By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 08 July 2016
Edit Thread
Peh said:
Nuvendil said:

I'm not saying no new legislation should be put in place but people grossly oversimplify things.  And frankly, I would like to see us first actually enforce the laws we have - cause there are people with guns right now who shouldn't have them under the laws of their state.  And the illegal gun trade in the States is small partly because guns are so readily available.  My main point was that those determined to kill people in this manner, essentially completely throwing their lives away, will find a way.  Cause another aspect people often overlook is that no two countries are alike.  The United States is, for better and worse, enormous in size and population and policing it in all aspectsis more complex than most countries, which is something that must be considered when constructing regulations for something like fire arms and how it might inflate the illegal gun trade.  Personally, I think a good start would be to 1) charge those who sell guns to permitted individuals liable for crimes committed with the gun (so, for example, if these punks were unpermitted charge the seller with negligence or even negligent homicide) and 2) require a presentation of a psychological evaluation (obviously from a certified private professional) when applying for a permit to carry a weapon that confirms you are stable and suffer from no dangerous psychological conditions.  That would take legal weapons out of the hands of most of these loons.

And this is why I don't understand the US mentality. If someone is ready to cause mayhem, why do I give him the option to arm himself up to his teeth. You will have these kind of people in every society on this planet. What you can do is to make it difficult for them as far as possible so they can't take many lives. Try going on a amok with just a knife. You won't get that far. But if people have access to submachine guns and the like, the kill count will be obviously higher. Preventing it by arming the other side also with guns is just ridiculous.  Stricter gun controls and registration should be common sense aswell as psychological tests for the people who own a gun. 

If you are determined to get a gun and have the knowledge to do so, then you will eventually get one. But the risk of getting caught will also be higher due to higher controls.

Well there's a difference between crazy and someone with malicious intent.  There are sane people who want to shoot other people.  And you can't weed out all of those people.  As for "arming himself to the teeth," depends on your state really.  In some states you could certainly buy a lot of hand guns but you can't go out there like Rambo crossed with Iron Man.  And automatic weapons are really freaking hard to obtain legally in the United States.  Every purchase of one requires a lot of paperwork and waiting and that's just the federal level.  States have their own rules and regulations, some have made them totally illegal on any private level.  And various states require special licenses to own them at all, a regular concealed carrier permit won't cover an automatic weapon.  And then on top of that, they are not cheap.  As in REALLY not cheap.  Good odds are, any submachine gun murder you hear about was done with an illegally obtained weapon.  Assuming it was an automatic weapon and not limited to a subautomatic mode.  And owning an unregistered submachine gun is very serious offense and will get you thrown in federal prison.

Like I said, more regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.  But I am against disarming large segments of the police cause that won't help anything either.  And I firmly believe any person in their right mind has a right to have a fire arm for defense.  Doesn't mean I think peeople should own riot shotguns and M16s but I have no qualms nor do I think the government should prevent the ownership of, say, a Glock or a Sig Sauer by law abiding people.