***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[Koya]

2. Switzerland. I recently heard, and perhaps someone can attest to the accuracy, that Switzerland had the / one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. But you never hear about anything like this. Is that indeed true, and what can be learned here?

Almost one in two in Switzerland own guns with a .07 homicide rate per capita. Almost one in 3 own guns in Iceland with a homicide rate of .03.There are 9 guns for every 10 people in the US and the homicide rate is over 4.There are still less guns overall in Switzerland and Iceland but a case can be made for responsible gun ownership. Some countries are more civilized than others.I'd still like to get the guns down in the US as a start. I am not going as far as to say that they need to be outlawed but let's start by getting some out of circulation if you own multiple guns.

Appreciate the actual stats.This angle can't as shouldn't be ignored. There's more here than just too many guns out there.

 

[sporthenry]

Fwiw, reports LIKE THIS ONE are fairly common over in China.. not every day occurrences, but certainly a few times a year. Chinese press never reports it, but word gets out to the public via the innerwebs. So in the U.S. they use guns to kill kids. In China, they use knives or machetes.

14 December 2012

Last updated at 06:29 ET

China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children

A man with a knife has wounded 22 children - at least two of them seriously - and an adult at a primary school in central China.

The attack happened at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province.

Police arrested a 36-year-old local man at the scene.

Security at China's schools has been increased in recent years following a spate of similar knife attacks in which nearly 20 children have been killed.

The BBC's John Sudworth in Shanghai says many of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men, prompting a debate about the effects of China's recent, rapid social change and the inability of an antiquated hospital system to cope with rising levels of mental illness.

The Associated Press news agency quotes a police officer as saying that this latest attack happened as pupils were arriving for classes.

The agency also quotes a county hospital administrator as saying that the man first attacked an elderly woman, then the children, before being overpowered by security guards.

He added that two of the injured pupils had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

And how many kids were killed in the attack in China versus how many killed in CT yesterday?

This. I think this is actually evidence of why guns are scarier than knives. This is actually evidence for no guns. So he actually proved our point for us and for that, I thank you. And once getting beyond that, comparing us to China is pretty ridiculous. Look at China's GDP per capita to the US. Look at their poverty. Their mental health care is even worse than ours. So things happening in China aren't exactly apples to apples and on top of that, the guy still didn't kill 22 people with a knife.

 

[3C's]

A bunch of adult men talking about how handguns aren't needed.Try telling that to a woman that just got raped by a 6'2" 250 pound animal, or a frail elderly couple that had their home invaded by a bunch of hooligans where they were tied up and beaten.We have a right to defend ourselves in this county. If you all want to go back to the days where the KKK terrorized blacks because they were not allowed or could not afford to own guns, then make your case. But the "if it saves just one innocent life" argument goes both ways.When faced with pure evil, I do not see how disarming the good is a logical choice.

wiki: A recent study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims in possession of firearms is 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those unarmed.

 

[Spanky267]

Can we get past the semi-automatic vs fully automatic weapon semantic BS?

What is the BS? The guns function totally different. If someone wants to ban assault rifles, well they are already banned!!

As a society, do you feel we have too many gun laws, not enough or have it exactly right currently?

I think we have enough laws, but I think they could do a better job enforcing them.

Rewind the clock a few days/weeks. What laws on the books would have saved those kids' lives yesterday? How would you have suggested they be enforced differently. If you don't have an answer to either question (preferably both), then we obviously need more laws. Because, what happened yesterday is part of a pattern that is inexcusable. And, to be perfectly frank, we all share responsibility for not doing enough to protect those kids; perhaps you for being an ardent gun supporter and certainly me for not doing enough in the past to get them out circulation.

I asked Tso this earlier but he didn't respond, so I'll ask you (any other person who thinks we need to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons can also respond.)If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

There is absolutely no reason for a normal everyday citizen to own a pump action shot gun. Not any more reason than to own a hand grenade or an missile launcher. Absolutely insane. So, let's start with the semi-automatic guns, pump action shotguns and see what happens from there. And, my god, let's get some licensing requirements to own any firearm. The process to register to vote, to get a driver's license, to apply for college....it's more difficult to do any of this than it is to walk into WalMart and buy a gun. That's ### backwards.

I had to fill out more paperwork to buy my pistol in 2012 than I had to complete in order to become a registered voter in 1991. I also had to go through a background check to buy my pistol and had to wait 3 days to pick it up. I actually had to wait longer than 3 days because the purchase was made on the weekend.You can walk into a sporting good store or a Walmart and buy a shotgun or rifle the same day. Maybe that should change. But that wouldn't have necessarily stopped the murderer in this case because they weren't his guns and they may have been owned for some time. Wouldn't of stopped the guy in Oregon either since he stole the one he used from a friend.

Limit availability, ease of obtaining, and chances are lowered that this sort of thing happens. It stands to reason more availability begets more of these crimes...less availability begets fewer of these massacres. So, let's work toward that goal, ok?

More availability does not necessarily beget more of these massacres. A study in Virginia recently showed that while gun purchases in the state have soared murder and other violent crimes are on the decline.Overall NICS background checks have increased 61% since 2001 but the murder rate is down 14% over the same time period.

 

[Rayderr]

If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

Aside from fewer funerals?

