Gun Debate

jrb112476

PJPOWER wrote:

"What will make it tougher for people to get guns?" is my question. And no, I am a gun owner (two rifles and a shotgun), I am not for outlawing guns completely. I am for gun education, safety, and better technology. And I am all for tougher purchasing regulations, but I question how effective those regulations would be in detering people who wish to do harm to others.

we are on the same page then....you have to clean them up on the streets first and yes, that would require more police power...then i think we need to start with tougher regulation

onelongsong

PJPOWER wrote:

Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?

Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process. The prohibition of alcohol, and now the totally ineffective "war on drugs" demonstrate the futility of attacking such problems with a supply-side prohibition. A larger black market in guns would create a new source of money for organized crime, and cause more violence, as the illegal drug trade has.To get rid of all guns would require using the sorts of gestapo-like police tactics used against Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. These sorts of tactics, and such blatant disregard for the rest of the Constitution would be exactly the sort of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

scw156

Quint wrote:

In the Netherlands to go hunting you also have to have a permit, handed out by the police. This can only be obtained when you suffice in a few rules:
- You have to be at least 18 years old
- You're required to have done an official hunter's course, followed by an exam
- You're required to have a special responsibility-insurance (don't know the exact english word)
- You're required to have a hunting-rental-agreement for an area situated in the Netherlands and at least 40 hectares big (1 ha is 100*100 metres)
- You can't have a criminal record

The hunter's course will take about 1 year and consists of 4 parts: 1 part theoretical, 3 parts practical, of which one is entirely about gun safety.

Most hunting in the Netherlands is done with lead-shot guns. Bullet guns are hardly used since you have to have a special permit to shoot animals that require a bullet (big game). These guns can be kept at home, but owners are strongly advised to store them in a special gun-safe which can only be opened by the owner. Besides that it is illegal to carry them outside when not in the hunting-area. (My uncle is one of the few hunters in the Netherlands; about 28.000 hunters on 16,5 mio people)

hot damn. I remember when I was 12. I went to a hunter training course for about 8 hours a day for a week. At the end we had to pass an exam, then we could go get a license and go hunting with adults. (Thats in Pennsylvania anyway, and about 11 years ago. things may have changed)

I have 2 rifles, 2 shotguns and a pistol. I haven't really used them in the past 5 years because I no longer hunt. But I guess I know I have them if zombies ever attack or the country goes in to total mayhem.

PJPOWER

jrb112476 wrote:

we are on the same page then....you have to clean them up on the streets first and yes, that would require more police power...then i think we need to start with tougher regulation

Yeah, and even making living conditions better in inner cities! It should throw up a red flag when on my block (where probably everyone owns at least 1 gun), there are never any incidents. Yet in some parts of town, where only a couple of houses have guns in them (mostly because they can't afford them) there are shootings and stabbings all the time. There's already a lot of laws in place that if were actually enforced might be effective...............but some of them are almost impossible to enforce.

PJPOWER

onelongsong wrote:

Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process. The prohibition of alcohol, and now the totally ineffective "war on drugs" demonstrate the futility of attacking such problems with a supply-side prohibition. A larger black market in guns would create a new source of money for organized crime, and cause more violence, as the illegal drug trade has.To get rid of all guns would require using the sorts of gestapo-like police tactics used against Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. These sorts of tactics, and such blatant disregard for the rest of the Constitution would be exactly the sort of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent

EXACTLY!

hippiemom

PJPOWER wrote:

Who is going to uphold these laws? More laws saying that you can't buy guns from your neighbor are just words on paper if there isn't someone to enforce them. I still fail to understand how stricter laws dealing with obtaining them will keep them out of the hands of people who mean to cause harm with them. It was against the law to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 17-year-olds for a long time, but the only way it has been detered is by stronger law enforcement..............and it still hasn't been stopped. What laws to you support?

Currently in Ohio, I can sell my guns to any Ohio resident over the age of 18 ... although I'm not required to keep any records, so there's nothing to stop me from selling them to anyone at all. If I were required to keep records and held responsible for acts committed with my gun if I didn't, I'd be pretty highly motivated to keep those records. Would this completely solve the problem? Of course not, but it would take a LOT of guns out of the unregulated marketplace. It's ridiculous that I'm allowed to sell a gun to anyone with cash in his pocket and not even keep a record of where that gun went.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

but in a debate where the subject matter concerns [gun control; gun registration; etc]; it is important to look to history and learn from the mistakes in the past. several countries have since used these nazi tactics to "cleanse" their country of firearms. england; who viciously fought hitler; used this and other nazi tactics since the end of WWII. so this quote is quite appropriate in this debate.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

Even if we were to come to the sober conclusion that we would be better off without any guns, we must remember that it will be impossible to remove all of the guns from America without utterly destroying the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the process.

