Gun rights/control/ownership

[Husky51]

I cannot speak for others, only myself... I live in So California and there are a great many drive-by shootings and gang related shootings every year. And these shooters don't care what they hit... Young, old, male, female, it doesn't matter to them...

 

I was a Gunnersmate in the Navy and have owned guns ever since I got out back in 1968. I had to qualify officers and enlisted men in using guns and a lot of people simply have no common sense around guns. I've had many loaded guns pointed at me during these sessions. I hope that I helped correct these errors on the shooters part.

 

I have seven gunpowder firearms and 3 co2 firearms in my house. The handguns are loaded and the semi-automatics have loaded magazines or clips and the chamber empty. I have always had loaded guns in my house and have taught my kids from their every early days about gun safety. By the time they were 6 and 7, they could hit what they were aiming at with a .22 single-shot rifle, both my sons and daughter and even as adults, they are very careful about where they are pointing their gun. Just three weeks ago, I took 2 of my grandsons (9 and 12) to a shooting range and was pleased at their knowlege of firearm safety that they had learned from their parents...

 

My children were taught that if they were around ANY OTHER CHILD, and that child suddenly had a gun, they were to leave immediately and tell an adult. They didn't have a curiousity about guns as they were familiar with them and what they could do. No talking, no trying to get it away, just GET OUT!

 

I shot pistol competition for four years at up to 150 feet away in MASTER classification. This took a lot of practice and I enjoyed it immensely. When I am up late, as I am now, I keep a small handgun handy just in case. I am not a drooling, blood-thirsty man, just someone who believes that calling 911 isn't always an timely option. I'm not so worried about the prison that is a block away from my house, I am worried about the people that come to visit said prison.

 

In a country where guns are not allowed to the general population, then keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is relatively easy compared to a country like the USA which has had a policy of allowing the people the right to own guns. Even if the US tried to take away guns from the general population, it wouldn't be very successful. Too many of us would stash or hide at least some of our guns... There is no way in which the US could be completely dis-armed... As far as that goes, I always have my bows and arrows, crossbow, swords and knives.

 

All this being said, I do believe that some form of gun control aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them in the first place should be enacted and strongly enforced.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Husky51

[St. Jimmy]

litle girlyboys

litle girls that want theyr mommies.

Could you please not use sexist language? Gender has nothing to do with this debate and plenty of women know how to use guns.

 

Back on topic... I haven't been following this thread much so I have nothing to add to the current debate. My opinion on guns is that I severely dislike them and would personally never use one. I would like to see stronger control over them, though I know banning them outright would not work in America. I am for mental health checks and a required gun safety class before one should be able to buy one.

Edited January 3, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[kiffren]

About a week or two ago I was reading an article in either the new york times or the washington post and it brought up gun control. Specifically, limiting those with mental illnesses/disabilities from using guns. It was related to the Connecticut school shooting, and it was the media being stupid about the shooter possibly having Asperger's.

 

I have Asperger's and I know that it isn't going to 'cause' me to take a gun and shoot up a school, or anywhere for that matter.

 

When I was 5, my grandfather gave me my first BB gun. He then took me out into the backyard and sat me down and talked about gun safety with me. Before I even got to fire a shot, he made sure that I knew to keep my barrel pointed away from people even if the gun was unloaded and the safety was on. When I was about eight or nine my dad and I started hunting rats with a pellet gun. We have chickens and the rats are an infestation. We deal with them however we can. At this point, I knew where the key to the gun safe was. I knew how to handle the pellet guns and how to be safe. Dad gave me, much to my mom's dismay, a pellet gun when I turned 11.

 

Sometime around then my dad also showed me how to handle the real guns we have. We have something like three shotguns and two .22s in the house, though unfortunately we don't get to go out and shoot them very often.

 

I am an american citizen, it is my right by the constitution to bear arms. The constitution doesn't say "it is the right of any civilian that is not mentally unsound, a minority, etc to bear arms". Gun control sounds nice at first, but when you think about it you're infringing on the rights of a minority. Don't allow those with mental disabilities to have guns, and you're discriminating.

 

Now besides the moral side of the argument, which both sides of gun control are firmly entrenched in, is a factual side. The shear number of firearm murders may seem quite large, but consistently the percentage is decreasing. I will only provide you with one reference that shows the decrease from 2010-2011, if you're interested I suggest you search for other references yourself. link.

 

Furthermore, look at countries that are police states. Now I haven't done a lot of research on this, just poked around the internet a bit. However it appears to me that those countries that are police states all have very strict gun control. It makes sense in my mind as well, it seems like it would be easier for the government to control an unarmed populace than an armed one.

