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 idea is the bad guys get guns from irresponsible good guys. make the good guys be more responsible, and the bad guys can't get guns. Not that hard.
Think about it, its similar to punishing those that hire illegals, if you eliminate the opportunity, the illegals will stop. Can't we do the same with guns????
I am thinking about it. And sorry, but it took me about half a second to conclude that it makes no sense.
Hmmmm. The good guys are now responsible for assuring the bad guys don't get hold of a gun? Something along the lines of that old 60's slogan which said "dont start a boy on a life of crime by leaving your keys in your car"? Makes everybody but the criminal feel guilty. Ridiculous notion.
BTW -- even though I reject the analogy, I firmly believe that, to stop illegal immigration, we must concentrate just as much on the companys that hire them. No dispute there in the least. I agree with you here.
What if she had it, fired and missed and killed someone else??? She'd still live in regret and she'd be responsible for someone elses death.
But not 23 innocent people. Well, regardless, why don't you write and talk to her about it. If you had been in the cafeteria that day, would you have wanted a gun or a gun-control law?
What if she had fired, missed, and killed somebody else? *shakes head sadly* Typical reply from some anti-gun person who lives in a never-never land. Odin? If some guy is shooting people at random, kiling everyone in sight for the sheer hell of it, then the situtation is just about as bad as it can possibly get. ANY alternative would be preferable. Are you going to dispute me?
Quote:
What if after getting concealed weapons permitted someone gets in her purse when its unattended and uses her gun to kill someone???
Funny, not ha-ha funny, but interesting that you start off by rejecting the "what if" game, but then your own case boils down to an infinite number of alternative outcomes, with no basis in reality at all. If pigs had wings, they'd be eagles.
OK, what if somebody did do just what you say might happen? Stolen the gun out of her purse. Well, hopefully she would have had the natural right to have used it first of all to defend her life and those of her parents and everyone else in the place before it was stolen. After that? Well, then the guy/gal who stole it is just the picture-perfect poster child of that criminals don't get their guns legally. They steal them.
Quote:
Personally, in her little story, while she's running her mouth, I'd hire an aide to steal something out of her purse, just to make a point, that a concealed weapon is a false security blanket and a risk for those around you.
You would? How downright pathetic.
Quote:
I'm willing to allow concealed weapons, but I want them all registered, and punishment for owners of guns in crimes. if you want the right, you need to be responsible enough to have it.
*snaps fingers* Damn! Why wasn't this thought of before? That is, those who have CCL's must first prove themselves capable in both course and range training? Gosh, what a novel idea and to think you would actually be willing to allow it!
Quote:
Would you allow a blind man to drive?? Do you want someone driving who is unable to react if a kid runs out in the street???? Why do people think gun owners shouldn't have to demonstrate some responsibility??
See above.
BTW -- just out of curiosity, what are your experiences with guns? Ever hunt? Ever fired one?
I'd actually like to take most of what I said back in my original post. I am not anti-Second Amendment and I do actually believe in the right to bear arms. My post last night was as a result of a knee jerk reaction from having to endure the company of a particularly obnoxious person (long story).
I agree with MiamiRob's short reply, in the case of Switzerland. They have 100% gun ownership and virtually no gun crime. In Switzerland, gun ownership is basically a requirement. The Swiss are trained to use firearms responsibly and in effect, all Swiss citizens are part of an unofficial army. They are also big on recreational shooting, which is a very important social aspect of their country.
I think that the US could learn a LOT from the example of Switzerland. We need to teach people how to use guns responsibly and perhaps as a society, we need to become a little less "macho" when it comes to guns. I do feel that we need to do a lot more to ensure that "crazies" don't get their hands on firearms. The screening process for gun licensing needs to be improved as it's often harder to pass a background check for an apartment than it is to obtain a firearm. I also think that guns should not be sold in places like Walmart, but rather only at designated gun shops and certainly not at gun shows.
As much as I am a peaceful guy, having a society where citizens have the right to bear arms is less likely to be steamrollered by a corrupt / power hungry government who wishes to exert control over its people. Although that scenario is unlikely to happen, never say never. An unarmed population against an armed government is like a one legged, one armed blind man in an ass kicking contest. So an armed civilian population kind of provides a level of "checks and balances", in terms of keeping any crazy government or leader in check.
As far as violence in the US is concerned, it's a problem with society, rather than the availability of guns. If you banned guns tomorrow, it'd make no difference. The criminals would still find a way to get hold of them, while law abiding citizens would be left defenseless in a very violent society. The mental health system is a joke here too, allowing such crazies to carry on as is for so long, without being forced to get help or even institutionalized (in the case of the most dangerous, such as the VA Tech shooter).
Anyway, I apologize for my earlier post. It was way out of line.
I'd like to ask the OP what his/her personal experience is with firearms and upon what he bases his/her opinion? Upon what do you base the "macho" factor (as no one I know owns firearms for that reason)? You make arguements for Swiss style of training yet fail to recognize that in this country military service is voluntary rather than compulsory as in Switzerland.
Do you make assumptions about firearms training based on personal knowlege of your own training experience, of your lack of exerience or training with firearms, or or from personally knowing and being around firearms owners who have no safety training?
I am thinking about it. And sorry, but it took me about half a second to conclude that it makes no sense.