How so?

Quint

Just a thought:

We discussing the pro's and con's of gun ownership here. Just so you know where I stand: (Since I'm European) I personally have a hard time agreeing with the pro arguments, especially where it comes to the "defending your home" etc argument which basically is in your constitution (Correct me if I'm wrong), but to some extend I understand your arguments. I'm not saying I agree... I understand.

Why don't we focus more on how we can make gun ownership safer instead of repeating ourselves? I.e. why has nobody (up untill now) come up with the idea to at least force gun manufacturers to fire every gun made and deliver the bullet together with the serial number to the government. When sold the serial number should be registered with the authorities (if that isn;t the case allready). In that way when a gun related crime occurs the government at least has less trouble finding the owner. Thus (perhaps) discouraging people to use them as fast as they do now.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Currently in Ohio, I can sell my guns to any Ohio resident over the age of 18 ... although I'm not required to keep any records, so there's nothing to stop me from selling them to anyone at all. If I were required to keep records and held responsible for acts committed with my gun if I didn't, I'd be pretty highly motivated to keep those records. Would this completely solve the problem? Of course not, but it would take a LOT of guns out of the unregulated marketplace. It's ridiculous that I'm allowed to sell a gun to anyone with cash in his pocket and not even keep a record of where that gun went.

however; if the buyer uses that gun to commit a crime; it is you the police will be coming to. the paper trail leads to you and YOU are responsable. i've never sold a gun to a private party without first getting a copy of their drivers license and a second ID. the make; model; and serial number are recorded and kept by ME in a file.
if you choose to own a gun; you must also accept responsabilities which reach beyond current laws.

PJPOWER

hippiemom wrote:

Currently in Ohio, I can sell my guns to any Ohio resident over the age of 18 ... although I'm not required to keep any records, so there's nothing to stop me from selling them to anyone at all. If I were required to keep records and held responsible for acts committed with my gun if I didn't, I'd be pretty highly motivated to keep those records. Would this completely solve the problem? Of course not, but it would take a LOT of guns out of the unregulated marketplace. It's ridiculous that I'm allowed to sell a gun to anyone with cash in his pocket and not even keep a record of where that gun went.

The problem is that you are probably a law abiding citizen. It's good in theory, but I'm betting people like you wouldn't sell a gun to someone that you didn't trust anyway, would you? On the other hand, you have those people who really don't give a shit and would rather the gun not get traced back to them if someone used it in a murder/suicide or a drive-by shooting. I too would be fine with a regulation saying that I had to keep a record of who I sold my gun to..............In fact, I probably would for my own personal safety anyways........that way if the gun did get traced back to me in some way I could have proof that it wasn't in my custody. I still think the money would be better spent by colleges installing metal detectors and upping their security.

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

but in a debate where the subject matter concerns [gun control; gun registration; etc]; it is important to look to history and learn from the mistakes in the past. several countries have since used these nazi tactics to "cleanse" their country of firearms. england; who viciously fought hitler; used this and other nazi tactics since the end of WWII. so this quote is quite appropriate in this debate.

With the risk of entering an other debat all together:

The Nazi's were also responsible for constructing the famous German Autobahn's (highways). Does that mean we should stop constructing highways?

As I said before: In the Netherlands we have strict gun control laws. It would be lying when I'd say we don't have gun related crime, but I can't help thinking that gun related crime rates are higher in area's/countries where gun control laws are less strict. Sure, if someone persists on doing a crime, that person will do it, regardless of anything. But does that mean you should facilitate a relative easy way to obtain a gun or would it be better to make it as hard as possible so you (probably) scare off a portion of the possible delinquents?

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

however; if the buyer uses that gun to commit a crime; it is you the police will be coming to. the paper trail leads to you and YOU are responsable. i've never sold a gun to a private party without first getting a copy of their drivers license and a second ID. the make; model; and serial number are recorded and kept by ME in a file.
if you choose to own a gun; you must also accept responsabilities which reach beyond current laws.

No, under Ohio law I am NOT responsible, although I'm sure I'd be questioned. And they'd only know I had it in the first place if I'd bought it from a licensed dealer. If I'd purchased it from an individual, they'd have no way of knowing I'd ever owned the thing.

PJPOWER

Quint wrote:

Just a thought:

We discussing the pro's and con's of gun ownership here. Just so you know where I stand: (Since I'm European) I personally have a hard time agreeing with the pro arguments, especially where it comes to the "defending your home" etc argument which basically is in your constitution (Correct me if I'm wrong), but to some extend I understand your arguments. I'm not saying I agree... I understand.

