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.
1) Who is defending his dead mother? She left the guns unlocked and accessable. I for one ( if she were still alive ) would prosecute her for not having the guns locked and secured after this incident.
You have for fact proof of this ? I haven't found a single piece of anything about the inside or whereabouts her guns were stored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The proposal for NY is reasonable, granted there a few areas for improvement but it is a move in the right direction.
The ban for NY is going to now make more criminals that aren't criminals
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
Secondly, a gun designed to hold a 30 round clip is different... and thirdly, a pistol grip matters. Do we need to do this more?
Again, I see both sides - I just can't stand those that choose to be condescending or obtuse about this... It makes the arguments look hollow.
If you want your gun buff AR15 - fine with me. Just don't pretend it's the same gun the average person hunts with. It's insulting.
A pistol grip matters ? thats like saying leather wrapped steering wheels make you drive better.
A pistol grip is a comfort, don't start getting like the people using that as it makes you some super shooter reason to ban it, it does not.
I can adapt a 30 rd clip to any gun i own, and that suddenly changes my gun to some monstrous capability of cutting down trees and millions of people and buildings.
An ar-15 is no different than other rifles other than it lacks the ability to fire full auto, which full auto is really only proficient when fired from a gun using a good mounting/stabilizing platform.
The ar-15 is used by many to hunt with, and so are much more powerful guns because the ar-15 isn't good to kill everything.
Gun ownership isn't about hunting it is about protecting yourselves and keeping govt in check, the govt/state can take hunting away tomorrow as you all gave the epa so much control hunting can end in an hour.
Guns are only needed for our protection against those who are willing to do harm and keep our govt in check, and for that we may need a M134 and a Abrams tank of which i would have no problem owning such to deter and keep both possibilities from happening. People do own these and people have actually stolen tanks and went on a stupid spree.
You control your safety not your govt for you.
Again Switzerland has at least 1 REAL full auto infantry weapon in EVERY home and they give them several live 30 rnd magazines also.
Switzerland doesn't have assault weapons on mass murder sprees like people believe we have here which we don't.
Roughly 250 peoople shot per day in the US. That's a dilly of a pickle.
Invoking Timothy McVeigh as an anology is utterly ridiculous.
Treat guns like cars (registration, skills testing, etc). If the registration process isn't too egregious for your Cadillac, why should it be for your gun? That works both ways. If it is registered legally, you should be able to have (almost) any gun you want, although I'd say semi-auto should be the floor, not full auto, and commie regimes like NYC and LI should make it plain and legal for qualified citizens to own (if not carry). The laws (and lawsuits) on the books now just entice otherwise law abiding people to break the law.
There is an awful lot about DMV laws that can be used as a model. One clear way is in reciprocation between the states. I said this in an earlier post, but, imagine you wanted to take your Cadillac for a drive to Pennsylvania but couldn't because Pa. decided to ban everything but 4 cylinder engines because they just had a bad highway pile up? Imagine getting a drivers license because you passed a background check only, no proficiency required? IMO, that's how the gun laws are now, and as a result the huge variances from state to state cause problems that only end up punishing the law abiding & feed the "bad guys".
I don't think I'd go as far as saying every single gun should be registered. For example, I own an old family heirloom that came home from Tarawa. A relative let it fall into very bad shape so it's no longer safe to fire. However, it could be fired and is still a rifle. There's no reason that I see that this piece of family, and American, history needs to be registered. I do think the focus should be on the owner and in licensing of them in some classification manner.
Simply if you qualify to own a gun (not a criminal or some other defined disqualifying reason) then you have to take a class, do some proficiency training and then pass a test on knowledge/proficiency. Once you do that then go buy your gun. Classes/proficiency can be tailored to type of gun and usage such as carry.
By the way, I don't think using the example of McVeigh is ridiculous because it is an example of why legislation can not prevent tragedy.
There is an awful lot about DMV laws that can be used as a model. One clear way is in reciprocation between the states. I said this in an earlier post, but, imagine you wanted to take your Cadillac for a drive to Pennsylvania but couldn't because Pa. decided to ban everything but 4 cylinder engines because they just had a bad highway pile up? Imagine getting a drivers license because you passed a background check only, no proficiency required? IMO, that's how the gun laws are now, and as a result the huge variances from state to state cause problems that only end up punishing the law abiding & feed the "bad guys".
I don't think I'd go as far as saying every single gun should be registered. For example, I own an old family heirloom that came home from Tarawa. A relative let it fall into very bad shape so it's no longer safe to fire. However, it could be fired and is still a rifle. There's no reason that I see that this piece of family, and American, history needs to be registered. I do think the focus should be on the owner and in licensing of them in some classification manner.
