Gun Control in the USA

[Webers_Home]

Gunman control in the USA

.

I do support a ban on assault rifle. There is no practical reason for a civilian to own such a weapon

Federal courts routinely construe the US Constitution to mean things it doesn't say in writing. But anybody with even a grade-school command of the English language can easily see for themselves that the second amendment has nothing to do with personal defense and everything to do with homeland defense.

Keeping American citizens armed with privately owned firearms insures that many thousands of able-bodied men and women can be mustered, organized, and put into the field practically overnight to help repel an invasion of American soil; which in my judicious estimation is the best justification for keeping semi-automatic assault rifles in the hands of America's citizenry. Mr. Obama feels that Americans don't "need" a rifle designed for war; but that is exactly the kind of rifle that militias do need. I, for one, do not wish to face an invading army with a trap and skeet gun or a deer rifle. I'm sorry but in my armchair opinion; America's current commander in chief hasn't a clue what it means to be a patriot.

Something that's curious to me is that America's top law makers don't know what to do about the on-going proliferation of demented gunmen. They're literally desperate for viable ideas. They're very good at bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry; but totally inept at remedying America's social ills. Meanwhile; there's a fanatical element out there clamoring for an end to gun violence; but who out there is clamoring for an end to violent gunmen? Nobody; because so-called gun violence isn't really a gun problem; it's a gunman problem and the government hasn't a clue what to do about it; not even shrinks and therapists know what to do about it.

I am seriously alarmed at reports I've read about the number of demented shooters out there who have a history of psychotropic medication; which some were put on as early as kindergarten. And you know those shrieking fanatics out there with the placards? I would not be surprised if a number of them too are on one psychotropic medication or another.

You know, it's not the illegal drugs in my country that concern me; no, it's the legal ones that are making me nervous. America has become a drug culture in more ways than one and I honestly think we're beginning to see the long term effects of those legal drugs in the proliferation of male violence; not just with guns; but violence of all types. We should all be on Pennsylvania Ave with placards that read: Stop The Psychotropic Violence. But it would probably be futile since the pharmaceutical industry owns Washington; plus there are just too many people in America dependent upon those medications to put a stop to them now.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Vanguard]

Re: Gunman control in the USA

I am still waiting on Drew to acknowledge my posts and to cite his sources. I would very much like to check his statements against crime stats that the FBI keeps. Until then, I can only assume he is making them up (which would explain why he is dodging me). Until proven otherwise, he is speaking from an agenda, and pure drivel. Take what he says about this issue with a grain of salt.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: Gunman control in the USA

I am still waiting on Drew to acknowledge my posts and to cite his sources. I would very much like to check his statements against crime stats that the FBI keeps. Until then, I can only assume he is making them up (which would explain why he is dodging me). Until proven otherwise, he is speaking from an agenda, and pure drivel. Take what he says about this issue with a grain of salt.

Sorry to use this post to ask my question. Just used it because it was your last.

Do you have any knowledge of how victims of gun violence view gun control? The reason I ask is this. I am a victim, I was not shot. More than once I was threatened with a gun, point blank in my face, within inches, did I expect to die, yes, every time and yet I would never, ever support gun control.

 

[WIP]

People in Germany do not need guns to use against criminal with guns. Why is this? Because there are no "bad guys" in Germany? Of course not - there are as many bad guys there as in your country. It is because, for a number of reasons, that society has come up with a way of being that does not require people to have guns. And they are safer and happier as result

That's not the impression I got when I was in Germany. When they realized I was from the States, their conversation was always directed to gun ownership. They were fascinated by the fact that I could own guns and actually keep them in my home and use them when I wanted. In their words, "Hunting and gun ownership is a rich man's game." The cost and inconvenience of owning firearms in Germany has made it virtually impossible for the average citizen to even consider doing it. They were not happy about it at all. At least those that I met and talked to.

 

[WIP]

I would like to see the source for this information.

According to the Center for Disease Control, there were about 31,000 gun deaths in the USA in 2009. Are you telling us that more than 31,000 are killed with baseball bats in the US in a year? That's about 100 a day!

I am not saying I know better, but that sounds suspicious.

POSTSCRIPT: I have data that demonstrates that the claim is incorrect - gun death greatly outnumber baseball bat deaths, by a factor at least 5 to 1.

I love it when we skew statistics to our advantage. The truth about this is that 2/3 of those gun deaths in 2009 were suicide and not gun-related violence.

