|
Post by lurkingsince2001 on Jun 24, 2016 22:30:15 GMT
I have stayed out of this discussion for a long time. Please consider I am being thoughtful, not inflammatory in my thoughts. First, when did we start blaming the method criminals use to kill people rather than the criminals? Tim McVeigh was blamed for the Oklahoma bombing, not the truck & explosives. 9/11 was blamed on the terrorists, not the airplanes. The two kids who caused the death and destruction at Columbine were blamed, not the tools they used. People did wonder how they were able to get the weapons and products for the bombs without the parents knowing. What has changed to create murderers like the idiot who shot up Pulse? There have been criminals murdering people for decades. The tools of death have varied. The murders have been personal or in the commission of a crime, if they don't know the person. We still have that gang violence and such. What has changed to make these people desire to and act upon that desire, killing large amounts of people? I don't think it's the type of gun. I believe these people would have found any way to accomplish the ends. So, what has changed on the human level. As a person that supports the second amendment, there are changes I could get behind. I've always loathed the fact that Wal-mart can sell guns and ammo. Gun sales should be handled by licensed gun dealers. I haven't decided how I feel about private sales, though I am leaning toward the use of a gun dealer needing to do a background check. Are there laws that make commission of a crime with a gun much stiffer? On the other hand, I don't trust congress to get legislation right. They don't exactly have a great track record. Plus, blanket legislation could backfire against citizens. For example, 'mentally ill people' being placed on a no buy list. There is a difference between people who are schizophrenic and people who have had issues with depression. So, do we place a person who had depression at one time on a no buy list, when their depression was triggered by say a medicine? Or, a person who went through a particularly trying time over a child's death, who hasn't had that issue for 20 years? If someone is put on the no-fly list, no guns: This is only as good as the no-fly list. I read a number of days ago (not sure where, sorry) that someone can end up on the no-fly list because a vengeful neighbor can report someone out of spite. Are they going to make being put on the no-fly list a bit more stringent? How do we so easily dismiss 'innocent until proven guilty'? Isn't taking away gun rights from people who have done nothing wrong a bit like that? Also, some scoff about the argument that Hitler disarmed his people. They state they could never happen here. Why? Don't you think the German people thought no harm would be done to them, too? Aren't we supposed to learn from history? Yes, I realize we need to learn from recent events too. I can't help think that ban-the-guns is a knee jerk reaction. A band aid of sorts which doesn't deal with the underlying issue. How are we supposed to learn what the underlying issue is when the NRA has pushed to disallow the CDC to study it? Personally, I don't understand the need to carry a gun when out in public. I've seen it done. It has never bothered me to see. Though after the theater & school shootings, the idea of all those people 'exercising their rights' does make me nervous. As much as some pro-gun people are damaging the rest of us, the call to ban-the-guns is also creating a problem with people who aren't trained obtaining and walking around with them. I have been around guns all my life. My grandfathers were hunters. My dad was a hunter. I married a man who taught me there were many different weapons and seasons for hunting. No person was ever killed because my family has had guns. He taught me to shoot. It's something that I enjoy. Though, I prefer the compound bow. While I don't feel I have to protect myself, I understand why someone might want one of the 'evil' guns. More rounds, plus little recoil, is a plus for a female. When he was choosing what to teach me to shoot, he was also teaching me about the recoil of certain ones. Told me he preferred I kept my smile as it was with one. We live in an area where hunting is part of the culture. Hunting and football. Our kids start handling and learning to shoot young--male and female. I've never really thought about this until recently. Basically, I would think it was assumed there are guns in area houses. Coincidentally, we don't have a problem with breaking and entering homes. Instead, we have a problem with thieves breaking into cars. I do believe any home that is gun free receives a measure of protection because they are the oddity here. Furthermore, the only time guns were talked about, in my experience, was when my son was young and going to stay with a new friend. We only wanted to know that if there were guns, they were locked up. So, that's my experience. I did not want to put this in one of the, um, inflammatory posts. You've made several of the same points that I have on other threads. Hopefully, this one goes better. It would be nice to have a conversation about the topic that doesn't involve so many assumptions and insinuations and less party lines.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 24, 2016 22:35:20 GMT