Edited January 3, 2013 by kiffren

[Kestra15]

Gun control sounds nice at first, but when you think about it you're infringing on the rights of a minority. Don't allow those with mental disabilities to have guns, and you're discriminating.

Or protecting the majority. After all, it depends on the mental disability and the impact that has on that person's functionality.

 

And tighter gun control =/= police state, thank you.

[KageSora]

There's a reason I'm not against a blanket ban on people who are mentally different than the norm in some way having guns.

 

I think each case needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. A person with some sort of mental disability (as generally thought of as such by the public) could be fully capable of safely handling and owning a gun, after all.

 

I can't, off the top of my head, think of any specific mental condition that should automatically ban somebody from having a gun--the severity and specific manifestation of that mental abnormality are what you need to be taking into account.

[kiffren]

Or protecting the majority. After all, it depends on the mental disability and the impact that has on that person's functionality.

 

And tighter gun control =/= police state, thank you.

So what you're saying is that the rights/safety of the majority is more important than the rights/safety of the minority? That sounds like discrimination to me.

 

And I didn't say that tighter gun control = police state, I said that it seems to me like it might lead to that. This is just from a thought experiment with no outside research, I haven't gotten a chance to do any reading about anything this winter break. Once I do the research if I find that there is data to support my hypothesis I will provide the references.

Edited January 5, 2013 by kiffren

[Kestra15]

So what you're saying is that the rights/safety of the majority is more important than the rights/safety of the minority? That sounds like discrimination to me.

No, I said that some people who are in ill mental health are not safe enough to be given a gun. That's not discrimination, that's common sense and protecting the public.

[TikindiDragon]

Gun control sounds nice at first, but when you think about it you're infringing on the rights of a minority. Don't allow those with mental disabilities to have guns, and you're discriminating.

We don't allow people with sever epilepsy to drive. That's not discrimination, it's protecting other people. We also, funnily enough, do not allow people with certain mental conditions into the millitary - which, again, isn't discrimination. It's because giving those people a gun and putting them into a combat situation will likely not have good consequences.

 

Same thing here. Frankly if the military (or the police, come to that matter, who also won't accept people with certain mental conditions) think a person would be a danger if given a gun then I sure as hell don't think it's a good idea to give them one as a civillian where the discipline and formal training are often lacking.

 

And, yes, I also have Aspergers. That simple diagnosis ruled me out of a life-long desire to serve in the military, so I know full well the implications on a person of this sort of thing. I *still* don't call it discrimination.

[~Kat~]

Joshua Boston, Former Marine, Pens Response To Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Bill: 'I Am Not Your Servant'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/j...26pLid%3D253228

 

I am behind this guy all the way.

[Fuzzbucket]

No, I said that some people who are in ill mental health are not safe enough to be given a gun. That's not discrimination, that's common sense and protecting the public.

Yes indeed.

 

Guns don't kill people - people do.

But only if those people have guns.

 

If you aren't ashamed to have a gun - what is wrong with registering it ?

 

Otherwise - the next person who expects CCTV to identify a car in a hit and run by looking at the footage of its licence plate might like to think about whether the driver should have had the right not to have a licence plate in the first place - that's - registration, and NOT an infringement of liberties.

[blah]

Guns don't kill people - people do.

But only if those people have guns.

Exactly. I think Eddie Izzard said it beautifully.

 

"They say, guns don't kill people, people do. But I think... I think the gun helps, you know? Just standing there, going "BANG" ... that's not gonna kill too many people, is it?"

[Fuzzbucket]

Exactly. I think Eddie Izzard said it beautifully.

 

"They say, guns don't kill people, people do. But I think... I think the gun helps, you know? Just standing there, going "BANG" ... that's not gonna kill too many people, is it?"

I do like that guy ! And he's right - and yes, knives and everything can kill too - but guns are MUCH easier. And can be operated from a distance.

[TikindiDragon]

If you aren't ashamed to have a gun - what is wrong with registering it ?

 

Otherwise - the next person who expects CCTV to identify a car in a hit and run by looking at the footage of its licence plate might like to think about whether the driver should have had the right not to have a licence plate in the first place - that's - registration, and NOT an infringement of liberties.

Incidently no one thinks twice about having to register their car, get a liscence to drive it, and pay a tax to support the roads it runs on.

 

So why should registering your gun, requiring a liscence to own one, and paying tax so that practise ranges could be free of charge be any different?

