Do you believe stricter gun control would have prevented the recent rash of shootings?

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: Do you believe stricter gun control would have prevented the recent rash of shootings?

(I don't mean "if nobody had any guns," because that's unreasonable.)

[NOW tense]

1. Being bent on killing others is a social problem

not a gun control problem.

[madeline_con]

14. I thought it was a mental problem.

:shrug:

[NOW tense]

18. I think it is a social problem

To say simply that it is a mental problem does not answer why gun violence is so high in our country. Why is it in our society that peoples lives mean so little?

[KittyWampus]

20. I agee. It seems mentally disturbed Americans have a higher tendency to channel their impulses

to lash out in very violent ways.

IMO, one part is the acceptability violence has attained in our popular culture. Movies, tv, videogames.

Then, there's the fact our Family Structure has been broken down to rubble.

Then there's the sociopathic behavior of corporate America.

[madeline_con]

24. Gun violence is high due to high crime.

Most of it is committed during criminal acts. Lawbreakers breaking the law, or crazies breaking the law. Commn thread, law breaking.

[NOW tense]

27. What are the root causes of crime?

Killing someone is a crime, so doesn't that skew the common thread? I am not surprised that we have high gun violence in our country. We live in a culture that is in love with the idea of "an eye for an eye". We revel in rivalry and revenge, from entertainment to foreign affairs.

[AlinPA]

55. It is a social problem with killing built into the culture. Guns make it easy.

Of course some are mental cases, but the Pittsburgh cop killing was not one. He knew exactly what he was doing and had a political viewpoint driving him.

Gun control laws won't help us now. There are huge numbers of guns and they are easily accessible by anyone who really wants one.

[The Straight Story]

2. Sure, those dudes would have thought twice about killing people if they had to register their gun

We need more laws, that always works. Do we even have any gun laws in the US???

Oh, and we need stricter laws about hurting other people. That would solve the problem.

Or we could have national health care and mental health care and deal with poverty. But it is easier to pass laws that punish people than laws to help them.

[rcrush]

4. THANK YOU

+1+1+1

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I thought one of them had registered his guns?

[The Straight Story]

11. Couldn't be, registering guns will stop people from using them in crimes

So no way in hell it was registered :)

[madeline_con]

15. It keeps them from being stolen, too. Right?

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

23. Yep, and taking baby lotion from parents on planes stops terrorism

I feel so safe :)

[slackmaster]

32. Yes, Jiverly Wong's weapons were registered, and he had a permit as required by the state of NY

:argh:

[timtom]

46. I love it.

My kind of sarcasm.

Cheers.

The Mighty TimTom

[Reterr]

3. Kinda depends on the state doesn't it?

I don't really know much about gun laws and I haven't really been paying much attention to the shootings. This is an issue I have never been much interested in and don't feel particularly strongly about one way or another, but it seems to me that if most of the states with these shooting are ons with very permissive gun laws, that might be an issue.


I beleieve gun laws where I live (TN) are kinda nutty. My neighbour is a gun nut and owns all sorts of assault rifles and showed me his AK 47. I found it all very strange. He is also a hard core Ron Paul nut and thinks Obama is a communist so maybe he is hoarding them for the apocalypse or something :eyes: "I am gonna live out in the woods and hunt me some squirrels and keep those commies in the gubmint from taking my guns and taxes away." type. Very paranoid about his guns too.

I was pretty surprised though that he had an AK 47. Is that normal among gun owners?

[BigBluenoser]

8. It is not the AK of mother russia and soviet era...

It does not go full auto. It is a semi-automatic. (well, there is about a 99.9% chance of that - you would need a title III lic. to own a real AK)

Yeah AK clones are common. It makes a decent (if somewhat errant) shooter and is popular because - they are cheaper than AR-15s (50%), the ammo used to be dirt cheap, and it has a high brand recognition.

Used to be a great rifle for someone who just liked range time without taking out a second mortgage.

