Americans Speak on Gun Control

[jon1856]

Americans Speak on Gun Control

Will college shootings change minds on either side of the debate?

By Melissa Segrest
When madmen go on killing sprees in America, they use guns. Inevitably, in the aftermath, the arguments about gun control begin. But a poll conducted in the days after the Virginia Tech massacre found that the majority of Americans don't fully align themselves with either the pro- or anti-gun arguments.
The MSN-Zogby poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe stricter gun control policies would have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people and then himself in the worst mass murder in America's history. The poll found that only 36 percent of those polled believe stronger gun control could have prevented the shootings.
http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.asp...32850&gt1=9311

[AGDee]

There has been debate for some time in Michigan regarding whether a psychiatric history and not just a criminal background check should be considered. The privacy laws surrounding mental health histories are so strict, yet, many people with mental health histories probably should not be able to get a gun.

I'm one of those people who don't align myself completely with either stance. I see no reason to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons available to civillians. I can understand wanting a gun for protection in some circumstances and I understand wanting hunting rifles. I think the existing laws are so numerous and complex AND unenforced that they need an overhaul. So, that's a pretty grey position I guess.

If my ex-father-in-law hadn't had a gun when a guy broke into his house for the second time, he may have been severely injured or killed because the guy had injured him the first time he broke in. But, I also know someone who almost killed his brother because he heard someone coming in the house in the middle of the night and didn't know it was his brother at first. There are too many people who allow children access to the guns which leads to accidental shootings of other children. It's such a complex issue.

[Kevin]

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

Exactly. This nutjob had this planned to incredible detail, including filing off the serial numbers on the weapons - the weapons which he had to purchase a month apart, by Virginia laws. I've heard on more than one news station that he's planned this since Columbine!

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

Well said. We're an advanced society, but we're never going to solve every problem. If we try to, we're going to end up even more miserable.

[1908Revelations]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

True!!

Plus if I hear another person blaming the school for not 'locking him away' a long time ago. SOme people go nuts with out any warning....maybe it's just me.

[highflyerlaura]

I think that both sides in this situation are going to have their good points, however I think that the easiest way to solve this confrontation would be to offer a compromise.

Over here in Australia we have a Firearms Registry/Permit system that performs a criminal records search (for firearms offences), while also performing a psychiatric and general firearms safety test. What happens is that a person who wants to aquire a firearm for either recreational or commercial reasons apllies via the police for a Firearms Use and Safety Course, which is run by the Firearms Registery. The Registry then informs the applicant of the Certified Weapons Instructors for their regions, providing contact details for these individuals. The Weapon Instructor will then at an agreed date and time provide a detailed firearms safety course over the period of a few hours if it is an individual, or 2 days if it is a group. This normally occurs at a certified Gun Range and goes through all aspects relating to every different class of firearms, from disabled collectables to handguns, rifles, semi- and auto-matic weapons etc.

At the end of the course the Weapons Officer will issue a written test with questions relating to firearms safety, firearms use and psychiatry being present. All applicants have to then fill out an application for their license and the reasons why they are requesting a specific class-permit in front of the Weapons Instructor, while supplying 3 different sources of Identification (with one photo ID being compulsory). The Weapons Instructor then processes the tests and applications, then sends them off to the Firearms Registry where they are analysed, marked and a decision made on the suitability of the application. As soon as the application is made, a criminal records check is done in conjunction with checking the ID. If either the ID confirmation, Criminal Records check or Psychiatric/Weapons Testing aren't of a specific standard or higher, the Firearms License will not be issued. The presentation of the licence is then compulsory when purchasing ammunition, firearms and some related equipment. The entire process from start to finish when acquiring a license for the first time normally takes about 3 to 4 months due to the processing of the criminal records.

I know that this would make a lot more paperwork for you Americans, though that system works fine over here and is in use with all classes of firearms. Theres talk over here though of eventually phasing in a swipe-card system to reduce the official red-tape, however that is still being debated on. Due to the changes implemented nation-wide back around 1997 after the Port Aurthur Massacre in 1996, we've actually seen a reduction in gun related crimes and deaths. While still taking into the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, a system such as this would ensure that it is harder for psychiatrically-disturbed people to aquire a firearm, not to meantion making it harder for people to purchase firearms illegally. This system would be even safer if it was a requirement for retesting (though not neccessarily the course) to be conducted every 5 years or so, just like it is here.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well said. We're an advanced society, but we're never going to solve every problem. If we try to, we're going to end up even more miserable.

exactly

and that's all i can say about any of this right now [i was there on friday night, still don't if everyone....]

