Jump to content
philpot123

Gun rights/control/ownership

Recommended Posts

I was referring to all gun-related deaths.

 

And again, I feel that many of the proposed limitations on gun ownership and obtaining are too far-fetched and strict. In many places, owning semis and guns for self-defense is illegal, for example.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, in response to those concerned about my earlier post: It's not the background checks specifically I'm worried about. It's that things like this are inevitably a very slippery slope with our government, especially if certain people get their way.

 

I do not trust government at all anymore with the way they've been treating some things lately(and I don't mean just the Obama administration) and I personally don't want to support something that will most likely end up with those of us who actually bother being responsible firearms owners denied our right to own a rifle for hunting, or for myself to keep a handgun for self defense as a single woman who's home alone quite frequently in a drug-infested neighborhood that the local law enforcement sweeps under the rug because it's on the very outer edge of their area of responsibility. I don't live in a happy little city where people never hunt and where the police actually bother showing up faster than two or three hours later when you call emergency services because there are people trying to kill each other over their drugs outside of the home.

 

(And before anyone goes off on me over "but they were short-handed" about the police, even if every single officer they had was on the opposite side of the county and drove at the speed limit and no faster to an emergency call, it should not take more than approximately 45 minutes to get here.)

Share this post


Link to post

This stuff happens.

 

Better background checks - and spot visits to the homes of registered owners, to check storage and so on are ESSENTIAL to stop this kind of awfulness. The parents should go to jail, and should not be allowed another gun EVER. There is NO excuse. This was no "crazy accident" - this was rank carelessness, and NO 5 y/o should be "playing with a gun" anyway. No-one can tell me he needed it for self defence or rabbit hunting or ANYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but I don't see why its such a huge issue.

 

Most people hear the word "gun control" and go screaming mayhem off into the night.

 

BUT if you just look at the proposals, they are not saying "take away guns" they are saying "more time for gun checks" and "screening more carefully" and such. Which, as a responsible gun owning citizen, you all should be in favor of. It would make it harder for the unsavory from owning guns, and protecting YOU as a legal gun-owning citizen from people like that. Unless you want to be able to own a gun illegally, which then makes me wonder just what YOUR motives are.

 

And, I'm sorry, but no one needs an AK-47 to protect your home. Reminds me of an Monty Python sketch, where they go hunting a mosquito with a bazooka. Ok, you say, but what if the OTHER party has an AK-47? Lol...that's what the gun control is for, keeping them from owning those.

 

Yeah, nothing is gonna be perfect. But lets start acting like the intelligent people we are, and not over-reacting, which is what I see most.

 

Read the actual proposals, before knee-jerking.

Probably the most level-headed response to this I saw was that hunters really don't buy that many rifles. So, they don't make a lot of money off hunters. This is true as far as I've seen. My family has had the same guns for years. They don't wear out if you take care of them. So the big sellers right now are the military style stuff. That's where the money is. So, they don't want profit infringed upon. Seems like it always comes down to money, money, money.

Share this post


Link to post

I think, that as a militia is no longer useful or necessary, the Second Amendment should be repealed. People don't need devices that shoot small bits of metal at deadly rates. Sorry.

 

Or else, regulate everything severely, such that mass killing weapons like automatic and semi-automatic rifles are illegal.

 

What the censorkip.gif would you need/want a weapon of mass destruction for?! Seriously!

 

And Fuzz- that's just ridiculous! Why the *** are people giving 5 year olds GUNS?! Even "little guns" can KILL. Do people want 5 year olds to have killing power?!

 

Hunters don't need super powerful stuff. Most of them aren't buying AK-47s anyway.

 

It's the military-grade slaughter devices that scare me.

Share this post


Link to post

The incident with the child? Common negligence which is no argument against guns, since these kinds of people should not be left with children, anyway.

This time it was a gun, but they would just as likely have left a packet of sugar-coated pills on the corner of the table, or a toddler near the stairs or on open balcony, or end up with the children drinking detergent because the canister was there on the floor, smelling good and having a picture of oranges on its side, or it could have been a knife instead of a gun...

These kinds of things kill small children all the time, but yet most of those cases go practically unreported. Just that it was a gun does not somehow make it more horrible.

 

1.) Hunters need powerful stuff because otherwise their prey runs off injured. Not even headshots are guaranteed to kill, atop of being harder to pull off.

2.) I need my semi handgun mainly for practice-shooting. I can guarantee it's stored safely when I dont need it, and kept on my person and watched closely when it is out.

3.) Rifles are not weapons of mass destruction.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought, here, from someone who has worked in the aviation industry - for purposes of air freight (certainly in the UK, and in other jurisdictions I am also aware of) weapons such as the AK-47 are classified as Munitions of War and require special handling procedures and additional liscencing.

 

I will also note that people hunt and shoot in the UK without causing mass suffering to their targets and without the use of fully-automatic weaponry. Not only that but, really, if you are using a gun so powerful that it will kill an animal in one shot, regardless of where you have hit it, surely you'd be doing so much damage that the meat would not be edible afterwards?

 

I also fail to see how a change to (or introduction of) liscencing laws requiring guns to be kept securely in a gun cabinet would in any way inconvinience responsible owners who probably keep their guns that way already.

Share this post


Link to post
2.) I need my semi handgun mainly for practice-shooting.

No, you don't "need" it a semi-automatic hand-gun for practice. You "want" it for fun.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's not take things to absurdities, either - I was not speaking of hunting with fully automatics and tearing everything one kills asunder. (I typically draw the line after semis, anyway.) I'm speaking of choosing your weapons according to what you hunt. Moose-hunting with a gun fit for duck-hunting is not likely to pan out well. (It was in response to a poster before me saying hunters have no need for powerful guns.)

 

And I've nothing against it being required that people who want to buy guns or get a permit must prove that they have a place for safely storing their guns.

 

@Kestra: Okay, 'need' was a wrong word. But why should people be banned from having such guns when they can *prove* they are responsible with them?

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
Let's not take things to absurdities, either - I was not speaking of hunting with fully automatics and tearing everything one kills asunder. (I typically draw the line after semis, anyway.) I'm speaking of choosing your weapons according to what you hunt. Moose-hunting with a gun fit for duck-hunting is not likely to pan out well. (It was in response to a poster before me saying hunters have no need for powerful guns.)

 

And I've nothing against it being required that people who want to buy guns or get a permit must prove that they have a place for safely storing their guns.

 

@Kestra: Okay, 'need' was a wrong word. But why should people be banned from having such guns when they can *prove* they are responsible with them?

The thing is that an AK-47 is a fully automatic gun. There is no need for a civillian to have one. They have no reasonable use other than killing things in a very messy fashion. When people speak of 'assualt rifles' that is what they mean - something with the capability to be fully automatic. And, yes, I think those should be banned.

 

Beyond that, though the thing many of us here are arguing for is precisely what you've just said you don't mind - asking people to prove that they are responsible, competant gun owners and then issuing them with a liscence. That's how it works in the UK (with, admittedly, slightly more restrictions on type of gun here). You prove that you are competant, have a reason for owning a gun (and that includes membership of target shooting clubs, incidently), and have a secure place to store it... and you get a gun. No problem. As it happens I've seen quite a *lot* of them, due to having worked both in firearms transfers in the aviation industry, and latterly in very rural areas.

 

I don't think there are actually that many people who want to take all guns away from everybody. Despite the habit of the right-wing press/commentators to imply that that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post

When people speak of 'assualt rifles' that is what they mean - something with the capability to be fully automatic.

Ah, but you see, I have seen varying definitions. To me it appears that many people use the term "assault rifle" to refer to any fierce-looking rifle about, whether or not those have full-auto capabilities or not. (No, that it's black and doesn't contain any wooden parts doesn't make a gun any more dangerous... Lighter material and greater adjustability, however, do make it more convenient for hunters, too.) It's mainly because of that why I typically speak of fully automatics, not assault rifles, especially since not only rifles can be fully automatic.

 

(The post I was originally responding to also spoke of making semi-auto rifles illegal, just for the record.)

 

The thing many of us here are arguing for is precisely what you've just said you don't mind - asking people to prove that they are responsible, competent gun owners and then issuing them with a license. That's how it works in the UK (with, admittedly, slightly more restrictions on type of gun here). You prove that you are competent, have a reason for owning a gun (and that includes membership of target shooting clubs, incidently), and have a secure place to store it... and you get a gun.

It works with a background check, proving that you have a place to store the gun safely, and cometence-test/gun-handling course over here, too, and I am mostly OK with what they do. I am more debating on the finer aspects of gun control (what kinds of guns/ammunition should be allowed, whether or not self-defense is a valid justification for gun-carrying, whether or not gun-ownership should be taxed (is target shooting club membership expensive in UK? no private practitioners allowed?), and so forth). smile.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post

@Shien- I don't think I was clear. I am for controlling the more powerful weapons very tightly. I don't think hunters need [military grade extreme power assault] guns.

