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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:40 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
I am very torn on this issue. I do agree that any law passed would not take a gun out of a criminals hands. after all criminals break laws. the responsible gun owner I have no problem with. I think anyone who wants a gun to protect themselves and their homes should have one. with that being said I have a problem that just about anybody can get a gun that is like a "machine gun" sorry I do not know the difference between what is considered a semi automatic and all the rest but some of these guns are not for sport or protection they are for killing. what does a sportsmen or a person who wants one for protection need something that sprays tons bullets for? I don't know why anyone who is law abiding would care if they had to have a 3 day wait. to me that would maybe cut down on the man or woman who is in a rage that wants to shoot their spouse for cheating on them. I would hope one day we could find a middle ground but the other side of the coin is the ppeople that worry any restriction would erode their rights and then the total ban on guns. I am pro choice and this is what I worry about when people start putting judgements on the whens and the whys of choice so I can see that side of the gun issue as well.

The middle ground was bypassed years ago. The guns you mention are certainly used in competition & sport. You should determine the difference before developing an opinion.
Are you against sports cars because normal people have no need to go over 65MPH? In a free country that believes in innocent until proven guilty we do not forbid the ownership of cars that can bypass the speed limit, we do not outlaw booze because someone might get drunk & drive that hotrod into a buss full of kids, yet its ok to tell someone they cannot purchase a caertain type of gun just because the way it looks or the amount of ammo it holds? Whats common sense about that?

Nobody has ever proven that a waiting period actually save lives, but people have died because of them. If you are a woman & think an irate abusive husband is stalking you to kill you would you think a 3 day wait was reasonable? Its happened & the woman was killed.
Thats the thing about restricting things, you might save somebody, but if one person gets hurt or killed because of a restriction their blood is on the hands of those who support it. If you let folks decide for themselves, even if something horrific happens, its not your fault.
Our biggest responsibility as a society is to allow our people the best chance to help themselves. Be it education, work, or defense. Thats common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 6,989,869 times
Reputation: 6603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I know I am inviting hate mail here, but here are a few ideas I have:

1. First, revoke governmental immunity in torts when it comes to gun licensing -- that will encourage governmental agencies to enforce laws that are already on the books (I mean, it makes no sense to add more laws if the powers that be won't enforce them). If the agency (municipality for example) knew or should have known that the gun owner did not qualify for a license (due to past convictions for violent crimes, mental illness, etc.), then that agency should be liable in tort to any person injured by that gun owner's unjustified use of a firearm. Right now, gun licensing falls under "governmental discretion" that's immune from lawsuits -- I think the rule should be different for situations where the government puts a deadly weapon into someone's hands.
************************************************
my reply
I would like to see the government held liable for any crime committed by a parolee or criminal out on bail. The same for the government failing to identify a mentally incompetent or felon that they approved in the mandatory instant background check required to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.
************************************************** *
2. Require classes and evidence of knowing how to use, store and clean a gun before licensing. Hey, we require people to learn how to drive before licensing them to do so, I don't see why we shouldn't do that for any instrumentality capable of wreaking havoc.
************************************************** **
My Reply
Better yet how about MANDATORY gun safety training in all of our schools starting in kindergarten? Around fifth grade all students would be taught safe handling of firearms. Students who desired could receive instruction in shooting and maintaining weapons safely with parents approval. By doing this gun accidents would be drastically reduced and a PROPER RESPECT for firearms could be instilled in youngsters.
************************************************** ***
3. Impose strict liability upon gun owners for injuries or property damage caused by an unjustified or negligent use of a firearm. We already impose strict liability for such things as keeping predatory wild animals, operating inherently dangerous instrumentalities, etc., the same rule should apply to guns. And, since the people who are least responsible also tend to have the least money (just from my observations as a tort lawyer), I would also require insurance.
************************************************** *
My Reply
This is already in place with the exception of mandatory insurance.
FYI the NRA offers very affordable firearms liability insurance to their members.
************************************************** ****


4. Just like with cars, create a rebuttable presumption of permissive use when a gun is negligently or unlawfully discharged by someone other than its owner, and impose vicarious liability -- that will encourage gun owners to report their guns stolen promptly, and to safeguard them more zealously, as well as create a further disincentive for illegally buying guns for people who don't qualify.
************************************************** ****
My Reply
Most gun owners will report a gun as stolen as soon as they know it has been stolen. However I know of incidents where it was several days/weeks before it was known the gun had been stolen.

