Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[4irishnation]

So what we should do is take away your 21st amendment rights even though not all of us fall into this category. This is what you are saying correct????

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So what we should do is take away your 21st amendment rights even though not all of us fall into this category. This is what you are saying correct????

We limit rights all the time.

Yes, we can drink alcohol. But we can't drink it everywhere and at all times. We can be cited for public drunkenness.

Yes, we have free speech. But we can't libel. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

[4irishnation]

SMH

 

[IrishJayhawk]

SMH

So sorry to have disappointed you.

 

[4irishnation]

So sorry to have disappointed you.

It's ok you can't help it!!!!!!!

 

[phork]

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

My bad, same point though. It is unconstitutional to force someone to lock/disassemble their gun, but it is certainly not unconstitutional to demand an owner to have legal responsibility for their firearm.

Axes and Cars aren't used to commit mass murder or to kill dozens of kids in a school. If you want to endanger other people by keeping your firearms unlocked, then you should bare the responsibility of what happens if it gets taken and used in a violent crime. If you didn't report it stolen, or even worse didn't know it was stolen, then you are being negligent with other people's lives. Plain and simple. It is an instrument designed to kill people (we are talking about assault rifles) and you have a responsibility to keep its dangers away from innocent people. Again, some of you don't realize the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

I really don't get how someone would argue that it's not their responsibility to keep people safe from their weapons. Many of you have claimed that "gun owners are mostly very responsible", but in the same breath don't feel like anyone should have to take responsibility for the actions done with their weapons. Makes zero freeking sense.

I don't know about you, but if I was to be robbed I would call the police. If one of my guns were missing I would report it.
But what it sounds like you're advocating is to arrest someone whos house was locked because a criminal broke in then turned around and used that weapon to commit another crime. Again how would that be my fault when I locked my house. Just like it wouldn't be your fault if someone stole your car and robbed a bank.

I understand emotions are high. People are looking for an answer to stop these heinous actions. But instead of blaming the tool blame the actor.
Would it make it any less worse if he had used a flame thrower which is completely legal to own under federal law?
How about tannerite which makes a pretty good boom?
Fertilizer diesel and a uhaul?
Thermite?
All completely legal.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

We limit rights all the time.

Yes, we can drink alcohol. But we can't drink it everywhere and at all times. We can be cited for public drunkenness.

Yes, we have free speech. But we can't libel. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Fire in a public theater holds no water you won't be arrested for saying fire.
They'll go after you for creating a public disturbance.
Even more moot point because in the annals of history I have never heard of anybody actually doing this or being charged for this.
And drinking alcohol is not a right

 

[Downinthebend]

Even ideally if one is able to ban/destroy all the guns, those with bad intentions will just move to different tools.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
bolding is mine
"A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Here is something that is not being reported: a man with a concealed carry permit possibly stopped more killing at the Portland mall shooting last week. He also exercised great caution not shooting the suspect because he had innocent people in his sight picture and background.

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon | kgw.com Portland

 

[woolybug25]

I don't know about you, but if I was to be robbed I would call the police. If one of my guns were missing I would report it.
But what it sounds like you're advocating is to arrest someone whos house was locked because a criminal broke in then turned around and used that weapon to commit another crime. Again how would that be my fault when I locked my house. Just like it wouldn't be your fault if someone stole your car and robbed a bank.

I understand emotions are high. People are looking for an answer to stop these heinous actions. But instead of blaming the tool blame the actor.
Would it make it any less worse if he had used a flame thrower which is completely legal to own under federal law?
How about tannerite which makes a pretty good boom?
Fertilizer diesel and a uhaul?
Thermite?
All completely legal.

If you get a gun stolen and report it, then fine. But I feel that a great deal of responsibility should come with owning an assault rifle. If you aren't home, then you have a responsibility to keep your guns safely stored. If you know the consequences before hand, and you choose to ignore them, them absolutely I think that person should be liable. If they know the rules and consciously choose to ignore them, then it's the same thing as a business ignoring a significant default in their product and still selling it people even though it could cause harm. If car companies have to pay billions in federal fines for unresolved recalls, then why should we ignore a persons complete disregard for other people by not properly storing weapons specifically made to kill hundreds of people within minutes?

No one will be forcing people to lock their guns, but it is completely irresponsible to not put proper protections into place to protect your assault rifles from the public. Btw, if you are pulling out an assault rifle out of your bed stand to protect against home invasion then you a rare breed of weirdo. We are talking about assault weapons.

Keep in mind, if the mother of the CT shooter would have simply locked up her weapons, then her son may not have killed her or 27 children. We also wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

We limit rights all the time.

