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.
In your example, the steel is not functioning correctly therefore they manufacturer should be held at fault. In the case of firearms, a manufacturing defect didn't cause the gun to shoot the old lady during a home invasion. Blame lies with the person pulling the trigger and anyone who broke the law helping the shooter aquire the weapon. There are laws on the books now for this but police don't persue them as aggressively as they should.
Maybe, but the thing is, why shouldn't gun MFR's be responsible for who they sell to? We have to find somethnig that works, not necessarily somethnig that everyone is giong to think is "fair".
If a mfr. does not think someone will obey the rules in selling their stuff, and they know they can be held responsible, they will (probably) not risk it. I am not talking lawsuit land here, but more a civil penalty for not holding up their end for the public good.
Quote:
A bow's purpose is to shoot the arrow. In my mind, just another tool.
Um, please. I am sure you can use it to fasten signs to building sides, or maybe floss your teeth (really carefully) but the B+A was made to kill. Just because people use it to play music on it does not mean that is what it was for!
Quote:
I still don't see how registration helps with anything other than burdening the law abiding citizens with more hassles and fees. Criminals don't care if their gun is registered or not. They are already planning on using it to commit crimes, what's one more? It's either get tough on the criminals or take matters into our own hands - Blue Flame owner kills two: Harlem's restaurant supply owner shoots two dead after botched robbery I prefer the former but prepared for the latter.
This is the tough part. Registration is only half the battle. Make sure that people who get the guns legally are safe bets, THEN find a way to isolate the other arms and curtail their proliferation. Simple things like one-a-month may be a PIT.....butt, but how many would you really need unless you were hoarding or dealing?
the key is to make the registration process VERY stringent, but also very simple. I think that is probably where they are havnig the biggest problems.
Quote:
How do you retrofit the millions of guns out there? I won't make any mechanical changes to my 1962 Smith & Wesson .38 Special nor my 1964 Ruger .22 pistol. Both are in excellent condition and have a lot of sentimental value to both me and my wife.
That gets difficult. But how many vintage weapons are really involved in crimes?
I think something similar to building code could be enforced in that, if you are not ADDING anything (or changing it significantly) you do not need to update to current codes. (In the case of buildings, it is usually seismic/wind loading and fire safety).
There ARE some things you need to still do, for your own safety, but that would probably be debatable on a case-by-case basis (putting a safety catch on some models if feasable?).
So the restriction would only be applicable to new weapons. Agreed this would not produce an immediate result, but guns (if they are not looked after) do not last forever.... My guess is many are misplaced before they even break, but that is just speculation.
I think further things cuold be done to THAT mechanism to allow people to share their weapons with others, but that would involve some deliberate planning to make sure that you lending your rifle to a friend is easy, but not Jr taking it out when you are not home to show HIS friend.... (I know, the owner should be more responsible, but still, better to make the death impossible than to point fingers after the fact).
Background checks are already done, a license is required in some states, in others like NH, a license is only needed to carry concealed, not for each gun, you can open carry with no license.
"Obviously some will still get them illegally but it'll be more difficult for them to do so"
And how will licensing law abiding citizens to death make it harder for criminals to aquire a gun?
"the more regulations in place with regard to guns, the safer I would feel"
A sentiment most sheep share, but more regulation of the law abiding doesn't make you any safer, actually less so, as more regulation reduces the chance that there will be a carrying citizen around to interven if a criminal shows up where you are to commit a crime.
But sure if the citizen really is a decent, law abiding person who isn't about to go and shoot up a school then they shouldn't have a problem obtaining the various licenses? Sure, it may take a few extra days before they can be wielding cold steel but if it's a choice between that or getting them instantly along with every other psychopath who's after one then I suggest that the first option is preferable. Additional licensing just makes it more difficult for the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdavid93225
One of the biggest differences between the U.S. and the U.K. is our Constitution. The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any effort to license guns and to perform background checks turns that right into a privilege that is allowed by the government for those that they deem worthy. They are already doing this, and have effectively nullified the right guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment.