One thing I would like to see it a database of stolen firearms maintained by the Feds that any citizen could access to check to see if a firearm was on the STOLEN GUNS REGISTRY. In most states private sales of guns are legal but there is NO WAY a private citizen can access the NCIS list of stolen weapons. The system is already in place, the law just needs to be changed to make it usable to the public.

I think most gun owners would go along with the suggestions I made and they are not drastically different than what you suggested. Agreed?

GL2

Last edited by Gunluvver2; 05-16-2009 at 07:01 PM.. Reason: Clarify my additions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 08:07 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You're overlooking the central plank in the gun nut principle. You have no right to keep and bear a car (or a paint brush or a toaster or a shoe-horn or a jelly-filled doughnut), but they do have a right to have a gun. The Constitution is perfectly clear about that, and that's --- umm -- irrefutable.
There is also a fundamental right to travel. It's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has it well-settled that the right to travel is implicit in the liberty prong of the Due Process clause. So a "car nut" could argue that licensing laws impose an undue burden on his right to travel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:10 PM
 
2,542 posts, read 3,528,243 times
Reputation: 993
Gun ownership is a constitutional right and not a privilege like a driver's licence. It should have the same common sense imposed on it like the freedom of speech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:56 PM
 
13,496 posts, read 13,968,489 times
Reputation: 11119
Tin Knocker, the gun issue and the right to bear arms is not something I have much info on. I do not feel the need to have a gun for protection and I am not into any sport that would require the need for one.

you posted, "The guns you mention are certainly used in competition & sport. You should determine the difference before developing an opinion" I did state "I did not know the differnce" I will take you at your word, that guns like that could and are used in competition. however, even me not knowing the difference, does not stop me from having an opinion on guns and regulations.

To equate guns with sports cars or any ohter dangerous things doesn't work for me. lets just talk guns. I can agree and if I take the stance of gun ownership, than it does seem silly to not be able to buy something because it happens to be fast and lethal. do I still not like this type of gun? yes I still think this type of gun is "overkill"

then it comes down to what I consider sprort and what kind of gun do I use to take down a deer or hit a target? as for the deer I think bow and arrow is the way to go.
if you shot a target, a target revolver or one of the special rifles they use at the olympics... the proper tool for the job so to say. I can question it's value as a sport for me. but I am off topic.

I have never thought of the other side of a waiting period if I was worried about protection I too would want my gun now. like I posted I am way torn about this issue and I do fully understand being worried about your basic right getting eroded. but besides education, training, and such we are always going to have thousands of deaths that could be prevented if we did not have as many guns around as we do.

far too many stupid or criminal people in the world. I don't know the answers I just want less gun deaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2009, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Maine
2,349 posts, read 1,580,609 times
Reputation: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
Tin Knocker, the gun issue and the right to bear arms is not something I have much info on. I do not feel the need to have a gun for protection and I am not into any sport that would require the need for one.

you posted, "The guns you mention are certainly used in competition & sport. You should determine the difference before developing an opinion" I did state "I did not know the differnce" I will take you at your word, that guns like that could and are used in competition. however, even me not knowing the difference, does not stop me from having an opinion on guns and regulations.

To equate guns with sports cars or any ohter dangerous things doesn't work for me. lets just talk guns. I can agree and if I take the stance of gun ownership, than it does seem silly to not be able to buy something because it happens to be fast and lethal. do I still not like this type of gun? yes I still think this type of gun is "overkill"

then it comes down to what I consider sprort and what kind of gun do I use to take down a deer or hit a target? as for the deer I think bow and arrow is the way to go.
if you shot a target, a target revolver or one of the special rifles they use at the olympics... the proper tool for the job so to say. I can question it's value as a sport for me. but I am off topic.

I have never thought of the other side of a waiting period if I was worried about protection I too would want my gun now. like I posted I am way torn about this issue and I do fully understand being worried about your basic right getting eroded. but besides education, training, and such we are always going to have thousands of deaths that could be prevented if we did not have as many guns around as we do.

far too many stupid or criminal people in the world. I don't know the answers I just want less gun deaths.
hothulamau, The big problem I see is that you think guns are for sport or hunting, or maybe even personal protection, The Second Amendment has almost nothing to do with these things, It is there for better or worst so that the citizens of this country can overthrow a tyrannical government.
(please no debate on if the citizens could or would overthrow a tyrannical government, start a new thread.)
So yes those scary, evil looking black high capacity guns are for killing people in large numbers, the fact that you can buy a nice wood stocked hunting rifle that looks good hanging over the hearth to go Deer hunting with is just a bonus.
As to the original question I think we should mandate that prosecuters must enforce all gun laws and may not bargain them away, IE:" we'll drop the mandatory 8 year sentence crime for using a gun in a robbery, If you plead guilty to the simple 6 month sentence crime of robbery"


bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2009, 09:19 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
Tin Knocker, the gun issue and the right to bear arms is not something I have much info on. I do not feel the need to have a gun for protection and I am not into any sport that would require the need for one.

you posted, "The guns you mention are certainly used in competition & sport. You should determine the difference before developing an opinion" I did state "I did not know the differnce" I will take you at your word, that guns like that could and are used in competition. however, even me not knowing the difference, does not stop me from having an opinion on guns and regulations.

To equate guns with sports cars or any ohter dangerous things doesn't work for me. lets just talk guns. I can agree and if I take the stance of gun ownership, than it does seem silly to not be able to buy something because it happens to be fast and lethal. do I still not like this type of gun? yes I still think this type of gun is "overkill"

then it comes down to what I consider sprort and what kind of gun do I use to take down a deer or hit a target? as for the deer I think bow and arrow is the way to go.
if you shot a target, a target revolver or one of the special rifles they use at the olympics... the proper tool for the job so to say. I can question it's value as a sport for me. but I am off topic.

I have never thought of the other side of a waiting period if I was worried about protection I too would want my gun now. like I posted I am way torn about this issue and I do fully understand being worried about your basic right getting eroded. but besides education, training, and such we are always going to have thousands of deaths that could be prevented if we did not have as many guns around as we do.

far too many stupid or criminal people in the world. I don't know the answers I just want less gun deaths.
I was simply trying to point out that guns are one issue that most people, even if they are ignorant about them, still form an opinion & voice the desire to repress others based on that opinion.
A semi auto with a 30 round mag might be overkill, but so is a 32 ounce framing hammer, but as long as you use neither for criminal activity thats irrelevant. Far more semi auto military type guns are used for recreation than for crime.

I'd like less INNOCENT gun deaths & the statistics bear out the fact that you are much safer from bullets in places with less gun laws.
Look into how many INNOCENTS die from guns & I think you'll be surprised. Look further into how many of those are caused by legal gun owners & you'll find that many many more get kiled in things like swimming pools, cars, skiing, just about anything.

I'm not saying everyone should research this to death, just that folks who choose not to find out the truth should not push their opinions on the matter. Your vote effects my rights more than it effects crime or gun deaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2009, 11:37 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,898,841 times
Reputation: 12285
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
Tin Knocker, the gun issue and the right to bear arms is not something I have much info on. I do not feel the need to have a gun for protection and I am not into any sport that would require the need for one.

you posted, "The guns you mention are certainly used in competition & sport. You should determine the difference before developing an opinion" I did state "I did not know the differnce" I will take you at your word, that guns like that could and are used in competition. however, even me not knowing the difference, does not stop me from having an opinion on guns and regulations.

To equate guns with sports cars or any ohter dangerous things doesn't work for me. lets just talk guns. I can agree and if I take the stance of gun ownership, than it does seem silly to not be able to buy something because it happens to be fast and lethal. do I still not like this type of gun? yes I still think this type of gun is "overkill"

then it comes down to what I consider sprort and what kind of gun do I use to take down a deer or hit a target? as for the deer I think bow and arrow is the way to go.
if you shot a target, a target revolver or one of the special rifles they use at the olympics... the proper tool for the job so to say. I can question it's value as a sport for me. but I am off topic.

I have never thought of the other side of a waiting period if I was worried about protection I too would want my gun now. like I posted I am way torn about this issue and I do fully understand being worried about your basic right getting eroded. but besides education, training, and such we are always going to have thousands of deaths that could be prevented if we did not have as many guns around as we do.

far too many stupid or criminal people in the world. I don't know the answers I just want less gun deaths.
Just to clarify the 'overkill' issue, the types of competitions my son and I participate in require the use of high capacity semi auto style rifles and handguns as well. Three gun matches, a combat style course of fire, uses up a lot of ammo while engaging multiple targets in a short amount of time. We regularly compete against law enforcement and even military personnel in these matches, and they have the best that money can buy. We have to fund our own hobby.. At any rate , that is the need we have for weapons of this type. Many of the suggestions for new laws I have seen here already exist, in one form or another all over the country. Especially the ones that rely on liability factors and civil law. Many of these cross into the criminal realm as well. Interesting. Folks don't actually know how many laws ,and the width and breadth of them, are already out there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2009, 11:40 AM
 
13,496 posts, read 13,968,489 times
Reputation: 11119
I do know that the ammendment is about forming a militia much more than it is about having one for sport or protection. if I want to play devil's advocate I would say in the case of subversives I would want the army, the navy and the other branches to protect us. not the kid/man/woman down the block. if these "subbersives " were here in mass and the army could't handle them, the people who already have guns could spring into action like in the movie Red Dawn. the rest of us could go down to the army and get a gun. so again (I wish I knew the name of the guns) I think weapons that have "overkill" ability should be limited. far too many get in the wrong hands.

for me just because some nut can bludgeon me with a 32 ounce framing hammer does not make it comparable to semi auto w/30 rounds. again to play devils advocate that same nut can't walk into a sporting event with a hammer and kill 15 people the nut with the semi auto can. I cn't compare apples to oranges in this case.

I fully understand the need for you to speak out, however any issue that evokes such emotion and includes death, people will always form an opinion. ignorant or not. we live in america so they will voice a desire to "repress" the right. like I said I am pro choice all the way. all you/me can do is to continue to stand up to what you believe.

as far as death of "innocent" people these are the most tragic but I also have a problem with the gang bangers in the cities with the guns doing drive bys, killing other gang members. just because they are not model citizens does not mean their death is ok. warfare on the streets even the death of a "bad guy" bothers me. two rival gangs killing each other over turf. we have social problems that need to be addressed much like we agree w/guns. education, training and opportunity all play a part.

I do agree some bad people are just bad and the world is better off w/out them but far to many people are in the crossfire die and it isn't right. far too many "ya-whos have guns and do stupid things with them. far too many people see them as staus symbols or they make them feel invinsible. the problem is not with people like yourself who know how to use a gun, repect the law, the problem is with the criminal and with the people who are on the edge that get ahold of a gun when they are in an emotion state. again I just don't have the answers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2009, 11:44 AM
 
13,496 posts, read 13,968,489 times
Reputation: 11119
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Just to clarify the 'overkill' issue, the types of competitions my son and I participate in require the use of high capacity semi auto style rifles and handguns as well. Three gun matches, a combat style course of fire, uses up a lot of ammo while engaging multiple targets in a short amount of time. We regularly compete against law enforcement and even military personnel in these matches, and they have the best that money can buy. We have to fund our own hobby.. At any rate , that is the need we have for weapons of this type. Many of the suggestions for new laws I have seen here already exist, in one form or another all over the country. Especially the ones that rely on liability factors and civil law. Many of these cross into the criminal realm as well. Interesting. Folks don't actually know how many laws ,and the width and breadth of them, are already out there
NV this actually sounds quite fun! the right tool for the job I am glad to know that there are laws on the books that close the loop holes. I do not have the least amount of worry for people like you or your son. when I see on the news a city that has an amnesty or a turn in your gun for a free tv promotion the pile of weapons is staggering. perhaps if we had more programs like that it would take care of a small percentage of the problems. I just don't know
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
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