Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Meaningful talk of gun control

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I'd also like to point out that these sorts of gun "safety" regulations hurt small farmers or people in rural areas who use weapons to protect their livestock. Oftentimes it is their kids who end up doing all the shooting because the parents are off at work.




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Yup, good point. Very sad indeed. But that is one of the risks you live with when you live in America. I don't like it, you don't like it.....but reality has to be acknowledged.

Gun violence in the USA doesn’t bother me as much as the idiots who think more written laws would save lives. If you think some stupid law is going to keep you safe, I suggest when they are written, you print them out and keep them under your pillow. That way, if a criminal or gunman breaks into your house while you are upstairs sleeping or whatever, you can just pull out that copy of gun laws from under your pillow and point out to the would be killer that he is breaking the law. That should do the trick.

The VAST majority of gun violence victims are scumbags to begin with (yup, I said it because it needed to be pointed out). One the average, the USA murder rate is around 91,500 people per year. On the average the amount of those done by someone with a gun is 30,000. America has a population over 311,500,000 people. That’s not too shabby if you ask me. I’m willing to live with those statistics, do the math and you will see that .0000XXX gun owners are involved in gun violence.

I know in the modern day 24 hour news cycles caters to mindless, ignorant morons who can’t think past the end of their noses and tend to latch on the VERY few people harmed by someone with a gun in this country (statistic wise) and think it justifies them not have to use reason, logic and common sense. Far easier for people to have a knee jerk reaction rather than think it through. Me, I detest the fact that 30,000 are killed with guns in my country every year, but I would detest it even more if they ever banned guns because of .0009% of the population.

I already have to go to the counter to purchase my cold medicine (with photo ID and everything) thanks to meth heads cooking habits in my state. I’m sick of living in a world where the criminals ruin things for the rest of us.
edit on 24-12-2012 by gameisupman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Heck why stop there why not let them come in to check and make sure your guns are safe. Also it should be costly to get trained just to keep out the lower end. Also they should keep changing the training so you have to keep coming back year after year.






They have already stuck a great big foot in your door and guess were the next place they will put that very same foot. You are not pro 2nd I hate to break it to ya.




With friends like this who needs enemies. I will say it once again it is like playing cards with my sisters kids.
edit on 24-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by gameisupman
 


You make some good points. However, the US homicide rate for 2011 was 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.

The 2011 violent crime rate was 15.4 percent lower than 2007.

FBI Uniform Crime Report

Your numbers are a little high. I just didn't want to give unnecessary ammo to anybody.

The way the anti-gun groups get there 30,000+ number is to add in the suicides. What they don't mention is that suicides are usually planned out and not rash decisions. Most people choose a gun because they believe it is guaranteed to be fast and painless.

In Australia when the gun suicide rate went down, hanging suicides went up. People tend to just replace one method with the other. Suicide is a mental health issue and not a gun issue.
edit on 24-12-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It is already the law where I live. Personally I think it is a needless law. Anyone with even half a brain knows you need to secure your firearms when children are around. Likewise securing them in the home when you are not around is also common sense. Perhaps not everyone has this most common of sense, hence the law I suppose...



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
injuryprevention.bmj.com...




According to our survey, 38% of households reported at least one firearm in the home and 26% of adults reported owning at least one gun. This corresponds to 42 million households with firearms and 57 million adult gun owners. We found that 64% of gun owners or 16% of adults reported owning at least one handgun; 80% of gun owners or 20% of all adults owned a long gun (results not shown).


1 out of 4 adults own a gun.




Concentration of ownership Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners, corresponding to 13% of the US adult population, reported owning ⩾4 firearms. Household ownership followed a similar pattern, with 41% of firearm-owning households reporting ownership of ⩾4 firearms (table 2). The 20% of gun owners who owned the most guns possessed about 65% of the nation’s guns.


And 20% of gun owners owns 65% of the guns?13% of the US adult population owns 65% of the guns in the US.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 

Ooh aren't you special. You seem to have lofty goals. Good for you. But don't fall too far off the soap box. Most of what you speak of is nonsense. In my opinion. Don't want to send my son to war. Duh. Did you think that up all by yourself? Seriously? Don't want to expose my son to carnage. Really? Come on! What are you smoking? Nobody should own an "assault weapon". Yeah right! Er what exactly is an "assault weapon"? I'll bet a dollar you don't even have a clue.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon". It is all MADE UP, for the clueless like you! The military uses assault rifles, such as the M-4, M-16 and similar. The term "assault weapon" was cooked up by the lame stream media to scare the simple people. There is NO SUCH THING. The term refers to simple semi automatic rifles. No select fire, no full automatic fire. These are not machine guns.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I don't think you read or completely understand what I am suggesting.

