Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:20 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Every State Has A Registry Of Car Owners. What Is So Different About Guns? Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 7:53:23 AM

LaPierre is totally jumping to conclusions.

He says if we keep a list of who has guns so we can keep track of them that the real reason is to tax em or take em.

We have such lists for car owners and the government has not taken everybody's cars away.

It is stuff like this that makes ordinary people think the NRA is nothing but a bunch of extreme whackos.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 2:15:12 PM

steve said: "Somebody buys one at a yard sale and tries to register it, finds out it was previously used in an unsolved crime".

How would they know this?
The crime is unsolved.
So tell us how does that work, someone registers an unregistered gun and poof a cold case is solved?
I don't think so. Unless you are working on your Phd in criminal justice and know something no one else does.
If I thought it would work then I would be all for it.

Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:06:33 PM

"--Many ways. They get used in a crime and the suspect is busted. They turn up during a legal search. Somebody rats on them. Some idiot tries to take one through airport security. One is stolen and the thief tries to pawn it. Somebody buys one at a yard sale and tries to register it, finds out it was previously used in an unsolved crime. Somebody buys a house, cleans it out and finds one. Renters move out and leave one behind. Kids find one while playing in a field. A treasure-hunter finds one while using a metal detector. NYC cops do a stop and frisk. Buy-back program.

Need I go on?"

So...how is this going to help keep them out of the hands of criminals again? All the things you listed means it happens AFTER they already have them and so registering the weapon never helped now did it?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,949
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 1:21:01 PM

Interesting video. I wonder how many of the anti gun folks will watch it and comment on it.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,460
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 12:05:34 PM

Take guns away, and many more people will jump off bridges, or possibly poison themselves.

As to suicide rates, here are the top ones: S. Korea (31.7/100,000), Lithuania, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, Japan, Hungary, Latvia and Sri Lanka round out the top 10. The US weighs in at 34, with only 12/100,000. Britian with it's strict gun control comes in a 38th, with 11.8/100,000. So I think if someone is going to use suicide prevention as an argument against guns, it rings pretty hollow.

Now, SemiSteve, responding to my question said, quite reasonably: "-When the cops find someone in possession of an unlisted gun then they should confiscate it. Suppose they do a traffic stop or a legal search and find an illegal gun. Then they take that gun and it can not be used in a mass murder. Poof. 20 1st graders just got saved."

--Uhhh.. I think when the cops stop someone, and they have a gun known to be listed as stolen, they DO confiscate it. But let me ask this question - Did that fool perp who shot Giffords have a stolen gun? No, he bought them. Did that fool perp who shot the theater up in Aurora, CO have stolen or black market guns? No, he bought them legally? Did Mr. Cho at VA Tech have a stolen or black market pistol? No, he bought it legally. Did the thug who shot up Sandy Hook have a stolen gun? Yes and no. His mother bought it legally, and he killed her before taking her gun, but that means technically he stole it. But do you think ANY registration of any kind would have prevented any of these? What you are failing to realize is that THESE SALES WERE ALREADY REGISTERED WITH BATF AND THEIR STATES. While I understand your sentiments, what you proposed wouldn't have saved even one life in these circumstances, I'm very sad to say (I really take no joy in that there is not a good solution to this problem - and yes, I have kids myself. In that sense, I wish you were right and that this would be a 5 minute solution to this problem, but it's not.)However, what might have helped in this situation is if these folks would have been ID'd as having mental issues and that they be 1) given some help, or at least offered it and 2) they be flagged by local LEAs as not being allowed to buy a gun for mental instability. But then again, that's taking someone's constitutional rights away, and before you do that, you had better be very sure that you're right. And again, I think your Democrat friends have got the problem exactly backwards. Look at Obama's unenforceable executive orders. 83% of them were dedicated to demonizing guns, while 17% were directed at mental health. It should have been the other way around.

Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:21,876
Points:2,113,535
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 8:53:39 AM

"What about suicides"

.....

While currently the Gun is the most common method of convenience (60%) for committing suicide, people taking their own life for one reason or another has been going on since history has been recorded(at least since Hector was a pup).

