Gun Control laws in America - Debate

[spikey360]

What do you think would have happened during the 26/11 attacks if Indians had the right to bear arms?

Nothing would have happened. It would have happened regardless. That's the point. That criminals rarely do crimes with legitimate weapons or are cowered by the law.

 

[Virendra]

What do you think would have happened during the 26/11 attacks if Indians had the right to bear arms?

They would've shredded the idiots into pieces long before NSG would be needed to claim the glory
Do you know what the dozens of people around the Jewish centre did when terrorists hijacked it?
They tried to thwart the terrorists by throwing stones at them and were numbed when the automatic rounds were sprayed on them from inside the building. Yeah that's right, our people were throwing stones at AK47 wielding terrorists.
I'm not talking about rationing Guns to public in wholesale.
Firstly the licensing process is impractically repulsive. Second, there is an urgent need of public awareness and wider national debate on Guns, right of self protection.

Exactly.
Those who will break the law, will break the law, whether gun rights or no gun rights.

But they will piss in their pants if even a probability appears that the potential victim may be armed. Gun is a great force equalizer that gives the innocent civilian a genuine chance to defend him/her self.
A very basic study of crime psychology tells that crime depends on a power equation. Any kind of criminal meticulously evaluates the equation.
Will he outnumber the potential victim?
Will he overpower the potential victim by muscle?
Will he outmaneuver the victim tactically?
Most importantly, will he outgun the victim by weapons?
Only upon getting such factors in his favour the criminal proceeds. How will the outnumbered, overpowered and outmaneuvered common civilian thwart such an attack?
Since all criminals are instinctively driven by self-preservation, existence of legal firearms among law abiding citizens would act as a serious deterrent. The man ought to have means of self protection, otherwise the articles of the constitution of Independent India are mere black figures on a paper.
Random acts of violence including the homicidal ones happen anywhere anytime to anyone, without a prior appointment.
Reminds me of a funny line - "I'd prefer carrying a Gun, a cop is too heavy"

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

Never, you can legislate the law-abiding not the outlaws. So, its just another useless initiative.
James Holmes had acquired the weapons illegally compared to the law-abiding Aurora residents who were legally unarmed in a "private establishment" thereby entrusting their lives to the "private security of that establishment" in particular and "Govt law enforcement in general".

Points to ponder:
(a). How did an unemployed 24 year old manage to rake up $ 6,000- $8,000 to buy all the firearms, explosives(not including ammo) ? * reportedly he bought around 300+ rounds for each caliber for planning/practice and more for the actual act.

1. 1-Glock G22 (.40 caliber pistol)
2. 1-Glock G23 (.40 caliber pistol)
3. 1-Smith & Wesson M&P .223 semiautomatic rifle
4. 1-Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun

(b). How did he manage to procure weapons and ammo and most importantly "explosives" without proper documentation ? Would a "ban or effective legislation" have stopped him ?

Holmes did not have a permit for any of the weapons he allegedly used during the movie theater shootings.
Read more at James Holmes – What We Know So Far About The Alleged Aurora Theater Shooter [video][/video][video][/video]

[video]
(c). Is there something/someone behind this, especially this close to UN Gun Ban Treaty ratification date (July 27th); self fulfilling prophecy Mr.OhBummer; only time will tell ? Last ditch effort to divert heat from Fast and Furious maybe ?[/video]

 

[Known_Unknown]

Points to ponder:
(a). How did an unemployed 24 year old manage to rake up $ 20,000 to buy all the firearms, ammo, explosives ?

1. 1-Glock G22 (.40 caliber pistol)
2. 1-Glock G23 (.40 caliber pistol)
3. 1-Smith & Wesson M&P .223 semiautomatic rifle
4. 1-Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun

Easy. Credit card.

(b). How did he manage to procure weapons and ammo and most importantly "explosives" without proper documentation ? Would a "ban or effective legislation" have stopped him ?

Of course. Bans limit or deny access to everyone. If everyone in the continental US (including the criminals) had their guns taken away tomorrow, do you imagine it would be easy for them to re-arm themselves? Unless they're border hopping, not very much so.

(c). Is there something/someone behind this, especially this close to UN Gun Ban Treaty ratification date (July 27th); self fulfilling prophecy Mr.OhBummer; only time will tell ? Last ditch effort to divert heat from Fast and Furious maybe ?

Conspiracy nut maybe?

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

Of course. Bans limit or deny access to everyone.
If everyone in the continental US (including the criminals) had their guns taken away tomorrow, do you imagine it would be easy for them to re-arm themselves? Unless
they're border hopping, not very much so.

Utopian nut maybe ??? What part of "outlaw" do you think you can legislate mate ?
German Nationalist eh. Oops, I agree with you now that I know where your working model comes from. Sig Heil.

And by the way Unemployed = Bad or No Credit history = No Credit card.
Are you from the US by any chance ?

