U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Funny those findings are. Generally, if you do the research yourself instead of relying on someone with an agenda bias, you will find that the places with the highest violent crime have the most restrictive gun control.

To use extremes, which if you are correct should bear out the thought that more guns = more crime/murder/deaths with guns, try comparing NYC with some of the most restrictive laws in the nation with Vermont which has the least restrictive gun laws. You will find that NYC, just one municipality in the state of NY dwarfs the entire state of Vermont.

LOL.. you're seriously comparing VT to NYC.. um.. NYC is extremely densley populated city..LOL.. so is D.C etc. You also have to look at the demographics of the populations ,etc. Crime in NYC has nothing to do with gun ownership restrictions in NYC ! You may actually have MORE crime in NYC if guns WERE easily legal.. LOL.


Its my opinion that anyone except the mentally ill that is fit to walk the streets should be free to own firearms. If one need fear a convicted felon he ought still be in prison.

Your opinion does not differ from mine! I said I wasn't for a ban.. I was for a psychological test added to the criteria needed to pass in order to gain a license to own a handgun ( and to think some states HAVE no licensing requirements). And..sorry.. I'd fear a convicted felon too.. people could change, yes..but most are repear offenders and should not be able to have a weapon and in many states they are not allowed to.

As far as the Uzi, its very telling that you would ban an item because of ONE tragedy which was caused by bad judgement. Other that the story you linked when was the last time an UZI was used in a crime to your knowledge? The truth is that in its full auto version its almost an impossible weapon to obtain. Why waste time with such a meaningless action as to ban something virtually never used in crime or by civilians period?


LOL>. um.. this one incident didn't push me to want to "ban" that weapon. BUt.. there are certain weapons that shouldn't exist for general population use anyway! IMO

Ahh, I would dissagree. If you have children & you have guns they should be taught at a young age how to use them. In this case perhaps the kid was too inexperienced. Had he been experienced he may have understood what he was about to do & decided against it.
My boys are 10 & 12 now & have been shooting since they were four years old.


Umm.. allowing an 8 year old to decide what they should and should not do when the father is standing there allowing him to do so? NO..the child did not have the upper body strength to handle the kick back of such a weapon and he lost control DESPITE the fact that the father AND the instructor were there with him. The adults in the room should have known better.. the child would only go along with what the parent was allowing. I'm sure my child would do many things that would lead to harm should I allow him to do so, even though when he did it previous when I wasn't looking (like jumping on the couch) he fell and got a boo boo. He'll still make the decision to jump on the couch because it's "fun" and "cool" to do so Children do not have the capacity to make such decisions..that's the parents job!

Thats untrue. On public streets yes, but on your own land or anothers private property a kid can drive as soon as they can drive if their parents teach them.

They can learn to drive in the driveway.. sure if you ahve acreage and the child wants to drive on it I suppose they could.. but still it's against the law for them to be operating a motor vehicle.. and it's not very smart IMO.

In the US its a federal law that kids under 18 cannot legally own or buy a gun. Under 21 they cant own or buy a handgun.
But they can shoot them, cant get a carry permit is all.

My children practice excelent gun control,
Whudda ya think?
IT's great your kids know how to respect a weapon. I don't think that is a bad thing. AGain.. I have cousins that are avid hunters, as they live in MT.

But again.. if there were a law in place with an age limit for children to actually handle guns (8 years old is awfully young) especially one with such a "kick" then that boy would still be alive. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure he knew about "gun safety" as did his father.. they were at a gun show after all..but the gun proved to be too much for him to handle, as he didn't have the upper body strength to control the weapons kickback.

 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
You're wrong. We have a right to travel, driving is a privilege. I don't agree with that but it's the way it is. Lots of case law on it. BTW, early steam powered automobiles did exist when the Constitution was written.

Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege. Can't be licensed as it is a right not a privilege. Felons don't have any rights technically speaking, though they can have their rights restored (the easiest route for gun rights, the others being executive pardons or having their criminal records sealed/expunged, going through the ATF, has been defunded by the Democrats in Congress since the 1990's so ATF can't process those applications currently). The greatest danger in my opinion to liberty is that we'll have so many laws passed and made a felony, we'll all lose our rights that way, but that's getting a bit off topic. Only those judged legally "insane" which means they're a danger to themselves or others, lose their gun rights for mental illness. Most mental illnesses do not make a person dangerous.

At age 16 in VT a kid can carry a firearm without parental consent, under 16 parental consent is needed. Has worked fine. Sticking the government's nose into every little detail of everyone's life never solves any problems, only creates more problems.

WEll considering that a lot of states have adopted a license requirement to carry a firearm, you are wrong that it can't be licensed.

as for VT ..glad they ateast took a step in the right direction as far as age requirements are concerned.

and.. IMO government creating age limits on a lot of things in society has helped.. including the age to drive, marry, give consent for sexual relations with an older individual, vote.. you name it.