Take away the gun and people determined on taking their life will find no difficulty to any argument regarding method is a moot point or should we say pointless?
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,103
Points:3,317,620
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 5:22:49 AM

first step toward gun confistation and then tyranny by government
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:50:49 AM

"Somebody buys one at a yard sale and tries to register it, finds out it was previously used in an unsolved crime".

How would they know this?
The crime is unsolved.
So tell us how does that work, someone registers an unregistered gun and poof a cold case is solved?
If I thought it would work then I would be all for it.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 2/2/2013 3:55:04 AM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:48:21 AM

"People determined to end their lives will find a way".

100% True.
Japan is a nearly totally disarmed nation and they have the highest suicide rate in the world.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 2:37:19 AM

SemiSteve on RNorm's topic about the DOW:

"But I guess if it weren't for bashing Obama and guns a lot of people around here would have nothing to say."

I guess you are right there, Steve.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,388
Points:4,319,680
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 2:15:10 AM

SemiSteve, "--When the cops find someone in possession of an unlisted gun then they should confiscate it. Suppose they do a traffic stop or a legal search and find an illegal gun. Then they take that gun and it can not be used in a mass murder. Poof. 20 1st graders just got saved."

How would that have saved a single life in Newtown?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,054
Points:1,748,225
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 5:57:22 PM

MiddletownMarty,>>What about suicides? Gun-related injuries? Gun-related crimes? You can look those up.<<
***
People determined to end their lives will find a way. Most gun related crimes are committed with illegal or stolen guns. Without guns, the criminals would use something else such as knife. Again, where gun ownerships is encouraged, crime rates are usually much lower than average. As you said, "you can look those up."
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,493
Points:303,660
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 3:50:19 PM

"Gun ownership is at an all time high and murder rates have been falling (per FBI stats)."

Why limit the connection only to murder rate? What about suicides? Gun-related injuries? Gun-related crimes? You can look those up.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 3:19:05 PM

" If they are "unlisted" how in the world are they going to know they got them in the first place? "

--Many ways. They get used in a crime and the suspect is busted. They turn up during a legal search. Somebody rats on them. Some idiot tries to take one through airport security. One is stolen and the thief tries to pawn it. Somebody buys one at a yard sale and tries to register it, finds out it was previously used in an unsolved crime. Somebody buys a house, cleans it out and finds one. Renters move out and leave one behind. Kids find one while playing in a field. A treasure-hunter finds one while using a metal detector. NYC cops do a stop and frisk. Buy-back program.

Need I go on?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/1/2013 3:19:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 2:41:13 PM

"This could be useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unlisted."

Huh? If they are "unlisted" how in the world are they going to know they got them in the first place?
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,125
Points:1,531,425
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 12:15:22 PM

Marty - And the NRA is correct. Gun ownership is at an all time high and murder rates have been falling (per FBI stats). You can look it up.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 12:03:21 PM

The proposal is to keep track of who has legal guns. This could be useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unlisted. Those who think laws don't apply to them are the ones who should not have guns.

AC302: "How is this list of "protected" guns going to save even one life?"

--When the cops find someone in possession of an unlisted gun then they should confiscate it. Suppose they do a traffic stop or a legal search and find an illegal gun. Then they take that gun and it can not be used in a mass murder. Poof. 20 1st graders just got saved.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,949
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:42:18 AM

AC if I had a choice and based on 30 years ago getting out of the shooting game I might want a 25-284. Flatter shooting to longer ranges than a 243. If you have the time and money get it builot by a gunsmith who specializes in precision rifles. My choice would be a Rem 700 action that has the lugs lapped and smoothed properly along with a good trigger, match grade barrel in a semi bull diameter set in a good fiberglass stock. I would prefer a leupold scope on the top. Use a good 117gr Boattail bullet in handloads.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,493
Points:303,660
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:28:13 AM

"
"And I never claimed that adding more guns will lower gun violence."

I never said you did. The NRA is saying that.




"You mean as soon as you became aware that it was stolen. I assume you have the serial number handy?"

Of course.



Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,460
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:21:03 AM

AFSNCO - A thought.. why don't you save your money and use a .30-06, with 150 or 180 grains? The beautiful thing about '06 is that perhaps with the exception of squirrles and crows, it's the best all around weapon for all North American game animals. The only possible exception I can think of on the top end would be polar bear.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:35:40 AM

"You mean as soon as you became aware that it was stolen. I assume you have the serial number handy?"

