Farewell to Arms

[Stairwayto7]

The right to bear arms is a sacred responsibility, sadly Americans are not bearing that responsibility well. Those of us who silently do the right thing with our firearms have been long overshadowed by those who cannot handle the responsibility of owning guns. Parents who leave firearms unsecured around their children are the problem, far far right wing groups like OCT are the problem. I hate to say it but this is a battle we will not win if we have morons that continuously demonstrate they cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

 

[hunkgolden]

According to the CDC, gun related homicides are on a major downswing. Lower than they've been in the past 33 years. Meanwhile, gun ownership levels are higher than they've ever been.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

According to the CDC, gun related homicides are on a major downswing. Lower than they've been in the past 33 years. Meanwhile, gun ownership levels are higher than they've ever been.

You know that those statistics will be set aside. Each one of these school/mass shootings gives more fuel to the anti-gun legislation. I just hope there can be a common sense middle ground.

 

[kescwi]

I agree with you re the responsibility that come with gun ownership. While there may be some restrictions in the future I doubt guns will ever be, baring a very drastic event, completely taken away and sadly you cant legislate personal responsibility, but they will try.

What troubles me more after each of these shootings is the underlying theme that there was advanced warning based on what the perpetrator/s said, read, wrote, associated with, games they played... IMHO we will have an increase in the "precime" striping away of the rights of those viewed as "potentially" dangerous well before guns ownership is taken away. Six of one half dozen of another I guess.

 

[qazplm]

you hit on the key word

responsibility. Folks focus on the "right" and not on the responsibility. We put restrictions on the first amendment, we put limitations on the rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment, but somehow the 2nd amendment we can't put any limitations at all.

No licensing requirement, even though we do it with cars, no registration requirement, even though we do it with cars, because of this fear that somehow the big bad government will use that to take away guns. The guns are out of the bottle, they aren't going back in, there are way more guns than people in this country, so no one is taking them away, but as you said reasonable middle ground responsible laws should not be such a pain to pass.

 

[BBG]

Re: you hit on the key word

Originally posted by qazplm:
responsibility. Folks focus on the "right" and not on the responsibility. We put restrictions on the first amendment, we put limitations on the rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment, but somehow the 2nd amendment we can't put any limitations at all.

No licensing requirement, even though we do it with cars, no registration requirement, even though we do it with cars, because of this fear that somehow the big bad government will use that to take away guns. The guns are out of the bottle, they aren't going back in, there are way more guns than people in this country, so no one is taking them away, but as you said reasonable middle ground responsible laws should not be such a pain to pass.

Sorry but the no registration requirement is false. Every time you purchase a gun you go through background checks and the serial number is recorded. I know this to be factual because in the past a gun I sold was used in a crime and the ATF tracked me down and verified I owned the gun at one point. That WOULD NOT of happened if the serial number wasn't registered at point of purchase and when I sold it.

There are sufficient rules in place the problem is once the firearm gets home it is up to humans to be responsible and if you look at all of these shootings, that is where the mistake happens.

And I know this is used a lot but really it is extremely valid, a criminal or a person bent on doing bad things is NOT going to follow the rules to begin.

I have no problem with responsible gun control, because I am a responsible gun owner. But you can't regulate a criminal or stupidity and more laws won't solve anything. Enforce the ones that already exist first before you throw more laws that a criminal won't follow on responsible people.

 

[db]

Re: you hit on the key word

Why did you sell your gun?

 

[BBG]

Re: you hit on the key word

Originally posted by db:
Why did you sell your gun?

It was a LONG time ago and was a Desert Eagle .50 cal. I had no place to shoot it where I was moving and at the time I was out of work a newly-wed, and had to pay bills

.

Sad thing is, at the time I had no prospects on a job and then the following week I got an job at a place I applied and interviewed at about 6 months prior. If I only had waited one more week.....

 

[Noodle]

Originally posted by kescwi:
I agree with you re the responsibility that come with gun ownership. While there may be some restrictions in the future I doubt guns will ever be, baring a very drastic event, completely taken away and sadly you cant legislate personal responsibility, but they will try.

What troubles me more after each of these shootings is the underlying theme that there was advanced warning based on what the perpetrator/s said, read, wrote, associated with, games they played... IMHO we will have an increase in the "precime" striping away of the rights of those viewed as "potentially" dangerous well before guns ownership is taken away. Six of one half dozen of another I guess.

