GolfHos

Not to make light of Seamie's post at all but he brought up the ease with which we may buy guns in the U.S.  Specifically handguns.

Thoughts?  Not to go all 2nd Amendment here 'cuz I'm not really "that guy" but I enjoy guns.  I don't want a CCW and I don't keep a loaded machine gun under my pillow.  I just like to shoot for sport.  It's a great deal of fun. 

Grew up hunting birds and shooting trap too.  Shotguns are a blast.  Need to get back into that.  Never been big on long guns other than owning the obligatory Utah boy's .22 rifle.

Pro guns.  Anti nut-jobs.

(I put the P&R tag on this just 'cuz but it's my hope this remains REALLY civil.)

I stand to inherit a large collection of antique rifles/shotguns,  of course none of them are really functional I think.

Grew up learning to shoot with a couple of 22's.  Still prefer target play with archery though overall.   Don't currently own any firearms. Looking to change that though in case end-of-civilization plays out.
 [sm_devil]

I think I fall squarely where you are Wiskers.  I own a shotgun and and enjoy sport clay shooting.  Haven't done it a few years.


My take.  We need gun control.  Period.  I think what needs to happen is we need to take the blinders off, and stop pacifying some groups, and just take a hard line.

Identify the weapons, and make the change.  Period.

Both sides feign confusion.  Bull*feces*!

You can have this:

(http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/remington1100.jpg)

You don't need this.   And you know it.

(http://www.investmentgradefirearms.com/images/M16.jpg)

eFcVwDw4YLE

 ;D

I don't own a gun, but I don't support stringent gun control (read: bans).  I do think one should have a thorough background check before the firearm may be delivered.  And "thorough" takes in people who voluntarily check into mental health facilities as those who have sought mental health care within the last, say, three or five years.  You can do the latter by diagnosis codes rather than get deeply into private health records.

Stroh, one aspect of We The People being armed is to enable said People to stand up to the Government, with force if necessary.  Not that I think We stand a chance in hell, but that's a bedrock notion underlying the Second Amendment.  Between that and the fact that shootings really aren't being committed with AK-47s, the push to ban assault weapons seems more like the government trying to weaken the capabilities of the people they seek to prevent from throwing off a yoke of tyranny, should that situation arise.

And the NRA defends against it, realizing (correctly, I believe) that once Government and gun-control advocates are permitted to "line item veto" certain weapons, they will not be content with merely assault weapons and will target the next deadliest weapon ... and then the next ... and then the next ...  Ban assault rifles, watch the gun-related death rate not fall substantially, blame it on the most lethal weapon now available, ban that one too, rinse and repeat.  For this reason, otherwise rational people who themselves don't think assault rifles should be in private hands nonetheless find themselves forced to defend against a call for exactly that ban.

To my mind, the trick isn't keeping all guns away from people, it's keeping guns away from the wrong people.  I don't mean laws should make it harder to purchase a gun, but they should make it harder for people with documented mental imbalances and criminal records to obtain them.  Laws should mandate training in use and safety, including safe home storage.  Penalties for gun-related crimes should be stiff -- something like an automatic 50% surcharge on the sentence, for example.

Done rambling.  8)

how much $ and time does it take to get licensed to drive car ?
how much to own a gun?
in the hands of the stupid or the irresponsible (or even the physically/mentally) disabled  both become equally lethal.

I also grew up in a family that hunted.  I did the gun safety course thing as a youngster and fequently went dove, quail, geese and duck hunting up until I was near 16.  By then I pretty much lost interest and found other things to do with my time.  So I have no real problem with guns designed for sport be it shotguns or rifles.  I still have my over and under 20 gauge shotgun from back in the day.

But I agree with stroh that we need serious gun control and I don't feel automatic weapons are necessary at all.  The ease with which one can easily get an assault weapon is sickening.  And I think the idea that more people should legally own and carry them to make "us" safer is ridiculous.  I think an outright ban on assault weapons would be best.  Notice the VT kid got all his stuff legally.  At least make the loaner that has no friends and may someday snap try real hard to get one by finding the black market.  Not sure how that loaner with no friends can come up with one illegally.  We all know I buy certain black market items but would have no idea where to find all those black market assault weapons all the criminals supposedly have connection towards so says the NPR wingnuts.  Not to mention the guns that end up there were meant for legal sale of some sort.  

