Gun control brainstorming?
 

Instead of derailing another thread, I decided to try and start a new one on gun control. I would like to know where you stand on the issue and what direction you would like to see the issue heading. I would also like to see ideas that you think might actually be accomplished. Try to be realistic. Please realize that this is a brainstorming session, so no personal attacks please. Differing opinions are great, but nobody should have to be told they are idiots or that their ideas are stupid. I find that very counter-productive to honest discussion


As a conservative, I feel it is my right to own a gun. I wouldn't say I have a huge arsenal, but I have a variety. I have a large and small caliber handgun. I have a 12ga shotgun. I have a 7mm and a couple .22 rifles. I also have a couple fun guns such as a Marlin .357 magnum lever action rifle. I got my first .22 as a kid on 20 acres and started out plinking pop cans. I took a hunter safety class at 14 so that I could hunt, but wasn't the world's best and really didn't enjoy it much. I have taken other classes through the years and at one point had a CCP, although I don't currently have one. To me education is the best form of gun control. I am certainly not against needing education, training, and some sort of license/permit to have guns. As I said in another thread, you need them to drive a motor vehicle and they can be as deadly as a gun. This is not a disclaimer, but just to provoke thought of how many more people would die by vehicle if people were just allowed to jump in a car and hit the road without a clue. That would be my start on gun control. I think that a slow change is going to be the most effective as I don't see big, fast changes being anything but political fodder. Please remember, brainstorming, not fighting.

BTW, I haven't hunted since I was a teenager. I find the thought of needlessly taking a life not to my liking. I am not a vegetarian, but I won't kill the meat I eat. I don't fish either. I remove spiders from the house for the wife by taking them outside. I am not completely pure though...I have no problem killing flies or defending myself, verbally or physically.
Marc

Marc,
The issue, in my opinion, is not control of the guns, it is the controll of the people who have them. Your point in other threads are exact, to the point and correct.

I stated in another thread that the Pareto 80/20 rule applies. Most guns are owned by few people. Thes few people will likely never be the problem.

it appears to me that the typical shooter isa person who aquires guns in a short time before the assault. They buy their guns days. weeks, or months before the assault. My point, this could be used as a statistic to identify potential hot spots.

A person wants to buy a gun, okay, but first require a safety course and possibly a defined psych profile workup. No, I don't like this, but something does need to be done.
Once this person passes safety tests and profiles allow them to have a gun. If they want a second, make them wait for awhile, and so on.

After a time, this person will lose interest or not. My point, those who have a strong interest in firearms and are not nuts would continue to buy and sell. This system would not alter that. Those are the folks who should be allowed to do this.

The lunatics would not tolerate this and would go else where. I gues I bleieve that "real" gun hobbyists are not the problem and that it would be possible to identify the nut cases with a well thought out system. This is the only real chance of curbing and preventing these tragedies.

Mark

I support the second amendment, but believe our society has developed a serious problem that involves the misuse of guns. I believe we take too lightly the he-man bravado we surely possess that leads to our flippant attitude towards these deadly weapons. They are not toys. Collecting them is not like collecting Hummel figurines or Lps. Unlike nearly every other item people collect, most of them are designed to kill and have little to no other purpose.

It's time for us to begin treating them as such.

Browse through Youtube........It's full of people teaching small children how to fire guns and people using them in assinine and unsafe ways. I've been to the homes of people who have loaded guns laying around everywhere...and I'm sorry, but after you talk to such people for a few minutes, it becomes obvious that it's because they're paranoid.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is some truth to the assertion that "Guns don't kill people, people do." and it's this;

I've met the crazy people and it is us.

The numbers don't lie, our track record for gun violence is, AFAIK, the worst in the world, save for countries embroiled in outright war and everyone but the average American seems to know it.

What to do? I'm not sure. Because, as I've said, I support the second amendment. I would like to retain the right to own a gun, should I decide I need one. But, bear in mind, it's only the massive proliferation of guns and the Dirty Harry attitude of my fellow countrymen towards them that has me thinking about it.

In summation; You people are fucking whacked and you're beginning to frighten me.:p

Regards,
Dave

Funny that all my guns are at a friends house in his gun safe because I don't want to have to deal with any possibility of my 5 year old granddaughter accidentally getting her hands on one of them in one of "Papa's" bouts of stupidity.

Dave,
Sorry, I have to take isue with this point.
In the origination of the gun, that was true, but in today's world, in the US, there are many more reasons for guns. Those go way beyond killing.

If your statement were in fact true, most guns would only be used to kill. That would mean that the death rate from firearms would be astronomical.

Sorry, but I have to call this one out.
Mark

Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.

I doubt it, I bet they would go up and used in conjunction with the gasses and explosives.

I didn't find his post uncivil. At least he he didn't call anybody out by name and try to make them look bad. I believe I said to try to be realistic also. Try to remember that when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.

A thought.

The right to bare arms is guaranteed in the consitution - some debate as to it meaning, but it is there.

The right to buy ammunition is not.

