Meaningful talk of gun control, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 12:54 PM by network dude

reply to post by NavyDoc

I think if a person was irresponsible in the storage of a firearm and it was used in a crime then the person who didn't properly secure it should be punished. I truly get that criminals can and will do whatever to get what they want, but if you lock up your guns, they are far less likely to fall into the hands of the criminal than if you leave them on the friggin kitchen table. If your guns are locked up, then you did your part, and shouldn't be punished. I wonder, do you folks purposely ignore that parts that are common sense only to glorify your points?

How about we just not worry about gun safety or safe gun storage since it too much of an expense and bother.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 12:57 PM by SubTruth

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by NavyDoc

I think if a person was irresponsible in the storage of a firearm and it was used in a crime then the person who didn't properly secure it should be punished. I truly get that criminals can and will do whatever to get what they want, but if you lock up your guns, they are far less likely to fall into the hands of the criminal than if you leave them on the friggin kitchen table. If your guns are locked up, then you did your part, and shouldn't be punished. I wonder, do you folks purposely ignore that parts that are common sense only to glorify your points?

How about we just not worry about gun safety or safe gun storage since it too much of an expense and bother.

How would you suggest they enforce this law.

This is a good idea in principle not in real life. Many people do not understand the ramifications of what this would bring. Think about it a little longer and what it would mean to have them check and certify.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 01:01 PM by GunzCoty

reply to post by network dude

So you're saying other states should use Connecticut laws?
I'm ok with that, let me add a few.

#1 A permit should be good in every state.

#2 When you sell a firearm to another private citizen, the sale should be handled via a FFL dealer (at a cost of no more than $20)

#3 Any person looking to buy a firearm at a gun show must have a permit (for pistols) and/or a legal copy of their background checks, no older than 1 year (or 6 months)

What do you think?

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 01:06 PM by SubTruth

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by network dude

So you're saying other states should use Connecticut laws?
I'm ok with that, let me add a few.

#1 A permit should be good in every state.

#2 When you sell a firearm to another private citizen, the sale should be handled via a FFL dealer (at a cost of no more than $20)

#3 Any person looking to buy a firearm at a gun show must have a permit (for pistols) and/or a legal copy of their background checks, no older than 1 year (or 6 months)

What do you think?

Whats the point MODS please delete.

edit on 26-12-2012 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 01:14 PM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by NavyDoc

I think if a person was irresponsible in the storage of a firearm and it was used in a crime then the person who didn't properly secure it should be punished. I truly get that criminals can and will do whatever to get what they want, but if you lock up your guns, they are far less likely to fall into the hands of the criminal than if you leave them on the friggin kitchen table. If your guns are locked up, then you did your part, and shouldn't be punished. I wonder, do you folks purposely ignore that parts that are common sense only to glorify your points?

How about we just not worry about gun safety or safe gun storage since it too much of an expense and bother.

What's "irresponsible?" You lock you door, have an alarm even. Responsible enough? Locked case? Responsible enough? A big-assed safe like I do? A criminal who knows what he is doing can get through that given the right tools and enough time. A bank vault responsible enough? Because that will be what it takes to gurantee a criminal no access. All the home safes do is keep the guns away from kids and knuckleheads, but don't stop dedicated criminals much.

The problem is, that you deflect the blame from whom it belongs, the criminal. If a guy leaves his gun on the back porch, okay, you might have an agument for irrisponsible behavior, but locked in his own home? I disagree. The person to blame for breaking into a house and stealing a gun is the person breaking into the house.

We're not talking about common sense. I have a gun safe--several in fact. We are not talking about common sense, we are talking about a law where you hold otherwise honest people responsible for the criminal acts of another.

edit on 26-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 01:56 PM by network dude

reply to post by NavyDoc

The one's I was trying to prevent from getting the weapons are the kids who live in the house already, or neighbors. just like in the case of the latest tragedy. If the guns were in a safe locked with a combination that the kid didn't know, then he would have had to find his weapons elsewhere. Instead, they were apparently easily accessible.

