Gun control

verminater said:
No need to guess. I am fully aware of differing opinions.

Why don't we put kids in cars?
Get them jobs?
Supply them with alcohol?

If all it is, is conditioning them for adulthood....

Indeed, your alcohol laws are more stringent in the US than the UK, is that better? Maybe.
Why not the same attitude to guns?

I can only comment from my point of view, bearing in mind, I grew up in a different society.

I fail to see the logic though.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you about their attitude toward guns. It seems apparent that there is a void of some sorts when it comes to recognizing how dangerous guns are...willful ignorance maybe? I really can't fathom leaving a gun lying around loaded and unsupervised, it's begging for trouble and the trouble that guns generate is usually fatal. I'd really love to see a national law requiring locked storage when the gun is not on your person or wihtin your reach at least.

As to your first points, we don't put kids in cars as they can't operate them due to their size mostly, but a certain maturity is also required. That's why learner's permits require an experienced driver in the passenger seat. We don't get them jobs mostly because of Vicotrian England's dream of childhoods filled with white picket fences and playtime rather than industrial chimney sweeping, but I could counter that paper routes were at least once the domain of kids, I did it when I was younger. Alcohol is fairly self explanatory as it will damage them mentally. Sorry for being a pedantic dick. :)
 
I was brought up in a family that hunted and shot rabbits for food. I handled guns at an early age and was trained in safety and how to handle guns.
I have always had a passion for guns and earned a marksman's badge. I still like to shoot whenever I can as do my grandchidren who are all pretty good shots. They have however all been taught the safety of gun handling.
To have a gun in your house or whatever is a personal choice dependant on your beliefs. All I know is that my children and grandchildren NEVER handle a gun in my house unless I am present.
Unfortunately there are a lot of disturbed people out there at the moment. Is stricter gun control the answer? I honestly cannot answer that for anyone. The whole issue has become so political that common sense does not prevail.
 
In New York State they added a law so that even private gun sales (gun owner sells his gun to another private citizen) have to have back ground checks. They included in the law that service will have to go through Gun Shop Owners who can charge up to $10 per check. Gun Shop owners DO NOT have to provide the service if they do not want to. The Gun Shop owner also has to take possession of the firearm, log it into their inventory and keep it until the check is complete then can hand it over to the new owner, the log it out of their inventory.

Sounds okay, but most gun shop owners are saying they will not participate and the ones that will many seem to be saying they will charge more than the $10 allowed by law. The main issues seem to be

1) The cost, most gun shop owners are saying it will cost them more than $10 per transaction, so they really lose money on it.
2) The State has not said how if at all it will enforce the $10 price,so even those that charge more may be opening themselves up to large fines.
3) Liability issues. Since the gun shops have to take possession of the guns, even though they are not required to perfrom any inspection of the fire arm to vouch for its condition, this places them in the liability chain should something go wrong (think anything a gun owner or gun victim could sue over and now the gun shop owner is responsible for a gun that he did not even own nor sell).

So in this case we see that the law makers have not adequately thought through one of the stipulations they added to gun control laws. Obviously, the idea in and of itself can not be faulted, basically you want to buy a gun, no matter who you buy it from you need a background check. The problem is they did not give enough thought to how it would all be excuted or what other ramifications would be involved.

I am not against strong gun control laws, just showing how lawmakers need to make sure they are looking at the details and what the laws will really do or not do.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Not even one of these?

spud-gun.jpg
Click to expand...

No not even one of those, OK I might be a bit OOT and I accept that, I just don't want my kids with any sort of gun.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I actually agree with you about their attitude toward guns. It seems apparent that there is a void of some sorts when it comes to recognizing how dangerous guns are...willful ignorance maybe? I really can't fathom leaving a gun lying around loaded and unsupervised, it's begging for trouble and the trouble that guns generate is usually fatal. I'd really love to see a national law requiring locked storage when the gun is not on your person or wihtin your reach at least.

As to your first points, 1 we don't put kids in cars as they can't operate them due to their size mostly, but a certain maturity is also required. That's why learner's permits require an experienced driver in the passenger seat. We don't get them jobs mostly because of Vicotrian England's dream of childhoods filled with white picket fences and playtime rather than industrial chimney sweeping, but I could counter that 2 paper routes were at least once the domain of kids, I did it when I was younger. 3 Alcohol is fairly self explanatory as it will damage them mentally. Sorry for being a pedantic dick. :)
Click to expand...


1. We don't make smaller cars to cater for them, and put them under the instruction of people, who's only qualification is that they know them.

2. Ask a Bangladeshi kid if he'd consider that a job.

3. A regulated amount would not cause harm, but it will desensitise them to it's dangerous misuse.

I just don't get why, if it is argued by the pro-gun lobby, mental capacity has had a bearing on the majority of gun massacres, there is an acceptance of putting them in the hands of undeveloped young minds. (The state of which cannot be ascertained)
 
verminater said:
1. We don't make smaller cars to cater for them, and put them under the instruction of people, who's only qualification is that they know them.

2. Ask a Bangladeshi kid if he'd consider that a job.

3. A regulated amount would not cause harm, but it will desensitise them to it's dangerous misuse.

I just don't get why, if it is argued by the pro-gun lobby, mental capacity has had a bearing on the majority of gun massacres, there is an acceptance of putting them in the hands of undeveloped young minds. (The state of which cannot be ascertained)
Click to expand...

I think the acceptance is that the kids can use them under adult supervison. I sound like a broken record but all comes back to responsibility. The story posted on the last page is tragic but it is down to negligence. If it wasn't a kid sized rifle then it might have been a glock pistol or whatever. From the sounds of it that house didn't have a problem with leaving loaded guns lying around. That is the part of the culture that needs to change, thousands of lives would be saved if people stopped leaving them lying around loaded. Maybe there's some paranoia behind that but feck me spend a couple of bucks on a little safe that you can leave it lying loaded in but locked up when you're not around to keep your eyes on it.
 
Grinner said:
A quip doesn't respond to the point though.

You like playing with guns. I don't see that as a good enough reason to allow them to be privately owned.
Click to expand...

It's not only a quip. Civilized people aren't needlessly rude jackasses, which I've observed most everywhere I've been, except maybe Germany and that might be down to the language barrier.

Target shooting is an activity that I enjoy in a safe and responsible manner, along with 2 million other Canucks, so I wouldn't use playing to describe a day at the range and I almost take offence at the implication but it's you so meh. Unlike your good self, we are not allowed to have them for self-defense up here, unless you work in the wilderness but our government doesn't have the political capital to come out and that target shooting isn't a good enough reason to own one, yet.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
It's not only a quip. Civilized people aren't needlessly rude jackasses, which I've observed most everywhere I've been, except maybe Germany and that might be down to the language barrier.

Target shooting is an activity that I enjoy in a safe and responsible manner, along with 2 million other Canucks, so I wouldn't use playing to describe a day at the range and I almost take offence at the implication but it's you so meh. Unlike your good self, we are not allowed to have them for self-defense up here, unless you work in the wilderness but our government doesn't have the political capital to come out and that target shooting isn't a good enough reason to own one, yet.
Click to expand...

It's an activity, not a necessity. It's a kind of playing or pastime or whatever you want to call it so I don't see how you can be offended by that. I enjoy shooting too but I'd never shoot again if it meant banning guns and saving lives.

I'm sorry Dwayne but you are a top bloke and very responsible but you are not a good advert for private gun ownership. I'd be more willing to accept you if you were a hunter and ate what you killed but you buy guns to shoot targets. It's just not a good enough reason.
 
Gun ownership is like religion. On an individual level there can be no problem, but safe practitioners refuse to consider the price we have to pay for their moderate use. Pro gun/religion groups will then confuse and protract the argument(it's man's fault, better guidelines, supervision etc) thus allowing them to selfishly continue as they are. They'll shift the blame in order for them ignore what the real solution to the problem is with a clear conscience.
 
Grinner said:
It's an activity, not a necessity. It's a kind of playing or pastime or whatever you want to call it so I don't see how you can be offended by that. I enjoy shooting too but I'd never shoot again if it meant banning guns and saving lives.
Click to expand...

I understand the comfort that notion can give people but I don't find it realistic. Ban them and there are still 245 million or so guns on American streets. Most Americans are not going to give up their guns via a massive cultural shift like ditching the 2nd amendment in some quasi-Maoist McCultural Revolution...there would be a second civil war and they've got guns. Confiscation would be a massive undertaking. I wouldn't expect it to have a high success rate, either.

So for the moment I think you can keep your gun, enjoy shooting it and still save lives. The lax attitude towards storing unattended firearms is a big part of the problem in the US. Process loopholes and other legal inefficiencies that allow people who shouldn't have firearms to get firearms is another. Take care of the first and you'll eliminate some of the second without even having to resort to licensing. Build it from the ground up. At the current rate of change no lives are being saved and gun control advocates have an all or nothing attitude. My attitude is save lives when and how you can because the problem isn't going to magically go away because they pass a law prohibiting something.

Grinner said:
I'm sorry Dwayne but you are a top bloke and very responsible but you are not a good advert for private gun ownership. I'd be more willing to accept you if you were a hunter and ate what you killed but you buy guns to shoot targets. It's just not a good enough reason.
Click to expand...

Why not? From a public safety perspective I'm ideal. I transport my guns unloaded and trigger locked to a designated shooting range and discharge them responsibly. After packing them up again I bring them home and lock them up when not in use. I wouldn't dream of chambering a round anywhere other than the firing line unless I was hunting, but killing leaves me too full of remorse and money and food are plentiful enough here that hunting would be a pastime just as target shooting is. There are people who need to hunt to survive in both our lands but it's not logical in a democratic system to allow them to have guns but exclude others if they don't engage in hunting.
 
I would think so. There will be a few people who'll need to do it, including the aboriginal population, because it gets expensive buying food that far north and economic opportunities are limited for some residents.
 
Dwayne, if they banned guns tomorrow your life wouldn't change one iota other than having a bit more money and time for something else. The argument that we shouldn't bother banning guns because there are too many on the streets is ridiculous too. It's like the argument that we shouldn't make gun laws because criminals refuse to follow them, why make any laws at all then?

The USA has to begin somewhere and I'm not expecting guns to disappear overnight. It will take a decade or so of enforcement if guns are banned but it can be done.
 
Grinner said:
Dwayne, if they banned guns tomorrow your life wouldn't change one iota other than having a bit more money and time for something else. The argument that we shouldn't bother banning guns because there are too many on the streets is ridiculous too. It's like the argument that we shouldn't make gun laws because criminals refuse to follow them, why make any laws at all then?

The USA has to begin somewhere and I'm not expecting guns to disappear overnight. It will take a decade or so of enforcement if guns are banned but it can be done.
Click to expand...

Yes, somewhere and what I've proposed is, I think, an excellent start. Again, you can't begin from the top down in an environment like the US, the saturation of guns is a reality not some cop out argument. Guns won't be banned without serious political difficulty, it's a fantasy. Save lives while you can, man. Change the culture step by step, it really is the only way. A lot of lives could be saved with simple measures that would probably be accepted by the majority of gun owners and yet I'm always amazed they are rejected because it's not what the gun control advocates want, which is no more guns. It's estimated that 1/3 of Americans have at least one gun...a decade wouldn't be enough to find all of those people and firearms.

In the meantime, kids will keep getting killed in accidental shootings that could be prevented by common sense and since that seems to be lacking for a lot of American gun owners why not make some common sense into law and at least make sure that there are fewer loaded guns lying around for kids to pick up and inadvertently kill other kids? You can argue that if there were no guns then it wouldn't happen either and that's nice and everything but there are 245 million elephants in that room and currently they aren't going anywhere.
 
I think any sane idea of gun "control" in America is way too late. That bird has flown. The worst part of this whole gun control argument is that it's a sham. The right wing of America has taken this 2nd amendment schtick and propagandized it as a recruitment tool for Republicans, much in the same way they've done with abortion. They use these topics as a way to get the idiots to vote against their own economic interests. The NRA was very for aggressive gun control when American blacks started demanding a fair share of the American pie and began refusing to sit at the back of the bus and started to legally brandish arms. Oh yeah, they wanted heavy gun control then.

And now they've created this fecking monster (much like abortion terrorists) of making it as easy as possible for an increasingly mentally unstable pill popping population to be as heavily armed as possible, and filling the head of these losers with Clint phony Eastwood/John Wayne notions and anti gov bollocks and the insane idea of armed insurrection in this day and age. Just listening to these idiots is enough to make you pull your hair out. And the growing problem is that the flag waving racist gun rights John Wayne USA #1 mouth breathing tools one used to have to put up with on public transport or backyard bar-b-ques or sports events or as in laws or relatives are now filling loads of local government posts and even creeping into the national government. This is all the fecking right wing game plan for votes and power as they struggle to remain relevant, and guns and abortion are two of their loudest pot clanging smoke screens, along with the whole racial thing.

I'm optimistic the US will eventually reject these idiots for the phonies that they are and we can get down to a civil, moderate discussion on the sane mix of government and free enterprise, and tidy, effective public spending in a true democratic sense.
 
Nobby style said:
I'm optimistic the US will eventually reject these idiots for the phonies that they are and we can get down to a civil, moderate discussion on the sane mix of government and free enterprise, and tidy, effective public spending in a true democratic sense.
Click to expand...

I wish I had your optimism.
 
Nobby style said:
I think any sane idea of gun "control" in America is way too late.....
Click to expand...

To your entire post, this is why we should try banning kids from using guns and being able to own them until 21 or something. If alcohol is banned till then why aren't guns?

Cut the pool of new converts to the culture of death and it will be easier to make more drastic changes in the future to gun laws.
 
Grinner said:
To your entire post, this is why we should try banning kids from using guns and being able to own them until 21 or something. If alcohol is banned till then why aren't guns?

Cut the pool of new converts to the culture of death and it will be easier to make more drastic changes in the future to gun laws.
Click to expand...

I agree with severely restricting the gun fetish culture, but I believe before you can make any meaningful headway, people must understand they're being cynically manipulated by Republicans, the right wing and the gun industry. Something has to happen to out the brainwashing of the interpretation and sanctity of the second amendment for political and special economic interests. As I mentioned in my other post, just look at the NRA and right wing America when blacks Americans started chirping "by any means necessary" in gaining their civil rights and showing up to demonstrations legally armed. They couldn't move fast enough to get some suitable gun control underway.

They're fine and happy as long as its the white suburban and rural and tea party crackers snapping up the arms and assault weapons. But start a philosophical movement of blacks and Latinos and other minorities with the same kind of second amendment gun fetish holiness bollocks and watch how fast white conservative America will make an about face.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I understand the comfort that notion can give people but I don't find it realistic. Ban them and there are still 245 million or so guns on American streets. Most Americans are not going to give up their guns via a massive cultural shift like ditching the 2nd amendment in some quasi-Maoist McCultural Revolution...there would be a second civil war and they've got guns. Confiscation would be a massive undertaking. I wouldn't expect it to have a high success rate, either.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy but presuming the President would be behind the ban he has all military weaponry at his disposal. We saw what happened when a few Davidians thought they could stave off the ATF. It would be utter carnage for the pockets of people trying to keep their guns while facing a military force. Yes, there would be plenty of federal employees that would oppose such a ban and might join opposition forces but there would be plenty that would retain their federal job and follow orders.

This will never happen anyhow. It's a ridiculous notion that because citizens have guns they can fend off a government backed with military weaponry and trained personnel.
 
MrMarcello said:
That's all fine and dandy but presuming the President would be behind the ban he has all military weaponry at his disposal. We saw what happened when a few Davidians thought they could stave off the ATF. It would be utter carnage for the pockets of people trying to keep their guns while facing a military force. Yes, there would be plenty of federal employees that would oppose such a ban and might join opposition forces but there would be plenty that would retain their federal job and follow orders.

This will never happen anyhow. It's a ridiculous notion that because citizens have guns they can fend off a government backed with military weaponry and trained personnel.
Click to expand...

More than anything, it would get past that layer of hypocrisy that 'liberals' in the U.S have when they talk about prohibition on guns/drugs.
 
Being a second amendment supporter is one thing, being an unbelieveable dick is another. Thanks to Tea Party funding and gerrymandering and plain dick mentality in sizeable population of Amerikans, these types have made it into national places of considerable power, and they'll outdick each other to get elected in the dick districts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...odel-Adam-Lanza-took-Newtown-Connecticut.html


Texas congressman's re-election campaign will give away a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle - the same model Adam Lanza took to Newtown, Connecticut
 
. . . Authorities in Ohio say they aren’t sure what motivated a 42-year-old man to jump out of his car during a traffic stop in March and suddenly fire 37 rounds at two police officers. What seems clear, however, is the case is yet another example of the danger posed to unsuspecting officers who confront individuals steeped in extremist antigovernment ideas.

James L. Gilkerson had a library of antigovernment, homemade munitions and firearms books in his vehicle — along with an AK-47 assault rifle, five loaded 40-round magazines for the weapon, knives, five pounds of gunpowder and a black mask and gloves, authorities say. He was unemployed, spent his time caring for his ill mother, and apparently had no history of mental illness . . .

*viewer discretion advised

 
. . . Authorities in Ohio say they aren’t sure what motivated a 42-year-old man to jump out of his car during a traffic stop in March and suddenly fire 37 rounds at two police officers. What seems clear, however, is the case is yet another example of the danger posed to unsuspecting officers who confront individuals steeped in extremist antigovernment ideas.

James L. Gilkerson had a library of antigovernment, homemade munitions and firearms books in his vehicle — along with an AK-47 assault rifle, five loaded 40-round magazines for the weapon, knives, five pounds of gunpowder and a black mask and gloves, authorities say. He was unemployed, spent his time caring for his ill mother, and apparently had no history of mental illness . . .

*viewer discretion advised

 
I think you mean the danger posed to officers who confront deranged lunatics...
 
Red Dreams said:
ban on assault weapons (sorry Dwayne ol mate . ;)) Give me a clear and rational defintion of an assault weapon (that doesn't include modern innovations like pistol grips, semi-automatic actions and the like) and we're fine. Also, I'm not American so it doesn't really affect me. ;)

compulsory background checks Yep.

register all guns. Pointless exercise that wastes money that could be used on something better, if there's one thing to take from Canadian Gun Control it would be to ignore the desire to register firearms. We spent somewhere near $2 Billion on it and people still got killed with registered guns, no crimes were stopped by this registry and no crimes were solved by the magic of registration. It's the dictionary definition of feel good legislation but it protects no one.

buy back program for all assault weapons. won't ever happen, real assault weapons are expensive, they will simply be confiscated under the threat of becoming a convicted felon for posessing a prohibited weapon.

that should do it.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Always seems to be Ohio involved in shootouts. Must be the water up there. Shit state btw.


Add SE Cupp to the list of delusional conservatives. Listen to her rant on Real Time with Bill Maher from 5/17... beyond delusional. Made no sense. Had Michael Moore nearly in heart attack mode (thought I'm sure the pre-show catering had a hand).

The yetball that posted the vid claims SE Cupp "owned Moore." :wenger:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.