 

[Known_Unknown]

If your theory is right, then why is America the #1 "murder by firearm" capital of the world? If criminals can get guns anywhere, why do India or China, which are 4 times more populous have fewer gun related casualties? Something to think about? Maybe it has to do with their strict gun control laws?

And by the way Unemployed = Bad or No Credit history = No Credit card.

He is unemployed now. Does not mean he was never employed. Big leap of logic that one. And where did you get the "no credit history" bit from? You don't need to be employed to have a good or any credit history for that matter!

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

If your theory is right, then why is America the #1 "murder by firearm" capital of the world?

You had to say that didn't you ? Anyway, please run a cursory check and post figures on this thread of the "Major States" which contribute to the state specific numbers which add up to make America the #1 "murder by firearm" capital of the world. Enjoy your weekend mate. As for the India bit we will cover that too in in a separate thread where its being discussed(lets not go OT here). Please look up "Are you authorized to defend yourself ?"
And my questions still stand

Points to ponder:
(b). How did he manage to procure weapons and ammo and most importantly "explosives" without proper documentation ? Would a "ban or effective legislation" have stopped him ?
(c). Are you from the US by any chance ?

 

[Ray]

US has a gun culture historically.

It has become practically a religious zeal to have it flourish.

They will never give it up.

More will die with these insane acts!

Elsewhere, where guns cannot be bought like over the counter medicine, there too murders taking place with the gun. but mayhem with the gun, without any serious cause, is not so rampant.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

They will never give it up.

Absolutely, why should it be given up.

More will die with these insane acts!

Insane and outlaw behavior cannot be legislated away. Using that as an excuse to disarm the law-abiding and sane is over-reach.

Elsewhere, where guns cannot be bought like over the counter medicine

Hmm, that easy a process to procure a gun. Which country is this, where its as easy to procure a 'legal firearm'.

And the over the " counter medication" analogy is a tad inaccurate for the USA as compared to India. (India) Where it's "really" easy to get "whatever" you want over the counter from a Med store; "Roofies","Furoxone, Lomofen, Nimulid, Piperazine; et all without a doctors prescription, doesn't compare to the United States.This Analogy is a

 

[Virendra]

I don't know if its exactly "over the counter" or more licensed in US.
But I know one thing. If Guns were given out there like freebies on wholesale, we would see many more homicides in US than there are today.

Anyway, for India we don't need to copy the US system or UK system. Our society is quite differently disposed from both of them.
Taking a middle path would be more sensible. But right now judgment in practice. Our bureaucracy and cops are enjoying shooting down license requests at whim.
Which by the way is damn off than the Constitutional right promised to us, to own guns for self defense, sports etc if we're not categorized as misfit by the laws of the same Constitution.
And you know what the Court said recently about this running tendency of our system? Cross posting from
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...authorized-defend-yourself-18.html#post531164

"Authorities who are responsible to consider the application for grant of firearm license do not realize that criminals do not require any firearm license for committing crime as they can very well use unlicensed fire arm..."

"....whenever the authorities want to grant firearm licence, they grant without any rhyme or reason and similarly when they want to reject application for grant of licence, they do it without any rhyme or reason", Justice S U Khan

**(Read the next one carefully)**
"Only respectable and peaceful persons require license. Moreover, unnecessary rejection of applications for grant of firearm license breeds a tendency to keep unlicensed arms - a greater evil", Justice Khan said.

...the court directed the District Magistrate "to grant the licence to the petitioner unless there is something adverse against him like pendency of criminal case".

I think a free flow and a suffocating approach are both disastrous for the society.
Our current laws/policies are almost ok. Their implementation is pathetic and unbearably eaten up by corruption, lack of relevant knowledge in babus.

All I vote for is that- every bonafide citizen who is not a physical / mental / criminal exception, automatically has the right to bear arms to defend self, family and property.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

Yep, India doesn't need to follow the US model. Neither does the US need Government over-reach in matters pertaining to personal defence and RKBA. Getting back on topic; this "stringent" regulation that most people speak about(read anti-gunners) is nothing but a creeping ban.
And as far as "insane acts" are concerned as pointed out by a fellow forumite, are we not forgetting the enabler- " The Credit Card" which another esteemed forumite proudly said was the monetary source used by the killer for procurement; going by the logic of making inanimate objects the reason behind these mishaps. Did the Credit card cause this ??? Should we consider banning that too, because it can be misused by unsavory elements.

Why are we ignoring the fact that Holmes didn't have a proper permit for the weapons, but that he chose to be an "Outlaw" he decided to go for it anyway. And how about the explosives, even if he did have a permit (hypothetically) he would still be breaking the law in trying to buy those. For all we know, ban or no ban he'd really not give a flying fish.
So, a "strict/stringent" law will only ensure that the legal gun owners jump through some more hoops. To think that it affects the ability of perps and psychos to procure weapons and cause damage is naive. India isn't exactly the role model as Virendra correctly opined; that flawed system has been discussed in another thread for the interested, let's take it up there.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...authorized-defend-yourself-18.html#post531164

 

[hit&run]

and gun carrying American were not able to defend themselves or kill that terrorist.