Yes. Or are mass shootings ok as long as they aren't with semi-automatic weapons? I've noticed that people are avoiding answering the question of what do we do when shootings keep occurring after a semi-automatic ban.

So then what do we do? Is there nothing we can do? Gun rights activists in this thread are just playing devil's advocates but adding nothing to the final solution. Yes, if you asked 90% of us here, we didn't/don't know the different between an assault weapon and an assault rifle or whatever. Show us an AR-15 and an AK-47 and we couldn't tell the difference. So you guys are actually in the position to help form and shape this policy so you can actually get what you want. Yes, there are law abiding citizens who love guns, so how do we let them keep guns while making sure other people don't get guns. These gun rights activists always agree that this is a problem, yet aren't so talkative about solutions but just that these massacres will always happen. That isn't good enough. Terrorists will always have the chance to succeed so why bother putting in restrictions? For one, we'll see how many shots this guy got off but I doubt he is as effective with a revolver. We'll see if he reloaded but how quick can you shoot 30 bullets with a glock as opposed to a revolver?

1. I own precisely 0 firearms.2. In my lifetime I have owned precisely 0 firearms.3. Growing up, my family had 0 firearms.4. In the future, I plan to buy 0 firearms.5. I have offered several reasonable solutions. Mental health officials being able to place those that they believe to be dangerous onto a no gun list, private gun transactions taking place at a police station with a background check of the buyer. So just because I'm not joining in on the "let's ban _________" parade, do not assume that I'm a gun guy. We clear?

 

[Rayderr]

Or we could just ban any deadly weapon characterized as an "assault" weapon. I suspect they're not designed for assaulting antelope.

Ok, done. Magical spell is cast and all "assault weapons" have vanished. They don't exist anymore. Hey look, another mass shooting. This time without assault weapons. Now what?I'm not trying to be a #### here or use this as an argument that no changes should be made to the gun laws. But everyone on here that's calling for changes to be made to the gun laws seems to acknowledge that it's not going to end these types of events. So if these events are going to continue happening, there's going to be a demand for something to be done. What is the next step after an assault weapon ban? Why will that be more effective? If it is more effective, why are we not looking at that instead?

I think you ban assault weapons, concealed pistols, automatic weapons, machine guns, and any other guns that are purposed for killing human beings. If people want to keep hunting rifles for hunting, fine. Let's draw the line there and see what happens. The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

But there have been and will be shootings with weapons other than what you listed.

 

[Rayderr]

If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

Aside from fewer funerals?

Yes. Or are mass shootings ok as long as they aren't with semi-automatic weapons? I've noticed that people are avoiding answering the question of what do we do when shootings keep occurring after a semi-automatic ban.

I haven't avoided. I answered. I said let's start there. In addition, let's get the licensing laws more restrictive for handguns. Special circumstance to allow hand gun ownership, do away with the hobbyist element, gun shows get rid of them, limitation being the rule and see what happens. What I know is yesterday, this week, this month in particular...it's at the point of becoming inexcusable.

So why not just try those things first?

Sure. Let's write this up now. I'll take a pass on the semi-auto ban if you agree with me that we completely prohibit the gun shows, make it very difficult to obtain a license to own a firearm (provisions for special circumstances), limit the distribution centers, etc. I'll work with you on that compromise in our new legislation efforts.

Ok, but what are we going to do when there's still mass shootings after all that gets passed?

My hope is that our efforts will reduce the number of the events. I am a realist in assuming we won't ever reach the nirvana of 0% hand gun death rates. But, I do want to make a concerted effort to significantly reduce the number from the ~10,000 deaths we see every year. If our efforts are successful in doing this, it would be a positive step, right? Will you work with me on this, and we can review the policy and adjust our recommendations accordingly?

You see where this is going right? It started off semi-automatic weapons. Then we started including manual shotguns. Then limiting handguns to only a select few. And if it still happens, we'll tighten it down even more. You're on the part of eliminating guns altogether. And that's why the gun crowd will fight you every step of the way. Because when it gets right down to it, you want to eliminate the 2nd amendment. So let's try to come up with effective solutions that won't lead to that and maybe the gun crowd will go along with it.

 

[Sweet Feet]

The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

You go by Otis.. maybe you should rethink your weak attempt at mocking the "hillbillies"

 

[tom22406]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.

I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.

I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.

Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

 

[sporthenry]

2. Switzerland. I recently heard, and perhaps someone can attest to the accuracy, that Switzerland had the / one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. But you never hear about anything like this. Is that indeed true, and what can be learned here?

Almost one in two in Switzerland own guns with a .07 homicide rate per capita. Almost one in 3 own guns in Iceland with a homicide rate of .03.There are 9 guns for every 10 people in the US and the homicide rate is over 4.There are still less guns overall in Switzerland and Iceland but a case can be made for responsible gun ownership. Some countries are more civilized than others.I'd still like to get the guns down in the US as a start. I am not going as far as to say that they need to be outlawed but let's start by getting some out of circulation if you own multiple guns.

Appreciate the actual stats.This angle can't as shouldn't be ignored. There's more here than just too many guns out there.