If we want to tackle the use of guns in crimes - we have to acknowledge the fact that the vast, vast majority all started out as legal purchases. It's what happened to them next. Take into account that theft is also a large part of "what happened to them next." And I realize the argument is that a responsible gun owner would have them secured, but that is still an issue to be reckoned with. Guns are also handed down through families. The original purchaser may be long dead. True - although the best data I've found (and granted the data isn't perfect) estimated between 10-25% of the guns used in crimes were stolen - definitely an issue to be tackled but was listed as secondary to straw purchases.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 9:02:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 22:41:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 24, 2016 22:45:10 GMT
If we want to tackle the use of guns in crimes - we have to acknowledge the fact that the vast, vast majority all started out as legal purchases. It's what happened to them next. Take into account that theft is also a large part of "what happened to them next." And I realize the argument is that a responsible gun owner would have them secured, but that is still an issue to be reckoned with. Guns are also handed down through families. The original purchaser may be long dead. We have a 22 rifle that has been passed around between pretty much every woman in my family who has lived alone. It originally belonged to my grandfather who has long since passed and at no time has there every been a record of it being passed around-except the keeper of the gun (my brother) who knows who has it when. My family is a case in point as to why there can be no one size fits all set of rules-I wouldn't even be able to tell you when or where the gun was purchased. Probably here in Florida, but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 22:45:56 GMT
oliquig : Thank you. Okay, so could you answer the next question, then?? Do you not see requiring gun registration as a potential for someone to possibly use that information at some point, i.e., an erosion of our personal rights?? There are MANY other items that someone can choose to cause harm to someone-- yet we don't register them. Should we register everything we purchase, just in case it could be used at some point in the future to harm someone?? By your thinking, it sounds like yes. (and FYI, from the internet research I just did, it seems that vehicle registration came about largely as a way for local municipalities to collect taxes and revenue from the vehicles- starting with bicycles, wagons, horse-drawn coaches, etc.-- not for any reason that had to do with safety; so I don't get the connection.) Could you give me an example of how someone personal rights could be affected. I'm not being rude, I just can't think of one. ^^^ The italicized statement IS the crux of the matter for people who believe that the right to bear arms is to protect us, the citizens, from any potential overreach by the government against its own population. In and of itself the requirement to register guns / keep a list of who has what type of guns, etc. is seen by some as an infringement on an individual's personal freedoms. Some people also believe that if such lists were enforced, that information could be used at some future date to take away their guns which lessens citizens' power in the event that a tyrannical government comes about. One school of thought is that the second amendment / an armed general citizenry is as much to protect us 'regular' citizens from any potential government hostility as much as to protect the individual citizens in their homes from intruders / criminals, or any other reason people may own guns. Otherwise, there would be no way to protect us, the citizens, from any potential hostility directed at ourselves by our own government if something like that ever did happen. (i.e., if some situation arose where the government declared martial law and we ended up with a despotic, tyrannical leader who tossed out the Constitution, made himself 'supreme leader' and used the standing army - which IS armed with weapons- against the rest of the population. If the general population were made to give up ITS guns, there would be nothing we citizens could do against this government tyranny.) I'm not saying this will happen, or that it won't happen-- but it IS one of the many reasons why some people want to be armed.
|
|
|
Post by Spongemom Scrappants on Jun 24, 2016 22:45:56 GMT
The no-fly list is a drop in the bucket of people who perhaps should not own guns. That deals with suspected terrorism. There are plenty of poor, disenfranchised people who use guns to commit crimes... and have never even been near an airport, much less flown anywhere.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 24, 2016 22:57:26 GMT
There is only so much that one can do to secure anything. Keeping something from being stolen is a major problem when thieves will take out a giant safe and haul it away, or just break into it right there. I'm talking a several hundred pounds heavy, five foot tall safe. People have taken to bolting them down to the concrete floor and also facing the opening part of the safe door next to a wall to make a pry bar very difficult to open it. Here is a video showing how easy it is to break into a large safe that is not secured to the floor. Laying it down is a plus for the thieves because they need it away from the wall, and to get leverage to open it:
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 24, 2016 23:04:33 GMT
If guns were the problem Wyoming would be more dangerous than Chicago or Detroit, but it isn't. The entire state of Wyoming has less than a million people spread out over a large area (6 people per square mile vs almost 12,000 in Chicago). Not exactly an apple to apples comparison.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 23:11:24 GMT
there was a string of ATM thefts here in the Valley a number of years ago-- yes, entire ATMs (forklift, backhoe, etc.), so pretty much anything transportable can be stolen, if you try hard enough.
