Registration leads to confiscation. It is happening in NY right now so don't tell me it's being paranoid.
And yes, a felon. Another person lecturing me without their facts when the legislation has been presented in my state of Illinois. They wanted to make it a FELONY for each magazine greater than 10rds that I owned. Each one would have brought a separate felony charge. Seriously before you people start accusing others of being paranoid turn off your TV's and do some damn research. Come to my table with some knowledge of the situation before you spout off about paranoia.
Shall I touch on the mandatory minimum sentencing that they wanted here if I accidentally crossed onto park property while I was legally concealed carrying? Three years, even with no priors.
I came to your table with plenty of information. I also posed a question to you which I see you ducked. I'll ask it again (wait while I cut and paste):
Do you deny there is a correlation between your enormous gun ownership rates and the staggering number of gun homicides?
I wasn't ducking anything, have I ever ignored you? This forum is difficult to navigate on a phone since the change.
As to your question my answer is this. You need to find where those gun crimes are taking place. There is a huge difference between legal gun owners and illegal. Most gun crime is done by those illegally possessing them, such as the gangs in Chicago. Gang members don't go to gun shows (as someone here suggested) to buy guns because of some supposed no background check. They buy them from cartels (which bought them through Obama government programs such as Fast and Furious) and from crooks that stole them. They don't come to us legal gun owners. Why would we do something like that? It would be so counter-productive to our fight.
Rarely are crimes committed by legal gun owners, sure it does happen. That ex-COP in Florida should be locked away for good. But it's rare. It's the same for the attacks with the liberal catch phrase 'assault weapon'. In 2011 there were over 500 people killed in Chicago, one was determined to be done using an 'assault weapon', yet the media wants to make these the bogeyman when they are used in the tiniest fraction of crimes.
And of course politicians such as Obama and Feinstein want to ban these types of firearms because it'll show their liberal base that they are trying to be tough on gun crime even though it wouldn't be doing anything to reduce the crimes that are currently happening.
But it gets those evil guns off the streets? Yeah right. AR-15's are the most popular sporting rifle sold in this country, and are almost never used to commit a crime. Same for these so called "high-capacity" magazines. It's completely overblown.
You want my answer to solving gun crime in this country? Here it is. You go into these areas such as Chicago and Detroit and you arrest every gang member there is and lock them away for fifty years. But no, can't do that because that's racist, right? Funny, liberals have no problems with creating laws to turn me into a criminal but god forbid laws be created to actually lock up the bad guys.
And really, the comparison between countries is stupid. Hope that answers your question. Understand the difference between legal and illegal. Create laws to punish the illegal owners, not the legal ones that have followed the laws.
So your answer to my question is: "No. There is no correlation to gun ownership rates and the homicide rate." You made reference to gangbangers, but we rarely read of them on the news. Typically, we read of children taking legal guns from the their parents and using them on their classmates (like in a New Mexico elementary school just yesterday). Or, we read of road rager, ex-cop mad at texter, etc. These newsworthy events very rarely happen in my country.
And, why is comparing countries 'stupid'? Do you seriously think societal comparisons can't be drawn between the US and Canada? Why not? I think, for the good of your country, you should start doing some comparative research. I got news for you, the USA has some big problems that some people seem to care less about given they aren't directly affected or if it means a change in their lifestyle.
That reply is laughable. My word? Nobody said anything about my word. My RECORD speaks for itself. See the beautiful thing about it that I don't have to defend myself in my argument.
It's funny how you anti-gunners try to shame the pro-gun crowd. I'm not a smoker blowing smoke on your baby in a restaurant. I'm trained and I have shot thousands of rounds perfecting my skills.
... Well... there you go, again. You are avoiding the initial response and diverting the conversation by taking a defensive stance because you believe it to be a personal attack. Again, i apologise for not factoring in your lack of cognitive skills when discussing a wide range topic, such as 2nd Amendment Rights as they apply to public safety. I will try to clearly illustrate my points to the level of your comprehensive skillset. ... When you are arguing about YOUR (Unsung) rights to bear arms, you are arguing that ALL AMERICANS should have those same rights. The 2nd Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS, not just you (Unsung). What you are arguing for is the rights of EVERYONE to have the same access to whatever weapon of your choosing. When you say Unsung should be able to do whatever Unsung pleases, you HAVE to extend those same rights to every American. So, by saying Unsung's words/record speaks for itself... you are saying that every American's word/record should speak for them. Using your arguement, Curtis Reeves was a good guy with a gun... a former police Captain, I am pretty sure he was beyond proficient regarding gun storage, transport, handling and usage. Yet, what happened? He is now being charged with Second Degree murder. His record spoke for itself... up until the second he pulled that trigger. After that, his record included 'Accused Second Degree Murderer' to his list of accomplishments. His record speaks for itself, right? Using the same logic you use and applying it to Mr. Reeves... you are fully capable of losing it for the briefest of moments and changing from Unsung, model citizen, responsible, trainned gun owner to Second Degree murderer, right? Meaning, if what you believe to be your rights... extended to Mr. Reeves... then, conversely, the same would apply to you. You don't know what events the future holds for you. ... So, basically... do you see what my point is? The point is that your ease of gaining possession of... and maintaining possession of a firearm does not extend to just you. If you feel you deserve those rights, you HAVE to believe ALL Americans deserve those same ease of access rights... including the future Mr. Reeves and Adam Lanzas out there whose model citizenry record (currently) speaks for themselves.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Registration leads to confiscation. It is happening in NY right now so don't tell me it's being paranoid.
And yes, a felon. Another person lecturing me without their facts when the legislation has been presented in my state of Illinois. They wanted to make it a FELONY for each magazine greater than 10rds that I owned. Each one would have brought a separate felony charge. Seriously before you people start accusing others of being paranoid turn off your TV's and do some damn research. Come to my table with some knowledge of the situation before you spout off about paranoia.
Shall I touch on the mandatory minimum sentencing that they wanted here if I accidentally crossed onto park property while I was legally concealed carrying? Three years, even with no priors.
I came to your table with plenty of information. I also posed a question to you which I see you ducked. I'll ask it again (wait while I cut and paste):
Do you deny there is a correlation between your enormous gun ownership rates and the staggering number of gun homicides?
