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, 09:15 PM
 
Location: wrong planet
5,115 posts, read 10,030,617 times
Reputation: 4133

Advertisements

I am for strict gun laws, background checks and mandatory safety classes. You need a license to drive a car, and a gun is just as much a deadly weapon as a car. Yes, criminals will get to guns no matter what. But there are plenty of crimes or accidents that could be avoided... such as children getting into their fathers gun cabinet and shooting themselves or someone else. I read about this all the time! This should not be happening.

A mentally unstable person that ends up killing their family or themselves. etc. A gun makes it easy to kill someone without getting your hands dirty. I wonder what the statistics are regarding murders? How many are committed with guns versus other means? A lot of murders are "crimes of passion", it is easy to reach for a gun and shoot someone, would the same person strangle or stab someone, maybe.. but I think in some cases not.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau


forum rules, please read them

 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:43 PM
 
1,474 posts, read 2,015,968 times
Reputation: 457
In regards to gun control and gun bans as witnessed in Washington DC.

If our great nation is unable to keep drugs of of this country how do you suppose we can keep guns out?????

The murder rate in Washington, which has probably the strictest set of laws on the Books, until Heller, was going out the roof....................

I do think reasonable restrictions such as testing for mental competency and perhaps even a basic IQ test would be in order.

Do all citizens need access to ALL firearms produced. No!

I have seen first hand the murder and mayham tha emotionl, immature, psychotic, people can inflect on one another. 25 years of picking up the pieces but frankly, a large percentage of homicide victims get there because of who they associate with, what they do for recreation or income, and generally because of their life style.

We in the police field called them misdemeanor homicides, tow for the price of one.

Your average citizens has a responsibility, let alone a right, for personal self defense in my opinion............
 
Old 09-09-2008, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,862,833 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by potstirrer View Post
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?
I'm not talking about providing it to criminals. I'm talking about childhood education and family support services. Prevention rather than trying to change things after the fact.

Quote:
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.
It wouldn't make much sense to provide the same type of services to families in Beverly Hills that you provide to families in the worst parts of Detroit. You may call it singling out, I call it putting the money where it will do more good.

Quote:
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).
I don't disagree with background checks, licensing, et cetera. Far from it. I'm merely against more regulation than we already have.
 
Old 09-10-2008, 10:31 AM
 
37 posts, read 57,828 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi View Post
I'm not talking about providing it to criminals. I'm talking about childhood education and family support services. Prevention rather than trying to change things after the fact.
Wouldn't eradication of what causes the problem be better then hoping something taught to them may prevent it. I am not saying ban guns altogether, however Australia seems to have the right idea by banning certain types of firearms. All registered semi automatic & automatic weapons were made to be handed in & destroyed. If they did not hand them in then the authorities actually came knocking on your door. If anyone was caught with any of these types of weapon after that there are severe penalties. I actually had a family member in Australia who obtained a firearm from her father (he was a war veteran & at the time of his passing he lived on a large rural property where foxes, dingoes & snakes were rampant & he had livestock as well as other animals. Snakes (highly poisonous & lethal to humans let alone animals) would launch themselves at his door trying to get in to get his birds & although illegal in Australia to protect himself & his animals he would have to shoot & kill them. He also owned weapons he obtained from the war however he had buried & discarded them in the dams on his property as they were not safe. Anyway because the registration automatically transferred over to my relative who is totally against guns & won't have them around her offloaded them as quickly as she got them to a place that dealt with firearms however they were still registered in her name & shortly after the law was passed she got a knock on the door from the local authorities asking her to hand over the weapons. She told them she didn't have them anymore that she sold them to whoever it was, but they still searched her car & property to make sure.
Anyway what my point is, is to simply reduce the crime right by banning & destroying the firearms that cause the most damage. As for the cost on gun control this can be kept to a minimum really. The cost of locked boxes rests solely on the firearm owners shoulders (however their should be certain requirements to these boxes) & the obtaining of firearm licenses should require a lot more stringent & thorough testing. Also the obtaining of firearms & ammunition should also be limited to a set place like I said maybe at the local police station where things can be monitored more closely & files kept on how much ammunition is bought & even a simple question of where & why the intend to use said amount of bullets (I am aware black markets will always exist, but upping security measures on monitoring what comes in & out of the country may be able to somewhat limit this activity). I am not opposed to education, but it's not always a guarantee for prevention.

Quote:
It wouldn't make much sense to provide the same type of services to families in Beverly Hills that you provide to families in the worst parts of Detroit. You may call it singling out, I call it putting the money where it will do more good.
I'd really like to know more on why you consider this more important? The spoiled rich brat who's living the high life in their parents mansion, driving the most expensive car on the market & has all the designer fashion & latest technology they can get there hands on is probably also the most screwed up, confused, depressed mess ever. It's more likely people like this who would be more likely do something stupid with a firearm even if it is just to gain attention. I say this cause generally their parents are to busy socializing & buying off their kids & forcing them in to activities they don't want to do just to be the best in their social group. It's all about out doing one another then actually taking care of each other & thats why their kids have poor morals & values & with their money are most likely able to obtain a firearm easily. So I think if you want to educate you need to educate everyone on an equal level. I say this because just because 1 group of people live the high life while the others live the low life it doesn't mean that they don't all have "problems" or "reasons" to possibly do something they may later regret if they don't take their own life in the meantime.

Quote:
I don't disagree with background checks, licensing, et cetera. Far from it. I'm merely against more regulation than we already have.
Well is it really about more regulation or is it more about modifying it for the greater good of the country & it's citizens? Everything eventually needs to be reviewed & modified to suit the ever changing situations, circumstances & generations. For example I am not sure if you are a parent, but even if you aren't look at what your great grandparents, grand parents, parents, yourself & possibly your children were/ are being taught at school you will see there are changes to the curriculum in every generation to suit the day & age & to ensure the best possible education so they will have access to the greatest opportunities later in life.
 