I do...I keep track of all my weapons and I have a lot of them.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:34:15 AM

"Gun registration - that is, recording the sale of all gun transactions, even private ones - IS a deterrent."

We are already doing that. The issue really is at the point of sale and us having a real criminal background check. I am even for a waiting period if necessary because there is never a time that I need a gun "now." I am already planning on buying a .243 this year to go to Wyoming to antelope hunt....so knowing ahead of time that I want this gun I would just not wait until the last minute.

In Pennsylvania it is illegal to transfer a handgun from one owner to the other without going to register it. I am betting that this type of illegal activity is still going on in that state and there is absolutely no way to ever track it. Again, registration only applies to those that will follow the law.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,125
Points:1,531,425
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:02:02 AM

NickH - "Even for drunk driving, it wasn't so much stiffer penalties, but changing the entire drinking and driving culture. Things that didn't used to be illegal before (e.g., driving with a BAC of .09, allowing 18-year olds to drink) became illegal, people were more aware that it was a problem."

Excellent point, but you should point out that cars and beer were not targeted to be banned, registered, etc.

Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,125
Points:1,531,425
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 8:59:04 AM

Marty - "And if my gun were stolen, you can bet I'd be reporting it right away."

You mean as soon as you became aware that it was stolen. I assume you have the serial number handy?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,460
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 8:56:10 AM

NickHammer said: "Gun registration - that is, recording the sale of all gun transactions, even private ones - IS a deterrent. It helps to prevent straw purchases and keep guns out of the secondary market."

--Do you understand what a straw purchase is? How is registration going to stop that? Again, by definition, criminals don't follow the law. Here now, what's to stop me from getting a fake ID with my picture, but someone else's info on it who is "clean"? And what's to stop organized crime from "running guns" from places where they can be had, like Brazil or China? While your heart is in the right place, I think you haven't thought it through completely.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,493
Points:303,660
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 6:56:03 AM

"If I had a gun registered under my name, you can bet I don't want anyone getting their hands on it. I also wouldn't sell it "under the table", because if it was used in a crime guess who the police would be coming after. And if my gun were stolen, you can bet I'd be reporting it right away."

Bingo.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,488
Points:2,909,645
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:46:53 PM

>>Stiffer penalties and tougher and REAL criminal background checks may be the simplest and most effective answer. Gun registration is definitely not the answer because only those that follow the laws will register their guns.<<

I have no problem with either stiffer penalties or background checks on ALL purchases (which I've mentioned numerous times). But I don't really think stiffer penalties is going to be much of a deterrent, as someone who is convicted of a gun crime (especially murder) is already going to jail for many years. Even for drunk driving, it wasn't so much stiffer penalties, but changing the entire drinking and driving culture. Things that didn't used to be illegal before (e.g., driving with a BAC of .09, allowing 18-year olds to drink) became illegal, people were more aware that it was a problem.

For gang-related crimes, I think stiffer penalties may be a deterrent if the law counted all members of a gang as accomplices to any crime committed by the gang.

Gun registration - that is, recording the sale of all gun transactions, even private ones - IS a deterrent. It helps to prevent straw purchases and keep guns out of the secondary market. It forces people to be more responsible with their guns. If I had a gun registered under my name, you can bet I don't want anyone getting their hands on it. I also wouldn't sell it "under the table", because if it was used in a crime guess who the police would be coming after. And if my gun were stolen, you can bet I'd be reporting it right away.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:17:31 PM

"The laws concerning drunk driving also changed. Stiffer penalties were imposed and the blood alcohol level that defines drunk was lowered. One thing we did not do was to insist that more people needed to drink booze."

And I never claimed that adding more guns will lower gun violence. But if we do with gun crimes what we did with drinking and driving we may see exactly the same result. Stiffer penalties and tougher and REAL criminal background checks may be the simplest and most effective answer. Gun registration is definitely not the answer because only those that follow the laws will register their guns. Not exactly going to stop criminals now will it?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:13:28 PM

"I did not misrepresent anything you said, nor have I suggested eliminating guns, as you are suggesting."

