Gun Control

[Junior]

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.

 

What makes Americans inherently more violent than other first world countries around the world?

 

Mental health IS a big issue, I just wonder why we never heard a peep about it from the right until after Sandy Hook. I'll tell you one thing though, if you want to make a dent in the mental health problem, defunding federal and state programs that give "handouts" is not a good way to go about it. People like to pretend like these things aren't all interconnected, but they are. When you slash funding for childhood head start programs, health care funding for the poor, etc, you are adding to the issue.

 

My biggest question is what is it about guns? What is it about gun ownership that makes this THE most important thing to so many people? What is it about guns that makes so many law abiding, often Christian people, talk so eagerly, happily, and simplistically about killing another person?

[carlfense]

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.

Today's news:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/22/male-marine-reportedly-barricaded-after-shooting-1-person-at-marine-base/

[The Dude]

I was under the impression that military instillations have some of the most restrictive rules for the possession, transport, and carrying of personally-owned firearms in the country? Aren't they basically at the mercy of the response time of military police? Just as we would be for local police?

[walksalone]

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.

Today's news:

http://www.foxnews.c...at-marine-base/

 

Carl, that falls under the old adage, "Guns don't kill people, Husbands that come home early, do"

[74Hunter]

What makes Americans inherently more violent than other first world countries around the world?

Great question, but I can't answer that. Maybe because were are over medicated and coddled. Maybe it's because we have an entitled mentality. Everyone gets a participation trophy. Maybe because movies and video games (I believe that the Sandy Hook coward left a note talking about how he wanted to live out a video game moment, but I could be wrong) are more violent. Maybe because we are a melting pot, and since we except pretty much anyone here, there are racial issue. Maybe because of mostly unregulated immigration, many of the people crossing our borders are criminals themselves, thus more prone to breaking the law. I don't have the answer, but we certainly have a problem, and disarming law abiding citizens won't solve it.

 

My biggest question is what is it about guns? What is it about gun ownership that makes this THE most important thing to so many people?

It's what led this country to what it once was, and to this day keeps us safe. The 2nd Amendment. Without it, we really have nothing else, and history details this plainly.

 

 

What is it about guns that makes so many law abiding, often Christian people, talk so eagerly, happily, and simplistically about killing another person?

I call BS on this. No decent person (especially a Christian) wants to take the life of another. But sometimes you have to do what you don't want to do to protect yourself and your loved ones. Unfortunately it happens.

 

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.

Today's news:

http://www.foxnews.c...at-marine-base/

Almost a cool story, bro, but the article you link doesn't detail whether the area that the shooting occurred was a gun free zone (see below), nor does it fall under category of a mass shooting. 2 murders per day is a good, average day in Chicago, where firearm ownership is among the most restrictive of anywhere in the US.

[74Hunter]

I was under the impression that military instillations have some of the most restrictive rules for the possession, transport, and carrying of personally-owned firearms in the country? Aren't they basically at the mercy of the response time of military police? Just as we would be for local police?

I don't know about all military bases, but from the accounts I have read, the one in Texas where the mass shooting occurred, it was a "gun free zone." Which to me does not make any sort of sense. These people are supposed to be the trained in firearms, why in the hell would you have a gun free zone on a military base. It makes no sense.

[Junior]

What makes Americans inherently more violent than other first world countries around the world?

Great question, but I can't answer that. Maybe because were are over medicated and coddled. Maybe it's because we have an entitled mentality. Everyone gets a participation trophy. Maybe because movies and video games (I believe that the Sandy Hook coward left a note talking about how he wanted to live out a video game moment, but I could be wrong) are more violent. Maybe because we are a melting pot, and since we except pretty much anyone here, there are racial issue. Maybe because of mostly unregulated immigration, many of the people crossing our borders are criminals themselves, thus more prone to breaking the law. I don't have the answer, but we certainly have a problem, and disarming law abiding citizens won't solve it.

 

My biggest question is what is it about guns? What is it about gun ownership that makes this THE most important thing to so many people?

