With the recent shootings in Oregon,

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

But you said there would never be a shooting at a school if we only armed the teachers. I suppose 2 killings does not count as a mass killing. What constitutes a mass killing? I guess we aren't terribly worried about the occasional double or triple homicides that occur on school grounds and it's true the principal did not shoot any students. And a double homicide is barely going to cause a ripple in most communities anymore because we are so numb to them.

Two people die every minute by drunk drivers. Arming school teachers is a hell of a lot better than waiting 20 minutes for the police. The guy could of run over those teachers with his car. He would of killed them anyway no matter what he had. Five times as many people die from knives than guns. Ur five times as likely to be stabbed than shot. 5000 kids per year die from teen alcohol use. But you never see CNN say ban alcohol. Oh, they already banned selling it to teens but ohhh that didn't stop anything did it. Drugs? How many overdose? 10,000 plus die in hospitals per month just because they aren't sanitized. Its a joke. Killers want disarmed victims and someone who wants to take your weapon wants to make sure they aren't resisted for their planned extermination. Gotta love that. People who write about how they want to kill 6 billion say hand em in. Gotta love that.



Hey move to Mexico if you want a gun ban. Worked so well over these the whole country is running over the border.

 

[Bill4411]

Two people die every minute by drunk drivers. Arming school teachers is a hell of a lot better than waiting 20 minutes for the police. The guy could of run over those teachers with his car. He would of killed them anyway no matter what he had. Five times as many people die from knives than guns. Ur five times as likely to be stabbed than shot. 5000 kids per year die from teen alcohol use. But you never see CNN say ban alcohol. Oh, they already banned selling it to teen but ohhh that didn't stop anything did it.

Hey move to Mexico if you want a gun ban. Worked so well over these the whole country is running over the border.

Drunk driving is still a problem but its not as out of control as it once was because we greatly toughened the laws on drinking while driving. The second amendment was not passed to protect individuals right to bear arms it was to prevent the newly created central government from have absolute control of the states that joined in adoption of the Constitution. Unfortunately a lot of the reason people like guns is a vestige of playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians as a kid or watching too many westerns or Dirty Harry movies.

I own guns now to shoot coyotes, rabid skunks, etc. but because I live on a farm, but used to like to shoot guns because it was fun but I am not completely paranoid fearing everyone is out to shoot me or my family. I don't know how many times over the year I have heard about the kids getting dad's gun out to play with and shooting their friends or themselves. Very few people need guns. The police and military do and despite having a use for a gun. I can live without them.

 

[qazplm]

A killer whale could do it too-don't forget that resource!

Now you're just talking crazy.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Big EE for your information I have a .22 with a scope, which is from childhood, an M-1 carbine, a Winchester 12 gauge shotgun and a 30-30 Winchester with a scope. I don't use them very often and the only real reason I have them is because of coyotes, and dogs that get in the cattle. Granted as a kid I used to like to shoot things but lost interest in it after I had to shoot the neighbors pet dog when it got in my grandfather's sheep. It was upsetting for me and the neighbor and their children. Growing up on a farm is different than growing up in town, which is why I still see how some people need guns. I will shoot a coyote or a groundhog if I can get a gun out soon enough to shoot one-usually I don't have much luck though. As far as personal safety I'm probably more at risk by the fact some jug headed teenager wants to steal my guns because they are easy to pawn, like the chain saws and other small hand tools I have had stolen. I'm like gr8indoorsman if someone is going to try to rob me of property I will probably just let them have them rather than shoot them and have to live with guilt the rest of my life. Yea I know their thieves but most of them are just stupid teenagers. I do have some old corn knives which are like machete's which I can keep in my bedroom so if I have absolutely no other option and I can swing those around and hopefully it would make them back off.

The guy with the silencer is just plain spooky and I try to stay away from him and he's no friend of mine and he's been in and out of jail several times. The guy that has 550 guns is an idiot because if the wrong people knew he had all those guns they would kill him for them and I have no idea how much his insurance costs or how much money those guns must have cost him-and he lives in a crummy house that can't be worth $50k.

Big EE I'm sorry that I don't fit your agenda but you can't just neatly classify someone as a liberal or conservative because you think you know their position on one issue. I've never been against all guns just those that can be used for mass killings. I wasn't sure if you had an assault rifle but I do have to wonder why you would be training your seven year old children on how to shoot handguns at that age. I was 10 years old before my dad would let me have a pellet gun and when I got to be 14 he finally let me get a .22. I was driving trucks and tractors around our farm well before he would let me have a rifle. I'm am hardly a leftist or elitist individual as you like to describe them. This weekend I was combining soybeans.

No offense. but I still have a problem buying the story about the guy having 550 guns. Have you actually seen them, or is this an urban myth? As I said, I have a friend, who's an avid gun collector and I've seen most of his collection (around 100 guns) and it takes up a lot of space (many gun safes). I'm trying to imagine the space 550 guns takes and it boggles the mind.

I really don't have an agenda, other than to make people think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS. When I hear Leftwing talking points, I assume the person spouting them is of that persuasion. If I've maligned you, I apologize.

The point of teaching my sons to shoot at such an early age, was to impress upon them the importance of GUN SAFETY. By shooting the milk jug full of water, they learned how much potential damage a very small bullet can do. They learned to always assume a gun is loaded, until they verify it isn't. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. I felt it was important to teach them properly, in the event that if they either found a gun, or one of their friends brought out one of their parents guns, they would have enough knowledge to avoid an unfortunate accident. Keeping kids in the dark and afraid of guns, probably causes more accidents, than it avoids.

