guns but they will use anything they can. It is like in the UK were they are trying to get "Dangerous" knifes off the street. That is just stupid. Anything could be a weapon. People have killed more with other weapons than with guns but that doesn't doesn't serve their agenda.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 12:20 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:20:01 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I honestly don't think they will. If someone has intent to do something they're not going to be worried about going the legal route to purchase a weapon. It's also not going to deter those who are mentally off balance.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 11:23 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:23:51 -0400

The problem is all the illegal guns out there. How about we enforce the ones already on the books. How about putting our efforts into controlling illegal guns in the possession of criminals.

Response by SPC Antonio E. Reyes made Sep 2 at 2015 7:39 PM

SPC Antonio E. Reyes — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:39:18 -0400

Big time, NO!

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 2 at 2015 7:40 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:40:30 -0400

Response by SSG Ronald Williams made Sep 3 at 2015 4:12 PM

SSG Ronald Williams — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:12:18 -0400

The Constitution gives us the right, so what difference does it make?

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Sep 30 at 2015 10:35 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:35:01 -0400

Quite the opposite, it will serve to increase them. A criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law so increased restrictions won't matter to him. What might deter him from potential criminal acts are either a high likelihood of being caught by the cops or the potential of a would-be victim to resist him. However, in areas with strict gun control, such as Chicago and D.C., the latter form of deterrence is pretty much a non-issue. By this, we can see that these area's high rates of gun crime aren't in spite of these gun control laws but as a direct result thereof.

This would apply even more in the case of mass shootings. Most mass shooters are mentally disturbed individuals who feel wronged/marginalized etc., carry a grudge and want to gain as much notoriety as possible by wracking up a high body count. Most of them also end up dead, either by their own hand or by cop. They also tend to pick 'gun free zones' precisely because they're gun free; there won't be anybody to stop them once they start their murder sprees. A person who thinks this way and who views death not as a deterrent but their desired end-state cannot be reasoned with, only stopped by force. Further restricting law-abiding citizens from being able to do so effectively will serve no purpose but to make the problem worse.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 5:34 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:34:05 -0400

No, I don't. I think the old truism is true: Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2015 5:40 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 05:40:03 -0500

No.

Response by TSgt Dave Beem made Nov 23 at 2015 8:11 AM

TSgt Dave Beem — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 08:11:47 -0500

No, it will not. The only country to have 100% gun control, was NAZI Germany. Read the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is an integral part of the idea of "state militias". The founding fathers KNEW that someday, somehow, someone would trash the constitution, and the government would need to be overthrown. You'd just better be successful..lol, or you'll be in jail or very, very dead.

Now, I'll give you a PERFECT example. Aftermath of TWO hurricanes. Katrina. Looting everywhere, chaos, anarchy, and it sucked.

Hurricane Ivan, Texas Gulf Coast. Not a SINGLE reported instance of looting. Texas is an open carry state. Lousiana is a red democrat donkey assed gun control state.

Another example. Remember the FIRST "Beverley Hills Cop" movie where Eddie Murphy tries to hold up the bar..which is THE hangout for off duty cops? Yeah, like that.

Trust me, if we were ALL armed (and competent, and tested yearly for aim, fire and safety) you'd never see another mass murder. Because the jerk would be so full of holes, instantly, that he'd never get much past a 2nd or 3rd shot..if he shot at all.

I know the anti gun lobby has a convincing argument. But the truth is, guns kill nobody (UNLESS you're the totally unlucky USAF MSgt who had his hunting rifle fall of his bedroom shelf JUST as he got up to turn the tv channel DOWNSTAIRS, and the weapon fired thru the upstairs floor and blew his brains out..but that's his stupidity for leaving a round chambered to begin with..or it was just HIS TIME TO GO..). PEOPLE kill people.

Put another way, EIGHTEEN PERCENT of all fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers. So you should DRIVE DRUNK, because 82% of all traffic fatalities are caused by SOBER people. That's the kind of justification gun control advocates have. Do you honestly think that a stupid LAW is going to prevent a criminal from using a gun, or for that matter, ANY weapon?

(Oh, and China has pretty strict gun control as well)

Now think about this. If EVERY American carried, and it came time for war, don't you think it would be a time saver if EVERYONE drafted or volunteering had already HAD weapons training? Save one hell of a lot of money for ammo and weapons training, I'd think. Of course there are some folks (like my best friend) who can't hit the broadside of a barn while LEANING AGAINST IT. (no kidding, I had to shoot on HIS target so he would pass qual. The range staff always thought it was strange that I'd hit 23 of 25 in the bulls eye and two were nowhere on the target..lol)

So the answer is a definite NO WAY IN HELL. And I'm not a shill for the NRA either, but when I was a kid, I was at a military academy (high school, prep for West Point (Wentworth military academy) and WE had an M14 range indoors in the basement of one of our barracks.) the NRA's junior shooting competitions were something we ALL loved.

If they want to be safe, get a little bit of science fiction going and have weapons that have a way to recognize palm or fingerprints (much like the fingerprint thing the old HP IPAQ pda's had, swipe the finger, the weapon is armed and ready. But you'd need a damned good battery in the grip area and nonvolatile memory, or someone could just pull the battery and the weapon would reset itself.

This tech is out there now. But it would add cost and complexity to a weapon, and it would only make sense to have a licensed weapons dealer or even the factory be the only ones to be able to reset the ownership/prints. I have no problems with registering ANY projectile weapon I own. Hell, I think even a crossbow is pretty damned powerful with a 4 edge broadhead on it.

But the only way you'll stop the carnage is IF EVERYONE IS ARMED and not afraid to use it in self defense, or the defense of others. Go read the American Rifleman, and read the sent in letters of how someone used a weapon to defend themselves and their loved ones/property, etc.

However, in MICHIGAN, god help you if you shoot a robber/rapist/perp, because THEY have all the rights and you have NONE. Which means, shoot to kill so he can't sue for "unprovoked use of force" or some other idiotic thing

Just read the constitution..ALL OF IT, with the bill of rights. It's all there.

Dave

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Dec 5 at 2015 6:32 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:32:32 -0500

Um no. Will a drivers license prevent an automobile accident.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 5 at 2015 6:39 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 18:39:59 -0500

I strongly doubt it. Regardless, it would take a constitutional amendment to infringe on ownership of arms:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended

Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended? | RallyPoint

There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.) 2. Inherent Right to Self Defense All persons entitled to defend...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 1:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:13:43 -0400

No, in fact I am sure that they will only increase. Criminals do not obey the law, and they will not obey gun control. It is funny to me that this issue has been going on for so long when the statistics make it all very clear. The 2nd Amendment needs to stay the way it is, no changes. I am actually surprised at the amount of people I meet that don't own a weapon at all. I just wish they would lower the price to obtain a carry license, and that all States would recognize each others permits and all go by the same standards to obtain one.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 13 at 2016 2:31 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:31:01 -0400

Post this question to the people of Chicago. Oh and don't look up, pigs fly.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 13 at 2016 2:47 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:47:06 -0400

No, It can only make the incidents that do occur worse. Now, actually enforcing the laws that are currently on the books? That's a different story.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 1:30 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:30:10 -0400

Laws, especially those restricting rights do not protect anyone..Only the law abiding obey the law. Even if guns were banned, a criminal would still be able to acquiring one illegally and rob or kill someone.. the only thing tougher gun laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

- However, I do definitely agree with stricter background checks and mandatory weapons training, familiarization, and safety training as well as training on the force continuum (when and when not to shoot).