Yes, the common denominator in almost all of the recent school shootings and mass shootings is the fact that, in hindsight, there were warning signs of mental illness, potential threats, etc. On the other hand, in today's world of social media and the general willingness of people to disseminate so much of their inner thoughts, feelings and opinions, coupled with the fact that a "normal" person doesn't go on a shooting spree (not to mention the fact that the shooters are almost always seeking attention), isn't it inevitable that, in hindsight, we can almost always identify warning signs that were missed?

More importantly, how do attempt to identify those warning signs ealier, before a school/mass shooting without overlabeling people as potentially dangerous, mentally ill or otherwise unfit to possess a gun? How do we it without discouraging people from seeking treatment for mental health concerns because they fear being declared unfit to possess a gun?

The infuriating part is that few people are talking about the mental health aspect of almost all school/mass shootings, and instead the focus is on increased licensing and background checks, stricter gun registration, stronger penalties for failing to secure one's firearms, etc. Problem is, I don't thnk any of those things would have stopped most of the recent school/mass shootings. Often the shooter obtained the gun(s) by legal means, including existing background checks, registration, etc. They aren't obtaining their gun(s) on the street, at gun shows, etc. That's why I think most of the focus is aimed in the wrong direction.
This post was edited on 6/11 11:14 AM by Noodle

 

[qazplm]

that's not the same thing

as registration. The VIN number of a car is noted when you sell it/buy it from a dealer, but you still have to go down to the state and register it, title it, get a license. You have to renew that registration on a yearly basis. As you said, the FBI might have been able to track you down, but you'd sold it already. If you treated guns like cars, odds are you'd be able to track them more closely. And that's going to discourage folks from using guns in crimes because it's easier to track that gun back to them. Sure, not perfect, folks can buy "off market" but no law is going to be perfect.

You realize you just argued for why we shouldn't have any laws ever because "you can't regulate a criminal." That's a weak argument. We don't have laws requiring training/licensing with weapons. So there's nothing to enforce in that arena. If you had laws requiring that training/licensing, then you might just have fewer "irresponsible" gun owners. Imagine if we didn't require a license for learning how to drive. No insurance requirement. No registration of cars. A lot of things are reduced by those laws.

 

[qazplm]

well you could make it harder. Some laws take decades to come to fruition. You could cap magazines now to only hold a certain number of bullets legally, you could do other things of course, and we can debate them (and it's debated all of the time, just that usually the gun lobby wins those debates).

I don't think the population of folks who don't seek treatment for mental health concerns because of fear of losing guns is all that high. I suspect most of those folks wouldn't seek mental health treatment anyways or aren't in a position where they are surrounded by folks who aren't unbalanced themselves or hold a job/career where a lack of mental balance is a detriment.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Originally posted by Stairwayto7:
The right to bear arms is a sacred responsibility, sadly Americans are not bearing that responsibility well. Those of us who silently do the right thing with our firearms have been long overshadowed by those who cannot handle the responsibility of owning guns. Parents who leave firearms unsecured around their children are the problem, far far right wing groups like OCT are the problem. I hate to say it but this is a battle we will not win if we have morons that continuously demonstrate they cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

I wish that we could have a common sense, middle-road conversation about a *lot* of issues in this country. We've become so dominated by extreme rhetoric that it's ridiculous.

If I could wave a magic wand and change some things, here's my list:

1. During the mandatory waiting period before (legally) purchasing a weapon, the buyer would be required to attend a gun safety course (or show proof of prior training, a la military) where part of the course involves a very basic psychological evaluation of some sort.

2. If a person fails the psychological evaluation, he or she would not be allowed to purchase a gun and would be entered in a national database of persons not permitted to own guns (which would also include convicted criminals, etc.)

These two things seem to make all kinds of sense. Though not perfect, they would likely cut down on accidental gun deaths and go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals. The third thing is more controversial.

3. No one outside of military and law enforcement should be permitted private ownership of certain types of guns. I know there are those who disagree with me on this (and that's okay), but you don't hunt with an AK-47 and I'm not sure I buy any of the arguments that people need guns like AKs for "self-defense." Personally, if I were to ever purchase a gun for self defense, I would choose a revolver - if I am not skilled enough to either hit what I'm aiming at or extract myself and my family from a situation in six shots, then I'm probably screwed anyway.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Originally posted by Noodle:

Originally posted by kescwi:
I agree with you re the responsibility that come with gun ownership. While there may be some restrictions in the future I doubt guns will ever be, baring a very drastic event, completely taken away and sadly you cant legislate personal responsibility, but they will try.