I always get a chuckle out of the idiots, who shoot themselves and say it happened, while they were cleaning their guns. Anyone who has any practical experience with guns, would check to see if it were loaded, BEFORE starting to clean it. I suspect most of these fools were practicing their quick draw, when the gun fired and were too embarrassed to actually admit what they were doing. Yes, there are some people that I don't think should ever have guns, but I support their Constitutional right to have one. By the same token, I know a lot of people, that scare the hell out of me, when they get behind a steering wheel. How they ever passed a driving test just amazes me, but they're out there driving....

 

[Bill4411]

Okay I understand yo

No offense. but I still have a problem buying the story about the guy having 550. Have you actually seen them, or is this an urban myth? As I said, I have a friend, who's an avid gun collector and I've seen most of his collection (around 100 guns) and it takes up a lot of space (many gun safes). I'm trying to imagine the space 550 guns takes and it boggles the mind.

I really don't have an agenda, other than to make people think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS. When I hear Leftwing talking points, I assume the person spouting them is of that persuasion. If I've maligned you, I apologize.

The point of teaching my sons to shoot at such an early age, was to impress upon them the importance of GUN SAFETY. By shooting the milk jug full of water, they learned how much potential damage a very small bullet can do. They learned to always assume a gun is loaded, until they verify it isn't. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. I felt it was important to teach them properly, in the event that if they either found a gun, or one of their friends brought out one of their parents guns, they would have enough knowledge to avoid an unfortunate accident. Keeping kids in the dark and afraid of guns, probably causes more accidents, than it avoids.

I always get a chuckle out of the idiots, who shoot themselves and say it happened, while they were cleaning their guns. Anyone who has any practical experience with guns, would check to see if it were loaded, BEFORE starting to clean it. I suspect most of these fools were practicing their quick draw, when the gun fired and were too embarrassed to actually admit what they were doing. Yes, there are some people that I don't think should ever have guns, but I support their Constitutional right to have one. By the same token, I know a lot of people, that scare the hell out of me, when they get behind a steering wheel. How they ever passed a driving test just amazes me, but they're out there driving....

No, I have not seen the 550 guns personally. The owner told me about them in a very confidential setting but I have absolutely no reason to believe he was making it up. My concern for him at the time he was telling me about them was him getting robbed or killed over them and the stupidity of having so much of his money tied up in something that can be stolen and probably couldn't be traced. I was shocked when he was telling me about them. Why in the world would someone keep that many guns? Get a few you like and get rid of the rest. Similarly my dad had a 1st cousin that kept $10,000 in cash at his house. He lived in an isolated area and was very open about letting people know he had that much cash there and this was in the early 1970's. It's amazing he at least wasn't robbed at some point.

I guess I can buy your logic to a degree on why you showed you kids how to use a gun but in my opinion it's way to young for them to be shooting a gun but then again I don't keep hand guns in my house. BTW, I don't care if someone wants to think I'm leftwing-I'm definitely not but I like to hear from all points of view that's what is great about America. I'll listen to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC or about any source of information but then it's up to me as to what I want to believe. I have degrees from both Purdue and IU and it surprises me how liberal in general IU graduates are and on the flip side how conservative Purdue graduates can be.

BigEE I hope you aren't one of those guys that just listens to Fox News and thinks you are getting an accurate picture of what's going on in the real world.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

No offense. but I still have a problem buying the story about the guy having 550 guns. Have you actually seen them, or is this an urban myth? As I said, I have a friend, who's an avid gun collector and I've seen most of his collection (around 100 guns) and it takes up a lot of space (many gun safes). I'm trying to imagine the space 550 guns takes and it boggles the mind.

I really don't have an agenda, other than to make people think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS. When I hear Leftwing talking points, I assume the person spouting them is of that persuasion. If I've maligned you, I apologize.

The point of teaching my sons to shoot at such an early age, was to impress upon them the importance of GUN SAFETY. By shooting the milk jug full of water, they learned how much potential damage a very small bullet can do. They learned to always assume a gun is loaded, until they verify it isn't. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. I felt it was important to teach them properly, in the event that if they either found a gun, or one of their friends brought out one of their parents guns, they would have enough knowledge to avoid an unfortunate accident. Keeping kids in the dark and afraid of guns, probably causes more accidents, than it avoids.

I always get a chuckle out of the idiots, who shoot themselves and say it happened, while they were cleaning their guns. Anyone who has any practical experience with guns, would check to see if it were loaded, BEFORE starting to clean it. I suspect most of these fools were practicing their quick draw, when the gun fired and were too embarrassed to actually admit what they were doing. Yes, there are some people that I don't think should ever have guns, but I support their Constitutional right to have one. By the same token, I know a lot of people, that scare the hell out of me, when they get behind a steering wheel. How they ever passed a driving test just amazes me, but they're out there driving....

Sorry, but as a generally conservative person, it is people of my own ilk who need to "think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS" as pertains to gun control and the second amendment.

 

[BoilerMadness]

89 firearms per 100 residents in the US. Next is Yemen with 55, then Switzerland (who still practices conscription) with 46. The UK has 1.8 million registered firearms against a population of 65 million.

The US accounts for 31% of mass shooters (killing 4 or more) from 1966 to 2012. Five times more than the next country, and 65% higher per capita than the next highest (Philippines).

133 mass shootings since 2000 i the US. Next most in developed European and Asian countries is 6. SIX. In that same time, 13 European nations had 23 mass shootings accounting for 205 deaths. The US had 487 deaths.

One of those shootings in Norway accounts for 67 of those European deaths.

