Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Current events (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Gun control brainstorming? (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=5175)

mpholland 12-15-2012 10:04 AM

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

JCricket 12-15-2012 10:24 AM

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

BlueStreak 12-15-2012 10:39 AM

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

mpholland 12-15-2012 10:47 AM

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.

JCricket 12-15-2012 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 138884)
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.
Dave

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

Wasillaguy 12-15-2012 10:52 AM

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.

JCricket 12-15-2012 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy (Post 138888)
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.

mpholland 12-15-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy (Post 138888)
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 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.

JCricket 12-15-2012 11:20 AM

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.

Wasillaguy 12-15-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland (Post 138897)
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.

"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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.