Guns

[Anjobranco]

We have talk about racism, freedom of speech and religion.

So now i want to know your opinion about guns, and guns control.

I know that it is a very controversial topic in America.

Give your opinion on what should or should not be done, and what is your opinion on the system you have versus the European system

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blguntime.htm

 

http://people.howstuffworks.com/10-questions-in-gun-control-debate.htm

 

http://transatlantic-magazine.com/gun-control-europe-vs-out-of-control-united-states/

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/european-union

[Al Norris]

I think it should be noted that the colonization (and thus the "founding") of the U.S. was vastly different than that of the colonization of Europe. I don't think we need to get into this much further than to say, there were major differences in how people viewed themselves in regards to their "Lords."

Even at the height of English rule of the colonies, guns were a way of life to most Americans, back in the day. Guns meant the difference between having enough food to survive the winters and starving. Guns protected the people from the robbers and other malcontents, when the local magistrate or constable were hours, if not days, away from the immediate threat to life.

We can go on, for hours, about our treatment of the natives of that land, but it remains that guns were the only protection that most settlers had from, what they viewed as, savages.

Despite all the perceived injustices that were visited upon the American population by the British, nothing ignited the powder keg of revolution, until the British sought to disarm the populace. That particular fuse was lit in Boston. The explosion was the march on Concord and Lexington to confiscate the arms of those militias.

With all of that, as a backdrop to American thought, our newly formed Government was, at that time, the very antithesis of European feudal society. Our form of Government enshrines the individual and his personal freedoms and liberties. Much the the chagrin of the European Communities, I'm sure. However...

In the end, the form of Government that we finally achieved, codified that the right to arms was an individual right that preceded the formation of our Government.

One thing that is forgotten (or totally ignored), by those who wish to impose European styles of firearms regulation (and control) upon the population of the U.S., is that it is not the responsible, law abiding gun owner who is misusing their freedoms. It is a numerically small subset of the population that is, in fact, the criminal element of our society.

Legislating laws that strip guns from the law abiding does nothing to strip guns from the irresponsible criminal. Criminals, by their very nature, do not heed the law. What it does do is to make more and more people, criminal; Thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.

My thoughts and answers to your questions, will continue, later, after I return from work.

[ken barber]

First and foremost before we begin this debate I need to clarify. I own firearms and would never suggest the stripping of the right to bare arms. However we must realize that in the creation of the most sacred document of our land the "United States Constitution" the founder fathers in all their genius and men way ahead of their time realized in order for this new system of government to endure it must have the ability to  change.

 

With that in mind we have a congress that can enact or retract laws. Today gun control is a necessity.  A true firearms enthusiast would understand the importance of limiting access to these deadly tools. A true and honorable gun collector will understand and be willing to make the sacrifices needed to help prevent further horrific crimes committed with the very thing he treasures. 

 

Now for some facts. No we are not talking about the "Criminal Element" unless you are referring to corrupt firearms dealers that will sell to anybody without a thought or will willing turn a blind eye to straw sales. We are not talking about preventing grandma from keeping a 9mm in her nightstand to fend off would be home invaders we are talking about mass shooting in our schools, churches and at our jobs.

 

From the ATF:

Since 1982, there have been at least 70 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty-three of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013, including in Santa Monica, California, and at the Washington Navy Yard. The first five months of 2014 brought another bloodbath at Fort Hood, Texas, and mass killings in northern and southern California.

49 of these shootings were done with legally purchased firearms. 

Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns withhigh-capacity magazines.  Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes, along with anAR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

 

So I say this it has become apparent that my right to own firearms without regulation and control has become a distinct and obvious concern to the national security of this great nation. 

[Emperor Roland]

Ken, i again find myself having to disagree with you.  one thing that the article does not mention is that of those legally owned firearms, how many were owned by the person that used them?  I do not know the exact number, but the number is very low. 

