Gun control? Let's have a real talk on the subject!

[funplay]

Look at Nazi Germany for an idea of what happens when you lose your right to bear arms.

Must have missed sth. in my history classes at school...though i though i heard almost everything about that topic^^

Can you give a hint, please?

On Topic: Not much to say about it, as also not being in the US I agree with chemist, though.

[killybob]

just settle the gun debate on these words: arms dealers should know better than to sell 30 round firearms to maniacal politic hating citizens. also the point is simply that the round limit should merely be reduced to something sensible (at least in regard to selling them to citizens) so as to avoid or at least reduce excessive gun crime

[Kuu]

The only reason we need guns is because other people have them. Man can use technology to throw bombs at his enemy, but then his enemy can also throw bombs at him. My point is that we should have no guns in the world or very few restrictions on guns, because if other people have guns and we don't, we can't defend ourselves. The most common argument against banning guns is that a criminal hell-bent on killing people is going to find a way to get some anyways, and I agree with this argument.

Also: what's with the arguing about the magazine size? Does it really matter if his magazine carried 30 bullets or 20 bullets? In very specific cases it may mean the difference between life and death for a person, but this person did not kill 6 people because his magazine was to big, he did it because he was crazy.

[killybob]

this just show how easy it is to go off topic in this kind of debate. well said polka

[Kuu]

well said polka

Thank you.

[LongDono]

The only reason we need guns is because other people have them. Man can use technology to throw bombs at his enemy, but then his enemy can also throw bombs at him. My point is that we should have no guns in the world or very few restrictions on guns, because if other people have guns and we don't, we can't defend ourselves. The most common argument against banning guns is that a criminal hell-bent on killing people is going to find a way to get some anyways, and I agree with this argument.

Also: what's with the arguing about the magazine size? Does it really matter if his magazine carried 30 bullets or 20 bullets? In very specific cases it may mean the difference between life and death for a person, but this person did not kill 6 people because his magazine was to big, he did it because he was crazy.

I agree with alot of that.
He was able to kill 6 people BECAUSE his magazine was 30 or so. Being crazy will not add 10-15 rounds to your magazine. Yes either way people would have died I think, but the point of adding limits to a magazine is that they can't do as much damage. Remember this man was only stopped when he had to reload. I am not saying that limiting magazine size will make this issue's go away but it will do 2 things, Give the shooters less options, and make it so the and guys don't have about double the number of rounds in a clip as a cop dose.
yes I agree limiting magazine size dose very little but I think it is only common sense to limit it. Just because a limit wont solve the problem 100% dose not mean it should not be put into place. It is better than nothing and no one gets hurt from magazine limits only when they have few to no limits.
Even if it saves a few lives it is worth.

[Kuu]

I am not saying that limiting magazine size will make this issue's go away but it will do 2 things, Give the shooters less options, and make it so the and guys don't have about double the number of rounds in a clip as a cop dose.

Yes, it will give the shooters less options, and this include the shooters that are trying to stop maniacs like this guy from killing people.

Even if it saves a few lives it is worth.

Should we always forfeit freedoms for the sake of saving lives? I'm not saying that weshould or shouldn't in this case, but should we have not tried to stop Nazi Germany in order to save the lives of U.S. troops (remember we didn't know about concentration camps when we went in to WWII)?

[killybob]

for me at least life come at the top of the priority pyramid. id give up my freedom if it were to save the life of a loved one.

[Kuu]

id give up my freedom if it were to save the life of a loved one.

Certainly. So would I. But should the government that has proven itself incapable of running just about anything be the thing to decide when we should and shouldn't sacrafice freedoms?

[LongDono]

I am not saying that limiting magazine size will make this issue's go away but it will do 2 things, Give the shooters less options, and make it so the and guys don't have about double the number of rounds in a clip as a cop dose.

Yes, it will give the shooters less options, and this include the shooters that are trying to stop maniacs like this guy from killing people.

Even if it saves a few lives it is worth.

Should we always forfeit freedoms for the sake of saving lives? I'm not saying that weshould or shouldn't in this case, but should we have not tried to stop Nazi Germany in order to save the lives of U.S. troops (remember we didn't know about concentration camps when we went in to WWII)?

@ Quote #1: So it takes 30 shots to stop a shooter? Dude that makes zero sense.
@ Quote #2:What freedom are we giving up?

[BluePriest]

Please fix your OP.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html

He was not a registered republican. The photo was doctored. He hasnt voted since 08 and that was independent.


This says independent again

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html

thats what I believe.

I saw one that said democratic, but i dont trust it. So Im not postng it. Still doing research.

EDIT
Aside from that, a lot of people on this forum know how to edit webpages. And can easily change it to say whatever they want.

[LongDono]

Ah thank you Blue! Will edit now.