WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[SiCkSoULjA]

This is a mess there's no easy way too fix this, my suggestion Is find away too ban all hand guns and assault riffles about just allow big shot guns with limited ammo? Most people want guns for home protection there's nothing better than the shot gun for that purpose it's almost impossible too miss and if I do then they scare the **** out of them.

Even then I am not even sure that will work

[storretti]

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 12:25 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Never going to happen in this country and trying to make it happen is a waste of time.

Instead we need to focus on real solutions that have a chance to get through the government system and will actually help the situation.

Stricter gun laws, a better way of tracking gun purchases, psychological testing on those seeking to obtain a weapon, possible limits on ammunition, possible laws that require all gun owners to lock up their weapons and ammunition and make sure they are locked up separately, possibly introducing a required gun license that must be earned by all citizens seeking to obtain a weapon...much like a driver's license and above all a better education system that focuses on the importance of personal responsibility and safety when it comes to firearms.

I'm not against banning the further purchasing of automatic weapons. If you already have one good for you, but make it almost impossible to purchase them in the future.

These are just ideas that might or might not work...but there is no more doubt that something has to be done.

I agree with you, I don't think we will ever ban guns.

I hate to say it, but I don't think any type of real gun control will ever happen in this county, and I also think events like this will continue to happen. As a society, we can't change, so this will continue to happen, especially in this country. I hate to say it, but we should just get used to events like this, its going to happen again, and again. I just hope it doesn't happen to my family.

[twa]

Why is it so hard to think about trying to put safeguards in the registration process to try to weed out the sickos?
That won't stop you from having your gun, unless you can't meet the criteria (Of which having a mentally ill son living at home with anger issues, a violent history and aspergers should be)

~Bang

you think you can pass a ban based on family members/cohabitation?
how about extended relatives/friends?
I doubt such a law would even be constitutional


Sensible rules are fine,such as liability for your weapons(not that we can punish his mother obviously)
I don't mind being imposed upon for good reason if it is worthwhile, but ineffective feel good restrictions are counter productive.

[zoony]

Never going to happen in this country and trying to make it happen is a waste of time.

Instead we need to focus on real solutions that have a chance to get through the government system and will actually help the situation.

.

This is true. It's as asinine a position as saying the solution is more personal responsibility

[zskins]

Again...I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't have experience with guns to understand.

See my post #490.

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 04:15 PM ----------



Again...I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't have experience with guns to understand.

See my post #490.

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 04:15 PM ----------



Would it be? I dunno, you seem to be the expert here on what people shouldn't be allowed to own, you tell me if it'd be a different outcome.

Dude I come form a country where even a 6 year old has a gun and is walking the street.... You are right. I don't know anything about guns. I just go with my friends to a practice range and have some shooting fun. Again I don't have a clue about guns and I think they are just toys.

And since you were the one saying one should be allowed more than one gun. I just wanted YOUR expert opinion on if he had only ONE gun would there be less damage. But thanks for your EXPERT opinion.

[Spaceman Spiff]

And since you were the one saying one should be allowed more than one gun. I just wanted YOUR expert opinion on if he had only ONE gun would there be less damage. But thanks for your EXPERT opinion.

Ok dude.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You're right, Larry. Probably no one needs one.

However, no one probably really needs that third family car for "zipping around town" and "doing errands" or that 60 inch flat screen tv, or those club level Redskins tickets or those 150 dollar pair of sneakers, or that Bose surround sound, or that $25,000 dollar camera made by Leica.

Nevermind the collector who likes to collect guns. Nevermind the guy who likes to go to a range and responsibly shoot an M-16 or an assault rifle at targets because it's fun. Yeah, **** that guy, he doesn't need it.

Those other luxuries aren't weapons and weren't originally built for the purpose of killing. I 100% acknowledge that most (and by most, I mean almost every) gun owners are responsible. But I still have yet to hear or read a compelling argument for why a typical citizen needs something other than a rifle or hand gun. I'm conceding that I might not know and am asking for one outside of shooting at the range. How about being allowed to own that gun but having to keep it at the range? That way, it's yours and always available for the only reason one should ever have to use it?