Out law premade or manufactured ammunition and control who can buy the supplies and tools to make ammunitions.

Just a thought like I said.

"nobody should have to be told they are idiots or that their ideas are stupid."

Dave said "you fucking people are whacked"

Whacked is generally interpreted as either "crazy" or "assassinated".
Did you think Dave was telling us we'd been killed by a hit man?

I own about a dozen guns from a couple of .22's, to a .223, a .270, three shotguns, 2 muzzleloaders, a older 38 Colt revolver, and some older relics. Not a single one is an autoloader. In fact, I've only owned one autoloader and it was a .22 Marlin and an unreliable, inaccurate POS that I quickly sold.

I think we could a long ways by prohibiting pistol ownership to all but those involved in the military and public safety. The general public, excluding criminals and the mentally ill, could own non-autoloading long arms with a maximum of 5 shot magazines (with mandatory background check and training). Everyone who wanted to could protect their home/property with a 12 gauge pump, the best home defense weapon there is, bar none.

Loaded weapons would only be allowed on one's private property, at licensed ranges, or in the field in the hands of licensed (and trained) hunters. Any violations would be severely punished.

This pretty much describes the gun laws in places like Canada, Australia and Western Europe and it works in reducing gun crime significantly. I have family in Canada and have lived 11 years in Germany. In neither place do people feel deprived of the right to bear arms under these restrictions. It still freaks me out a bit to see guns sold like bicycles at places like Walmart.

Marc, I find it interesting that you are not a hunter and do not keep the firearms in your possession. That leaves me with the question of what is your actual interest in the guns. Do you still enjoy shooting them? Do you appreciate them for their design? The analogy I might make - weak as it is - is that even though I don't sew, I bought an old sewing machine at a garage sale because I was fascinated by how well constructed it was and by the precision with which it ran.

I would also ask anyone where one might draw the line for the type of weapons which individuals might be allowed to own? Is there strong opposition to restrictions on private ownership of machine guns or bazookas? Would it be practical for there to be highly regulated repositories for automatic weapons, including machine guns, for those who would want to have the experience of shooting them?

Regards,

D-Ray

I'm pretty sure parts of Canada are like here in Alaska, and hunters are not the only ones packing heat. Anyone working or recreating in bear country is carrying, and lets just say many of you would not find some of these people "competent". Doesn't mean they should be denied the right to defend themselves, from bears or humans.

For the good of the rest of the nation and your own well-being, carry a slug-loaded 12 gauge pump or a .45-70 Guide Gun. It'll get a bear's attention, as opposed to that pop-gun you carry on your hip. A .44 Magnum to his center of mass will just make him more determined to kill you before he ultimately expires (with you in his belly). Plus, if you're out hunting, your rifle intended for moose will dispatch a bear far better than any pistol. Also, there are damn few people who are capable of accurately shooting a high caliber handgun, much less at a charging bear.

Ah, but they would be deprived of the right to drive into bear country until they demonstrated that they had the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Should the not also be deprived of the right to operate a firearm until they prove that they have the ability to safely do so?

Regards,

D-Ray

Sounds logical, and I don't have any problem with CC licensing, got a permit myself. It's not an Alaska permit, because we have no requirement. Anyone can carry concealed here, yet (check the stats) our murder rate with firearms is way, way down the list, so the numbers don't support the notion.

"In summation; You people are fucking whacked and you're beginning to frighten me.:p"

What, because of that? Note the smilie.(:p) This means the comment was little more than a friendly jab at people in general, not a personal insult.

Regards,
Dave

Other than static display of collectables, target and skeet shooting, what else are they used for?:confused:

And, our death rate from firearms is unacceptable, is it not?

Regards,
Dave

Right, and I concur. What is so wrong with limiting the capability of such weapons so that it simply becomes more difficult to commit the heinous types of mass murder that has escalated in recent years?

I agree that we have (and should have) the right to bear arms. But, why so many see it so necessary that private citizens should own unlimited amounts of military grade weapons is, to me,..........just plain nuts. I see no reasonable explanation for it.

Regards,
Dave

Uh guys, fired a 12 ga lately? It will knock small women on their fannies.

Not if they are schooled in how to use it.

So you're weighing in in favor of mandatory training and licensing. ;)

Regards,

D-Ray

Nope, just proper advice in what to expect when shooting a 12 gauge shotgun and how to counteract the recoil.:) That has nothing to do with licensing. Don't follow Boreas and run for the touchdown without the football.:D

Since you had, in the past, proven yourself capable of rational thought, I had assumed that you would follow along on that course. :p

You know I'm just yanking your chain. :cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

Seems simple enough to me.

No semi automatics, one revolver, one rifle and one shot gun legal with registration.

I want the experience of lighting off a 50 megaton thermonuclear device. Mind if I repose it in your basement, Don?:p

Regards,
Dave

Not low brass field loads and/or a 20 gauge, which are more than enough to dissuade a perp (if the racking action of the pump shotgun isn't enough already).

