Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Does the United States need stricter gun control laws? Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken Monday and Tuesday nights, finds that only 29% of Adults think stricter gun control laws would help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona last Saturday. Sixty-two percent (62%) disagree and say stronger gun control would not make a difference. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _shootings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken Monday and Tuesday nights, finds that only 29% of Adults think stricter gun control laws would help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona last Saturday. Sixty-two percent (62%) disagree and say stronger gun control would not make a difference. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _shootings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Telephone survey? On Monday and Tuesday nights?

Absolutely...

Just as Prohibition seriously reduced alcohol consumption...and strict censorship all but wiped out porn...

Just look at cities like Chicago and Washington DC...toughest most restrictive gun laws in the nation and I bet they have almost no gun violence...

The only thing strict gun laws do is let criminals know they do not have to worry about John Q Public lighting him up.

AppMan wrote:The only thing strict gun laws do is let criminals know they do not have to worry about John Q Public lighting him up.

Doesn't matter. If it's the right thing to do, we should do it. Just because it's hard, or might not make a big difference is not a good reason not to try.

At the very minimum we need to keep guns out of the hands of nuts like Laughner. The guy had a troubled past and there should have been a way to screen him and make it tougher for him to get a gun.

I realize that he might have been able to buy a gun illegally, but if someone is going to shoot me, I'd rather not be the one to hand him the gun.

If your worried about getting shot by a guy like that.

Arm yourself. (Compact XD .45 ACP) (Its so choice)

BlueHen86 wrote:Doesn't matter. If it's the right thing to do, we should do it. Just because it's hard, or might not make a big difference is not a good reason not to try.

At the very minimum we need to keep guns out of the hands of nuts like Laughner. The guy had a troubled past and there should have been a way to screen him and make it tougher for him to get a gun.

I realize that he might have been able to buy a gun illegally, but if someone is going to shoot me, I'd rather not be the one to hand him the gun.

It's not gun control laws that need changing...it's the medical privacy laws that prevent wack-jobs like Laughner from being reported...it's the education laws that prevent schools like Pima Community College from taking stronger action...and it's people like those at various places around Tucson who simply shrugged off Laughner instead of taking positive action...

Hundreds of people are rejected when trying to purchase a gun because various jurisdictions have reported mental issues that come up during a background check...

Arizona is one of the worse in reporting to the national system...some piece of fault lies with the mental health system that "protects" people who should not get to weapons...

Here's Joe Zamudio a bystander that helped subdue Loughner on gun control.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If your worried about getting shot by a guy like that.

Arm yourself. (Compact XD .45 ACP) (Its so choice)

Won't help.

No matter you do, he gets to shoot first. If he misses, then you get to shoot, if he doesn't miss, you're screwed.

If you shoot first you're murderer.

Col Hogan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Doesn't matter. If it's the right thing to do, we should do it. Just because it's hard, or might not make a big difference is not a good reason not to try.

At the very minimum we need to keep guns out of the hands of nuts like Laughner. The guy had a troubled past and there should have been a way to screen him and make it tougher for him to get a gun.

I realize that he might have been able to buy a gun illegally, but if someone is going to shoot me, I'd rather not be the one to hand him the gun.

It's not gun control laws that need changing...it's the medical privacy laws that prevent wack-jobs like Laughner from being reported...it's the education laws that prevent schools like Pima Community College from taking stronger action...and it's people like those at various places around Tucson who simply shrugged off Laughner instead of taking positive action...

Hundreds of people are rejected when trying to purchase a gun because various jurisdictions have reported mental issues that come up during a background check...

Arizona is one of the worse in reporting to the national system...some piece of fault lies with the mental health system that "protects" people who should not get to weapons...

No argument from me on that. The end result is that nuts shouldn't be allowed to have guns, we need to change whatever laws necessary to make that happen.

Instead we are arguing over whether last weekends shooting was Sarah Palin's fault or not. Stupid.

BlueHen86 wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If your worried about getting shot by a guy like that.

Arm yourself. (Compact XD .45 ACP) (Its so choice)

Won't help.