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by highflyerlaura

I think that both sides in this situation are going to have their good points, however I think that the easiest way to solve this confrontation would be to offer a compromise.

Over here in Australia we have a Firearms Registry/Permit system that performs a criminal records search (for firearms offences), while also performing a psychiatric and general firearms safety test. What happens is that a person who wants to aquire a firearm for either recreational or commercial reasons apllies via the police for a Firearms Use and Safety Course, which is run by the Firearms Registery. The Registry then informs the applicant of the Certified Weapons Instructors for their regions, providing contact details for these individuals. The Weapon Instructor will then at an agreed date and time provide a detailed firearms safety course over the period of a few hours if it is an individual, or 2 days if it is a group. This normally occurs at a certified Gun Range and goes through all aspects relating to every different class of firearms, from disabled collectables to handguns, rifles, semi- and auto-matic weapons etc.

At the end of the course the Weapons Officer will issue a written test with questions relating to firearms safety, firearms use and psychiatry being present. All applicants have to then fill out an application for their license and the reasons why they are requesting a specific class-permit in front of the Weapons Instructor, while supplying 3 different sources of Identification (with one photo ID being compulsory). The Weapons Instructor then processes the tests and applications, then sends them off to the Firearms Registry where they are analysed, marked and a decision made on the suitability of the application. As soon as the application is made, a criminal records check is done in conjunction with checking the ID. If either the ID confirmation, Criminal Records check or Psychiatric/Weapons Testing aren't of a specific standard or higher, the Firearms License will not be issued. The presentation of the licence is then compulsory when purchasing ammunition, firearms and some related equipment. The entire process from start to finish when acquiring a license for the first time normally takes about 3 to 4 months due to the processing of the criminal records.

I know that this would make a lot more paperwork for you Americans, though that system works fine over here and is in use with all classes of firearms. Theres talk over here though of eventually phasing in a swipe-card system to reduce the official red-tape, however that is still being debated on. Due to the changes implemented nation-wide back around 1997 after the Port Aurthur Massacre in 1996, we've actually seen a reduction in gun related crimes and deaths. While still taking into the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, a system such as this would ensure that it is harder for psychiatrically-disturbed people to aquire a firearm, not to meantion making it harder for people to purchase firearms illegally. This system would be even safer if it was a requirement for retesting (though not neccessarily the course) to be conducted every 5 years or so, just like it is here.

Such a system would do little more than chill new firearms sales in the U.S.

That would probably have little (if any) impact in a country where there are far more firearms than there are citizens. 3:1, I think.

In America, if a crazy person wants a gun, he'll get a gun. Inconveniencing a lot of perfectly normal/ok people is not going to help matters one bit.

[Tom Earp]

The problem is, if someone wants a weapon they will get one.

While our country is limiting the purchase of fire arms, the bad guy or nut case will get one somewhere and do what He/She wants to do with it.

While I have had weapons for years hunting for food to eat, I have also hunted people


Have come to learn neitrher is good!

So, get a knee jerk reaction is just as bad!

[JonoBN41]

Tom, I won't even ask about your hunting for food, much less for people.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I see no reason to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons available to civillians. I can understand wanting a gun for protection in some circumstances and I understand wanting hunting rifles. It's such a complex issue.

If I may, I'd like to address the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Automatics have been severely restricted since the 1930s (due to Al Capone's Tommy guns). They are almost impossible to obtain legally, and fire as long as the trigger is held back.

Semi-automatics fire once for each time the trigger is pulled and released. A double-action revolver works the same way.

A Glock 9mm pistol is called an "automatic", even though it's really semi-automatic in operation. Each pull of the trigger fires one cartidge.

The alternative to a semi-automatic rifle is a bolt action - only marginally slower than semi-automatic (as was evidenced in the JFK assasination).

I like a semi-auto rifle, the M-1 carbine to be exact, for home protection because the magazine can be kept separate from the gun and inserted very quickly when needed, otherwise the gun is safe. The round is enough to stop an intruder, but not so powerful as to penetrate walls and injure anyone beyond them. Finally, the bayonette should deter any bad guy from trying to grab it away from me. For home protection, it's the safest and most practical option.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because the media loves to show videos of a fully autoimatic rifles being fired - brrrrrrrr - as they're talking about an "assault weapons ban", meaning semi-automatics. A true assault weapon is indeed fully automatic, but like I said they were already banned way back in the 1930s.

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol can fire no faster than a revolver. The subject will no doubt be resurfacing, so be armed with at least the proper information.