[~Kat~]

Cars can be used as a weapon to run people over. Knives are used as a weapon all the time to murder people and so can hammers, fingernail files and the list goes on. Will the government take cars and knives and anything that can be used to kill others away from the people, I do not think so.

 

Former U.S. Marines Cpl. Joshua Boston said if the bill pass's he will not register his weapons and I do not blame him.

 

There are many things that can be owned, and it is not the governments right to know everything that people own in my opinion just so they can take them away if they feel like it. The criminals will get weapons no matter what, and I also want my gun to defend myself with if my life is threatened. I travel all over by myself trail riding and I carry a weapon travelling for protection. Good and sane people will not commit acts of violence or go off the deep end to kill others. It is the mentally unbalanced people, thugs and the criminals that kill people. Something needs to be done about these types of people, especially the thugs and criminals so they can not go back to the streets to murder again.

 

Example, I own horses that are registered, and I will not send the papers in so the government can track me down that easy. I am on record at the vets though. I will not go into this as this needs to go somewhere else.

 

 

[Syaoransbear]

Cars can be used as a weapon to run people over. Knives are used as a weapon all the time to murder people and so can hammers, fingernail files and the list goes on. Will the government take cars and knives and anything that can be used to kill others away from the people, I do not think so.

 

Former U.S. Marines Cpl. Joshua Boston said if the bill pass's he will not register his weapons and I do not blame him.

 

There are many things that can be owned, and it is not the governments right to know everything that people own in my opinion just so they can take them away if they feel like it. The criminals will get weapons no matter what, and I also want my gun to defend myself with if my life is threatened. I travel all over by myself trail riding and I carry a weapon travelling for protection. Good and sane people will not commit acts of violence or go off the deep end to kill others. It is the mentally unbalanced people, thugs and the criminals that kill people. Something needs to be done about these types of people, especially the thugs and criminals so they can not go back to the streets to murder again.

 

Example, I own horses that are registered, and I will not send the papers in so the government can track me down that easy. I am on record at the vets though. I will not go into this as this needs to go somewhere else.

Yeah, they can be used to kill people. But are they designed to kill people? No. The entire function of a gun is to kill things. People using other objects that aren't meant to kill things to kill people is different, and all of those things are a lot harder to kill someone with than a gun. That's why the man in Connecticut with a gun was able to kill 27 people while the man in China with a knife only injured 23 people and killed no one. He couldn't even kill a bunch of little kids with a knife!

 

How come you won't send registration papers for horses? How would the government track you down that way, don't you pay taxes where they would already have your information? Won't registering your horse mostly help you get it back if it's ever stolen or lost?

Edited January 7, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[TikindiDragon]

Example, I own horses that are registered, and I will not send the papers in so the government can track me down that easy. I am on record at the vets though. I will not go into this as this needs to go somewhere else.

And, I suppose, the fact that you pay income tax means the government isn't able to track you down at all. [/sarcasm]

 

Have I mentioned that you can be traced via a mobile phone, or every time you use a credit/debit card as well? Registering things has nothing to do with the government being interested in *you* (they can track you as easily as the like anyway) and everything to do with them being interested in the thing registered. If, for instance, one of your horses was stoleen you'd have a much harder time getting them it back simply because it's not registered (and, no, having an animal registered with the vet doesn't count on that level).

 

Seriously, if your only reason for not wanting to register something is "so the government can't track me down." then you're a moron.

[philpot123]

And, I suppose, the fact that you pay income tax means the government isn't able to track you down at all. [/sarcasm]

 

Have I mentioned that you can be traced via a mobile phone, or every time you use a credit/debit card as well? Registering things has nothing to do with the government being interested in *you* (they can track you as easily as the like anyway) and everything to do with them being interested in the thing registered. If, for instance, one of your horses was stoleen you'd have a much harder time getting them it back simply because it's not registered (and, no, having an animal registered with the vet doesn't count on that level).

 

Seriously, if your only reason for not wanting to register something is "so the government can't track me down." then you're a moron.

Essentially, this. Even the most conspiracy-theory-minded man I know, (you know the type, Aurora and CT were in jobs so the gov't can come take my guns) doesn't bother trying to avoid gun registration. He's on the books a hundred different ways. Even IF the government decided to perform mass seizures of firearms, it doesn't matter what measures you take, they'll get them. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that gun seizure isn't likely. It's more likely to take the form of progressive regulations that will affect new sales, not old owners.