What troubles me more after each of these shootings is the underlying theme that there was advanced warning based on what the perpetrator/s said, read, wrote, associated with, games they played... IMHO we will have an increase in the "precime" striping away of the rights of those viewed as "potentially" dangerous well before guns ownership is taken away. Six of one half dozen of another I guess.

Yes, the common denominator in almost all of the recent school shootings and mass shootings is the fact that, in hindsight, there were warning signs of mental illness, potential threats, etc. On the other hand, in today's world of social media and the general willingness of people to disseminate so much of their inner thoughts, feelings and opinions, coupled with the fact that a "normal" person doesn't go on a shooting spree (not to mention the fact that the shooters are almost always seeking attention), isn't it inevitable that, in hindsight, we can almost always identify warning signs that were missed?

More importantly, how do attempt to identify those warning signs ealier, before a school/mass shooting without overlabeling people as potentially dangerous, mentally ill or otherwise unfit to possess a gun? How do we it without discouraging people from seeking treatment for mental health concerns because they fear being declared unfit to possess a gun?

The infuriating part is that few people are talking about the mental health aspect of almost all school/mass shootings, and instead the focus is on increased licensing and background checks, stricter gun registration, stronger penalties for failing to secure one's firearms, etc. Problem is, I don't thnk any of those things would have stopped most of the recent school/mass shootings. Often the shooter obtained the gun(s) by legal means, including existing background checks, registration, etc. They aren't obtaining their gun(s) on the street, at gun shows, etc. That's why I think most of the focus is aimed in the wrong direction.
This post was edited on 6/11 11:14 AM by Noodle

Mental illness has been linked to every major mass shooter since Columbine. The problem with mental illness is that it is such a touchy subject because the field itself is very subjective. The days of the "State Hospitals" are long behind us and instead of removing the people who pose a risk to society we medicate them and send them on their way. My sister is a psychiatric nurse practitioner and she will be the first to admit that many slip through the cracks and it is nearly impossible to ensure people take their meds.

The doctor patient privileges have long been a barrier to creating a national database for "do not sell" list. Furthermore, how do we prevent irresponsible parents with mental ill children from buying guns? Adam Lanza's mother practically gave him the green light to go on his rampage. I own several guns and once my children are old enough to crawl then I will have to splurge to buy a safe...it comes with the turf. FYI my first will be born in 6 weeks, super bummed that I will be stuck over here.

 

[Noodle]

Originally posted by qazplm:
well you could make it harder. Some laws take decades to come to fruition. You could cap magazines now to only hold a certain number of bullets legally, you could do other things of course, and we can debate them (and it's debated all of the time, just that usually the gun lobby wins those debates).

I don't think the population of folks who don't seek treatment for mental health concerns because of fear of losing guns is all that high. I suspect most of those folks wouldn't seek mental health treatment anyways or aren't in a position where they are surrounded by folks who aren't unbalanced themselves or hold a job/career where a lack of mental balance is a detriment.


I think it would not be an insignificant % of people who would not seek help because of a potential impact on their gun rights. Keep in mind that I am referring to a situation in which government imposes stricter measures aimed to take guns away from people due to mental health concerns. I do think we need to do more in that regard, but we also have to consider that it will be another factor which dissuades some people from seeking help. People often do not seek treatment because of the stigma associated with mental health issues, a fear of reprisals with respect to employment, distrust of confidentiality being maintained, etc.

In order to be effective, nearly any measure designed to more effectively keep guns out of the hands of people whose mental health might pose a risk would, by necessity, include some form of reporting requirement for mental health professionals. I'm not sure how else something could work. The moment you impose anything along those lines, more people are going to be dissuaded from seeking help--regardless of whether or not they are gun owners. It's inevitable. But I still think something needs to be done.

I also have no problem with common sense restrictions such as limiting magazine size, comprehensive registration (i.e., no more exceptions for gun show transactions), etc.

http://consumer.healthday.com/mental-health-information-25/anxiety-news-33/the-stigma-associated-with-mental-illness-remains-a-key-barrier-to-health-care-685196.html

 

[Noodle]

Originally posted by Stairwayto7:

Mental illness has been linked to every major mass shooter since Columbine. The problem with mental illness is that it is such a touchy subject because the field itself is very subjective. The days of the "State Hospitals" are long behind us and instead of removing the people who pose a risk to society we medicate them and send them on their way. My sister is a psychiatric nurse practitioner and she will be the first to admit that many slip through the cracks and it is nearly impossible to ensure people take their meds.