[L0oniX]

9. I own 2 self defense hand guns and I don't see any legit reason for an AK47.

A self defense weapon is an up close defense weapon and usually would be used on someone within 10 feet from you where as and AK47 is more long distance and obviously not a self defense weapon unless your defending your self against the ATF in Montana.

[BigBluenoser]

10. Something tells me...

Your definition of legit is far narrower than mine.

[madeline_con]

16. Do you need an AK? If so, for what?

[Mojorabbit]

29. What does need have to do with it?nt

[BigBluenoser]

30. I like to shoot...

and do so in a safe, competitive environment. I do not need to do so. But I do consider it to be a legit reason. I also do not need to drive, fuck, drink beer, eat spicy food, shit indoors or do many other things. I do want to do all of those though and can provide legit reasons for all of them.

I moved to the United States for the first two amendments (and my wife of course, but she would have moved to Canada).

[walkaway]

41. That's nice (please don't live near me) n/t

[BigBluenoser]

45. I will make it my utmost effort in life.

Of course. If we are already neighbours I would appreciate it if you would move since you are the one who is bothered.

[Mojorabbit]

28. I thouoght I just read

the opposite. That the states with the most draconian laws are the ones with this problem?

[onethatcares]

6. maybe an in depth mental health care administration

would have helped to prevent these killing sprees, but you just can't account for crazy,..................and one never knows when they'll trip over the line.

But I do believe you couldn't kill 13 people or 4 cops at one time with a knife, or a stone, or a sword or cheeze grater. Something about the weapon of choice.

Peace

[havocmom]

39. Jim Jones used Kool Aid and did in a lot more than 13

That social culture thing and mental health thing seem to be the real culprits

[ZombieHorde]

7. No, I don't see how stricter gun control would have prevented those shootings. nt

[rrneck]

12. No. The tactics

of violence will always change to adapt to weapons legislation. I think firearms have been legislated about as much as they can be. But I don't know everything.

I would be interested to hear ideas regarding any new legislation.

[TayTay]

13. We have had mass shooting in 4 states in the last week

What are the current guns laws in Pennsylvania, New York, Alabama and California?

What does "stricter gun control laws" mean in the context of the laws on the books in these states already?

[madeline_con]

17. Gosh, could it be the economy, and NOT gun laws?

:crazy:

[JVS]

25. People coming unwired after losing their life savings, jobs, and homes?

Psheah right!

[Statistical]

21. Well two of those states (NY & CA) have about the most restrictive laws on the books.

Gun Control doesn't work.

Violence is a symptom not a problem.

The problem is:
hopelessness
lack of economic opportunity
no social safety net
lack of a functional mental health system
lack of affordable access to health care
a cycle of violence and crippling poverty.

Of course "gun control" is the cheap one line campaign slogan answer.
There are tens of thousands of gun control laws on the books, but 1 more law is going to solve the problem?

Until we identify the root problem we are trying to put a band-aid on an severed limb.

[TayTay]

22. I would tend to agree here

The crimes of the recent weeks were in very different locations with different laws on the books. I don't think that more laws would have made any difference.

I think that we do have to deal with the roots causes of violence. There are no legislative quick fixes that will solve all these problems or prevent these types of crimes. (I don't think we can legislate away the part of human nature that does evil things.)

[TexasProgresive]

19. No the guns are already out there

and to enact confiscation laws would lead to full scale rioting and possible revolution. At the very least it would turn our slim majority in the congress into a minority.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Have stricter heroine controls prevented the recent rash

of shooting up?

[Occam Bandage]

34. No. In fact, the absence of Wonder Woman and Supergirl has probably increased crime. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. The answer to this question is 'no'

stricter gun control does nothing to address the underlying causes of violence (which are quite often complex and do not admit an easy and simple solution).

