Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing about your point is, in order for it to stand, you have to be right every single time. But for your point to fail, you have to be wrong just one time.
No, it doesn't. At that point, it's no longer lawful is it? Carry license holders don't make a habit of shooting people. Why is everyone so afraid of a group of people who have been fingerprinted, checked against the GCIC, NICS, and more than a few lists, but not afraid enough of actual criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders with lengthy records, to allow us to do something about them? The background checks given to those law enforcement officers all of you want to come charging to the rescue while you cower in fear, aren't significantly more extensive, if any more extensive, than the checks run on license applicants! (I'm doing some research on this last point)
How does my lawfully holstered weapon affect you in any way shape or form?
It doesn't, and I don't mind if you carry a firearm. From what I can tell of you, I definitely don't think you should be prevented from doing so. But still, that doesn't mean we don't need a lot more, and a lot better gun control.
I don't think you would ever try to kill a president, either. That doesn't mean we don't need secret service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
No, it doesn't. At that point, it's no longer lawful is it? Carry license holders don't make a habit of shooting people. Why is everyone so afraid of a group of people who have been fingerprinted, checked against the GCIC, NICS, and more than a few lists, but not afraid enough of actual criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders with lengthy records, to allow us to do something about them? The background checks given to those law enforcement officers all of you want to come charging to the rescue while you cower in fear, aren't significantly more extensive, if any more extensive, than the checks run on license applicants! (I'm doing some research on this last point)
Yeah, but there are so many loopholes and workarounds in the whole background check system, that inherently hamper its ability to be effective. And also there's the biggest loophole of all, which is that any private individual can legally sell or gift a firearm to anyone else (except to convicted felons.) And none of it is ever really tracked.
What we need is a nationwide system of gun control, uniform across all 50 states and DC, that balances the constitutional individual right to own (certain types of) arms and carry arms (in otherwise not prohibited settings), with basic sanity, and public safety. Something comprehensive and a bit strict, but also reasonable and sensible.
First there should be a national licensing system, federal level, for anyone owning a firearm in any state, or using one in their profession. With a serious screening process, that weeds out any type of violent criminals, violent behaviors, racist or dangerous associations, and as much crazy or mental health problems as reasonably possible, and ensures the best we can that you are a mature, serious, responsible, grown up adult. And also that requires passage of a mandatory class on safety and handling and etc, and possibly passage of some kind of basic usage test (after practice) to ensure that the person can actually use the thing and hit a target.
That license would allow you (and only you) to own a firearm, carry a firearm, and purchase a firearm. With even tighter restriction depending on the class of gun, like how automatic it is, or the clip size. The guns would have to be purchased from federally licensed gun dealers (any other obtaining of a gun of any kind would be a serious criminal offense), and they would be registered to you. There would be certain laws on what you can do with your gun at home and how you must store it, especially when you have minors living at the household. Like, you can't clean your gun while it's loaded, or with kids in the room. Not exactly easily enforceable I admit, but still should be a crime in itself. In the same sense that DUI is a crime, even when no one gets hurt. It's endangerment.
If you don't want your gun anymore, you should be only legally trade it in to a licensed gun dealer. Can't lawfully give or sell a gun to anyone else, under any circumstances.
If you are caught carrying a gun where it's prohibited, or other type of rule violations, you lose your license for 5 years and have all your guns confiscated for that time period.
Yes, of course there would still be crime, underground markets, black markets out there. And just general law breaking and rules breaking. That's just inevitable. There is no way to totally prevent tragedies or get the policies exactly perfect, or enforce them perfectly or get everyone to always follow the law all the time, but, we could at least do a WHOLE lot better than now, and prevent a whole lot of nutty and mentally unstable or disturbed people or people deemed dangerously antisocial (or people whose live-in children might fit that description) from at least relatively easily or legally obtaining a deadly weapon. And just generally control, track, and manage guns a lot better. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that.
I've heard there are also emerging new technologies that could help out as well, like something that allows only the registered owner to fire the gun. I haven't read much into it.
Anyway, if we had such a gun control system, I'm sure that well meaning and law abiding people like you Matt, and plenty of other Georgians would still be perfectly allowed to carry. Because the rest of us could feel a bit more comfortable with it, at least knowing that the system is comprehensive and strict, and doesn't contain blaring and ridiculous loopholes.