I also am not so naive as to say the issue is that simple.  We are terrible at addressing mental health in this country.  We sweep it under the rug and act as if it doesn't exist.  So many children and young adults have no access to quality help should they need it.  I think mental health should be near the top of our priorities when we strive for access to health care.  That is the real crisis that we aren't doing anything to solve.   So we have isolated masses often with undiagnosed or misdiagnosed health issues that can easily go out one day they snap and kill as many people that are in the room.  If anyone has seen someone on the wrong medication or combination of medicines for their mental illness.  It can make a "normal" person do crazy ass things.

Ignoring the inapt analogy between the role automobiles and firearms in American society ...

When's the last time you read about a teenager smuggling his Honda Civic into high school and killing 15 people with it?

Over here, to own a gun is a privilege not a right.
To buy a gun you need a license and need to be checked out etc etc.
Of course the unsavory scrum are going to get their grubby little hands on a gun, but I feel it stops the majority of nutcases from getting their hands on a gun and causing carnage.
I feel much safer with our gun laws.

 [sm_devil] :'( [sm_devil]

seldom.  I do read about them getting drunk and killing themselves/friends/ and whatever they crash into  pretty often.   last time i checked, IIRC,  there are 4-5 more auto deaths in 'merka than gun deaths.  just pointing out that maybe we could drop that to 10-1  [sm_devil]

Therein lies the problem with that particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment--one of practicality. If We The People stand up to the government, whether it's with an AK-47 or a pea-shooter, we're going to get our asses kicked. What practical purpose does this amendment serve then? The ONLY way any individual (or a group of individuals) has any chance of standing up to a tyrannical US government would be with nuclear arms. Does the 2nd Amendment give me the right to put a ballistic missile silo in my backyard? If not, where is the line drawn in regards to what kind of "arms" are applicable to this amendment?

In this modern society, in which the vote, IMHO, is much more powerful than back in 1787 (simply because of our ability to exchange information), the 2nd Amendment's usefulness as a practical means to stand up to the government is obviated. All it is now, is a symbolic measure of freedom--nothing more.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html#

who knew 40 year old white women offed themselves so often?

completely agree.  Then why the "militia" part to the amendment.  If everyone was entitled to a handgun in their pants, why add the "well regulated militia" part?

let's all take a step back and look at this whole constitution thing.


(http://www.hbo.com/events/rwuhl/img/homepage/season2/main_notune_in.jpg)

Do you think the colonists were confident they'd defeat the Germans?

--John Blutarsky

Only scanned the responses so forgive me if I'm unoriginal or redundant:

My grandfather was a real-live cowboy, mister, and he slept with a loaded revolver within arms reach until the day he died. My dad owned a .44 Magnum revolver and a 10 gauge shot gun, which my mom asked him to get rid of when we were teenagers. He hunted as a kid, but not when he got older. Today, for reasons unannounced to me, he is pretty anti-guns. My older brother and one of my uncles don't even go out to get the mail without packing heat. I've seen some pretty rabid exchanges between all of them.

I have never owned a gun, but have shot plenty of them. I won't lie, I like shooting guns. I fail, however, to find any personal need to own one. I am neither specifically pro-gun nor anti-gun.

I do favor gun control to a certain degree, i.e.- more stringent background checks, eliminating "free trade" guns at gun shows, etc. I don't believe anyone outside of the military has a true need for an assault rifle, but I also don't believe that banning them outright would have any effect whatsoever on the number of firearm homicides.

Guns are such a fully entrenched part of America's culture, I don't honestly see how you could possibly eliminate them in a safe or effective manner. And yeah I do buy the line about only outlaws owning guns. I don't, however, buy the rhetoric about more guns making society safer, nor do I buy the rhetoric about keeping government in check.

I think too many assumptions are made about the ability of the average gun owner to be able to safely and accurately assess, draw, aim, and fire in a high pressure situation. I don't care how many clips a person can unload squarely in the middle of the target at Lee-Kay firing range, as Han Solo said "good against remotes is one thing, good against the living? That's something else." I think the discussion about "imagine how VT would have been different if every student had a gun" is simply speculation about how things would be different if things were different.

