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.
We have vehicles that will not run unless the computer chip in key matches up with the vehicle. I believe it is possible to have a similar solution with firearms, effectively making it more difficult for criminals to use stolen weapons. Of course, that would require the removal of most current firearms from the people. I don't say all because you wouldn't remove collector's items from the populace.
We have vehicles that will not run unless the computer chip in key matches up with the vehicle. I believe it is possible to have a similar solution with firearms, effectively making it more difficult for criminals to use stolen weapons.
Or even some sort of fingerprint matching system on the gun?
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
it does have something to do with something because while you may not be advocating such a thing there are a certain amount of people including a segment of politicians who would like to so severely restrict ownership that it would for the most part be a effectively banning outright.
This is good point. I my home state of Texas we have concealed carry laws. But the police departments in some areas will still confiscate the legally carried hang guns. The owners can get them back but have to go through a lengthy process to do so. So in effect it is a de facto program of harassment of law biding citizens who legally carry hand guns.
but they dont live in our country or live under our constitution. they dont have our freedoms and have oppressive laws on their own people. So until they become citizens, i dont care what the world thinks
Huhh? Protect themselves from who? Laurie_25ny? If she is a normal, rational, law-abiding citizen, she's not going to be going around shooting anyone at random. She simply wants the ability to be able to protect herself. If those "others" don't threaten her, or her loved ones, they won't need "to protect themselves", from her. I have no intention of starting anything with anyone, myself, and I would guess that Laurie_ny feels the same way. But, she and I, and everyone on this planet have a God-given right to protect ourselves.
Exactly, thank you, CelticLady.
ducksburg~
I didn't go out and get my gun for the sole purpose of starting anything with anyone. My handgun gets used for target practice and that's it. Same with the other ones. It's my right to own a gun.
But believe me, if someone is in my home, threatening myself or any member of my family? I will not hesistate to use it.
That is the problem. It was too easy for this obviously sick kid to buy two semi-automatic handguns and go on a rampage. The current checks system is not working.
Again, we have a whole process to get a drivers license, including tests, etc. Yet there is no such system for owning a gun?!? That is crazy.
I think guns are terrible and dangerous, but I also hate cars. No one is going to "ban" either one. You gun nuts can still buy your guns and horde them or whatever you people do. But there must be a better system of screening and checks for people to buy a gun. It may inconvenience you a little more but that is a small price to pay.
We have vehicles that will not run unless the computer chip in key matches up with the vehicle. I believe it is possible to have a similar solution with firearms, effectively making it more difficult for criminals to use stolen weapons. Of course, that would require the removal of most current firearms from the people. I don't say all because you wouldn't remove collector's items from the populace.
Uh huh. And, there it is. Take the guns from the people. Once the government got the guns from everyone, do you really think that even we law-abiding folks would be allowed to have a gun again? Hah! That is a load of bull****. Of course, for the gun control crowd, this is exactly what they want. And, gee, isn't it nice that we would be "allowed" to keep our collector's items?! As if that would even happen? My goodness, who are you kidding? And, don't fool yourself into thinking that this would stop, or significantly slow down the violence. The wackos would still have access to whatever they wanted. It's called the black market.
Nice reactionary post, there. I would think it would be quite easy for citizens to trade in their current weapons. They're all registered, right? So the government gives you a credit for your old weapon, and hands you a new one. The government gives citizens something like 24 months to comply. After 24 months are up, old weapons are then declared to be contraband. Law abiding citizens wouldn't need to worry, because if they're law abiding, they would have traded in their old weapons for the new. Only the criminals would need to worry, at that point.
Late to the Party- I haven't read all the posts so forgive me please if I repeat something already discussed.
Before jumping into this debate we should all become somewhat familiar with the data that is out there; that is , what has happened in societies where gun control has recently been mandated, and what happens in societies where gun ownership has been made easier?
Lets take western Anglo countries since that is what the US is (it doesn't help much to point out that every household in Switzerland has a gun etc.) . What has happened in England, Canada, and Australia since their recent bans/restrictions have been passed? In every case violent crime has skyrocketed. Violent crime rates (not murder alone) in these countries exceed that in the US significantly. Why? No deterrence. At the same time the costs for registration and monitoring, at least in Canada and Australia, approaches a billion $ . By contrast, in the US, violent crimes is decreasing perhaps because more and more states are allowing some form of "Concealed Carry". States that do see dramatic decreases in violent crime .
So there are these very practical reasons why we don't have gun control. Then add in the philosophical differences....we are much more free in the US . Free to succeed wildly, free to fail wildly, free to do pretty much do as we please within reason.
We should debate why we have such high murder rates- in my opinion it is because the system allows for the creation of a "desperate class" (the price of freedom?) , not because of the availability of guns.
As one writer said, the 2nd amendment was meant to keep us free from tyranny. I think therefor we would need some pretty compelling data to suggest that this amendment should be changed, and it just isn't there.
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.
Take the guns from the people. Once the government got the guns from everyone, do you really think that even we law-abiding folks would be allowed to have a gun again? Hah! That is a load of bull****. Of course, for the gun control crowd, this is exactly what they want. And, gee, isn't it nice that we would be "allowed" to keep our collector's items?! As if that would even happen? My goodness, who are you kidding? And, don't fool yourself into thinking that this would stop, or significantly slow down the violence. The wackos would still have access to whatever they wanted. It's called the black market.
Guns and Crime
