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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2008, 04:51 PM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,183,620 times
Reputation: 2992

Advertisements

I am opposed to gun bans in general. I do not consider them effective as criminals will get them one way or another. We can see how well "banning" drugs did at stopping people from using drugs. The effect will be the average citizen who wants to arm themselves for protection will lose that ability, while the criminals who caused the gun ban to begin with will simply create a huge, elaborate black market to buy and sell guns, just like the illegal drug market. And with the explosion of huge black markets comes an explosion in associated violence. Can you imagine the wars of gun kingpins fighting over turf?

 
Old 09-09-2008, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,075,396 times
Reputation: 6183
Banning guns is not the issue. We should be able to get some 'control' through mandatory classes and backbround checks.

The reason I started this was because of a foster child's death. The young teenager hated the little boy. He knew where his dad kept the unsecured guns and ammuntion. The rest is history. The shooter is a guest of the state.. The foster home is dissolved. The shooter's siblings were removed by the state. The parents are divorced and are facing some kind of charges.

When child services was questions, the reply was incipid. "We live in an area where hunting is popular. We can't expect a hunter to give up his guns"

OH PULEEEEZE, GIVE ME A BREAK !!!!!

Why can't a STATE demand that guns in a foster home be LOCKED UP:??? Or why can't a STATE refuse to place any child in any home where guns are present?

I swear the only place I can find a good dose of common sense is here in the C-D forums. Now if we could only bottle it and add it in the congressional watering holes, maybe we'd have some smarter politicians and better laws.

Maybe.. but that is a subject for another time.
 
Old 09-09-2008, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx View Post
Banning guns is not the issue. We should be able to get some 'control' through mandatory classes and backbround checks.

The reason I started this was because of a foster child's death. The young teenager hated the little boy. He knew where his dad kept the unsecured guns and ammuntion. The rest is history. The shooter is a guest of the state.. The foster home is dissolved. The shooter's siblings were removed by the state. The parents are divorced and are facing some kind of charges.

When child services was questions, the reply was incipid. "We live in an area where hunting is popular. We can't expect a hunter to give up his guns"

OH PULEEEEZE, GIVE ME A BREAK !!!!!

Why can't a STATE demand that guns in a foster home be LOCKED UP:??? Or why can't a STATE refuse to place any child in any home where guns are present?

I swear the only place I can find a good dose of common sense is here in the C-D forums. Now if we could only bottle it and add it in the congressional watering holes, maybe we'd have some smarter politicians and better laws.

Maybe.. but that is a subject for another time.
Hey..

I said it in my other posts..

but when you have a baby they make you take classes about shaken baby syndrome (well they make you sign that you watched the hospital movie about it with your spouse) and they check to make sure you ahve the proper car seat to take the child home. I'm all for both of these, btw.

So...shouldn't they make sure that all gun owners also own a proper lock box.. especially when there are kids present

Even if your kid knows about guns.. friends and guest do not. It is just good common sense to lock your guns so that they can't get into the hands of those that shouldn't have them. PERIOD.

The story above is EXACTLY why there needs to be more control over gun ownership....
 
Old 09-09-2008, 06:36 PM
 
37 posts, read 57,843 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi View Post
Because depending on how severe the gun control laws implemented were, we might end up like Britain or Australia where it's very difficult for a normal citizen to own a firearm.
I personally think America could do with adopting Australian or British laws.
Australia brought in the law that all Semi- automatic & automatic weapons were to be surrender & destroyed & then banned completely after the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania. Once upon a time it was quite easy to possess a fire arm in Australia but after this they reviewed their laws & looked in to the the tests that people have to undertake in order to obtain a gun license.

I am not sure whether they do this or not, but I personally believe that anyone looking to own a gun should also be required to undertake a psych evaluation & if there is any history of mental illness, depression or criminal activity then they should be immediately denied that right.

I understand there is a certain requirement to possess a firearm especially on country properties, farms etc as a protection method from wild animals be it for you or for your own animals, livestock etc. For smaller animals you can invest in traps as a pest control method. However these people should only be allowed to possess a set number of firearms (don't quote me on this, but I think this is also an Australian law) & only a specific type (e.g. rifle) & they should be only for their intended purpose.