The doctor patient privileges have long been a barrier to creating a national database for "do not sell" list. Furthermore, how do we prevent irresponsible parents with mental ill children from buying guns? Adam Lanza's mother practically gave him the green light to go on his rampage. I own several guns and once my children are old enough to crawl then I will have to splurge to buy a safe...it comes with the turf. FYI my first will be born in 6 weeks, super bummed that I will be stuck over here.

I don't think the move away from warehousing people in state hospitals due to mental health issues is a significant factor in all of this. The reason I say this is because I don't think any of the recent shooters would have been hospitalized 30-40 years ago either. The people confined to state hospitals and the like back then were nothing like the typical school/mass shooters of the last 10-15 years. For example, I don't think it likely that Adam Lanza would have been hospitalized for treatment 30-40 years ago either.

 

[BBG]

Re: that's not the same thing

Originally posted by qazplm:
as registration. The VIN number of a car is noted when you sell it/buy it from a dealer, but you still have to go down to the state and register it, title it, get a license. You have to renew that registration on a yearly basis. As you said, the FBI might have been able to track you down, but you'd sold it already. If you treated guns like cars, odds are you'd be able to track them more closely. And that's going to discourage folks from using guns in crimes because it's easier to track that gun back to them. Sure, not perfect, folks can buy "off market" but no law is going to be perfect.

You realize you just argued for why we shouldn't have any laws ever because "you can't regulate a criminal." That's a weak argument. We don't have laws requiring training/licensing with weapons. So there's nothing to enforce in that arena. If you had laws requiring that training/licensing, then you might just have fewer "irresponsible" gun owners. Imagine if we didn't require a license for learning how to drive. No insurance requirement. No registration of cars. A lot of things are reduced by those laws.

Not hardly, it's a very good argument because it is true. You can slap all the rules out there you want, but when does a criminal follow them to begin with? Plus you cite how cars have to be licensed, etc but yet other things kill more people than guns do. I suppose we should license those too?

How about we address the common issue in these shootings in that the people behind them had a history of some sort of mental issue?


This post was edited on 6/11 2:09 PM by BBG

 

[kescwi]

As Lanza is mentioned above, what about parents with a child diagnosed with a mental health issues? And if we are to start digging into records, what about people who take medication where aggression, depression, mood swings.. are shown to be a side effect? What about addicts who seek treatment on their own? on and on and on.

 

[Purdue97]

Re: that's not the same thing

Not to mention in your original point you state that criminals are not likely to follow laws. I have a few lawyer out in Colorado and I find it sad and ironic that there were a few dozen laws broke/ignored in the Columbine shooting case and people think that that more laws are the answer.

Also remember a stat that was in the USA Today awhile back that stated 90% of crimes commited with guns were:
1) Committed by criminals with a violent history
2) Gun was not registered or bought legally(criminals do not follow the law point)

 

[BBG]

Re: that's not the same thing

Originally posted by Purdue97:
Not to mention in your original point you state that criminals are not likely to follow laws. I have a few lawyer out in Colorado and I find it sad and ironic that there were a few dozen laws broke/ignored in the Columbine shooting case and people think that that more laws are the answer.

Also remember a stat that was in the USA Today awhile back that stated 90% of crimes commited with guns were:
1) Committed by criminals with a violent history
2) Gun was not registered or bought legally(criminals do not follow the law point)

That is exactly the point. Look at the kid in California that killed people because girls didn't like him. That state has some of the toughest laws in the country complete with 10 day waiting and such and he STILL carried out his attack.

Until you treat the core issue, these things will continue to happen it will just be with something different like a knife or home made bomb, etc.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: that's not the same thing

Originally posted by qazplm:
You realize you just argued for why we shouldn't have any laws ever because "you can't regulate a criminal." That's a weak argument. We don't have laws requiring training/licensing with weapons. So there's nothing to enforce in that arena. If you had laws requiring that training/licensing, then you might just have fewer "irresponsible" gun owners. Imagine if we didn't require a license for learning how to drive. No insurance requirement. No registration of cars. A lot of things are reduced by those laws.

His point is not "we shouldn't have any laws because criminals break them anyway." His point is that more and more restrictive laws reach a point of diminishing returns very quickly. At some undefined point, you only make things more difficult/expensive/cumbersome on the law-abiding citizens. You encourage subverting the system because things are too difficult, and folks that are going to do that are going to find a way to get a gun anyway if they want it. So, all you've done is make life more difficult on responsible gun owners.

I don't see how requiring training/licensing would cause us to have fewer irresponsible gun owners. Another bureaucratic check in the block is not enough to ensure some people lock their guns up.