I know that nothing will stop a determined nut job. This kid would have used a base ball bat if he could find the guns. But he did find the guns and now every liberal in the world is foaming at the mouth about "them there gun nuts."

If I could do something that would guarantee this type of thing would never ever happen again, I would. But it will. No matter what we do. So all I can suggest is that we police ourselves a bit better. Instead of tearing my ideas apart, which is fine BTW, it's a discussion, how about you offer some constructive ideas? Or do you like the idea of just doing nothing as it seems to be working flucking great so far?

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:04 PM by network dude

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by network dude

So you're saying other states should use Connecticut laws?
I'm ok with that, let me add a few.

#1 A permit should be good in every state.

#2 When you sell a firearm to another private citizen, the sale should be handled via a FFL dealer (at a cost of no more than $20)

#3 Any person looking to buy a firearm at a gun show must have a permit (for pistols) and/or a legal copy of their background checks, no older than 1 year (or 6 months)

What do you think?

Being totally honest, I think I like the idea of being able to purchase a weapon that is off the books so to speak. That way, if there ever was a gun grab, they could only demand the ones on record. But the politically correct side of me says that what you suggest is "what should be done", and For obvious reasons.

What you suggest makes sense and would be a step in the direction that all this is heading. But as has been said time and again, once you cave in a little, you open up the rest to be flushed away as well. It's a very slippery slope and it shouldn't be.

So to recap, the selfish side of me says to not make any changes, but the responsible side of me thinks that changes have to be made. A no win situation to be sure.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:05 PM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by NavyDoc

The one's I was trying to prevent from getting the weapons are the kids who live in the house already, or neighbors. just like in the case of the latest tragedy. If the guns were in a safe locked with a combination that the kid didn't know, then he would have had to find his weapons elsewhere. Instead, they were apparently easily accessible.

I know that nothing will stop a determined nut job. This kid would have used a base ball bat if he could find the guns. But he did find the guns and now every liberal in the world is foaming at the mouth about "them there gun nuts."

If I could do something that would guarantee this type of thing would never ever happen again, I would. But it will. No matter what we do. So all I can suggest is that we police ourselves a bit better. Instead of tearing my ideas apart, which is fine BTW, it's a discussion, how about you offer some constructive ideas? Or do you like the idea of just doing nothing as it seems to be working flucking great so far?

First of all, one must have a problem to address. School shootings, albeit highly publicized, are very rare. The first mistake is to see an unusual and upsetting act and demand that "something" must be done. The "something" does not even have to make sense as long as people think that "something" is done.

Secondly, I agree that one should own a safe. The problem is with yet another law. More laws do not make us safer. We have exponentially more laws now than in my father's day and even more than his father's day but we are much. much less safe.

Several answers have been proposed. The gun free zones are nonsense. Notice that almost every spree shooting in the last few decades have been in gun free zones? Even the Aurora shooter avoided several theatres closer to his home to seek out the one that banned CCW as policy. I've a friend who is a Marine Corps Vet, an elementary school principle, and a CCW licensee. Why this man can carry a firearm in defense everywhere he goes except for work makes no rational sense at all.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:16 PM by Cosmic911

Originally posted by Romanian
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?

Right now there is a lot of talk about mood-altering medications and gun control, specifically the SSRIs. I dont think anyone with a serious mental pathology shouldn't have access to firearms. However, I don't think all the issues are the fault of SSRIs. People are prescribed them because they have mental issues. They have pre-existing mental/medical conditions. That's the common thread. There needs to be a quantitative study into the shooters psychology, their past medical history, their prescriptions, etc... The only study of any value would be a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. All we have now is conjecture and anecdotal evidence, which is qualitative and not of any value.

edit on 26-12-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:28 PM by Honor93

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by Honor93
do you teach kids how to ride a horse before they mount one ?
some do, some don't ... what makes guns so different ?