I wasn't ducking anything, have I ever ignored you? This forum is difficult to navigate on a phone since the change.
As to your question my answer is this. You need to find where those gun crimes are taking place. There is a huge difference between legal gun owners and illegal. Most gun crime is done by those illegally possessing them, such as the gangs in Chicago. Gang members don't go to gun shows (as someone here suggested) to buy guns because of some supposed no background check. They buy them from cartels (which bought them through Obama government programs such as Fast and Furious) and from crooks that stole them. They don't come to us legal gun owners. Why would we do something like that? It would be so counter-productive to our fight.
Rarely are crimes committed by legal gun owners, sure it does happen. That ex-COP in Florida should be locked away for good. But it's rare. It's the same for the attacks with the liberal catch phrase 'assault weapon'. In 2011 there were over 500 people killed in Chicago, one was determined to be done using an 'assault weapon', yet the media wants to make these the bogeyman when they are used in the tiniest fraction of crimes.
And of course politicians such as Obama and Feinstein want to ban these types of firearms because it'll show their liberal base that they are trying to be tough on gun crime even though it wouldn't be doing anything to reduce the crimes that are currently happening.
But it gets those evil guns off the streets? Yeah right. AR-15's are the most popular sporting rifle sold in this country, and are almost never used to commit a crime. Same for these so called "high-capacity" magazines. It's completely overblown.
You want my answer to solving gun crime in this country? Here it is. You go into these areas such as Chicago and Detroit and you arrest every gang member there is and lock them away for fifty years. But no, can't do that because that's racist, right? Funny, liberals have no problems with creating laws to turn me into a criminal but god forbid laws be created to actually lock up the bad guys.
And really, the comparison between countries is stupid. Hope that answers your question. Understand the difference between legal and illegal. Create laws to punish the illegal owners, not the legal ones that have followed the laws.
So your answer to my question is: "No. There is no correlation to gun ownership rates and the homicide rate." You made reference to gangbangers, but we rarely read of them on the news. Typically, we read of children taking legal guns from the their parents and using them on their classmates (like in a New Mexico elementary school just yesterday). Or, we read of road rager, ex-cop mad at texter, etc. These newsworthy events very rarely happen in my country.
And, why is comparing countries 'stupid'? Do you seriously think societal comparisons can't be drawn between the US and Canada? Why not? I think, for the good of your country, you should start doing some comparative research. I got news for you, the USA has some big problems that some people seem to care less about given they aren't directly affected or if it means a change in their lifestyle.
I thought my response was very clear. I'll attempt to be less confusing.
There is absolutely a correlation, and this is it. Legal gun owners have a lower gun crime rate, illegal gun owners have a higher gun crime rate. Numerous FBI statistics verify this.
Yes there are rare exceptions, and the liberal news media likes to be sure that they highlight those cases. Yet they fail to make the hundreds of illegal gun owner crimes national news as you have attested. why? Because their policies fail, and they don't want to be seen as racist. Want to improve things? Then they'd better prepare for a fight with the likes of Al S. and others like him.
When Canada and Australia have demographics and poverty and reckless economic and social programs and policies like this country then we can compare. Instead our politicians focus on the wrong issues, it's impossible to have a level playing field for comparison sake.
That reply is laughable. My word? Nobody said anything about my word. My RECORD speaks for itself. See the beautiful thing about it that I don't have to defend myself in my argument.
It's funny how you anti-gunners try to shame the pro-gun crowd. I'm not a smoker blowing smoke on your baby in a restaurant. I'm trained and I have shot thousands of rounds perfecting my skills.
... Well... there you go, again. You are avoiding the initial response and diverting the conversation by taking a defensive stance because you believe it to be a personal attack. Again, i apologise for not factoring in your lack of cognitive skills when discussing a wide range topic, such as 2nd Amendment Rights as they apply to public safety. I will try to clearly illustrate my points to the level of your comprehensive skillset. ... When you are arguing about YOUR (Unsung) rights to bear arms, you are arguing that ALL AMERICANS should have those same rights. The 2nd Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS, not just you (Unsung). What you are arguing for is the rights of EVERYONE to have the same access to whatever weapon of your choosing. When you say Unsung should be able to do whatever Unsung pleases, you HAVE to extend those same rights to every American. So, by saying Unsung's words/record speaks for itself... you are saying that every American's word/record should speak for them. Using your arguement, Curtis Reeves was a good guy with a gun... a former police Captain, I am pretty sure he was beyond proficient regarding gun storage, transport, handling and usage. Yet, what happened? He is now being charged with Second Degree murder. His record spoke for itself... up until the second he pulled that trigger. After that, his record included 'Accused Second Degree Murderer' to his list of accomplishments. His record speaks for itself, right? Using the same logic you use and applying it to Mr. Reeves... you are fully capable of losing it for the briefest of moments and changing from Unsung, model citizen, responsible, trainned gun owner to Second Degree murderer, right? Meaning, if what you believe to be your rights... extended to Mr. Reeves... then, conversely, the same would apply to you. You don't know what events the future holds for you. ... So, basically... do you see what my point is? The point is that your ease of gaining possession of... and maintaining possession of a firearm does not extend to just you. If you feel you deserve those rights, you HAVE to believe ALL Americans deserve those same ease of access rights... including the future Mr. Reeves and Adam Lanzas out there whose model citizenry record (currently) speaks for themselves.
I'm done replying to you. Stop the personal insults and we can talk.
Registration leads to confiscation. It is happening in NY right now so don't tell me it's being paranoid.
And yes, a felon. Another person lecturing me without their facts when the legislation has been presented in my state of Illinois. They wanted to make it a FELONY for each magazine greater than 10rds that I owned. Each one would have brought a separate felony charge. Seriously before you people start accusing others of being paranoid turn off your TV's and do some damn research. Come to my table with some knowledge of the situation before you spout off about paranoia.
Shall I touch on the mandatory minimum sentencing that they wanted here if I accidentally crossed onto park property while I was legally concealed carrying? Three years, even with no priors.
I came to your table with plenty of information. I also posed a question to you which I see you ducked. I'll ask it again (wait while I cut and paste):
Do you deny there is a correlation between your enormous gun ownership rates and the staggering number of gun homicides?