Yes, nobody is saying just getting guns will solve everything. Iceland has banned all automatic and semi-automatic rifles along with most hand guns from what I can gather. Iceland has some of the biggest gun control. Looking at just gun ownership is dishonest without looking at population. They also uniquely mark all guns and have arms tracing and tracking procedures. Also found this

To obtain a gun license people must attend a course and pass a test at the police station. They also have to pass a medical examination where they are specifically asked about their mental health. The gun license is issued by the respective District Commissioner.

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/What_kind_of_gun_laws_exist_in_Iceland__0_373755.news.aspxThere isn't much official and I can't speak Icelandic so can't really go on their website. But obviously, these states with high gun ownership and low gun crime rates have plenty of restrictions in place and in some cases, bans on automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Koya]

So people love guns so much that events like yesterday and in the future are just worth the cost to own guns. FREEDOM!!! USA! USA!

Exactly. This is the part I have a serious problem with. Are your guns so important to you that it's worth even a modest increase in the chances of something like this happening in your town? You'd have to be stupid to take that trade.

I don't think this a truly honest approach. There is a real loss of liberty ad rights at question here. People laugh at the slippery slope arguement but it's a real fear. What rights do we give for te sake of security? It's obviously a question of balance , but to think that getting rid of the guns is some easy and comprehensive answer is, IMO, false and misguided.That said, there's another aspect here again that in times of peace and stability I find terribly unappreciated. There IS a value to an armed citizenry. I do believe there was a rational that is still important today, seen by the founding fathers. To have an impotent citizenry is not something that comforts me because at some point #### WILL hit the fan, there will be an overreaching govt, possibly one no longer representing the interests nor will of the people. Those who ignore this put our entire liberty at risk imo.Those who give up freedom / liberty for safety deserve neither ( and I should add, endanger both for the rest of us as well)

 

[Koya]

2. Switzerland. I recently heard, and perhaps someone can attest to the accuracy, that Switzerland had the / one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. But you never hear about anything like this. Is that indeed true, and what can be learned here?

Almost one in two in Switzerland own guns with a .07 homicide rate per capita. Almost one in 3 own guns in Iceland with a homicide rate of .03.There are 9 guns for every 10 people in the US and the homicide rate is over 4.There are still less guns overall in Switzerland and Iceland but a case can be made for responsible gun ownership. Some countries are more civilized than others.I'd still like to get the guns down in the US as a start. I am not going as far as to say that they need to be outlawed but let's start by getting some out of circulation if you own multiple guns.

Appreciate the actual stats.This angle can't as shouldn't be ignored. There's more here than just too many guns out there.

Yes, nobody is saying just getting guns will solve everything. Iceland has banned all automatic and semi-automatic rifles along with most hand guns from what I can gather. Iceland has some of the biggest gun control. Looking at just gun ownership is dishonest without looking at population. They also uniquely mark all guns and have arms tracing and tracking procedures. Also found this

To obtain a gun license people must attend a course and pass a test at the police station. They also have to pass a medical examination where they are specifically asked about their mental health. The gun license is issued by the respective District Commissioner.

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/What_kind_of_gun_laws_exist_in_Iceland__0_373755.news.aspxThere isn't much official and I can't speak Icelandic so can't really go on their website. But obviously, these states with high gun ownership and low gun crime rates have plenty of restrictions in place and in some cases, bans on automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

I believe that strict registration and liscencing would be a huge step forward. Mandatory training is a no brainer at the least.

 

[sporthenry]

If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

Aside from fewer funerals?

Yes. Or are mass shootings ok as long as they aren't with semi-automatic weapons? I've noticed that people are avoiding answering the question of what do we do when shootings keep occurring after a semi-automatic ban.

So then what do we do? Is there nothing we can do? Gun rights activists in this thread are just playing devil's advocates but adding nothing to the final solution. Yes, if you asked 90% of us here, we didn't/don't know the different between an assault weapon and an assault rifle or whatever. Show us an AR-15 and an AK-47 and we couldn't tell the difference. So you guys are actually in the position to help form and shape this policy so you can actually get what you want. Yes, there are law abiding citizens who love guns, so how do we let them keep guns while making sure other people don't get guns. These gun rights activists always agree that this is a problem, yet aren't so talkative about solutions but just that these massacres will always happen. That isn't good enough. Terrorists will always have the chance to succeed so why bother putting in restrictions? For one, we'll see how many shots this guy got off but I doubt he is as effective with a revolver. We'll see if he reloaded but how quick can you shoot 30 bullets with a glock as opposed to a revolver?

1. I own precisely 0 firearms.2. In my lifetime I have owned precisely 0 firearms.3. Growing up, my family had 0 firearms.4. In the future, I plan to buy 0 firearms.5. I have offered several reasonable solutions. Mental health officials being able to place those that they believe to be dangerous onto a no gun list, private gun transactions taking place at a police station with a background check of the buyer. So just because I'm not joining in on the "let's ban _________" parade, do not assume that I'm a gun guy. We clear?

I wasn't trying to throw it all on you. It was more of a catchall for most of the other people on here but yours was the first quote that caught my eye. It was probably more directed at Jafo and company who just fight tooth and nail without offering alternatives or just try to make this a debate about what defines an assault rifle.

 

[Otis]

Or we could just ban any deadly weapon characterized as an "assault" weapon. I suspect they're not designed for assaulting antelope.

