The problem is that the proposed "common sense" gun control measures are not likely to reduce violence.
The argument will be made that the new laws don't go far enough and then there will be a push for confiscation. That's why the "gun nuts" oppose new legislation.
"Common Sense Gun Laws" will effect lawful gun owners, not criminals.
Something interesting about the words "common sense" is that those were the words used extensively by those who supported Eugenics. At the time, if you spoke up against Eugenics, you would be ridiculed by your peers for not possessing "common sense".
Just saying...
There are volumes of data that refute this statement soundly. The rest is just as bad, the resistance to registration and thorough controls is THE pathway to guns for criminals. Keep up the status quo and the iron pipeline and all the black markets just continue to pump guns into urban areas, it's sad.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,401
traceability for a start. that way there are specific folks who can be held to account. back to the original purchaser if necessary. This requires a record of all sales down the line.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So, if you legally sold a gun to someone who sold it to someone else and they committed a crime with it, the original purchaser could face charges?
I hope you're kidding or I'm misunderstanding something here.
If it came down to the original purchaser selling to someone they shouldnt have but that gun kept being sold then yes, but really the intent to this is to stop at the seller who sold illegally.
Is that more easily understood?
You know damn well there are "legal purchasers" selling illegally with no requirement to conduct checks or like ohio even inform the state it sold.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
Here in Ohio, the ONLY purchase thats recorded is the first one. I have a HUGE problem with that.
So tell me, since you have been mostly reasonable in my book on this issue, what would you propose to prevent the guns from ever reaching the criminals in the first place. Its smply false that most come from thefts. SOME ONE is selling them. So agaiin, it comes down to traceability, holding those fucks to account.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode. If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode. If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
Hahaha I was ridiculed for saying that men shoot because of a juvenile love of bangs and explosions...
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
I am against any additional gun restriction or legislation until current laws are enforced. There is no data out there to support that our current laws are being enforced to any degree that is effective. You use alcohol in your example. Alcohol is responsible for a large amount of deaths but alcohol laws are enforced on a consistent basis. If the enforcement of current laws is not adequate then by all means adopt more legislation to attempt to solve the problem. If on the other hand, little to no enforcement of the law is being done, then new laws will accomplish nothing to the problem. Ok.......attack away.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,401
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Shotguns can be great for some people but what about the elderly, disabled and physically weak who can't handle the recoil? Also, a typical shotgun requires both hands to use. It's hard to fire a shotgun while dialing a phone, opening doors, holding a child, etc.
As to the accuracy, Hollywood has really done a number on the notion that you just have to point a shotgun in the general direction of your target and fire. With 00 buckshot in my shotgun, a pattern at 25 yards measures about 3 inches. Now, how many people have an open distance inside their home that is longer than 25 yards? Shotguns need to be aimed.
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
What are the criteria for demonstrating need?
"Um. Excuse me Mr. Meth Head home invader. Would you mind stopping the stabbing of me and my family inside our home so I can run down to the courthouse, establish that I need a handgun, apply for a permit, pick out a gun, wait a mandatory amount of time, bring it home, familiarize myself with gun handling and safety practices so I can shoot you?"
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
What does "fancy" have to do with any of this?
These are the kind of assumptions and generalizations that undermine a strong argument for the gun control crowd.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
Here in Ohio, the ONLY purchase thats recorded is the first one. I have a HUGE problem with that.
So tell me, since you have been mostly reasonable in my book on this issue, what would you propose to prevent the guns from ever reaching the criminals in the first place. Its smply false that most come from thefts. SOME ONE is selling them. So agaiin, it comes down to traceability, holding those fucks to account.
People need to stop looking to the Legislative Branch of the government to keep them safe.
Want to prevent guns from reaching criminal end users? Prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. Education, attention paid to family members and friends who are at risk, community outreach, employment and educational opportunities for those likely to seek gang affiliations, enforcement of existing gun laws, mental healthcare reform.....
It's no secret that gang violence accounts for a lot of bloodshed, especially in Chicago, Baltimore, LA, New Orleans and NYC. When a 14-year old kid in one of those cities can earn $5,000 in a week by dealing drugs, selling guns, robbing businesses and killing rival gang members, he's not going to finish school and apply for a job at McDonald's, even if they have a $15.00/hour minimum wage. There needs to be a more attractive option for young people to choose a lifestyle path that doesn't involve crime.
These are good places to start, IMO.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode. If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
What makes this argument difficult is that each individual may have different reasons for owning guns and shooting them. Some do it for recreational purposes, some hunt, some earn their living competing in sanctioned shooting sports, some train for self defense.......
I won't speak for anyone else but personal protection and home defense are my reasons for owning guns. I'm not a hunter, recreational or competitive shooter, combat operator or gun collector. For me, guns are tools that I hopefully never have to use.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode. If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
Hahaha I was ridiculed for saying that men shoot because of a juvenile love of bangs and explosions...
You were ridiculed for saying that everyone shoots for the same reasons.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment. I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
I am against any additional gun restriction or legislation until current laws are enforced. There is no data out there to support that our current laws are being enforced to any degree that is effective. You use alcohol in your example. Alcohol is responsible for a large amount of deaths but alcohol laws are enforced on a consistent basis. If the enforcement of current laws is not adequate then by all means adopt more legislation to attempt to solve the problem. If on the other hand, little to no enforcement of the law is being done, then new laws will accomplish nothing to the problem. Ok.......attack away.