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 11:37 AM ----------

you think you can pass a ban based on family members/cohabitation?
how about extended relatives/friends?
I doubt such a law would even be constitutional


Sensible rules are fine,such as liability for your weapons(not that we can punish his mother obviously)
I don't mind being imposed upon for good reason if it is worthwhile, but ineffective feel good restrictions are counter productive.

Why not explore the option? Why are people so quick to just say "no" to things like this? One guy attempted to blow up a plane by hiding a bomb in his shoe. Now, we all take off our shoes before boarding air planes. It's not ideal, but almost all of America has just accepted it.

When it comes to guns though, any attempt at all to DISCUSS the restrictions is met with such fevered resistance.

[zskins]

Ok dude.

It that all you got? You can't even answer my question without blowing it off. Come on OF.... oh I mean SS.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Those other luxuries aren't weapons and weren't originally built for the purpose of killing. I 100% acknowledge that most (and by most, I mean almost every) gun owners are responsible. But I still have yet to hear or read a compelling argument for why a typical citizen needs something other than a rifle or hand gun. I'm conceding that I might not know and am asking for one outside of shooting at the range. How about being allowed to own that gun but having to keep it at the range? That way, it's yours and always available for the only reason one should ever have to use it?

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 11:37 AM ----------



Why not explore the option? Why are people so quick to just say "no" to things like this? One guy attempted to blow up a plane by hiding a bomb in his shoe. Now, we all take off our shoes before boarding air planes. It's not ideal, but almost all of America has just accepted it.

When it comes to guns though, any attempt at all to DISCUSS the restrictions is met with such fevered resistance.

It's a good option...but I fail to really see the difference between a rifle, a hand gun or an assault rifle. One definitely looks more menacing, scarier and out of the ordinary than the others but the others can do a good amount of damage by themselves. So you draw the line where, exactly? I can have shotguns that can rip and tear at flesh, rifles that can kill from a hundred yards away or a high powered hand gun that shoots really fast, but I can't have that assault rifle? If you wanted to shoot up a public place, any of the first three would do the trick just fine.

Being forced to keep it at the range is a good option. However, as I said in my previous post and what others have touched on...the main issue lies deeper than this.

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 04:43 PM ----------

It that all you got? You can't even answer my question without blowing it off. Come on OF.... oh I mean SS.

So what if the dude had one gun? Hell if I know. Maybe there's 5 kids dead and one teacher. Maybe he waits until he can get more guns from somewhere else.

What's your point if the mom was only allowed to own one gun?

[Bang]

you think you can pass a ban based on family members/cohabitation?
.

No,, i don't think anything will ever pass.
we will never ever do anything about this problem.

ever.

I can say what I think, but it's just a fart in a hurricane. Hell, it's not even that. This problem will never ever be solved, because possible solutions will never be rationally discussed where they need to be discussed.

This country is ****ing crazy over guns. Absolutely completely deadbrain insaNE.
Nothing will ever pass, and nothing will ever change.

and lest anyone mistake that for sarcasm, it's not. This country is ****ing insane.

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's a good option...but I fail to really see the difference between a rifle, a hand gun or an assault rifle. One definitely looks more menacing, scarier and out of the ordinary than the others but the others can do a good amount of damage by themselves. So you draw the line where, exactly? I can have shotguns that can rip and tear at flesh, rifles that can kill from a hundred yards away or a high powered hand gun that shoots really fast, but I can't have that assault rifle? If you wanted to shoot up a public place, any of the first three would do the trick just fine.

Being forced to keep it at the range is a good option. However, as I said in my previous post and what others have touched on...the main issue lies deeper than this.