 

[Webers_Home]

Time to take the bull by the horns

.
I just finished watching a streaming video recording of the NRA's meeting with the press and actually had to take a breather a couple of times because I found myself choking up as Mr. Wayne LaPierre made it only too clear that demented gunmen are not going away; but that in reality, American society is even now energetically cultivating an on-going bumper crop of them.

The insanity won't stop because American society's way of life is producing mad men faster than either the cops, the courts, and/or the psychiatric professions can keep up with them; and sadly, bad guys with guns are getting away with murder because good guys with guns aren't shooting back at them-- and why not? Because schools and malls are no-gun locales. In other words; no-gun restrictions are a guarantee to deranged men that the location will present zero danger to themselves. No-gun venues are literally a carnival fun zone of sitting ducks for demented gunmen. Talk about more bang for the buck? Well; malls, schools, and multiplexes are the ultimate cat's meow.

Jesus once said that a strong man armed; keepeth his goods. Well; I can't help but think that a secure school staffed with armed security can accomplish the very same thing for America's children; but Mr. Obama has allotted little, if any, of his budget towards school security. Thus districts-- already pinching pennies to survive --will likely not implement card-lock doors and armed security in their schools unless the President mans-up and accepts his responsibility to provide for domestic tranquility because in case he hasn't noticed; Mr. Obama has a national emergency boiling over on his watch. He's sending billions of dollars out of the country in foreign aid while seemingly ignorant of the fact that his own country's children have become clay pigeons.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

Buen Camino
/

 

[phantom309]

I'm not an expert on guns. In my mind, a semi-automatic rifle is one where you pop in a cartridge and run off the clip in seconds.

Perhaps I can help here.

Maybe Im wrong but it seems like youre thinking more along the lines of a full auto.Fully automatic (FA from here out to be short) firearms are those in which you load a magazine, and all you have to do is hold down the trigger and try to stay on target (not an easy task even for military trained personnel due to the muzzle climbing into the sky due to recoil).The gun is ,as you said,emptied in seconds.There is already heavy restriction on these as they require a Federal Firearms License (FFL).To obtain one is very expensive,and requires months of paperwork in addition to heavy background checks and general hassle overall.Which is the main reason that we dont see more FA on the market,in addition to the fact that most people see no need to own one.

SA is basically loading a magazine and you only get 1 shot per pull of the trigger.A mag can still be dumped in a descent amount of time,but due to several factors..aiming,target acquisition,recoil,etc..the average shooter simply cant unload a mag in seconds and even a trained or experienced shooter will have difficulty doing so.Stress also factors in heavily.In tense situations people get jumpy and to keep it as simple as possible,good luck hitting anything.

That matter addressed,theres really not much true difference between an assault rifle and any other SA firearm other than the ominous sounding terminology.Assault rifles will have larger magazines,and the general body design of the gun built to withstand sustained fire,field deployment and environmental variables through the use of higher grade materials,workmanship and internal design of the parts.I could go on further,but for the sake of time Ill hope that will do for now.Ive even been told,but havent personally verified, that the true definition of an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon built to military/special specs.There are really no huge differences in my opinion other than the terminology.To those inexperienced with firearms I can see where this may lead to a negative stigma associated with that particular line of guns.It sounds much worse than it really is.

Why would I want them banned? I honestly think this is a better question posed the other way around, but I'll say this. In the hands of citizens, I can't believe there is any useful (and noble) purpose for them. I've seen video of people shooting targets like it's for sport. That's not a good enough reason to allow these weapons in the hands of people who might want to do more.

In the hands of citizens SA firearms are increasingly essential to the survival of violent conflicts with home invaders,carjackers and the like.Over time the tactics of the common criminal have evolved.Its becoming more common for criminals to operate in larger groups to overcome potential threats in their area of operation,which decreases the likelihood of self defense and even mere survival of the conflict.Home invasions typically take seconds.One kicks the door down and they all charge for separate areas of the house to subdue or kill the occupants which then leaves them free to take what they want or do what they will to the law abiding citizen within.Similar tactics are increasing for gas station robberies,carjackings,street robberies,rapes,etc.