It's what led this country to what it once was, and to this day keeps us safe. The 2nd Amendment. Without it, we really have nothing else, and history details this plainly.

 

 

What is it about guns that makes so many law abiding, often Christian people, talk so eagerly, happily, and simplistically about killing another person?

I call BS on this. No decent person (especially a Christian) wants to take the life of another. But sometimes you have to do what you don't want to do to protect yourself and your loved ones. Unfortunately it happens.

 

 

Japan and the Netherlands have the highest rates of purchase of violent video games in the world. Now go look at their murder rates. Not even close to the US. So try again.

 

http://www.washingto...nd-gun-murders/

 

 

It’s true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.

 

I'm curious to hear the racial issues, because you throw around a lot of theories (with no evidence, mind you) about why Americans have more gun violence. But the one that is smacking you in the face, you ignore. The US has the most guns per capita of the entire world and lower rates of violent video game purchase than several countries that have far lower murder rates. So are American people inherently more violent than the rest of the world? Or is it the access to guns that causes the massive difference in gun related homicides. I'll give you a hint, I bolded the answer.

 

Do you have evidence that the 2nd amendment "keeps us safe" to this day? Keep you safe from what, exactly? What sort of evidence are you using to support that statement? Keeps you safe from invading armies? Great, if all we need are guns in every home, we can slash military spending and put that money to other things. Keeps you safe from robberies? Well, I have lots of rocks in my driveway and I've never had anyone rob me, so I guess have some robbery preventing rocks I can sell you.

 

Also, for the 1000th time, there is no regulated border between Chicago and the rest of the US. Local gun control laws are meaningless when you can drive less than 30 minutes and go purchase a gun in a neighboring city. Stop bringing up Chicago, it is a ridiculous argument.

[The Dude]

If access to guns is the problem, what makes one American city more violent than another? Why does a city like New Orleans have a murder rate which rivals a lot of cities in third world countries, yet Lincoln's murder rate is virtually non-existent by comparison? Is it just that much easier to buy a gun in those cities?

[Junior]

If access to guns is the problem, what makes one American city more violent than another? Why does a city like New Orleans have a murder rate which rivals a lot of cities in third world countries, yet Lincoln's murder rate is virtually non-existent by comparison? Is it just that much easier to buy a gun in those cities?

 

Ah, well, you bring up an excellent point about poverty rates. Certainly higher poverty areas are more prone to violence. You can find any one of thousands of studies that prove this point. Do you have a different theory in mind?

[BigRedBuster]

How did murder rates in the US in the 1930s compare to murder rates in the 1920s and 1940s?

[carlfense]

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.

Today's news:

http://www.foxnews.c...at-marine-base/

Almost a cool story, bro, but the article you link doesn't detail whether the area that the shooting occurred was a gun free zone (see below), nor does it fall under category of a mass shooting. 2 murders per day is a good, average day in Chicago, where firearm ownership is among the most restrictive of anywhere in the US.

It's all about the timing. You were saying that shootings generally happen where people other than the shooter don't have guns . . . and that very same day there was a double murder on a military base.

 

How about mass shootings where armed guards are on duty? Do you think that concealed carry is more of a deterrent than armed guards? If so, why? Is there any evidence backing this belief?

[BigRedBuster]

I find this graph very interesting but would love to know more about what the difference is between 1900 - 1934 and 1965 - 1994 (high murder rate) compared to 1935 - 1964 and 1995 - 2010 ( low murder rate).

 

LINK

[carlfense]

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not belittling the importance of controlling gun violence. But, from that graph, it appears that that is more of an issue that cars have become much more safe than an issue that a lot more people are dieing from guns.

 

Good job to the auto industry.

[Junior]

I'm not belittling the importance of controlling gun violence. But, from that graph, it appears that that is more of an issue that cars have become much more safe than an issue that a lot more people are dieing from guns.

 

Good job to the auto industry.

 

And do you think that the auto industry got their on their own? Or that seatbelt laws and federal safety requirements led them in that direction?