Speaking of voting.. voting is a "right" granted by the constitution, yet we have an age restriction on that.. so it's not out of the norm or out of line to put one on the right to bear arms
 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:30 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,469,319 times
Reputation: 8410
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
WEll considering that a lot of states have adopted a license requirement to carry a firearm, you are wrong that it can't be licensed.

as for VT ..glad they ateast took a step in the right direction as far as age requirements are concerned.

and.. IMO government creating age limits on a lot of things in society has helped.. including the age to drive, marry, give consent for sexual relations with an older individual, vote.. you name it.


Speaking of voting.. voting is a "right" granted by the constitution, yet we have an age restriction on that.. so it's not out of the norm or out of line to put one on the right to bear arms
Wait until one of the upcoming incorporation cases comes before the SCOTUS. I suspect the first one up may be the one challenging CA's license law. Things are just beginning with Second Amendment challenges to state laws. The Civil Rights actions of the 50's and 60's took a little while too.

I think you missed my point: in VT, even a child could carry a gun, and with many pro-gun people in the state, it's more common than many might think.

The Constitution placed age limits on voting and holding offices, but it's very telling that they didn't on other rights.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:52 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,319,821 times
Reputation: 2558

Quote:
LOL.. you're seriously comparing VT to NYC.. um.. NYC is extremely densley populated city..LOL.. so is D.C etc. You also have to look at the demographics of the populations ,etc. Crime in NYC has nothing to do with gun ownership restrictions in NYC ! You may actually have MORE crime in NYC if guns WERE easily legal.. LOL.
I'm not the one that associates crime,violence & death with gun ownership. I would argue however that if their gun laws were more lax there would be less crime. History shows that. Gun control is a 20th century phenomenon. Pryor to the 20th century NYC was still a huge city, but violent crime was not as prevelant as it became in the 20th century after gun controls were put in place. It may have nothing to do with the increase in crime, but gun control certainly did not reduce it. What has reduced it is stricter penalties & more vigorous prosecution.




Quote:
Your opinion does not differ from mine! I said I wasn't for a ban.. I was for a psychological test added to the criteria needed to pass in order to gain a license to own a handgun ( and to think some states HAVE no licensing requirements). And..sorry.. I'd fear a convicted felon too.. people could change, yes..but most are repear offenders and should not be able to have a weapon and in many states they are not allowed to.
We differ, its no big deal & I certainly appreciate a respectful dialog. Its often hard to have one on this subject. Thank you.

Where we differ is I think a test is a violation of privacy. When I say a menally ill person I mean a person with an existing documented mental problem. Tests are tricky in that alot of shrinks will be biased against people who like guns. You see it right here with lay people. Folks who are not familiar with them often think that those of us that like them are whacko's.

On the felon part I think that if a person can be judged a threat they should not be let go. Perhaps a one year probationary period after which their rights were restored would be ok. I find the commoness of repeat offenders great reason to consider not letting people convicted of certain offences out of jail. If they cannot be trusted to walk among us with the freedoms we have they are not fit to walk among us. Pretty simple I know, but I like it that way.



Quote:
LOL>. um.. this one incident didn't push me to want to "ban" that weapon. BUt.. there are certain weapons that shouldn't exist for general population use anyway! IMO
Why? The very reason we have a right to own firearms is to preserve the ability to raise a viable military force if ever the need should arise. If it ever does happen we may be lamenting the day we made it so difficult to own true military arms as we try to fight with deer rifles against an enemy with God only knows what.


Quote:
Umm.. allowing an 8 year old to decide what they should and should not do when the father is standing there allowing him to do so? NO..the child did not have the upper body strength to handle the kick back of such a weapon and he lost control DESPITE the fact that the father AND the instructor were there with him. The adults in the room should have known better.. the child would only go along with what the parent was allowing. I'm sure my child would do many things that would lead to harm should I allow him to do so, even though when he did it previous when I wasn't looking (like jumping on the couch) he fell and got a boo boo. He'll still make the decision to jump on the couch because it's "fun" and "cool" to do so Children do not have the capacity to make such decisions..that's the parents job!
True, but if the kid died because Daddy let him drive his PT Cruiser would you blame the car? If there is fault here, & I think there is, it lies with the adults.



Quote:
They can learn to drive in the driveway.. sure if you ahve acreage and the child wants to drive on it I suppose they could.. but still it's against the law for them to be operating a motor vehicle.. and it's not very smart IMO.
Its not against the law for them to operate a motor vehicle. Its against the law for them to operate one on a public street. Just as its against the law for that boy to carry that Uzi, or any gun in public.





Quote:
But again.. if there were a law in place with an age limit for children to actually handle guns (8 years old is awfully young) especially one with such a "kick" then that boy would still be alive. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure he knew about "gun safety" as did his father.. they were at a gun show after all..but the gun proved to be too much for him to handle, as he didn't have the upper body strength to control the weapons kickback.
A restriction like you mention would be impossible to enforce. I guess the difference might be his dad got a fine or something but the kid would still be dead.

