I know this will probably take off quickly, but with all the discussions taking place (or not with some folks), I thought it would be interesting to get the thoughts of people on this forum.

Since when did the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, become the right to own whatever firearm you want? I understand, to some extent, an individual wanting to preserve their right to own a gun but wouldn't it be logical to regulate these at least as much, if not more, then things like cars? Shouldn't background checks be mandatory for everybody purchasing a gun (whether at a gun show or a sporting goods store)? And why do gun fanatics flip out when people try to define what types of "arms" people should be allowed to bear?

All of these things seem incredibly reasonable to me and certainly need to be part of any discussion that is currently occurring.

Loads of things have changed as far as US security goes since the 1790:s (...) Maybe gun restriction could too?

I am convinced that the biggest (but not the only) threat against "ordinary americans" who arm themself is other "ordinary americans" who arm themself. You have to take into account that equiping yourself with deadly force is a potential incentive to expose yourself to deadly force. If you bring a gun to a fight, others will aswell and the result is death instead of bruises.

Someone who have had quite an inpact on American way of life once said something about "turning the other cheek".

I think I am pretty much moderate on this issue. Living in the west, and sometimes in rural areas, I have owned guns and I know a lot of people who own guns. Most are very responsible. But I also don't think people need assault rifles, bazookas, and so forth.

As far as your question goes, I think there might be some debate regarding how far the 2nd amendment should be taken in terms of allowing individuals to own guns and for what purpose. (But the courts have almost always favored individual rights on this issue). But once you accept the plain words of the second amendment, tying gun ownership to militia and defense, I don't think it makes sense to say it does not cover weapons with a military purpose. How can one justify keeping guns for individual and national defense (militia) and then say militarily effective guns are not included?

Personally I am torn on the whole gun control issue. Emotions are high right now but the reality is that the kid who did the recent thing was screwed up. The guns did not act alone. No gun has ever, on it's own, done anything. And guns do have legitimate uses including hunting, self defense, and a few others. If I thought that banning guns entirely would actually prevent violence I might support it. But I don't believe it would. The bad guys would just find another way to do their damage. In all honesty, I would blame violent video games and a screwed up mental health system before I would blame guns for the recent events.

I partially agree. So why are there so many "bad guys" willing to kill with guns in the US compared to Canada, Germany or Sweden? Herein lies the main explanation. It is not hard to get a license for a gun in Sweden (you can´t buy for self defence though), yet few do and use them for murdering people. Since there are many hunters here, gun ownership his comparably high. Most guns used by criminals is illegal.


This is moral panic and simply humbug. Killers are often "young men", and that is also the most frequent gamers - but "young men" also have other characteristics. They probably work out more, might not be married yet, have a more impressive sexual stamina than 40+ people (...) and are more likely to wear a baseballcap than any other group of the population. I have never heard theories that link things like this to murder rate. There are many countries where gaming is as common as the US (my own included), but none with as high rate of violent murders. Violent people who kill might often play violent video games, but extremely few who play violent video games are even remotely violent.

My theory is looking at upbringing, social environment and mental health.

Just so we're all have a common understanding for debate, I'm posting the 2nd Amendment below:

Like DH, I happen to consider myself a moderate with regard to guns. I own one for fun and of course, it could be used for defense, although I've never had cause to fire the gun for that reason. I also know many people who own guns because they're collectors.

But at the same time, I do in part disagree with DH that banning guns would just turn the bad to a different way of doing damage. That may be true, but it's hard to due the amount of damage with any other weapon that you can do with a semi-automatic gun in a short time. Coincidentally, on the same day as the Sandy Hook incident, a man in China slashed 22 children with a knife. None sustained life-threatening injuries.

I don't condone banning guns. I enjoy target shooting and since we get bears (pretty often) and mountain lions (once in awhile) in my neighborhood, it might even come in handy some day. But I think we need to do something about preventing such lethal weapons from entering the hands of dangerous and unstable persons. We as a nation have been discussing guns for decades. Maybe we need to resolve that some action be taken so those people in Sandy Hook will not have died in vain.

Actually there have been quite a few school shootings in Germany and at least one in Sweden. Given our relative populations I would say that the US might not be as unique as it seems at first. This is of course unfortunate.


Ahem...speak for yourself.

I think a bigger question is why is it young men who do these things?



I agree. There have been studies on these things. Social environment always seems to come up. These kids almost always tell someone beforehand and are almost always brushed off or ignored. I have heard of no evidence that that happened in the recent situation but it did in several others. Often they tell their friends to feel important and their friends don't take it seriously. Then after the fact we are too afraid to point out that their friends who might also have been victims are partly culpable.

When I said I blame video games my point was that violent video games desensitize kids to violence. Regardless of whether they then go out and kill (the vast majority don't), I see no socially redeeming value in raising a generation that is not horrified by the mere though of killing a bunch of first graders at school...or a bunch of kids at a church camp...or attacking chinese kids with a knife...etc. etc.