I wasn't ducking anything, have I ever ignored you? This forum is difficult to navigate on a phone since the change.
As to your question my answer is this. You need to find where those gun crimes are taking place. There is a huge difference between legal gun owners and illegal. Most gun crime is done by those illegally possessing them, such as the gangs in Chicago. Gang members don't go to gun shows (as someone here suggested) to buy guns because of some supposed no background check. They buy them from cartels (which bought them through Obama government programs such as Fast and Furious) and from crooks that stole them. They don't come to us legal gun owners. Why would we do something like that? It would be so counter-productive to our fight.
Rarely are crimes committed by legal gun owners, sure it does happen. That ex-COP in Florida should be locked away for good. But it's rare. It's the same for the attacks with the liberal catch phrase 'assault weapon'. In 2011 there were over 500 people killed in Chicago, one was determined to be done using an 'assault weapon', yet the media wants to make these the bogeyman when they are used in the tiniest fraction of crimes.
And of course politicians such as Obama and Feinstein want to ban these types of firearms because it'll show their liberal base that they are trying to be tough on gun crime even though it wouldn't be doing anything to reduce the crimes that are currently happening.
But it gets those evil guns off the streets? Yeah right. AR-15's are the most popular sporting rifle sold in this country, and are almost never used to commit a crime. Same for these so called "high-capacity" magazines. It's completely overblown.
You want my answer to solving gun crime in this country? Here it is. You go into these areas such as Chicago and Detroit and you arrest every gang member there is and lock them away for fifty years. But no, can't do that because that's racist, right? Funny, liberals have no problems with creating laws to turn me into a criminal but god forbid laws be created to actually lock up the bad guys.
And really, the comparison between countries is stupid. Hope that answers your question. Understand the difference between legal and illegal. Create laws to punish the illegal owners, not the legal ones that have followed the laws.
So your answer to my question is: "No. There is no correlation to gun ownership rates and the homicide rate." You made reference to gangbangers, but we rarely read of them on the news. Typically, we read of children taking legal guns from the their parents and using them on their classmates (like in a New Mexico elementary school just yesterday). Or, we read of road rager, ex-cop mad at texter, etc. These newsworthy events very rarely happen in my country.
And, why is comparing countries 'stupid'? Do you seriously think societal comparisons can't be drawn between the US and Canada? Why not? I think, for the good of your country, you should start doing some comparative research. I got news for you, the USA has some big problems that some people seem to care less about given they aren't directly affected or if it means a change in their lifestyle.
I thought my response was very clear. I'll attempt to be less confusing.
There is absolutely a correlation, and this is it. Legal gun owners have a lower gun crime rate, illegal gun owners have a higher gun crime rate. Numerous FBI statistics verify this.
Yes there are rare exceptions, and the liberal news media likes to be sure that they highlight those cases. Yet they fail to make the hundreds of illegal gun owner crimes national news as you have attested. why? Because their policies fail, and they don't want to be seen as racist. Want to improve things? Then they'd better prepare for a fight with the likes of Al S. and others like him.
When Canada and Australia have demographics and poverty and reckless economic and social programs and policies like this country then we can compare. Instead our politicians focus on the wrong issues, it's impossible to have a level playing field for comparison sake.
I would be curious to see these statistics.
I would be curious to compare the 'gun homicides perpetrated by legally owned firearms' and then compare those rates to any other 'comparable' country. I speculate the US would be highest by a landslide.
The reason I suggest such is as follows: the abundance of weaponry and relaxed laws for carrying and concealment allow for too many problems such as the theatre incident. If the retired ex-cop had not had his handgun with him, he would have steamed for a minute or two, the previews would have ended, and he eventually would have lost himself in the movie. Instead... acting on impulse and emotion, with gun in hand... he ruined lives- including his own.
And you have nailed it with regards to your poor social programs that are at the root of your problems. However, I seem to recall that your are largely opposed to the thought of any implementation of social programs designed at addressing the problems you speak of. Do I have this wrong?
so unsung what would you do about the illegal gun crimes? I've heard from the right that you can't do anything about it, a criminal is going to break the law regardless...
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
I would be curious to compare the 'gun homicides perpetrated by legally owned firearms' and then compare those rates to any other 'comparable' country. I speculate the US would be highest by a landslide.
The reason I suggest such is as follows: the abundance of weaponry and relaxed laws for carrying and concealment allow for too many problems such as the theatre incident. If the retired ex-cop had not had his handgun with him, he would have steamed for a minute or two, the previews would have ended, and he eventually would have lost himself in the movie. Instead... acting on impulse and emotion, with gun in hand... he ruined lives- including his own.
And you have nailed it with regards to your poor social programs that are at the root of your problems. However, I seem to recall that your are largely opposed to the thought of any implementation of social programs designed at addressing the problems you speak of. Do I have this wrong?
so unsung what would you do about the illegal gun crimes? I've heard from the right that you can't do anything about it, a criminal is going to break the law regardless...
Curious, have you read anything I've typed? I've already answered this question.
I would be curious to compare the 'gun homicides perpetrated by legally owned firearms' and then compare those rates to any other 'comparable' country. I speculate the US would be highest by a landslide.
The reason I suggest such is as follows: the abundance of weaponry and relaxed laws for carrying and concealment allow for too many problems such as the theatre incident. If the retired ex-cop had not had his handgun with him, he would have steamed for a minute or two, the previews would have ended, and he eventually would have lost himself in the movie. Instead... acting on impulse and emotion, with gun in hand... he ruined lives- including his own.
And you have nailed it with regards to your poor social programs that are at the root of your problems. However, I seem to recall that your are largely opposed to the thought of any implementation of social programs designed at addressing the problems you speak of. Do I have this wrong?
I favor mandatory training for concealed carry, I believe at a minimum 500 rounds should be shot. I'm looking at attending an advanced course in Vegas where they tell you to bring a minimum of 1800 rounds. I favor background checks and I'd even go as far as a mental test.
I do not favor laws like Obamacare where your doctor asks if you own firearms and I do not favor laws that confiscate firearms if a man seeks counseling where he's trying to save his marriage or a soldier that has PTSD.