[highflyerlaura]

Typical "Burying heads in the sand" responces. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, just a suggestion from a person who is happily utilising a system that works and hasn't impeaded my liberties one bit.

I can buy guns over here just as easily as I could before, however now the government knows what I have and Firearms sellers know that I'm not some looney. As for that 3:1 ratio, if only you guys would take a few simple precautions like making gun cabinets compulsory for some of the classes of firearms in the home plus at commercial premices, you could own all the guns of you want though the difference is it'ld be harder for people to steal those weapons and harder for kids or looney-bins to get their hands on legal weapons.

As for the illegal sales of firearms, well, it'ld help curb them too, because it'd give the law the ability to issue large fines and other penalties for doing it, which would help to make such transactions impractical.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Tom, I won't even ask about your hunting for food, much less for people.



If I may, I'd like to address the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Automatics have been severely restricted since the 1930s (due to Al Capone's Tommy guns). They are almost impossible to obtain legally, and fire as long as the trigger is held back.

Semi-automatics fire once for each time the trigger is pulled and released. A double-action revolver works the same way.

A Glock 9mm pistol is called an "automatic", even though it's really semi-automatic in operation. Each pull of the trigger fires one cartidge.

The alternative to a semi-automatic rifle is a bolt action - only marginally slower than semi-automatic (as was evidenced in the JFK assasination).

I like a semi-auto rifle, the M-1 carbine to be exact, for home protection because the magazine can be kept separate from the gun and inserted very quickly when needed, otherwise the gun is safe. The round is enough to stop an intruder, but not so powerful as to penetrate walls and injure anyone beyond them. Finally, the bayonette should deter any bad guy from trying to grab it away from me. For home protection, it's the safest and most practical option.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because the media loves to show videos of a fully autoimatic rifles being fired - brrrrrrrr - as they're talking about an "assault weapons ban", meaning semi-automatics. A true assault weapon is indeed fully automatic, but like I said they were already banned way back in the 1930s.

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol can fire no faster than a revolver. The subject will no doubt be resurfacing, so be armed with at least the proper information.

In answer to your non question, growing up poor, my Dad and I would go hunting for rabbit and squirls for food to eat. Go fishing at what was called pay lakes, you paid a buck and only paid for the fish you caught. That is why to this day I eat neither one of them. We also went down home and bought eggs from a farmer by the egg crate till the next time we were able to get down home. Hate chickens, that is why I eat so much now!

As far as guns!

Automatic= A weapon that will fire automaticly with out pulling the trigger each time.

Semi Automatic= A weapon that the trigger that has to be pulled each time to fire it.

Both are propelled by the gas from the shot that returns the slide back ready for the next round.

Revolver=A cylinder weapon depending on a type of manufacturer which hold 5 or 6 rounds and the trigger has to be pulled each time.

Most fully automated or outlawed by Federal law. Just pull the trigger and they fire!

True, JFK was supposedly killed by a bolt action weapon. I have always called BS on that.

Vistit Delay Plaza and check it out!

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Tom, I won't even ask about your hunting for food, much less for people.



If I may, I'd like to address the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Automatics have been severely restricted since the 1930s (due to Al Capone's Tommy guns). They are almost impossible to obtain legally, and fire as long as the trigger is held back.

Semi-automatics fire once for each time the trigger is pulled and released. A double-action revolver works the same way.

A Glock 9mm pistol is called an "automatic", even though it's really semi-automatic in operation. Each pull of the trigger fires one cartidge.

The alternative to a semi-automatic rifle is a bolt action - only marginally slower than semi-automatic (as was evidenced in the JFK assasination).

I like a semi-auto rifle, the M-1 carbine to be exact, for home protection because the magazine can be kept separate from the gun and inserted very quickly when needed, otherwise the gun is safe. The round is enough to stop an intruder, but not so powerful as to penetrate walls and injure anyone beyond them. Finally, the bayonette should deter any bad guy from trying to grab it away from me. For home protection, it's the safest and most practical option.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because the media loves to show videos of a fully autoimatic rifles being fired - brrrrrrrr - as they're talking about an "assault weapons ban", meaning semi-automatics. A true assault weapon is indeed fully automatic, but like I said they were already banned way back in the 1930s.

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol can fire no faster than a revolver. The subject will no doubt be resurfacing, so be armed with at least the proper information.

An M1 Carbine, or any rifle for that matter, is in no way the most practical option for home protection. That is absolutely ridiculous.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macallan25

An M1 Carbine, or any rifle for that matter, is in no way the most practical option for home protection. That is absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, it's perfect for squirrel hunting.