[IDFbunny]

33. The AK-47 has killed more than any other weapon ever

It's was designed to be easily built in common machine shops. It is very cheap compared to any western rifle. It is super durable and tolerant of abuse; not even submersing it in mud or water won't stop it from firing full auto. Leathal Weapon 4 shows Gibson plugging a bad under water; very kool. It's only down side is that it's not highly accurate, noisy, and a little heavy.

[Statistical]

40. You referenced a movie?

I strongly recommend NOT firing a weapon underwater.

The shooter is the one more likely to be injured. Water conducts pressure much better than air so the pressure wave from a gun firing can rupture your eardrums, cause chest problems, and damage limbs.

Weapons not designed/modified for underwater use likely do not have strong enough recoil spring and it likely weapon will not load properly. You can end up with a situation where weapon fires out of battery (bolt is forward enough to enable firing but not forward enough to lock round into the chamber).

Firing out of battery can cause weapon to detonate or spray shrapnel from the casing back at the shooter.

ANY weapon can be fired underwater. Good ammunition is waterproof and generates its own oxygen.
It does take considerable skill to fire safely underwater though.

[rcrush]

50. Also the worst Lethal Weapon movie to reference.

What about Lethal Weapon 2? Now that was a good sequel.

[ShadowLiberal]

35. Probably not

Unfortunately if a crazy psycho wants to go on a shooting somewhere, they can probably get ahold of a gun easily enough somewhere else that there isn't strict gun controls. It's that way unfortunately when cities try to make stricter gun laws, it won't do them much good if a place with much laxer gun laws is right next door.

[Richard Steele]

36. No more than our draconian drug laws have reduced illegal drug usage.

Which is to say: not even a little bit.

[BuyingThyme]

37. Hell yes.

American gunners see the Second Amendment not only as a right to own any and all kinds of guns, but a as a right to kill anybody they damn well please.

Yes, now you say that I'm being silly because killing people is illegal. Well, it's also illegal to protest on private property. You get arrested for that. There are sometimes consequences to free speech.

Gunners see mass killings as a consequence of their version of the Second Amendment, and they're right.

[havocmom]

42. ahem

WRONG

[BuyingThyme]

44. Ahem.

RIGHT

[havocmom]

47. "...American gunners see the Second Amendment..as a right to kill anybody they damn well please."

"American gunners see the Second Amendment not only as a right to own any and all kinds of guns, American gunners see the Second Amendment not only as a right to own any and all kinds of guns, but a as a right to kill anybody they damn well please."

Do you ever smack yourself in the face with that ridiculously broad brush you yield so poorly?

I have guns and do not think the Second gives me a right to murder. Thinking I am not unlike the majority of gun owners in America.

[BuyingThyme]

51. Gunner rights are never about protecting the country or being patriotic.

It's all about having the power to kill stuff. That's all. People want to have that power. That's the whole game. There's nothing else to it.

I know you've been trained to look at it in a completely different way, but it makes no difference. This will not change.

[NeedleCast]

48. What Silly Hyperbole

[BuyingThyme]

52. No hyperbole at all. Guns are made to kill.

People don't want the right to own stuff. They want to have the option of killing.

This should not be a surprise to anybody, but it is a surprise to many because so much money has been spent on propaganda.

[walkaway]

38. It certainly wouldn't have hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[havocmom]

43. Murder is already illegal. Two of the states where incidents happened recently

have very restrictive laws.

Someone goes over the edge to the point of planning a murderous rampage is not overly concerned with laws. More laws would not impact.

[Jack_DeLeon]

49. It would have hurt the ability of law abiding citizens to get them...

by making the process more restrictive.

It wouldnt have hurt the ability of criminals to get guns or use them though.

[dashrif]

53. Please

Criminals get guns from Walmart all the time from the 10 felonies or less line :sarcasm:

[east texas lib]

54. No, I do not...

However, I do believe it would help to increase the number of unarmed, defenseless victims of such
occurrences.