Germany has the highest number of mass shootings in Europe since 2000, but a death rate of 0.05 per 100,000. The US rate is three times that, and more than seven times the UK rate.

After the 1997 shooting cited in this thread, Australia outlawed semiautomatic weapons and the federal government executed a national buyback program. By 2003, a significant decrease in gun-related deaths was recognized.

Canada requires residents to hold a license to purchase and possess firearms. They've had 3 mass shootings since 2000, and a death rate of 0.01 per 100,000.

You don't need to make it illegal to own guns. We need to make it harder. Much harder.

You don't read real well, do you? I said their rate of gun crime and murder rate is lower, not "violent crime."

From your article: "Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power." There's no comment on gun crime or specifically murder in that statement at all, and a 77% increase from an already tiny number still doesn't put them in the US's stratosphere. Not even close.

Intentional homicides in the US per 100,000 in 2012: 4.7 (by firearm 2.97)
Intentional homicides in the UK per 100,000 in 2011: 1.0 (by firearm 0.07)
Intentional homicides in Australia per 100,000 in 2011: 1.1 (by firearm 0.14)

Source: the Guardian and World Bank statistics.

So, yeah, the US murder rate is almost 500% higher than Australia and the UK... like I said... and by firearm we're more than 2000% higher than Australia and 4000% higher than the UK.

I'd say it's worked just fine for them.

You're conflating the mass shootings in this country with events like Roseland, which is a very small portion of that. The majority of these MASS SHOOTINGS are occurring in places like Chicago, Baltimore, NY and LA, and they are gang related. All those places have very stringent gun control laws, as well.

That's the lunacy of the gun control argument. You have cities and states, that have a large number of mass shootings, AND the toughest gun control laws in the country. Then, there are other cities and states, that provide easier access to concealed carry permits, AND they have the fewest gun related incidents. Yet, rather than modelling our gun laws to reflect what states like Florida and Texas are doing successfully, the gun control advocates want to replicate what Illinois, NY, and MD are doing, which has been an utter failure. How does that make any rational sense?

Now you want to replicate Australia. No problem. Go ahead and eliminate the 2nd amendment. Are there any others you'd like to scrap as well? Freedom is what makes this country a great place. Eroding and eliminating the freedoms we have, makes it less great.

There are over 300 Million guns in this country. How are you going to take them away? A buyback? I'm sure all the gang bangers and drug dealers will be at the head of that line. You could run around, kicking in doors and seizing weapons. That's worked well for a lot of Third World Dictators. Perhaps, that's the kind of country you'd rather live in? Whatever method you use, I can guarantee, that the people you LEAST want to have guns, will be the last to lose theirs. The law of unintended consequences.

If ALL the gun control laws, that Obama and his minions have wanted in the last 6 years were enacted, they would NOT have eliminated one of the mass shootings, that has everyone so emotionally upset. OMG, could it just be political posturing?

Somewhere in this whole debate, the focus has been placed solely on the gun, and the person that's wielding it is getting a pass. I've had guns in my house for over 50 years and I've never had one sneak out and commit a crime. Don't you think it makes more rational sense to focus on the PEOPLE misusing the guns, rather than venting on inanimate objects.

The key, as I see it, is just accountability. Florida mandates a 5 year sentence for using a gun in a crime, on top of the penalty for that crime. More importantly, they enforce their laws. It seems to be working pretty well.

Personally, I'd rather have a 5 yr mandatory sentence, if you possessed a gun in the commission of a crime. Add another 5 years, if you actually FIRED the gun in the commission of a crime. Then the state should publicize it, every time someone was convicted of a gun crime, which may have a deterrent effect.

Regarding the mentally defective, that's a more difficult situation. In most of the cases, where we've had school shootings, there was information available on social media (Facebook, twitter, etc), that gave clues regarding what was about to happen. How hard would it be to set up a Hotline for people to call, if they suspected that someone was flipping out and about to go Postal? I know it will add a burden on already overburdened police departments, but if it can prevent some of these incidents, it would be well worth the time and effort.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Okay I understand yo

No, I have not seen the 550 guns personally. The owner told me about them in a very confidential setting but I have absolutely no reason to believe he was making it up. My concern for him at the time he was telling me about them was him getting robbed or killed over them and the stupidity of having so much of his money tied up in something that can be stolen and probably couldn't be traced. I was shocked when he was telling me about them. Why in the world would someone keep that many guns? Get a few you like and get rid of the rest. Similarly my dad had a 1st cousin that kept $10,000 in cash at his house. He lived in an isolated area and was very open about letting people know he had that much cash there and this was in the early 1970's. It's amazing he at least wasn't robbed at some point.

I guess I can buy your logic to a degree on why you showed you kids how to use a gun but in my opinion it's way to young for them to be shooting a gun but then again I don't keep hand guns in my house. BTW, I don't care if someone wants to think I'm leftwing-I'm definitely not but I like to hear from all points of view that's what is great about America. I'll listen to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC or about any source of information but then it's up to me as to what I want to believe. I have degrees from both Purdue and IU and it surprises me how liberal in general IU graduates are and on the flip side how conservative Purdue graduates can be.

BigEE I hope you aren't one of those guys that just listens to Fox News and thinks you are getting an accurate picture of what's going on in the real world.

I still suspect the guy was exaggerating by a bunch, but that doesn't really matter.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I was with my kids, when they were shooting at that age. I didn't send them out unsupervised with a gun. I taught them and I trusted them, but they were still young kids, who can be prone to mental lapses. The youngest is now 37, so they have safely survived to this point.

FYI, I watch the major network news reports, as well as FOX. I can usually see both sides of the spin that way. I would never confuse MSNBC with news. If you can give Al Sharpton a show, you have less than no credibility......vbg

 

[BoilerMadness]

Sorry, but as a generally conservative person, it is people of my own ilk who need to "think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS" as pertains to gun control and the second amendment.

Naw, in this thread, you're sounding a lot more like qaz, than you are like a generally conservative person.

You're blaming the guns for the actions of the people holding them. When you can start holding PEOPLE accountable for their actions, then you will be thinking more like a generally conservative person.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Naw, in this thread, you're sounding a lot more like qaz, than you are like a generally conservative person.

You're blaming the guns for the actions of the people holding them. When you can start holding PEOPLE accountable for their actions, then you will be thinking more like a generally conservative person.

Because I agree with qaz, not you, on this specific topic... I'm not blaming the guns, that's a simplistic strawman. There's a difference between bad/crazy people and bad/crazy people with guns. Do you really think Mercer or any of these mass shooters care about accountability? Most of them shoot themselves. What a stupid argument.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You're conflating the mass shootings in this country with events like Roseland, which is a very small portion of that. The majority of these MASS SHOOTINGS are occurring in places like Chicago, Baltimore, NY and LA, and they are gang related. All those places have very stringent gun control laws, as well.

That's the lunacy of the gun control argument. You have cities and states, that have a large number of mass shootings, AND the toughest gun control laws in the country. Then, there are other cities and states, that provide easier access to concealed carry permits, AND they have the fewest gun related incidents. Yet, rather than modelling our gun laws to reflect what states like Florida and Texas are doing successfully, the gun control advocates want to replicate what Illinois, NY, and MD are doing, which has been an utter failure. How does that make any rational sense?

Now you want to replicate Australia. No problem. Go ahead and eliminate the 2nd amendment. Are there any others you'd like to scrap as well? Freedom is what makes this country a great place. Eroding and eliminating the freedoms we have, makes it less great.

There are over 300 Million guns in this country. How are you going to take them away? A buyback? I'm sure all the gang bangers and drug dealers will be at the head of that line. You could run around, kicking in doors and seizing weapons. That's worked well for a lot of Third World Dictators. Perhaps, that's the kind of country you'd rather live in? Whatever method you use, I can guarantee, that the people you LEAST want to have guns, will be the last to lose theirs. The law of unintended consequences.

If ALL the gun control laws, that Obama and his minions have wanted in the last 6 years were enacted, they would NOT have eliminated one of the mass shootings, that has everyone so emotionally upset. OMG, could it just be political posturing?

Somewhere in this whole debate, the focus has been placed solely on the gun, and the person that's wielding it is getting a pass. I've had guns in my house for over 50 years and I've never had one sneak out and commit a crime. Don't you think it makes more rational sense to focus on the PEOPLE misusing the guns, rather than venting on inanimate objects.

The key, as I see it, is just accountability. Florida mandates a 5 year sentence for using a gun in a crime, on top of the penalty for that crime. More importantly, they enforce their laws. It seems to be working pretty well.

Personally, I'd rather have a 5 yr mandatory sentence, if you possessed a gun in the commission of a crime. Add another 5 years, if you actually FIRED the gun in the commission of a crime. Then the state should publicize it, every time someone was convicted of a gun crime, which may have a deterrent effect.

Regarding the mentally defective, that's a more difficult situation. In most of the cases, where we've had school shootings, there was information available on social media (Facebook, twitter, etc), that gave clues regarding what was about to happen. How hard would it be to set up a Hotline for people to call, if they suspected that someone was flipping out and about to go Postal? I know it will add a burden on already overburdened police departments, but if it can prevent some of these incidents, it would be well worth the time and effort.

Texas: 2.91 murders by firearm per 100,00 people. Lower than the US national average, 29 times higher than the average in Australia. 20 times higher than the average in the UK.

Texas isn't a success story except in this warped argument and when compared to places that are statistically as dangerous as some countries in west Africa.

How do you suppose those folks in Chicago get weapons? Maybe they drive to Indiana or Wisconsin?

Point is, a guy like Mercer shouldn't be able to walk into a store and arm himself to the teeth. I agree - you're not going to stop everyone from getting guns, but you don't HAVE to. You have to make it harder to get them. As of now, in most places, you walk in to a store, order your M4, wait three days, and you've got a gun. Do that a few more times and you've got an arsenal. A guy like Mercer had no crime record. He'd never received counseling. He was just "weird". What law, what help, do you propose for peole like him - people like those committing atrocities in Colorado and Sandy Hook? THEY don't care about accountability. They're shooting themselves anyway. Jail time isn't stopping them.

There is no slippery slope. You don't have to scrap the second Amendment. You could add "while participating in the militia" to it and retain the spirit of the amendment. The NRA has warped its meaning to where people think God wrote on stone the Eleventh Commandmant: "And semi-autos for all."

 

[kescwi]

Because I agree with qaz, not you, on this specific topic... I'm not blaming the guns, that's a simplistic strawman. There's a difference between bad/crazy people and bad/crazy people with guns. Do you really think Mercer or any of these mass shooters care about accountability? Most of them shoot themselves. What a stupid argument.

On accountability, I think gun owners need to start being held accountable. If you buy a gun and that gun is stolen, borrowed... whatever and it is used by someone else in the committing a crime, you should be charged with something carrying the same penalty they are facing, other than death, and if, god forbid, someone uses that gun you had to have but didn't secure, and commits suicide or attempts to and injures themselves, you are charged with manslaughter or something similar.

I don't want to take guns from people who are responsible with them but this notion that any friction in the purchase or ownership of a gun violates some sacred right is ridiculous, as is, for many, the paranoia that goes along with truly believing they are in such grave danger in suburbia that they must have one immediately to protect themselves. .

 

[qazplm]

On accountability, I think gun owners need to start being held accountable. If you buy a gun and that gun is stolen, borrowed... whatever and it is used by someone else in the committing a crime, you should be charged with something carrying the same penalty they are facing, other than death, and if, god forbid, someone uses that gun you had to have but didn't secure, and commits suicide or attempts to and injures themselves, you are charged with manslaughter or something similar.

I don't want to take guns from people who are responsible with them but this notion that any friction in the purchase or ownership of a gun violates some sacred right is ridiculous, as is, for many, the paranoia that goes along with truly believing they are in such grave danger in suburbia that they must have one immediately to protect themselves. .

Yeah no. If I own a gun, legally, and I properly safeguard (say I place it in a safe with a trigger lock but really if it's simply in my locked house that should be enough) and a thief comes in, breaks into wherever my gun is, and takes it, there is no legal or logical way one can then tie any culpability to me for what that thief then does with the weapon.

Instead of attempting that level of legal/logical gymnastics, we could simply make it harder to get a gun, and make registration and training mandatory to legally buy a gun, just like we do with issuing an auto license. We could require gun owners insurance.

There is really no reason why we can't hold gun owners to the same requirements as car owners.

 

[kescwi]

Yeah no. If I own a gun, legally, and I properly safeguard (say I place it in a safe with a trigger lock but really if it's simply in my locked house that should be enough) and a thief comes in, breaks into wherever my gun is, and takes it, there is no legal or logical way one can then tie any culpability to me for what that thief then does with the weapon.

Instead of attempting that level of legal/logical gymnastics, we could simply make it harder to get a gun, and make registration and training mandatory to legally buy a gun, just like we do with issuing an auto license. We could require gun owners insurance.

There is really no reason why we can't hold gun owners to the same requirements as car owners.

First, before going into message board mode, you might consider a small safe, if someone breaks into your house yes they may still steal the safe with he gun in it but at least the safe will keep it away from the helper of the handyman, the carpet cleaner... the people you allow into your house. it is a part my contract, people put their initials next to it, it tells them to remove all firearms, ammunition, fireworks, hazardous materials... along with valuables, mementos... But I still, on well over 50% of my interior jobs, will come come across a gun if I'm redoing parts of the house other than the kitchen or bath and it is a concern of mine that someday I'm going to have a homeowner tell me they have guns missing, I actually worry about that more than jewelry.

Now, my issue with guns, and I also own guns, is that, unlike a stolen car or knives or chainsaw, they are purposefully built for destruction. So I don't think treating them like a car goes far enough. Yes a car can kill, but it wasn't designed and manufactured to kill. Using a gun for a purpose other than what it was intended would tend to make it safer, not true for many other things that are repurposed to harm.

 

[qazplm]

First, before going into message board mode, you might consider a small safe, if someone breaks into your house yes they may still steal the safe with he gun in it but at least the safe will keep it away from the helper of the handyman, the carpet cleaner... the people you allow into your house. it is a part my contract, people put their initials next to it, it tells them to remove all firearms, ammunition, fireworks, hazardous materials... along with valuables, mementos... But I still, on well over 50% of my interior jobs, will come come across a gun if I'm redoing parts of the house other than the kitchen or bath and it is a concern of mine that someday I'm going to have a homeowner tell me they have guns missing, I actually worry about that more than jewelry.

Now, my issue with guns, and I also own guns, is that, unlike a stolen car or knives or chainsaw, they are purposefully built for destruction. So I don't think treating them like a car goes far enough. Yes a car can kill, but it wasn't designed and manufactured to kill. Using a gun for a purpose other than what it was intended would tend to make it safer, not true for many other things that are repurposed to harm.

So I own a gun. Or say I run a gun range. I do everything reasonable. I conduct full background checks on all the people who shoot on my range before even allowing them on the premises. I have full trainings required before they can use one of my guns. I even provide body armor to all participants free of charge.

Yet one of my participants goes nuts and shoots three people in the head. I'm responsible now?

Your original post was overly broad IMO. Obviously there is some level of responsibility for gun ownership, but it does not extend to folks who steal their guns, or folks who misuse their guns.

 

[kescwi]

So I own a gun. Or say I run a gun range. I do everything reasonable. I conduct full background checks on all the people who shoot on my range before even allowing them on the premises. I have full trainings required before they can use one of my guns. I even provide body armor to all participants free of charge.

Yet one of my participants goes nuts and shoots three people in the head. I'm responsible now?

Your original post was overly broad IMO. Obviously there is some level of responsibility for gun ownership, but it does not extend to folks who steal their guns, or folks who misuse their guns.

Yes it was overly broad and prosecuting people would never happen and as much as hate the idea, insurance is probably the only way to go. But make the insured responsible for the gun even if stolen. It would be one of the few areas where the "market" would in fact quickly weed out the irresponsible and if you cold not purchase a gun until insured would probably also help to keep guns out of the hands of those people on the margins.

 

[qazplm]

Yes it was overly broad and prosecuting people would never happen and as much as hate the idea, insurance is probably the only way to go. But make the insured responsible for the gun even if stolen. It would be one of the few areas where the "market" would in fact quickly weed out the irresponsible and if you cold not purchase a gun until insured would probably also help to keep guns out of the hands of those people on the margins.

I'm fine in theory with the concept of requiring insurance, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive that only the rich could have guns. And while I would be fine if we were like UK or most other countries and guns were rare and hard to come by, since that's never going to happen here, I do not want a situaiton where only the rich have access to firearms.

 

[Bill4411]

Naw, in this thread, you're sounding a lot more like qaz, than you are like a generally conservative person.

You're blaming the guns for the actions of the people holding them. When you can start holding PEOPLE accountable for their actions, then you will be thinking more like a generally conservative person.

Fox

So I own a gun. Or say I run a gun range. I do everything reasonable. I conduct full background checks on all the people who shoot on my range before even allowing them on the premises. I have full trainings required before they can use one of my guns. I even provide body armor to all participants free of charge.

Yet one of my participants goes nuts and shoots three people in the head. I'm responsible now?

Your original post was overly broad IMO. Obviously there is some level of responsibility for gun ownership, but it does not extend to folks who steal their guns, or folks who misuse their guns.

Gun ownership to me is not a right, despite the misguided reading of the second amendment by the NRA but should instead be a privilege to those that can show they are responsible enough to have a firearm.

I'm fine in theory with the concept of requiring insurance, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive that only the rich could have guns. And while I would be fine if we were like UK or most other countries and guns were rare and hard to come by, since that's never going to happen here, I do not want a situaiton where only the rich have access to firearms.

Maybe we can subsidize the poor gun owners like we do with health insurance under Obama Care?

 

[qazplm]

Fox

Gun ownership to me is not a right, despite the misguided reading of the second amendment by the NRA but should instead be a privilege to those that can show they are responsible enough to have a firearm.

Maybe we can subsidize the poor gun owners like we do with health insurance under Obama Care?

Well, driving a car isn't a right either, but once you give that privilege you have to follow due process and behave logically and legally when dealing with that privilege.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Anyone see the new online comments from a few years ago being attributed to Mercer's mother?

"In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”

“I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags,” Ms. Harper wrote. “No one will be ‘dropping’ by my house uninvited without acknowledgement.”"

Huh.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yeah no. If I own a gun, legally, and I properly safeguard (say I place it in a safe with a trigger lock but really if it's simply in my locked house that should be enough) and a thief comes in, breaks into wherever my gun is, and takes it, there is no legal or logical way one can then tie any culpability to me for what that thief then does with the weapon.

Instead of attempting that level of legal/logical gymnastics, we could simply make it harder to get a gun, and make registration and training mandatory to legally buy a gun, just like we do with issuing an auto license. We could require gun owners insurance.

There is really no reason why we can't hold gun owners to the same requirements as car owners.

qazplm,

Most states already have just what you state - including registration (some require mandatory meeting with police chiefs and/or sheriffs, fingerprinting, and gun safety training by a licensed teacher for a prescribed number of hours.

I agree that it is ridiculous to try to hold someone accountable if someone steals your weapon and uses it to commit a crime. That is an obscene overreach.

 

[kescwi]

qazplm,

Most states already have just what you state - including registration (some require mandatory meeting with police chiefs and/or sheriffs, fingerprinting, and gun safety training by a licensed teacher for a prescribed number of hours.

I agree that it is ridiculous to try to hold someone accountable if someone steals your weapon and uses it to commit a crime. That is an obscene overreach.

Obscene overreach, maybe in some situations but buying a tool designed specifically to kill and leaving easily accessible is negligent.

 

[qazplm]

qazplm,

Most states already have just what you state - including registration (some require mandatory meeting with police chiefs and/or sheriffs, fingerprinting, and gun safety training by a licensed teacher for a prescribed number of hours.

I agree that it is ridiculous to try to hold someone accountable if someone steals your weapon and uses it to commit a crime. That is an obscene overreach.

Define "most states."

Illinois, DC, Mass, and NY are the only states that require licensing...and for Illinois and Mass, that's only for handguns.

DC, PA, WA, CA, NY, NJ, MD, IA, HI, and AZ have full or partial registration requirements.

Even if you add them together, that's only 13 out of 50 states that have either registration or licensing requirements or both.

That is most definitely not "most states."

 

[SDBoiler1]

Define "most states."

Illinois, DC, Mass, and NY are the only states that require licensing...and for Illinois and Mass, that's only for handguns.

DC, PA, WA, CA, NY, NJ, MD, IA, HI, and AZ have full or partial registration requirements.

Even if you add them together, that's only 13 out of 50 states that have either registration or licensing requirements or both.

That is most definitely not "most states."

I don't know where you got your information. In CT, where I live, you cannot legally buy any gun without being approved and licensed. Someone that has a gun in their house can only have it on their property without a license. I don't think this is unusual. In order to carry or transport a weapon, whether concealed carry or otherwise, one must be approved and licensed.

I believe your mistake is you are not counting states that allow having a gun on your property without a license.

 

[qazplm]

I don't know where you got your information. In CT, where I live, you cannot legally buy any gun without being approved and licensed. Someone that has a gun in their house can only have it on their property without a license. I don't think this is unusual. In order to carry or transport a weapon, whether concealed carry or otherwise, one must be approved and licensed.

I believe your mistake is you are not counting states that allow having a gun on your property without a license.

You are confusing permit with license. So you can have it on your property without a license yes? My point is that you should be required in every state in the land to:

1. Do gun safety
2. Have a rigorous background check
3. Get gun insurance
4. Pass yearly tests
5. Register

That isn't remotely the requirement in the vast majority of states.

 

[SDBoiler1]

You are confusing permit with license. So you can have it on your property without a license yes? My point is that you should be required in every state in the land to:

1. Do gun safety
2. Have a rigorous background check
3. Get gun insurance
4. Pass yearly tests
5. Register

That isn't remotely the requirement in the vast majority of states.

