The mother got the guns legally, and she enjoyed target shooting for fun. They were already in the house, all the son needed to know was where she kept the key to the gun safe. Even with stricter gun control laws, the mother would STILL be able to get the guns. What needs to be addressed is mental illness. All of the people who committed mass shooting were violently ill, and they needed help. Stricter gun control laws will not get them psychotherapy.
The shooter here in Happy Valley, OR and then over in Newtown, CT both stole the weapons they used. Stricter gun control does nothing to stop that. It makes it harder for the honest people to have that protection while making it easier for criminals to commit their crimes.
I get that argument, but keeping some law abiding citizens from getting guns can actually help the situation.
Just having less guns around in general makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on them. I'm not saying we should get rid of all guns by any means, but maybe there should be a quota, where only a certain number of guns are allowed to be licensed.
I'm not denying that criminals will find ways to get their hands on guns anyway, but do you see how having less of them around could help, even if only a little?
Also, the fact that an ordinary citizen can own an assault rifle needs to be dealt with, and I think that's something they'll definitely work on.
Of course not. I simply think that there should be restrictions. The Fathers had no idea that we would one day have weapons that could fire hundreds of bullets per second, and it's my personal opinion that they wound be shocked at the extent to which the 2nd Amendment has been taken to uphold our right to bear arms. I know people will disagree with this, but I think severe action must be taken to prevent tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine from ever happening again.
This is why I dislike debating on the Internet most of the time. No one's views are altered and it's pretty much pointless in trying to make the other person see your side of things. It's like Lily Tomlin said: "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."
I know you weren't, I was just pointing it out. I'm really bad at debating as well, but I don't think it's completely pointless. It's just that I think most debates on the Internet are dumb.
It isn't that anyone "needs" an assault rifle, it's that if they make a law banning assault rifles, then the gun control advocates will move on to any long guns, any gun that fires a round over .45 mm, any gun with a magazine capacity over 15, etc. Either it's okay to have guns or it's not, because there is no middleground. If we start off banning one type of gun, it will just progress from there. You think gun control lobbyists will be satisfied with just stricter regulation? If you give a mouse a cookie...
Ordinary citizens can't legally own an assault rifle. Gun control nuts are just really lose with the term assault rifle, and will call almost anything an assault rifle in order to scare people more.
The mother got the guns legally, and she enjoyed target shooting for fun. They were already in the house, all the son needed to know was where she kept the key to the gun safe. Even with stricter gun control laws, the mother would STILL be able to get the guns. What needs to be addressed is mental illness. All of the people who committed mass shooting were violently ill, and they needed help. Stricter gun control laws will not get them psychotherapy.
The shooter here in Happy Valley, OR and then over in Newtown, CT both stole the weapons they used. Stricter gun control does nothing to stop that. It makes it harder for the honest people to have that protection while making it easier for criminals to commit their crimes.
But didn't the Mewtown guy steal the guns from his mother, who would not have guns if there were stricter gun laws.
I get that argument, but keeping some law abiding citizens from getting guns can actually help the situation.
Just having less guns around in general makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on them. I'm not saying we should get rid of all guns by any means, but maybe there should be a quota, where only a certain number of guns are allowed to be licensed.
I'm not denying that criminals will find ways to get their hands on guns anyway, but do you see how having less of them around could help, even if only a little?
Also, the fact that an ordinary citizen can own an assault rifle needs to be dealt with, and I think that's something they'll definitely work on.
Why should there be a quota? It is a constitutional right to bear arms.
The Constitution isn't perfect, and for that reason it can be amended.
The founding fathers were pretty smart guys.
Yup, and that's why they created the Constitution in such a way that it can be amended to fit the needs of society. (See where I'm going with this?)
Where are you going with this? Do you think citizens should not be allowed to have guns?
Of course not. I simply think that there should be restrictions. The Fathers had no idea that we would one day have weapons that could fire hundreds of bullets per second, and it's my personal opinion that they wound be shocked at the extent to which the 2nd Amendment has been taken to uphold our right to bear arms. I know people will disagree with this, but I think severe action must be taken to prevent tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine from ever happening again.
I disagree.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.p...mp;amp;theater
That's nice. It doesn't change my opinion though.
This is why I dislike debating on the Internet most of the time. No one's views are altered and it's pretty much pointless in trying to make the other person see your side of things. It's like Lily Tomlin said: "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."
I wasn't trying to change your opinion.
And I agree with you because I'm really bad at making my point.
I know you weren't, I was just pointing it out. I'm really bad at debating as well, but I don't think it's completely pointless. It's just that I think most debates on the Internet are dumb.
I just find it interesting that most people can't define "assault rifle/weapon", but uses the term anyway.
What makes you so sure that she doesn't know what an assault weapon is?
"A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."
"designed for infantry use"
So you tell me why anyone outside of the military needs one.
Semi automatic AR-15's aren't by definition assault rifles, by the way.
Nobody needs an assault rifle, which is why it's pretty difficult to get one. It requires a heavy tax and a very long waiting period.
As for why people should have them, just for sporting use and what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to be used for.
Just because the military uses a particular firearm doesn't mean it's more dangerous.
It isn't that anyone "needs" an assault rifle, it's that if they make a law banning assault rifles, then the gun control advocates will move on to any long guns, any gun that fires a round over .45 mm, any gun with a magazine capacity over 15, etc. Either it's okay to have guns or it's not, because there is no middleground. If we start off banning one type of gun, it will just progress from there. You think gun control lobbyists will be satisfied with just stricter regulation? If you give a mouse a cookie...
Ordinary citizens can't legally own an assault rifle. Gun control nuts are just really lose with the term assault rifle, and will call almost anything an assault rifle in order to scare people more.