Gun Control

[beanman]

 

 

I can't believe we're still arguing about this.

 

I'm going to declare Knapp, Junior, etc. the winners so we can all move on.

[NebraskaHarry]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

 

I was target shooting the other day... I guess IT failed to perform its intended purpose.

[NebraskaHarry]

Why would anyone want to murder a bunch of people?

[JJ Husker]

 

i proposed no. 3 because i do think more education on guns and gun care would be nice, it is just another step to make sure that only individuals who are serious about owning a gun can own a gun. also, you need a license to drive, you need a gd license to fish, so why not to own a gun?

 

 

I like 1 through 3.

I might have to see what #4 would look like in practice but I think it's a pretty good idea.

Agree with Carl on #5, has to be due to some sort of negligence or willful action to hold the owner liable.

 

However, what I really wanted to add here was about the licensing requirement. Great idea. Cars, fishing, hunting, why not guns. But, let's take it one step further and require people to get licensed/qualified to have children. If anything is contributing to societal problems it is people that are not qualified and have no clue about being a parent. Honestly, wouldn't that have much broader impact than virtually any regulation of mere hardware?

[beanman]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

 

I was target shooting the other day... I guess IT failed to perform its intended purpose.

 

I thought the gun's purpose was to make fat chicks in wedding dresses look sexy.

[beanman]

I haven't been to Wisconsin recently, but it sounds like they've posted a lot of these signs on major roads into the state.

[carlfense]

i proposed no. 3 because i do think more education on guns and gun care would be nice, it is just another step to make sure that only individuals who are serious about owning a gun can own a gun. also, you need a license to drive, you need a gd license to fish, so why not to own a gun?

Driving and fishing aren't constitutional rights . . .

 

i think you are right about no. 5. i think it is a good idea because a gun is inherently dangerous and it would encourage people to keep their weapons locked and safe. however, it is pretty broad and probably unfair to most responsible gun owners. like if your gun is stolen and you report them stolen, there is nothing more you could do. but on the other hand, people need to be urged to use due diligence in not letting their weapons get into the wrong hands.

I agree with the goal of accountability but I'm just not sure what would be most effective.

[carlfense]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

 

I was target shooting the other day... I guess IT failed to perform its intended purpose.

You didn't injure or kill any targets?

[NebraskaHarry]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

 

I was target shooting the other day... I guess IT failed to perform its intended purpose.

You didn't injure or kill any targets?

Is it possible?

[carlfense]

They should ban alcohol because people are going to drink too much and kill someone while driving drunk. Drunk drivers are a bigger threat to me and my family than guns. I don't drink and my guns are tucked in a safe.

 

I'm not getting into a debate with anyone. I just find it odd that people that aren't interested in guns as a hobby think it's fair to limit ownership rights. I don't need an AR? You don't need alcohol.

 

Yawn. None of these things - including booze and cars - are designed to kill. That's why they're not part of this discussion. Guns' sole purpose is to injure/kill. Let's stop being irrational here.

 

I was target shooting the other day... I guess IT failed to perform its intended purpose.

You didn't injure or kill any targets?

Is it possible?

Depends on the target and the shooter.

[beanman]

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone

 

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17373761-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate-bill?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

[carlfense]

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone

 

http://firstread.nbc...cid=msnhp&pos=1

Not at all.

[walksalone]

Where I work, I see a lot of updates about crimes, and I pay special attention to those that happen in Paterson, NJ, which I unfortunately live.

 

It seems that every week, there are 4 or 5 shootings. Paterson, just a year ago, laid off almost half it's police force.

 

I guess I'm just not sure where a gun ban is going to help this situation.

[74Hunter]

i think if you want to own a gun, here are a few beneficial stipulations:

1. the gun has to be registered

2. universal background checks

3. you have to be licensed to own a gun (i.e. some sort of class or training, i did it as a young hunter)

4. you have to own liability insurance for your guns

5. if anything bad happens with a gun, regardless of whoever was in control of the gun, the gun owner is liable.

now, i do not think this is a list of 'punishments' for gun owners. it is simply what should be required to possess an inherently dangerous weapon.

 

i also think guns should have capacity limits and assault rifles should be banned. when i think of gun control, i am thinking about how to prevent the mass shootings.

 

i also think that guns should be locked when in the home, but that is just common sense, not really something that should be legislated.

 

i, like most americans, do not have a problem with people owning guns, especially handguns and hunting guns. but that does not mean that whoever should be able to own whatever.

i have not seen many people address this post, so i thought i would repost it.

I agree with 1 and 2.

 

I somewhat agree with the premise of number 3 but I'm not sure that a licensing requirement would be permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

 

I agree with 4.

 

I disagree with 5. I think that your proposed standard is too broad. I agree that gun owners should be liable in certain situations but I'd probably suggest the negligence route.

i proposed no. 3 because i do think more education on guns and gun care would be nice, it is just another step to make sure that only individuals who are serious about owning a gun can own a gun. also, you need a license to drive, you need a gd license to fish, so why not to own a gun?

 

i think you are right about no. 5. i think it is a good idea because a gun is inherently dangerous and it would encourage people to keep their weapons locked and safe. however, it is pretty broad and probably unfair to most responsible gun owners. like if your gun is stolen and you report them stolen, there is nothing more you could do. but on the other hand, people need to be urged to use due diligence in not letting their weapons get into the wrong hands.

I'll be your huckleberry. This is pretty much all garbage, some nice, feel good fluff, but it won't do a darn thing to stop the problem. Neither will banning so-called "assault rifles" (which are almost never used to commit mass murders) nor will banning "high capacity" (whatever those are) magazines. By the accounts I read, the Sandy Hook coward didn't even use all of the rounds in the "high capacity" magazines he used, as he changed them out before unloading them, and even if mags are limited to say 7 or 10 shots per mag, it takes about 2 seconds to reload. Also, so called "assault rifles" are functionally not any different than standard hunting rifles, and some can be used for hunting purposes if properly fitted. So, whomever (not saying you) said that they can't be used for hunting is wrong and has obviously never been in a field.

 

Locking up your guns in a safe/trigger locks is a great idea, until your home gets invaded at 3 in the morning and now you're another statistic. If a gun is behind a locked door (home, vehicle, etc.) that is good enough. It's not the gun owners' fault that a scumbag POS breaks into their property and steals their legal firearm.

 

Do you know whose hands the blood of these innocent victims is on? First, it is the coward who pulled the trigger. Second, its on the touchy-feely utopians who feel that guns are bad. The facts of the matter are that these feel good "gun free zones" that are established make the victims easy targets. Its no coincidence that almost all of these mass shootings occur in them. You don't see them happening where there might be a law abiding concealed carry gun owner to stop the cowardly perp. You see them where children (and others) are made easy targets. So those of you who call for stricter gun control and who champion gun free zones, this is on you. As we see, the laws don't stop criminals, they only stop those who are law abiding citizens that might be able to thwart such an attack.

 

The bottom line is that we live in a more violent society, and mental health is a big issue. If you people were really concerned about the well being of your fellow Americans, you would be calling for the banning of automobiles. More people die due to autos than due to guns. Yes, most may be "accidents," but that just proves how dangerous vehicles are. Even when handled properly, they kill innocent people. Far more than firearms ever will.

[walksalone]

You want to stop gun crimes, don't bother your regular guy, start here...

 

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/07/17225824-americas-invincible-city-brought-to-its-knees-by-poverty-violence?chromedomain=rockcenter&lite