You can have a gun on your property without a permit, too, in CT.

 

[qazplm]

You can have a gun on your property without a permit, too, in CT.

Which only reinforces my point. Thanks. Owning a gun should be subject to at least the same level of regulations as owning a car in every single state, and it isn't remotely that way. Only a handful of states have anything close to that level of regulation.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Fox

Gun ownership to me is not a right, despite the misguided reading of the second amendment by the NRA but should instead be a privilege to those that can show they are responsible enough to have a firearm.

Maybe we can subsidize the poor gun owners like we do with health insurance under Obama Care?

It's funny how you chastised me for assuming you were Liberal, based on YOUR comments. Then you ASSUME my comments can be directly attributed to FOX. Seriously?? I've had those views for over 30 years before FOX came into existence. Despite your protestations about being Conservative, I've seen little to support that contention.

The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, NOT the NRA.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I believe it may have been Churchill, that said this and I may be paraphrasing it somewhat:

If you are willing to give up your rights to ensure your safety, soon you will have no rights, nor will you be safe.

Too many of you are too willing to give up your Constitutional rights, because you are caught up in the emotion of the moment, caused by the recent shootings. Once you lose them, you won't get them back. Those rights may not seem to be important to you now, but, as you get older and gain more perspective, their importance may become more apparent.

Keep in mind, that you could go to the Australian model, where the government confiscates all guns. Doesn't that make you feel even the least bit uneasy, that the Federal Government would/could just arbitrarily disarm your nation? Do you really believe that would get rid of all the guns? If not, who would have the remaining guns in this country? Does that make you feel safe? Food for thought....

With no guns in the U.S., do you really believe there would no longer be any mass killings? The Tsarnaev brothers killed 6 and wounded 280 with two pressure cookers in Boston. Are we going to outlaw pressure cookers next? You can NOT legislate crazy out of existance. There will always be individuals out there, that will be unbalanced and want to kill people, whether they are Islamic terrorists or social outcasts, that want to get even with society. Things like the Roseland killings will continue to occur, regardless of what we do to try to prevent them, whether they use guns, bombs or other means. You may not want to accept that, but that is reality.

 

[qazplm]

I believe it may have been Churchill, that said this and I may be paraphrasing it somewhat:

If you are willing to give up your rights to ensure your safety, soon you will have no rights, nor will you be safe.

Too many of you are too willing to give up your Constitutional rights, because you are caught up in the emotion of the moment, caused by the recent shootings. Once you lose them, you won't get them back. Those rights may not seem to be important to you now, but, as you get older and gain more perspective, their importance may become more apparent.

Keep in mind, that you could go to the Australian model, where the government confiscates all guns. Doesn't that make you feel even the least bit uneasy, that the Federal Government would/could just arbitrarily disarm your nation? Do you really believe that would get rid of all the guns? If not, who would have the remaining guns in this country? Does that make you feel safe? Food for thought....

With no guns in the U.S., do you really believe there would no longer be any mass killings? The Tsarnaev brothers killed 6 and wounded 280 with two pressure cookers in Boston. Are we going to outlaw pressure cookers next? You can NOT legislate crazy out of existance. There will always be individuals out there, that will be unbalanced and want to kill people, whether they are Islamic terrorists or social outcasts, that want to get even with society. Things like the Roseland killings will continue to occur, regardless of what we do to try to prevent them, whether they use guns, bombs or other means. You may not want to accept that, but that is reality.

Yes, because reasonable restrictions equals giving up constitutional rights. Brilliant argument. Yes, because we cannot guarantee that thing X will never ever happen again, we shouldn't take steps that would clearly reduce significantly the chances of thing X happening. Another genius position. Because as we all know, gun/pressure cooker, tomato/tomato.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Yes, because reasonable restrictions equals giving up constitutional rights. Brilliant argument. Yes, because we cannot guarantee that thing X will never ever happen again, we shouldn't take steps that would clearly reduce significantly the chances of thing X happening. Another genius position. Because as we all know, gun/pressure cooker, tomato/tomato.

Another brilliant analysis by qaz. You always try to turn apples to oranges and hope no one notices.

There are already reasonable restrictions on gun purchases. There are background checks and waiting periods. As I've said before, If Obama had gotten all the gun laws he's wanted over his term in office, it would not have stopped ONE of the mass shootings, that has everyone up in arms. People seem to gloss over that point and convince themselves there is that one golden gun control law that will solve the problem, which is NOT the case.

The people that are proponents of the Australian model are absolutely giving away their constitutional rights. I doubt that the Founding Fathers would be convinced that confiscation did not abridge that right.

Speaking of genius positions, it appears you have assumed one and are staring at the inside of your rectal walls. Go tell the people in Boston, that pressure cookers in the wrong hands aren't lethal. The point is, that there are many things available to all of us, that can cause mass destruction and take many lives, if one were so predisposed. If someone is determined to kill a large group of people, he will find a way and the crazy ones are not concerned about living through the experience. More gun control laws are just a political placebo, which will do nothing to change that.

I had mentioned mandatory sentencing before, which would help in places like Chicago, Baltimore and NY. Most of those shootings are gang related. Unfortunately, although those cities have very restrictive gun laws, they don't enforce them. Most of the police in those areas would rather let the bangers eliminate each other, than risk their lives going into that shooting gallery. Sadly, there are a lot of innocent lives lost as collateral damage.

 

[BoilerMadness]

You are confusing permit with license. So you can have it on your property without a license yes? My point is that you should be required in every state in the land to:

1. Do gun safety
2. Have a rigorous background check
3. Get gun insurance
4. Pass yearly tests
5. Register

That isn't remotely the requirement in the vast majority of states.

