Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[BobD]

I think many gun owners are like the guys who have those huge 4x4 trucks, but never take them off a paved road.

Less guns equal less shootings.

 

[GoIrish41]

He wasn't able to own them legally. A gun law that states felons can't own guns. How is it that a gun law doesn't work? Seems to be the end all of gun problems in the minds of most as of late.

That's a huge issue for me. If people are acting on their Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun, they should bear some RESPONSIBILITY if someone else uses these guns in the commission of a crime. Everyone talks about rights, but just as with every other right comes responsibility. Lock up your guns, don't let anyone have access to them -- particularly a guy who clubbed his grandmother to death.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think many gun owners are like the guys who have those huge 4x4 trucks, but never take them off a paved road.

Less guns equal less shootings.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[chicago51]

I think many gun owners are like the guys who have those huge 4x4 trucks, but never take them off a paved road.

Less guns equal less shootings.

Yea some of these gun owners are something else.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That's a huge issue for me. If people are acting on their Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun, they should bear some RESPONSIBILITY if someone else uses these guns in the commission of a crime. Everyone talks about rights, but just as with every other right comes responsibility. Lock up your guns, don't let anyone have access to them -- particularly a guy who clubbed his grandmother to death.

So if someone steals your car and runs over 2 kids playing in the street you're going to jail with the driver?

 

[GoIrish41]

So if someone steals your car and runs over 2 kids playing in the street you're going to jail with the driver?

Probably not, but we aren't talking about cars -- we're talking about guns. The things that so many go on about having the right to own, but that they ignore that with rights come responsibilities.

Besides, if my 16-year-old daughter took my car and ran over 2 kids playing in the street, I'm pretty sure there would be some legal and financial penalty for me.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I think many gun owners are like the guys who have those huge 4x4 trucks, but never take them off a paved road. Less guns equal less shootings.

Where I come from, that is sacrilegious!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Probably not, but we aren't talking about cars -- we're talking about guns. The things that so many go on about having the right to own, but that they ignore that with rights come responsibilities.

Besides, if my 16-year-old daughter took my car and ran over 2 kids playing in the street, I'm pretty sure there would be some legal and financial penalty for me.

It's the same principle. Cars can be weapons, too and people are irresponsible with those (see DUI accident numbers) than those you claim are irresponsible with their legal firearms.

Your 16 year old daughter would (I hope) be covered under your insurance policy, but what happens beyond that I don't know.

And who do you know (legal gun owners) is ignoring their responsibilties?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

So if someone steals your car and runs over 2 kids playing in the street you're going to jail with the driver?

If you leave the keys in the car, with the engine running and the door open, and stand outside and point to it, yes.

 

[NDFan4Life]

If you leave the keys in the car, with the engine running and the door open, and stand outside and point to it, yes.

I did that, plus put a neon sign on it:

They still wouldn't take the damn thing.

 

[BobD]

A car is designed and sold as a mode of transportation.

A hand gun or assault rifle is designed and sold as as weapon to maim or kill.

Trying to compare the two is ridiculous.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wonder whether there is any difference between our right to travel under interstate commerce, and our right to bear arms.

At the time of the constitution, a weapon was a man outside of the city's life blood. In fact, along the frontier, a well to do had two rifles, large and small bore. A poor man had to ricochet shots from his large bore to get small game, squirrel, rabbits, etc.

But here is the point. Guns were not regularly traded or sold. They were purchased and put into service to use for feeding a family, (as well as military purposes).

Could our forefathers have envisioned the industry that grew out of the ease of mass production of modern firearms, as opposed to their experience of it's humble beginnings? Would they have felt the same without the hazards of the frontier, or the looming threat of British vengeance? And with a different attitude in America, or development as late in the history of our country, would licensing have proceeded down any different of a path than that of automobiles.

EDIT: I AM NOT COMPARING FIREARMS TO AUTO'S; JUST THE NEED TO REGULATE AND RESPONSIBLY USE THEM.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

A car is designed and sold as a mode of transportation.

A hand gun or assault rifle is designed and sold as as weapon to maim or kill.

Trying to compare the two is ridiculous.

You are correct, comparing what both are intended to do is ridiculous.

However, both take nearly the exact same amount of innocent lives every year. If saving lives is what this whole discussion is really about, then I'd really like to hear some gun control people start talking about drunk driving.

A gun is just an easier target.