Absolutely you did. Where did I say I wasn't concerned about criminals getting guns? My point has been all the suggestions that has been made by the left will not in any way keep criminals from getting guns. We already have criminal background checks and we have a VP that has admitted that they are not even following up on criminals that break the current laws. If we start to actually pursue and prosecute the people that break the laws to get guns we may see a big drop in gun violence. My suggestion has been and continues to be start with the simplest answer...not the most complicated.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,949
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:59:11 PM

Marty - "The laws concerning drunk driving also changed." - yes they changed the laws concerning behavior. But they did not change the laws that said you couldnt drink alcohol.

"Stiffer penalties were imposed and the blood alcohol level that defines drunk was lowered." again your talking about what peopel do and not the object. Why do you insist on trying to deal with the object in guns and yet think its fine to deal with behavior in other areas?

Then we come to this - "One thing we did not do was to insist that more people needed to drink booze." Using this to extrapolate to guns is not making sense at all. How many places now are insisting that people go out and get guns? Only a couple that I know of - one is a town in Georgia and one is a town in Utah.

What lots of folks are saying is that adults should be allowed to do what they choose to do. Most folks say that adults should be allowed to drink until it results in problems. Then the behavior is punished. The same ideas should be used with other things like guns. Regulate the behavior (misuse of the object) not the object. The vast majority are able to consume alcohol without problems and the vast majority own and use guns without causing problems. But in one case your saying to deal with the misuse and in the other your demanding that we prohibit the use of the object. Looks like your being illogical once more Marty.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,488
Points:2,909,645
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:53:32 PM

>>Nick the point is we have not eliminated cars to keep people from killing other people with cars...have we? But a nice misrepresentation of what I have said.<<

I did not misrepresent anything you said, nor have I suggested eliminating guns, as you are suggesting.

But you know what we have done (and I've mentioned this over and over in THIS thread)? We've changed cars to make them safer - seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc. We've also upped the drinking age, changed laws regarding drunk drivers AND changed the drunk driving culture. The result? Vehicle deaths - and especially drunk driving deaths - have been drastically reduced, not just per mile driven, but in actual numbers.

OTOH, what have done regarding guns or even the gun culture? Absolutely nothing - the NRA and its followers have seen to that. And the result? Gun deaths have NOT decreased, and, in fact, make up a larger percentage of homicides than they did just 10 or 15 years ago.

We had a problem with vehicle deaths - we've taken steps that have reduced those deaths.
We have a problem with gun deaths - we do absolutely nothing. And that's just plain stupid.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,054
Points:1,748,225
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:04:54 PM

MiddletownMarty, >>One thing we did not do was to insist that more people needed to drink booze.<<
***
But we never prohibited their right to own bottle openers, wine glasses, shot glasses, coolers, more than one case of beer, beer mugs, either. All of these are merely tools used in the act of drinking.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,493
Points:303,660
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 8:09:49 PM

"Do you know what happened when we started actaully prosecuting people to the fullest extent possible for driving under the influence?"

The laws concerning drunk driving also changed. Stiffer penalties were imposed and the blood alcohol level that defines drunk was lowered. One thing we did not do was to insist that more people needed to drink booze.
Profile Pic
jamofsocal
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:2,022
Points:512,105
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 7:31:43 PM

Here is another example of what can happen with a list of names and addresses of law abiding citizens.

Once again, we see a left wing newspaper dropping the ball on this one.

L.A. Times expose subscribers

Yes Steve, there are problems with lists. Lists can be abused.

For those of us living in Southern California, have this story ready the next time the Los Angeles Times calls you about subscriptions.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 7:04:43 PM

Nick, the reason I am not in the other thread...not that I have to explain myself to you...is it is the same argument in there as is in here so what is the difference?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 6:55:37 PM

Nick the point is we have not eliminated cars to keep people from killing other people with cars...have we? But a nice misrepresentation of what I have said. What we need to do is toughen laws on gun crimes just like we did with laws again driving under the influence. Do you know what happened when we started actaully prosecuting people to the fullest extent possible for driving under the influence? Well, I will let you do the research but you probably already know the answer just by me posting it on here!

Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,488
Points:2,909,645
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 6:13:20 PM

>>Now if you really want to STOP CRIMINALS from obtaining and using guns to harm others we can talk about it but first we must agree on what we are trying to do.<<

Well, I'd say that "what we are trying to do" is "to STOP CRIMINALS from obtaining and using guns to harm others". Well, not all of us, of course. AF has pretty much admitted he is not concerned at all about stopping criminals from getting guns. He simply claims that his idiotic questions must first be answered before "we can have a meaningful discussion on gun control". You'll notice he has no posts at all in the How Do We Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Criminals? thread.

You and others, OTOH, have posted in that thread, but all of your answers are to arrest them ***after*** they have committed their crimes. Of course, by then it's too late.

I answered your question earlier in this thread, but it went completely ignored. In my response to AF I mentioned that I had already answered his first question earlier, but again it went completely ignored. It would seem that reasonable posts go ignored, and only hyperbole and YELLING get noticed around here. If you want to have a ***real*** discussion, you can't simply ignore posts you don't want to see. Let me know when you're ready to do that.

>>Why do you insist on doing what we have already tried and found to not work but only takes away liberties from the person who is not the problem?

Why do you insist on repeating fallacies and things you can't prove? Again, you say you want to "talk about it", yet you litter your posts with fallacies and dubious claims. It sure makes me wonder if you're truly serious or simply want to appear serious.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,054
Points:1,748,225
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 5:07:35 PM

WES03, >>MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, very effective organization. Note they are not Mothers Against CARS or Mothers Against BEER. There's a lesson to be learned here.<<
***
An excellent point and we have to make sure those that believe a tool is responsible for the violence understand this. I think it worthy to repost it in the Great Quotes topic.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:579
Points:69,300
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:53:39 AM

Stupid is as stupid does. Let's start making a list of people who criticize the National Rifle Association. Certainly, no one will mind. After all, it is just a list.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:32:22 AM

BTW, I am not against more restrictions even though it may seem it. I am for smart reforms. I just do not see how even adding more laws that will not be followed and/or enforced is going to help. Biden himself admitted right now they are not even following up on prosecuting people that break current laws. My opinion is we start off by first making it a concentrated effort to actually enforce the current laws on the books and see how that starts to have an impact and go from there. Just like healthcare reform we should not bite off more than we can chew. It should be a targeted approach and fix each thing that is wrong and not try to overhaul the entire system!
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:29:50 AM

"Well that is exactly the point. WE do it, but most people do not. And that is what results in most gun deaths. People don't secure weapons when not in use. People don't teach their kids about weapons. People don't learn safe weapons handling. People don't even care if they sell a gun to someone who goes out and kills someone else."

And these are great points. If the mother of the latest school shooting had secured the guns knowing her son was a mental case this probably would not have happened. My kids have been around guns since they have been small...they know and respect guns. When they were younger I had them locked away and my handguns around the house for security were in places they could not get to. Now that my kids are 21 years old I do not always lock my safe and often times my hunting weapons are left in my home office in the corner. However, if I thought either one of them were capable of doing something stupid I would put them in the safe and change the combination.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,125
Points:1,531,425
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:03:51 AM

MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, very effective organization. Note they are not Mothers Against CARS or Mothers Against BEER. There's a lesson to be learned here.
Profile Pic
jamofsocal
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:2,022
Points:512,105
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 2:26:51 AM

SemiSteve, no one has successfully explained how keeping track of law abiding gun owners will prevent a criminal from committing a crime with a stolen gun.

However, thanks to that New York newspaper, we see how registering law abiding gun owners and having their names on a list can be abused. If an anti-gun newspaper can abuse the information, how can you believe an anti-gun government will not?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,460
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:24:37 PM

BTW - William F. Burroughs is the grandson of the man who invented the adding machine - and he was a very well known uber-liberal. He was buried with a Taurus revolver.

SemiSteve posted: "Nobody is saying that the government should take your legally protected guns away. The proposal is to keep track of who has legal guns. This could be useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unlisted. Those who think laws don't apply to them are the ones who should not have guns."

--How is this list of "protected" guns going to save even one life? And what do you mean by "unlisted"? I have some firearms that have been in my family for years. They're not registered. Does that means they are somehow unsafe? And what if I tell you most of them are .22 LR? Your point is not well taken, as you haven't demonstrated just how registration makes anyone any "safer"? Please explain that carefully and succinctly for us all.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,949
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:22:49 PM

Thanks Ydraig - I do have some experience using guns, both building precision varmint rifles and shooting in competition (rifle, pistol and shotgun) at a minor level.

When I owned guns they were used and stored safely. Never did I have an accident where someone could have been injured by one of my guns. Unfortunately years ago I had to sell all of my guns and reloading equipment because age related vision problems and arthritis made it so I couldn't to shoot up to the standards needed to compete. There are many times I wish I was still shooting. But I didn't need to register my guns to be safe or to prevent them from being used illegally.

All of the gun laws being proposed right now and since I sold all of my guns had zero effect on me and thousands of other shooters who used firearms wisely or safely.

If the reason people want to pass more laws concerning firearms is to reduce violence or death or the use of guns in crime there are ways to do so without damaging innocent law abiding people. But we need to focus on people and their actions and not an object.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 9:00:56 PM

flyboyUT is correct. We are letting the extremists on both sides of the issue dominate the discussion. Neither side will budge.

One wants to remove ALL guns, the other wants to remove ALL common sense requirements. Notice, I said REQUIREMENTS, not RESTRICTIONS.

The comparison to drivers licenses is a good one. A dangerous machine should be handled by people who know what they are doing. And some sort of certification should be required in both cases.

Of course, some "gun nuts" will whine that flyboyUT and I have years of experience and have learned safe handling of guns. They will say we are being egalitarian, and preaching responsibility. That we won't have to do anything new, but they will.

Well that is exactly the point. WE do it, but most people do not. And that is what results in most gun deaths. People don't secure weapons when not in use. People don't teach their kids about weapons. People don't learn safe weapons handling. People don't even care if they sell a gun to someone who goes out and kills someone else.

They simply refuse because they are lazy, so they call that sort of requirement a "restriction".

So that is why laws must be created that allow people who are NOT a threat to have guns (any guns), and make it harder for irresponsible people to get guns.

Every right comes with a burden of responsibility. If you are too lazy or selfish to accept the responsibility, you should not benefit from the right.

Now THAT is something the founding fathers could get behind.

Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 8:57:55 PM

"Those who think laws don't apply to them are the ones who should not have guns."

The problem is this is nothing more than a dream though. Even Biden admitted that they do not have the time to track and prosecute people that break current gun laws. So we will add more restrictions, more laws to follow, and somehow we are expected they will find a way to slow gun violence?

Where we need to start is with the current laws we have on the books. Strengthen the penalties for breaking gun laws and ACTUALLY follow the sentencing guidelines and make gun crimes not eligible for parole. Come back and check it in a few years and see if it has an impact.

But to just add more laws and more restrictions on people that are already following the current laws will have, if any, very minimal impact.
Profile Pic
taximan007
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:10,135
Points:1,825,035
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 8:57:00 PM

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take away guns from those who didn't do it. I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where only the police and military have guns."

--William S. Burroughs
Profile Pic
taximan007
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:10,135
Points:1,825,035
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 8:30:37 PM

Canada tried gun registration and gave up.

With a much smaller population than the US and not nearly as many firearms.

Handgun registration is still required, as it has been since 1934.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,949
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 5:50:45 PM

Steve there you are wrong Marty for one is saying he wants to amend the constitution and remove the 2nd amendment and have only the military nad police have guns. Just how will they handle all the guns that are in private ownership now?

We have the Chief of Police of San Diego saying he wants to take away all the guns within a generation.

I could go on and on but your statement is just not true. Many people are saying they want the government to take, confiscate or 'get' all the guns.

As far as keeping track of who has legal guns - the govt has no need to know that information. The very people who all the antigunners are so wrought up about are the very people who will not 'register' their guns nor will they obtain guns where any paperwork trail exists.

"This could be useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unlisted." But it has been shown multiple times that it will not work - why do yo keep on saying that a list of legal owners will stop illegal criminals?

Your right - those who dont obey the laws now maybe shouldnt have guns. But we already have somewhere around 20,000 laws that dont work well. The very people who you want to prevent from getting guns are not obeying present laws but the govt does not want to enforce the present laws designed to stop them.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 5:27:26 PM

Nobody is saying that the government should take your legally protected guns away.

The proposal is to keep track of who has legal guns.

This could be useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unlisted.

Those who think laws don't apply to them are the ones who should not have guns.
Post a reply Back to Topics