If there's a massacre, then we look at each case, figure out what went wrong, and we act accordingly. We do our best as a society to address it, try to tighten up wherever the control was lacking.
So I'm not saying some simplistic or draconian, "let's ban guns". Even if there was't a clearly constitutionally protected right (which there is), it would not be a good fitting policy for such a large country as ours, on a mainland continent with large borders. Island nations and smaller nations like the U.K. and Japan are a different story. But I don't want to disarm you, I just want to disarm James Holmes and etc. At least as best as we can, with our policies.
Unless you mean as an unnecessarily expensive paperweight, those purposes all involve shooting, or the threat thereof. Thus our point that this would be the purpose of the technology and specific design that is a gun. As opposed to an automobile, where the clear design and purpose of the thing is for transportation.
No, it doesn't. At that point, it's no longer lawful is it? Carry license holders don't make a habit of shooting people. Why is everyone so afraid of a group of people who have been fingerprinted, checked against the GCIC, NICS, and more than a few lists, but not afraid enough of actual criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders with lengthy records, to allow us to do something about them? The background checks given to those law enforcement officers all of you want to come charging to the rescue while you cower in fear, aren't significantly more extensive, if any more extensive, than the checks run on license applicants! (I'm doing some research on this last point)
That is a complete dodge of the point I made. Go back and read it again.
No, it doesn't. At that point, it's no longer lawful is it? Carry license holders don't make a habit of shooting people. Why is everyone so afraid of a group of people who have been fingerprinted, checked against the GCIC, NICS, and more than a few lists, but not afraid enough of actual criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders with lengthy records, to allow us to do something about them? The background checks given to those law enforcement officers all of you want to come charging to the rescue while you cower in fear, aren't significantly more extensive, if any more extensive, than the checks run on license applicants! (I'm doing some research on this last point)
I am sure that there have been accidental shootings by licensed holders or by someone else (child, for instance) who happens to gain possession of the gun. I am sure, too, that license holders have had their guns stolen. It's not the licensed holder I worry about, it's the gun itself.
Besides, guns are often used for other purposes. Most of my gun owning friends use them for target shooting and as an emergency use only tool in their home. Killing and injuring another is not a primary reason for owning a weapon for those people, so it is hardly the "sole purpose" of those devices. Take your irrational rhetoric elsewhere, please.
Like most things it's about context. I've never heard anybody object to folks taking their guns to a shooting range.
Likewise, I can't see a problem with people keeping a firearm in the home, provided that it is 100% secure at all times. Unfortunately there are way too many incidents of people being careless with their guns and allowing a child or some other unauthorized person to have access to them.
However, it's an entirely different matter to bring your gun into a public place where you're putting other people at risk. People drop their guns out of their fanny packs, let them fall on the floor when they sit on the john, shoot through their own pants pockets and bras, get tangled up in their coats, forget they are loaded, discharge them while cleaning, show them off to friends, leave them where toddlers can grab them and open fire, etc., etc.
The only people who should be allowed to carry weapons in public places are those like myself who have great tactical training, lightning reflexes and the ability to always remain cool, calm and collected. Folks like me also have the judgment to make split second decisions about who is or is not a bad guy. We also follow the principles of safe handling and storage without exception.
I don't think you would ever try to kill a president, either. That doesn't mean we don't need secret service..
Even the secret service may not make that much difference. Look at Hinckley. He walked up to Reagan in broad daylight while he was literally surrounded by highly trained and heavily armed agents and shot 4 people, including the president.
It doesn't, and I don't mind if you carry a firearm. From what I can tell of you, I definitely don't think you should be prevented from doing so. But still, that doesn't mean we don't need a lot more, and a lot better gun control.
I don't think you would ever try to kill a president, either. That doesn't mean we don't need secret service.
Yeah, but there are so many loopholes and workarounds in the whole background check system, that inherently hamper its ability to be effective. And also there's the biggest loophole of all, which is that any private individual can legally sell or gift a firearm to anyone else (except to convicted felons.) And none of it is ever really tracked.
What we need is a nationwide system of gun control, uniform across all 50 states and DC, that balances the constitutional individual right to own (certain types of) arms and carry arms (in otherwise not prohibited settings), with basic sanity, and public safety. Something comprehensive and a bit strict, but also reasonable and sensible.