The chances of these scenarios were once pretty low but as we see gangs growing larger,the economy struggling more and other such those statistics are rising in the favor of the criminal.Thus,we have 1of 2 choices in front of us.1 - Hope that well never see it come to pass in our homes and businesses and plan to rely on law enforcement if that need arises. 2 - Try our best to prepare for that possibility and plan to defend ourselves in such an event.For those who dont wish to play the part of the victim and desire to do what they can to protect the family a SA gun of any variety is the most effective means of doing so.Whether its 1 guy or multiple,you have less than a 50/50 chance of survival if youre limited to a bolt-action or non-semi mode of operation.Imagine for a moment a life literally hanging in the balance of whether you hit or miss with that 1 shot you have in the chamber.

Statistics are against survival in a 1 shot scenario.Stress,adrenaline jitters,a moving opponent,multiple aggressors,waking up to a confusing scene in the dark..pretty scary.Just speaking for myself I know the risks,have read the statistics,am familiar with criminal history in general and personally know people who have had to draw and fire on someone in their house to save themselves and/or family.There is no time cycle a bolt or open the chamber to insert a single round after every shot.I cannot stand the thought of my family and home being ravaged by some random guy whose motives and reasoning for being in my home uninvited are far less than noble.I want to give myself and family every fighting chance to continue in our lives and whatever Gods plan holds for us.

People say they are rarely used for assault. "If" this is true, this would be largely symbolic to separate society as a whole from the gangster image and mentality. I just cannot comprehend the thought process in the decision to allow them in the first place.

The statistics are against the "if" in this case.There are legal gun owners in the hundreds of thousands,and many of them possess assault rifles or other SA firearms.Look up the number of legally existing SA arms in this country.Now compare this to the number of illegal uses of a firearm.You can even go a step further and add both the lethal and non-lethal events into one number.Do the math here.The law-abiding,gun-toting numbers heavily outweigh the criminal majority.And this is without even weighing in and adding statistics for the number of lives that have been saved by armed civilian intervention.I really dont mean this next comment in a negative way,so try not to take it as such.There really seems to be some deliberate ignoring of these facts when it comes to guns.

As far as the rest I think its common sense that you-tube is the last place to look for an adequate representation of anything moral for the most part.But bear in mind that even these wanna-be cool you tubers who show off their guns at the range and do some pretty dumb stuff are doing so legally.Theyre at the range,not in the street.And alot ones you do find talking about matters more tactical are usually people with sensible approaches to common scenarios who possess law enforcement or military backgrounds.

To me, allowing high level weapons like this, is like liberal politicians raising taxes or starting entitlement programs. It's almost impossible to convince them to back them back down. The powers that be effectively created an entitlement mentality to these automatic weapons. If citizens were given the right to own small guided missiles, there would come a day when this is seen as an entitlement.

Really? I realize we all have our differences when it comes to gun ownership and individual responsibility but noone here has even advocated the use of anything close.Missiles are obviously off-limits to anything but military and the comparison between the 2 is obviously just an opinionated cut at those you disagree with.Noone here has even defended automatic weapons.This is the typical behavior that I normally see from anti-gunners that I cant understand.The deliberate overlooking of statistics and outcomes combined with this better-than-you attitude is what keeps both sides from being able to reach a sensible compromise and removes the ability to focus on the real issue.That issue isnt winning an argument or throwing down the gauntlet but the betterment of our country as a whole.

As for entitlement it is every mans God-given right to defend himself and family from harm.It just so happens that our founding fathers realized that and with many variables taken into consideration foresaw the need for future defense,while recognizing that firearms are the most capable tool for the provision of said defense.Noone here is interested in owning missiles,installing SAM sites on the roof or building machine gun nests in the backyard to cut down the first passerby.Be real.

 

[ezrider]

Let me first begin by stating that I do not own any guns, nor do I have a desire to own any guns. I put my full faith and trust in The Lord, and to me the scripture is clear: those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. In this there is no debate. When I listen to and read the differing opinions concerning gun control, especially in the light of massacres such as Sandy Hook, I think of the story in the book of Luke were Jesus asked if your ox or ass had fallen into the pit, which one of you would not go straightway and pull him out on the sabbath day? Like the beast in the pit, there is no one that denies that the beast is in the pit, but like gun control, they can't even bring themselves to agree whether the beast in the pit is an ass or an oxen, and so they do nothing to save the beast until it dies; and likewise there are others who don't really care what kind of beast it is, but the second amendment is the second amendment, just like sabbath is the sabbath, so we can do no work, so the beast remains in the pit and dies. Then there are those who have compassion on the beast, and would move heaven and hell to rescue that beast even if it were on the sabbath, only to find that those who would call themselves your brethren would accuse you of blasphemy against the law and ultimately crucify you for your beliefs.