 

also.  who's to say that every single one of those people could not have, and would not have done the same thing with a different type of weapon.  i am sure you have heard of many of the mass stabbings that have happened.  should we next ban knives?

 

now.. let me throw this out there.  did the gun kill those people, or did the person wielding the gun kill those people?  while mass shootings, especially at schools are terrible, more children died form swimming pool accidents.  should we ban swimming pools?

 

The point that many people seem to refuse to see is that the guns are NOT the problem.  If someone is intent of killing a lot of people, they will do it.  with or without a gun.  we need to go after the cause of the problem, not the tool that is used. 

 

I shall end with another quote, this one, one of my favorites....

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[Al Norris]

Now for some facts. No we are not talking about the "Criminal Element" unless you are referring to corrupt firearms dealers that will sell to anybody without a thought or will willing turn a blind eye to straw sales.

 

How many Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) have been prosecuted for the felony's you have accused them of? Are you aware of how strict the BATFE scrutinizes these dealers? Surely, if they were as corrupt as you accuse, they would not only be shut down, they would be behind bars!

 

How about the people who comit the straw purchase? How many have the feds prosecuted?

 

Despite the abysmally low conviction rate, prosecutions rank almost as low as actual convictions. So either the FFL's are more honorable than you imply, or the feds don't uphold the law.

 

I would also point out that in actual NICS checks, approximately .6% of the applications are denied. From the FBI NICS Operations Report 2012:

 

• From the inception of the NICS on November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, a total of 160,474,702 transactions have been processed.  Of these, 75,880,877 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 84,593,825 transactions were processed by state users.  Of the 19,592,303 background checks processed through the NICS in 2012, a total of 8,725,425 transactions were processed by the NICS Section and 10,866,878 were processed by state users.

• From November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, the NICS Section has denied a total of 987,578 transactions.  Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2012 totaled 88,479.

Filling out the Form 4474 (Firearms Transfer) by falsifying any of the answers is a felony. What the FBI (nor the BATFE) will not state, is how many of of those (almost 1 million) denials were prosecuted for falsely completing the 4474. The reason is simple. They don't investigate.

 

So, yes, I am talking about criminals here.

 

70 "mass" killings in 32 years (using 1982 as the baseline) as opposed to the homicides committed by the criminal element, is a drop in a bucket. It is a statistical anomaly in comparison.

 

To be even more fair, we should stop using the term "Assault Weapon." It was and is a coined term, used by Josh Sugarman, among other notable "gun grabbers."

 

 

Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

 

 

(Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.)

 

In the annuals of legislation, the term was first used by CA Assemblyman Art Agnos, in 1985, when he sought to introduce restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms.

 

The term has long been used by the Mainstream Media, and used as a derogatory term whenever the media can get bylines and engender panic (we used to call this yellow journalism, but...).

 

Are these firearms actually used in crime? Yes. But when we look at the number of criminal uses, we see that they are used in a laughingly small number of instances. Fact is, Shotguns are used to kill more often than these so-called "assault weapons." (please call me on this, so I have an excuse to provide you with the FBI's own data on criminal use of weapons)

 

Hmmm... A rather long winded method of saying I disagree with you, Ken.

[Anjobranco]

To begin it i am a gun nut, i love guns big, small, handguns, machine guns, cannons (lol), i personally love to have a tank   .

 

So saying that, let me give you some information on the Portuguese gun system.

 

You have types of licenses here on Portugal.

 

Hunter license, license of use and possession of a firearm (normally a small handgun for self protection, gives you the right of caring an conceal weapon), collector's license (you can have all kinds of guns but they have to be inoperable), License to possession of gun at home, we also have license to knifes, martial arts arms, defense arms like pepper spray, taser, licenses for Air pressure guns. They also are divide by caliber, length, automatic not automatic, single action dual action, you name it.

 

You can find here the legislation for guns in Portugal here, sorry it his in Portuguese could not find it on English, but you can try some translation program if you want to read it.

 

http://www.psp.pt/Legislacao/Lei_5-2006.pdf

 

To have a license you have to have proof of nationality, criminal records, psychological assessment, background checks, and a legitimate justification for wanting one, you also have to take courses and technical training for civic use and possession of firearms.

 

So it is very hard to legally have guns here in Portugal.

 

I am not against possession of guns, as i already say it i love them, even if a do not personally hone one, i know that the majority of the guns shops follows the law on selling guns, but i see a problem on yours guns shows or guns market, where you can buy any type of guns from a private owner and he do not cares if you are a robber a murder or a psychotic person.

 

Another thing is, can you explain me why do you need to have an ak47, an AR 15, or like some the M82 .50 caliber or the M107 Barrett .50 Caliber Rifle, it is not a small hand gun effective to protect you against an armed robber? Or are you expecting 3 world war? Or an zombie attack?

 

OK i can give if you want them for collection, whit reservation, but please do not try to tell me they are for personal protection, that is not justifiable

 

 

 

[Emperor Roland]

Anjo, there is something that only a history buff would realize about the US.  Our founding fathers specifically said that it is every American's duty to over throw the government if it become repressive.

 

Let me put out here a few different quotes...

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize 
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of 
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are 
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

      Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., 
     Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2.

And for my second quote...

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they 
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America 
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people 
are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular 
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

      Noah Webster, "An Examination into the leading Principles of the 
     Federal Constitution." in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the 
     Constitution of the United States , at 56 (New York, 1888).

One more:

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) 
assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise 
it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times 
armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of 
religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

      Thomas Jefferson

And again:

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear 
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in 
government."

      Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Now, let me through out a few other quotes, things that may make someone think.  The reason i love quotes is this.  Any man the forgets history is doomed to repeat it.  to me, that means we have to look into our past to see how things were handled, and if they were handled improperly, it is out right, no our DUTY to prevent it form happening again.  it is often said the surest sign of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  so lets look at one case where gun registration, and gun restriction was fully realized.

"This Year Will Go Down In History. For The First Time, A Civilized 
Nation Has Full Gun Registration! Our Streets Will Be Safer, Our Police 
More Efficient, And The World Will Follow Our Lead Into The Future!"

      Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) 
     April 15th, 1935 Page 3 Article 2 by Einleitung Von Eberhard 
     Beckmann "Abschied vom Hessenland!"

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, 
SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with 
them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named 
organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... 
must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."

      SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA  
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve 
the state."

      Heinrich Himmler.

"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. 
Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." 

      Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

I will leave you all to think about the last one.  because what we have in this country right now is a propaganda campaign against the right and DUTY to bear arms.  finally, and this is the argument that i rest everything with.  it is not incumbent on me as an American Citizen to explain why i want to have a fire arm.  it is incumbent on the government to explain to me why i can NOT have one. 

[Anjobranco]

Yes i agree whit that in the American cultural context, but even you can not believe that, mental unstable persons, or criminal offenders have the right to bear arms.

 

Here in Portugal we had one think that i hope you will never have. An dictatorship, for hover 50 years, we live under an heavy boot, it was our army that finished that.

 

I also believe that in an democratic country, word it is stronger than arms, our government some time ago try to pass a law that we people did not agree whit, and it was not a just law, so we protest, not whit guns, not whit riots and destruction, but by uniting as all, in pacific demonstrations, and by that the law was overturn.

[Al Norris]

What do the actual FFL's have to say about straw purchases?

 

I've refused many sales simply because it felt like a straw purchase.

I just tell the buyer why I'm refusing the sale and that I don't believe they're committing a crime but the mere appearance of a crime can get me convicted.

They always get angry and I've lost a customer but too much is at stake.

Anyone who's been in the gun business long enough eventually gets the feeling that the Feds are gunning for them, even though their jobs depend on gun dealers.

Granted, that the above is only anecdotal in nature, and therefore not fact. But this is the meme that I have seen from those FFL's online and those I know in real life.

Back on topic...

The "system" we have in the US, is largely controlled by the individual States. The Federal system, is dictated by what powers the Constitution has delegated to the Federal Government vs. what powers remain with the States. In its truest sense, it is a country of dual sovereignty - Where the powers granted to the national government is supposed to be few and limited and those retained by the States, many and with few restrictions.

This one of the reasons that people get confused when traveling from one State to another, and even to the point of traveling through one or more States to get to their destination. What may be lawful in my State, and the State in which I am going to, may be unlawful in the States that I pass through on the journey.

A responsible gun owner, will necessarily research the issue, so that he remains lawful in all his or her travels. That used to be a huge problem. But with the internet being the way it is, such research is actually easy nowadays.

That wasn't the case, just a few short years ago.

However, even today, there are many folks who simply have no clue, that what they may do where they live, may not be lawful where they are going. Sad to say, but many people have had a rude awakening, when they are arrested, prosecuted and convicted of felony possession of unlawful firearms. Within the US today, there are many thousands of laws that regulate possession and use of firearms. These are are States laws that the average American can run afoul of. We haven't scratched the surface of what Federal Laws allow or disallow.

Yet we are in the position where a very, very small percentage of people, commit mayhem with firearms, and the public at large wants more laws on the books to control this "crime-wave." Politicians propose new harsher, tougher laws and the people are satisfied, until the next crime-spree.

As has been the case, in the last forty, or so, years, these efforts are being led by the MSM (Main Stream Media) and a few (very small) gun-grabbing organizations, backed by the Joyce Foundation.

The end result is that we have more regulation (most of which is never enforced), that does nothing to deter the criminal, but does make more and more criminals out of what was once, the law abiding gun owner.

So instead of enforcing the current laws, the public clamors for more. It is almost an endlessly repeating cycle.

Let me leave this post with a quote that will have a bearing on my thinking:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting), certiorari denied by 540 U.S. 1046. (Kozinski was a refuge from Communist Poland, he is currently the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)

[seabird]

I would like to remind everyone that there are many more sources of firearms than the usual and legal channels. That being said, only those of us who are law abiding purchase our firearms from those sources. Were we forbidden by law to purchase firearms, we would probably obey the law. Those, however, who have no intention of obeying the law (read:criminals), would obtain their firearms from those sources that are also criminal and illegal. That being the case, we would have an unarmed, law abiding public at the mercy of the criminals and thugs. NOT a pretty picture!

 

I have worked and lived in other countries, including Arjobranco's Portugal and it was a scary situation. The principal problems came out of Africa and the Middle East, and, at times, it was every man (or woman) for themselves! In places in Africa, we were ferried in an armored vehicle from where we were living to the job site. In Southeast Asia, it was even more "hairy" and we had to go armed ourselves. I was NOT a military contractor, I built and rebuilt factories like sugar mills, rubber factories and paper/plywood mills! I had a crew of permanent employees who I hauled with me from the United States and I hired locally as much as I could. Those trips made me appreciate my own homeland, whatever problems we have here are NOTHING compared to what other people must contend with on a daily basis!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird.

[Zach Caldwell]

The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The Supreme Court throughout history avoided this like it was the plague. It was not until 2008 at the USSC ruled that people actually have the right to bear arms.

 

What I find interesting is Scalia who has always argued a strict interpretation of the Constitution, yet in the majority opinion he went counter to a strict interpretation, at least in so far as I understand the above stated quote.

 

I hope my memory of history is not too flawed. But it seem that as I understood it, the 13 states at the time required all white males to be part of the state militia and were required by law to own a gun. And the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the states from the federal government in the event it should ever try to disarm people like the British attempted that led to the Revolutionary war.

 

I also recall that in the "WIld Wild West" people were required to check their guns at the city limit and pick them up when they left.

 

Even back then common sense approaches where taken in regards to gun safety. I will not argue that there are those who want to take away all guns. That however, does not mean that everyone on the other side are aiming for that goal. One big mistake, I think is the use of the term Gun Control. It should not be control but rather Gun Safety.

 

This is how I see it should happen. Anyone who wants a gun has to have a background check to ensure they do not have a violent criminal record or mental health issues. This would mean that the background system currently would need to be majorly updated and expanded to include a mental health database.

Gun shows should be held to the same standards are gun stores and require a background check. If there are privacy concerns, then I think the background checks once completed and approved should be automatically erased

 

It should be required that steps be taken to secure weapons that are around children. In a free market there are many options to do this.

 

Even if none of what I suggested above is doable. Something has to be done. I think we are going in the wrong direction when we have states that are going so far as to allow anyone to carry a gun anywhere they want. Hell my state of Tennessee has just made it so that you can take a gun into a bar. That is friggin stupid. Two things that should never mix guns and alcohol, both in a bar where frights and arguments can happen and get out of hand.

 

I find it interesting too that in the states that said anyone can carry a gun anywhere, excluded court houses and other government facilities. In essence saying, good enough to be around anybody but us.

 

Anyway those are some things to think about. Discuss!

[seabird]

Zach;

 

The key word in all this is, as you say, "COMMON SENSE". Unfortunately, guns are a hot topic among all sectors of America. The long settled and dense populations of the Eastern part of the country have a much different perspective than those who live in other parts of the country. The further west one goes, the more passionate the people are about their firearms. That is, until one arrives on the west coast, and there, common sense is a dirty word!

 

I live in the desert mountains of Arizona and our perspective is much different than, say, in San Francisco or New York City. It probably has something to do with population densities. I was born and raised in California, in a small farming community, where hunting, fishing and other activities were the rule, rather than the exception. That community, as I remember it, no longer exists, it is now wall to wall rows of ticky-tacky houses and hordes of people, complete with gun-elimination advocates.

 

 

I have no clue as to how we may bring about a resolution to the problem, I fear it will be imposed upon us from Washington, by people who have no clue about how "normal" people live. For my own part, we are plagued with "undocumented" travelers coming up from nearby Mexico, carrying huge loads of various illegal "substances" in packs on their backs. We can see them crossing ridges near to our homes, with their "handlers" urging them to walk faster. These people are frequently referred to as "Mules" and their handlers, "Coyotes". The Coyotes are armed and vicious and the Mules are frequently found dead along the trail with a bullet hole in the backs of their heads. These people rarely interact with those of us who live here, but, that interaction is on the increase and Americans who live in the major distribution centers here, Phoenix and Tucson, are increasingly found murdered in their own homes.

 

 

I would say that those of us who live in the smaller desert communities are, increasingly, armed. That knowledge is, of course, known to the Coyotes, who do not wish to call attention to their own activities, otherwise, we would all be likely murdered in our own beds for having seen the "mule train" crossing the ridge. These Coyotes are well armed with the most modern firearms available, mostly stolen from our own Border Protection Service, as in the recent "Fast and Furious" campaign that hit the news services not too long ago.

 

 

People who live in the huge megaopolis' have no knowledge OR concerns beyond the strife on their own streets, so, to them, banning all guns would seem the perfect solution.  I understand their position and can sympathize with their problem, our problem lies with the political zombies who inhabit the Halls of Congress. A politician's ONLY goal is to get reelected. He or she will say anything, do anything, perform any service that will further their own objective of getting reelected. THAT is crux of the entire problem!

 

Charles Bird

Sea Bird

[Al Norris]

The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The Supreme Court throughout history avoided this like it was the plague. It was not until 2008 at the USSC ruled that people actually have the right to bear arms.

 

What I find interesting is Scalia who has always argued a strict interpretation of the Constitution, yet in the majority opinion he went counter to a strict interpretation, at least in so far as I understand the above stated quote.

 

Well no. What the Court did was to strictly interpret that the operative clause (the right to keep and bear) was not dependent upon the prefatory clause (militia).

 

As for Scalia always arguing a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution, is hardly true. Many times, he argues from an original meaning interpretation. When it suits him. His arguments in concurrence of the Gonzales v. Rich case was hardly a strict interpretation or an original meaning interpretation (And Justice Thomas blasted him for it).

 

For those conservatives that count him as their friend, had best understand that he is a "Fair Weather Friend," at best.

 

 

Gun shows should be held to the same standards are gun stores and require a background check. If there are privacy concerns, then I think the background checks once completed and approved should be automatically erased

 

 

They are, nationwide. One of the many misconceptions that are out in the public. Every FFL, selling at a gun show, must have a form 4473 filled out for the transfer and a background check must be done, before the firearm can be delivered. That is Federal Law.

 

 

It should be required that steps be taken to secure weapons that are around children. In a free market there are many options to do this.

 

 

So, if I have no children (define "children" under 12? under 14? under 16? under 18?) that live in my home, do I have to secure my firearms (and lets be clear, I have several gun safes to store my firearms)? And if I'm rural (which I am) and my children grow up with guns, for hunting, target practice and safe usage (safety) is taught from an early age, does this one-size-fits-all really work?

 

I hear it more often than you would think, that what works for Chicago may not work for Abilene. Yet in the same breath, those who say this, move right into a Federal proposal that does just that. One Rule, for all.

 

 

Hell my state of Tennessee has just made it so that you can take a gun into a bar. That is friggin stupid. Two things that should never mix guns and alcohol, both in a bar where frights and arguments can happen and get out of hand.

 

 

I essentially agree here. Guns and booze do not mix. Ever.

 

Where I draw a line is that it is not the business of the Feds to mandate in this area. That is entirely up to the State. Don't like the new Tennessee law? Lobby to change it back. But don't cry out that the Feds should place their heavy handed fist in the mix. It's just not needed.

 

Which brings me to "Something has to be done." Why?

 

With all the laws currently on the books, what more needs to be done?

[Reader2]

Who pays to enforce these laws? The Washington D.C. sinper got his guns from a store THAT under the law should have been CLOSE down for over 300 gun control violations. How many laws can a cop enforce?

[Anjobranco]

The major problem that i have about all of this is the private sellers, those that sell their guns to anyone who pays them, without bothering to check to whom they sold these weapons. Maybe the next day they can be assaulted by someone, wielding those same weapons they sold so carelessly

[Rilbur]

 

It should be required that steps be taken to secure weapons that are around children. In a free market there are many options to do this.

 

...

 

I find it interesting too that in the states that said anyone can carry a gun anywhere, excluded court houses and other government facilities. In essence saying, good enough to be around anybody but us.

 

For the first part, I think you're taking a bass-ackwards approach to the problem.  Yes, it's true that children shouldn't have access to the weapons, but you really need to address the other half of the problem.  Kids need to understand -- to be taught -- that guns are deadly, dangerous, and not toys.

 

On the second item, not having weapons in courthouses isn't about saying 'good enough to be around anybody but us', it's about saying that weapons just don't belong in certain locations.  Court houses -- which frequently see large numbers of criminals -- ban weapons for the safety of those inside.  Government facilities tend to hold a monopoly on whatever services they provide, so it's both necessary and just that they be made as safe as possible.  During a recent ER trip, I was searched for weapons (primarily through the use of a metal detector, but there were guards there and they would have done a physical search if needed).  This had nothing to do with not trusting me, it was an effort to create a 'safe' zone where gang conflict could not boil over and harm innocents.

 

It's a balancing act between two extremes, and a reasonable one.

[Zach Caldwell]

For the first part, I think you're taking a bass-ackwards approach to the problem.  Yes, it's true that children shouldn't have access to the weapons, but you really need to address the other half of the problem.  Kids need to understand -- to be taught -- that guns are deadly, dangerous, and not toys

The NRA recently has been blocking efforts by some manufactures to produce a new smart gun. Why? It would prevent someone other than the owner from using the weapon. The NRA goes on about gun owners have the right to buy whatever gun they want, then blocks a gun that could actually save lives by preventing accidents. What happened to the free market? What happened to free choice to decide what you want to buy?

