Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Meaningful talk of gun control

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I am a gun owner. I am a collector. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I also, don't believe it should be changed in the slightest bit. It's a federal document.

That being said, I believe there is a few things that might help ease everyone's minds.

Ask all states to adopt three new rules regarding gun sales.

1. make it mandatory that every gun owner either have military training, or a gun safety course before the purchase of their first weapon. This course should include the safe storage of weapons.

2. make very strong punishments up to and including making the owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon.

3. Adopt a minimum safe storage policy for handguns and long guns.

This will not infringe on anyone's rights to purchase or own the weapon of their choice. This will do everything possible to take legal guns out of the hands of criminals.

This is a STATE level issue.

I say this with all sincerity and with hope that not another child is hurt needlessly.
edit on 22-12-2012 by network dude because: bad spelr




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

2. make very strong punishments up to and including making the owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon.
I would be fine with this IF lethal defense measures were permitted ie mantrapping any premises where weapons are stored.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well stated! I think many have forgotten that Columbine occurred in 1999, right in the middle of Clinton's assault weapon ban. In short, the ban did NOT work. It won't this time around either.

A sensible approach to better regulation is still only part of the solution. We need more effective mental health services, without stigmas. We need better control of the violence that our children are exposed to. We need to re-institute the sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and end this culture of "Victim" mentality and participation trophies - we're not teaching our young how to manage anger and frustration - we are enabling them. Finally, we need to teach MORALS. God knows we've lost those as a society decades ago.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


NO, I don't think a curious kid needs to die because he was snooping. I think if the weapons were locked properly, there will be no way to have access to them.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I want to say that I fully agree with every one of those proposals. The problem comes in implementation. How many whack-nut gun owners...or just regular gun owners are going to let a government official i.e. sherrif, deputy, police officer come into their home and ensure that they have safe storage? If they don't have safe storage or they don't have proper training, will we take away their guns?

I know responsible gun owners and I respect them and their opinions on their firearms. I also know there are a lot, a lot, of irresponsible gun owners who will have a safe and just leave it open. What you're proposing are absolutely fantastic starters to what needs to be done but they wouldn't have prevented most, if not all, of the mass shootings in the past decade or most shootings in general.

You can't legislate stupidity and irresponsible gun-ownership is stupidity.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Once you have been taught the proper way to do things, and you have been informed of the consequences of not following the law, most gun owners will try to follow the law to the best of their ability. The people I am talking about are the responsible gun owners who purchase their firearms legally.

This could open up jobs in the form of instructors, and building contractors making storage closets.

If a gun owner knew that if his weapon was used in a robbery, he could be just as guilty as the guy who stole it and robbed with it, he will be VERY interested in securing his weapon. I am not asking for anyone to do any more than they already should be doing. I am just asking that some official form of punishment be attached for failing to act properly and responsibly.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
That sounds like a REASONABLE approach which can be open for discussion and tweaking I suppose. Surely REASONABLE enough in comparison to what the brain-dead GUN-HATERS on here of recent[color=gold] (cough-cough fools from the UK) want which is a FULL BANNING of all firearms in America. A very FOOLISH approach which will certainly not solve anything at all in America.

Perhaps I sense a wee-bit a touch of JEALOUSY coming from our UK blokes as many of them actually REGRET it deep down inside that they are disarmed and are bitter indeed. Thats why America must NEVER be SPINELESS, but come up with REASONABLE rules that [color=gold]do NOT infringe on our 2nd Amendment Right which is MORE AMERICAN than just about anything we have.

Reasonable rules will work, because banning firearms just hurts the good guys. If you dont believe me, try living in a state where that is the case. Then move to a PRO-GUN state and see how much BETTER the situation is.

What is that Brit phrase?? Oh yea its something like: "PISS-OFF" I think. Thats all we need to tell our friends from the UK, when it comes to firearm discussions.




edit on 22-12-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


NO, I don't think a curious kid needs to die because he was snooping. I think if the weapons were locked properly, there will be no way to have access to them.
Why would this curious kid be in my home when I am not there?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Hm, not American so I should not mix in your business, however I wanted to highlight that the majority of the mass killing are "performed" by people under the influence of drugs like antidepressants ( see the side effects of Prozac for ex ). maybe any effort of limiting gun ownership should only apply to households under such medications? Sure big pharma will not be happy as people could start choosing guns over medication?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


A couple of questions on a couple of them..

On #1 - what happens with existing owners?

On #2 - What happens with stolen weapons that are secured properly? Heck, sometimes people even steal safes or atms. Say a pistol with a trigger lock, that was inside a small bedside lock box, was stolen (along with the safe) from a locked room inside a locked house is stolen. Said pistol is later used in murder. What happens to the pistol owner? The way your #2 reads they would be charged with murder..



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


NO, I don't think a curious kid needs to die because he was snooping. I think if the weapons were locked properly, there will be no way to have access to them.
Why would this curious kid be in my home when I am not there?


I am speaking of your own kids. If you don't have any, then you have nothing to worry about. A safe bolted to the floor is pretty tough to move and even tougher to break into. Common sense and personal responsibility is all that should be needed here.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


I think a proper investigation would reveal if the owner took proper steps to protect his weapons. And in this situation, it would be very apparent.

edit to add:
Existing owners who have not had proper training should be required. They are on record as being the owner of whatever weapon is registered to them.

Thanks for the good questions, this is the kind of discussion that will bring either good or bad ideas out in the open and may lead to real help for this situation.
edit on 22-12-2012 by network dude because: added thought.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I support the assault weapon ban, semi-automatic weapon ban and banning large cartridge clips.