 

And just for the record, I don't know a lot about guns. I'm not trying to not own up to what I said, but if anything I say is totally ridiculous, please ignore it.

 

I looked again, and I guess semis are OK, but should be tightly controlled.

(As in- licensing and routine mental health checkups maybe every 5 years.)

Edited by Spelunker

Share this post


Link to post
It works with a background check, proving that you have a place to store the gun safely, and cometence-test/gun-handling course over here, too, and I am mostly OK with what they do. I am more debating on the finer aspects of gun control (what kinds of guns/ammunition should be allowed, whether or not self-defense is a valid justification for gun-carrying, whether or not gun-ownership should be taxed (is target shooting club membership expensive in UK? no private practitioners allowed?), and so forth). smile.gif

Most clubs in the UK are in the £40-£100 range for yearly membership - and there's a legal requirement of a 6 month probationary period before you can become a full member. I should note that competence tests aren't actually required for a Firearms Certificate here, as Clubs will only issue Full Membership once you are considered competant, and (unless you work in a limited number of professions) you can't obtain a gun without Full Membership of one club or another. That's not to say you can't shoot on your own land, or go on a shoot outside of a club shooting range, just that you have to be a member of one (and fulfil their requirements on how many times you must shoot at the range in a year to keep membership, obviously).

 

I can understand debating the finer points, you just occasionally managed to come across as being anti *anything* being suggested. Hence my posts smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
@Kestra: Okay, 'need' was a wrong word. But why should people be banned from having such guns when they can *prove* they are responsible with them?

Because there's no need to own them, they are tools for death and nothing more.

 

And if your main thing is that you feel those responsible should be allowed them, then why not support tighter gun regulations? The whole point is to demonstrate that those who are in ownership of weapons are safe to have them. Those who will lose out on gun ownership will primarily be those who, for one reason or another, have been shown they are not safe with them. For example criminal records, past convictions for unsafe gun useage, history of mental instability, lack of safe storage etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Because there's no need to own them, they are tools for death and nothing more.

 

And if your main thing is that you feel those responsible should be allowed them, then why not support tighter gun regulations? The whole point is to demonstrate that those who are in ownership of weapons are safe to have them. Those who will lose out on gun ownership will primarily be those who, for one reason or another, have been shown they are not safe with them. For example criminal records, past convictions for unsafe gun useage, history of mental instability, lack of safe storage etc.

Right on Kestra.

Share this post


Link to post
And if your main thing is that you feel those responsible should be allowed them, then why not support tighter gun regulations? The whole point is to demonstrate that those who are in ownership of weapons are safe to have them. Those who will lose out on gun ownership will primarily be those who, for one reason or another, have been shown they are not safe with them. For example criminal records, past convictions for unsafe gun useage, history of mental instability, lack of safe storage etc.

I have mentioned it before, and I will say it again: I do support reasonable amount of gun control. Enough gun control to ensure that only lawful and mentally stable people who know how to handle guns and can store them safely get to buy and carry them, but not so strict restrictions as to make obtaining and owning guns overly complex or expensive. From here on we are only debating how much and what kind of gun control is necessary or reasonable, no?

 

 

@Tikindi: Are you certain that you were not confusing me with Phil? I have been quite consistently stating that some gun control is good, as far as I can recall...

Share this post


Link to post

Relevant:

 

 

That said, I'm not opposed to some form of gun control, like background checks. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say to make it a requirement to have potential new gun owners go through a 'gun safety and use' class to help cut down on the cases like the one about the 5-year old recently posted (with refresher courses every couple years or so for all gun owners: especially if there's a kid in the house!).

 

Personally, I hate guns, but I do not want the right to own one to be taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
@Tikindi: Are you certain that you were not confusing me with Phil? I have been quite consistently stating that some gun control is good, as far as I can recall...

Entirely possible. This illness is starting to effect my memory too sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

My face when people think banning guns in any way will help killings.

 

1.) You would only be taking the guns away from the actually responsible people, and there is zero way to get them away from the actual people you don't want having them

 

2.)If you could ban guns and make sure noone had them (you can't) people would just bomb things instead of shooting them, which is arguably worse.

Share this post


Link to post
My face when people think banning guns in any way will help killings.