I see your point but maybe the 'right' to own a gun isn't a good idea? Seems to be asking for trouble to me. Certainly the US has higher levels of gun crime than most developed countries so honest citizens owning firearms apparently hasn't done much to deter that. Nevertheless, if the honest citizens did lay down their arms then I fear the crims would have a field day. The US is almost past the point of no return in that sense.
But sure if the citizen really is a decent, law abiding person who isn't about to go and shoot up a school then they shouldn't have a problem obtaining the various licenses? Sure, it may take a few extra days before they can be wielding cold steel but if it's a choice between that or getting them instantly along with every other psychopath who's after one then I suggest that the first option is preferable. Additional licensing just makes it more difficult for the bad guys.
I grew up believing that a person in the U.S. was considered innocent until proven guilty. In the case of gun ownership, it's the other way around. A person wishing to purchase a firearm is considered guilty until they "prove" their innocence through a background check or licensing procedure. That just seems very un-American to me. That is why I have a problem with the whole licensing / background check thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happynoodleboycey
I see your point but maybe the 'right' to own a gun isn't a good idea? Seems to be asking for trouble to me. Certainly the US has higher levels of gun crime than most developed countries so honest citizens owning firearms apparently hasn't done much to deter that. Nevertheless, if the honest citizens did lay down their arms then I fear the crims would have a field day. The US is almost past the point of no return in that sense.
That right is what has kept this country free for over 230 years. It is the armed populace that is supposed to keep "the government" in line. It's not just the criminals that would have a field day, but the government as well. On second thought, I guess you're right, the criminals (including the government) would have a field day. Part of the problem we now have in this country is that the government and law enforcement (pretty much one in the same), have taken on a different role than they did in the past. They used to investigate crimes and punish the wrongdoers once they were apprehended. Now, they don't do much of that, but rather try to prevent crimes before they happen, by subjecting people to things like background checks and psychological profiles. If a person does not fit the mold of who they think is acceptable, then they are considered a suspect, whether they've committed a crime or not.
Maybe, but the thing is, why shouldn't gun MFR's be responsible for who they sell to?
Because the MFR's don't sell directly to the public. They either sell directly to a retailer or there is a distributer involved. The retailer is held accountable. At one of the gun forums that I frequent, someone posted a news story where a retailer had been arrested. He had sold a rifle to an under age boy. In that state you must be 18 to buy a long gun. The ATF was involved. He will lose his federal firearms license, lose his business and probably spend time in the federal pen. The system does work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
If a mfr. does not think someone will obey the rules in selling their stuff, and they know they can be held responsible, they will (probably) not risk it. I am not talking lawsuit land here, but more a civil penalty for not holding up their end for the public good.
Change MFR to retailer and this is true. If I'm acting suspicious I know my local shop owner won't sell to me. There is a sign saying they have the right to refuse to sell to anyone. But like I said, they run a background check on EVERYONE who purchases there. So if I look and act normal but have a record, it will show up in the check and the sale is stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
Um, please. I am sure you can use it to fasten signs to building sides, or maybe floss your teeth (really carefully) but the B+A was made to kill. Just because people use it to play music on it does not mean that is what it was for!
I don't use a hammer to change my tire but it does work great for fastening a sign to a building with a nail. You need the right tool for the right job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
This is the tough part. Registration is only half the battle. Make sure that people who get the guns legally are safe bets, THEN find a way to isolate the other arms and curtail their proliferation. Simple things like one-a-month may be a PIT.....butt, but how many would you really need unless you were hoarding or dealing?
Like I said earlier, I fill out a form 4473 (Google if you want to read it) every time I purchase from a retailer. That form is used to run an FBI background check on me. How much more do you want? The ammount thing gets into personal freedoms. Do we really need sports cars that can go 150+ mph? Does Oprah really need a house the size of a city block? I know that in Mississippi, I have a gun 'collection' and a small one at that. In New Jersey the SWAT team would kick in my door and it would be reported on the news that I had an 'arsenal' of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
I think something similar to building code could be enforced in that, if you are not ADDING anything (or changing it significantly) you do not need to update to current codes. (In the case of buildings, it is usually seismic/wind loading and fire safety).