(...just sayin' )
thank you to whoever posted the cartoon about the No Fly List; it was very informative (in a sad way).
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 24, 2016 23:13:26 GMT
Alright, I'll concede on the registering.
But let's move to my other points.
Extended clips. Why can't all guns just shoot the regular amount. Why sell them at all?
Also why allow sales of guns at gun shows at all?
And to answer someone's earlier question about why shouldn't you be able to sell a gun to a friend whom you know has guns and who passed a background check five years ago. Well just because someone passed a check five years ago does not mean she/he would pass one today. Maybe you didn't know that his/her ex took out a restraining order on him/her and the reason he/she wants to buy privately is because they can't buy it from a dealer.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 24, 2016 23:16:05 GMT
Tim McVeigh was blamed for the Oklahoma bombing, not the truck & explosives. There are actually regulations in place regarding the sale of fertilizer as a result of this, particularly anhydrous ammonia (liquid fertilizer). Due to it being used to make bombs and manufacture meth.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 23:25:31 GMT
"Also why allow sales of guns at gun shows at all?"
^^^ but-- if people don't want guns sold at Walmart, or pawn shops (both of which are licensed firearms dealers, yet people in this thread have said they wished they didn't sell guns) then where WOULD guns be allowed to be sold??
People that are in the business of selling guns, who do so at a gun show-- ARE ALSO licensed firearms dealers. It's no different than scrapbook companies having an expo at a convention center, and me going there to buy scrapbook paper-- everyone who exhibits at a gun show is a licensed business.
Is what you really mean "why allow PRIVATE sales of guns at all??"
And there have been answers to that already, as well-- many people ARE all FOR doing background checks on the purchaser in a private transaction, as well, but it is potentially prohibitively expensive and there is no system set up for a private individual to DO it.
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 24, 2016 23:30:01 GMT
"Also why allow sales of guns at gun shows at all?" ^^^ but-- if people don't want guns sold at Walmart, or pawn shops (both of which are licensed firearms dealers, yet people in this thread have said they wished they didn't sell guns) then where WOULD guns be allowed to be sold?? People that are in the business of selling guns, who do so at a gun show-- ARE ALSO licensed firearms dealers. It's no different than scrapbook companies having an expo at a convention center, and me going there to buy scrapbook paper-- everyone who exhibits at a gun show is a licensed business. Is what you really mean "why allow PRIVATE sales of guns at all??" And there have been answers to that already, as well-- many people ARE all FOR doing background checks on the purchaser in a private transaction, as well, but it is potentially prohibitively expensive and there is no system set up for a private individual to DO it. I never said anything about Walmart or pawn shops. There are states that allow private sales without background checks. Why should they be allowed to buy it there without the background checks, when it is required elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 24, 2016 23:32:51 GMT
"Also why allow sales of guns at gun shows at all?" ^^^ but-- if people don't want guns sold at Walmart, or pawn shops (both of which are licensed firearms dealers, yet people in this thread have said they wished they didn't sell guns) then where WOULD guns be allowed to be sold?? People that are in the business of selling guns, who do so at a gun show-- ARE ALSO licensed firearms dealers. It's no different than scrapbook companies having an expo at a convention center, and me going there to buy scrapbook paper-- everyone who exhibits at a gun show is a licensed business. Is what you really mean "why allow PRIVATE sales of guns at all??" And there have been answers to that already, as well-- many people ARE all FOR doing background checks on the purchaser in a private transaction, as well, but it is potentially prohibitively expensive and there is no system set up for a private individual to DO it. I don't know gun owners in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland and Pennsylvania have figured it out. If gun owners in other states find it just too hard, they should sell to a FFL. ETA my quick google list above of states requiring background checks for private purchases looks to be missing quite a few. This interactive map shows states requiring background checks for private sales - and if they're for handguns only: www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 24, 2016 23:41:06 GMT
And (a little tongue in cheek here) harping on me for a car comparison, then using a scrapbooking one is a little goofy.
I have brought up banning extended clips on several threads about guns, yet not one person has EVER responded to my question. Why do we allow the sale of them. Wouldn't it be better if the guns just took the standard amount?