This point is borne out by the Navy's increasingly restrictive motorcycle safety policy. In order to register a motorcycle on base, the sailor must receive permission from his chain of command to own it, obtain his license and insurance, take the Navy's one-week motorcycle safety course, and if it is a sport bike, the one-week sport bike safety course.

Yet motorcycle accidents are still on the rise, even accounting for the larger absolute volume of riders. The fact is, young people come back from deployment with a bunch of money, buy a motorcycle, and worry about the safety/registration/etc. later, or simply don't take the required courses.

Some people do, and they're probably safer. But further increasing the regulations has not curbed the safety issue, in fact many are arguing it's made it worse for the exact reason I outlined: de facto encouragement to subvert or bypass the system.

That is just an anecdote, but it's the best one I can think of to explain my feelings on increasing regulation/licensing/etc. and how that affects the volume of irresponsible actors.

 

[qazplm]

let me repeat

we have zero laws on gun training, licensing or registration, so saying you can have too many laws, yeah, sure, might want to start with one law before you start worrying about too many laws. The laws have been walked back over the last 20-30 years, subtracted, not added. There is zero evidence that somehow we have soooo many gun laws, that poor gun owners don't know what the heck to do. Life ain't all that difficult for gun owners quite frankly.

You really don't understand how training and licensing help have fewer irresponsible gun owners? So requiring driver's training, licensing does nothing to help drivers be more responsible? The problem with "X is on the rise in spite of Y" does the correlation/causation thing. You don't know that X wouldn't rise MORE without Y. And you've listed basically lax enforcement of that training, not the ineffectiveness of the training itself.

Yes, some people do and yes they are probably safer. That's it right there. You've created some folks who are safer, and if you enforced the training stringently, you'd captured even more people. You can pretty easily make it "unencouraged" to subvert or bypass the system, again, enforcement issue, not a rule issue.

 

[qazplm]

what about people who simply are not mentally ill

but deal poorly with stressors, have anger management issues, etc.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yes, let us make rules we can't enforce... Brilliant.

Training may make a few people safer. Most? No. An appreciable difference in gun accidents? I seriously doubt it.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[kescwi]

Re: what about people who simply are not mentally ill

That is my point, once you start trying to exclude people from gun ownership where does it end? I would guess we are all experienced enough to know once we head down that path there will be no turning back just forward movement with more and more people being disqualified.

I agree with Noodle that some people would not seek treatment for mental health issues if they felt it would preclude them from gun ownership.

IMHO, the politicizing of gun ownership is the problem, on both sides. Before we move any further I would like to see responsible gun owners take the lead. They don't need to demand stricter laws but simply publicly denounce the irresponsible, that peer pressure would probably do more than any law could, but they won't for fear, and rightfully so, of the gun control crowd taking advantage of that. This issue is one of many that needs the middle to exclude the extreme from any further discussions.

 

[qazplm]

so going from zero

training to mandatory training for everyone, and you think no appreciable difference in gun accidents?

So that tells me you think nearly all gun accidents are done by people who know full well how to handle a firearm, but choose to handle it seriously irresponsibly. You're evidence for that proposition is what exactly?

Do you also think driver's ed is a waste of time? Why do we even have training on how to conduct a firing range in the military? after all, what appreciable difference does it make?

We can't enforce, in the military no less, you will wear a helmet? Sorry, I see it enforced pretty strongly in the Army, and pretty successfully. I never see a Soldier without a helmet, certainly not on base.

 

[qazplm]

Re: what about people who simply are not mentally ill

The slippery slope argument is rarely a good one. It will end wherever we draw the line, and somehow I don't think crazy people and disturbed people is a line.

The vast majority of people in this country will have legal access to guns for generations to come. Registration, licensing, and training is not going to change American gun culture.

 

[kescwi]

Re: what about people who simply are not mentally ill

It's a good thing I'm not arguing "slippery slope" and simply human nature. Attempting to identify and preclude people from gun ownership will evolve the same way DUI, smoking, car safety... on and on and on, has. It has nothing, IMHO, to do with traction and grade and everything to with people and it won't be "we" drawing the line but those will make a career out of drawing that line and are incapable of seeing an end to their job.

I actually have no problem with training and licensing requirements, and I don't think everyone deserves a gun and a concealed carry permit, but I'm not interested in that fight right now. I'm interested in how we deal with these issues inside the current framework and in seeing and end to some this nonsense and particularly an end to the "my team v your team" all or nothing battle which has created this current "gun culture" that in no way resembles the one I grew up around.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Gun culture has also evolved. Guns are more commonly viewed as "man toys" and used for fun instead of being viewed as tools. We also have a very violence driven culture.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[kescwi]

They also have become political statements and fear has been used to stoke the political flames.