Yes, we can drink alcohol. But we can't drink it everywhere and at all times. We can be cited for public drunkenness.

Yes, we have free speech. But we can't libel. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You're right that we do limit all rights to a certain extent. But when a right is a civil liberty -- which the right to bear arms certainly is -- we limit them much, much less, and only in a "narrowly tailored" context after strict court scrutiny and in response to an essential governmental objective.

 

[woolybug25]

You're right that we do limit all rights to a certain extent. But when a right is a civil liberty -- which the right to bear arms certainly is -- we limit them much, much less, and only in a "narrowly tailored" context after strict court scrutiny and in response to an essential governmental objective.

Free speech is a civil liberty and it is restricted.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes with the exception of 3rd world countries. Not other industrialized nations though you are right the US is the highest . Great Britain, Japan, and Canada all have much less mass shootings than the US. They have tougher gun restrictions. Canada despite tougher restrictions and checks has a righer rate of gun ownership. Proving that tougher laws won't stop people from having guns but it can stop the wrong people from having them. Not trying to be un American here and say those places are better than US but I think gun control is one area they got right.

Look what happened when Aussies went anti-gun:

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are gua ranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Fire in a public theater holds no water you won't be arrested for saying fire.
They'll go after you for creating a public disturbance.
Even more moot point because in the annals of history I have never heard of anybody actually doing this or being charged for this.
And drinking alcohol is not a right

Education for Freedom Lesson 4

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grahambo]

Worth the read: A League of Our Own - By Janet Rosenbaum | Foreign Policy

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

If you get a gun stolen and report it, then fine. But I feel that a great deal of responsibility should come with owning an assault rifle. If you aren't home, then you have a responsibility to keep your guns safely stored. If you know the consequences before hand, and you choose to ignore them, them absolutely I think that person should be liable. If they know the rules and consciously choose to ignore them, then it's the same thing as a business ignoring a significant default in their product and still selling it people even though it could cause harm. If car companies have to pay billions in federal fines for unresolved recalls, then why should we ignore a persons complete disregard for other people by not properly storing weapons specifically made to kill hundreds of people within minutes?

No one will be forcing people to lock their guns, but it is completely irresponsible to not put proper protections into place to protect your assault rifles from the public. Btw, if you are pulling out an assault rifle out of your bed stand to protect against home invasion then you a rare breed of weirdo. We are talking about assault weapons.

Keep in mind, if the mother of the CT shooter would have simply locked up her weapons, then her son may not have killed her or 27 children. We also wouldn't be having this conversation.

I dunno Wooly, I think that is a bit of a leap there. I would wager he most certainly would have killed in some way. He might not have killed as many but he would have killed. Knives, lead pipe, homemade explosive. I doubt if he couldn't get in to a gun safe that he would have just made some soup and sat down to watch the Simpsons.

I completely agree with you assessment of locking up your guns. In California, it is the law. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime or kills someone, you can be liable. It is just prudent to at least put a trigger lock on your gun. Safes are best, but at least do something to keep them from being used by someone other than yourself.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

If you get a gun stolen and report it, then fine. But I feel that a great deal of responsibility should come with owning an assault rifle. If you aren't home, then you have a responsibility to keep your guns safely stored. If you know the consequences before hand, and you choose to ignore them, them absolutely I think that person should be liable. If they know the rules and consciously choose to ignore them, then it's the same thing as a business ignoring a significant default in their product and still selling it people even though it could cause harm. If car companies have to pay billions in federal fines for unresolved recalls, then why should we ignore a persons complete disregard for other people by not properly storing weapons specifically made to kill hundreds of people within minutes?

No one will be forcing people to lock their guns, but it is completely irresponsible to not put proper protections into place to protect your assault rifles from the public. Btw, if you are pulling out an assault rifle out of your bed stand to protect against home invasion then you a rare breed of weirdo. We are talking about assault weapons.

Keep in mind, if the mother of the CT shooter would have simply locked up her weapons, then her son may not have killed her or 27 children. We also wouldn't be having this conversation.

You keep using assault rifle. This was not an assault rifle as it did not have selective firing. A class II license already requires a automatic not semi auto to be locked up it also as written in to it that the ATF can come in at any time to inspect to make sure the gun is secured.
We don't know if the guns were in a gun safe just like we don't know if the kid even knew the combination or where the key was for the safe.

Wooly I respect you. Your a smart guy. But I have been a firm advocate of gun rights for 7 years. Including protesting speaking at events as well as with my states representatives. Not much in the federal gun code nor the PA code I do not know. How about. We agree to disagree and go back to talkin ND.