 

1.) You would only be taking the guns away from the actually responsible people, and there is zero way to get them away from the actual people you don't want having them

The parents of that 5 y/o were responsible, you think ? They should NEVER be allowed a gun again.

Share this post


Link to post

routine mental health checkups maybe every 5 years.)

Every six months, a year tops. 5 years is way too long, one year is pushing it IMO.

 

A person can go from "stable and not a danger to people" to "needs to be kept under careful watch to make sure nobody gets hurt" in a matter of hours.

 

I speak from personal experience. Back when I first started struggling with depression, it came on in the spam of roughly a month and I started "coping" with self-mutilation. I was formally diagnosed about 6-8 months later when I didn't improve.

 

Last fall, I went from "best place I've been mentally in years" to "about ready to snap" in the span of a few weeks.

 

Last week I went from "kinda depressed but still doing pretty good" to "on the edge of becoming actively suicidal" in a matter of hours--and then had several days where I would have fits of intense despair and hopelessness (that were bad enough I was afraid to drive) that would come on with no warning in a matter of minutes.

 

Mental health can go to hell in very little time. 5 years is an obscenely long time between checks.

Share this post


Link to post
My face when people think banning guns in any way will help killings.

 

1.) You would only be taking the guns away from the actually responsible people, and there is zero way to get them away from the actual people you don't want having them

 

2.)If you could ban guns and make sure noone had them (you can't) people would just bomb things instead of shooting them, which is arguably worse.

Are you just talking about just banning guns/banning certain types of guns/banning certain magazine types or are you including things like background checks, which would 'ban' certain people from getting guns? If the first, ignore this. if the second: 1) Because we totally don't let people who shouldn't have guns have guns right now

These are people who have guns who have people in their life saying "I don't feel safe around him! I don't feel safe with him having a gun!" Gun lobbyists are saying, 'lol, let these responsible people have their guns. Don't discriminate against them because of womanly slander!' And what's happening? Women are being killed by people who have been through the court system and been legally allowed to keep their guns. Mass shootings aren't the only type of gun violence.

But even in the first case, if people are pushing for a ban of guns/magazines that aren't good for self-defense, does that make any difference? Does it really encroach on freedoms (besides 'guns!11!1!!!' of which there is a debate on how far the second amendment extends [which admittedly gun lobbyists and conservatives are winning])?

 

2) Imma need some kind of citation on this slippery slope.

 

~

 

I saw this the other day. Kind of a comparison about how seriously we take the "war on drugs" vs. gun regulation.

 

~

 

I also support licensing guns. It makes no sense that we have to go through classes and pass tests in order to drive a car, a dangerous machine meant for transportation, but not for shooting a gun, a dangerous machine meant for killing/maiming.

Share this post


Link to post

Every six months, a year tops.  5 years is way too long, one year is pushing it IMO.
Too much strain on the system and people. If it is a routine checkup which is done anyway (and which will be valid for other things but obtaining a gun permit), I am okay with it being necessitated once a year as a part of the requirements to keep a gun permit, but more frequently than once a year is simply too much.

 

The parents of that 5 y/o were responsible, you think ? They should NEVER be allowed a gun again.
Correction: They should never be allowed to be in the same house with children without supervision. Do you think they would have kept other lethal objects away from children? Knives, tasty sugar-coated medication-pills, et cetera? Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post
The parents of that 5 y/o were responsible, you think ? They should NEVER be allowed a gun again.
Correction: They should never be allowed to be in the same house with children without supervision. Do you think they would have kept other lethal objects away from children? Knives, tasty sugar-coated medication-pills, et cetera?

Well yeah - but at least with those things there is a chance of being saved by nice doctors. Stomach pumps, surgery. And then the child can be taken into care.

 

Being shot through the heart is kind of unfixable. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Being shot through the heart is kind of unfixable. sad.gif

Yes, this was truly unfortunate. Had it been counted centimeters off, there might have been a chance... sad.gif

 

But so it tends to be with anything potentially lethal - it all depends on how lucky one is and how quickly it gets discovered. I know about a case (was told by an ambulance worker who was a part of the team sent to the location) where a small child was left unsupervised in the same room with an open balcony door, and the result was that the child fell off the balcony. It was only the second floor, but the child fell unfortunately enough to broke one's neck, and the first thing the mother did upon realizing what had happened was try to pick her child up. Again, nothing could be done once the help had arrived, although the ambulance got there almost immediately...

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.