Well, if it isn't obvious from my examples, I'm not a gun expert. I guess I just would prefer a gun that can't kill efficiently. I would be fine with people having a means to defend their homes with a handful of bullets. I don't want people having machine guns with 50 rounds. I know I'll get flack for this, but if you need more than a few shots to deter someone who has entered your house, you're going to be in a lot of trouble anyway. I would also want to limit how many guns an individual can own and keep at his or her home. So, in a way, if I can only own 2 guns with x number of bullets, there are restrictions in place that limit the damage I can do...not to an individual, as you point out, but on a macro level.

There are other factors for sure...we agree there. But why not fight this war on multiple fronts?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well, if it isn't obvious from my examples, I'm not a gun expert. I guess I just would prefer a gun that can't kill efficiently. I would be fine with people having a means to defend their homes with a handful of bullets. I don't want people having machine guns with 50 rounds. I know I'll get flack for this, but if you need more than a few shots to deter someone who has entered your house, you're going to be in a lot of trouble anyway. I would also want to limit how many guns an individual can own and keep at his or her home. So, in a way, if I can only own 2 guns with x number of bullets, there are restrictions in place that limit the damage I can do...not to an individual, as you point out, but on a macro level.

There are other factors for sure...we agree there. But why not fight this war on multiple fronts?

Yeah, but you seem to be a responsible person with a good head on your shoulders (I'm assuming). The general population shouldn't be worried about you. You could have all the guns in the world for all I care.

At the end of the day, it's just hard to figure out who has bad intentions and who doesn't. All I know is that the kid from yesterday or the wacko who shot up the movie theatre last summer are definitely ruining it for everyone who owns a gun and is responsible with them and don't have the urge to go on a rampage.

As I said before in my previous post...I agree that some restrictions need to be made. Some deeper background checks need to be done. People that have a history of mental illness should absolutely not be allowed to own a gun. You shouldn't be able to obtain a gun the same day you set out to purchase one. Etc, etc.

However, those are lazy methods to combat the problem at large....the problem starts at home with parenting. As I mentioned before, it takes more effort for a parent to sit a kid down and have a talk about guns and gun safety. It takes more effort to take a kid to the range and set a good example a few times. It doesn't take much of an effort to keep a gun hidden in the house and hope that your kid doesn't find it someday rather than put it in a safe so that your kid can't access it. It doesn't take much of an effort to say that the government should just ban all guns, especially when you don't own one and therefore a new law such as that doesn't have a consequence on you.

Unfortunately, our society is lazy and wants the government to pass laws and make rules and regulations. No one wants to step up and be responsible on the home front.

[Rdskns2000]

dragon_mikal had excellent suggestions in his post.

You will never be able to just outright ban gun ownership in this country; you try and you will be fighting a second civil war to impose that.

What you can do is limit what kind of guns are sold. Sorry, but a private individual has no need for military style weapons. Limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased. The pro gun crowd says instant checking is good enough. No it isn't. There are plenty of people who should not be allowed to own guns. Also, since many of these cases are kids getting into their parents weapons stash; you must find a way to make it more secure and also make the parents liable in some form if it is found the kids were easily able to get their parents weapons.

---------- Post added December-15th-2012 at 12:01 PM ----------

Also, sadly this incident will not be the last and frankly I expect next year there will be more incidents like the ones we have had this year and even more deadly.

[Reaper 21]

I still don't understand why we can't just make ammo so outrageously expensive that no one can afford to waste bullets. Again I am just a young man, with little gun experience but to me this makes sense

[abdcskins]

I still don't understand why we can't just make ammo so outrageously expensive that no one can afford to waste bullets. Again I am just a young man, with little gun experience but to me this makes sense

Insane people who go on killing rampages hardly care about wasting bullets. Plus they pretty much always blow their brains out at the end.

Frankly I don't see the appeal to collecting guns. Why someone would want to own a gun is beyond my comprehension, other than to protect oneself. Then again some people like ballet and country music and a bunch of other stuff I don't like so whatever...