Now, while I have no desire to own a weapon, I also have no desire to eliminate the rights of an individual to lawfully own them if that is their desire. There a numerous objective and reasonably justified arguments for stricter gun control, just as there are numbers and reasonably justified arguments for active gun rights: all that I would ask is for a higher sense of responsibility in guarding those particular rights. But I find that the guns rights activists and the NRA continue to deny any form of responsibility for the rights they wish to exercise, and in fact I was rather appalled by the statements issued by the NRA and their call for more guns in schools. Where is the responsibility in asking for a teacher who would wet her pants at the sight of a mouse to carry a fire arm in class? Demand that every school in the country have an armed guard on duty? With nearly 140,000 schools in this country, with an estimated cost at $100,000 per year per school for just one armed guard, that is at a minimum a cost of $14 Billion a year. Whose going to pay that cost? The NRA? Didn't we just go through a political season where those who would now advocate for armed guards at all schools also wanted to eliminate federal funding for all schools?

Can anybody truthfully and honestly say that more guns in the hands of irresponsible citizens is a solution to the senseless violence that pervades our society? When much of the gun culture and many of the gun advocates display an unseemly amount of paranoia, especially toward the government, and while others who are appalled with gun violence at all levels, including the real or perceived excessive use of force by the police in many cities throughout this country, because of a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later Dirty Harry mentality; are more police or more armed guards really going to instill confidence in a distrustful public that they can act responsibly and control themselves as well as the situation? There is a perception that having a fire arm in ones possession can create a false sense of bravado, and can make a warrior out of a simple coward. So what happens if you do shoot someone? Are you ready to deal with all of the unmeasured consequences for shooting a suspect? Would you be ready for the media scrutiny and the legal implications that would surely result after you kill someone? How may cops, trained professionals at that, have to go through some sort psychological counseling after they shoot someone or kill someone for the first time?

I don't think that there is anybody who would make the claim that any single law or gun control measure will solve the pervasive gun violence in our society, but that is no reason not to put in place any measures that could lessen the odds or the impact of mass shootings. The second amendment may grant citizens the right to bear arms, but it also implies the governments ability to regulate gun laws within the well regulated militia clause; and the beauty of our constitutional form of government of "we the people" is that we reserve the right to impose these regulations on ourselves to the society as a whole. We are not ruled by some ethereal dictator, we are ruled by a consensus of the governed. And so it remains within our power to find a means to limit the amount of gun violence within our society.

Now every one has heard the saying that guns don't kill people, and that is true: it is the bullet that does the damage. A gun without ammunition is simply a bludgeon tool and no more effective than a claw hammer. So to me, it is not about the type of gun, or the size of the magazine, but rather the accessibility to the ammunition. So here is my proposal to lower the amount of gun violence. It doesn't require people turning in their weapons. It doesn't limit the type of guns a person is allowed to own. It would hinder the capacity for criminal acts with guns. And it would establish a sense of responsibility that the gun community would begin policing its' own.

First off, I would require that all gun owners must declare and register all of their guns every 5 years, at which time they must attend a gun safety course, a general interview session, and then demonstrate their proficiency with the guns that they own. If they can't demonstrate a certain level of proficiency, then they would lose their licensed registration for that gun. This would insure that mentally imbalanced individuals can be screened out regularly instead of a singular background check, especially if they have had a psychotic breakdown sometime after they have purchased their weapon. It would also demonstrate that those who own guns are responsible and certified to use them.

Secondly, the gun owner would have to carry their license that lists all of the types of guns that are registered to them and that they are qualified to use. They would have to show their license in order to purchase ammunition, and would only be able to buy ammunition for the guns that are certified on there license. No license, then no ammunition. If a gun is stolen or bought on the black market, then with out a license they can no longer just stroll into a Big 5, Dickie's, Walmart, Bass Pro shops, or where ever, and just indiscriminately purchase ammunition.

The NRA, gun clubs and shooting ranges across this country could work in concert with law enforcement to manage and service these licensing and certification requirements, and help provide a more responsible gun ownership community within our greater society.