This.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another. According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Shotguns can be great for some people but what about the elderly, disabled and physically weak who can't handle the recoil? Also, a typical shotgun requires both hands to use. It's hard to fire a shotgun while dialing a phone, opening doors, holding a child, etc.
As to the accuracy, Hollywood has really done a number on the notion that you just have to point a shotgun in the general direction of your target and fire. With 00 buckshot in my shotgun, a pattern at 25 yards measures about 3 inches. Now, how many people have an open distance inside their home that is longer than 25 yards? Shotguns need to be aimed.
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
What are the criteria for demonstrating need?
"Um. Excuse me Mr. Meth Head home invader. Would you mind stopping the stabbing of me and my family inside our home so I can run down to the courthouse, establish that I need a handgun, apply for a permit, pick out a gun, wait a mandatory amount of time, bring it home, familiarize myself with gun handling and safety practices so I can shoot you?"
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
What does "fancy" have to do with any of this?
These are the kind of assumptions and generalizations that undermine a strong argument for the gun control crowd.
Because if everybody is honest with themselves... guns are hobbies for most gun owners. They are fancy toys.
The strong arguments you speak of remain. The counter arguments to sensible gun legislation- that would have the effect of curbing the obscene amount of gun deaths your country experiences per annum revolve around people's rights to 'shoot shit' and own fancy guns.
Ultimately, fancy guns trump the well being of your children and your community.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
I would speculate that the amount of home invaders- which are very, very few- that are deterred from a gun are not as numerous as the amount of loved ones accidentally shot because someone thought they were a home invader.
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.
Not that it matters, lol It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times
A gun in the home -- thus available for self-defense -- is 22 times more likely to be used in an assault or homicide, an accidental shooting or a suicide or attempted suicide... so it hardly keeps you safer.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
That begs the question: "Why pass new laws if the ones already on the books aren't being enforced?"
What's the likelihood that any new legislation will fare better than what we have now?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not. Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of. It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.
You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.
Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent. Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney. Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
That begs the question: "Why pass new laws if the ones already on the books aren't being enforced?"
What's the likelihood that any new legislation will fare better than what we have now?
Because the current laws are ineffective. They are toothless and given the variance from state to state (with unguarded state lines)... they are rendered useless.
Look to other countries that have implemented gun legislation, see the benefits they have achieved, and then reconsider your question.
Any legislation cannot hope to reverse the status quo short term, but in time... meaningful legislation can make significant changes that your country could feel good about. Of course, profiteers would have to forfeit profits for this change effort to have a chance- they'll resist as much as possible. And.. hobbyists (enthusiasts) would have to concede hobbies- they'll resist too.
Fortunately, there are more selfish people than selfless and gun lovers do not need to fear any legislation any time soon. You'll always have your guns. If Sandy Hook could not serve as the mechanism for a nation wide change effort... nothing can.
Comments
The rest is just as bad, the resistance to registration and thorough controls is THE pathway to guns for criminals. Keep up the status quo and the iron pipeline and all the black markets just continue to pump guns into urban areas, it's sad.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I hope you're kidding or I'm misunderstanding something here.
Is that more easily understood?
You know damn well there are "legal purchasers" selling illegally with no requirement to conduct checks or like ohio even inform the state it sold.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
So tell me, since you have been mostly reasonable in my book on this issue, what would you propose to prevent the guns from ever reaching the criminals in the first place. Its smply false that most come from thefts. SOME ONE is selling them. So agaiin, it comes down to traceability, holding those fucks to account.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
These are the kind of assumptions and generalizations that undermine a strong argument for the gun control crowd.
Want to prevent guns from reaching criminal end users? Prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. Education, attention paid to family members and friends who are at risk, community outreach, employment and educational opportunities for those likely to seek gang affiliations, enforcement of existing gun laws, mental healthcare reform.....
It's no secret that gang violence accounts for a lot of bloodshed, especially in Chicago, Baltimore, LA, New Orleans and NYC. When a 14-year old kid in one of those cities can earn $5,000 in a week by dealing drugs, selling guns, robbing businesses and killing rival gang members, he's not going to finish school and apply for a job at McDonald's, even if they have a $15.00/hour minimum wage. There needs to be a more attractive option for young people to choose a lifestyle path that doesn't involve crime.
These are good places to start, IMO.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.
I won't speak for anyone else but personal protection and home defense are my reasons for owning guns. I'm not a hunter, recreational or competitive shooter, combat operator or gun collector. For me, guns are tools that I hopefully never have to use.
You were ridiculed for saying that everyone shoots for the same reasons.
This.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.
Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.
This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney.
Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.
The strong arguments you speak of remain. The counter arguments to sensible gun legislation- that would have the effect of curbing the obscene amount of gun deaths your country experiences per annum revolve around people's rights to 'shoot shit' and own fancy guns.
Ultimately, fancy guns trump the well being of your children and your community.
Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.
Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.
“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”
“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
Not that it matters, lol
It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/184209741.html
I'm sure someone will bring up the usual "cars kill people too" strawman to counter.
What's the likelihood that any new legislation will fare better than what we have now?
Look to other countries that have implemented gun legislation, see the benefits they have achieved, and then reconsider your question.
Any legislation cannot hope to reverse the status quo short term, but in time... meaningful legislation can make significant changes that your country could feel good about. Of course, profiteers would have to forfeit profits for this change effort to have a chance- they'll resist as much as possible. And.. hobbyists (enthusiasts) would have to concede hobbies- they'll resist too.
Fortunately, there are more selfish people than selfless and gun lovers do not need to fear any legislation any time soon. You'll always have your guns. If Sandy Hook could not serve as the mechanism for a nation wide change effort... nothing can.