Training is a no brainer. Whomever purchases the weapon should have training on proper gun safety and storage. It should be common sense, but some folks just don't take the time.

As far as you being responsible for a crime committed with your weapon, I am talking about if your weapon was not properly stored. If you store it right, it will be in a safe and nobody could get access to it. If it's your CCW, then it should be on you and in order for a criminal to get it, you would be dead. If a criminal steals your weapon from a locked safe, you have done all you could do to protect it, you would not be responsible.

If there isn't some sort of bone thrown out to the rabid left, then we will see an all out assault on the 2nd amendment. What I propose would not change the 2nd amendment at all. It would be a State issue and each state would have the right and obligation to do something to appease the gun haters.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
And assault weapons are around to take care of that foot.Many vets have them,and feel our training is sufficient.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 





Training is a no brainer. Whomever purchases the weapon should have training on proper gun safety and storage. It should be common sense, but some folks just don't take the time.


Who is going to pay for the training class? It is going to be the person that wants to buy the gun. When I bought my first pistol it took me nearly a year to save up enough for a decent gun. If I had needed to pay for a class that would have probably been months and months more of saving.

Now, what if a woman is seeking a gun for protection from an abusive ex? Now she can't go and buy a gun. She has to find a class, pay for a class, and then submit proof that she passed a class. Then she can get the gun for protection. You have now legislated danger in to her life.




As far as you being responsible for a crime committed with your weapon, I am talking about if your weapon was not properly stored. If you store it right, it will be in a safe and nobody could get access to it.



I can get in to a Stackon gun cabinet in less than three minutes with a hand held hatchet. A true "safe" costs several hundred dollars. Again prohibitively raising the price of gun ownership. The sad thing is that even the best "safes" under $800 can be broken in to with little more than a torch and grinder. That basically takes guns out of the hands of the poor.




If there isn't some sort of bone thrown out to the rabid left, then we will see an all out assault on the 2nd amendment.



They come after the second every twenty or thirty years as it is. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the Brady Act of 1993, and other smaller laws were all passed as a way to "throw a bone" to the anti-gun crowd. Despite getting what they want over and over, a falling firearm homicide rate, and a falling violent crime rate they still come hounding for more. They will not rest until our firearm laws make the UK look like Utopia.
edit on 24-12-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


If you cannot afford a one time $100 class in order to own a firearm, then perhaps you have your priorities a bit wrong.

I guess in your world, it's cool to run out and own a 357 magnum and have no clue in the world how to store it, or where the safety is at. What? No safety? Should I store it with rounds in the gun? How do I take it down to clean it? Seriously, step back and look at what you have posted. Whining about how expensive it might be to actually conform to the laws that already exist in most areas. That leads me to believe that you don't store your firearms in a safe. I sure hope you don't get robbed. Then your weapons might end up on the street being sold for $20 and a crack rock. That is exactly the irresponsible ownership I think needs to be addressed.

And not because of a knee jerk reaction to a shooting, but because it's the right thing to do.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

before you talk priorities, you should consider 'infringement' is still infringement, regardless which level of government is dishing it out, Fed/State.

what you suggest is extreme infringement.
you are not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment when you support infringement of any kind ... even that of which we already submit.

our guns used to be stored/displayed on the wall, above the fireplace, without incident, now you want to demand a safe ??
why, is your/the stock declining ?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 





I guess in your world, it's cool to run out and own a 357 magnum and have no clue in the world how to store it, or where the safety is at. What? No safety? Should I store it with rounds in the gun? How do I take it down to clean it?


All of that was in the instruction manual with the CZ I bought. It was in the Glock manual and the Sig Sauer manual. Which manufacturer doesn't provide that info? Why couldn't it be a simple handout just like the safe storage handout they give you now in NC?




Seriously, step back and look at what you have posted. Whining about how expensive it might be to actually conform to the laws that already exist in most areas.


Actually to conform to the laws all you need is a lockable box. I had mine in a closet with a lock and metal bits to resist prying. $45 and it was more secure than many so called safes. You are the one arguing to require safes which are cost prohibitive,




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


You are the one talking about holding people responsible for the crimes of criminals even when they aren't involved. The truth is that only about 1% of all guns will ever be used in any type of crime. Accidental deaths and shootings are on the decline. That tells me that the vast majority of gun owners are already following the most basic rules of safe ownership. You want to persecute the ones that end up victims of determined criminals or that don't spend hundreds of dollars on a safe. A Gun Vault Micro Vault is considered a "cabinet" by the insurance industry. It wouldn't meet your criteria for a "safe." In fact last time I checked with my insurance company there wasn't anything they considered to meet the standard of a "safe" under $899. I call that cost prohibitive.