We don't know what happened in that theatre or what could have prevented it. You can say that if he hadn't been carrying that other man would still be alive, and you may be right. However I say that if people had been allowed to carry in that theatre in Denver that the guy wouldn't have killed 12. My point is we don't know either.
I don't believe relaxed laws are to blame. Are there mass killings in Idaho or Alaska? What about Texas? I know 500 people are killed a year in Chicago and that's the anti-gun capital of the US.
I once saw a comparison between two like cities, similar population, similar racial demographics, similar economic levels, etc. But the big difference was the gun crime statistics. Those cities were Houston and Chicago. Why?
Speaking of training here in the US past there used to be gun safety classes and rifle shooting teams in high schools. Kids were taught basic firearm rules and were given skills and they also learned how to respect the firearm. We don't have those anymore. I wonder why not. I asked my parents if there was the quantity of mass shootings when they were kids and the answer was no.
So where's the change? Don't blame technology because of advanced systems, that's irrelevant. It has to be something in the brain. People just don't value life as much as they used to.
As far as good guys and bad guys, unsung, was that retired cop who shot and killed someone for texting in a movie theatre a few days ago one of your highly trained, good guys with a gun? You're proud of your perfect RECORD and skills, but I'd feel better if I knew you had perfect impulse control and judgment. Who does? And those high school seniors who can legally buy a shotgun at 18, without parental knowledge,... how's their impulse control at that age?
I favor mandatory training for concealed carry, I believe at a minimum 500 rounds should be shot. I'm looking at attending an advanced course in Vegas where they tell you to bring a minimum of 1800 rounds. I favor background checks and I'd even go as far as a mental test.
I do not favor laws like Obamacare where your doctor asks if you own firearms and I do not favor laws that confiscate firearms if a man seeks counseling where he's trying to save his marriage or a soldier that has PTSD.
We don't know what happened in that theatre or what could have prevented it. You can say that if he hadn't been carrying that other man would still be alive, and you may be right. However I say that if people had been allowed to carry in that theatre in Denver that the guy wouldn't have killed 12. My point is we don't know either.
I don't believe relaxed laws are to blame. Are there mass killings in Idaho or Alaska? What about Texas? I know 500 people are killed a year in Chicago and that's the anti-gun capital of the US.
I once saw a comparison between two like cities, similar population, similar racial demographics, similar economic levels, etc. But the big difference was the gun crime statistics. Those cities were Houston and Chicago. Why?
Speaking of training here in the US past there used to be gun safety classes and rifle shooting teams in high schools. Kids were taught basic firearm rules and were given skills and they also learned how to respect the firearm. We don't have those anymore. I wonder why not. I asked my parents if there was the quantity of mass shootings when they were kids and the answer was no.
So where's the change? Don't blame technology because of advanced systems, that's irrelevant. It has to be something in the brain. People just don't value life as much as they used to.
I have been reading along, and from this post it looks like we agree on a lot of things that could help.
I said in another thread that the Doctor of a mental health should have some power to say if the individual could get a gun could be used.
I do agree with more training, I do agree social media (Call of Duty, etc) influences some people.
What do you think of a way to track guns, and therefore finding shops that sell to people committing these crimes, or individuals buying guns and putting them in the hands of unfit people? How would you suggest doing it?
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
Shops that sell to people that commit these crimes? Well that depends. Are we talking about federal government endorsed programs like Fast and Furious where the shops are told to sell to cartels or just a regular shop selling to a regular guy?
Shops that sell to people that commit these crimes? Well that depends. Are we talking about federal government endorsed programs like Fast and Furious where the shops are told to sell to cartels or just a regular shop selling to a regular guy?
Like a regular shop. But say a lot of guns that are used in gang shootings are tracked to the one shop. Or there are a bunch of guns tracked back to one shop that are from children getting the hands on the guns. I think that would allow a path back to where it started. It might lead to a person knowingly and repeatedly selling guns to unfit people. Either those that lack training or that are ending up in the hands of criminals. Might be able to track the sales to one person or shop who is supplying gangs or selling it to minors without training. In essence it would try to stop the source of where people are getting the guns.
Hope the overall point comes through.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
If the shop owner is selling to people that pass what they need to and he is following the rules I'd say he's clear. If he is violating the law then obviously he has to pay for his crimes.
If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.
I would be curious to compare the 'gun homicides perpetrated by legally owned firearms' and then compare those rates to any other 'comparable' country. I speculate the US would be highest by a landslide.
The reason I suggest such is as follows: the abundance of weaponry and relaxed laws for carrying and concealment allow for too many problems such as the theatre incident. If the retired ex-cop had not had his handgun with him, he would have steamed for a minute or two, the previews would have ended, and he eventually would have lost himself in the movie. Instead... acting on impulse and emotion, with gun in hand... he ruined lives- including his own.
And you have nailed it with regards to your poor social programs that are at the root of your problems. However, I seem to recall that your are largely opposed to the thought of any implementation of social programs designed at addressing the problems you speak of. Do I have this wrong?
12,996 murder victims in 2010. If I read this correctly, 67.5% involved firearms for a total of 8,772 murders by firearms (this doesn't include any accidental deaths by firearm).
Unsung had suggested the majority of murders committed with firearms are gangbangers, but the following statistics seem to suggest otherwise and lend evidence for my assertion that the numbers would still be staggering aside from gang related homicides:
◾In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2010.
◾Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
◾Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.8 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2010. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.8 percent of reported homicides.
If the shop owner is selling to people that pass what they need to and he is following the rules I'd say he's clear. If he is violating the law then obviously he has to pay for his crimes.
If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.
We punish teachers who have to teach in lower socioeconomic areas where the students low test scores are tied to teachers evaluations and pay. Why not punish gun stores who sell guns in areas where higher gun crime exists (like Chicago), have them pay more fines and taxes to be able to sell guns in areas where more crimes are committed? This could also help reduce the deficit I think.
What about if you buy a gun you also have to buy a safe for it, mandatory. I think that would hinder kids getting all the guns, which is what I'm most concerned about.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
12,996 murder victims in 2010. If I read this correctly, 67.5% involved firearms for a total of 8,772 murders by firearms (this doesn't include any accidental deaths by firearm).
Unsung had suggested the majority of murders committed with firearms are gangbangers, but the following statistics seem to suggest otherwise and lend evidence for my assertion that the numbers would still be staggering aside from gang related homicides:
◾In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2010.
◾Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
◾Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.8 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2010. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.8 percent of reported homicides.
... One thing to consider is this... a large number of murders are gang related murders. The victims often times know their murderer because of the gang conflicts. They may not know them personally, but, they know them as rivals. The best way to avoid this.. don't be a gang member. ... But, as you've pointed out, there are more victims murdered by family members, than by strangers. ... There is also the deaths by suicide... not listed in this specific data sheet.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If the shop owner is selling to people that pass what they need to and he is following the rules I'd say he's clear. If he is violating the law then obviously he has to pay for his crimes.
If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.
We punish teachers who have to teach in lower socioeconomic areas where the students low test scores are tied to teachers evaluations and pay. Why not punish gun stores who sell guns in areas where higher gun crime exists (like Chicago), have them pay more fines and taxes to be able to sell guns in areas where more crimes are committed? This could also help reduce the deficit I think.
What about if you buy a gun you also have to buy a safe for it, mandatory. I think that would hinder kids getting all the guns, which is what I'm most concerned about.
If the shop owner follows all laws and the firearm is legally transferred then he is no long liable. Your suggestion actually exists, and shops have decided to move. What goes up is then local unemployment, and tax revenue ends up going down. People have breaking points on the amount of extortion that they can handle.
I don't have kids. All of my guns are in the safe except one, it sort of defeats the purpose to not have one handy.
If the shop owner is selling to people that pass what they need to and he is following the rules I'd say he's clear. If he is violating the law then obviously he has to pay for his crimes.
If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.
We punish teachers who have to teach in lower socioeconomic areas where the students low test scores are tied to teachers evaluations and pay. Why not punish gun stores who sell guns in areas where higher gun crime exists (like Chicago), have them pay more fines and taxes to be able to sell guns in areas where more crimes are committed? This could also help reduce the deficit I think.
What about if you buy a gun you also have to buy a safe for it, mandatory. I think that would hinder kids getting all the guns, which is what I'm most concerned about.
If the shop owner follows all laws and the firearm is legally transferred then he is no long liable. Your suggestion actually exists, and shops have decided to move. What goes up is then local unemployment, and tax revenue ends up going down. People have breaking points on the amount of extortion that they can handle.
I don't have kids. All of my guns are in the safe except one, it sort of defeats the purpose to not have one handy.
So at least that's getting gun shops out of high gun crime areas I guess.
I've wrestled with the idea of getting a gun myself. Thing is I do have a kid. Do I risk leaving it out somewhere easily accessible where's there's a risk of them getting into it. Or do I keep it locked in a safe hidden away and hope I'm near it when someone breaks in? Obviously lots of people do the first and there are tons of kid on kid deaths like the other link I posted today, or kids bring the guns into schools/ grocery stores/ etc.
So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
I've wrestled with the idea of getting a gun myself. Thing is I do have a kid. Do I risk leaving it out somewhere easily accessible where's there's a risk of them getting into it. Or do I keep it locked in a safe hidden away and hope I'm near it when someone breaks in? Obviously lots of people do the first and there are tons of kid on kid deaths like the other link I posted today, or kids bring the guns into schools/ grocery stores/ etc.
So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!
... That's a tough call... kids in the same house as a loaded weapon. But, it's your call... not mine or the government or anyone else. There are a lot of variables in the equation that you need to consider... not just you, your wife and your kid... but, anyone you, your wife and your kid brings into your home. And you have to consider what you are going to do overnight, keep the weapon stowed and secured or have it armed and ready while you sleep. There are ways you can do it, keep a gun safely secured when you are not around and having it at hand when you are... but, it requires a religious-like ritual regiment that you cannot stray from. I even read about a couple that maintain nightwatch shifts... which sounds a bit extreme, but they claim it works for them. ... But, basically, you play the odds. What is the liklihood of having to fire your weapon in defense versus an accidental discharge. ... Good luck with that, sir.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!
I don't know where they've said that.
Before I answer let me ask this; do you believe one should have to show photo identification in order to vote?
I guess I thought you said something about a range where ppl have to shoot 1800 rounds min or something, might have been someone else.
Photo id to vote: I think the current push by R states to get id's to vote is nothing but a way to stop black / poor / and college ppl from voting, and R's have even said that themselves. I think it's very wrong and there's nothing wrong with the way it's currently being done. Voter fraud has rarely happened and never changed the results of any election, and if someone did it they can handle the couple times by punishing those ppl rather than changing the whole system.
If everyone had free access to id and transportation to vote I think more ppl would vote. I work in a school and poor parents can't even make it there for their kids IEP's or evaluation results.
That being said voting can't kill someone, even if you aren't trained or educated.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
I guess I thought you said something about a range where ppl have to shoot 1800 rounds min or something, might have been someone else.
Photo id to vote: I think the current push by R states to get id's to vote is nothing but a way to stop black / poor / and college ppl from voting, and R's have even said that themselves. I think it's very wrong and there's nothing wrong with the way it's currently being done. Voter fraud has rarely happened and never changed the results of any election, and if someone did it they can handle the couple times by punishing those ppl rather than changing the whole system.
If everyone had free access to id and transportation to vote I think more ppl would vote. I work in a school and poor parents can't even make it there for their kids IEP's or evaluation results.
That being said voting can't kill someone, even if you aren't trained or educated.
I'll address when I can get to a computer but killing someone by voting is irrelevant even though I highly disagree that a vote doesn't decide who lives/dies.
In a broader sense, and in dealing with abortion and women's rights you could argue voting does determine who lives and dies.
I'm talking about the consequences of someone knowing nothing voting compared to someone buying and using a gun without knowledge or training. Immediate consequences.
I'll also throw out there I feel we are a reactionary people and need immediate fixes to problems in this country. If it doesn't work right away throw it out! I think the gun debate and problem is something that will need to take a long time to "fix". Can't be done right away. If we could move to a more precaution / prevention model we could be much safer. Same goes for education / health care / etc...
Btw, I am enjoying this conversation very much with you, hopefully you are too and don't consider me some newb to the conversation.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
The newb comment was the result of someone accusing me of something that I am not, nothing more.
Sorry for the delay, real life sometimes takes priority.
So the thought from the liberal side of the coin is that requiring a government issued ID is burdensome and too costly for those that are either poor, have little mobility, don't have the resources, or lack whatever means they require to obtain such identification. I disagree but that isn't the point of this.
Voting is a secured and declared right via Amendments to the US Constitution. Blacks and women have gained their rights that were unjustly denied for reasons that have no bearing here. Such is that they are now full participants if they so desire, they don't even need identification to fill out a ballot that determines the fate of local and national issues. The argument is generally that the ID requirement is racist, unfair to the poor, and favors the well enough to do. I think we can all agree that those arguments have been made.
Now let's back up to the 2nd Amendment that declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The argument over the meaning can be saved for another thread, again not the point here. We can agree that due to the 2nd Amendment most Americans are free to own firearms under certain conditions depending on the state that they reside. Again, as voting, it is a declared civil and natural right.
I've made mention to voluntarily attending advanced training to hone my skills at my own expense. We've agreed that everyone should be trained, and many would agree with me that the more training the better. Yes?
So the expenses in Illinois to obtain a concealed carry permit and have your right to defend yourself are generally this: $150 for a five year permit, $200-350 for the class required by the state (the number differs based on required hours as previous documented training gives some credit hours), transportation, time off work and lost wages, buying a firearm, buying the ammo. So right now one could easily eclipse $1000 for their right to defend themselves. Now the advanced class that I want to attend is three days in a western state. Airfare isn't cheap right now, neither are hotels, so figure $800 for both, the class is $750, ammo would be about $500, then add car rental, fuel, food and everything else and one could spend $2500 or more.
So let me ask, why are the high expenses that deal with one civil right acceptable but the low expenses that deal with another a burden?
I'm going to say that it is probably because in america, we choose our leader with a ballot... not with a bullet. .... Also, you DON'T need a permit to own a gun... you need a permit so you can carry your gun in public. You can easily keep your gun at home, and save you all of the costs listed above.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The newb comment was the result of someone accusing me of something that I am not, nothing more.
Sorry for the delay, real life sometimes takes priority.
So the thought from the liberal side of the coin is that requiring a government issued ID is burdensome and too costly for those that are either poor, have little mobility, don't have the resources, or lack whatever means they require to obtain such identification. I disagree but that isn't the point of this.
Voting is a secured and declared right via Amendments to the US Constitution. Blacks and women have gained their rights that were unjustly denied for reasons that have no bearing here. Such is that they are now full participants if they so desire, they don't even need identification to fill out a ballot that determines the fate of local and national issues. The argument is generally that the ID requirement is racist, unfair to the poor, and favors the well enough to do. I think we can all agree that those arguments have been made.
Now let's back up to the 2nd Amendment that declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The argument over the meaning can be saved for another thread, again not the point here. We can agree that due to the 2nd Amendment most Americans are free to own firearms under certain conditions depending on the state that they reside. Again, as voting, it is a declared civil and natural right.
I've made mention to voluntarily attending advanced training to hone my skills at my own expense. We've agreed that everyone should be trained, and many would agree with me that the more training the better. Yes?
So the expenses in Illinois to obtain a concealed carry permit and have your right to defend yourself are generally this: $150 for a five year permit, $200-350 for the class required by the state (the number differs based on required hours as previous documented training gives some credit hours), transportation, time off work and lost wages, buying a firearm, buying the ammo. So right now one could easily eclipse $1000 for their right to defend themselves. Now the advanced class that I want to attend is three days in a western state. Airfare isn't cheap right now, neither are hotels, so figure $800 for both, the class is $750, ammo would be about $500, then add car rental, fuel, food and everything else and one could spend $2500 or more.
So let me ask, why are the high expenses that deal with one civil right acceptable but the low expenses that deal with another a burden?
Good points.
I do agree that everyone who owns a gun should have more training and knowledge about their power. Owning a gun is a right and it shouldn't be taken away.
I see all your expenses and I wish everyone with a gun was as trained as you are, I bet 98% of people with guns don't have your level of training, and it shows, you paid for it and gathered the knowledge. I'll compare my motorcycle license, I paid to take a 3 day class, learn skills, then get the license. I would not feel comfortable just paying for the license and riding knowing the power and danger behind riding. Thing is, I can go down to the pawn shop, buy a shotgun for $129 and some ammo, and be good to go, and hopefully not kill anyone. No training required. If more people could pay for the class you took I bet there would be a lot less needless gun deaths.
I think that the government should provide the mandatory training when you buy a gun, some 2 day class or something, no cost, well, taxpayer cost. (I would be all for my taxes going toward people who get guns knowing how to use them.) After you do that and whatever background check you can get the gun. At least people would know the history of the 2nd and the power of the gun, some baseline knowledge. (Hell, take 1% of the money the NSA gets to spy on us and it's paid for.)
To answer your question about acceptance. I think it's acceptable because of the power associated with them. Guns are powerful and kill people every day. People in the US think that voting holds no power and 1 vote is unimportant, placing more restrictions on voting (when no one votes anyway) and specifically targeting the poor is the burden. I think more people should vote, it might make a difference. That's one thing gun owners know how to do, vote for their rights, I'll give them that. A lot of people who want more common sense safe guards in place don't.
The costs also can't be compared evenly, Guns are a business, manufactures make guns and charge prices, voting does not.
For fun - African American/poor college kid - $15 and a day off work/class is huge when you're making min wage / have kids to feed / are paying for school. They target the poor knowing they can't afford it. Let's say you make $50K a year, and you paid $2500 for your gun and training, what if they raised the prices to say, $9,000. The rich target the poorer gun owners. Would that be acceptable to you?
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
Comments
And, why is comparing countries 'stupid'? Do you seriously think societal comparisons can't be drawn between the US and Canada? Why not? I think, for the good of your country, you should start doing some comparative research. I got news for you, the USA has some big problems that some people seem to care less about given they aren't directly affected or if it means a change in their lifestyle.
Well... there you go, again. You are avoiding the initial response and diverting the conversation by taking a defensive stance because you believe it to be a personal attack. Again, i apologise for not factoring in your lack of cognitive skills when discussing a wide range topic, such as 2nd Amendment Rights as they apply to public safety. I will try to clearly illustrate my points to the level of your comprehensive skillset.