 

[phantom309]

Let me first begin by stating that I do not own any guns, nor do I have a desire to own any guns. I put my full faith and trust in The Lord, and to me the scripture is clear: those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. In this there is no debate. When I listen to and read the differing opinions concerning gun control, especially in the light of massacres such as Sandy Hook, I think of the story in the book of Luke were Jesus asked if your ox or ass had fallen into the pit, which one of you would not go straightway and pull him out on the sabbath day? Like the beast in the pit, there is no one that denies that the beast is in the pit, but like gun control, they can't even bring themselves to agree whether the beast in the pit is an ass or an oxen, and so they do nothing to save the beast until it dies; and likewise there are others who don't really care what kind of beast it is, but the second amendment is the second amendment, just like sabbath is the sabbath, so we can do no work, so the beast remains in the pit and dies. Then there are those who have compassion on the beast, and would move heaven and hell to rescue that beast even if it were on the sabbath, only to find that those who would call themselves your brethren would accuse you of blasphemy against the law and ultimately crucify you for your beliefs.

Indeed,those who live by the sword die by the sword,but youre applying the proper context to the wrong people.The armed criminals who we wish to defend ourselves against with arms of our own are the ones who live by the sword.They are the ones committing murders,doing the drive-bys,participating in armed robberies and invading homes at gunpoint.If you choose not to arm yourself or protect your family if/when that time comes then by all means act on what you think is best.But it makes no sense to criticize those who have the courage to stand up to criminals who would do their family harm,or protect their lives if they were in danger.Us protecting our families with guns is in no way different than you calling the police who are armed with the same,if not better,firearms.

As for your analogy of the beast in the pit I think you might benefit from a re-examination of who the beast in the pit is.That beast is not only the children we lost,but the multitude of other citizens who are victimized every day through the growing number of criminals and the under-equipped and over-legislated population of average joes.It could also be stated that by advocating a ban that would remove this capability,that you are the one refusing to help the beast and in a very direct manner contributing to its suffering.We all thank the military for doing what they do overseas,and noone here would remove the police from our streets who all carry guns and are forced to use them daily.Why,then,is the common man repeatedly demonized for his desire to protect his family and be prepared to do so with similar equipment?I have seen nothing in the bible that suggests I would be morally deficient for defending myself or family from a criminal(s) in a violent encounter.It sounds then as if you,sir, are the one accusing gun supporters of blasphemy while we attempt to move heaven and hell to protect and defend whats ours.

Further,if we truly want to help the beast in the pit why are we not focusing on the true problems in society.The number of alcohol-related deaths in this country alone are staggering.Drinking and driving is not the only culprit here,as it is often involved domestic battery,arguments that spill over into blood and reckless actions that contribute directly or indirectly to deaths.Worldwide the estimated toll claims more victims than AIDS,TB or violence.Why then are we not advocating another prohibition?We see how well that worked.Drugs claim their toll on our citizens and children.Where is the legislation against this atrocity?My bad,its already there.Strangely enough,the number of dealers and addicts keep growing despite the fact.Its funny how we choose to move heaven and hell against the things we dont like,all the while ignoring the elephant in the room which causes more deaths,suffering and problems than the mouse were chasing in the corner.

But I find that the guns rights activists and the NRA continue to deny any form of responsibility for the rights they wish to exercise, and in fact I was rather appalled by the statements issued by the NRA and their call for more guns in schools. Where is the responsibility in asking for a teacher who would wet her pants at the sight of a mouse to carry a fire arm in class? Demand that every school in the country have an armed guard on duty? With nearly 140,000 schools in this country, with an estimated cost at $100,000 per year per school for just one armed guard, that is at a minimum a cost of $14 Billion a year. Whose going to pay that cost? The NRA? Didn't we just go through a political season where those who would now advocate for armed guards at all schools also wanted to eliminate federal funding for all schools?

Oh really?Thats a rather foolish claim,every bit of it.Several gun supporters have spoken here and we have all testified to the fact that the responsibility needs to be upheld.I uphold my responsibility through moral refusal to commit a crime with the guns I own.I also support much stiffer penalties for the criminals who refuse to play by the rules,namely immediate capital punishment for those justly convicted of any murder (gun involved or not),child molesters and other applicable offenders.I seem to find that anti-gunners have the delusional outlook that banning guns and ammo will make them magically disappear from the streets,as if they cant be imported through black market means..just like the drugs that were sought to be controlled through legislation and are still here.

As far as teachers carrying guns,why not?Not all teachers or women are as incapably helpless and/or fearful as you paint them to be.I recall quite a few teachers going through school that if allowed would gladly have done so,and come to the defense of the children if need be.Would you demonize them too if they chose to act?Which is it here,call them cowards or killers?