Where are those who say if Indians would have been carrying guns the causalities could have been less during 26/11 attack. Oh..! there are people who still believe in this theory ...........

 

[Virendra]

and gun carrying American were not able to defend themselves or kill that terrorist.
Where are those who say if Indians would have been carrying guns the causalities could have been less during 26/11 attack. Oh..! there are people who still believe in this theory ...........

Yes we firmly believe in this theory. In case you haven't noticed, none of the civilians was carrying a fire-arm inside the movie hall .. except of course our socially challenged maniac.
Can you explain what led you to believe that the Americans in front of him (when he opened fire) had Guns on them?

And as far as "insane acts" are concerned as pointed out by a fellow forumite, are we not forgetting the enabler- " The Credit Card" which another esteemed forumite proudly said was the monetary source used by the killer for procurement; going by the logic of making inanimate objects the reason behind these mishaps. Did the Credit card cause this ??? Should we consider banning that too, because it can be misused by unsavory elements.

lol that one got me

Regards,
Virendra

 

[spikey360]

and gun carrying American were not able to defend themselves or kill that terrorist.

Why do you think he chose a movie theatre in the first place? Because guns are not allowed inside. We have heard about shooting in schools, universities and now a movie theatre. All these places are no weapon zones. If he really wanted a confrontation, he would have done a shootout in the streets. He would have been gunned down in a matter of minutes by the people.

Where are those who say if Indians would have been carrying guns the causalities could have been less during 26/11 attack. Oh..! there are people who still believe in this theory ...........

Whether the casualties could have been lesser or not is debatable. Mumbai 26/11 would not have even occurred in the first place. Say you are an assailant with an AK-47 out to attack the public who are armed with handguns. They probably outgun you in the ratio 1:200. Would you still like to carry out the attack with as much zeal?

 

[Virendra]

Why do you think he chose a movie theatre in the first place? Because guns are not allowed inside. We have heard about shooting in schools, universities and now a movie theatre. All these places are no weapon zones. If he really wanted a confrontation, he would have done a shootout in the streets. He would have been gunned down in a matter of minutes by the people.

You nailed it

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Whether the casualties could have been lesser or not is debatable. Mumbai 26/11 would not have even occurred in the first place. Say you are an assailant with an AK-47 out to attack the public who are armed with handguns. They probably outgun you in the ratio 1:200. Would you still like to carry out the attack with as much zeal?

If you were shot and alive and still had a gun would it make a difference?

 

[spikey360]

If you were shot and alive and still had a gun would it make a difference?

Sir, if I were the terrorist in such a predicament, I would be too happy to be alive, and possibly run for my life. Which is generally what terrorists do in encounters with the armed forces.

If you are talking about a civilian being alive after being shot, I think most would tend to their injuries, but some will possibly continue to engage with the culprit.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

and gun carrying American were not able to defend themselves or kill that terrorist.

In case you still have any doubts regarding the excellent points made by Virendra and Spikey.

The poor victims were legally un-armed in keeping with the law of the land that prevents lawful firearm owners from carrying their licensed weapons on their person inside private establishments. These citizens had also put their faith in the security provided by the private establishment and also in the police. May I ask you why were they unable to save the ones that died ?

Their lives were endangered, by a solitary psycho who asked all of us sane law abiding people through their actions to shove our laws.
You may not want to stand up to such a scumbag, but I will.Such scumbags don't listen to reason, they only understand the language of deadly force.

 

[Liberty_and_Freedom]

And for the record, James Eagan Holmes' cash flow was a Federal Grant which was originally provided to assist in his academic pursuits. Was the Federal Govt careless in assisting such an individual? Are they indirectly responsible for any of this?

Even if guns are removed from the scenario, are we forgetting that Holmes had an above average knowledge of chemistry and he would still pursue his genocidal tendencies; illustrated by the explosives he had made at home with chemicals procured in the name of scientific research with the Grant money. Any defence professional or private citizen with an average knowledge of chemistry will know that this does not require a rocket scientist-esque ability.

More facts will surface shortly, and I haven't even skimmed the surface regarding an "accomplice". Lets waith and watch.

 

[rock127]

Gunman James Holmes kills 12, wounds 53 at Dark Knight Screening

Gunman James Holmes kills 12, wounds 53 at Dark Knight Screening

The gunman suspected of brutally slaying 12 moviegoers during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado has appeared in court for the first time looking disheveled and wide-eyed.

James Holmes, 24, who reportedly told police he dyed his hair red to look like Batman's nemesis The Joker, looked straight ahead in Arapahoe County Courthouse as the judge advised him of the case.The dye he used before embarking on the massacre that killed 12 and left 58 wounded had begun to turn orange, yellow and his natural brown – to the shock of the court.The judge told Holmes he is being held on suspicion of first-degree murder. He added that the suspected gunman must not have any contact with any surviving victims or relatives of victims.