Ok, done. Magical spell is cast and all "assault weapons" have vanished. They don't exist anymore. Hey look, another mass shooting. This time without assault weapons. Now what?I'm not trying to be a #### here or use this as an argument that no changes should be made to the gun laws. But everyone on here that's calling for changes to be made to the gun laws seems to acknowledge that it's not going to end these types of events. So if these events are going to continue happening, there's going to be a demand for something to be done. What is the next step after an assault weapon ban? Why will that be more effective? If it is more effective, why are we not looking at that instead?

I think you ban assault weapons, concealed pistols, automatic weapons, machine guns, and any other guns that are purposed for killing human beings. If people want to keep hunting rifles for hunting, fine. Let's draw the line there and see what happens. The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

Can you show me a case where a concealed weapons permit holder committed a mass shooting? Automatic weapons are basically illegal to own unless you hold a special federal permit. Been illegal since the 1930s. There isn't much difference between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi auto hunting rifle. The main difference is furniture and how they look.

Apparently two pistols were involved in yesterday's slaughter. We can start there and work backwards.

 

[Otis]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

 

[mad sweeney]

Otis - I'm not sure why you think southerners are part of the problem in this regard. By my math, Giffords, aurora, Oregon, and yesterday all happene in decidedly liberal, non-southern states.

Arizona puts the south in the SW. It is decidedly not-liberal.

 

[sporthenry]

Guy on CNN just made an extremely good point. We do a bunch of tests on police officers before we give them guns. Rorschach and the like. Granted they have an added responsibility but it does seem like a disconnect that they have more training and a more sophisticated vetting process to get a gun but I can go buy one and come back with one today.

 

[Otis]

So people love guns so much that events like yesterday and in the future are just worth the cost to own guns. FREEDOM!!! USA! USA!

Exactly. This is the part I have a serious problem with. Are your guns so important to you that it's worth even a modest increase in the chances of something like this happening in your town? You'd have to be stupid to take that trade.

I don't think this a truly honest approach.

Why not?

 

[Abraham]

I understand the idea that people are the issue and not the gun, by itself. But it is baffling how the pro-gun crew simply will not acknowledge that new, different restrictions on fire arms can help. No, it won't solve the problem but rarely do things have a single catch-all solution. It takes incremental changes to make things better, even of we know they will never be perfect.

For example, what's the harm with making it a felony to possess a pistol that does not have a tigger lock on it?

What about making it felony to have a firearm in your possession that is not registered to you? Make it a fell y for both the possessor and the registrant.

Or do these laws already exist?

Agree conpletely with the idea that private transfers have to happen at a police station.

None of these things is a cure all. But all of them would reduce the chance a firearm falls in to the hands of a bad person without impeding the rights of responsible people.

 

[tom22406]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

 

[cobalt_27]

If all the semi-automatic guns are banned and confiscated, what do we do when these incidents happen with revolvers and pump action shotguns?

Aside from fewer funerals?

Yes. Or are mass shootings ok as long as they aren't with semi-automatic weapons? I've noticed that people are avoiding answering the question of what do we do when shootings keep occurring after a semi-automatic ban.

I haven't avoided. I answered. I said let's start there. In addition, let's get the licensing laws more restrictive for handguns. Special circumstance to allow hand gun ownership, do away with the hobbyist element, gun shows get rid of them, limitation being the rule and see what happens. What I know is yesterday, this week, this month in particular...it's at the point of becoming inexcusable.

So why not just try those things first?

Sure. Let's write this up now. I'll take a pass on the semi-auto ban if you agree with me that we completely prohibit the gun shows, make it very difficult to obtain a license to own a firearm (provisions for special circumstances), limit the distribution centers, etc. I'll work with you on that compromise in our new legislation efforts.

Ok, but what are we going to do when there's still mass shootings after all that gets passed?

My hope is that our efforts will reduce the number of the events. I am a realist in assuming we won't ever reach the nirvana of 0% hand gun death rates. But, I do want to make a concerted effort to significantly reduce the number from the ~10,000 deaths we see every year. If our efforts are successful in doing this, it would be a positive step, right? Will you work with me on this, and we can review the policy and adjust our recommendations accordingly?

You see where this is going right? It started off semi-automatic weapons. Then we started including manual shotguns. Then limiting handguns to only a select few. And if it still happens, we'll tighten it down even more. You're on the part of eliminating guns altogether. And that's why the gun crowd will fight you every step of the way. Because when it gets right down to it, you want to eliminate the 2nd amendment. So let's try to come up with effective solutions that won't lead to that and maybe the gun crowd will go along with it.

I never said that or intimated it. I'll admit I have some ambivalence, but it would be incompatible with this degree of uncertainty to say ban everything. I never went there.Where I did go was to say we need to work together to make some dramatic changes, both with respect to our logistics of gun ownership and, as I hopefully implied, with the gun culture. The current state of affairs is completely unacceptable. Limiting availability is the approach I strongly advocate and is most likely to be implemented soon.

 

[Otis]

I once dated a girl from Georgia. We went to visit her family over Thanksgiving. They lived a ways outside of Atlanta. We went to her grandmother's house. It's one of these situations where the grandmother owns a plot of land, and it's subdivided and one kid builds a house on an adjacent lot, and the in-laws build next to that, etc.

