Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/28/2002 10:38:35 AM EST
Ok, so here I am cruising the boards and come up on a link for some brady campaign thing. Figure I'll check the site out of curiosity. I read some of the "stuff" they had posted and I want to ask some questions. This is something I've thought about over the years, and ya'll seem to be the people who have the most insight into it for me. Why is it that the media paints a picture that implies GUNS are bad? Why do they not realize that guns are simply a tool/instrument to be used according the the wielders intent? The brady site listed 30,000 deaths in 98 (oh, why 98 and not list stats for 01?)that were the result of firearms. Of those deaths 29,000 were either murder or suicide. If someone is bent on committing suicide they can do it without a gun just as easily as with a gun. Therefore those numbers (12,000) should not even be listed. It's pure idiocy to list them as a reason for more gun controls. Murder is a bit more trickier of a subject though. I honestly believe that if someone wanted to kill someone else you can do it without a gun just about as easy as with a gun. If guns were outlawed murders would still be committed. I'd even say that the rate of murder will climb because of the lack of self defense guns provide people. Now, lets say that guns were banned. Would this be a disarming of only the civilian population, or the country as a whole? If you only disarmed the civilian population then the only people with guns would be Military, Law Enforcement.......... oh, and criminals who decide to not obey the laws anyway. So, that won't be enough. Now you have to eliminate all guns. Except for the military of course. Soldiers do need something to fight with. Now you have a country where there are no guns outside of the military. Yes, you include law enforcement in that. I mean if there are no guns in the country why should LE have a need to shoot someone? This means that any gun found outside of a military base would be illegal and instantly destroyed. Now, it would take some time but pretty soon you'd have a disarmed country. This means that there is no more violence correct? After all, the big mean guns were the reason you had murders and such. Without guns you have no more violent crimes. Well except for the stabbing,muggings,beatings,raping and kidnappings. The only catch now is that your average citizen has no way to protect himself. It just doesn't make much sense to me to remove guns from law abiding citizens. In fact, we should be promoting gun ownership every day. The brady site listed that 39% of households own guns. To me that says there are 61% of the households out there with no protection. If a thief/rapist saw this number he has a better then average chance of finding a house to rob/pillage with no way to stop him.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 10:39:40 AM EST
------------------ Continuation What I do feel needs to be done is much more intensive education for gun owners. If the threat of gun removal was replaced with the idea gun ownership is good then we'd be less opposed to laws directed to guns and ownership. I mean, it's a good idea to ensure that only qualified people should own guns. People have to meet certain standards to drive cars, so why not the same for guns? If there was no fear of a government seizure of guns then I'm sure most everyone here would have no problems with mandatory licensing of all gun owners. To get your license you'd have to get a certain level of education about guns and ownership. These classes would teach safety, responsible ownership,concealed carry,marksmanship,proper storage in the home and whatever else would help to teach people the proper way to own a gun. There would also be an extensive background check. Once this is done though you can buy/own guns. If someone does commit a crime with a gun then punish the criminal, not the gun. Stiffer penalties for criminals are needed. Not stiffer controls on law abiding citizens. As you can see, this is a pretty big topic and there are alot of ideas to change the current system into something that would benefit both gun owners and the public at large. The reason I posted this is to see how others felt on this issue. Is there something in my thinking I'm missing or that I don't understand? If my ideas/thoughts on this matter are ok, then why doesn't the media/law makers understand what I do? Why are useless laws trying to be put in that only hurt law abiding citizens? Why is there not more support for self defense and harder punishment of criminals? Anyway, this is long enough. Please post your thoughts and help me try to understand the society we live in today. oh, some background info on me since this is like my first big post. I'm 25, spent 4 years in the infantry. Currently about to go into the Air Force. Married with 2 kids. I own several guns and believe strongly in the right for someone to own guns. I dont' watch the news or keep current with politics usually. I do vote for president though. I've moved alot in the last few years and never felt like I had enough background info on local stuff to vote for that though. Don't watch the news cause all it ever is about is people dieing or crimes. Why the news has to be negative I don't know. Personally I'd rather hear about the good stuff that happens to people rather then the bad.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 10:55:15 AM EST
There would still be a problem with licensing. Licensing is a form of registration, a list of those who own firearms, registration can be used for confiscation whenever the political winds shift. Freedom requires no license.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 11:51:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By chavr: I mean, it's a good idea to ensure that only qualified people should own guns.
View Quote
There was a time in our history where "qualified" would exclude people by the color of their skin. We currently get laws proposed that are aimed at getting guns away from blacks. Sure, they can only target poor people who aren't willing to sacrafice more to get a gun, and that means there are other ethnic groups that are affected, but the overall intent is no different than the gun control laws we had over a hundred years ago.
People have to meet certain standards to drive cars, so why not the same for guns?
View Quote
No we don't. You can put a 5 year old behind the wheel of your car on private property if you're so inclined. Just don't expect your insurance company to pay when he drives it into the tractor. You need a license to operate on public roads. The arguments in favor of licensing don't differentiate between use and ownership. In the case of cars, you need to show minimal capability to operate a car in public. For guns, the licensing proposals affect what you have in your safe that never sees the light of day. If by licensing, you're proposing something new that would allow average citizens who have the license to carry a loaded gun in court, just as a police officer can, or in any state in this country, then go for it. If you don't trust citizens that much, why should they trust you? Otherwise, it's a pointless restriction on honest citizens. Laws don't apply to criminals. I have to be concerned with the date of manufacture on my high capacity magazines because I'm a law abiding citizen. That law doesn't apply to someone who wants to kill me, because it's just a tack on charge to bargain with people who pose a danger to society.
If there was no fear of a government seizure of guns then I'm sure most everyone here would have no problems with mandatory licensing of all gun owners.
View Quote
How about mandatory book registration? By the way, the costs for the expensive national book registration will have to come out of your pocket, since it's unfair to make everyone pay the bill for you choosing to inconvenience the state by owning them. Look at Canada's licensing program for an example of how it would work here. They've spent enough money to buy a third world country outright and have a system filled with garbage that doesn't affect a single criminal.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 11:52:44 AM EST
To get your license you'd have to get a certain level of education about guns and ownership. These classes would teach safety, responsible ownership,concealed carry,marksmanship,proper storage in the home and whatever else would help to teach people the proper way to own a gun. There would also be an extensive background check. Once this is done though you can buy/own guns.
View Quote
We either have a right to be armed or we don't. If Billy-Bob-Better-Off-Dead-As-Far-As-I-Care has never done anything wrong and has to jump through hoops based on some perceived danger, it's a privilege, not a right. Likewise, if Billy Bob doesn't have that right, neither do I. That's the problem with freedom, you can't have it yourself unless you're willing to give it to others. Would you like to have to take 40 hours of classes on etiquette, making people feel good, and doing thorough research before getting a license to post your question or opinion on the net? That would just be "common sense" first amendment licensing.
If someone does commit a crime with a gun then punish the criminal, not the gun. Stiffer penalties for criminals are needed. Not stiffer controls on law abiding citizens.
View Quote
If you don't comply with every single local, state and federal gun law at all times, you are a criminal. You don't have to ever hurt or threaten anyone to be a felon under our legal system. My map program gives the shortest route from my home to Phoenix. If I follow those directions, I go from Arizona to Arizona with a small stretch of California in the middle to get to the highway quicker. I could legally have a loaded AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in my truck at my origin and destination if I was so inclined. That alone would be a laundry list of serious crimes just for having followed the map. Whether you want to believe it or not, that's exactly the kind of case that laws are applied in, and anyone making a mistake like that *IS* guilty.
Top Top