Again, I wish responsible gun owners, manufacturers and organizations would take control of this first, it is possible to change a culture thru education, peer pressure, PR...

Look at littering and how education and ad campaigns have been far more successful than laws at directing behavior to the point recycling is second nature for most of us today and very, very few people would even consider throwing a plastic bottle out their car window. While there will always be groups looking to ban plastics it's not a hot national debated today and not as many people give it a thought, let alone get worked up over banning plastics the way they would if their streets, parks, beaches, yards... were filled with litter.

 

[Bill4411]

Whether you are for or against gun control, it may not make much difference anymore with the advent of 3-D printing as a workable plastic firearm has already been printed, which given that is possible it may make today's world seem rather safe by comparison. I would imagine you will be able to print about anything in the near future and how do you regulate that?

This post was edited on 6/12 3:16 PM by Bill4411

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: what about people who simply are not mentally ill

Well, you've clearly identified a major flaw in my plan. I hadn't thought of it from this perspective.

Even if you don't do the psych eval part, though, what would be wrong with requiring a one day training course that could cover not only gun safety but gun laws, so that those who buy guns will be fully aware of both the dangers and the limits?

Originally posted by kescwi:
That is my point, once you start trying to exclude people from gun ownership where does it end? I would guess we are all experienced enough to know once we head down that path there will be no turning back just forward movement with more and more people being disqualified.

I agree with Noodle that some people would not seek treatment for mental health issues if they felt it would preclude them from gun ownership.

IMHO, the politicizing of gun ownership is the problem, on both sides. Before we move any further I would like to see responsible gun owners take the lead. They don't need to demand stricter laws but simply publicly denounce the irresponsible, that peer pressure would probably do more than any law could, but they won't for fear, and rightfully so, of the gun control crowd taking advantage of that. This issue is one of many that needs the middle to exclude the extreme from any further discussions.

 

[BoilerJS]

Re: what about people who simply are not mentally ill

The VIN number of a car is noted when you sell it/buy it from a dealer, but you still have to go down to the state and register it, title it, get a license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking about law abiding citizens Quaz.
My family members were involved in two accidents last year. I guy rear ended me and fled. I go t his license number but nothing has been done because-no insurance. Yoiu have to have insurance to plate a car-at least in Indiana.
My folks got T boned by a guy that had his drivers licensed suspended for drinking and driving. You guessed it he was drunk, had no insurance and no license to drive.
I am all for gun safety classes, I've completed probably 50 hrs of such classed and made my son attend before letting him shoot a gun.
I'm am a firm believer that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
We can't keep drugs out of this country, we can't keep drunkien drivers off the roads, we can't stop people frm driving illegally-no license or insurance.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
3. No one outside of military and law enforcement should be permitted private ownership of certain types of guns. I know there are those who disagree with me on this (and that's okay), but you don't hunt with an AK-47 and I'm not sure I buy any of the arguments that people need guns like AKs for "self-defense." Personally, if I were to ever purchase a gun for self defense, I would choose a revolver - if I am not skilled enough to either hit what I'm aiming at or extract myself and my family from a situation in six shots, then I'm probably screwed anyway.

Ironically some of the military style rifles have transitioned into outstanding hunting rifles. The M-16 style of rifle has become a favorite varmint rifle for many because its a smaller caliber round and the design of the rifle reduces felt recoil dramatically. Which that translates into the rifle moving less when you fire and you can re focus back on your target faster. It gives you that second chance a lot fast than a traditional style hunting rifle. Essentially the buffer system design of the M-16 makes a very very easy rifle to shoot. Normal bolt action rifles send all of the recoil into your shoulder and after a few rounds, shooting becomes quite painful.

Right now I have been buying the parts to build my deer rifle based on the M-16 design, only the rifle is chambered to fire the .308 round, which is a very popular hunting round. The rifle doubles as my long range training rifle and a hunting rifle. I am sure to some people it would be considered scary because of its military looking design, but its not a military rifle.

I use the M-4 rifle at work, which is the short carbine version of the M-16. When we go to the range and shoot several hundred rounds each, my arms and lower back get sore way faster than my shoulders. I can burn through hundreds and hundreds of rounds in one sitting and not be sore in the slightest. With a bolt rifle I am sore after about 10 rounds.