The arsenal of weapons these people owned was mindblowing. They proudly showed me around the house to the various stashes of guns, pistols, rifles, an AK47, etc. None under lock and key. Children lived all over these homes.

After dinner, they got really amped up to go out and shoot the guns. I was so uncomfortable with the whole scene and wanted to play along and be accepted by the family. So out we go, back behind where the pet hog lives. And there's an area in a big field where you go to shoot guns. They set up some logs and some crap as targets.

And so we go out back with a collection of shotguns, pistols, rifles, AK47 assault rifles, and other things I don't know the names of. And with a million rounds of ammunition. We took turns; even the aunts and grandma got in on the action. And there I was, a good ol' hillbilly, out in the field, shootin' some guns. All the while I was wondering about a bullet ricocheting; about people far out into the woods who might be going for a walk and get hit by a stray bullet; the kids standing around who might just grab one and start firing randomly. I was stunned at how irresponsible this was, and at how cavalier they were about this. And this was just totally normal and fine for them. I have no double that everyone else in the neighborhood would think this is fine and do the same exact things.

Get some horseshoes. A bocce court. Find something else to do after Thanksgiving dinner. This is a ticking time bomb. You're not responsible enough to have a constitutional right to something that potentially deadly.

And it dawned on me how widespread this sort of thing probably is in America.

So you hypersuperduper ultra elite gun nerds who have fancy guns and keep them in a safe and shoot them in your gun league -- you're right, your gun is probably not the one that will be part of the next tragedy. But it may well be. And if it's not, it may be ones that are far more irresponsibly maintained. And that's the problem.

I'm sorry that we're screwing up your Thanksgiving fun, but it's not worth the risk. And I'm not making that decision for YOUR family, I make that decision for MY family.

And I bet the parents of those 20 kids sure wish they could have made that decision to keep guns out of Mrs. Lanza's house.

This is such easy math. I don't understand the pushback and never will.

 

[Otis]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

 

[Spanky267]

Or we could just ban any deadly weapon characterized as an "assault" weapon. I suspect they're not designed for assaulting antelope.

Ok, done. Magical spell is cast and all "assault weapons" have vanished. They don't exist anymore. Hey look, another mass shooting. This time without assault weapons. Now what?I'm not trying to be a #### here or use this as an argument that no changes should be made to the gun laws. But everyone on here that's calling for changes to be made to the gun laws seems to acknowledge that it's not going to end these types of events. So if these events are going to continue happening, there's going to be a demand for something to be done. What is the next step after an assault weapon ban? Why will that be more effective? If it is more effective, why are we not looking at that instead?

I think you ban assault weapons, concealed pistols, automatic weapons, machine guns, and any other guns that are purposed for killing human beings. If people want to keep hunting rifles for hunting, fine. Let's draw the line there and see what happens. The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

Can you show me a case where a concealed weapons permit holder committed a mass shooting? Automatic weapons are basically illegal to own unless you hold a special federal permit. Been illegal since the 1930s. There isn't much difference between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi auto hunting rifle. The main difference is furniture and how they look.

Apparently two pistols were involved in yesterday's slaughter. We can start there and work backwards.

Your answer to the boldest above from my original post is not an answer. I highly doubt that the murderers mother was a concealed weapons permit holder. The fact that she owned two pistols does not indicate that.

 

[Otis]

Or we could just ban any deadly weapon characterized as an "assault" weapon. I suspect they're not designed for assaulting antelope.

Ok, done. Magical spell is cast and all "assault weapons" have vanished. They don't exist anymore. Hey look, another mass shooting. This time without assault weapons. Now what?I'm not trying to be a #### here or use this as an argument that no changes should be made to the gun laws. But everyone on here that's calling for changes to be made to the gun laws seems to acknowledge that it's not going to end these types of events. So if these events are going to continue happening, there's going to be a demand for something to be done. What is the next step after an assault weapon ban? Why will that be more effective? If it is more effective, why are we not looking at that instead?

I think you ban assault weapons, concealed pistols, automatic weapons, machine guns, and any other guns that are purposed for killing human beings. If people want to keep hunting rifles for hunting, fine. Let's draw the line there and see what happens. The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

Can you show me a case where a concealed weapons permit holder committed a mass shooting? Automatic weapons are basically illegal to own unless you hold a special federal permit. Been illegal since the 1930s. There isn't much difference between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi auto hunting rifle. The main difference is furniture and how they look.

Apparently two pistols were involved in yesterday's slaughter. We can start there and work backwards.

Your answer to the boldest above from my original post is not an answer. I highly doubt that the murderers mother was a concealed weapons permit holder. The fact that she owned two pistols does not indicate that.

I'm not talking about a concealed weapons permit holder. I never said anything about that. I'm talking about pistols and small killing weapons that are easily concealed. Like, say, the two pistols used yesterday. The pistol the Chiefs player used. And the pistols used in countless other murders.

 

[tom22406]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

Could you check your list of these guns designed for killing people and tell me if a Glock G21 and Remington 12 guage pump shotgun are on your list?Both securely stored in a safe(locked away)place that only I have access to.Just to satisfy my curiousity how do you propose to round up these weapons that you want banned?Do we all just turn them in and hope the bad guys do so as well?