No matter you do, he gets to shoot first. If he misses, then you get to shoot, if he doesn't miss, you're screwed.

If you shoot first you're murderer.

Yeah OK.

I dont really even know how to respond to "your side" but here ya go..... "at least you would be an alive murderer"

native wrote:Does the United States need stricter gun control laws? Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

stricter gun control apparently doesnt prevent killers from actually shooting ppl. i cant believe ppl still think gun control works...

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Won't help.

No matter you do, he gets to shoot first. If he misses, then you get to shoot, if he doesn't miss, you're screwed.

If you shoot first you're murderer.

Yeah OK.

I dont really even know how to respond to "your side" but here ya go..... "at least you would be an alive murderer"

At least until you get the death penalty. What is your defense going to be? He had a gun, so I shot him?

Carrying a gun might make you safer in that if the person shoooting first misses you can shoot back, but it doesn't guarantee that you won't be shot.

And do you mean by "my side"? The only thing I've argued is that we should try and keep nuts from getting guns. If you're not on "my side" maybe you're one of the people who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.

ming01 wrote:

native wrote:Does the United States need stricter gun control laws? Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

stricter gun control apparently doesnt prevent killers from actually shooting ppl. i cant believe ppl still think gun control works...

And a police force doesn't prevent crime. I can't believe people still think having a police force works.

native wrote:Does the United States need stricter gun control laws? Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

Gross oversimplication, again Naive. It won't prevent, nothing will, but some modifications in laws can help and already have in some areas where gun related crime has plummeted..

Gun violence in America is a result of so many other things like poverty, hollywood and the media, political celebrity, education, proper funding of the mental health system , defense spending, mindless consumerism, degradation of the family - you name it. We're living in the beginning of the end of America as we know it - the decline of the American empire if you will

Funny, you conks don't trust the government to run a food stamp program, but you're right behind it effectively managing who's got guns.

D1B wrote:...but some modifications in laws can help and already have in some areas where gun related crime has plummeted...

Where have gun laws caused crime to plummet, d? Not Washington DC.

native wrote:

D1B wrote:...but some modifications in laws can help and already have in some areas where gun related crime has plummeted...

Where have gun laws caused crime to plummet, d? Not Washington DC.

Chile.

D1B wrote:...Funny, you conks don't trust the government to run a food stamp program, but you're right behind it effectively managing who's got guns.

It's true that the government often fails in implementing a food stamp program. How is it that conks are for "managing who's got guns" ??? Are your referring to Col Hogan's and Cid's posts about mental illness?

BlueHen86 wrote:

ming01 wrote:
stricter gun control apparently doesnt prevent killers from actually shooting ppl. i cant believe ppl still think gun control works...

And a police force doesn't prevent crime. I can't believe people still think having a police force works.

terrible argument. so the police prevent every shooting that happens? if a shooter comes into my home id rather have a gun to protect myself than a phone to call the police. i would be dead by the time the police got there. it's the same with campus shootings, you can call the police all you want but by the time they get there, it;s already too late. why not let law abiding citizens arm themselves? so many lives would be saved

Police are around to enforce laws, not prevent crime.

ming01 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
And a police force doesn't prevent crime. I can't believe people still think having a police force works.

terrible argument. so the police prevent every shooting that happens? if a shooter comes into my home id rather have a gun to protect myself than a phone to call the police. i would be dead by the time the police got there. it's the same with campus shootings, you can call the police all you want but by the time they get there, it;s already too late. why not let law abiding citizens arm themselves? so many lives would be saved

Wow. What a terrible lack of comprehension on your part. Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

BlueHen86 wrote:

ming01 wrote:
terrible argument. so the police prevent every shooting that happens? if a shooter comes into my home id rather have a gun to protect myself than a phone to call the police. i would be dead by the time the police got there. it's the same with campus shootings, you can call the police all you want but by the time they get there, it;s already too late. why not let law abiding citizens arm themselves? so many lives would be saved

Wow. What a terrible lack of comprehension on your part. Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

you implied that we only need a police force to protect us. or made it sound that way...

clenz wrote:Police are around to enforce laws, not prevent crime.