On the flip side, not many of the civilian AR owners don't have the luxury to go through all of our training. Furthermore if you are in the Army (especially combat arms) and you negligently fire your weapon. your career is pretty much toast. The civilian world doesn't have very harsh punishment for negligent discharges unless you are in a public place. I get very nervous at public ranges because the way I see many civilians handling their firearms scares me to death. If I saw the same thing being done by one of my soldiers I would probably make life pretty miserable for them

On the issue of home/self defense. Having a weapon is only useful if you have early warning, if your attacker or intruder is smart then they would never loose the initiative. It doesn't matter how many or what kind of guns you have if you don't have a head start.

 

[lbodel]

I never understood why it is ok for comments like yours to complain "oh those statistics will be set aside because of a mass/school shooting" when the reaction for ANY sort of laws/actions regarding guns is "YOU ARE TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS" or "IT'S OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS".

I also find it humorous that everyone blames mental illness being the reason for gun violence. Since US owns the rights to mental illness in the developed world?

I don't have a problem with people owning sensible guns. I also do not think it should be easier to buy a gun than it is to do many other things in day to day life. It takes more documentation and training to get a learner's permit than it does to buy a gun.

Also, it's humorous to hear someone mention the ATF in this thread.

The ATF is the primary national gun law enforcement agency and it has basically been a joke of agency because of the restrictions places on it by politicians (the gun lobby). For example, it hasn't had a director in 7 years. There's been nominees - but not 1 hearing has taken place because politicians have blocked it (the NRA's position).

Funding of the ATF has remained stagnant and there is a shortage of agents and staff.

Congress has blocked a federal gun database which can track guns found at crime scenes. Instead, agents have to start with the manufacturer and find the trail from there instead of being able to say oh this gun was bought by XX 6 months ago in State XX. A purchased Toyota Prius has more tracking placed on it than an AK47.

The ATF cannot inspect a gun dealership more than 1 time a year. Um, that makes sense?

The ATF wants dealers to keep an inventory of their guns, because thousands of guns disappear from stores with no records - i.e. sold off the books, many likely to criminals.

None of these things "takes rights away" from owning a gun. None of these things place more restrictions on a person who is legally able to buy a gun from doing so.

But none of these things can even get a whiff because the NRA/gun lobby shuts them down and screams "they're trying to take away our guns!"

It's absurd.

 

[Stairwayto7]

Lots and lots of generalizations in your post lbodel. Whether it requires all or some of the blame, mental illness has been a factor in every mass shooting in the past 20 years. You simply cannot deny it. But mental health is a tricky equation. There is no easy solution. But we can all agree that it's not a good idea to give a depressed person a gun.

The government lost who knows how many guns in Mexico and government efficiency is an oxymoron. Creating a national firearms database would let the government track law abiding gun owners, but do little against illegal arms trafficking.

I agree with closing the gun show loop hole, plus the internet has really killed that beast anyways. Gun shops need to be more accountable as well. Most would agree with you. I am not in the NRA so what they do is up to them.

The sad reality is that just as many people die in gang related killings every month as those who perished at Sandy Hook. Those guns cannot be tracked and are usually disposed of after a shooting. I have said this many time before, follow the drugs and with it will come the majority of violence this country faces.

But what do we do about clinically depressed middle class kids who rationalize killing large amounts of people? Do we blame mental illness? Do we blame parents who aren't involved in their lives? Do we blame parents for having guns easily accessible? Do we blame the laws in place that do not allow a better screening? Or do we just blame guns?

Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[qazplm]

well then

we should make a laws voluntarily suggestions because after all criminals never follow it and law abiding folks will ALWAYS do the right thing even in the absence of a law...oh wait, neither of those things are true.

We pass laws with consequences because some folks who might not follow the law if it had lighter consequences and many folks who wouldn't do the desired action at all without the law do the desired action either because of the law, or because of the level of potential consequence tied to it.

The vast majority of folks have insurance because the law says so...only SOME of those folks would have insurance because it's a good idea. SOME would say, ah I'll never get in an accident so I don't need it. It's those folks we captured with those laws.
Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be free riders. Folks who don't follow the law. You do not throw your hands up and say well, if we can't get 100% forget it.

No one in this thread has said anything about "outlawing guns." Guns are ubiquitous. It's not possible to outlaw all of them. That sentiment however has turned into, you can't outlaw any guns, and you can't do ANYTHING that creates the slightest of burdens on gun ownership (like mandatory safety training and licensing or registration).