 

[BassNBrew]

Exactly. This is the part I have a serious problem with. Is your alcohol so important to you that it's worth even a modest increase in the chances of something happening in your town? You'd have to be stupid to take that trade.

 

[Abraham]

Exactly. This is the part I have a serious problem with. Is your alcohol so important to you that it's worth even a modest increase in the chances of something happening in your town? You'd have to be stupid to take that trade.

Sure. I'm for with breathalyzers in every car just as I would support mandatory jail time for all dwi offenses.

 

[Otis]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

Could you check your list of these guns designed for killing people and tell me if a Glock G21 and Remington 12 guage pump shotgun are on your list?Both securely stored in a safe(locked away)place that only I have access to.Just to satisfy my curiousity how do you propose to round up these weapons that you want banned?Do we all just turn them in and hope the bad guys do so as well?

Give me one good reason why this woman needed to have an arsenal of 6 guns in her home.**Note: good reasons do not include "it's not our place to inquire; she was exercising her constitutional right."

 

[Spanky267]

Or we could just ban any deadly weapon characterized as an "assault" weapon. I suspect they're not designed for assaulting antelope.

Ok, done. Magical spell is cast and all "assault weapons" have vanished. They don't exist anymore. Hey look, another mass shooting. This time without assault weapons. Now what?I'm not trying to be a #### here or use this as an argument that no changes should be made to the gun laws. But everyone on here that's calling for changes to be made to the gun laws seems to acknowledge that it's not going to end these types of events. So if these events are going to continue happening, there's going to be a demand for something to be done. What is the next step after an assault weapon ban? Why will that be more effective? If it is more effective, why are we not looking at that instead?

I think you ban assault weapons, concealed pistols, automatic weapons, machine guns, and any other guns that are purposed for killing human beings. If people want to keep hunting rifles for hunting, fine. Let's draw the line there and see what happens. The great part is we can always try it and see what happens. Yeah, Bubba and Bodene might have to give up some years of shooting assault weapons in Tammy-Sue's side lot, but maybe just maybe in the end it will be worth a try.

Can you show me a case where a concealed weapons permit holder committed a mass shooting? Automatic weapons are basically illegal to own unless you hold a special federal permit. Been illegal since the 1930s. There isn't much difference between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi auto hunting rifle. The main difference is furniture and how they look.

Apparently two pistols were involved in yesterday's slaughter. We can start there and work backwards.

Your answer to the boldest above from my original post is not an answer. I highly doubt that the murderers mother was a concealed weapons permit holder. The fact that she owned two pistols does not indicate that.

I'm not talking about a concealed weapons permit holder. I never said anything about that. I'm talking about pistols and small killing weapons that are easily concealed. Like, say, the two pistols used yesterday. The pistol the Chiefs player used. And the pistols used in countless other murders.

Then why bold what I said about CW permit holders? So you want to ban the sale of all pistols? Revolvers are also easily concealed. Shall we ban.those too?

 

[Spanky267]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

Could you check your list of these guns designed for killing people and tell me if a Glock G21 and Remington 12 guage pump shotgun are on your list?Both securely stored in a safe(locked away)place that only I have access to.Just to satisfy my curiousity how do you propose to round up these weapons that you want banned?Do we all just turn them in and hope the bad guys do so as well?

Give me one good reason why this woman needed to have an arsenal of 6 guns in her home.**Note: good reasons do not include "it's not our place to inquire; she was exercising her constitutional right."

Actually it is a good reason. She was exercising her rights as granted to her by the constitution and Connecticut law. Just as you are exercising your constitutionally protected right in this forum.

 

[BassNBrew]

Exactly. This is the part I have a serious problem with. Is your alcohol so important to you that it's worth even a modest increase in the chances of something happening in your town? You'd have to be stupid to take that trade.

Sure. I'm for with breathalyzers in every car just as I would support mandatory jail time for all dwi offenses.

That's a start. Now let's take care of the domestic violence, child abuse, rape, and health issues.Ban and confiscation is the only solution to making an impact in events like yesterday (and even that could be argued with only criminals being armed). That said, alcohol issues clearly have a larger negetive impact on our society. It would seem that the anti-gun folks would have the same furor or the availablility of alcohol if they were truly interested in improving society, yet I don't see that happening. When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between a responsible alcohol user and a responsible gun owner. More people enjoy alcohol than enjoy guns so guns is is the easier target.

 

[tom22406]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

This doesn't solve the problem. You're still putting guns out there. Just like this mom did. She bought guns and registered them. She exercised her "right." And it resulted in not only her own death, but the deaths of 20 small children.So you people can keep exercising your rights and pretend that it only affects you and your rights. But for every one of you who stockpiles guns in a home, there are that many more guns out in circulation, and it's that much more likely that those guns will become a part of something absolutely tragic. No offense to you, but if the risk were limited to you doing something stupid and shooting your own child one night thinking he were a prowler, or your own child shooting a sibling or himself by accident, while I would still think it awful, it would be a risk you ran and you and only you paid the price. But the risk doesn't end there. Because things like this happen.You're taking risks for everyone else too. And that's not fair to us.

So your solution is to ban all guns then,right?