Simply if you qualify to own a gun (not a criminal or some other defined disqualifying reason) then you have to take a class, do some proficiency training and then pass a test on knowledge/proficiency. Once you do that then go buy your gun. Classes/proficiency can be tailored to type of gun and usage such as carry.
By the way, I don't think using the example of McVeigh is ridiculous because it is an example of why legislation can not prevent tragedy.
Excellent post. Solid points, well said.
Except that last line ...I still think home grown terrorists w/ a truck full of fertilizer attacking a govt building muddies the gun debate. It's not relevant. Legislation can't stop mosquitoes either, but it's not pertinent to gun control.
I don't think I'd go as far as saying every single gun should be registered. For example, I own an old family heirloom that came home from Tarawa. A relative let it fall into very bad shape so it's no longer safe to fire. However, it could be fired and is still a rifle. There's no reason that I see that this piece of family, and American, history needs to be registered. I do think the focus should be on the owner and in licensing of them in some classification manner.
Simply if you qualify to own a gun (not a criminal or some other defined disqualifying reason) then you have to take a class, do some proficiency training and then pass a test on knowledge/proficiency. Once you do that then go buy your gun. Classes/proficiency can be tailored to type of gun and usage such as carry.
By the way, I don't think using the example of McVeigh is ridiculous because it is an example of why legislation can not prevent tragedy.
I would agree with taking a class on proper gun use, how to hold them and safely like all the hunting classes are when you get your hunting license, in fact just use the hunters safety course, but not registering them.
Cars aren't a constitutional right, and registration is only for them to consistently take money from you every year to have one.
A gun is a constitutional right for a reason and shouldn't be registered like a car, a background check is fine, however that shouldn't be any months of wait, the same way a pd vehicles wireless system knows everything about you in seconds is how the background check should be, so i would agree with a day or two. The states like ours using months and months in the hopes you are disgusted and just quit are out of control.
The only other thing i would add to our existing laws are that a all sales between gun owners go between a gun dealer who knows the sale was done and the buyer wasn't a criminal.
Anyone that breaks that law should see 20 yrs in jail.
Other than a background check and safety course and the addition of the gun dealer for personal sale transfers that should be all we need, and these carry permits for cc shouldn't be attached to any demands or requirements other than the background check and safety course, it is absurd that anyone that needs to protect themselves can not without showing 10,000 3 times a week as if only people are robbed carrying 10k or more...
Cars aren't a constitutional right, and registration is only for them to consistently take money from you every year to have one.
A gun is a constitutional right for a reason and shouldn't be registered like a car, a background check is fine, however that shouldn't be any months of wait, the same way a pd vehicles wireless system knows everything about you in seconds is how the background check should be, so i would agree with a day or two. The states like ours using months and months in the hopes you are disgusted and just quit are out of control.
The only other thing i would add to our existing laws are that a all sales between gun owners go between a gun dealer who knows the sale was done and the buyer wasn't a criminal.
Anyone that breaks that law should see 20 yrs in jail.
Other than a background check and safety course and the addition of the gun dealer for personal sale transfers that should be all we need, and these carry permits for cc shouldn't be attached to any demands or requirements other than the background check and safety course, it is absurd that anyone that needs to protect themselves can not without showing 10,000 3 times a week as if only people are robbed carrying 10k or more...
.
I don't disagree with you regarding registration and your points are 100% valid. The one thing I will point out is that, for the most part, legal handguns are already registered in the USA, as are legal fully automatic weapons. Based on that, I don't see politicians willing to give that up and in certain circumstances I may even agree with it.
For example, let's say I've got 1000 acre piece of land upstate somewhere. Let's also say I pass all the requirements and tests and get my gun license (through my previously described type of scenario). Why shouldn't I be allowed to own and fire an old Browning M1919? It's not concealable and it's not real portable, but I'll understand if they say that weapon should be registered. Do I agree it should? Maybe, I'm hesitant for the reasons you mention, but I can understand it and maybe it makes sense.
As far as having dealers do transfers, no problem there either. But there needs to be state reciprocation in that too. If I've got a NY license and buy it from a dealer in NJ that should be it. Having a NJ dealer send it to a NY dealer only means I'm going to get taxed multiple times and pay extra fees. Once I have a license I should be able to go to the dealer and buy what I want, or sell what I want right there.
I'm a right to carry person, demonstrating a need should not be part of the equation IMO. I don't have a problem with saying that if you wish to carry that your classes/proficiency testing be geared for that so your license can be designated carry. I also don't have a problem with saying a license should be renewed every 10 years or so and include a "refresher" class.
