Gun Control

[B77]

http://www.channel4.com/news/america-st ... ng-victims




**** me, really ???? :facepalm:

 

[sylus]

The NRA must employ stupid to think adding more guns will make it better. Unfortuneatly it shows why the NRA should be involved, their word should just be one of many

I don't know who they use for their pr but by now I am guessing many nra supporters wish the pr men were shot

usual case of the nra believing they are bigger than god and totally ruining it for many of their honest and legal owning members

:facepalm:

 

[retrocomeback]

In basic terms what the NRA suggests equates to a civilian arms race, "if you've got guns, we've got more/bigger guns", its a flawed argument and one which should be instantly discounted by anyone with a single ounce of common sense. The American gun problem is one across the spectrum of society, it's needs a whole society solution to fix it. Legislate these killing machines out of the hands of civilians.

 

[Retro Cat]

Very scary

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19 ... mas/191913

Less guns = less murders

 

[Raging_Bulls]

EDIT : Coincidentally, I received this mail today to tell me that all those highschool shootings are orchestrated by the government to take away the citizens' guns so they can't defend themselves against the politicians and the banksters who own them.

Anyone need a tin foil hat?

 

[Bram J]

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

Maybe imposing high taxes on such weapons might decrease their sale?
But taxes might be even more controversial than straight out gun control.
I personally don't see the benefit of people being able to buy semi-automatic weapons, to me it seems better to ban these altogether. :?
I heard Clinton managed to ban them for a while iirc.

Taxation is one route, and would be a useful tool to fund greater controls.

The US is a difficult case when it comes to setting taxes and such centrally though.

It may well be part of the new direction though.

I can't see how making them more expensive will solve anything, the family in question this time were quite well off and so those guns would still have been there.

As has been said elswhere the right to bare arms was thought up before these wepons were invented.
All thats really needed is is the ban on assault wepons and high capacity magazines, there's really no reason to have anything more than a single shot hunting rifle and a revolver.
And they also need to look at where and how these guns are stored.

 

[Bram J]

I can't see how making them more expensive will solve anything, the family in question this time were quite well off and so those guns would still have been there.

As has been said elswhere the right to bare arms was thought up before these wepons were invented.
All thats really needed is is the ban on assault wepons and high capacity magazines, there's really no reason to have anything more than a single shot hunting rifle and a revolver.
And they also need to look at where and how these guns are stored.

Valid points made.
Taxation is of course not a complete solution, but it might slow things down perhaps. The best thing to do IMO is ban the whole lot. The less deadlier the weapons around, the less deadly victims... It seems self evident to me.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Maybe imposing high taxes on such weapons might decrease their sale?
But taxes might be even more controversial than straight out gun control.
I personally don't see the benefit of people being able to buy semi-automatic weapons, to me it seems better to ban these altogether. :?
I heard Clinton managed to ban them for a while iirc.

Taxation is one route, and would be a useful tool to fund greater controls.

The US is a difficult case when it comes to setting taxes and such centrally though.

It may well be part of the new direction though.

I can't see how making them more expensive will solve anything, the family in question this time were quite well off and so those guns would still have been there.

As has been said elswhere the right to bare arms was thought up before these wepons were invented.
All thats really needed is is the ban on assault wepons and high capacity magazines, there's really no reason to have anything more than a single shot hunting rifle and a revolver.
And they also need to look at where and how these guns are stored.

The well off are not going to be discouraged by taxation, but if the money brought in is targeted at improving matters who could argue it would have no effect before it was tried?

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

Making them more expensive still put them out there to be stolen, lost etc.
There would still be a second hand market of cheap assault wepons and even though this may continue even if they ban assault wepons from sale now the word legacy has already been mentioned.

I think this is Obamas chance to go down in history as the man for the preservation of life, with Obama care and gun control history will judge him as a great man and dare I say maybe even a nobel peace prize?

I'm sure these things are not the motivation behind a change in legislation but they do make it easier to handle the NRA back lash thats bound to follow.

Because Obama is not looking to secure another term in office he can afford to sieze this chance and really make a difference that could actually preserve the right to bare arms.
I hope he's not forced into a face saving knee jerk reaction to soothe the public outcry though.