Hmmmm. The good guys are now responsible for assuring the bad guys don't get hold of a gun? Something along the lines of that old 60's slogan which said "dont start a boy on a life of crime by leaving your keys in your car"? Makes everybody but the criminal feel guilty. Ridiculous notion.
BTW -- even though I reject the analogy, I firmly believe that, to stop illegal immigration, we must concentrate just as much on the companys that hire them. No dispute there in the least. I agree with you here.
Somewhere along the line, people that shouldn't have guns get their hands on them. This means someone is selling guns who is irresponsible. Where does it begin? Do the manufacturers sell them to unscrupulous dealers? Do people at gun shows sell them to whoever has cash??? Not hard to figure this out. If you choose to reject the analogy, then it shows your own bias.
Somewhere along the line, people that shouldn't have guns get their hands on them. This means someone is selling guns who is irresponsible. Where does it begin? Do the manufacturers sell them to unscrupulous dealers? Do people at gun shows sell them to whoever has cash??? Not hard to figure this out. If you choose to reject the analogy, then it shows your own bias.
Well, you are correct in at least one simple sense. I AM biased in favor of the armed citizen over the criminal.
But anyway, have it your way, ol' buddy. It is just a waste of time to reply to this clueless drivel of yours. All I can say is, for your sake, I hope you never have to stake your life on a gun-control law protecting you from harm.
Somewhere along the line, people that shouldn't have guns get their hands on them. This means someone is selling guns who is irresponsible. Where does it begin? Do the manufacturers sell them to unscrupulous dealers? Do people at gun shows sell them to whoever has cash??? Not hard to figure this out. If you choose to reject the analogy, then it shows your own bias.
Based upon your analogy, anyone living in mexico can't have a gun? It's illegal to own a gun there, which means it's illegal to sell guns there. The question is, how do they get them?
They can't just waltz across the border and buy fully autmoatic weapons, because to even HAVE one of those in the U.S. requires a special (and expensive) weapon's permit, that the holder isn't going to jeopardize selling to some person from across the border.
Why is the concept that criminals don't care about the law, and the ONLY people who will be affected by any gun laws are those law abiding citizens so difficult to comprehend?
All of these references to Sweden, Norway, and Japan leave out one glaring difference between those countries and our own. They are quite homogenous; in ethnicity, religion, and culture. We value our freedoms but that does not make us a utopia. I still thinks it's the best one out there but it does beg the question of if you can truly compare these countries to our own with respect to the crime rate.
I do understand that I am making a bit of a logical leap here and am treading the correlation does not equal causation line, but it does beg the question if those differences have more of an impact than not.
Somewhere along the line, people that shouldn't have guns get their hands on them. This means someone is selling guns who is irresponsible. Where does it begin? Do the manufacturers sell them to unscrupulous dealers? Do people at gun shows sell them to whoever has cash??? Not hard to figure this out. If you choose to reject the analogy, then it shows your own bias.
1) Manufacturers sell to distributors, not to dealers.
2) Distributors sell to dealers
3) Dealers sell to qualified and able buyers, per the laws
Manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must all be licensed by BATFE and are subject to "no notice" walk-in inspections of their books and inventory by BATFE agents at any time. There are laws in place for the regulation of the sale and transfer of firearms from one state to another. Both federal and state laws apply to every sale & transfer. There is a very severe fine system and immediate loss of business license for violations. Prosecution and jail time for dealers with known violations is a reality.
Any licensed dealer selling to the public, whether it be at their storefront place of business, at a gunshow, or online, must do a background check through the federal NICS system using the BATFE required forms. The retail customer is required to fill out the form 4473 and attest to the validity of his/her answers by signing thusly. To lie is a prosecutable crime. The sale is not completed until the dealer is given the green light by the NICS system and a code for the transaction.
Well, you are correct in at least one simple sense. I AM biased in favor of the armed citizen over the criminal.
But anyway, have it your way, ol' buddy. It is just a waste of time to reply to this clueless drivel of yours. All I can say is, for your sake, I hope you never have to stake your life on a gun-control law protecting you from harm.
I don't, I prioritize on whats most likely to kill/harm me. Not whats flashy or gets a lot of media coverage, but is unlikely statistically.
and for the record, in our little debate, I never said I wasn't in favor of an armed citizen, I only want it in a responsible fashion.
I've been thinking about this, I've got a great idea.
Anyone who wants a gun can get one, all they have to do is provide a mental health eval within the past 5 years.
All guns must be registered and one round must be fired to go into a national database for purposes of matching.
All selling of guns requires filing of paperwork within 3 days stating seller and buyer with the ATF. If a gun is stolen, you have 24 hours to report it.
If guns are confiscated in crimes, they are tracked to last known holder, that holder is charged.
This does not interfere with second amendment rights at all. The only delay is making sure someone has the decision making capacity to carry something that can end another persons life quite easily. This onlyensures responsibility of those who want to have firearms. Doesn't it?
Yes! Well thought out ideas. How could anyone be against these?
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 good guys are now responsible for assuring the bad guys don't get hold of a gun? Something along the lines of that old 60's slogan which said "dont start a boy on a life of crime by leaving your keys in your car"? Makes everybody but the criminal feel guilty. Ridiculous notion. 
Mexico