Wouldn't that work if the favor of what people bring up all the time. That there could be a person with a CCL that could take the shooter down with the 8-10 seconds it would take to reload?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 24, 2016 23:41:26 GMT
BechyTech posted this on page 1 of this thread:
"sometimes private sales are lumped into "gun show loopholes" which is where some people argue. If I have a gun and want to sell it to a friend of mine - a person who has guns and has passed a background check from previous purchases - am I then required to pay a fee to get a background check on that person for this one-off private sale? (A fee that I understand can be pretty high, like over $250 or so.) Amazingly enough, there are a lot of private sales and purchases that are above board and legitimate. The question is much like crimsoncat05 phrased it above - why are gun sales and ownership presumed illegal and for bad intentions from the start?
Obama's January edict did address some of these questions but is vague about some specifics (like what defines a gun dealer)."
--and I was paraphrasing that statement (somewhat incorrectly; sorry about that) when I wrote what I did about private citizens conducting background checks for an individual sale.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 24, 2016 23:50:10 GMT
I looked up the process in Colorado, as I didn't know what a private seller needed to do to conduct a background check to initiate a private transfer. According to this site, the fee is $10 and the background check is conducted by a licensed dealer: smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-in-colorado/The site also lists the exclusions to the process (giving to immediate family member, inheriting, borrowing to shoot at a range, etc).
|
|
|
Post by carly on Jun 25, 2016 0:04:37 GMT
If guns were the problem Wyoming would be more dangerous than Chicago or Detroit, but it isn't. The entire state of Wyoming has less than a million people spread out over a large area (6 people per square mile vs almost 12,000 in Chicago). Not exactly an apple to apples comparison. Well yeah it is apples to apples. You can look it up by violence per 100,000 people. Until the real issues are addressed nothing will be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by carly on Jun 25, 2016 0:10:28 GMT
20% of people in Illinois own guns vs. 60% in Wyoming.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 25, 2016 0:14:10 GMT
I just looked, too-- the Arizona law is only that you not 'knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited possessor' but even though I looked more, I couldn't find any information out about how a private citizen can get a background check done if you DID want to do one. Maybe you have a licensed dealer do it?? But would you have to pay for it?? I couldn't find any answers to that. It seems like federal guidelines would be a lot better than having different ones for each state, depending on what the state wanted to enact.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 25, 2016 1:02:45 GMT
I just looked, too-- the Arizona law is only that you not 'knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited possessor' but even though I looked more, I couldn't find any information out about how a private citizen can get a background check done if you DID want to do one. Maybe you have a licensed dealer do it?? But would you have to pay for it?? I couldn't find any answers to that. It seems like federal guidelines would be a lot better than having different ones for each state, depending on what the state wanted to enact. I'm sure the fact that it's not required in Arizona makes it more difficult for an individual who WANTS to conduct a background check to do so, as there's not a process already in place. This is an area where I agree with you that a federal guideline and process probably makes sense. If mandated to be a nominal fee similar to Colorado's $10, I think it's a good idea. I'm open to understanding drawbacks and whether reasonable exclusions should apply (immediate family members, inheritance etc)
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 25, 2016 1:03:17 GMT
Extended clips. Why can't all guns just shoot the regular amount. Why sell them at all? Regular is a relative term that is meaningless to me. There are videos aptly demonstrating how quickly a trained marksman can change out clips that hold less ammo. The amount of time for that sportsman to accurately shoot X bullets is barely different from someone with a clip that holds more. Notice I pointed out that this shooter with the smaller clips is also shooting accurately? That is often not the case with someone who is spraying bullets with a larger clip. Higher accuracy is deadlier.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 25, 2016 1:06:28 GMT
I have brought up banning extended clips on several threads about guns, yet not one person has EVER responded to my question. Why do we allow the sale of them. Wouldn't it be better if the guns just took the standard amount? That issue has been discussed on these boards along with multiple videos many times.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 25, 2016 1:10:54 GMT
And to answer someone's earlier question about why shouldn't you be able to sell a gun to a friend whom you know has guns and who passed a background check five years ago. Well just because someone passed a check five years ago does not mean she/he would pass one today. Maybe you didn't know that his/her ex took out a restraining order on him/her and the reason he/she wants to buy privately is because they can't buy it from a dealer. Here is a real life, typical scenerio of a private sale or exchange. Your husband is a hunter. He has a shotgun that is left to you, his widow, when he dies. You don't want to keep the gun. What do you do with it? These weapons outlast the people who originally owned them and are left to that person's survivors.
|
|
|
Post by txdancermom on Jun 25, 2016 1:11:00 GMT
I am not sure what the answer to all this is, I personally have no interest in owning a firearm of any sort. But I understand that some people do, and there are a couple of gentleman at church that regularly carry (I only recently found out that what I though was his cell phone holder on his belt is his concealed carry pouch!)