The MONSTER PLACEBO.

Over 99.9% of the guns in this country have never been used in a crime and are a threat to nobody. Only the people that currently abide by all the gun laws will be affected by this. Had all your requirements been in place it would not have prevented any of the mass shootings. Yet you want to heap more restrictions on people who are doing nothing wrong. Why??

You guys are in emotional overload right now, desperately blaming guns for the actions of the people that misuse them. If you make all guns cease to exist immediately, the same bad guys, that were misusing guns, would be using bows, knives, hatchets, bombs, etc. to impose their will on the rest of society. A gun without an idiot attached is just a paper weight. It is an inanimate object.

 

[qazplm]

The MONSTER PLACEBO.

Over 99.9% of the guns in this country have never been used in a crime and are a threat to nobody. Only the people that currently abide by all the gun laws will be affected by this. Had all your requirements been in place it would not have prevented any of the mass shootings. Yet you want to heap more restrictions on people who are doing nothing wrong. Why??

You guys are in emotional overload right now, desperately blaming guns for the actions of the people that misuse them. If you make all guns cease to exist immediately, the same bad guys, that were misusing guns, would be using bows, knives, hatchets, bombs, etc. to impose their will on the rest of society. A gun without an idiot attached is just a paper weight. It is an inanimate object.

A bazooka is an inanimate object, without an idiot attached it is just a paper weight, so we shouldn't have any restrictions on owning bazookas either, after all, the responsible folks will use it responsibly. So we really shouldn't have restrictions on anything because responsible people will abide by them, and irresponsible people won't.

More brilliant analysis from the villa...board idiot.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yeah, stupid sentiment: can't stop all so why try to stop some or most? Dumb.

You know, I'd be in favor of registering each weapon to an individual and requiring said individual to also purchase a suitable fingerprint storage container for their weapons. If someone uses their weapon in a crime, the owner of the weapon is also accountable as an accessory.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I believe it may have been Churchill, that said this and I may be paraphrasing it somewhat:

If you are willing to give up your rights to ensure your safety, soon you will have no rights, nor will you be safe.

Too many of you are too willing to give up your Constitutional rights, because you are caught up in the emotion of the moment, caused by the recent shootings. Once you lose them, you won't get them back. Those rights may not seem to be important to you now, but, as you get older and gain more perspective, their importance may become more apparent.

Keep in mind, that you could go to the Australian model, where the government confiscates all guns. Doesn't that make you feel even the least bit uneasy, that the Federal Government would/could just arbitrarily disarm your nation? Do you really believe that would get rid of all the guns? If not, who would have the remaining guns in this country? Does that make you feel safe? Food for thought....

With no guns in the U.S., do you really believe there would no longer be any mass killings? The Tsarnaev brothers killed 6 and wounded 280 with two pressure cookers in Boston. Are we going to outlaw pressure cookers next? You can NOT legislate crazy out of existance. There will always be individuals out there, that will be unbalanced and want to kill people, whether they are Islamic terrorists or social outcasts, that want to get even with society. Things like the Roseland killings will continue to occur, regardless of what we do to try to prevent them, whether they use guns, bombs or other means. You may not want to accept that, but that is reality.

"We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities." - Sir Winston Churchill

I give two shits about my "right" to own a gun. I'd happily give it up to be even 0.00001% safer, and I think the impact would be much greater than that,

 

[BoilerMadness]

A bazooka is an inanimate object, without an idiot attached it is just a paper weight, so we shouldn't have any restrictions on owning bazookas either, after all, the responsible folks will use it responsibly. So we really shouldn't have restrictions on anything because responsible people will abide by them, and irresponsible people won't.

More brilliant analysis from the villa...board idiot.

Again, I'm talking apples and you switch to oranges. Too predictable.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Yeah, stupid sentiment: can't stop all so why try to stop some or most? Dumb.

You know, I'd be in favor of registering each weapon to an individual and requiring said individual to also purchase a suitable fingerprint storage container for their weapons. If someone uses their weapon in a crime, the owner of the weapon is also accountable as an accessory.

You're starting to make stuff up, as you go now. Never have I said to not try to stop mass shootings. That is your fabrication, and you're right. It is dumb.

Great idea with the fingerprint storage container. That will absolutely stop gun crime in it's tracks. You are so naive.

 

[BoilerMadness]

"We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities." - Sir Winston Churchill

I give two shits about my "right" to own a gun. I'd happily give it up to be even 0.00001% safer, and I think the impact would be much greater than that,

Great. I believe you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, when you got commissioned. It's nice to see how seriously you take that oath. As a retired Naval Officer, I am ashamed that someone wearing that uniform, either doesn't know he took that oath, or takes that oath so lightly. What the Hell is wrong with you?

 

[ecouch]

Which only reinforces my point. Thanks. Owning a gun should be subject to at least the same level of regulations as owning a car in every single state, and it isn't remotely that way. Only a handful of states have anything close to that level of regulation.

You can own a car without a permit. All 50.

Fail.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Great. I believe you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, when you got commissioned. It's nice to see how seriously you take that oath. As a retired Naval Officer, I am ashamed that someone wearing that uniform, either doesn't know he took that oath, or takes that oath so lightly. What the Hell is wrong with you?

Never question how I do my job. Never. You don't know me.

There is a distinct difference between supporting and defending the Constitution, and agreeing with every interpretation of it.

Never think that I give a shit what your opinion of me is. You don't know me, whether you're a retired Naval officer or not. I've been doing this 16 years, and I've met plenty of idiots in my line of work. Suspect you'd be another in a long line.