Guns that are designed for killing people, yes.Guns that are designed for hunting deer? I could see leaving those legalized and carefully monitored. Rarely do they lead to the kinds of problems that pistols and assault weapons do.

Could you check your list of these guns designed for killing people and tell me if a Glock G21 and Remington 12 guage pump shotgun are on your list?Both securely stored in a safe(locked away)place that only I have access to.Just to satisfy my curiousity how do you propose to round up these weapons that you want banned?Do we all just turn them in and hope the bad guys do so as well?

Give me one good reason why this woman needed to have an arsenal of 6 guns in her home.**Note: good reasons do not include "it's not our place to inquire; she was exercising her constitutional right."

I have no idea why she felt the need to own guns at all and can only speak for myself.I own a handgun for home protection.A rash of home invasions and crime increasing in the area were the main reasons but I also enjoy going to the range and target shooting with it.The shotgun is used for hunting.

 

[Abraham]

Agreed bnb. And you make a good point - other social ills continuing is no excuse to avoid the ones we can fix. There is a way to make punishment so putative for crimes that it would be foolish to commit them. There is a lot of money in treason but most people ever approach doing it because its difficult (getting state secrets) and the punishment (life in super max) is significant.

Make a dwi 2 years min and you never can drive again.

Make possession of a firearm not registered to you the same.

Rape - life with no parole.

Child abuse - jail time, never see the kid again but your life time wages Garnished and given to the victim.

On and on. One way to deter violent crime is to make the cost so significant that most reasonable folks would never consider it.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The 2nd Amendment Is Hard To Change (Per Our Founders' intent)

In the wake of the Conn. shooting, the 2nd Amendment has become a focal point for anti-gun proponents once more. Their message is that it's time to re-evaluate the right to keep and bear arms, but the mistaken assumption is that the 2nd Amendment is easy to change.

Like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment does not create a right. Rather, it recognizes a right with which we were "endowed by [our] Creator."

Here's the text:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right the keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess "the right to keep and bear arms" and, 2. That right "shall not be infringed." But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state.

This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. Therefore, although it can be changed, the requirements for doing so are near herculean, especially in our day.

For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies -- House and Senate -- to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate). It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.

The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures.

The difficulty required to change this amendment ought to give us pause. For our Founders went out of their way to be sure the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be easily stripped of their amendments.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm all for a higher age limit and limits on the number and type of guns someone can own. Say 25 years old and you can own one personal protection piece, say a Glock, and two hunting guns. Or something like that. Also the body armor stuff. It didn't matter in this case but there is no reason for a citizen to own that. And spare me the need for something like if someone breaks into your house or because you think Obama is going to start killing citizens. Those are straw man arguments put out by the NRA. So be a certain age, limit the number of guns and no body armor.

What are the arguments against those ideas? And "that won't stop everything" is not a legitimate argument.

 

[Rayderr]

There is a lot of money in treason but most people ever approach doing it because its difficult (getting state secrets) and the punishment (life in super max) is significant.

Actually anyone with a clearance can get a hold of something. They choose not to do it because they believe it is wrong. Same reason why 99.99% of the gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.

 

[timschochet]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.

I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.

I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.

Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

My experience in this forum forces me to disagree with you: right now there exists a loophole for private sales and transfers of firearms. Known in the media (falsely) as the "gunshow loophole", a private seller at gunshows or elsewhere is allowed to sell or transfer a firearm without filling out paperwork or going through background checks or submitting to ANY kind of governmental authority. I have, in this forum, posted on several occasions my support for eliminating this loophole. If what you say is correct, all or most of the gun owners would agree that it makes common sense to do so. But I have found just the opposite: I have been strongly opposed, criticized, insulted for making the suggestion. The NRA has also fought this idea for years.

 

[tom22406]

And to be very clear.The NRA does not speak for all gun owners and certainly not this one.

 

[Glass Joe]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.

I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

And that's never going to happen, so may as well try to work towards something that's actually feasible.

 

[tom22406]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.

I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.

I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.

Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

My experience in this forum forces me to disagree with you: right now there exists a loophole for private sales and transfers of firearms. Known in the media (falsely) as the "gunshow loophole", a private seller at gunshows or elsewhere is allowed to sell or transfer a firearm without filling out paperwork or going through background checks or submitting to ANY kind of governmental authority. I have, in this forum, posted on several occasions my support for eliminating this loophole. If what you say is correct, all or most of the gun owners would agree that it makes common sense to do so. But I have found just the opposite: I have been strongly opposed, criticized, insulted for making the suggestion. The NRA has also fought this idea for years.

Totally agree with you on the loophole needs to be closed and I have not kept up with how everyone stands on this issue here regarding that but I was speaking to people in my own circle.

 

[timschochet]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.

I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue, and also the even larger issue of whether or not it would benefit society to ban all private guns- it's impossible to do so. It's a logistical impossibility, as ridiculous as the proposals to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants. It's pointless to even discuss it.

 

[Spanky267]

I'm all for a higher age limit and limits on the number and type of guns someone can own. Say 25 years old and you can own one personal protection piece, say a Glock, and two hunting guns. Or something like that. Also the body armor stuff. It didn't matter in this case but there is no reason for a citizen to own that. And spare me the need for something like if someone breaks into your house or because you think Obama is going to start killing citizens. Those are straw man arguments put out by the NRA. So be a certain age, limit the number of guns and no body armor. What are the arguments against those ideas? And "that won't stop everything" is not a legitimate argument.