I also believe the access to the purchasing of firearms should be limited also. In all honesty I have no idea where you would even purchase a gun from, but I know you can't just walk in to your local Walmart or convenience store & pick one up at your leisure. The same with ammunition. Maybe even by limiting it to having to guy to your local police station to acquire firearms & ammunition. This way they can control the amount of firearms & ammunition issued to a person & in the mean time gain information on the purpose & only provide a set amount of ammunition for the sole purpose it is required for & then they can also monitor the amount & time periods that ammunition is purchased. They would also have easier access to files on who can & cannot posses firearms.

I also understand that there will still be a number of unregistered illegal firearms, but if there was added security on what comes in & out of the country this could be limited & eventually completely controlled. Again once they banished all semi automatic & automatic weapons & then re-evaluated all registered owners & depending on the outcome made them surrender their weapon or keep a select amount of weapons then they could then raid the neighborhoods or houses that they suspect may possess an illegal firearm. There could also be a neighborhood watch or some sort of anonymous operation put in place with a number to call if you suspect someone you know possess an illegal firearm that you could then put in a call & have them checked out.

I know it seems like a lot to put in place but these things would certainly lower the crime/ unnecessary death rate.

I also know in Australia they remove toy guns from show bags etc so kids are not misusing them & seeing them as a toy. I personally think that all forms of toy guns should be banished so as not to misinform children into thinking guns are a play thing. Especially with some toy guns having such a realistic look to them. What happens if the child's mummy or daddy owned a real gun that looked like his toy one & he picked up the real one by mistake one day? I always remember that young boy who pointed a toy gun at a cop car as it went past one day & the cops thought it was a real gun & shot & killed the child. I can't remember where & when it happened but I do remember it happening.

Quote:
This is not a gun control problem, this is a social problem. It's not because guns are available that young people kill each other. It's because of economic problems and familial problems. Lack of good, solid parenting (and it doesn't have to be a two-parent traditional family to provide this). Lack of good jobs and activities available to teens and young adults. I could go on and on. It's not the guns that are causing problems, it's how these kids are being raised. Take away the guns, and these kids will still have lousy parents, and the kids will find some other way to commit violence on each other. Killing doesn't require a firearm.
I believe it is both. The first step is gun control. Yes there is still going to be crime & violence people seem to find a weapon in most things these days, but it can extend the time you have to get help or for law enforcements to control the situation.
For example if someone decides to go on a rampage & massacre another school think of the amount of lives that would be spared if s/he was limited to a firearm where s/he has to stop & reload after each time s/he fired the gun compared to an automatic or even semi automatic weapon. In that time law enforcements can be contacted people have time to evacuate & there may even be time for guilt to kick in or some sort of oh crap maybe I am hurting innocent people instead of just the ones I am pissed at which may also buy time.
 
Old 09-09-2008, 07:13 PM
 
37 posts, read 57,843 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hungry For Cheese View Post
IF we taught our children a bit better and spent more time...then, we wouldn't need all these laws and BS.

But...we send our kids off to a public school all day, slave away at our "jobs" and occasionally spend time on the weekends if we're lucky. Laws won't change this...we've gone down a wayward path already...how about fixing that? Oh too hard ya say?
Well let's pass some laws...and add one that says you must spend min. 5 hours a day with your child. Stupid....'Yep!
Oh I don't think that is stupid. I for one would be all for that, but unfortunately the cost of living prevents most families (especially single parent/ parents who have a parent that works away from home for extended periods) from being able to do that. I try to spend as much time as I can with my children. I take time off work to attend school activities. I have reorganized my work hours so I can at least take my children to school & with my younger children I help out in the classroom on set mornings every week. Even if it is just to listen to children who don't get much time with their parents read to me. When doing that & seeing they delay in development it really makes you appreciate that small amount of time you spend with your child even if it his to help them learn. I also dedicate my weekends to my kids. Where we may go out and have a simple picnic in the park or spend the weekend staying in our pajamas watching movies & indulging in snack foods that are rarely present in out house or even working together doing much needed housework. I am a single parent raising 3 kids & paying a mortgage. I was fortunate that I was given an opportunity that most people in my position don't get. However by the time I get my wages pay my mortgage & general bills there is not much left over to spend on food let alone on clothes, toys or other luxuries. So the time I do spend with my children is usually doing something that costs little to nothing. The truth is though money & possessions don't buy your children's love as much as some people might use that method. However as long as my children have food on the table even if it is just rice or pasta, a roof over their heads, a good education & clothes on their back then I am doing my best for them.
Anyway this is off topic but I just wanted to say I thought that you have a good idea, but generally the cost of living prevents this occurrence.
 