I'm not a gun owner, never owned a gun, never had the incentive to shoot a gun, and don't have the heart to kill an animal. I hate war with a passion, and feel solving our differences by killing another human being is not only primitive in this day and age, it defines the human race as violent, and lacking compassion for their fellow man.

Call me a pacifist, a coward, or someone who doesn't show gratitude for our military. I love my son too much to send him into a war to risk his life, take another human life or subject him to unimaginable scenes of carnage. I can't comprehend the idea of being a "proud" father of a soldier. Why would I want to take a chance on losing my son or for that matter put him through hell? I'm proud of my son's ambitions and accomplishments and a career he has selected to help others.

Maybe we've all been programmed to feel the need to be violent. There's no simple answers, and I understand that there is evil out there and gun owners feel the need to defend themselves. I just don't think arming the public at large or allowing anyone to own an assault weapon will reduce these incidents of gun violence. In fact, I think more innocent lives will be taken by accident.

I can accept the idea of owning a hand gun for protection or a rifle for hunting, but owning assault weapons are really over the top in my opinion.

Please don't attack my beliefs. It's who I am and what I believe. You asked for meaningful discussion, you got it.

edit on 22-12-2012 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by network dude
 


I want to say that I fully agree with every one of those proposals. The problem comes in implementation. How many whack-nut gun owners...or just regular gun owners are going to let a government official i.e. sherrif, deputy, police officer come into their home and ensure that they have safe storage? If they don't have safe storage or they don't have proper training, will we take away their guns?

I know responsible gun owners and I respect them and their opinions on their firearms. I also know there are a lot, a lot, of irresponsible gun owners who will have a safe and just leave it open. What you're proposing are absolutely fantastic starters to what needs to be done but they wouldn't have prevented most, if not all, of the mass shootings in the past decade or most shootings in general.

You can't legislate stupidity and irresponsible gun-ownership is stupidity.


The accidents and tragedies that people purport to prevent are infinitesimally small percentages of causes of death. There are dozens of things that kill in greater number each year and no one has bothered to discuss banning those. Why is that?

People need to recognize how short-sighted this is. Stop focusing on the red herring people!



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Thanks for cogently posting some individual points I made in previous threads. We have to be careful of "infringement" but even soldiers have to receive training before being issued their firearm and all guns (in peace time anyway) are kept secured in the armory.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Agreed.. Responsible gun ownership and training go hand in hand with proper storage and access. Those of us that own firearms legally should have no problems with your proposed ideas, in fact, I posted a similar response on FB to my Aunt who is a leftist gun hater. She's a librarian and just recently it was legislated that people can legally open carry in her library, talk about panic mode for her... I reassured her and even laid down a wager that absolutely nothing would happen to her regarding this legislation.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
It won't be the anti-gun groups that will destroy the second amendment. It will be gun owners trying to compromise in an attempt to address a problem that is actually a statistical anomaly and a falling violent crime rate.

So, to own a gun for self defense a person has to pay to take a course. That effectively acts as a prohibitive increase in the cost of obtaining a gun.

The owner should be held responsible for crimes committed with their gun. So, if somebody breaks in to my house and steals my gun I get charged with their crime? That makes a lot of sense. A criminal violates me and I have to keep getting violated because he keeps being a criminal. That seems really reasonable.

Most states have safe storage laws.

North Carolina's child access prevention law generally requires that no person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premise under their control if it is known or reasonably should be known that a minor age 17 and under is likely to gain access to the firearm with out permission unless the firearm is properly stored. A person can be fined if the minor exhibits the firearm in a reckless or threatening manner, uses the firearm during the commission of a crime or causes personal injury or death. North Carolina law requires retailers to inform firearm purchasers of this law through a written public warning.


What you propose does nothing to take guns out of criminal hands. If you want to take guns out of criminal's hands, expand project excile.

Project Exile was a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Project Exile shifted the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, rather than in state court. Note that federal law (18 U.S.C. sec. 922 & 924) provides for a penalty of ten years in federal prison for being a "prohibited person" i.e. a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, as well as for falsifying information in order to obtain one, or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon.



Within the first year (1997-1998) Project Exile resulted in: 372 persons indicted for Federal gun violations. 440 illegally possessed guns seized. 300 persons arrested or held in State custody. 222 arrestees (more than 74 percent) held without bond. 247 persons convicted. 196 persons sentenced to an average of 55 months of imprisonment.
Wiki

Instead you want to make it financially more difficult for low income persons (the ones that need a gun most usually) to legally obtain a gun for defense. You want to charge honest people with crimes outside of their control, and you want even stricter storage laws that may hinder a person's ability to access their firearm when they need it.

There are already a minimum of 300 state and federal major gun laws on the books according to the Brookings Institute. Do you think three more are going to make a huge difference. In Columbine the shooters broke about 20 different gun laws. Do you really think twenty three would have been a big deal to them?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I'm starting to question how much you've thought this out. The only place in NC where you register your gun is in Durham and that is only handguns. How would they know which people own a gun without going through the books of every FFL in the state. Then all a person would have to do is say, "oops I sold that."



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Please define assault weapon. I have a feeling you really don't know what an assault weapon or assault rifle is.

As far as an AWB;

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I am adamantly pro-second amendment and I agree with this 100%. The only thing different about now and when the Constitution was drafted is that everyone knew how to use a weapon because they were taught by their elders. Nowadays, you need zero training or knowledge about firearms to be able to go buy one. It's like allowing people to drive without passing a driver's ed class.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join