Also, I understand the desire to have a gun for hunting. But who goes hunting with an assault rifle? There is no real reason (that I can tell) for those being part of a personal gun collection. However, since they are out there, it will be hard to recall all of them, and they will end up on the black market.
There is some talk that we should prohibit someone on the no fly list, or the watch list, from buying a gun. One comment was if someone was on the list in error, you have violated their rights of due process. How about if someone shows up on one of those lists and they go try and buy a gun, the background check triggers a longer hold on the purchase (say an additional 10 days), and the person has to have a visit with an FBI agent. If the person shouldn't be on the list, and presents no danger, then let them complete the purchase. If they do present a danger you have prevented them from buying a gun.
Unfortunately, a reasonable compromise will never be reached, everyone thinks it is all or nothing, no compromise. Life is a compromise.
jmho
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 25, 2016 1:12:04 GMT
Extended clips. Why can't all guns just shoot the regular amount. Why sell them at all? Regular is a relative term that is meaningless to me. There are videos aptly demonstrating how quickly a trained marksman can change out clips that hold less ammo. The amount of time for that sportsman to accurately shoot X bullets is barely different from someone with a clip that holds more. Notice I pointed out that this shooter with the smaller clips is also shooting accurately? That is often not the case with someone who is spraying bullets with a larger clip. Higher accuracy is deadlier. How often is a trained marksman the one who goes hunting asst a school or a night club?
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 25, 2016 1:20:27 GMT
Regular is a relative term that is meaningless to me. There are videos aptly demonstrating how quickly a trained marksman can change out clips that hold less ammo. The amount of time for that sportsman to accurately shoot X bullets is barely different from someone with a clip that holds more. Notice I pointed out that this shooter with the smaller clips is also shooting accurately? That is often not the case with someone who is spraying bullets with a larger clip. Higher accuracy is deadlier. How often is a trained marksman the one who goes hunting asst a school or a night club? In the greatest sincerity - this is exactly what we as a nation should be concerned about. The truth is that there are people willing to lose their own lives who are at this moment training to take as many innocent people with them as they can. I believe that the fear factor of these particular weapons is being used as part of the terror, and I believe all the frenzy just feeds in to why these particular guns are used so often.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 25, 2016 1:24:38 GMT
But who goes hunting with an assault rifle? T An assault rifle is a military grade weapon capable of being set on automatic, so the answer to your question is pretty much no one. There are, however, quite a few hunters who do hunt with an AR15 type rifle. You have to understand that these rifles are easier for some people to use. One big attraction is that the stock is adjustable to fit people of different sizes. Having an adjustable stock put a gun on the most recent banned gun list.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 25, 2016 1:28:10 GMT
And to answer someone's earlier question about why shouldn't you be able to sell a gun to a friend whom you know has guns and who passed a background check five years ago. Well just because someone passed a check five years ago does not mean she/he would pass one today. Maybe you didn't know that his/her ex took out a restraining order on him/her and the reason he/she wants to buy privately is because they can't buy it from a dealer. Here is a real life, typical scenerio of a private sale or exchange. Your husband is a hunter. He has a shotgun that is left to you, his widow, when he dies. You don't want to keep the gun. What do you do with it? These weapons outlast the people who originally owned them and are left to that person's survivors. I don't think anyone is questioning on why a person would want to sell. It could be your scenario or my Dad's - he was no longer interested in hunting and didn't see any reason to have rifle hanging around. I think the "controversy" is what comes next. Should the gun owner be able to sell to anyone without a background check, should they only be able to sell to a FFL, should they be able to sell to anyone with a background check required, some other variation....
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 25, 2016 1:29:24 GMT
And to answer someone's earlier question about why shouldn't you be able to sell a gun to a friend whom you know has guns and who passed a background check five years ago. Well just because someone passed a check five years ago does not mean she/he would pass one today. Maybe you didn't know that his/her ex took out a restraining order on him/her and the reason he/she wants to buy privately is because they can't buy it from a dealer. Here is a real life, typical scenerio of a private sale or exchange. Your husband is a hunter. He has a shotgun that is left to you, his widow, when he dies. You don't want to keep the gun. What do you do with it? These weapons outlast the people who originally owned them and are left to that person's survivors. Sell it to a gun dealer or turn it into the police.
|
|