 

[irishpat183]

Here is something that is not being reported: a man with a concealed carry permit possibly stopped more killing at the Portland mall shooting last week. He also exercised great caution not shooting the suspect because he had innocent people in his sight picture and background.

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon | kgw.com Portland

But wait...all people that own guns are crazy militia types taht wouldn't know what to do when "real $hit" happens, right??

 

[woolybug25]

You keep using assault rifle. This was not an assault rifle as it did not have selective firing. A class II license already requires a automatic not semi auto to be locked up it also as written in to it that the ATF can come in at any time to inspect to make sure the gun is secured.
We don't know if the guns were in a gun safe just like we don't know if the kid even knew the combination or where the key was for the safe.

I keep saying assault rifle because that is what I am talking about. Despite your efforts to paint my argument as a belief that I want to burn the constitution and take ever gun away, it has never been my point.

You're right, I don't know how they were stored. But however she stored them, it obviously wasn't good enough and because of that, he was able to use an assault weapon to murder 27 people.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Free speech is a civil liberty and it is restricted.

Not nearly in the manner y'all are suggesting in connection with firearms.

And for the record I would love to see the second amendment defended as much as the first -- by suiing cheerleaders for writing bible verses, for example.

 

[woolybug25]

Not nearly in the manner y'all are suggesting in connection with firearms.

And for the record I would love to see the second amendment defended as much as the first -- by suiing cheerleaders for writing bible verses, for example.

I'm not catching what you're throwing down here. Free Speech is most definitely as important as the Right To Bare Arms. Furthermore, there currently is far more restrictions on free speech in this country then there is restrictions to the right to bare arms?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not nearly in the manner y'all are suggesting in connection with firearms.

And for the record I would love to see the second amendment defended as much as the first -- by suiing cheerleaders for writing bible verses, for example.

The free speech limits have to do with speech that might incite or lead to harm against another person. I truly don't know where I stand on gun rights and various bans. But I think this discussion is similar.

 

[irishpat183]

That's not true.

Japan vs U.S. — Can stricter gun laws reduce shooting deaths?

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

The Japan lesson: Can America learn from the country that has almost zero gun deaths?

It's actually exactly the opposite.

Funny thing is, in your quote at the bottom they list having to pass a drug test, mental illness test, and written exams...I can hear the race baiters and liberals now...Disenfranchising minority gun owners.


And what they don't tell you (assuming my buddy stationed there is correct, but hey, I'll take a websites word for it) is that they don't enforce the laws becausse they dont' need too. He said their society isn't as violent obsessed with it. It's a respectful culture.

THAT is the difference. Not gun laws. And the history of the culture lacks the attachment to guns, unlike ours. They've never had them in the first place to "take away". Hell, we disarmed them after WWII.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm not catching what you're throwing down here. Free Speech is most definitely as important as the Right To Bare Arms. Furthermore, there currently is far more restrictions on free speech in this country then there is restrictions to the right to bare arms?

That doesn't make it right...


Everything hurts everyone's feelings these days.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Funny thing is, in your quote at the bottom they list having to pass a drug test, mental illness test, and written exams...I can hear the race baiters and liberals now...Disenfranchising minority gun owners.


And what they don't tell you (assuming my buddy stationed there is correct, but hey, I'll take a websites word for it) is that they don't enforce the laws becausse they dont' need too. He said their society isn't as violent obsessed with it. It's a respectful culture.

THAT is the difference. Not gun laws. And the history of the culture lacks the attachment to guns, unlike ours. They've never had them in the first place to "take away". Hell, we disarmed them after WWII.

Dang...even when you're wrong you manage to liberal bash...

 

[irishpat183]

Dang...even when you're wrong you manage to liberal bash...

I meant to throw an "LOL" on the end of that, teach. But I knew it was already too late!! LOL

 

[irishpat183]

Dang...even when you're wrong you manage to liberal bash...

But the point is, again, we are a totally different breed over here. We love the blood and violence. We love digging deeper into these mass shootings to find out what makes these wackos tick (it's disgusting).

What other country is obsessed with violence like we are?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I keep saying assault rifle because that is what I am talking about. Despite your efforts to paint my argument as a belief that I want to burn the constitution and take ever gun away, it has never been my point.

You're right, I don't know how they were stored. But however she stored them, it obviously wasn't good enough and because of that, he was able to use an assault weapon to murder 27 people.

Wooly your saying assault rifle. An assault rifle is a rifle with selective firing. By the very definition of our military. Then saying assault rifles should be required to be locked up. When that is already the requirement for the license to own one.

 

[woolybug25]

That doesn't make it right...


Everything hurts everyone's feelings these days.

What? So you think liable and yelling fire in a theatre are perfectly acceptable?