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.
Okay, you and I live in the SW or whatever we call it--guns are normalized. Folks learn to shoot young, and hopefully they also learn to respect a gun. They have registered them, too, I suppose--nothing concealed and without a permit.
Other folks have guns, and don't respect them--like that mother who gave her son a gun so easily and wantonly imo.
It is impossible to determine who is the good guy (you) and who is the bad guy (that mother).
No more laws--how do we distinguish between the two groups and decrease illegal use of arms/guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgussler
I guess the best way I can sum it up is short.
Yes, there are a lot of people killed by guns. Illegal guns. Go get theirs, but leave mine alone because I didn't do anything.
The biggest problem we have is the court system and law enforcement not being able to back up the laws that are currently on the book. For instance, SD wrote a law saying that if you use a gun, you get an extra 5 years tacked on your sentence. I have yet to see that used. Matter of fact, the last armed robbery, with shots fired, the guy got 3 years probation. What happened to a sentence, with an extra 5 years tacked on? The police did their job, but the courts failed.
We have way too many laws on the books now that they won't enforce so why would we need more laws?
Okay, you and I live in the SW or whatever we call it--guns are normalized. Folks learn to shoot young, and hopefully they also learn to respect a gun. They have registered them, too, I suppose--nothing concealed and without a permit.
Other folks have guns, and don't respect them--like that mother who gave her son a gun so easily and wantonly imo.
It is impossible to determine who is the good guy (you) and who is the bad guy (that mother).
No more laws--how do we distinguish between the two groups and decrease illegal use of arms/guns?
This will be a good example. Let's see what she gets charged with and what they give her for punishment. There has been a lot of good ideas on this sight that have specifically pointed out what could happen. It will be interesting to see if it does happen. If it does, and a sentence is upheld, then all is good. But I have the feeling she's going to be charged, and let go. Then all is bad.
The laws are already there, they're just not enforced. They should take her to the maximum extent of the law. It would make another person take notice.
Hopefully they'll keep it on the radar so we can follow it. I'm going to see if I can put into favourites and have the network notify me if another article comes up.
I think she should get a sentence commensurate with her crime--inciting murder!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgussler
This will be a good example. Let's see what she gets charged with and what they give her for punishment. There has been a lot of good ideas on this sight that have specifically pointed out what could happen. It will be interesting to see if it does happen. If it does, and a sentence is upheld, then all is good. But I have the feeling she's going to be charged, and let go. Then all is bad.
The laws are already there, they're just not enforced. They should take her to the maximum extent of the law. It would make another person take notice.
Hopefully they'll keep it on the radar so we can follow it. I'm going to see if I can put into favourites and have the network notify me if another article comes up.
I think she should get a sentence commensurate with her crime--inciting murder!
You bet. And she might. But that's the jury's decision. Then comes the judge that says, "You know she had a really bad childhood, wasn't privey to all the things she could have been. That day was particulary hard on her so she'd had a couple of drinks to take the edge off and she really didn't understand what she was doing so 30 days in county and 3 years probation."
You bet. And she might. But that's the jury's decision. Then comes the judge that says, "You know she had a really bad childhood, wasn't privey to all the things she could have been. That day was particulary hard on her so she'd had a couple of drinks to take the edge off and she really didn't understand what she was doing so 30 days in county and 3 years probation."
kids are kid by pools. Its the number ONE reason given for gun control. All the supposed kid deaths by guns. Adress the point about pools, you dont get to pass it by.
OK Mark, I'll take this on happily.
My original premise: guns are designed to kill, swimming pools aren't. A gun is easy to conceal, easy to aim, and easy to kill with. They do what they're designed to do. Swimming pools are a different item entirely.
What's more, millions of kids come into contact with swimming pools every day. Not so for guns. In terms of pure odds, every swimming pool-kid encounter is much less likely to generate a dead kid than a firearm-kid encounter. So your comparison is a false one.
It's like saying that nuclear weapons are less dangerous than cars since millions of people are killed by vehicle crashes and only a few hundred thousand have died from a nuclear attack. Encounter-for-encounter, nukes are far more dangerous than cars. The same goes for guns and swimming pools.
And finally, gun advocates time and time again use the old argument "Swimming pools, baseball bats and chainsaws kill too, why don't we outlaw them?" Well, if those items were more effective at killing at a distance and enabling the perp to escape, I would agree with you.
But are chainsaws, baseball bats & swimming pools as effective at killing as guns are? If so, show me the police force with standard-issue chainsaws, the army that fights with baseball bats or the criminal who heists a bank with a swimming pool and I'll gladly concede the point.
Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 02-12-2007 at 08:36 AM..
Why is it, that people put more blame on the gun then they do the criminal that is yielding it?
I have several guns and I keep an eye on them. Never, has one jumped up and run out and shot anybody.
It's not the gun people! It's the nut behind the trigger. I'm all for going after the illegal people that use guns.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't put any blame on the gun at all. The goal is to preserve the rights of the law-abiding citizen while at the same time not making the criminal's life any easier.
So there's the challenge. How do you make the balance work? First off, we can't just take people at their word. While I'm sure you're a very responsible person, your assurance that you "keep an eye" on your guns isn't enough. There should be a mechanism that ensures that the guns you own don't find their way into the hands of someone less responsible. For the same reason we put license plates on cars, the gun and the owner should be identified.
Secondly, going after illegal people that use guns is too little too late. I'm for keeping guns out of their hands before they use them. One of the most effective ways of keeping *most* guns out of the illegal market is to require registration of every firearm sold, and hold accountable every gun owner for the use of all guns registered to them. If a gun is registered to you, and if that gun is used in a crime you should be held to account -- the only exception is if you report it stolen. It won't stop the black market in guns, but it will severely crimp the flow of guns into the criminal trade.
So going back to the balance of public safety and constitutional rights. On the one extreme, we could take a laissez-faire approach to the gun trade and let anyone sell any kind of weapon to anyone. No visibility, no traceability, no control. On the other extreme we could make guns illegal altogether. Neither of these options is workable in my opinion, since one would be a public safety nightmare and the other an undeniable violation of constitutional rights.
I put it to you that registering guns is the only workable option to maintain public safety without infringing on your right to own them.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't put any blame on the gun at all. The goal is to preserve the rights of the law-abiding citizen while at the same time not making the criminal's life any easier.
So there's the challenge. How do you make the balance work? First off, we can't just take people at their word. While I'm sure you're a very responsible person, your assurance that you "keep an eye" on your guns isn't enough. There should be a mechanism that ensures that the guns you own don't find their way into the hands of someone less responsible. For the same reason we put license plates on cars, the gun and the owner should be identified.
Secondly, going after illegal people that use guns is too little too late. I'm for keeping guns out of their hands before they use them. One of the most effective ways of keeping *most* guns out of the illegal market is to require registration of every firearm sold, and hold accountable every gun owner for the use of all guns registered to them. If a gun is registered to you, and if that gun is used in a crime you should be held to account -- the only exception is if you report it stolen. It won't stop the black market in guns, but it will severely crimp the flow of guns into the criminal trade.
So going back to the balance of public safety and constitutional rights. On the one extreme, we could take a laissez-faire approach to the gun trade and let anyone sell any kind of weapon to anyone. No visibility, no traceability, no control. On the other extreme we could make guns illegal altogether. Neither of these options is workable in my opinion, since one would be a public safety nightmare and the other an undeniable violation of constitutional rights.
I put it to you that registering guns is the only workable option to maintain public safety without infringing on your right to own them.
I agree with you on that outlawing all guns wont work and that its unconstutional.
Otherwise I am not for gun registration where I would have to Jump 1000 hoops just to get a simple handgun.
Did you know the form 4473 you have to fill out at a gun shop to get your info and make background check is a back door registration only difference is the police dont have the records the gun dealer does but the ATF can request a record of the gun at any time.Dont believe me look at some internet sites and you will find out soon enough.
Waiting periods are a joke
if someone really wanted to kill someone on the same day they would use a gun they already have or get one illegally.All waiting periods do is make law abiding citizens wait for their self defense gun while the bad man has a easy victim.Believe me FistFightingHairdresser you are a mild gun control supporter I have seen far worse gun control and Anti-gun supporters which are mostly irrational anyway.And ONTHEROAD you arent too bad either when it comes down to gun control you are both mild supporters.And I am glad you arent completely against guns just the bad guys using them which is fine with me.The only difference is that I dont agree with gun registration.
Guns are already registered. You can take any of my guns and find out exact date they were purchased, who they were purchased by, and who they were purchased from. They are not registered with the state, they are federally registered. Which is the case with ALL firearms. Only some states require registration and they haven't shown a good track record on doing anything with that information.
As to my guns getting in the hands of criminals? I really don't think that will happen. If they wanted my carry weapon, I'd give it to them. One bullet at a time. If they want anything else I have, they'd have to lug a 800lb safe out the front door.
Guns are fully traceable right now. Why add more laws and requirements that do the exact same thing.
Waiting period. What a joke that was. My brother was at a pistol competition one time. He flew 2000 miles to compete in a 5 day match. On the first day, the frame on his 1911A1 split. He immediately went to get another one to rebuild his gun. That state had a 5 day waiting period. So by the time he could get another frame, the match was over.
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.