So I had to sign up for selective service and could have been drafted at age 18. I can vote for president at age 18 and I can drink alcohol at age 21. However in your hypothetical world I wouldn't be able to own a firearm until 25 even if the armed forces entrusted me with weapons 7 years prior?Also what if I am not a hunter? Am I restricted to only the personally protection weapon? What if I am a competetive shooter? Can I own those guns or must I give up the sport? Would you allow me to keep my grandfathers M1 Garand rifle that he used to liberate Europe in WW2? That gun was certainly not devised for hunting.

 

[sporthenry]

All of the gun owners that I have known or talked to have all agreed they have no problem filling out paperwork,background checks or whatever else is needed to make it tougher for the bad guys to obtain guns and so far I have yet to read anyone say here they feel that no restrictions should be placed on purchasing a gun.

I have no problem at all jumping through hoops to have to buy a gun but I do have a big problem with a total ban of guns in this country.

I say let's make it as tough as possible to buy a gun(longer waiting periods,extensive background check,mental health check etc)and also,as a nation,be more aware of clear warning signs of mental health illness and act upon them sooner.

Of course this all means more money and time involved but I doubt any responsible gun owner will deny it can't hurt to try.I am one of those willing to do so.

My experience in this forum forces me to disagree with you: right now there exists a loophole for private sales and transfers of firearms. Known in the media (falsely) as the "gunshow loophole", a private seller at gunshows or elsewhere is allowed to sell or transfer a firearm without filling out paperwork or going through background checks or submitting to ANY kind of governmental authority. I have, in this forum, posted on several occasions my support for eliminating this loophole. If what you say is correct, all or most of the gun owners would agree that it makes common sense to do so. But I have found just the opposite: I have been strongly opposed, criticized, insulted for making the suggestion. The NRA has also fought this idea for years.

Yeah, in light of this situation, we either have the gun rights activists changing their stance or you just have the more reasonable ones talking. Either way, do people really think that Dems and others in Congress wouldn't have passes just these necessary minimums if there wasn't a part of society that wasn't lobbying against it.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

That's why we close the gun show loophole, raise the age to buy, and limit the number. I'm against banning them completely. But the fact is that you don't need much more than a Glock to defend yourself and your family. The idea that 5 guys are going to break into your house in the middle of the night, guns blazing, is ridiculous and a product of the movies and the NRA. And you certainly don't need assult rifles for hunting. If you do, then get a new hobby because you suck at shooting. So buy a Glock for family protection and a shotgun or .22 or something for hunting. That's all you need.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm all for a higher age limit and limits on the number and type of guns someone can own. Say 25 years old and you can own one personal protection piece, say a Glock, and two hunting guns. Or something like that. Also the body armor stuff. It didn't matter in this case but there is no reason for a citizen to own that. And spare me the need for something like if someone breaks into your house or because you think Obama is going to start killing citizens. Those are straw man arguments put out by the NRA. So be a certain age, limit the number of guns and no body armor. What are the arguments against those ideas? And "that won't stop everything" is not a legitimate argument.

So I had to sign up for selective service and could have been drafted at age 18. I can vote for president at age 18 and I can drink alcohol at age 21. However in your hypothetical world I wouldn't be able to own a firearm until 25 even if the armed forces entrusted me with weapons 7 years prior?Also what if I am not a hunter? Am I restricted to only the personally protection weapon? What if I am a competetive shooter? Can I own those guns or must I give up the sport? Would you allow me to keep my grandfathers M1 Garand rifle that he used to liberate Europe in WW2? That gun was certainly not devised for hunting.

Yes to the first paragraph. Too bad. Clearly we have seen time and again that people in their early twenties are not mature enough to own a gun. If you are a competitive shooter and have a license for that, then sure. Show that you are on a team and practice. When you're done with it, the gun is gone. Older, historical guns are fine. It's hard to draw a strict line, but the answer to that difficulty is not to avoid drawing a line at all.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.

I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue, and also the even larger issue of whether or not it would benefit society to ban all private guns- it's impossible to do so. It's a logistical impossibility, as ridiculous as the proposals to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants. It's pointless to even discuss it.

How is it impossible to ban private guns? Repeal the Second Amendment...voila...private guns are banned.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.

I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue, and also the even larger issue of whether or not it would benefit society to ban all private guns- it's impossible to do so. It's a logistical impossibility, as ridiculous as the proposals to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants. It's pointless to even discuss it.

How is it impossible to ban private guns? Repeal the Second Amendment...voila...private guns are banned.

 

[Glass Joe]

I don't get why people are taking a position of regulating use of guns. Problem is that as soon as you forbid certain types of guns, manufacturers tweak designs to skirt the law.

I don't see a middle ground here. Ban them completely.

Putting aside the 2nd Amendment issue, and also the even larger issue of whether or not it would benefit society to ban all private guns- it's impossible to do so. It's a logistical impossibility, as ridiculous as the proposals to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants. It's pointless to even discuss it.

Why is it an impossibility? Is there not popular support for it?