 

I never said parents do not have a responsibility to teach their kids about the dangers of guns. I have been and advocate of parental involvement my whole life. Yes children should be taught the dangers of guns and they are not toys to be played with. That message gets majorly corrupted when you walk into a Toy's R Us and find an entire row of toy guns, some of which look rather real. You have to teach them, but just because you have taught them does not mean they are immune from poor judgment or poor thinking. So then why stand in the way of a weapon that would ensure the child could not harm his or her self or others by accident, if they did actually get to the weapon? Give the parents a choice. That is the free market way, is it not? And our free choice to make? The NRA sure does not seem to think so.

[Al Norris]

The NRA recently has been blocking efforts by some manufactures to produce a new smart gun. Why? It would prevent someone other than the owner from using the weapon. The NRA goes on about gun owners have the right to buy whatever gun they want, then blocks a gun that could actually save lives by preventing accidents. What happened to the free market? What happened to free choice to decide what you want to buy?

 

 

whoa there! The NRA has been blocking? That particular little rumor was started by the exact same people that are saying that the NRA is funded by the gun industry. Which one are you going to believe? Because the two statements are in complete odds with each other.

 

The NRA couldn't block the same industry that is funding them... unless... it is the same industry that is against "smart guns" to begin with! In which case, it isn't the NRA at all.

 

Let's delve into this a little further.

 

For those that don't know, a couple of years ago (2002), the State of New Jersey passed a law that mandated that all handguns sold within the State, would be "smart guns," once any manufacturer produced one. Well, that has just happened. The State has yet to mandate the duly passed law. So what has happened is that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has just sued the State to force compliance with their own law --> The Brady Complaint

 

If this is such a good thing, why are ALL the cops against using them? Every time a State has mandated such idiotic laws, the police always get excluded from compliance. I would think that the common man would look at WHY the police don't want them. Why the police always get excluded from such laws.

 

If it's good enough for me, then it's good enough for thee!

 

The reason is really rather simple. The police don't think they are reliable enough to be used in a high tension environment. Um, isn't that exactly what a self defense situation would be?

 

But of course, the point here is that if the police don't think they are reliable, why do we think they are?

[Zach Caldwell]

Here is an article I found about the smart gun and the opposition to it as well as referencing the New Jersey law. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9248443/Armatix_smart_gun_tech_reignites_gun_fight_with_retailers_in_the_middle

 

"New Jersey State Senate Majority leader, Loretta Weinberg (D-District 37), who originally sponsored the New Jersey bill while serving in the State Assembly, has said she would consider repealing the law if, after doing so, the NRA would agree not to impede smart gun development." -- Above linked article.

 

I have not found, as of yet, a response from the NRA about her offer. I think she is right, overturn the law, and allow the marketplace to decide if it wants the gun/tech itself. The NRA should go for this as it seems to fall in line with their statement that they are not opposed to smart guns, but rather the law.

[seabird]

While the use of guns is very spectacular and makes great reading in the newspapers, far more crimes are committed with much quieter weapons, knives, chains, baseball bats and sly rumors. They say that the pen is more mighty than the sword and that is very true. One can do more damage to another person with a ballpoint pen. That pen can ruin another person, steal all his or her money, make them lose their employment and even get them imprisoned. While violence needs to be curbed, no one seems to be concerned about those crimes that can ruin another. With a single telephone call, a person's whole life can be ruined, a single malicious rumor can destroy a person and all his or her progeny. Yet, there is no law to govern that kind of crime. Even our leaders in the nation's capitol practice this kind treatment on a daily basis. They call it politics, but it is criminal by anyone's standards!

 

In many cases, it is that kind of behavior that leads up to bullets. We have seen recent events, where a young person has been persecuted and tormented until he or she can see no other way out and bullets begin to fly. All the news services report in the flying bullets, they never report that the shooter has been persecuted and driven to the point he or she can stand nothing further.