I just see a tragic accident that was easily avoidable. Just because they were at this place doesn't mean the kid or his dad were experienced shooters. I'd bet money my kids would not want to shoot an Uzi unless it had a butt stock, simply because they know what will happen when they squeeze the trigger. Only a person pretty ignorant about guns wouldn't be apprehensive about the controlability of a hand held sub machine gun on full auto.

What we have in place to avoid this sort of tragedy are very strict restrictions on who can buy & own one of these. An across the board age limit for handleing firearms is not needed, there are many guns that 8 year old could have used with no trouble at all.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Of course nothing is fool proof. Someone can and will get through.. does that mean that we don't try to put something in place to stop them?

Lets apply that logic to something else. There are terrorist out there that want to hurt our country. So, we have safety nets in place to try and "stop" them, but I"m sure some can and will get through. Does that mean that we stop all the safety things in place becasue one or two may get in? Of course not, because rather than one or two getting through you may have 10 or 20 getting through!

ANd.. mental capacity is the difference between having a bad thought and actually carrying OUT the bad thought! BTW
wow, you managed to contradict yourself. Yelling fire in a theater IS impending on someones life, liberty, and presuit of happiness, but so is putting undo restrictions on the second amendment.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I do know the difference great Day.. and when they are OF AGE.. then they have that RIGHT.. we all have right to be married, drink .. to drive.. we just have to wait to be of age to enjoy that right!! It can not be removed (the right) unless it is abused and used to harm others.

A criminal does not have the "right" to own a firearm..why? because he is a criminal who abused that right by using the firearm to hurt others.

The drunk driver lost their right to have a driver's license because he abused that right.

It's everyone's "right" to own a firearm.. and in order to excercise that right, they should be licensed to do so to protect others.. and in some cases themselves. Along with that should be an age requirement
where in our constitution does it put an age to where you have the rights outlined? All I see is unalienable rights. (from BIRTH)
 
Old 10-28-2008, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I do know the difference great Day.. and when they are OF AGE.. then they have that RIGHT.. we all have right to be married, drink .. to drive.. we just have to wait to be of age to enjoy that right!! It can not be removed (the right) unless it is abused and used to harm others.

A criminal does not have the "right" to own a firearm..why? because he is a criminal who abused that right by using the firearm to hurt others.

The drunk driver lost their right to have a driver's license because he abused that right.

It's everyone's "right" to own a firearm.. and in order to excercise that right, they should be licensed to do so to protect others.. and in some cases themselves. Along with that should be an age requirement k:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


by passing requirements, rules, regulations you are in a sense ignoring the end of our second amendment, these rules, regulations and requirements would be the infringement on that RIGHT.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post



OH.. so then I guess you feel that a felon has a "right" to own a gun? For that matter so do those with mental illnesses if they so choose to excercise their "right".

Just becasue something is a "right" does not mean there needs to be our shouldn't be regulation attatched with such a "right".

Driving a car is a right too..NOT a privledge. WE all have the right to be licensed drivers...jsut like we all have the right to own a firearm. Just because it wasn't mentioned in the constitution specifically doesnt mean it isn't a right (driving an automobile). After all they didn't HAVE auto's back when the constituation was written
there are restrictions that are outlined for people that commit a felony, they relinquish the rights when they commit a crime, they cannot own a firearm, they cannot vote, and quite a few more.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
wow, you managed to contradict yourself. Yelling fire in a theater IS impending on someones life, liberty, and presuit of happiness, but so is putting undo restrictions on the second amendment.

No.. the post was meant to illustrate that a right is NOT absolute.. that there are conditions of such rights..

By convicting the person screaming fire in a theatre it showed that a right to free speech stops when that free speech harms others in society.

Right to bear arms does the same thing. For example, removing that right of the felon to bear arms is a prime example.. because of the harm it causes or could cause society.

Again..Im NOT for banning weapons or allowing people to carry weapons.. I'm AM for adding a criteria to the already set licensing requirements in most states.. ex: psych tests. Our police officers must undergo psych tests before being admitted into the academy because they carry firearms constantly and the same criteria should be in place for civilians. (yes.. I am aware that there are other reasons for the psych tests to potential police officers). And also for age restrictions.

That is a BIG difference from banning all firearms and allowing anyone the right to bear them at all.
 
Old 10-28-2008, 07:20 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,469,319 times
Reputation: 8410
Quote:
Our police officers must undergo psych tests before being admitted into the academy because they carry firearms constantly and the same criteria should be in place for civilians. (yes.. I am aware that there are other reasons for the psych tests to potential police officers).
That they carry firearms is only a tiny part of why they undergo those tests. The big reasons are because of the authority they are given in their job, the situations they will be involved with, the stress, etc. Police are civilians BTW.

Quote:
By convicting the person screaming fire in a theatre it showed that a right to free speech stops when that free speech harms others in society.

Right to bear arms does the same thing. For example, removing that right of the felon to bear arms is a prime example.. because of the harm it causes or could cause society.
Shooting an innocent person harms them. Owning a machine gun, a child target shooting or hunting, carrying a gun, etc., harms no one. There are already laws against harming people with guns.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top