I would also like to see where this estimate of 100k/year for 1 armed security operative per school comes from.Many of the schools in my area have a sheriffs deputy or PD assigned to that school,armed.I know full well that none of these guys even make half of that in a year,and most normal armed security make even less.Were discussing people who normally work 2-3 jobs or regularly pick up extra shifts and details just to make it above water.So I really dont see where this 100k cost is figured.Even if it were,I thought that we were trying to move heaven and hell to save the beast?Why should we be worried about cost if the cause is that noble?I guarantee it could be done if the money were allocated more efficiently and the proper things trimmed away,but that is an age-old problem will never be solved until the second coming.I also have full faith that if called on there are multiple military vets or other willing citizens who would be glad to fulfill this role,even for minimum wage and some who would do it for free.

Can anybody truthfully and honestly say that more guns in the hands of irresponsible citizens is a solution to the senseless violence that pervades our society? When much of the gun culture and many of the gun advocates display an unseemly amount of paranoia, especially toward the government, and while others who are appalled with gun violence at all levels, including the real or perceived excessive use of force by the police in many cities throughout this country, because of a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later Dirty Harry mentality; are more police or more armed guards really going to instill confidence in a distrustful public that they can act responsibly and control themselves as well as the situation? There is a perception that having a fire arm in ones possession can create a false sense of bravado, and can make a warrior out of a simple coward.

This gets more ridiculous with every paragraph.Here you go so far as to issue an obvious blanket statement that we have no responsible citizens or none at least in your eyes.Here again you repeatedly ignore statistics,history and simple fact to make your case against the absolute evils of owning a firearm and the willingness to brandish it against a criminal willing to do physical harm.If the citizens are irresponsible conspiracy theorists,and the police corrupt and bloodthirsty who then would you have hold the criminals in check?Go ahead and share that point of view with the responding officer the next time you need on or happen to spot one on patrol.What distorted reality do you live in that makes it acceptable for police and civilians to lay down arms and stand idly by while the criminals run through our streets?The more you speak on the matter the more ridiculous the claims become.At this point it is painfully obvious that based on personal preference alone,you consider anyone with the courage to pick up arms and defend the people around them to be villains,killers and totally irresponsible.Talk about leaving the ox in the well.

Further,noone here ever said owning a gun would make you an instant hero.This is yet another foolish rant,completely from left field.None of us claim to be heroes or compare ourselves to Rambo.We simply acknowledge the present threat of a growing criminal population coupled with the fact that this very group continues to better arm themselves,thus aiding in the crimes they commit.People suffer daily due to this and some of us have decided not to play the part of the helpless victim.You claim us to be paranoid,but were not here issuing names or insults because you decide not to arm yourself..all of that typically comes from the anti-gunners interestingly enough.Interested in peace?Try showing it.

So what happens if you do shoot someone? Are you ready to deal with all of the unmeasured consequences for shooting a suspect? Would you be ready for the media scrutiny and the legal implications that would surely result after you kill someone? How may cops, trained professionals at that, have to go through some sort psychological counseling after they shoot someone or kill someone for the first time?

You make this out as if any of us are wanting to live through this scenario.I dont ever want to pull a gun,much less the trigger.But if someone enters my home with the intent of harming my wife or stepdaughter then dont think for a minute I would hesitate.Ill deal with remorse later.I could care less what you,the media or any politician thinks of me afterwards.In a state with home defense laws there would be no legal implications in a clear cut case of defense.The better question would be how would any man feel if he were to survive a scenario in which his wife or children died and he was unable to do anything to stop it?Most of you likely wouldnt admit it,but if a gun appeared on the table in front of you during such a struggle you wouldnt debate it for any longer than I would.It is a hard-wired response to defend those you love,even when others around you would paint you as the villain for doing so,and despite any possible consequences.

 

[phantom309]

The second amendment may grant citizens the right to bear arms, but it also implies the governments ability to regulate gun laws within the well regulated militia clause; and the beauty of our constitutional form of government of "we the people" is that we reserve the right to impose these regulations on ourselves to the society as a whole. We are not ruled by some ethereal dictator, we are ruled by a consensus of the governed. And so it remains within our power to find a means to limit the amount of gun violence within our society.