I don´t think we ever had a school shooting in Sweden (Germany have had at least one), even though a mentally ill man killed young children at a daycare center with knife a cuple of years back. In the 1990:s a couple of guys opened fire with a (stolen) assault rifle in a night club in Stockholm, killing four. Around the same time a mentally unstable and drunk soldier went berserk with his assault rifle in Falun, killing seven. We are in no way spared from violent murders, but statistically they are much fewer than in the US, and most of them is actually criminals killing criminals.



Men are more likely to commit any crime. Impulse control? Risk taking? This is not as linked to upbringing, social enviroment and so on. White collar criminals is statistically a man.



I think this is a very important point.


I dont think banning guns per se is the solution to US problems, but the a more extensive control, registration and license probably could serve you quite well. The ownership of assault rifles is not common in Sweden, but it is not illegal - and very few of the legal owners use their guns for criminal activity. The fact that they are "screened" and registred might play a role.

Here in the Netherlands we have a very restrictive gun policy. Only after a check are you allowed to buy a gun. But you're not allowed to store it at home, but need to leave it at the shooting club. After you've had it for a year and did regular practice shootings at the club are you allowed to take it home. But before you get the license for that the police will come to your home to make sure that you have to seperate safes in which the gun and the ammo are stored seperately. As a result not many people have guns at home. But you can if you really want to.

Two years ago there was a random shooting in a mall 400 metres from my house, the only one ever as far as I know in this country. The guy (yes, young man, around 20ish) killed 6 people. Afterwards it was made known that he had a history of mental problems. His note actually said he wanted to get even with god by killing his kids. Unfortunately this guy did have a gun license and a license to store stuff at home. According to the rules he should not have been able to have a gun. In this case if he did not have a gun in the house the shooting would have absolutely been prevented.

As far as I know most high school/mall and other big shootings are done by people with severe mental health issues. Would it be bad to start with a rule saying not to keep guns in the house if there's people there with certain mental health issues? You won't stop general crime in that way, but some of the excesses can be stopped.

Since the day it was written. It was put in the constitution so the people would have the ability to defend themselves from a corrupt and repressive govt. Not to hunt. Remember when the constituiton was written we had just delcared our freedom from England. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that if the generations to come needed a way to defend themselves from the same tyranny (sp?) we would have that ability. If you really think our govt is not out to control us then you need to open your eyes. I'll be happy to so you fact after fact of their agenda. With the passing of the NDAA alone you no longer have the right to a trial to prove your guilt or innocence. All the govt has to say is... Yep... your a terrorist so off to Gitmo you go.



Then you have the same thing that happend in NY state where the paper posted the names and addresses of all the registerd CCW gun owners. Now they are an easy target for the criminals to stake out their house and wait for them to leave. Break in and steal their guns. OR worse you have the govt jack booted thugs kicking in your door because they decided to disarm the American People so they could further their agendas.



They already are! I am a Law Enforcement Officer and even I had to go thru a background check when I bought my last one... even though I had my Federal ID on me.



See the top response for why we don't want to shred the 2nd Amendment. Now while you may think they are reasonable to you, that tells me you really dont care about your ability to protect yourslef no only from the common criminal but also a corrupt govt. Look at it this way. Even though you don't care about our rights to keep and bear arms... one day a right will be taken away that you do care about, then we as a people wont have the means to get it back.

That is why we fought the war with England. To maintain our rights and not be treated as second class citizens.

If you take away the guns from the law abiding citizens then the only folks will have guns will be the criminals. Keep in mind... they don't care about ANY laws being passed. In essence all you are doing is hurting the ordinary Americans. It's been said, and it is true.... the only person that can stop a criminal with a gun is a citizen with a gun. There will NEVER be enough cops on the street to protect every American at all times. There will always be a lag time from when you need protection and when it shows up.

The politicians don't care because they have armed guards around them at all times.

The most of us DONT have "assualt rifles". Before you start falling for the media hype... Assualt Rifles are rifles capable of spraying bullets with a single trigger pull. The AR15 is NOT an assualt rifle. You pull the trigger and it puts one round down range, you release the trigger and pull again to send another round down range. Does it look like the military's M16...yes it does but there is a world of difference between the two.



Look at Chicago... the guns are outlawed there 100% (which is in violation of the 2nd admendment) and they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. Banning or dictating what guns the American people can own does nothing by make the politicians all warm and fuzzy inside.

Ummmm what about the idiot that blew up the building in OKC. You don't have to have a gun to kill lots of people. You just have to have the desire.

That's true. But it takes a lot more effort to blow up a building than to fire a gun when you have easy access to one. That's probably why a lot more people get shot than buildings get blown up.

The chemicals that he used are very easy to come by... and they are a lot more destructive than a semi-automatic weapon will ever be. Just think... if you take away our guns then that leaves the crazies figuring out how to make fertilizer bombs. I'd rather have a few bullets flying around than whole buildings being leveled.

Once again... if your willing to give up someone else's freedoms eventually it will come back to bite you because they will eventually go after some freedom you cherrish.