So if I put new tires on a 1970 Caddy then I should convert the engine to run on unleaded? There is nothing to add on my S&W pistol. I may have to change a hammer spring but that is as simple of removing a screw. 99% of 'upgrades' to any gun can be completed at a kitchen table. There are hundreds of sources for the parts. You can't enforce this rule. It's almost as bad as the UN treaty that says anyone who assembles a gun needs to be a licensed manufacturer. How do I break down my AR15 for cleaning? I then have to take it to someone else to put it back together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
There ARE some things you need to still do, for your own safety, but that would probably be debatable on a case-by-case basis (putting a safety catch on some models if feasable?).
I've held guns from WWII and they have all had a safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
So the restriction would only be applicable to new weapons. Agreed this would not produce an immediate result, but guns (if they are not looked after) do not last forever.... My guess is many are misplaced before they even break, but that is just speculation.
Guns aren't a set of car keys that you misplace. And these WWII guns I mentioned earlier were in perfect working order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
I think further things cuold be done to THAT mechanism to allow people to share their weapons with others, but that would involve some deliberate planning to make sure that you lending your rifle to a friend is easy, but not Jr taking it out when you are not home to show HIS friend.... (I know, the owner should be more responsible, but still, better to make the death impossible than to point fingers after the fact).
I grew up in a house full of guns. There were no gun safes back then. I still live by my father's words 'There is nothing more useless than an unloaded gun'. Did I shoot up the local school? Did I shoot a friend accidentally? Did I touch the guns without adult supervision? No to all questions. I was taught proper gun safety and a true respect for the potential harm they can do. I think gun safety should be taught in school.
I understand where you are coming from. I'd like to see crime go down as well. But you want to control a tool of the criminal where I'd like to punish the people using the tool for evil.
Based on this, we can probably move this discussion to the Debates section. There are already on-going threads about this.
Rj, I think the only thing we might have a problem with when discussing this is our perception of the instrument itself.
You, and many others, seem to think that the gun is a tool, when it isn't. It is a weapon, and in some cases a recreational instrument (that was derived, and still can be used as, a weapon).
I am not asking for the removal of them for this though. Some people seem to think calling a gun a "tool" validates its existance simply by saying that other tools can be used to kill, so if you don't ban them, you should not do anything to ban (or regulate) guns.
This just does not fit. It is too broad a label. It is not a universal card of absolution for such a dangerous and efficiently deadly instrument.
Again, does this call for its abolishment? Not as such, but it also does not help defend its reason for universal proliferation. We need to find out why gun violence is so low in other nations, and why it is higher in others, and try to mold our own laws to mimic what works. I am sure more stringent regulation does help, but what keeps the illegal weapons off the streets? Simply pointing a finger at all guns is not a workable solution, so what would work.
Saying that you did not shoot up a school does not mean that those two columbine students did not. Just because you did not go clubbing with a gun in your sweatpants does not mean that idiot did not shoot himself in the foot and get suspended from playing (this?) season. People, in general, are stupid. How do you keep that much power out of the hands of those that will eventually hurt someone? And how can you tell? That second part is the hard one.
It is not your GPA that determines if you will shoot someone. Your salary might (the more you make, the less likely your finger is on the trigger). Your race doesn't, and other factors are not 100%, so how can you deter those most likely to be irresponsible and a danger to those around them?
As for the Mfr, I agree with what you are saying, but not all retailers are responsible. Once that gun is sold to a retailer of ill repute, the Mfr cannot completely wash his hands of the whole thing and say "hey, we didn't know!".
The more likely a Mfr is for selling these powerful items, the less they will even reach a retailer that will sell it to someone under 18 and be busted by the ATF.
This is not a question of finger pointing, but more like mutual responsibility for something this serious.
"In that state you must be 18 to buy a long gun. The ATF was involved. He will lose his federal firearms license, lose his business and probably spend time in the federal pen."
IN S.C. 2 cases recently have been adjuicated in favor of the 18 year old being legal to own a firearm even though state law says 18 year old cannot.
It appears the state constitution conciders 18 years old as adults and as such restrictions cannot be placed on them
There is much talk about 18 year olds and drinking laws being changed.
These are states rights and I don't think the federal government has any business deciding who is and isn't old enough to own a gun.