...
When you are arguing about YOUR (Unsung) rights to bear arms, you are arguing that ALL AMERICANS should have those same rights. The 2nd Amendment applies to ALL AMERICANS, not just you (Unsung). What you are arguing for is the rights of EVERYONE to have the same access to whatever weapon of your choosing. When you say Unsung should be able to do whatever Unsung pleases, you HAVE to extend those same rights to every American. So, by saying Unsung's words/record speaks for itself... you are saying that every American's word/record should speak for them.
Using your arguement, Curtis Reeves was a good guy with a gun... a former police Captain, I am pretty sure he was beyond proficient regarding gun storage, transport, handling and usage. Yet, what happened? He is now being charged with Second Degree murder. His record spoke for itself... up until the second he pulled that trigger. After that, his record included 'Accused Second Degree Murderer' to his list of accomplishments. His record speaks for itself, right?
Using the same logic you use and applying it to Mr. Reeves... you are fully capable of losing it for the briefest of moments and changing from Unsung, model citizen, responsible, trainned gun owner to Second Degree murderer, right? Meaning, if what you believe to be your rights... extended to Mr. Reeves... then, conversely, the same would apply to you. You don't know what events the future holds for you.
...
So, basically... do you see what my point is? The point is that your ease of gaining possession of... and maintaining possession of a firearm does not extend to just you. If you feel you deserve those rights, you HAVE to believe ALL Americans deserve those same ease of access rights... including the future Mr. Reeves and Adam Lanzas out there whose model citizenry record (currently) speaks for themselves.
Hail, Hail!!!
There is absolutely a correlation, and this is it. Legal gun owners have a lower gun crime rate, illegal gun owners have a higher gun crime rate. Numerous FBI statistics verify this.
Yes there are rare exceptions, and the liberal news media likes to be sure that they highlight those cases. Yet they fail to make the hundreds of illegal gun owner crimes national news as you have attested. why? Because their policies fail, and they don't want to be seen as racist. Want to improve things? Then they'd better prepare for a fight with the likes of Al S. and others like him.
When Canada and Australia have demographics and poverty and reckless economic and social programs and policies like this country then we can compare. Instead our politicians focus on the wrong issues, it's impossible to have a level playing field for comparison sake.
I'm done replying to you. Stop the personal insults and we can talk.
Please... don't get upset and shoot me.
Hail, Hail!!!
I would be curious to compare the 'gun homicides perpetrated by legally owned firearms' and then compare those rates to any other 'comparable' country. I speculate the US would be highest by a landslide.
The reason I suggest such is as follows: the abundance of weaponry and relaxed laws for carrying and concealment allow for too many problems such as the theatre incident. If the retired ex-cop had not had his handgun with him, he would have steamed for a minute or two, the previews would have ended, and he eventually would have lost himself in the movie. Instead... acting on impulse and emotion, with gun in hand... he ruined lives- including his own.
And you have nailed it with regards to your poor social programs that are at the root of your problems. However, I seem to recall that your are largely opposed to the thought of any implementation of social programs designed at addressing the problems you speak of. Do I have this wrong?
Here is something you can check out at your convenience. This item looks at rhetoric on boths sides of the issue and facts that contradict them:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
This is the FBI's page on (2010) crime:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
Hail, Hail!!!
Curious, have you read anything I've typed? I've already answered this question.
I favor mandatory training for concealed carry, I believe at a minimum 500 rounds should be shot. I'm looking at attending an advanced course in Vegas where they tell you to bring a minimum of 1800 rounds. I favor background checks and I'd even go as far as a mental test.
I do not favor laws like Obamacare where your doctor asks if you own firearms and I do not favor laws that confiscate firearms if a man seeks counseling where he's trying to save his marriage or a soldier that has PTSD.
We don't know what happened in that theatre or what could have prevented it. You can say that if he hadn't been carrying that other man would still be alive, and you may be right. However I say that if people had been allowed to carry in that theatre in Denver that the guy wouldn't have killed 12. My point is we don't know either.
I don't believe relaxed laws are to blame. Are there mass killings in Idaho or Alaska? What about Texas? I know 500 people are killed a year in Chicago and that's the anti-gun capital of the US.
I once saw a comparison between two like cities, similar population, similar racial demographics, similar economic levels, etc. But the big difference was the gun crime statistics. Those cities were Houston and Chicago. Why?
Speaking of training here in the US past there used to be gun safety classes and rifle shooting teams in high schools. Kids were taught basic firearm rules and were given skills and they also learned how to respect the firearm. We don't have those anymore. I wonder why not. I asked my parents if there was the quantity of mass shootings when they were kids and the answer was no.
So where's the change? Don't blame technology because of advanced systems, that's irrelevant. It has to be something in the brain. People just don't value life as much as they used to.
I said in another thread that the Doctor of a mental health should have some power to say if the individual could get a gun could be used.
I do agree with more training, I do agree social media (Call of Duty, etc) influences some people.
What do you think of a way to track guns, and therefore finding shops that sell to people committing these crimes, or individuals buying guns and putting them in the hands of unfit people? How would you suggest doing it?
Hope the overall point comes through.
If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.
12,996 murder victims in 2010. If I read this correctly, 67.5% involved firearms for a total of 8,772 murders by firearms (this doesn't include any accidental deaths by firearm).
Unsung had suggested the majority of murders committed with firearms are gangbangers, but the following statistics seem to suggest otherwise and lend evidence for my assertion that the numbers would still be staggering aside from gang related homicides:
◾In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2010.
◾Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
◾Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.8 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2010. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.8 percent of reported homicides.
This could also help reduce the deficit I think.
What about if you buy a gun you also have to buy a safe for it, mandatory. I think that would hinder kids getting all the guns, which is what I'm most concerned about.
One thing to consider is this... a large number of murders are gang related murders. The victims often times know their murderer because of the gang conflicts. They may not know them personally, but, they know them as rivals.
The best way to avoid this.. don't be a gang member.
...
But, as you've pointed out, there are more victims murdered by family members, than by strangers.
...
There is also the deaths by suicide... not listed in this specific data sheet.
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't have kids. All of my guns are in the safe except one, it sort of defeats the purpose to not have one handy.