Now every one has heard the saying that guns don't kill people, and that is true: it is the bullet that does the damage. A gun without ammunition is simply a bludgeon tool and no more effective than a claw hammer. So to me, it is not about the type of gun, or the size of the magazine, but rather the accessibility to the ammunition. So here is my proposal to lower the amount of gun violence. It doesn't require people turning in their weapons. It doesn't limit the type of guns a person is allowed to own. It would hinder the capacity for criminal acts with guns. And it would establish a sense of responsibility that the gun community would begin policing its' own.

First off, I would require that all gun owners must declare and register all of their guns every 5 years, at which time they must attend a gun safety course, a general interview session, and then demonstrate their proficiency with the guns that they own. If they can't demonstrate a certain level of proficiency, then they would lose their licensed registration for that gun. This would insure that mentally imbalanced individuals can be screened out regularly instead of a singular background check, especially if they have had a psychotic breakdown sometime after they have purchased their weapon. It would also demonstrate that those who own guns are responsible and certified to use them.

Now we start to get back to something sensible,and possible solutions to a mutually recognized problem.If it supported continued ownership I would have no problem declaring and registering every gun I own and applying for periodic renewal.If Im not out committing crimes I have nothing to fear,and if certain things pop up on record I would fully support a confiscation visitation by the boys in blue.No problem,this is just sensible stewardship,and would probably even generate some extra revenue for the state from eager owners.Many would benefit from gun safety classes,but there would be no need in proficiency displays,as gun safety classes already require active participation and demonstration from those enrolled.Maintaining legal records and safety training is one thing,but an interview and further display of each individual firearm in my opinion is simply overburdening a person who has already displayed through legal process,criminal record check and basic safety demonstration along with the necessary fees that hes fit to function.Again,its not the average joe who is out doing dirt,but ones who wont be in the safety classes and wont be registering the sawed-off 12 gauge thats already illegal by current standards.

Secondly, the gun owner would have to carry their license that lists all of the types of guns that are registered to them and that they are qualified to use. They would have to show their license in order to purchase ammunition, and would only be able to buy ammunition for the guns that are certified on there license. No license, then no ammunition. If a gun is stolen or bought on the black market, then with out a license they can no longer just stroll into a Big 5, Dickie's, Walmart, Bass Pro shops, or where ever, and just indiscriminately purchase ammunition.

Ammo control would actually be easier than you suggest.No license,no ammo..period.If you qualify for ownership,then you qualify.A feasible separation would be handgun,shotgun or rifle ammo but as many firearms use the same calibers it is amusing to call for purchase rights to be limited by individual gun.It just doesnt work that way.

To that end,before calling for legislation on something take the time to educate yourself.I seriously dont mean that in a derisive manner,but people with little to no experience with firearms are not the most suitable to write the laws concerning that which they are inexperienced with.It would be like me having never seen a snowmobile,and seeking to write detailed legislation on snowmobiles after a rash of accidents.We see these knee-jerk,uninformed responses way too often,and Im not focusing on firearms there..its a widespread issue.

The NRA, gun clubs and shooting ranges across this country could work in concert with law enforcement to manage and service these licensing and certification requirements, and help provide a more responsible gun ownership community within our greater society.

Again,please educate yourself before assuming you know better.The NRA,gun clubs and ranges already do this.The NRA has always encourages hunter safety or basic firearm safety classes,and continue to steer their members towards positive interaction with firearms.Safety at the range,safety in the woods and safety in the home are stressed and regularly discussed.Concealed carry permits are highly encouraged by law enforcement,range and NRA reps for multiple reasons.Not only does it show an officer that you have the legal licensing allowable by additional background checks,but safety ad other such as well.Once more,look at the numbers,the cold hard facts.The vast majority of gun owners are doing so with great responsibility,restraint and good sensibility.This is proven by simply looking at how many legal gun owners we have as opposed to the number of criminal usages of firearms per year.Stop ignoring whats in front of you,and give credit where credit is due.Punish the criminal,rather than make it harder for the common man to defend himself against said criminal.

 

[Sparkey]

According to Bloomberg Businessweek
Article: "Gun Control Steps We Can Take"

In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. emptied many state mental hospitals because they provided dreadful care or none at all. We didn’t follow through on the promised community-based treatment. As a result, we created a de-facto policy of waiting until seriously mentally ill people commit crimes and then consigning them to prison. Over the past half-century, the number of psychiatric beds in the U.S. has decreased to 43,000 from 559,000, even as the overall population increased, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va.