 

Before we start advocating the extermination of guns, perhaps we should look into why the gun was used.

 

 

Charles Bird

Sea Bird

[Al Norris]

Zach? That second paragraph in your last response, is a direct quote from the article you referenced and it should have been cited as such (now fixed).

Regardless, here is a direct quote, again from the same article, but a few paragraphs above the one you used:
 

 

Gun advocacy groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSA), have said they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms.

"We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSA wrote in an email reply to Computerworld.

So I have to ask again, How is the NRA "blocking" such efforts? Your own article says they are not.

 

Charles? Politicians have one overriding concern - to be reelected. Providing any solution that extends beyond their foreseeable election to office, is not in their criteria of useful legislation. Fixing the "problems" are a long term solution. They want to be seen Doing Something Now, that has Immediate Results. That gets them reelected.

[seabird]

Alan,

 

You and I agree on the role the politicians take in this matter. I must admit that I have little regard for professional politicians, I suppose they are a necessary evil, but, in my estimation, they are about as useful is those proverbial mammary appendages on a boar hog! That being said, however, that is our system of government and it has served us pretty well since its inception.

 

By and large, I am reasonably content, I have lived for many years (77) and have seen governments come and go. Each government has had a slightly different "mandate" for the "gun issue", but you will notice that we still have them and, with few exceptions, unchanged since the American Revolution. Our population is growing more and more dense and more and more polarized between the "haves" and the "have nots". This is the principal source of conflict among our people and, with that conflict, the use of guns increases. One of the principal causes of these two differing "classes" is education. Our education system is in shambles. Between teachers who do not care and taxpayers' reluctance to increase their own taxes, our school children do not have a chance. Both of those statements are, I admit, oversimplified, but, I think you get the idea.

 

We adults are a lost cause, but for our children, there is still hope. To paraphrase a popular political phrase, what we need is a "War on Ignorance". When that "war" succeeds, crime and "gun violence" will diminish. There will always be some, there are always  sectors of any population of humans that runs counter to the general flow. That is part of what makes us Human Beings.

 

I guess, what I am attempting to say is, "The Gun Problem will even itself out all by itself, without the need for draconian laws."

 

Charles Bird

Sea Bird

[Hunter]

I have to agree with Lord Roland on a lot of the issues he points out in regards to owning guns. Now I personally do not own a gun, but I have used guns and been around them at various points in my life learning as a youngster the proper handling of such tools. One of the main reasons why our founding fathers deemed it necessary for all U.S. citizens to own and bare arms is simply due to the fact that the British tried to disarm us in the first place and the founding father's understood the necessity of a government's own citizens to protect itself from the government. A government in it's very nature does not want it's citizens to be able to own guns and go against it when it becomes a tyranny. The biggest tool American Citizens have to keep our government in line is the right to own guns without their interference. It is one thing that keeps them in check, among various other things, but as we are seeing slowly over time the government is trying to erode those rights. The problem is that they start off in small ways with chipping away at the Constitution here and there and before you know it they've gotten their way. Imposing laws simply leads to more stringent laws that infringes on our rights. We see this from our government every single day. For example I've never seen a temporary tax on something go away, lol. Once it is there they keep it or morph it into something different. Once they have their grubby hands on the money no way in hell are they giving it back, lol. Even the tax rebates the government has handed out will cost the taxpayers more in the end, lol. Nothing for free where our government is concerned. My point here is that once we allow more of these laws to be implemented they won't be satisfied. They will continue to implement more and more laws in little baby steps until they get what they want. A complete helpless population to do with as they will without any resistence. I don't trust our government anymore because they have lied to us over and over again. Now that isn't to say I don't think we still live in the greatest country in the world, but it is fast eroding, lol. I feel bad for the next generations to follow because they are the ones going to be hit hardest unless something gives where people wake up and understand really what is happening around them.