Rj, I think the only thing we might have a problem with when discussing this is our perception of the instrument itself.
You, and many others, seem to think that the gun is a tool, when it isn't. It is a weapon, and in some cases a recreational instrument (that was derived, and still can be used as, a weapon).
Weapons are tools. Stones were our first tools & its a toss up wether the first guy used one to crack a walnut or another mans head.
In todays world a gun is primarilly a recreational instrument that serves well for defensive purposes & is ocasionally, quite rarely actually given its popularity, used for criminal activity.
Quote:
I am not asking for the removal of them for this though. Some people seem to think calling a gun a "tool" validates its existance simply by saying that other tools can be used to kill, so if you don't ban them, you should not do anything to ban (or regulate) guns.
This just does not fit. It is too broad a label. It is not a universal card of absolution for such a dangerous and efficiently deadly instrument.
They are tools, but certain tools can be banned or restricted. The difference is that they are the current basic personal defense weapon. Banning them is wrong on many levels, but lucky for us in the USA its simply illegal to ban them.
Quote:
Again, does this call for its abolishment? Not as such, but it also does not help defend its reason for universal proliferation. We need to find out why gun violence is so low in other nations, and why it is higher in others, and try to mold our own laws to mimic what works. I am sure more stringent regulation does help, but what keeps the illegal weapons off the streets? Simply pointing a finger at all guns is not a workable solution, so what would work.
We need only note our constitution & observe how gun control correlates to crime in our country. In our country a pretty universal phenomenon is that areas of tough gun control or outright bans have more violent crime, gun related & otherwise, than areas with little or no restraints.
There is no "universal proliferation" as we have federal laws governing who can & cannot buy guns. However, in the areas where ONLY federal restrictions apply there is no noteable increase in crime. Same with reasonable states who dont over restrict them.
Quote:
Saying that you did not shoot up a school does not mean that those two columbine students did not. Just because you did not go clubbing with a gun in your sweatpants does not mean that idiot did not shoot himself in the foot and get suspended from playing (this?) season. People, in general, are stupid. How do you keep that much power out of the hands of those that will eventually hurt someone? And how can you tell? That second part is the hard one.
You cant tell who will eventually go nuts. But you can grant them a safe working environment by supporting gun free zones, anti gun legislation, ect, ect. The only thing that would have stopped Columbine was an armed person in the school. Same with the VT tragedy. Why do people continue to ignore the unquestionable benefit of armed citizens? Theres an aweful lot of blood on the hands of those supporting gun free zones.
Quote:
It is not your GPA that determines if you will shoot someone. Your salary might (the more you make, the less likely your finger is on the trigger). Your race doesn't, and other factors are not 100%, so how can you deter those most likely to be irresponsible and a danger to those around them?
By paying attention & being armed so you can matter if you are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Quote:
As for the Mfr, I agree with what you are saying, but not all retailers are responsible. Once that gun is sold to a retailer of ill repute, the Mfr cannot completely wash his hands of the whole thing and say "hey, we didn't know!".
Bullsnot. Why cant people bother educateing themselves about how guns are sold in the USA before starting to spew crap.
Any gun sold by a retailer requires a NICS check. Thats a backround check run thru a federal database. A Dealer cannot say "We didn't know" Thats just rediculous. A Mfgr has no say in the matter. Just as Ford is not at fault if a dealer sells a car to a known gangster who then uses it in a drive by shooting.
Quote:
The more likely a Mfr is for selling these powerful items, the less they will even reach a retailer that will sell it to someone under 18 and be busted by the ATF.
Gun makers make what people will buy, just like anything else. Except they cannot advertize & push their product nearly as well.
Again, a dealer simply cannot sell a gun to a minor.
Quote:
This is not a question of finger pointing, but more like mutual responsibility for something this serious.
Nah, its a lack of basic understanding of the gun laws of our country.
The only person responsible for stabbing someone is the guy pushing the knife, the only one guilty of running someone over is the guy behind the wheel, the only one responsible for a shooting is the guy squeezing the trigger, the only one responsible for bashing someone with a bat is the guy swinging it. Mutual responsibility eh?