If you cannot afford a one time $100 class in order to own a firearm, then perhaps you have your priorities a bit wrong.


For somebody buying a High-Point because they need protection, and it is all they can afford, that $100 is a 66% increase in the purchase price of their gun. A person being threatened by a gang, former lover, or disgruntled coworker shouldn't be denied the right to self defense because they can't afford an extra 66% and several weeks to find a class, take a class, submit proof to the appropriate government agency, and then wait for said agency to process the paperwork.

You call it whining. I call it advocating for the poor urban dweller that usually needs the protection of a gun much more than some suburbanite that can afford a custom built closet and extra classes.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gameisupman
 

Laws dont protect people....people protect people....that is, the people who obey and/or enforce the laws (God's and man's).
edit on 25-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

Re Gun Control Conversation...Steven Spielberg, a large gun collector and a member of Hollywood royalty, has been conspicuously quiet on the issue.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The OP makes a good case for safety training to go hand in hand with gun ownership. Where i live this knowledge is almost second nature. Children are taught to hunt at an early age and to respect the guns power. They are simply tools to fill the freezer with meat every year. The real issue for society is how to deal with the mentally ill that would use whatever means required to kill as many people as possible. Identifying them and dealing with them is the core issue. Guns have little to do with it. They can make bombs quite easily if they can't obtain a gun. A car or truck can be used as a weapon. I think America is dancing around the core issues.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You are the one talking about holding people responsible for the crimes of criminals even when they aren't involved. The truth is that only about 1% of all guns will ever be used in any type of crime. Accidental deaths and shootings are on the decline. That tells me that the vast majority of gun owners are already following the most basic rules of safe ownership.


then what exactly is the problem? by your assessment, the rules I suggested would not harm the legal owner, only cost him a one time fee of about $500 to take the class and buy a safe. Less if it's just a handgun.

Seriously, I am on your side, but if something is not put out from our side, this will end badly. You have to see that the rhetoric being spewed is much stronger now than ever. the media is in full swing and they will not stop until they have met their agenda. Step back and look at the situation.
edit on 25-12-2012 by network dude because: bad spelr



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


When I bought my first pistol it took me nearly eight months to save up the $483. To add another $500 would have made it take another eight or nine months. Now we're talking nearly two years to afford a mid-line defensive arm. I'm sorry, but that is infringing through making it cost prohibitive. You would be tripling the absolute entry price for self defense.

Maybe you don't get it, but you would be phasing out the lower income gun owners that are most likely to live in an area where they need a gun for protection. You would effectively be banning guns for the 38% of Americans estimated to live paycheck to paycheck.

You would also make it harder for a person to get a gun in an emergency. If anything your proposal would most likely help to grow the black market demand for guns. People in need of defense but lacking $650 might make the decision to pop $200 for an old Davis P-32 instead.

Instead of continuing to give away our rights we could try standing and fighting" with facts, statistics, and logic. We could start by saying, "assault weapons bans don't work. Congress and the National Institute of Justice both did studies and found Feinstein's last AWB had zero effect on the crime rate, number of victims, or average number of bullets fired."

Why not stand up and say ,"we stand behind the background checks required by the Brady Bill. We will continue to stand behind these checks and work to ensure states are supplying the necessary information for the system. In return we want to see you prosecute the felons and fugitives that are exposed through the system."

Instead, people claiming to be pro liberty will throw it all away in an act of cowardice. They will keep coming for the second amendment until it disappears. You either stand and fight for it or aid in giving it away.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


As an E-3 in the military and a family of 4, it took me 6 months to put my first handgun on layaway. I know what it's like to scrape by. Trust me. But I don't think there is ever an instance where you should sacrifice safety for convenience. If you bought your first handgun and never had any formal training, then you were quite foolish to do such a thing. Accidents happen when folks who don't know about gun safety handle guns. That is a fact and it affects rich and poor just the same.

Ask any responsible gun owner and he will have the same opinion.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


only cost him a one time fee of about $500 to take the class and buy a safe.
besides the fact that no approved safe is available at such a price ... adding such an expense to 'own' such a tool is a complete infringement of the 'right' to possess said tool.

we, gun owners, have made concessions every decade (except 2) of the entire 20th century without ANY productive results, why should we concede any further ?

seriously, if you were on 'our side', you wouldn't be supporting, suggesting or implying a 'need' even exists for such nonsense.

eliminate gun free zones and nature will resolve the rest.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join