Yes, we do keep drugs out of the country, and we do keep drunk drivers off the road, we just don't keep ALL drugs or ALL drunk drivers. Drugs the ratio is so skewed against that yes one might think it better to quit fighting that war. Drunk driving is nowhere nearly the same thing. Between laws and education we are reducing that significantly from what it would be if we simply had no laws against it.

And for the last time...there is no u in my handle name!

 

[lbodel]

But that's half the problem. You say oh I agree with this and that and this and that....but then brush off "I am not in the NRA so what they do is up to them"....

Until anyone has the balls to stand up to them and say we need to make sensible laws, it's never going to change. The pressure on the NRA to change some of their stances is not going to be coming from the liberal gay lobby in Vermont. It's going to need to happen from people like you who say hey, I'm a gun owner and believe strongly in gun rights, but you're taking this too far.

Anytime anything "negative" comes about from guns, the problems with gun laws, etc., the NRA often stays silent - they stayed silent for a long time after Sandy Hook for example. But then they just go right back to anything that is remotely changing laws about guns is anti-guns. Even things many gun owners would approve of. And when you make blanket statements about "you're taking away my Constitutional rights" about ticky tack laws - it justifies their positions. It's extremist.

 

[lbodel]

And some of the stuff you say is pretty generalized too. You reference one problem and justify that the feds aren't capable of enforcing laws. Maybe we should disband the FBI and CIA too?

You complain a national database would let the government "track" law abiding gun owners, so what? First off, it's not like they have a real time tracking on you or are paying any sort of attention to you. The government "tracks" our cars, property, houses, marriages, etc. too. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[threeeputtt]

Re: let me repeat

Originally posted by qazplm:
we have zero laws on gun training, licensing or registration, so saying you can have too many laws, yeah, sure, might want to start with one law before you start worrying about too many laws. The laws have been walked back over the last 20-30 years, subtracted, not added. There is zero evidence that somehow we have soooo many gun laws, that poor gun owners don't know what the heck to do. Life ain't all that difficult for gun owners quite frankly.

You really don't understand how training and licensing help have fewer irresponsible gun owners? So requiring driver's training, licensing does nothing to help drivers be more responsible? The problem with "X is on the rise in spite of Y" does the correlation/causation thing. You don't know that X wouldn't rise MORE without Y. And you've listed basically lax enforcement of that training, not the ineffectiveness of the training itself.

Yes, some people do and yes they are probably safer. That's it right there. You've created some folks who are safer, and if you enforced the training stringently, you'd captured even more people. You can pretty easily make it "unencouraged" to subvert or bypass the system, again, enforcement issue, not a rule issue.

In Texas it is required to pass 6 hours in course instruction PLUS a shooting proficiency (usually 50 rounds) before a license is issued. Also, before a gun can be bought legally a criminal background check is done by the county sheriff. Also, the serial number is registered on any firearm bought.
This post was edited on 6/15 4:31 PM by threeeputtt

 

[Purdue 95]

Originally posted by threeeputtt:

Originally posted by qazplm:
we have zero laws on gun training, licensing or registration, so saying you can have too many laws, yeah, sure, might want to start with one law before you start worrying about too many laws. The laws have been walked back over the last 20-30 years, subtracted, not added. There is zero evidence that somehow we have soooo many gun laws, that poor gun owners don't know what the heck to do. Life ain't all that difficult for gun owners quite frankly.

You really don't understand how training and licensing help have fewer irresponsible gun owners? So requiring driver's training, licensing does nothing to help drivers be more responsible? The problem with "X is on the rise in spite of Y" does the correlation/causation thing. You don't know that X wouldn't rise MORE without Y. And you've listed basically lax enforcement of that training, not the ineffectiveness of the training itself.

Yes, some people do and yes they are probably safer. That's it right there. You've created some folks who are safer, and if you enforced the training stringently, you'd captured even more people. You can pretty easily make it "unencouraged" to subvert or bypass the system, again, enforcement issue, not a rule issue.

In Texas it is required to pass 6 hours in course instruction PLUS a shooting proficiency (usually 50 rounds) before a license is issued. Also, before a gun can not be bought legally until a criminal background check is done by the county sheriff. Also, the serial number is registered on any firearm bought.

Thank you. I don't know where this notion came from that anybody with $500 in their pocket can just stroll into a store and walk out with a firearm. Laws vary by state, but there are plenty that require training and demonstrated proficiency. Just look at the strict gun control laws in Illinois and see what's it's done for Chicago.

IMO, the people who are most afraid of guns and who are the biggest proponents of strict gun control are the people who know nothing about them other than what the media sensationalized for them or what they see at the movies.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]