The best part of your post is indicating the need to enforce laws. IMO it's something we don't do very well right now. Granted, part of the problem is the variances between states, counties and even cities which create a hodgepodge of laws that leave many of them unenforceable. A simple, relatively consistent licensing system with state reciprocation would make it much easier to enforce the laws. Then maybe it can be simply - commit any crime with a gun get minimum 10 years period - commit violent crime with a gun get 30 years minimum period. You were once a "good guy" with a license and got caught up in drugs or something and became a "bad guy"? Well you lose your license and if you commit a crime with a gun you get double minimum. A simple concept really, just punish the bad guys.
Excellent post. Solid points, well said.
Except that last line ...I still think home grown terrorists w/ a truck full of fertilizer attacking a govt building muddies the gun debate. It's not relevant. Legislation can't stop mosquitoes either, but it's not pertinent to gun control.
We can agree to disagree, no problem.
It's nothing more than my view, but if I define terrorism as a violent act that creates fear among others. Then there have been many incidents that could be brought into the discussion beyond those that most people would consider a terrorist act, simply because the end result is the same.
I could also flip it some, and say to have real discussion on reasonable gun laws (to many negative connotations IMO for me to use the word "control" - we don't refer to it as "motor vehicle control laws" after all) then we must not factor in the far extreme situations because they are rare in comparison to most gun crime, and often involve EDP... I know it's a stretch.
Please tell me why you think it's reasonable. Other than the mental health checks, why is ANY of this reasonable? Why do I need to go through a background check to by ammunition? Why does buying in bulk raise red flags, when it's realistically cheaper to buy in bulk? Why are guns with more than 1 "evil feature" banned now, when we've gone almost 20 years with allowing 2? Why do we feel the need to register guns with the state?
There are a few other things in the act, increased criminal penalties, universal background checks, state recertification for assault weapons and handguns. I understand that requiring large ammunition purchases to go through a dealer is an inconvenience but still practical.
I never really agreed with some of the list of features defining an assault weapon, like bayonet mount, supressor, but pistol grips are used on just about every military rifle, much more easy to use in combat. They really should have looked more at function, rate of fire, range, function, the AR-15 and some others should have been included in the weapons ban, same gun as an M16 except for one feature.
I don't believe there are millions of mentally ill people, i believe and see the ones that are there and they aren't being helped really, and the cost to help seems to be astronomical
There are mentally ill not receiving care, but the solution is far from simple, especially with all the cuts to social services. I don't think europe or other countries have more mentally ill or any better treatment than us, but our menatlly ill have far greater is access to guns. Some states have almost no reporting, some states have less than 5 people restricted from getting guns, that is why we need nationwide background checks.
Roughly 250 peoople shot per day in the US. That's a dilly of a pickle.
Invoking Timothy McVeigh as an anology is utterly ridiculous.
Treat guns like cars (registration, skills testing, etc). If the registration process isn't too egregious for your Cadillac, why should it be for your gun? That works both ways. If it is registered legally, you should be able to have (almost) any gun you want, although I'd say semi-auto should be the floor, not full auto, and commie regimes like NYC and LI should make it plain and legal for qualified citizens to own (if not carry). The laws (and lawsuits) on the books now just entice otherwise law abiding people to break the law.
Agree with this 100%. The analogies to rocks, knives, hammers, bombs is a joke. If those are such dangerous weapons to be compared to guns, why not use a hammer or a bomb for home protection? Look at what the Oslo bomber did:
He needed to start a fake mineral extraction company to acquire 7 tons of fertilizer, months prepping, tens of thousands of dollars, and successfully got lucky and built a huge bomb to kill 8 people.
Then on the island he used a rifle and a few hundred dollars in ammo to kill 69 people.
I agree too NY needs to loosen up the laws while the Federal level needs to tighten. Gun control should be entirely at the Federal level because people go out of state to acquire what they need (for illegal purposes) anyway.
The proposal for NY is reasonable, granted there a few areas for improvement but it is a move in the right direction.
Reasonable does not make the PD's guns illegal. Reasonable does not remove the right to privacy for gun permit holders.
Sexual predators now have more privacy than law-abiding permit holders. The LoHud newspaper nimrods outted my PD family members in Westchester. Do you believe that is reasonable?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
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.
...I still think home grown terrorists w/ a truck full of fertilizer attacking a govt building muddies the gun debate. It's not relevant. Legislation can't stop mosquitoes either, but it's not pertinent to gun control.