You can fall off a horse and live, being shot tends to not be so forgiving.

so ?
i have fallen off many a horse and survived and i've shot an intruder without killing them.
why do you believe use of a gun equals absolute death ?
if i want to use an axe to cut down a tree or chop off body parts ... it's the same axe.
why do you view a gun differently ?

aside from the theoretical aspects of using a safe, let's look at the practicality of the idea.
1. safe large enough to keep rifles
- cost prohibitive
- basic assumption that each owner has a 'location' to keep the safe
- pure assumption that each owner has access to a 'location'
- proven failure on numerous occasions
- how or better yet, who would 'prove' that such a unit exists and is actively used ?
* just cause someone has it doesn't mean they use it.
- what is stopping anyone from breaking their own safe and claiming they were stolen ?

ya know, i'd bet some of us wonder this about you ...

I wonder, do you folks purposely ignore that parts that are common sense only to glorify your points?

even with a safe, what guarantee do you want that a gun isn't on the kitchen table anyway ??
it is our home supposedly or do you want video surveillance of the safe too ?

how 'bout we leave the storage decisions up to the owners ?
i'm all for gun safety and cannot think of any gun shop i've been in that doesn't promote safety first.

what more do you want ?
it's a mandatory 'class' to acquire most firearm licenses.

i think you should review the situation in Vermont.
no licenses, plenty of open carry and "safest state" awards to match

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:44 PM by MikeNice81

reply to post by network dude

A cable lock is acceptable? So running a cable through the action of your gun is enough? That makes absolutely no effing sense. I can cable lock my gun and it does nothing to make it harder to steal.

So, you cable locked your gun and left it out, but put your ammo in a $60 filing cabinet? Basically you did the bare minimum to comply with NC safe storage laws. Now you demand that others do more in order to get a gun.

You really have much more in common with the gun grabbers than you realize. Plus you keep resorting to ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum fallacies instead of actually debating the topic. According to you everybody that disagrees is "irresponsible" or values convenience over safety, Plus you refer to untrained people as "Joe Dumbass."

With friends like you we don't need enemies.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:45 PM by Honor93

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by network dude

So you're saying other states should use Connecticut laws?
I'm ok with that, let me add a few.

#1 A permit should be good in every state.

#2 When you sell a firearm to another private citizen, the sale should be handled via a FFL dealer (at a cost of no more than $20)

#3 Any person looking to buy a firearm at a gun show must have a permit (for pistols) and/or a legal copy of their background checks, no older than 1 year (or 6 months)

What do you think?

rather all states conform to the 2nd, you'd prefer all states conform to the one state that hosted one of the worst tragedies this decade AND modify them ??

are you joking ? i sure hope so.
to answer your questions directly ... CT laws, no ... Vermont would be better.
#1 - agreed - reciprocity isn't what it should be
#2 - private sales are none of the govts or your business
- private sales across state lines already are through FFLs, a fee reduction to $20 would be nice

#3 - gun shows, off limits - ie. no special rules
*** background checks are demanded by the state hence, the state's responsibility, not the buyer.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 02:55 PM by JIMC5499

I have no problem with the training of gun owners, provided that the training becomes a mandatory part of our educational system. Say at about the 10th grade level and that passing it is a requirement for graduation. You could bring back a real Civics class and make it part of that.

By the way, the high school that I went to had and still does have a rifle team. When I was a student, you could go to Intramural Rifle after school. You learned how to shoot .22 target rifles and weapons safety was a large part of the sessions. We also have a mandatory Hunter's safety class in my State that has to be passed before you can obtain a hunting license. Safety is a major part of that.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 03:10 PM by network dude

Originally posted by MikeNice81
So, you cable locked your gun and left it out, but put your ammo in a $60 filing cabinet? Basically you did the bare minimum to comply with NC safe storage laws. Now you demand that others do more in order to get a gun.

OK, you have made you point about 30 times now. Please show me where I DEMANDED anything?

