Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm for it too. Although I understand your reason for starting another thread, I think people must begin to realize that you cannot separate these tragedies from discussions of gun control; just as you cannot separate the Imus situation from discussions of racism. (There... have I pushed enough hot buttons for today?)
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We need idiot control. But, I believe in the right to have a gun...though I would like to see the process to purchase one MUCH more difficult than it is around the country. Of course, most crimes are not committed with legally purchased weapons.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Of course, most crimes are not committed with legally purchased weapons.>> That is correct. But 100% of gun crime is committed with guns that at one point were legally purchased by someone. If you make it tougher to legally get a gun, there will be fewer guns in the market to steal or sell illegally.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Of course, most crimes are not committed with legally purchased weapons.>> That's what I think. Like I said in the other thread, my cousin is in prison because the gun used in the crime he committed was obtained illegally.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I want to see it tougher to purchase, I want to see tougher penalties for crimes committed with a gun, I want to see tougher penalties for illegally possessing one.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm all for that Pass. And, let me add: Just because we can't get a grip on drunk driving...which results in many deaths each year...doesn't mean we need to get rid of alcohol or vehicles.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin When a car is transfered there is paperwork involved. Is that also true for arms? I know that doesn't solve the issue of stolen weapons.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And, let me add: Just because we can't get a grip on drunk driving...which results in many deaths each year...doesn't mean we need to get rid of alcohol or vehicles.>> Neither alcohol or automobiles have killing someone or something as their primary reason for being. Guns do.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>When a car is transfered there is paperwork involved. Is that also true for arms?<< Technically, yes. Transfers are supposed to be done through a dealer. But most private party transfers tend to sidestep that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I want to see it tougher to purchase, I want to see tougher penalties for crimes committed with a gun, I want to see tougher penalties for illegally possessing one.> (wahoo): <I'm all for that Pass.> Me too. It drives me crazy when I see the usual gun control debates, which set up the above steps as somehow mutually exclusive. They're not. I'd like to see the loopholes closed that exist when purchasing guns at gun shows as well (it's too easy to buy a trunkload of guns at such shows, and these are then often re-sold out of those same trunks to criminals).
Originally Posted By DlandDug I don't think it should be any easier to own and operate a gun than it is an automobile. There should be age restrictions, background checks, some sort of required test, and registration of ownership. I do realize that none of this will take all the guns away from all the bad people. But should we really let the bad people set the bar for this? (P.S. Guns are not used exclusively for killing. There are legitimate reasons for people to own and use them.)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think much like Columbine it needs to settle down before rational discussions can take place. it is a fact though that someone who really wants one ( especially someone without a criminal record ) will be able to get one regardless of how tough the controls become.However that doesn't mean we can't control it more than maybe we do today - I would agree. And the other thing that has yet to be proven , but strikes me is so many dead for so many shots - ammo vest etc.-- to me this says this guy was not a novice with guns, but someone skilled to shoot and kill. Very scary
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I don't think it should be any easier to own and operate a gun than it is an automobile. There should be age restrictions, background checks, some sort of required test, and registration of ownership. >> I have carried and operated several weapons during my time in the military. I wasn't allowed to take possession of those weapons before I passed a test on their basic operation and then went to a firing range for a marksmanship test. If I failed either of those tests, I would not be permitted to carry the weapon. My purpose in carrying the weapon wasn't for sport, but for the sole intention of killing people. I have to requalify on each weapon annually. If I let the qualification lapse, I no longer handle the weapon. If I need to go through those sorts of wickets to carry a gun in the armed forces, it only seems reasonable that the average citizen should have to show some aptitude before being able to purchase and handle a weapon as well.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<If I need to go through those sorts of wickets to carry a gun in the armed forces, it only seems reasonable that the average citizen should have to show some aptitude before being able to purchase and handle a weapon as well. >>> I agree totally, but from a safety issue. Teach citizens how to be safe, but teaching them how to KILL...well that isn't a good idea. <<<There should be age restrictions>>> There are. <<<background checks>>> With the exception of certain shows, there are. <<<some sort of required test>>> I agree with this but what kind of testing? Psychological? Safety? Ability to shoot and hit what you aim at? <<<and registration of ownership>>> Why? What purpose would this serve? Registration is ALWAYS the beginning of total across the board removal of guns and punishing those who would only protect themselves and their families. I disagree with registration totally as it servers absolutely no purpose toward taking guns out of criminals' nor crazy people's hands. The funny thing about a weapon such as a pistol is, you hope that you never ever need it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I lived in Kennesaw GA for 6 years, and still live VERY close. Here is a tidbit for you guys to ponder.... GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw? "The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996, Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The real problem is not so much the gun owners...the answer is NOT TAKING guns away from good citizens. The issue is that we need HARDER punishment for criminals. It is a tragedy what happened today no question. But from what I understand, the types of controls you guys suggest wouldn't have prevented it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The second amendment was intended to help fight off the British and form armed militias. It's really interesting to see how some people feel like a gun is another appendage. What's the appeal?