At both the federal and state level, there are numerous agencies with mental health information that has not been entered into the background-check system.

Fixing background checks is worth doing. It would deter some criminals, and the imposition on Second Amendment rights would be slight. To sell a gun to a neighbor, the owner could be required to conduct the transaction via a local licensed dealer (with their FFL, a Federal Firearms Transfer agent), who, for a modest fee, would run the computerized check. I've previously posted that approximately 40% of all gun sales are not subject to background checks. The only requirement placed on a private individual seller is that they can not knowingly sell to buyers who are prohibited from owning guns. But they don't even have to ask. We need background checks. Strengthen existing laws and give them teeth so that violators who profit from selling without background checks are subject to long term jail sentences and major fines.

Additionally, require mental health information to be entered into a Federal database for all the mentally ill who are deemed dangerous -- as well as requiring the sale and/or transfer of any weapon to comply with background-check searches would not hinder any law-abiding citizen's right to protect themselves. It would help accomplish our mutual goals and make it harder for criminals and the dangerous mentally ill to get guns.

One of the most troubling observations I’ve encountered since Newtown came from Dr. Carl Bell, a psychiatrist and professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Shortly after the massacre, Bell and I appeared as guests on the National Public Radio program Tell Me More. The soft-spoken academic interrupted the conversation about the nuances of gun control to point out that random mass shootings are typically suicides augmented with multiple murders as a way of dramatizing the shooter’s pain and self-hatred.

Copious amounts of research show that media publicity of suicides leads to copy-cat crimes. “It seems to me,†the professor politely interjected, “that the more we report that this sort of assault weapon was used, that this person had this kind of bulletproof vest, that this person entered the school this way—that gives other people who are depressed and suicidal and want to take a whole bunch of people with them the knowledge on how to pull it off.†The media, Bell said, should self-censor their sensational, detailed coverage of mass shootings.

Paul M. Barrett for Bloomberg: Gun Control Steps that We Can Take. December 20, 2012

 

[Drew]

Is the ‘if they are going to kill, they will kill’ and excuse to make it easy for them?

The argument that if you take away the guns, those with evil intent will always find another means to act is clearly a question-begging oversimplification.

One cannot simply assume this - it is clearly possible that if you take away the gun, the bad guy may not be willing to go to the trouble of finding another means. Common sense suggests that it is a lot easier to act on an impulse of rage with a gun than, say, with a knife. Its hard to kill someone with a knife - the gun makes murder quite easy.

 

[WIP]

the gun makes murder quite easy.

Why? What I'm referring to is the part about it being "easy" to take a life. Sounds like a cultural problem to me.

 

[Sparkey]

George Washington spoke of firearms as the "teeth of liberty".
Those who lack understanding will be seen as the shepherd who, before abandoning the flock, pulled the teeth of the sheepdog.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

Making criminals of law-abiding citizens will not prevent crime.

 

[Sparkey]

Thomas Jefferson quoted 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Our government was founded on its trust of the people.

 

[Sparkey]

James Madison wrote of the Trust that the government of the United States of America has in its people:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

The 'militia' is the people.

 

[Sparkey]

George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights) spoke of who the 'militia' is:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."

The founding fathers supported private self defense.

 

[Knotical]

Looks like we are at the point in our country where our government is afraid of an armed citizenry. Not that I can blame them. Just look at what happened in Egypt and Lybia.

 

[Sparkey]

John Adams wrote:

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."

But how shall we interpret the Constitution for today? Recall that George Washington said [the right of citizens to possess] firearms is second only to the Constitution. Should we consider "ancient history" when we seek to cure the ills of modern society?

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

 

[Drew]

Why? What I'm referring to is the part about it being "easy" to take a life. Sounds like a cultural problem to me.

My point was that it a gun only demands one little thing of you - squeezing a trigger. Its' much harder to kill someone with a knife, or a baseball bat - you have to get right up close. This difference almost certainly is important in many cases.

Let's be clear about something: Yes there are lots of "problems" over and above how "easy" a gun is to use to end a life. But that does not, obviously, mean that the gun itself is not part of the problem, and that we should not do something about them. To the extent that the gun makes it easy for the other factors - mental illness, video games, etc. - to be realized in actuality.

There is a veritable cornucopia of bad pro-gun arguments going around - some from people like Wayne Lapierre who certainly should know better. One of these bad arguments is this idea that the presence of other factors means that the ready availability of guns is not a problem.