Limit your hands to the chain, please!:D

Why don't you go milk a snake. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

Two questions and two answers.

First, have you ever been to a convention that interests you? Maybe star trek, or rocks and gems or audio gear? Why did you go? You could have just as easily bought what ever you went for over the internet or craigslist or some venue as such. You went because of the socail aspect and fun. In most of the rural communinites that I have lived, have friends, etc, guns are a huge social aspect. Pulling out a new firearm and showing it to the friends, going out and shooting it, and sitting around the dinner table talking about it are huge social times in some communities. It has nothing to do with the firearm, it is the social get together and community which surrounds it. Think of it as baseball. Why do we watch or participate in that. I mean some idiot hit a round leather thing with a wooden stick - what possible useful purpose is there in that??

Second question, is the death rate from guns acceptable? No death rate that can be avoided is acceptable? Weather it be guns, automobiles, or pipe wrenches. If I believed for even a second that rules and laws around guns would stop this madness, I would be the first in law to sign up. I believe in all my heart and being that it will not work at all. Afterall, those who went to do these tragedies obviously had no regard for the lay anyway. Right?

Mark

EDIT: BTW - you listed three other things guns are used for besides killing too. One more, investment purposes. I know many people who buy guns with the purpose of financial investment. These are one of the few assest you can own that will actually increase in value with time.

There is no solution to the problem. Americans are never going to give up their weapons. It is too ingrained in our culture. If I could wave my magic wand I would make revolvers and pistols controlled, and allow of course rifles and shotguns for the normal everyday person who likes to shoot and go hunting. Automatic and semi automatic weapons would be illegal except for the police and Armed Forces.

Of course a person would still be able to massacre people with a rifle but at least the weapon would not be concealed so everyone has more of a heads up.

The fact remains anyone can do a three day waiting test, purchase a weapon, and kill anyone they want. The police are not clairvoyant. They only clean up the mess afterwards.

Congress will not even deal with the debt ceiling so anyone who is worried about new gun legislation should rest easy.

I thought of two or three things I could say in reply, but all were off the topic of the thread and I'm sure my wife would not have approved at all,(:eek:) so I'll bow out now!

That's why they call them "The better half".

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the topic of yanking anything other than a chain. :p :D

Regards,

D-Ray

Had to go out with the wife today. I must say it was nice to come in and see a lot of posts and nobody really getting nasty with each other. I also didn't want to turn the school shooting thread into this thread. All in all I'm quite pleased with the results so far.

I don't have guns in my house specifically for the sake of my granddaughter. She comes over to visit often, sometimes for extended visits, and if something happened to her through an error in judgement or some other brain fart I don't think I could forgive myself. Guns have an appeal to me akin to muscle cars, but guns are easier and less expensive to play with. At the risk of setting off another storm, I find automobiles and guns share a lot in common, especially with their appeal to men.

Not that simple. I don't feel I have too many guns, but as i stated before, I do have a variety. If I chose to keep my .357 revolver, my 7mm rifle, and my 12 ga shotgun, I would sorely miss my little 22 auto pistol. Fun and inexpensive to play with, but not as practical as the bigger gun for protection. I would also really miss my Marlin 1894C. That is probably my funnest gun to shoot, although it gets expensive in a hurry anymore, even if I load my own rounds.

I think I would rather have the 1894C hanging around versus a shotgun. The lever action can be as much a deterrent as a pump.

Not saying this necessarily applies to you, but;

If one feels that he doesn't have too many, or what he has isn't over the top, then, therefore, he doesn't and it isn't?

Interesting comment from a philosophical standpoint.
"I don't feel as though I have engaged in excess, therefore I haven't."

Oh, and what you said about guns and cars.....

I believe it's the badass factor, that could be applied to a number of things;
Powerful guns, fast cars, women with huge bazongas, big speakers and powerful amps.
Pick your poison, one, some or all.

Regards,
Dave

Funny the context you put that in. I do feel I have too much audio equipment. A Thorens TD145 and a RekOKut R33 with an Empire 98 arm. Gotta have one for MM and one for MC, right? Kind of like using a small caliber for cheap plinking with pop cans or teaching a kid to shoot, but also having a large caliber for defense and maybe shooting a gallon jug full of water.

But that won't stop an asshole like Bloomberg, or Limbaugh for that matter, from politicizing the work of a lone nut case. The culture of violence put forth and wrongly idolized by the same vehemently antigun zealots, Hollywood, is more responisble than access to firearms. Also, in the Sandy Brook case, the guns, by most reports, belonged to the mother and were legally obtained by a presumably sane person. Legalizing drugs, thus lowering gang activity, would likely decrease firearm homicides more than restricting gun availability and would have the side benefit of actually increasing individual choice and freedom.

So we should censor Hollywood and free speech/expression and legalize drugs to keep people from killing each other? There's an avenue I didn't foresee.

Japanese movies,tv and comics are much more violent than Hollywood...have you seen some of the Manga(?) books? Yet the murder rate by handgun is very very miniscule. Your argument is a spurious correlation.