Sounds more like minimizing guilt if you ask me.
Rj, I think the only thing we might have a problem with when discussing this is our perception of the instrument itself.
You, and many others, seem to think that the gun is a tool, when it isn't. It is a weapon, and in some cases a recreational instrument (that was derived, and still can be used as, a weapon).
I am not asking for the removal of them for this though. Some people seem to think calling a gun a "tool" validates its existance simply by saying that other tools can be used to kill, so if you don't ban them, you should not do anything to ban (or regulate) guns.
This just does not fit. It is too broad a label. It is not a universal card of absolution for such a dangerous and efficiently deadly instrument.
Again, does this call for its abolishment? Not as such, but it also does not help defend its reason for universal proliferation. We need to find out why gun violence is so low in other nations, and why it is higher in others, and try to mold our own laws to mimic what works. I am sure more stringent regulation does help, but what keeps the illegal weapons off the streets? Simply pointing a finger at all guns is not a workable solution, so what would work.
Saying that you did not shoot up a school does not mean that those two columbine students did not. Just because you did not go clubbing with a gun in your sweatpants does not mean that idiot did not shoot himself in the foot and get suspended from playing (this?) season. People, in general, are stupid. How do you keep that much power out of the hands of those that will eventually hurt someone? And how can you tell? That second part is the hard one.
It is not your GPA that determines if you will shoot someone. Your salary might (the more you make, the less likely your finger is on the trigger). Your race doesn't, and other factors are not 100%, so how can you deter those most likely to be irresponsible and a danger to those around them?
As for the Mfr, I agree with what you are saying, but not all retailers are responsible. Once that gun is sold to a retailer of ill repute, the Mfr cannot completely wash his hands of the whole thing and say "hey, we didn't know!".
The more likely a Mfr is for selling these powerful items, the less they will even reach a retailer that will sell it to someone under 18 and be busted by the ATF.
This is not a question of finger pointing, but more like mutual responsibility for something this serious.
Did you know that Mexico has gun laws that are as strict as those found in the UK?
You did not need to do a full quote for a 1-liner response man!
Also, as for pondering:
Mexico does not enforce these laws. Many MANY of the guns that they have are being made HERE and sold to them. SO how doe sthat say anything about the situation? It isn't just teh laws themselves, but what laws and how they are enforced. Mexico has the most stringent, has higher rates of gun related violence. But what about teh classic example of England or other European nations that have more strict regulations than we do? Why do theirs work better than Mexicos?
Devil's advocate: Is it because tehy are so near other countries that have less strict gun regulations so it is pretty easy for them to get guns from across the border?
The other thing you have to be careful about statistics is this. The areas that have the most crime do not have it BECAUSE the gun regulations were there. The regulations were enacted to help CURB those rates. It is like saying that traffic lights do not help traffic since the area that have the most of them have the most traffic.... . The key is, how effective are they, and do they suffer the same problems as other laws when neighboring areas have much more relaxed laws (remember the drinking age? Also, fireworks were a BIG issue, people would just drive south, and still do, to get the illegal big-uns!).
As for Columbine... peopel say that if someone else had a gun it would have stopped them, but I do not think it would be that simple.
Not every teacher should have to carry a loaded weapon around with them, and how many security people would you have on staff that would be able to get there in time to do anything? This happened too fast for someone to be able to pull one out and cap them.
There is also that other school shooting with the one kid that took, I believe, his dad's rifle out and started sniping at kids in his school from outside. (Did he kill his parents? I am fuzzy on some of the details...).
That much easily accessed power needs a way to be able to be harnessed. Much more than just "Trust me". The question still is, what would that be? While most of the nay-sayers are valid in saying that simple restrictions have limited effect, many do not suggest anything but a wild west "if everyone had one, there would be less killing" which is outright bull hockey. (The west was not known for its civil discourse. It was also not like the movies, granted....).
So, again I ask. What is the solution to gun crime? A solution that would work?
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.
. The key is, how effective are they, and do they suffer the same problems as other laws when neighboring areas have much more relaxed laws (remember the drinking age? Also, fireworks were a BIG issue, people would just drive south, and still do, to get the illegal big-uns!).
