[Cyanide and Cynicism]

Haven't watched the video yet, since I'm currently listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWjtgaottw

But, my point of view on the issue is that pistols and smaller arms should be less restricted and assault rifles should be more restricted for civilians (but not illegal). Gun clubs and shooting ranges should be able to get them, but do you really need a fucking AK-47 to defend yourself as a regular person?

[Oni]

Haven't watched the video yet, since I'm currently listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWjtgaottw

But, my point of view on the issue is that pistols and smaller arms should be less restricted and assault rifles should be more restricted for civilians (but not illegal). Gun clubs and shooting ranges should be able to get them, but do you really need a fucking AK-47 to defend yourself as a regular person?

Actually, did you know in some states it is legal to carry around a rifle in the open? Only a couple of states allow you to carry pistols without a CHL. As for needing an assault rifle, currently you don't. I don't think it makes sense to ban things you don't need, however. I'd rather see mass-shootings than more freedom being taken away. A fair amount of other nations have firearms and they rarely have issues. Switzerland is a great one to name, since a ridiculous portion of their citizens own rifles and are required to. It is probably for this reason that they weren't occupied by Germany during WWII.

[w00t]

...I'd rather see mass-shootings than more freedom being taken away...

Until it's you or a loved one getting gunned down at a mall.

We can all only view things from our own perspective. Mine is as folllows.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of time and dedication can produce a weapon that will kill a lot more people a lot faster than a rifle. The point of gun regulation is not to prevent instances of mass murder, as we cannot stop a dedicated individual with time on his hands. The point is to prevent spontaneous mass murder, based on temporary feelings of anger, fear, loss of power, etc. It would be difficult to kill a large amount of people with pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns, as those typically have 10 rounds or less in a magazine.

On the self defense note, I'm confident in my ability to down an intruder with a maximum of 3 shots per person. With a p226, that means 5 people per clip, assuming good aim. And, since I know the angles of my house, where the cover is, and where the choke-points are, I could likely take on up to 10 untrained criminals. If the intruders have military training in effecting a breach and clear, and have appropriate equipment, it is no longer in my best interests to try to shoot my way out of it. There is no practical need for an automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine.

[Oni]

Until it's you or a loved one getting gunned down at a mall.

We can all only view things from our own perspective. Mine is as folllows.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of time and dedication can produce a weapon that will kill a lot more people a lot faster than a rifle. The point of gun regulation is not to prevent instances of mass murder, as we cannot stop a dedicated individual with time on his hands. The point is to prevent spontaneous mass murder, based on temporary feelings of anger, fear, loss of power, etc. It would be difficult to kill a large amount of people with pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns, as those typically have 10 rounds or less in a magazine.

On the self defense note, I'm confident in my ability to down an intruder with a maximum of 3 shots per person. With a p226, that means 5 people per clip, assuming good aim. And, since I know the angles of my house, where the cover is, and where the choke-points are, I could likely take on up to 10 untrained criminals. If the intruders have military training in effecting a breach and clear, and have appropriate equipment, it is no longer in my best interests to try to shoot my way out of it. There is no practical need for an automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine.

It wouldn't be me or a loved one, since we have guns.

[w00t]

If a person walk into your place of work/business/school and start shooting things, there is the chance that one of the people shot before anyone in possession of a firearm can take cover, asses, and return fire will be someone you care about.

Which brings up another point, being that I don't actually want people that haven't done extensive training attempting to neutralize an active shooter in a crowded area, as people tend to panic, and panic is not aim's best friend.

[Imada Duty]

Definitely not, they are easy to get.

They call him the armoredArmani

As for the gun issue there is no issue. The second amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership which leaves the debate to the state level. Whats good for one state might not be good for another. People in Montana are not giving up there guns nor should they. I know a place in Indiana where you can go sit in a tank.Not just one, this guy has like 8 tanks just in his driveway. I think that's a little overboard, But you have to understand the point of it. The founding fathers wanting to protect the people from tyrannic government(like the one we had just seceded from) by ensuring we would have access to the same weapons our government did.

If your afraid to send your kids to school that's fine, vote with your feet. Some one made a comment that police are afraid to go into neighborhoods where shootings occur which inturn causes more shootings. This is wrong. That's like me saying there are less shootings in Idaho because everyone in Idaho carries a gun. In Wisconsin its legal to carry a gun into a bar but yet they have the least amount of drunk drivers per capita. Silly to think there connected. If cops do ignore a call its likely they knew something was happening and who really cares when 2 assholes are shooting at each. Which is normally the case and these kids that are getting shot are not always innocent victims. Im sure i can find some 10 year old kid walking around with rocks and blows.