Show everyone here what I DEMANDED.

in the wake of all the stupidity, I offered what I thought were some good common sense answers to what the gun opposition was complaining about. I saw what the NRA came up with. While I don't believe it's even up to them to have anything at all to do with this, their answer only pissed on the fire with gasoline.

I gave my reasons why I think my ideas were good. Perhaps they are not, I do disagree completely with your reasoning that safety is cost prohibitive so we should ignore it, but some other points make sense.

So the best thing that could happen as far as I am concerned is nothing. Then I can keep doing what I do and nobody will bother me. But if the liberals do get their way, they will want much more than I suggested and depending on how the media plays it, they just might get it.

but don't worry about your low income folks, once they outlaw guns completely, they won't have to worry about saving up to buy a glock.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 03:13 PM by network dude

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have no problem with the training of gun owners, provided that the training becomes a mandatory part of our educational system. Say at about the 10th grade level and that passing it is a requirement for graduation. You could bring back a real Civics class and make it part of that.

Now that is one hell of an idea. Mandatory firearm safety in public schools. And perhaps a reminder that outside of the video game, there is no reset button.

Thanks for actually participating in the discussion instead of just explaining why things won't work. That's how things get done.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 03:22 PM by madenusa

The idea behind the permit process is to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Only those that "qualify" should have guns on the street, so why is it that criminals everywhere have guns if they so choose?
The answer is simple, they pay for them on the black market.
The criminal underworld operates very much on the basis of free enterprise.

This regulatory burden is indeed a penalty of sorts for being a law-abiding citizen.
Get your training, have your finger prints taken, pay the permit fees, and then wait for the licensed to be issued.

Next, conceal your weapon appropriately and go for a stroll down the street. Imagine that you're a criminal and not a law-abiding citizen.
This will demonstrate to you know just how easy it is for an armed criminal to go about his or her day-to-day business among other law-abiding citizens.

Im going to do like most law-abiding citizens Hide my property & pay$$ for my freedom to own one.
With every law they pass some nut with a Gun will just make it Hard for the law-abiding citizens.

Let's recognize Owning a Gun for what it is - a personal choice and not a crime.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 03:44 PM by network dude

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Several answers have been proposed. The gun free zones are nonsense. Notice that almost every spree shooting in the last few decades have been in gun free zones? Even the Aurora shooter avoided several theatres closer to his home to seek out the one that banned CCW as policy. I've a friend who is a Marine Corps Vet, an elementary school principle, and a CCW licensee. Why this man can carry a firearm in defense everywhere he goes except for work makes no rational sense at all.

I agree with you here 100%.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 08:47 PM by GunzCoty

reply to post by network dude

Being totally honest, I think I like the idea of being able to purchase a weapon that is off the books so to speak.

Me too, an I'm not saying you would have to register the gun, just allow the FFL to do the background check to help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 09:11 PM by GunzCoty

reply to post by Honor93

rather all states conform to the 2nd, you'd prefer all states conform to the one state that hosted one of the worst tragedies this decade AND modify them ??

No, it is that way in CT, so I'm saying (other than the worthless assault weapons ban) that I would be ok with it. I think waiting 2 weeks to get a rifle without a hunting permit, or a pistol permit is fine. And I think needing a permit to carry is ok as well. I am ok with the choice to carry concealed, or open.

As far as the states conforming to the 2nd goes, the second never said a felon, mentally ill, etc.. can't have a gun. It never said we can't have tanks, mortars, full auto's ,RPGs, etc.
So are you ok with that?

As far as the rest goes.
I am only trying out ideas, that may help prevent criminals from getting guns.

I seen gun shows where they do not care if you just came out of prison (orange jumpsuit and all).
I would rather try to stop criminals from getting the guns, then ban guns.

I am against gun registration, but I am ok with an FFL overseeing a private deal and doing the background check. This would only be for rifles, because private, or FFL sale of a pistol must go through the DPS no matter what. (and they say pistols are not registered in CT, yeah ok.)

In accordance with the OP, what is your Idea, what do you think?

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^