Why don't we focus more on how we can make gun ownership safer instead of repeating ourselves? I.e. why has nobody (up untill now) come up with the idea to at least force gun manufacturers to fire every gun made and deliver the bullet together with the serial number to the government. When sold the serial number should be registered with the authorities (if that isn;t the case allready). In that way when a gun related crime occurs the government at least has less trouble finding the owner. Thus (perhaps) discouraging people to use them as fast as they do now.

That would help in some situations.....................too bad it wouldn't have done anything to stop the Virginia Tech shooting/suicide. I'm pretty sure the balistics report didn't come in until after the 2 hours had passed between his shootings. I do think that this is a smart thing to have gun manufacturers do, though.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

Just a thought:

We discussing the pro's and con's of gun ownership here. Just so you know where I stand: (Since I'm European) I personally have a hard time agreeing with the pro arguments, especially where it comes to the "defending your home" etc argument which basically is in your constitution (Correct me if I'm wrong), but to some extend I understand your arguments. I'm not saying I agree... I understand.

Why don't we focus more on how we can make gun ownership safer instead of repeating ourselves? I.e. why has nobody (up untill now) come up with the idea to at least force gun manufacturers to fire every gun made and deliver the bullet together with the serial number to the government. When sold the serial number should be registered with the authorities (if that isn;t the case allready). In that way when a gun related crime occurs the government at least has less trouble finding the owner. Thus (perhaps) discouraging people to use them as fast as they do now.

as a european; you should understand more than others the importance of gun ownership to protect life and liberty. lest you forget; europe has been taken by dictators twice in the last 90 years. this is not ancient history. switzerland remained neuteral only because swiss law requires every head of household to own and know how to opperate a military weapon.
your idea may hold water if not for the illegal gun manufacturers. the drug cartels have contracted private gunmakers to manufacture fully automatic weapons similar to the cobray mac 10. a simple open bolt design easily manufactured by anyone with machining experience.

hippiemom

PJPOWER wrote:

The problem is that you are probably a law abiding citizen. It's good in theory, but I'm betting people like you wouldn't sell a gun to someone that you didn't trust anyway, would you? On the other hand, you have those people who really don't give a shit and would rather the gun not get traced back to them if someone used it in a murder/suicide or a drive-by shooting. I too would be fine with a regulation saying that I had to keep a record of who I sold my gun to..............In fact, I probably would for my own personal safety anyways........that way if the gun did get traced back to me in some way I could have proof that it wasn't in my custody. I still think the money would be better spent by colleges installing metal detectors and upping their security.

My husband has bought guns at shows from people who are almost certainly law-abiding, decent citizens ... they've got their table set up at the shows week after week, they seem like nice folks ... and he's never once been asked for any identification from anyone who isn't a licensed dealer. Personally, I'd keep records for my own protection, as you would, but most people don't, and I'm not talking about the criminal element. I am not for the repeal of gun rights, but I am definitely for tightening regulations nationwide. The laws in places like Virginia and Ohio are an invitation to disaster.

Quint

PJPOWER wrote:

That would help in some situations.....................too bad it wouldn't have done anything to stop the Virginia Tech shooting/suicide. I'm pretty sure the balistics report didn't come in until after the 2 hours had passed between his shootings. I do think that this is a smart thing to have gun manufacturers do, though.

No, that is true. But this debate in my opinion isnt about what happened at Virginia Tech. I have to agree with other people here: It's sad that it happened, but you can't stop an idiot/psychotic. The debate here is (as far as I'm concerned) whether you should keep it relatively easy for people to obtain guns, thus increasing the chance of a drama happening. Besides, my suggestion was only meant to show that in my opnion there are things that can be done without choosing either side of the debate.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

No, under Ohio law I am NOT responsible, although I'm sure I'd be questioned. And they'd only know I had it in the first place if I'd bought it from a licensed dealer. If I'd purchased it from an individual, they'd have no way of knowing I'd ever owned the thing.

if you purchased from a private party; you are correct; they wouldn't know you have/had it. however; the supreme court has ruled several times that federal law supersedes state law. if you recall; the government went to great lenghts to track down the sellers who sold the guns to the columbine students. as i recall; it was to charge them as accomplices and not to shake their hands.

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

as a european; you should understand more than others the importance of gun ownership to protect life and liberty.

No I don't. I rely on my government to protect me and my country. Besides with the Netherlands being part of the NATO and European Union, I can hardly imagine history repeating itself again in the short term.