Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Dec '15 14:16 / 2 edits
    https://gma.yahoo.com/young-couple-blamed-massacre-san-bernardino-131010439--abc-news-topstories.html#

    The gunman in California did not purchase the assault weapons.

    So what gun control laws would have stopped this?

    Today police in San Bernardino said that Farook did not appear to have a criminal record prior to the attack. The four weapons used in the shooting, two “long guns” and two handguns, were purchased legally, but the two long guns, also described by authorities as “assault weapons,” were not purchased by Farook, authorities said. A dozen explosive devices were also found at Farook's home.

    California has some of the strictist gun control laws on the books. What more do they need, espeically since the gunman had no record and no mental health issues.
  2. 04 Dec '15 14:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://gma.yahoo.com/young-couple-blamed-massacre-san-bernardino-131010439--abc-news-topstories.html#

    The gunman in California did not purchase the assault weapons.

    So what gun control laws would have stopped this?

    Today police in San Bernardino said that Farook did not appear to have a criminal record prior to the attack. The four weapons used in t ...[text shortened]... What more do they need, espeically since the gunman had no record and no mental health issues.
    Instead of complaining, why don't you tell me
    (1) what type of weapons (if any) do you believe people should or should not be able to purchase?
    (2) are there any restriction on who can purchase the these weapons?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Dec '15 14:53
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Instead of complaining, why don't you tell me
    (1) what type of weapons (if any) do you believe people should or should not be able to purchase?
    (2) are there any restriction on who can purchase the these weapons?
    how about just making ALL weapons illegal, that way when crims use guns it is only them that kills with them, since most gun related deaths are from friendly hands accidentally deaths from gunfire would still go way down.
  4. 04 Dec '15 15:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    how about just making ALL weapons illegal, that way when crims use guns it is only them that kills with them, since most gun related deaths are from friendly hands accidentally deaths from gunfire would still go way down.
    I don't own any weapons and it certainly wouldn't bother me if they implemented your solution.
    But if people are willing to violate the law and kill as many people as they can, they probably would also violate the law and buy guns illegally. So I'm asking does your plan really prevent the incident in question?
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    04 Dec '15 15:39
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I don't own any weapons and it certainly wouldn't bother me if they implemented your solution.
    But if people are willing to violate the law and kill as many people as they can, they probably would also violate the law and buy guns illegally. So I'm asking does your plan really prevent the incident in question?
    It would make it harder to obtain guns.

    Personally I'd have the rules we had in Britain before 1997, which were fairly strict, but allowed the licenced private ownership of handguns, provided the person could demonstrate a reasonable need for a gun. They would have to be a member of a shooting club for some fixed period (say six months) before being allowed to own their own gun, or be a hunter, or have some other professional need for it (e.g. pest control for farmers). That way there are some checks on unstable people owning them.

    I'd restrict the number of cartridges people could hold at home at any one time to a magazine full or less, and only let them buy new bullets when they return spent cartridges on a one for one basis. I would not allow fully automatic weapons rifles, or even semis, and place restrictions on the size of a rifle magazine (two bullets only).
  6. 04 Dec '15 16:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    It would make it harder to obtain guns.

    Personally I'd have the rules we had in Britain before 1997, which were fairly strict, but allowed the licenced private ownership of handguns, provided the person could demonstrate a reasonable need for a gun. They would have to be a member of a shooting club for some fixed period (say six months) before being ...[text shortened]... ifles, or even semis, and place restrictions on the size of a rifle magazine (two bullets only).
    What would you do about people who load or reload cartridges on their own?

    It seems in the incident that brings up this discussion, the shooters had lots of ammo, and bombs at home that they didn't use.
  7. 04 Dec '15 16:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://gma.yahoo.com/young-couple-blamed-massacre-san-bernardino-131010439--abc-news-topstories.html#

    The gunman in California did not purchase the assault weapons.

    So what gun control laws would have stopped this?

    Today police in San Bernardino said that Farook did not appear to have a criminal record prior to the attack. The four weapons used in t ...[text shortened]... What more do they need, espeically since the gunman had no record and no mental health issues.
    there is absolutely no reason a citizen of a civilized first world country should ever buy an assault weapon.

    i don't hear many bombs exploding in the US. let's start with regulating guns as much as we do C4
  8. 04 Dec '15 17:06
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    there is absolutely no reason a citizen of a civilized first world country should ever buy an assault weapon.

    i don't hear many bombs exploding in the US. let's start with regulating guns as much as we do C4
    You do realize that Cali has as restrictive gun laws as any place in the US.

    Let's not get all reactionary, but the Cali killers were Muslim extremists. Perhaps they must be regulated?
  9. 04 Dec '15 17:11
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You do realize that Cali has as restrictive gun laws as any place in the US.

    Let's not get all reactionary, but the Cali killers were Muslim extremists. Perhaps they must be regulated?
    are they as restrictive as buying C4? can an american civilian get C4 from a C4 shop? are there C4 shops?
  10. 04 Dec '15 17:25
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    there is absolutely no reason a citizen of a civilized first world country should ever buy an assault weapon.

    i don't hear many bombs exploding in the US. let's start with regulating guns as much as we do C4
    I agree. It just seems that fundamental terrorist who dedicate their lives to acquiring these type of devices would break laws and acquire them anyway.
  11. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    04 Dec '15 17:29
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What would you do about people who load or reload cartridges on their own?

    It seems in the incident that brings up this discussion, the shooters had lots of ammo, and bombs at home that they didn't use.
    Suppose the limit were twelve cartridges. They use the twelve bullets and then rearm them themselves, they are still limited to twelve cartridges.
  12. 04 Dec '15 17:33
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I agree. It just seems that fundamental terrorist who dedicate their lives to acquiring these type of devices would break laws and acquire them anyway.
    Yes, that's why we see these sorts of incidents happen equally often everywhere.
  13. 04 Dec '15 18:09
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    there is absolutely no reason a citizen of a civilized first world country should ever buy an assault weapon.

    i don't hear many bombs exploding in the US. let's start with regulating guns as much as we do C4
    Again, the assault weapons were not obtained legally.

    No laws would have stopped this.

    The only question becomes, do you wish to disarm the law abiding victims?
  14. 04 Dec '15 18:09
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I agree. It just seems that fundamental terrorist who dedicate their lives to acquiring these type of devices would break laws and acquire them anyway.
    Last I checked, pipe bombs are illegal as well.

    Luckily they did not go off, for whatever reason.
  15. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    04 Dec '15 20:01
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    how about just making ALL weapons illegal, that way when crims use guns it is only them that kills with them, since most gun related deaths are from friendly hands accidentally deaths from gunfire would still go way down.
    The difficulty with this is that virtually anything can be used as a weapon. They were talking about banning kitchen knives with points in this country a little while ago, happily that idea seems to have been shelved. You can kill someone with a screwdriver, an ashtray, a car, any number of things. Banning all weapons is impossible since you'd have to ban sticks and stones. Sane controls on things that can only be used as weapons are logical.

    Canada is lousy with guns too, they don't have the same gun crime problem. Possibly posters might want to give their opinion on why that is.