I've wrestled with the idea of getting a gun myself. Thing is I do have a kid. Do I risk leaving it out somewhere easily accessible where's there's a risk of them getting into it. Or do I keep it locked in a safe hidden away and hope I'm near it when someone breaks in? Obviously lots of people do the first and there are tons of kid on kid deaths like the other link I posted today, or kids bring the guns into schools/ grocery stores/ etc.
So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!
That's a tough call... kids in the same house as a loaded weapon.
But, it's your call... not mine or the government or anyone else. There are a lot of variables in the equation that you need to consider... not just you, your wife and your kid... but, anyone you, your wife and your kid brings into your home. And you have to consider what you are going to do overnight, keep the weapon stowed and secured or have it armed and ready while you sleep.
There are ways you can do it, keep a gun safely secured when you are not around and having it at hand when you are... but, it requires a religious-like ritual regiment that you cannot stray from. I even read about a couple that maintain nightwatch shifts... which sounds a bit extreme, but they claim it works for them.
...
But, basically, you play the odds. What is the liklihood of having to fire your weapon in defense versus an accidental discharge.
...
Good luck with that, sir.
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't know where they've said that.
Before I answer let me ask this; do you believe one should have to show photo identification in order to vote?
Photo id to vote: I think the current push by R states to get id's to vote is nothing but a way to stop black / poor / and college ppl from voting, and R's have even said that themselves. I think it's very wrong and there's nothing wrong with the way it's currently being done. Voter fraud has rarely happened and never changed the results of any election, and if someone did it they can handle the couple times by punishing those ppl rather than changing the whole system.
If everyone had free access to id and transportation to vote I think more ppl would vote. I work in a school and poor parents can't even make it there for their kids IEP's or evaluation results.
That being said voting can't kill someone, even if you aren't trained or educated.
I'll address when I can get to a computer but killing someone by voting is irrelevant even though I highly disagree that a vote doesn't decide who lives/dies.
I'm talking about the consequences of someone knowing nothing voting compared to someone buying and using a gun without knowledge or training. Immediate consequences.
I'll also throw out there I feel we are a reactionary people and need immediate fixes to problems in this country. If it doesn't work right away throw it out! I think the gun debate and problem is something that will need to take a long time to "fix". Can't be done right away. If we could move to a more precaution / prevention model we could be much safer. Same goes for education / health care / etc...
Btw, I am enjoying this conversation very much with you, hopefully you are too and don't consider me some newb to the conversation.
Sorry for the delay, real life sometimes takes priority.
So the thought from the liberal side of the coin is that requiring a government issued ID is burdensome and too costly for those that are either poor, have little mobility, don't have the resources, or lack whatever means they require to obtain such identification. I disagree but that isn't the point of this.
Voting is a secured and declared right via Amendments to the US Constitution. Blacks and women have gained their rights that were unjustly denied for reasons that have no bearing here. Such is that they are now full participants if they so desire, they don't even need identification to fill out a ballot that determines the fate of local and national issues. The argument is generally that the ID requirement is racist, unfair to the poor, and favors the well enough to do. I think we can all agree that those arguments have been made.
Now let's back up to the 2nd Amendment that declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The argument over the meaning can be saved for another thread, again not the point here. We can agree that due to the 2nd Amendment most Americans are free to own firearms under certain conditions depending on the state that they reside. Again, as voting, it is a declared civil and natural right.
I've made mention to voluntarily attending advanced training to hone my skills at my own expense. We've agreed that everyone should be trained, and many would agree with me that the more training the better. Yes?
So the expenses in Illinois to obtain a concealed carry permit and have your right to defend yourself are generally this: $150 for a five year permit, $200-350 for the class required by the state (the number differs based on required hours as previous documented training gives some credit hours), transportation, time off work and lost wages, buying a firearm, buying the ammo. So right now one could easily eclipse $1000 for their right to defend themselves. Now the advanced class that I want to attend is three days in a western state. Airfare isn't cheap right now, neither are hotels, so figure $800 for both, the class is $750, ammo would be about $500, then add car rental, fuel, food and everything else and one could spend $2500 or more.
So let me ask, why are the high expenses that deal with one civil right acceptable but the low expenses that deal with another a burden?
....
Also, you DON'T need a permit to own a gun... you need a permit so you can carry your gun in public. You can easily keep your gun at home, and save you all of the costs listed above.
Hail, Hail!!!
I do agree that everyone who owns a gun should have more training and knowledge about their power. Owning a gun is a right and it shouldn't be taken away.
I see all your expenses and I wish everyone with a gun was as trained as you are, I bet 98% of people with guns don't have your level of training, and it shows, you paid for it and gathered the knowledge. I'll compare my motorcycle license, I paid to take a 3 day class, learn skills, then get the license. I would not feel comfortable just paying for the license and riding knowing the power and danger behind riding. Thing is, I can go down to the pawn shop, buy a shotgun for $129 and some ammo, and be good to go, and hopefully not kill anyone. No training required. If more people could pay for the class you took I bet there would be a lot less needless gun deaths.
I think that the government should provide the mandatory training when you buy a gun, some 2 day class or something, no cost, well, taxpayer cost. (I would be all for my taxes going toward people who get guns knowing how to use them.) After you do that and whatever background check you can get the gun. At least people would know the history of the 2nd and the power of the gun, some baseline knowledge. (Hell, take 1% of the money the NSA gets to spy on us and it's paid for.)
To answer your question about acceptance. I think it's acceptable because of the power associated with them. Guns are powerful and kill people every day. People in the US think that voting holds no power and 1 vote is unimportant, placing more restrictions on voting (when no one votes anyway) and specifically targeting the poor is the burden. I think more people should vote, it might make a difference. That's one thing gun owners know how to do, vote for their rights, I'll give them that. A lot of people who want more common sense safe guards in place don't.
The costs also can't be compared evenly, Guns are a business, manufactures make guns and charge prices, voting does not.
For fun - African American/poor college kid - $15 and a day off work/class is huge when you're making min wage / have kids to feed / are paying for school. They target the poor knowing they can't afford it.
Let's say you make $50K a year, and you paid $2500 for your gun and training, what if they raised the prices to say, $9,000. The rich target the poorer gun owners. Would that be acceptable to you?