Old 09-10-2008, 10:40 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,414,651 times
Reputation: 4015
We forget so easily what happened during the ban on assault weapons.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoTqD1-E_jY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWp4...eature=related


"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
 
Old 09-10-2008, 10:45 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,414,651 times
Reputation: 4015
Gun ban laws only protect criminals. What did the gun ban do for these guys?

"Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu first met at Gold's Gym in Venice, Los Angeles, California in 1989. They had a mutual interest in weightlifting and bodybuilding, but soon developed a mutual interest in making money through crime.[citation needed] Phillips imported steel-core ammunition for his illegally modified assault rifles, and acquired Aramid to make body armor.[4] In October 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu were arrested in Glendale, northwest of Los Angeles, California, for speeding.[5] A subsequent search of their vehicle—after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon—found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9 mm and .45 caliber handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.[6] Though they were initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,[7] neither of them served more than 100 days in jail, though they each were put on three years' probation.[8] After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.[9]
Sometime in 1995, the pair ambushed a Brinks armored car and killed one guard in the robbery. In May 1996, they robbed two branches of Bank of America in San Fernando, stealing approximately $1.5 million USD.[10] Phillips and Matasareanu were dubbed the "High Incident Bandits" by investigators due to the heavy weaponry they had used in three bank robberies prior to their attempt in North Hollywood.[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Last edited by BigJon3475; 09-10-2008 at 10:57 AM..
 
Old 09-10-2008, 11:12 AM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,414,651 times
Reputation: 4015
Or think of it like this....Your in a fight but your the bigger person...you tend to feel more confident......Same fight but the other person is the same size......now you have to think about it.......same fight but now the person is bigger than you.......most likely you'll have some problems.....If they have fully automatic assault rifles and they obviously aren't your community organizer type......why do you think you should be bringing hand guns....

God forbid this happened in a neighborhood and people had to protect themselves before the police got there.......knives and hand guns won't do it.

This goes all the way up the line to nuclear weapons......the only thing that kept us from being attacked in the cold war was the total destruction the minutes after wards of whoever sent the first one over. It's still that way to this day. If we decided to ban all of our nuclear weapons the next week we would be bombed.

Obviously having a nuclear weapon in your home is retarded but I think you get the point.

This is barring the obvious infractions on the 2nd amendment.

It's a fact semi and fully automatic weapons are around and are around to stay. They aren't going anywhere and banning them to people who follow will only allow the criminals to carry them.

Most people would think a fully automatic weapon is extreme. How extreme is it if a criminal has it. Banning them won't solve it.....gun search and seizures again will only remove them from the people that obey the law. the ones that don't have their stock pile.
 
Old 09-10-2008, 12:45 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,021 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
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..
how is banning semi-automatic weapons going to increase the safety of americans?
 
Old 09-10-2008, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,250,335 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I have family in Montana and their kids are taught how to respect guns and what they can do and that they are NOT toys, not something "cool" but are part of their culture. Because their children grow up around then with the respect for them (hunting, etc) there are no accidents. Guns are kept in locked cabinets.

That being said I personally am NOT comfortable around guns. But then again, I live on LI, NY and do not hunt nor do I have the desire. As such, I would never have a gun in my home personally becaues if I do not know how to use them safely i couldn't teach that to my children.

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 gunes.. 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 toown them respnsibly. Gun control is not the equivelant to banning guns.. it's just making sure that we use them safely, wisely etc.
to respond to your first part about a drivers license, there is a very big difference between driving a car and having the right to own a firearm. We are constitutionally guaranteed the Right to own a firearm, and to self defense. We are not given the right to own an automobile, that is a privilege.

Semi-Automatic weapons are no more dangerous than a non-semi auto weapon. I can fire off just as many rounds with a 6-shooter that I could with a semi-auto 1911, the differences are only in the way that the shell is ejected and a new cartridge is moved from the clip into the chamber. Revolvers do this as well, but are not semi-auto.

Machine guns have been designated as illegal to purchase any after a certain date (I cannot remember the date) Those that are privately owned produced before that date, can be legally owned within the US, there is however an extremely lengthy process and you will have the government breathing down your back until you decide to sell or get rid of the automatic weapon.

I myself did not grow up around guns, but we were still educated about the correct use and reasons for owning them. This not only included hunting, but self defense and practicing your constitutional rights. My father is now a competitive handgun shooter, I shoot quite a bit. There is a saying "Knowledge is power" which is very true in this time as well as any other. Educating your children early on what is appropriate for displays of anger, and what is not. Educating your children as to the correct use of a firearm, and even going as far as how they work mechanically is a HUGE part of solving some of the problem. Where ever you have a free society, you will have accidents like someone accidental killing themselves, it is the nature of being free. You can minimize this through education, but there will always be accidents.

The less government intrusion into our constitutional rights is always going to be a good thing for personal freedoms which our forefathers had set forth with the creation of our government.
 
Old 09-10-2008, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Oxygen Ln. AZ
9,321 posts, read 16,131,214 times
Reputation: 5685
I grew up with guns all over the house and learned from a very early age not to touch them and later, how to bring them safely to my father who was a LA police officer. He took me to the shooting range and I learned how to handle a gun and how not to fear it. I never had guns in the house when my kids were growing up. That was my choice. I heard too many horror stories growing up. I would not want to see guns banned in this country, but I do support a solid background check and gun safety classes are a must. My adult daughter and her husband are purchasing hand guns and taking the necessary classes. They will keep it locked up.
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