Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Sure there are people want to take all guns away. But I just can't see it that way at all.<< I am unaware that anyone here wants to "take all guns away." I certainly do not. But I would like to see a lot more restrictions placed on their distribution and use. I, too, grew up in a household with guns. I am completely comfortable around them, as my experience with them has always been within a context of responsibility. Too often this argument is reduced to two extremes: either all guns must be available in an unrestricted manner, or all guns will be taken away. It's a poor way to frame the discussion, and not at all representative of the reality of the situation.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>The second amendment was intended to help fight off the British and form armed militias<< Nope. Totally wrong. It was intended for citizens to FIGHT the armed militias that might be formed BY the government. Read it again. Many people (myself included) make that mistake. The whole point was to enable the people to rise up against the government if it no longer served the people.
Originally Posted By Mr X **<<It's also difficult to take the arguments of many gun owners seriously when one looks at the statistics from countries where guns are outlawed.>> With the exception of Japan, I disagree totally.** I'd say Canada, for one. Actually, gun violence is pretty prevalant in America I think. The accessibility issue is certainly a big one. Of the developed countries, who has more problems with gun violence than the United States?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Again, I would argue that this is why being a free and open society is difficult. With many freedoms comes great responsibility. (Didn't intend to sound like Spiderman there.) We are having problems with illegal aliens. Is the answer to close the borders? Most people would argue no...that isn't the answer.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Read it again. Many people (myself included) make that mistake. The whole point was to enable the people to rise up against the government if it no longer served the people." Or read INTO mine, take your pick. So it isn't totally wrong.
Originally Posted By FaMulan To own a gun in the State of California one must: Pass a background check. Take a course in gun safety and usage. Take and pass a test on that class. When a firearm is purchased there is a 15 day waiting period while the background check happens. One must have a background clear of felonious criminal activities to own a gun. I know this because the testing was put into effect when I was thinking of purchasing a pistol for my personal protection and use. Then I figured my husband already has our home protection firearm and schooled me in the use of it, I have no need for one of my own. If I am in his company at a licensed range, I can shoot. SPP, you're a lawyer. Look up the gun laws on the books and you will see I'm guessing thousands of laws dictating the what's, wherefores, and yeas and neas of owning a gun. Then ask yourself if we need new laws or if law enforcement just needs to get off their duffs and enforce them. I'll toss out some slogans that are true: Guns don't kill people. People kill people (and not just with guns). Law abiding gun owners are not the major problem. It's the criminals who buy their guns on the black market, and what criminal obeys the Law and not commit a crime just because it's the Law.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Too often this argument is reduced to two extremes: either all guns must be available in an unrestricted manner, or all guns will be taken away. It's a poor way to frame the discussion, and not at all representative of the reality of the situation.>>> You are so right DlandDug, and I totally agree.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<who has more problems with gun violence than the United States?>>> Well you can remove the word "gun" from the above sentence and it still holds.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<The Constitution addresses many rights and freedoms, many of which are subject to a variety of restrictions. You can't marry your cousin. You can't sell tainted meat, even if you inform the buyer it is tainted. You can't intentionally publish slander in our free press.>>> And you cannot buy sell or own a gun if you are a criminal as well as a few other restrictions.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad So it's easy for anyone, criminal or otherwise to buy guns in VA? I'm sure the ATF would disagree. The gun show loophole isn't what the anti-gun folks claim. In fact it's due to the anit-gun folks that there are still gun shows anyway. Read on... There is no gun show "loophole." Since 1938, any person "engaged in the business of selling firearms" must register with the federal government. In 1968 all such persons were required to obtain a federal firearms license. Since 1998, dealers have been required to submit all prospective gun buyers to a National Instant Check System (NICS) background check conducted by the FBI or a state agency. This requirement applies at gun shows and all other locations, all of the time. A person who is not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who occasionally sells firearms under limited circumstances including "for the enhancement of a personal collection," is not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers, or to complete a background check. In 2001, legislation was introduced in Congress to extend the NICS requirement to non-dealer sales of firearms at gun shows. That legislation was defeated, however, because Members of Congress who support the anti-gun lobby's agenda would only accept a much more restrictive bill. The gun show legislation they support instead is less about gun shows than it is about much more invasive aspects of the anti-gun lobby's agenda. It would effectively require gun show attendees to register themselves on ledgers that would be provided to the BATF. It would impose massive red tape requirements on gun show operators and would grant the federal government unqualified access to records they would be required to maintain. Thus, a gun show operator (who doesn't sell guns) would be granted far less protection than a federally-licensed firearms dealer. The gun show operator would be subject to limitless BATF inspections, whereas the licensed dealer may only be inspected once a year (plus inspections related to actual criminal investigations). Because of abusive and repeated BATF inspections, Congress created the limit on dealer inspections in the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Anti-gunners also have attempted to define "gun shows" so broadly as to include sales of firearms that occur in people's homes, even between friends and family members. Under current federal law, engaging in the business of selling guns without a license is a federal felony. A tour of any gun show reveals that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as a gun collector selling or trading a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority. If someone claiming to be a gun collector is actually operating a firearms business and does not have an FFL, he is guilty of a federal felony--with every separate gun sale constituting a separate crime. Gun control advocates allege gun shows are a major source of guns used in crimes despite the fact that multiple government studies prove they are not. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.1 This study was based on interviews with 18,000 prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the federal government. It is also entirely consistent with previous federal studies, such as another BJS study which found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their guns from gun shows. 2 Similarly, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reported less than 2% of criminals' guns came from gun shows.3 Thousands of gun shows each year are frequented by millions of law-abiding citizens, collectors, hobbyists, hunters, target shooters, law enforcement officers and memorabilia shoppers. Gun shows are an important First Amendment forum for exchanging ideas on Second Amendment rights and for discussing common interests. The anti-gun group that styles itself Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) misuses BATF tracing reports to attack gun shows. AGS corrupts BATF tracing reports to claim that states without special restrictions on gun shows are "flooding" other states with crime guns. BATF tracing figures, in actuality, tell nothing about gun shows. In addition, the interstate trafficking of guns is already illegal. In a shameful attempt to capitalize on the fear evoked by the events of September 11, 2001, AGS reports that terrorists obtained guns via a "gun show loophole." What AGS does not report is that in all cases cited, the laws already on the books worked and the criminals were caught, convicted and sent to prison. The campaign against gun shows by anti-gun groups makes little sense from a crime control viewpoint. It is aimed at the rights of free-speech and assembly of Second Amendment advocates and would effectively violate the rights of law-abiding citizens. The use of the "terror card" by anti-gun activists is a blatant attempt to manipulate the American people and their emotions in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Proposed legislation to close a fabricated "loophole" in the law is merely a fear-based guise to end gun shows as a step toward banning all private gun transfers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Too often this argument is reduced to two extremes: either all guns must be available in an unrestricted manner, or all guns will be taken away. It's a poor way to frame the discussion, and not at all representative of the reality of the situation.> Well said, Dug. I don't see anyone calling to take people's guns away, though that's always the scare tactic brought up by the NRA. And DVD Dad, your explanation comes straight (and unattributed) from the NRA's website: <a href="http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209" target="_blank">http://www.nraila.org/Issues/A rticles/Read.aspx?id=209</a> (It's "Fable XV") And it's not even internally consistent. It blames the "anti-gun lobby" in Congress for wanting something too tough, and therefore it was defeated and the gun show loophole remains. But it had previously claimed there was no gun show loophole. Also, their stat that "1%" of crimes are committed with guns purchased at gun shows is misleading in the extreme. What often happens is that someone allowed to buy will buy a trunkload of guns at a gun show, and then sell them out of his trunk to criminals. The guy who bought at the gun show didn't commit the robbery, the guy who bought off of HIM did. But this is often how criminals get around background checks. I'm not a hunter, but most of my southern family is, and I have no problem with law-abiding people owning guns. But I do think there need to be common-sense controls. And I think some basic common-sense minimums should be nationalized, because right now it's too easy for someone in a state with tougher laws (like NY) to go to a state with lax ones (like VA). <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=260090" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~schumer /SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=260090</a> "According to New York City sources, 92% of the illegal handguns recovered in New York City from 1988-2003 were from out of state sources. The top five states for origination of illegal handguns in New York City were Virginia, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina." Again, I'm not talking about taking away any legitimately owned gun. But if there's any country that mirrors us, it would be Canada; they certainly have plenty of hunters and similar traditions to us, but they also have some common-sense gun restrictions and far lower gun crime than we do. Yet, any law-abiding person who wants a gun CAN get one.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<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.>> Yes… just look at the way the registration has restricted the ability of the average American to buy a car. <<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).>> That’s supposed to be impressive? I don’t know what is typical for Georgia, but in Minnesota you would be very hard pressed to find a town of 13,000 that had 3 murders in the past 10 years. The one exception would be Red Lake MN where there was a school shooting incident a couple of years ago.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<But I do think there need to be common-sense controls.>>> There are common sense controls, but I agree that they could be IMPROVED certainly. To say they couldn't or even shouldn't is close minded. What would you do differently? Let's say the law is yours to make, what would you do differently? I pose the question to everyone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And specifically, how would it prevent something like what happened yesterday at VT?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<That’s supposed to be impressive? I don’t know what is typical for Georgia, but in Minnesota you would be very hard pressed to find a town of 13,000 that had 3 murders in the past 10 years. >>> Okay okay sure I'll agree with that Trippy, however, the point isn't so much that crime decreased. The point is it did not increse. So making a public statement in Kennesaw GA (which is all it is, after all it is not enforced, and couldn't be) that everyone owns a gun didn't increase crime as many thought it would. The problem isn't with people owning guns, or people wanting guns in their homes. These kinds of people don't take their guns and go nuts. They are law abiding citizens who like to hunt, fish, shoot small game, whatever. And it's a bonus to them that they have a pistol (some have an armory) in their homes for personal protection. Granted the real need for guns in a home; that is to say the chance that someone will need a pistol in their home for protection is very slim DEPENDING on where you live. I DO NOT even think of my things, or "guns" if you prefer, as something that I have a right to have and anyone who disagrees can go jump. To me shotguns, rifles, and pistols are more like 4 wheelers than they are like weapons that I want to bring to bear in a dangerous situation. Owning guns just isn't a big deal to me. I think there are many many people who should NOT have them, people who could certainly go out and buy them right now. But I don't think I am one of those people. Of course "they" don't think that "they" are one of those people either do they?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What would you do differently? Let's say the law is yours to make, what would you do differently? I pose the question to everyone.>> First of all, I would outlaw the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons to anyone other than law enforcement agencies. I would also limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at one time. If you are using the gun for self defense, you don't need 500 rounds of ammo. What about firing ranges you ask? All ammo used would be provided by the firing range. Customers would not be allowed to enter or leave with any ammo in their possession. Am I leaving intact a person's right to buy arms? Yup. Am I leaving the ability of a person to defend him or herself with a handgun? Yup. Am I allowing people to use handguns for practice and sport at firing ranges? Yup. Would this have eliminated yesterday's tragedy? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have helped in a couple of ways. 1) A semi-automatic weapon as used by the shooter would not be legal. 2) It would be difficult for the shooter to acquire the amount of ammunition that he carried with him.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper A bunch of sick individuals killed over 3,000 people without a gun back in 2001. If there is the desire to inflict harm, it will be done. The problem isn't the gun...but again I would say that the gun is the "sexy" part of the story. It is easier for politicians, the press and the people to focus on the object rather than the person. And, we ignorant Americans just sit back and absord it all. What this incident is already telling me is that we still don't want to face reality.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad So what would you do differently, and as Tooney added, and how would it prevent what went down yesterday? This is not said in a sarcastic manner like "okay big shot, what would YOU do?" It's posed seriously. I would make a longer waiting period. Why? Because I would do this... I would add a review of one's credit report (not to judge them by their bottom line but it's possible someone in dire financial shape may be cracking. I would review one's health history, even one's grades if they are currently a student. I would require a written test concerning safety and operation of the particular item they wanted to buy. I would require some kind of a class, sort of like driving school, where the students would be not only taught safety but they might be exposed to information concerning all the dangers and RESPONSIBILITIES that come with gun ownership. I would look at a person's job history and also make there be a public record of the request like in the news paper or something. I would look at the traffic violations record. Last, I would require the buyer to write his reasons for wanting said gun. Through all of this, one could get a really good idea of the kind of person that is wanting a gun. The only problem with this is granting a license would become terribly subjective, which invites inconsistencies and chances for corruption as well. I don't know how the student got the guns he had, but I don't know that I would be in a big hurry to sell to people who are not established citizens of the US. Of course that is easy to say now, after yesterday. Any or all of the above litmus tests would not result in me or any of my redneck relatives losing their guns as far as I know, and if it did, well so be it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If there is the desire to inflict harm, it will be done.<< Exactly. If this guy yesterday didn't have a gun to use, he might have plowed into a crowd with a car. Or stabbed several people with a knife, or whatever. With the wall-to-wall oversaturation press coverage of these kinds of things, it really glorifies it and plants the seed for the next sicko to try and beat the number of kills yesterday. Yes, it obviously needs to be reported and covered. But good grief, non-stop 24 7 on every channel, in every newspaper?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<A bunch of sick individuals killed over 3,000 people without a gun back in 2001.>> I'm fine with not allowing an individual to purchase a jet aircraft. I mean really... using something that has happened exactly ONCE in the history of the world as an argument against gun control? That has to be the most far-fetched justification I've ever heard. Congrats for the most imaginative post in this thread!