Old 09-09-2008, 07:33 PM
 
37 posts, read 57,843 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi View Post
Actually yes, and I've already stated them. Firearm education along with social programs to avert juvenile delinquency and support the parents of target groups. Money better spent in those areas than on making and enforcing new laws.
I don't agree with this because what criminal would attend an education or social program to make sure s/he uses their weapon correctly?

Also supporting target groups is really singling out certain people. Like lets just support the people with black skin/ are Muslims etc cause they are most likely to possess a gun & cause trouble. Or lets just support those single parents because they don't have the privilege of a role model from both parents so the kids are sure to be delinquents. Unfortunately not everyone in a "targeted group" are as stereotyped as they are made out to be. Anyone can suffer from a mental illness or depression. There are many reasons as to how or why people suffer from these illnesses. Which is why there should be background checks & psych evaluations & whatever else needs to be put in place to prevent these people from possessing a firearm (I know this may seem unfair but these illnesses can be so unpredictable there is no telling what even the people with the mildest of case will do if all of a sudden that illness gets worse). Also I agree with there being an age limit on who is able to obtain a gun license. Maybe this should also be 21 since some people are still learning proper values, life skills & general common sense at this age & younger (& some people just never learn them unfortunately).
 
Old 09-09-2008, 07:59 PM
 
37 posts, read 57,843 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post

Guns do have their place in society for hunting, etc. Even personal protection (although again, i wouldn't want one in my house because i'd probably end up getting shot with my own gun... eek).

We do, however, need gun control. People with weapons should be required to go through a strict screening process. If they live with someone that is a felon, then they should not be allowed to have a gun. While they may use it for the right purposes, if they have a criminal element living with them then who's to say that that person would not have easy access.

We all have to have a driving test and pass before we are given a car, which can be considered a weapon because if you crash it you could kill or injure yourself. I believe that all gun carrying people should also have to be schooled and tested on use of the weapon.

AND.. i do believe that there are some guns that should NOT be allowed to be in the hands of civilians.. like semi automatic guns, machine guns.. etc. ..Kind of accessive..

Own a gun, but be licensed and schooled in it.

We are required to have a car seat for our cars before we are allowed to drive off with our child from a hospital for the childs safety (and that is all fine with me).. so why do we not also require that every household that owns a gun have a gun case that locks safely and securely before being able to take said gun home?

I'm all for owning guns.. but we all need to own them responsibly. Gun control is not the equivelant to banning guns.. it's just making sure that we use them safely, wisely etc.
Wow you definitely have some very good points some of which I didn't even take in to consideration.

I actually thought that everyone who owned a gun had to keep them in an unaccessible locked cabinet. I have never owned one nor wish to won one myself. However come to think of it you often see them on TV shows or movies (I know not reality, but could happen) in locked glass cases where all one has to do is smash the glass & they have access. I think the case should be fully enclosed & made of metal that can not be easily broken or accessed without a key.
 
Old 09-09-2008, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Lynbrook
517 posts, read 2,240,968 times
Reputation: 319
I'm with Chris Rock on this topic:

“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”

But seriously, I agree with those of you who said lock boxes should be mandatory. Obviously the criminals are not going to play by our rules, but to protect children who may be too young to understand the dangers, guns should be locked away.
 
Old 09-09-2008, 08:43 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Nope no gun control of any kind. It's simple. The only people that are effected by gun control are people who follow the law. The other guns are going to be on the streets no matter what. Banning guns only allows criminals to have free for all.

And in some cases throughout history it's turned societies inside out:
Lethal Laws
 
Old 09-09-2008, 08:52 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
What other constitutional rights do we "limit"....
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