First there should be a national licensing system, federal level, for anyone owning a firearm in any state, or using one in their profession. With a serious screening process, that weeds out any type of violent criminals, violent behaviors, racist or dangerous associations, and as much crazy or mental health problems as reasonably possible, and ensures the best we can that you are a mature, serious, responsible, grown up adult. And also that requires passage of a mandatory class on safety and handling and etc, and possibly passage of some kind of basic usage test (after practice) to ensure that the person can actually use the thing and hit a target.
That license would allow you (and only you) to own a firearm, carry a firearm, and purchase a firearm. With even tighter restriction depending on the class of gun, like how automatic it is, or the clip size. The guns would have to be purchased from federally licensed gun dealers (any other obtaining of a gun of any kind would be a serious criminal offense), and they would be registered to you. There would be certain laws on what you can do with your gun at home and how you must store it, especially when you have minors living at the household. Like, you can't clean your gun while it's loaded, or with kids in the room. Not exactly easily enforceable I admit, but still should be a crime in itself. In the same sense that DUI is a crime, even when no one gets hurt. It's endangerment.
If you don't want your gun anymore, you should be only legally trade it in to a licensed gun dealer. Can't lawfully give or sell a gun to anyone else, under any circumstances.
If you are caught carrying a gun where it's prohibited, or other type of rule violations, you lose your license for 5 years and have all your guns confiscated for that time period.
Yes, of course there would still be crime, underground markets, black markets out there. And just general law breaking and rules breaking. That's just inevitable. There is no way to totally prevent tragedies or get the policies exactly perfect, or enforce them perfectly or get everyone to always follow the law all the time, but, we could at least do a WHOLE lot better than now, and prevent a whole lot of nutty and mentally unstable or disturbed people or people deemed dangerously antisocial (or people whose live-in children might fit that description) from at least relatively easily or legally obtaining a deadly weapon. And just generally control, track, and manage guns a lot better. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to do that.
I've heard there are also emerging new technologies that could help out as well, like something that allows only the registered owner to fire the gun. I haven't read much into it.
Anyway, if we had such a gun control system, I'm sure that well meaning and law abiding people like you Matt, and plenty of other Georgians would still be perfectly allowed to carry. Because the rest of us could feel a bit more comfortable with it, at least knowing that the system is comprehensive and strict, and doesn't contain blaring and ridiculous loopholes.
If there's a massacre, then we look at each case, figure out what went wrong, and we act accordingly. We do our best as a society to address it, try to tighten up wherever the control was lacking.
So I'm not saying some simplistic or draconian, "let's ban guns". Even if there was't a clearly constitutionally protected right (which there is), it would not be a good fitting policy for such a large country as ours, on a mainland continent with large borders. Island nations and smaller nations like the U.K. and Japan are a different story. But I don't want to disarm you, I just want to disarm James Holmes and etc. At least as best as we can, with our policies.
What do you propose to do with the existing 350 million weapons? You do know background checks are a complete joke, right? A felon can legally buy a gun from any gun store in any State of the US. Stores that sell parts anyway. How do you plan on checking what gets done in people's own homes? Door kickers Gestapo style? You think someone who doesn't like white people should be banned from owning a gun?
Newsboy said it well. The "bad guys" and "good guys" are not in separate vacuums. It's all related. A society obsessed with guns is going to have plenty of illegal ones everywhere. A society obsessed with guns is going to have plenty of gun violence.
I don't want that to be our reality anymore, or our future. I don't like that paranoid version of America. Firearms should be highly regulated and highly restricted. I'm not outright opposed to private ownership, but it just depends on the situation and context, as well as the type of weapon, and how it's being used.
And there should be much further limits when it comes to carrying weapons in public environments. "Disarm" is far from it, though. I think any guns at the university campus should be strapped to highly trained, licensed security professionals. Not unstable dimwitted racists who troll internet forums.
You mean, like people that are paranoid of someone legally carrying a gun.
ATLANTA (CBS46) -
A woman said she was hit in the finger by a bullet while driving in southwest Atlanta.
The incident occurred in the 100 block of Mount Zion Road SW.
According to a spokesperson with Atlanta police, the woman said she heard gunshots while driving when a round went through her windshield and hit her in the finger.
She was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital for treatment.
Copyright 2016 WGCL-TV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
