RE: Guns

RE: Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Guns

There is too much regulation already.

10% (28)

There should be far more stringent background checks.

15% (39)

Reinstate the ban on assault guns.

11% (29)

Make conceal and carry the law in all 50 states.

10% (28)

Make gun classes mandatory.

16% (42)

The only guns availible to the public should be hunting rifles.

4% (12)

The 2nd amendment includes individuals owning firearms.

21% (54)

The 2nd amendment does not include individuals, it's been distorted.

3% (8)

I wish my country had gun laws similar to the US

0% (1)

I don't want my country to have gun laws like the US

6% (16)

Total Votes : 257

(last vote on : 2/2/2013 9:53:19 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:15:33 PM)
Sorry but if you want to compare caring about many people being killed and harmed by something dangerous in public, vehicles are a good thing to compare it to. I agree that gun owners should be responsible, and if the lawmakers did not make it complicated, they could. A law that requires firearms to be secured in approved items, and then specs provided to manufacturers on what the min rating/construction is. There will still be guns stolen, but it will be more difficult if they are secured. The law should also provide penalty for not securing, but there is a part of me that says it will not be that much of a deterrent. The mandatory safety classes and background checks will likely yield better results. I am all for a little at a time on this, but we now have the issue of it being a state issue and not a federal issue for the classes and checks. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Why haven't we used it in cases other than drunk driving? How many deaths are caused by vehicle where the driver wasn't drunk? You know how to google, yes? You keep bringing up vehicles. Yet you cannot address the thread.. which is labeled... guns. Everything has the potential to kill. Minimizing risks are the best we can do. Demanding gun owners be responsible owners is just one way to minimize risks. Like mandatory seat belt laws.

Moonhead -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Sorry but if you want to compare caring about many people being killed and harmed by something dangerous in public, vehicles are a good thing to compare it to. When people start using assault rifles or automatic handguns to commute to work or do the shopping, then we can talk about that one. [;)]

Focus50 -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You never answered my question, tazzy. What level of security will be required so that one wouldn't be held liable when one's guns are stolen? I'll give you an answer.... In Australia, we've probably got some of the toughest gun controls on the planet. While I don't know all the legislative specifics, I know how the new laws (post Port Arthur) affected me. Re gun storage in the home. Guns must be kept in a locakable steel cabinet (not necessarily a safe) where the door has a minumum 3 point locking latch. The cabinet must be permanently attached to the building, ie screwed to the wall/floor etc. In the case of bolt action rifles (pretty much all average John Citizen can legally own now), the bolt must be detached and secured in a separate room. Without reading the other posts, I think it a nonsense that anyone be held responsible for properly and reasonably secured goods after they've been stolen. That no-one is expected to have their own bank vault equivalent etc.... That these sort of distractive arguments are all about gun-humpers dodging responsibility and some semblance of sanity in denial of a burgeoning body count of innocents in the US. As was demonstrated in the "main" gun control thread, you're 40 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US than you are in Australia. That needing a gun for "home security" is an utter nonsense when those likely to break in have exactly the same right to bear arms as the occupant. Your problem is too many guns, it ALWAYS has been. Focus.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:27:11 PM)
quote: Sorry but if you want to compare caring about many people being killed and harmed by something dangerous in public, vehicles are a good thing to compare it to. I think we have. Cars are required to have seat belts, air bags are mandatory. Speed limits set, inspections required (for those states that do not require inspections, other laws come into play). They have to be registered and insured.

mnottertail -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:35:17 PM)
You must have a license to operate a vehicle, pay taxes on the license for the vehicle (a separate recurring cost), have the vehicle inspected, take a long class with in situation training after passing a written test, are responsible for anything that happens with the car you are driving ...... Yeah, already fucked.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 12:37:05 PM)
And yet the still kill a large amount of people. That cannot be ignored. Human behavior is difficult to impossible to regulate. Some of those are good examples that can be used for guns, just like some of the poll options. Mandatory safety classes Background Checks and it is not an option in the poll, but the idea to have owner responsibility in some fashion. We will not eliminate the deaths, but common sense approaches to reducing them can be achieved. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Sorry but if you want to compare caring about many people being killed and harmed by something dangerous in public, vehicles are a good thing to compare it to. I think we have. Cars are required to have seat belts, air bags are mandatory. Speed limits set, inspections required (for those states that do not require inspections, other laws come into play). They have to be registered and insured.

Yachtie -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 1:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail ..., take a long class with in situation training after passing a written test, are responsible for anything that happens with the car you are driving ...... Yeah, already fucked. Watch them on the road. How well are we doing after all that training and test taking? And I've had people say "So what? I've got insurance" in response to responsibility. Yeah, already fucked[8D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 1:19:57 PM)
quote: And yet the still kill a large amount of people. That cannot be ignored. Human behavior is difficult to impossible to regulate. Some of those are good examples that can be used for guns, just like some of the poll options. Mandatory safety classes Background Checks and it is not an option in the poll, but the idea to have owner responsibility in some fashion. We will not eliminate the deaths, but common sense approaches to reducing them can be achieved. I never negated the needs for either of those. And I have long advocated for closing the "gun show loopholes". Mandatory background checks on every sale. Better educating our mendical community and ending the tied hand feelings of reporting when someone states they are going to kill someone. There are many, many possible solutions. I dont believe any one is better than the other. I do believe we need them all to work effectively. Including owner responsibility.

slvemike4u -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 1:34:06 PM)
The current "accepted" figure is that 40 % all gun sales are completely un-regulated. Seeing as an awful lot of Americans die each and every year as a result of firearms that is a sickening,distressing and worrisome percentage.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 1:51:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I'm sorry you can't recognize "governmental legislation creep" when it's staring you in the face. I don't have a problem with making gun owners responsible for the security of their guns, as an idea. The particulars of that, though, is where the issue will be. The "if one life is spared" line is bullshit. You know it. You can't handle someone bringing up all sorts of reasons where that kind of thinking can lead you. Then, it's back to "stick to the topic" bullshit. No, what I find bullshit is a gun owner who whines and cries because he cant think. I have seen some of the stupidest questions here. "What if I need to grab a gun and Im asleep and someone breaks into my house?" "What if my safe gets stolen?" "What if someone pisses on my leg and it pisses me off?" All extremely piss poor excuses to avoid the conversation. Be honest. There isnt a single one of you that wants to put out the money you could be spending on another gun into protecting yourself, and your community, from a stolen weapon. There isnt any of you who see any merit to demanding owners be responsible by installing security measures. I sure hope you aren't including me in the "[not] any of you who see any merit..." group. This isn't about responsibly keeping your firearms. It's about how far is Government going to force you to secure your firearms? Is a gun safe enough? Will you not be allowed to keep a handgun in an easily accessible area in your home just in case? quote: A gun show, Medina, Ohio, a vendor buys a gun from a seller... he notices there is a bullet in the chamber.. he goes to clear it.. it goes off. Purely accidental. Someone else is shot in the groin... poor fella. How many of the gun owners here would take a loaded gun to a gun show to sell? This was NOT a responsible gun owner. 7 accidental shootings at gun shows that day. Yet you all trust them to handle their weapons. Are you freaking nuts? I completely agree that the seller should be held responsible for bringing a gun with one in the chamber into the gun show. But, that's not what you're talking about, either. You don't know (or you didn't post any information) if that guy kept his gun in a gun case at home or not. He was not being responsible enough to clear the chamber and make sure the gun wasn't loaded. I don't own a gun, so I don't know the laws regarding transporting firearms, but I'm going to go ahead and guess having a loaded weapon isn't legal.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 2:05:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You never answered my question, tazzy. What level of security will be required so that one wouldn't be held liable when one's guns are stolen? I'll give you an answer.... In Australia, we've probably got some of the toughest gun controls on the planet. While I don't know all the legislative specifics, I know how the new laws (post Port Arthur) affected me. Re gun storage in the home. Guns must be kept in a locakable steel cabinet (not necessarily a safe) where the door has a minumum 3 point locking latch. The cabinet must be permanently attached to the building, ie screwed to the wall/floor etc. In the case of bolt action rifles (pretty much all average John Citizen can legally own now), the bolt must be detached and secured in a separate room. Without reading the other posts, I think it a nonsense that anyone be held responsible for properly and reasonably secured goods after they've been stolen. That no-one is expected to have their own bank vault equivalent etc.... That these sort of distractive arguments are all about gun-humpers dodging responsibility and some semblance of sanity in denial of a burgeoning body count of innocents in the US. I have no problem with a requirement for owners to secure their firearms. The problem I have is with that one word, "reasonably." What is reasonable? Gun safe? Gun cabinet? Are you sure no one is going to be required to have a bank vault equivalent? quote: As was demonstrated in the "main" gun control thread, you're 40 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US than you are in Australia. That needing a gun for "home security" is an utter nonsense when those likely to break in have exactly the same right to bear arms as the occupant. Your problem is too many guns, it ALWAYS has been. Focus. The problem I have with national statistics is that you even everything out when it's not even at all. Some areas are worse than others. New Orleans is one of the worst cities in the world for gun homicides. They drag the rate up for areas that aren't as violent. I'd love to see a stat (might have to look into that tonight) that shows what percentage of gun violence is gang-related and/or drug-related.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 2:19:43 PM)
2010 - Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm “In 2008, there were an estimated 5,811,000 police-reported traffic crashes, in which 37,261 people were killed and 2,346,000 people were injured; 4,146,000 crashes involved property damage only.” In 2008, 37,261 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes — a decrease of 10 percent from 2007 (41,259). http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811162.PDF In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total 2011: 32,163 2010: 31,672 2009: 31,347 2008: 31,593 2007: 31,224 2006: 30,896 2005: 30,694 2004: 29,569 2003: 30,136 2002: 30,242 2001: 29,573 2000: 28,663 1999: 28,874 http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states [image]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet_injury_fig2.gif[/image] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet_injury.htm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 2:21:44 PM)
Back to my point that a comparison to cars is a valid point, as you, I and others have illustrated. All of them (proposed solutions) are not going to solve a thing, because all of them will not get done. I say focus on the top ones that a majority agrees on, get them in effect and then move on from there. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: And yet the still kill a large amount of people. That cannot be ignored. Human behavior is difficult to impossible to regulate. Some of those are good examples that can be used for guns, just like some of the poll options. Mandatory safety classes Background Checks and it is not an option in the poll, but the idea to have owner responsibility in some fashion. We will not eliminate the deaths, but common sense approaches to reducing them can be achieved. I never negated the needs for either of those. And I have long advocated for closing the "gun show loopholes". Mandatory background checks on every sale. Better educating our mendical community and ending the tied hand feelings of reporting when someone states they are going to kill someone. There are many, many possible solutions. I dont believe any one is better than the other. I do believe we need them all to work effectively. Including owner responsibility.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 2:31:22 PM)
quote: This isn't about responsibly keeping your firearms. It's about how far is Government going to force you to secure your firearms? Is a gun safe enough? Will you not be allowed to keep a handgun in an easily accessible area in your home just in case? Again, I answered that in my post to Aynne... as I told you before. quote: You don't know (or you didn't post any information) if that guy kept his gun in a gun case at home or not. He was not being responsible enough to clear the chamber and make sure the gun wasn't loaded. I don't own a gun, so I don't know the laws regarding transporting firearms, but I'm going to go ahead and guess having a loaded weapon isn't legal. (C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16 Knowing Medina... he didnt fly.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 5:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: This isn't about responsibly keeping your firearms. It's about how far is Government going to force you to secure your firearms? Is a gun safe enough? Will you not be allowed to keep a handgun in an easily accessible area in your home just in case? Again, I answered that in my post to Aynne... as I told you before. quote: You don't know (or you didn't post any information) if that guy kept his gun in a gun case at home or not. He was not being responsible enough to clear the chamber and make sure the gun wasn't loaded. I don't own a gun, so I don't know the laws regarding transporting firearms, but I'm going to go ahead and guess having a loaded weapon isn't legal. (C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16 Knowing Medina... he didnt fly. The key word there, though, is "knowingly." A good enough lawyer would be able to get him out of any trouble. And, that's quite unfortunate.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 5:23:32 PM)
Knowingly would mean checking it before getting into the car. If he had checked, he would have known it was there. Unless you believe a lawyer can get him out of it by claiming he didnt know the gun was in his car until he pulled up at the gun show to sell it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 5:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Knowingly would mean checking it before getting into the car. If he had checked, he would have known it was there. Unless you believe a lawyer can get him out of it by claiming he didnt know the gun was in his car until he pulled up at the gun show to sell it. Except there is no law saying it had to be checked. He didn't check it, so he didn't know it was loaded. Thus, although acting like a complete idiot and irresponsible fuck, he didn't knowingly transport a loaded weapon. Yes, I can see a good defense lawyer being able to defeat a shitty prosecutor on that one.

tazzygirl -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 8:18:07 PM)
The "knowingly" means he knew it was in the car. No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle Did he know he had it or not? The above covers him in case he didnt know he had he weapon to begin with.. like picking up a friend who has a gun and doesnt tell him. unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways: No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle....... unless .. the firearm is unloaded If he knew it was in the car, it was his responsibility to make sure it was unloaded.

jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 8:25:40 PM)
Unless I am carrying my .45, since I have a concealed carry permit, I never transport a loaded gun. And the guns I transport are not within reach and the ammo is in a lock box.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Guns (1/23/2013 9:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The "knowingly" means he knew it was in the car. No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle Did he know he had it or not? He still could have been unknowingly transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle that was loaded. quote: The above covers him in case he didnt know he had he weapon to begin with.. like picking up a friend who has a gun and doesnt tell him. unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways: No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle....... unless .. the firearm is unloaded If he knew it was in the car, it was his responsibility to make sure it was unloaded. Lemme quote myself, bolding parts that need stressed: quote: Except there is no law saying it had to be checked. He didn't check it, so he didn't know it was loaded. Thus, although acting like a complete idiot and irresponsible fuck, he didn't knowingly transport a loaded weapon. Yes, I can see a good defense lawyer being able to defeat a shitty prosecutor on that one. And, yes, I can still see a good defense lawyer being able to defeat a shitty prosecutor, irregardless of how you interpret the statute (which, btw, I do believe you're correct on).

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625