Regarding keeping the government in check: if push came to shove, the U.S. Military would flatten any domestic insurgency threat fairly handily. Yeah, it's probably the original intent of the 2nd amendment, but I believe the idea is a relic. Anyone who truly believes it applies to modern weaponry or the modern military is fooling himself. Personally, though, I give our military more credit than that. I don't honestly believe there is a scenario in which our entire military would turn on the people of the U.S. at the command of any government leader or body. Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe the vote and access to information is what keeps the government in check (mostly).

I also believe the "well regulated militia" clause is important, and I don't think it was accidental. However, what amounted to a well regulated militia in 1776 is not the same in 2008. Unfortunately, our founding fathers, while having some pretty good ideas, couldn't see into the future. Of course I can only speculate as to what they might have written if they were able to know what the world would be like 232 years later. So I won't.

Guns might not kill people, but they make it a lot easier to do so. A world without guns is a world without VT shootings, drive-by killings, etc. Unfortunately, however, I don't think, given the American psyche, that a world without guns is an attainable goal. Therefore, I try to be pragmatic about my approach to the subject. The genie is out of the bottle, and I see no realistic way to put it back in. Keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is simply not a practical approach, but I believe more could and should be done to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Unfortunately, I believe the overinflated rhetoric on both sides of the issue prevents meaningful action.

A good start might be an iPhone for guns exchange.

Lousy trade. ;)

One of the better posts on this topic on any board I've read.  [sm_thumbsup2]

agreed with most of it myself.

about a specific point.  if the founding fathers saw what this country had become today (particularly last 8 years)  they'd be sick.

Good goin' spacey.  I knew you had it in ya.  [sm_thumbsup2]

I agree. Now try to figure out what he edited from his original post.

He removed two occurrences of 'irregardless'. 

However, he missed changing 'clip' to 'magazine'.

If only the framers had a "Modify" button...

I agree with just about all of this.

Irregardless, I'd think it would be useful to try to run the 'gun free society' experiment.  Logic dictates that fewer people will be dead from random acts of violence.

ps, I used to hunt....back during my "walk through the woods with a purpose" phase

[sm_devil]

(I forgot to complete my statement about what I naively believe keeps the gov't in check. Though reading it over again, I could probably add a few more "however"s and a handful of additional commas.)

I idly wonder what percent of Americans believes that his/her vote does not exert non-trivial control over the government.  If the two percentages are roughly the same, perhaps we should also talk about banning the "right" to vote?

I'll be honest with, I got bored about a paragraph into it.

Jericho.surrenders

This sums up my feelings as well. People 200 years ago would never have guessed what the world is like today. The intent was to allow the people in the late 1700's to be able to defend themselves from invading armies, ie Brittan. The army back then was basically armed farmers. The world was different when that document was written. Most people that read it don't take that into account, read NRA.

I don't have any guns only because Darla does not want any in the house. If I could I would have a pistol, rifle, and probably a shotgun. I too love shooting for sport.

I will leave it as I really dont have anything else to contribute other then I am glad this is civil and most of us agree. If anyone was to disagree I still think we would be civil.

Peace out brother hos.

The only problem I can see with a ban is that it simply will not work.  How's the ban working on drugs?  They're illegal, yet people still get their hands on them.  I'm going to veer of topic for a bit here.  We'd probably be better off legalizing drugs.  Think about it, the gangbangers wouldn't have the drug turf to fight over.  The gov't could tax it and regulate it in the same manner as they do alcohol.  Back on the gun topic.... Sure, you might get the law abiding citizens' guns out of circulation, but the thugs aren't going to just walk into the police station and hand over their weapons.  When I do get my weapon of choice, the only way I will give it up is when I am dead.

my face hit the keyboard about that time but i soldiered on irregardless.

i used to competitively shoot trap and skeet but those guns are long gone. i owned a .357 years ago but got rid of it when we started procreating. now i just own a double barrel 12 gauge for protection couzin i lives in da hood.  :watchingyou: