Recommended Posts
Jib 0
QuoteSome personal responsibility of the part of the firearm owners is in order.
That's what civil lawsuits are all about.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
Ron 10
QuoteWhat Wendy said is true. If I had a Ferrari, I'd take great care of it and know where the keys were at all times.
Nobody would be out joyriding my car. But I can't afford one, so I don't have that issue.
Flawed logic....You can still buy a 300.00 beater car...You don't need a 100,000 Ferrari to drive. If EVERY car was 100,000 then this argument would make sense.
I have several guns, some are cheap, some are expensive...I know where they ALL are, even the cheap ones.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
jfields 0
QuotePeople don't need pools either. And pools can't even be used to defend someone's life. What is the stigma with guns? There are plenty of other unnecessary things in this world that kill people accidentaly more than guns. Why are they the target of control, registration, and restriction?
They can be used well, or carelessly, as shown by all the accidental deaths. Here the "what about pools" question is valid.
But go back to those stats and realize that firearms are used to kill more people than everything else *combined*. Even if you add in the 9/11 terrorists attacks, firearms are damned close, if not still more. (I don't have exact comprehensive figures for 9/11.)
The overwhelming preference of firearms as the tool for murder is why they get singled out. That goes back to what I said in my mega-post earlier in the thread. If the body count from firearm deaths drops enough, people will stop singling it out. Right now, it does deserve the extra scrutiny.
jfields 0
QuoteI have several guns, some are cheap, some are expensive...I know where they ALL are
If you know where they are, keep them secure and use them responsibly, I have absolutely problem with you owning them.
QuoteThe overwhelming preference of firearms as the tool for murder is why they get singled out.
I can understand you're not wanting children accidentally killed, but putting controls on guns to reduce firearm murders WILL NOT work.
It has been effectively illegal to own a gun in Chicago for over a decade now, but this has had virtually no effect on criminals. It has, however, made it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. The result of this is that criminals know damn well that anyone they want to mug or rob is not going to own a gun.
jfields 0
QuoteI can understand you're not wanting children accidentally killed, but putting controls on guns to reduce firearm murders WILL NOT work.
It will not work... if done half-assed without corresponding tough enforcement, stiffer penalties, uniform laws, better education and improved safety awareness. If we do all those things along with practical gun control measures, it will help tremendously. Any single aspect pushed without the others is doomed. Having a tough jurisdiction next to a lax one effectively negates the stances of both, leaving just confusion and trafficking across the border.
"Gun controls" are not equivalent with "gun bans", despite the rhetoric of the far-right (including the NRA) trying to tell everyone they are. I'm not advocating any bans. Gun controls are things that try to maintain the ability of people to legally obtain guns and keep them safely while reducing the ability of criminals to get and use them as easily as they do now. Our current laws could use a lot of improvement, but saying that laws won't help is perpetuating a falsehood.
QuoteOur current laws could use a lot of improvement, but saying that laws won't help is perpetuating a falsehood.
But why pass new legislation instead of enforcing exisiting laws. The ones on the books now are sufficient, they're not being enforced.
For example, someone with a registered gun who subsequently becomes convicted of a felony or has a protection from abuse order against them is required by law to turn in their gun. That's a good law. But it is hardly ever enforced.
There is currently a system in place for instant background check before purchasing a gun. That's a good law as well.
The current law has penalties if you use or obtain a gun illegally. Some people don't care about that and get guns illegally anyway. What law could be passed that would change that and not affect the ability of non-felon, mentally healthy, individuals not the subject of a protection order from obtaining guns?
jfields 0
QuoteBut why pass new legislation instead of enforcing exisiting laws. The ones on the books now are sufficient, they're not being enforced.
I've mentioned good enforcement a number of times through this thread. As for the laws, lots of folks on the pro-gun side have commented on how convoluted and contradictory they are. I'm not saying we need more laws. That is like saying we need more tax code. We don't. We need to clean it up, simplify it, and make it more uniform.
QuoteThe current law has penalties if you use or obtain a gun illegally. Some people don't care about that and get guns illegally anyway. What law could be passed that would change that and not affect the ability of non-felon, mentally healthy, individuals not the subject of a protection order from obtaining guns?
I'll give two examples:
If you commit a murder in the US, you get a minimum of a 25 year sentence without any chance of parole. If you used a firearm in your murder and get caught with a firearm any time after you get out, you go back in for life, without exception or parole. That would lower crime by eliminating a lot of repeat offenders.
If you are a gun shop owner and you get caught knowingly violating any laws pertaining to the sales of firearms, you instantly and irrevocably lose your business license, along with a hefty jail term. No second chances.
Those laws would only put criminals behind bars for longer, hinder crime and reduce some of the sloppy practices that let firearms into the wrong hands. No legitimate citizens are having any rights taken away. Off the top of my head, I'd see little reason for any honest gun owner to argue with either of those, or object to their enforcement.
I'm not a lawyer, nor have I memorized the firearm statutes of every jurisdiction. But I toss out those simplified examples as laws that crack down on crime and illegal weapons flow without stopping anyone without a criminal record from buying or owning weapons. "Gun control" isn't about a mission to eliminate freedom.
I get you...and agree with you. Again, those laws already exist, what you're talking about is changing the penalty. I have no problem with that.
See, it only took a billion posts for me to understand exactly what you're stance is. Who says the internet makes communication confusing? 
By the way...what you are saying it pretty much the same thing the NRA supports. Penalize the bad guys more harshly instead of further restricting access to the good guys.
corso 0
QuotePeople don't need pools either. And pools can't even be used to defend someone's life. What is the stigma with guns? There are plenty of other unnecessary things in this world that kill people accidentaly more than guns. Why are they the target of control, registration, and restriction?
I do not wish to single out the author of the quote that i placed in this post i only use it to illustrate my point.
I realise that coming from a country whci does not allow people to legally own weapons such as the ones on sale in the US i may seem a bit of an outsider but i cannot beleive that a gun can be compared to anything else not least a swimming pool. I have heard guns being compared to knives and other such potentially dangerous things, however there is a crucial difference when talking about a fire arm. A knife [to take the common example] is a tool it is a practical device that can be used to perform multiple construcutve tasks, a gun is a weapon which is designed to be destrucutive, regardless of what the owner uses it for it has been created to take life and one day under the ownership of the original owner or a subsequent one in may well do that.
To say that it may defend someones life is possibly true but again IMHO it is far more liley to be used for the opposite, there is a military tradition in my family [though i did not follow it] and i beleive that those whoi carry/own guns should a] need to b] be trained to do so. In the army people are trained to use their judgement as tp when it is necessary to fire their weapon civilians do not have this sort of training, firing rounds at a paper cut out is not enough. I think that owning a gun is far more likley to get you or a loved one hurt more than anyone else.
jfields 0
QuoteSee, it only took a billion posts for me to understand exactly what you're stance is. Who says the internet makes communication confusing?
LOL. Exactly.
QuoteBy the way...what you are saying it pretty much the same thing the NRA supports.
Well, until we start talking about mandatory waiting periods, trigger locks, armor-piercing bullets, training requirements and such.
But I'm glad we took the time to hash it out until we at least agreed on something. And thanks for not mindlessly repeating the party line without caring what the other side (me, in this case) is saying.
Iflyme 0
Mike, but I support strong anti-gun legislation. IMHO, only law enforcement officials should be permitted to carry firearms. You have your opinion, I have mine.QuoteI appreciate your input. Very useful information. Thanks.
MELT THE GUNS
People don't need pools either. And pools can't even be used to defend someone's life. What is the stigma with guns? There are plenty of other unnecessary things in this world that kill people accidentaly more than guns. Why are they the target of control, registration, and restriction?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites