Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need more guns. Is it local?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    My basic outlook is generally against more government control of anything, guns included. So, in general, I'm going to agree with your point of view, JB.

    But out of simple intellectual honesty, I've got to call BS. Rifles only? When was the argument confined to just rifles? Dice the data finely enough, and you can make any point. I'm sure more people died from unclean nail clippers than pink revolvers with ivory grips. Ban nail clippers! Right?

    On it's face it's a stupid argument even as sarcasm and does little to advance the case.

    Comment


    • #32
      I have three things to say. 1 anecdote and 1 fact relating to the original question, and one side comment relating to the discussion on the last page.

      First off, I have a fair number of acquaintances that own guns, and plenty that don't. Almost all of them are sharing the save our constitution/buy more guns facebook pictures. In the past couple months the number of those posts has probably doubled or tripled.

      The county I live in will not experience any increase in the number concealed carry permits issued. As of 2007 55 CCWs have been issued. At that time there were 246,000 people living in this county. That is approximately 0.022%. The sheriff here simply chooses not to issue any permits unless someone has either a lot of political influence, or some law enforcement ties.

      http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf

      Going back to that 14 year old who defended his house. Packsaddle asked about leaving children home alone with unsecured loaded guns. Nowhere in the article does it say the gun was either unsecured or loaded. For all we know the gun was securely locked in a gun safe in his parents closet, and when those parents felt their son was responsible enough to watch after his younger siblings they trained him on how to properly use the gun and gave him the safe combo.

      Comment


      • #33
        Growing up in the south in the 50's and 60's, we had several guns that were never locked up and a few were always loaded. I learned to shoot and, more importantly, firearm safety from the age of 5. Guns in my home were never used for play. Most of my friends growing up were in similar households. If firearms are locked up and unloaded, they are of no value to defend your home from invasion. That was brought up in the Heller case.
        Instead of punishing responsible, legal gun owners, we should teach markmanship and firearm safety to all children. They need to understand the actual damage that a firearm inflicts. Seeing the falacious action shows and movies along with less rough and tumble play makes the connection between a firearm and the damage that is inflicted an abstract concept.
        Address the problem through education and dealing with our mental health issues. How people store their firearms is an invasion of their privacy. I tought that the left wanted privacy rights but this destroys privacy rights.

        Comment


        • #34
          Fortunately, responsible and legal gun owners are not being "punished" nor is there any thought to do so.

          Comment


          • #35
            But they are being punished if their privacy is violated, they are told how they can protect themselves, they have to register for a guaranteed right, or their addresses are published by so called newspapers who will not do the same for convicted sex offenders. So yes, law abiding gun owners are being punished.

            Comment


            • #36
              Take a look at the summary of Feinstein's new legislation. She is expanding the definition of assault weapons to include handguns and shotguns.

              http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

              "Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

              Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
              120 specifically-named firearms;

              Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

              Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds."

              Comment


              • #37
                To "punish" is to impose a penalty for a crime or other wrongdoing.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Fscouter,

                  So my use of the word is correct. When my rights are taken away, my privacy stripped, and my constitutional guarantees violated, then I will be punished. All gun owners are being punished for exercising their rights. Where is the outrage for the violation of our privacy? So someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and waking from a dead sleep, I have to find the key or remember the combination to the gun safe, open it, go to a separate location to get the ammunition, load the gun, only then can I protect my family. That was not the intent of the founding fathers. If I cannot have a loaded firearm near me in the middle of the night, then I have no protection. Stripping those rights is punishing people for exercising their rights. It is wrong minded.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Why is "shall not" such a difficult concept for some people to understand?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Same reason that "well regulated" is so difficult for some folks to acknowledge.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A child gun access prevention law is hardly a stripping of constitutional rights. Indeed, if the gun folks on their own would figure out how to prevent kids from accessing guns and killing each other, there may be no need for access prevention. Until then, its not unreasonable to ask gun owners to keep their guns secured when they are not home. Failing that, you government will make an attempt to do so.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Same reason that people ignore the original meaning of "well regulated" and instead choose to define it to suit their modern purposes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yah, vol_scouter, I'm not quite followin' your argument.

                            If there is a law with civil or criminal penalties for leavin' a firearm unsecured where access is afforded to untrained minors below a certain age or to adults with mental issues, how is that an invasion of privacy? Da law only comes into effect if yeh have been a bonehead and your kid walks out of da house unsupervised with a loaded gun, or shoots his best friend in your living room while you were out at a movie.

                            Doesn't strike me as much of an invasion of privacy. Does strike me as appropriate penalties for irresponsible gun owners.

                            Or, alternately, if yeh really feel da need to keep loaded weaponry around your house because yeh are afraid of imminent invasion of your house in quiet suburban wherever, then demonstrate by insurance or surety bond that yeh are prepared to pay da societal costs of an incident or accident.

                            I'd have no problem with that. Of course, I live in da rural/suburban upper midwest, and about da only home invasion I worry about are da neighbor's cat that seems to like our yard more than theirs.

                            But let's flip it around here so that yeh move out of bein' da "Party of No" a bit. I agree with yeh about addressin' mental health. What taxes would yeh increase to provide da resources to do a better job with mental health for youth and young adults?

                            I agree with yeh on not allowin' those with mental health issues access to firearms. What diagnoses or Rx drug prescriptions do yeh feel should disqualify someone for firearms purchase? For possession? For ammunition purchase? How do yeh feel about Docs responsibilities in prompt reporting? Do yeh think da guns and ammo already owned by someone who gets a new diagnosis should be confiscated?

                            You and I and every gun owner or hunter have known folks who were irresponsible or silly with firearms, includin' around kids. YouTube is full of such things, eh? How would yeh address da irresponsible folks among us?

                            And lastly, firearm injury and death have genuine social costs that are significant in da U.S. You believe in personal responsibility, as do I, so how do you suggest we as firearm owners protect society at large from da incidental costs of our hobby? Surely folks who don't own guns shouldn't be taxed or otherwise bear the burden of some of us exercising our "rights". That just ain't just. So what do we do to indemnify society from da unintended consequences of our hobby?

                            Beavah

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Since when does "Guns present in home" belong in my medical records?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Doesn't have to be, JoeBob. As a pilot, if I get an Rx or diagnosis of certain types my medical license to fly is goin' to get suspended. I don't know enough about medicine, but it seems like if yeh get certain types of diagnoses or prescriptions that your license to buy ammunition might be similarly suspended. But I'd like to hear vol_scouter's thoughts. He's the doc.

                                Since yeh brought it up, though, I'd give yeh da same challenge as vol_scouter, eh? Instead of being the Party of No, offer some constructive solutions. If mental health is da issue (I agree with vol_scouter that it is a big issue), what taxes are yeh goin' to increase to help with da issue? What freedoms are yeh willing to surrender in allowing more easy involuntary commitment, without a jury of 12 people?

                                Should us gun owners bear da cost or responsibility of our guns fallin' into the wrong hands? Or are we like da bankers who believe they should get private gain with public risk and public bailout?

                                If we believe in da NRA's solution of armed guards in schools, I think da cost estimates are between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year. That's a tax of $20 on every individual gun owned. Per year. Are we willin' to step up and pay that cost to keep our freedom? Or are we just whiners who want to have our hobby at da public expense, without takin' any responsibility?

                                Just wonderin'.

                                Beavah

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X