Mass shootings. Its funny this is a completely american thing, but it comes down to detection. If we had a better health care system this would be less likely for 2 reasons. If more people had health care it could be detected that these people are unstable. And second if people were more trusting with there doctor they could be more open when there is something going on. Its amazing how people will see a doctor and lie to him about smoking, or doing drugs. The trust is gone.

My final thought is this taking guns away will not fix anything. One things for sure if you want to get a gun you can. Whether there illegal or not if a person is determined to get a gun and shoot someone there going to do it.They make clipboards now that are bullet proof which would help but i say arm our teachers. Which sounds ridiculous but then again what isn't. I live in Chicago, and even though this year hasn't been as bad as last year, I still hear gun shots about once a month. But for example my neighbor who has one leg carries a gun with him everywhere. He keeps it next to his wallet in his breast pocket in case some one see's him as an easy target. He has had to pull it out but never fired it. Even though he has his FOYT card he got stopped thrown in jail and had his weapons taken away. Now I don't think that's fair.

So if you want to repeal the second amendment good luck. It might happen with the Obama zombies. I will refer you to this. Please watch its hilarious appeal the first amendment

And yes i do need an AK-47(which i do) with a banana clip(30 rounds), beret, and interchangeable wood stock. You can swim through a river, submerge it in mud, freezing temps it will fill fire first try. Samuel L. Jackson once said about the AK "when you gotta kill every mother fucker in the room, except no substitute." sold me

[w00t]

The second amendment, does not, in fact, define a right to keep and bear arms. It defines a right to a well-regulated militia, which may keep and bear arms.

Supreme court ruled that way back in 1876, a time-period in which I doubt there were many people that DIDN'T own guns.

[Ghost]

This guy made a lot of good points and use a really good source for it to making it more reliable.

[Oni]

The second amendment, does not, in fact, define a right to keep and bear arms. It defines a right to a well-regulated militia, which may keep and bear arms.

Supreme court ruled that way back in 1876, a time-period in which I doubt there were many people that DIDN'T own guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the people, which meant any men that were capable of wielding arms. I'd agree with your argument, but that was a single ruling among many others. I'd like to use a more modern example, since you seem to argue that people in our modern world don't need guns.

On 26 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own and use guns for lawful purposes, including self-defense. As part of this decision, the Court struck down parts of a Washington, D.C. gun law that banned all handguns from the city and required that all other guns kept in homes must be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked.

Source: Schmoop

[Imada Duty]

I'm going to share a personal story as some food for thought. About 6 six months my cousin Amy(fake names) and her husband Gary got up and took there son to school. Like they do most days. They get home, sit down and within 10 minutes of coming home someone starts beating on the door. They get through one door and now Gary is holding the second door shut. Eventually Gary decides to let the door go and grab one of the 2 guys. He opens the door and during the tussle Gary gets shot right in the face,gun pointing up towards his teeth taking out half his nose at point blank range. Now i don't think the guy wanted to shoot him because in that moment when they saw the blood they got spooked and took off. The messed up part is they left behind a cardboard box and zip ties. I can only assume these guys staked out my cousin, thought she was home alone and planned on tying her up while they robbed her. The ironic part is Gary is gangsta. Hes got the rims, he's got the money, and i know he has guns but Amy wont allow them in her house. We talked about that day and we both agreed even in the heat of the moment he would have went for his gun and had a chance to shoot back while they tried to get through the second door. Gary is fine now. The worst part was the gun powder that got in his eye. But his vision is back he's just missing one tooth and he has a brand new nose. This story does have a some what happy ending though. Everything happened very fast but Amy was able to see what the guy looked like. The cops took her in for a sketch rendering so she made copies and she was giving them out to us in the family so we started looking on the internet for this guy. Low and behold my uncle tom finds a match while looking at mug shots. He gave the name to the cops and they managed to match a security camera video of the getaway car to the guys girlfriend. That was enough to bring him in for a line up and seeing him in person Amy and Gary positively ID-ed him. There still going to court but i doubt he'll get off. Just some food for thought but i would love to see what the anti-gun people would think after something like that happened to your family. The gun was already owned illegally, is this one more law going to be the one that makes these guys stop buying them. UNLIKELY.