[TikindiDragon]

Essentially, this. Even the most conspiracy-theory-minded man I know, (you know the type, Aurora and CT were in jobs so the gov't can come take my guns) doesn't bother trying to avoid gun registration. He's on the books a hundred different ways. Even IF the government decided to perform mass seizures of firearms, it doesn't matter what measures you take, they'll get them. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that gun seizure isn't likely. It's more likely to take the form of progressive regulations that will affect new sales, not old owners.

Hence my total and utter confusion about people having issues with the basic idea of registration. I tend to be pretty paranoid about the government, and even I can see that doesn't make too much difference in the grand scheme of things.

[philpot123]

Hence my total and utter confusion about people having issues with the basic idea of registration. I tend to be pretty paranoid about the government, and even I can see that doesn't make too much difference in the grand scheme of things.

For me, it's a principle issue. My political opinions are such that submitting to the government in that area is not something that sits well with me. The government shouldn't be registering my guns, they shouldn't be taking my guns, they should be punishing me when I do bad things with my guns. I haven't done bad things yet, so I don't see why it's any of their business what I have in my closet or under my bed. Again, as with most of my posts, I'm just a disgruntled libertarian pretending my opinion matters.

[Mommy_Kitty]

For me, it's a principle issue. My political opinions are such that submitting to the government in that area is not something that sits well with me. The government shouldn't be registering my guns, they shouldn't be taking my guns, they should be punishing me when I do bad things with my guns. I haven't done bad things yet, so I don't see why it's any of their business what I have in my closet or under my bed. Again, as with most of my posts, I'm just a disgruntled libertarian pretending my opinion matters.

Did the Lanza kid do anything bad with the guns befor he went to school and killed kids with it, he did not do anything wrong to that point to get a criminal record, and still he wnet on a killing spree.

[philpot123]

Did the Lanza kid do anything bad with the guns befor he went to school and killed kids with it, he did not do anything wrong to that point to get a criminal record, and still he wnet on a killing spree.

No, he didn't. He hadn't done anything wrong up until that point, and that means there is no grounds to punish him for anything he "might possibly" do. We all have the potential to commit heinous crimes, and the government can't prevent that. What we can do is properly administer punishment, swiftly and harshly, when people do commit crimes. THAT is something our justice system is failing to do.

[Mommy_Kitty]

No, he didn't. He hadn't done anything wrong up until that point, and that means there is no grounds to punish him for anything he "might possibly" do. We all have the potential to commit heinous crimes, and the government can't prevent that. What we can do is properly administer punishment, swiftly and harshly, when people do commit crimes. THAT is something our justice system is failing to do.

Well he shot himself, so how to punish him, and most masskillers tend to do a suicide at the end or get killed by law inforcers, but i dont think that death is am apropriate punishment, it is an easy way out of troubles. And from what you are saying it sound that you dont want to prevent mass killing like the lanza kid puled out, but punish the killer after he/she killed a lot of inocente kids, now tell me how will an apropriate punishment bring back all the murdered kids. Wuldnt you rather have a sistem whers such things culd be prevented by a simple, tighter law, rather that watching how justice makes fattal errors. If a new, tighter law wuld prevent 1 mass killing a year i wuld say it is a good law, and you wuld not punish any one with a law, if someone is not fit to hold guns in his/hers hands he/she shuld not handle them, that is not punishment, but justice and safety to the majorty of population.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Mommy_Kitty

[TikindiDragon]

Well given that the gun wasn't his own, but his mothers, I would say that a tightening of regulations so that a gun must be stored in a securely locked cabinet if it is not with the person it is registered to would probably have prevented him getting his hands on them in the first place.

[KageSora]

I agree that we need to try to PREVENT such incidents--I don't, however, agree with the idea too many people come out with that banning people from guns is the way to go about it. As has been said before and will be said again, all that does is make sure the criminals have guns and law-abiding citizens don't.

 

This is why I do and will continue to argue for better measures that attempt to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the unfit while not barring the fit from having them.

 

Which, I realize, would be a pain in the ass. It wouldn't be a simple undertaking. But, I think it would be worth it in the end, personally.

[Fuzzbucket]

That's a HUGE issue in itself - which is one more reason for control, philpot. If someone is diagnosed as a psychopath - in the UK, at least - that is not a "mental illness", as it is deemed untreatable - so you cannot section (aka commit) them; you cannot lock them up against the day they may kill someone, in whatever way they may do so. (And fair enough, I'm afraid - you cannot simply lock someone up just in case - they actually MAY never offend in any way !)

 

But you CAN refuse to allow a diagnosed psychopath a gun licence. If they then get hold of a gun, they can be locked up for having it without a licence... Not such a bad idea !