When a drunk driver takes out 5 innocent people noone hears about it nationally.
A disturbed man with a gun takes out 5 innocent people and it's front page news for a month.

 

[BobD]

I respect everyone's right to their opinions and have friends with many different beliefs.

To me and maybe it is just me, I compare guns to evil, so when I hear people trying to justify them it makes me sad.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's the same principle. Cars can be weapons, too and people are irresponsible with those (see DUI accident numbers) than those you claim are irresponsible with their legal firearms.

Your 16 year old daughter would (I hope) be covered under your insurance policy, but what happens beyond that I don't know.

And who do you know (legal gun owners) is ignoring their responsibilties?

Anything can be a weapon, but guns are meant to be weapons. There is a huge difference between a car, which is designed for transportation, and a gun which is designed to kill. So, in my mind it is not the same principle at all. Again, I'm not calling for anyone's rights to be revoked. I'm simply suggesting that those rights carry with them responsibilities. Hell, I thought the GOP was the "party of personal responsibility." I guess that is just rhetoric.

Cars are registered and constantly monitored by the state, local and state police on the roads, by insurance companies and banks (if financed). At any time, the history of a person who owns a car can be searched and verified. If a car owners speeds, he is fined. If he has too many moving violations, the right to drive is revoked. Too many parking tickets, car gets empounded. Not the same with guns, is it? Once you buy a gun -- even if you have a background check -- there is no follow-up, no monitoring. You are free to do with it as you please with no responsibility for careless use, or letting it get into the hands of a child or even a felon who clubbed his grandmother to death. it seems pretty clear to any sane person that great care should be taken not to let that person get his hands on your gun. That should become the responsibility of the gun owner when they purchase a weapon. As you pointed out, my daughter would probably be under my insurance policy (which of course I pay for and am penenalized for if SHE screws up). There is no such thing for the responsibility that comes with owning a gun because the idea of personal responsibility for gun stops as soon as the transaction takes place and only is talked about after it is too late.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Anything can be a weapon, but guns are meant to be weapons. There is a huge difference between a car, which is designed for transportation, and a gun which is designed to kill. So, in my mind it is not the same principle at all. Again, I'm not calling for anyone's rights to be revoked. I'm simply suggesting that those rights carry with them responsibilities. Hell, I thought the GOP was the "party of personal responsibility." I guess that is just rhetoric.

Cars are registered and constantly monitored by the state, local and state police on the roads, by insurance companies and banks (if financed). At any time, the history of a person who owns a car can be searched and verified. If a car owners speeds, he is fined. If he has too many moving violations, the right to drive is revoked. Too many parking tickets, car gets empounded. Not the same with guns, is it? Once you buy a gun -- even if you have a background check -- there is no follow-up, no monitoring. You are free to do with it as you please with no responsibility for careless use, or letting it get into the hands of a child or even a felon who clubbed his grandmother to death. it seems pretty clear to any sane person that great care should be taken not to let that person get his hands on your gun. That should become the responsibility of the gun owner when they purchase a weapon. As you pointed out, my daughter would probably be under my insurance policy (which of course I pay for and am penenalized for if SHE screws up). There is no such thing for the responsibility that comes with owning a gun because the idea of personal responsibility for gun stops as soon as the transaction takes place and only is talked about after it is too late.

1. The intent of something is not what is in question here. Both cars(via drunk drivers), and guns, kill nearly the same amount of innocent people every year. Arguing intent will get you nowhere when they both produce near identical results.
2.Yes, it is the EXACT same way with guns. If you abuse your priviledge to drive a car by driving drunk, not carrying insurance, or receiving too many tickects, your license is revoked. In the same way, if you own a gun and commit a felony or violent misdimenor, you lose your right to own a firearm.
Not seeing your point here.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. The intent of something is not what is in question here. Both cars(via drunk drivers), and guns, kill nearly the same amount of innocent people every year. Arguing intent will get you nowhere when they both produce near identical results.
2.Yes, it is the EXACT same way with guns. If you abuse your priviledge to drive a car by driving drunk, not carrying insurance, or receiving too many tickects, your license is revoked. In the same way, if you own a gun and commit a felony or violent misdimenor, you lose your right to own a firearm.
Not seeing your point here.

1. The intent is absolutely what is in question. We are talking about things that are designed to kill vs. things that are designed to be used for transportation. And, the things that are designed to be used for transportation have far more laws and penalties associated with them. There is much, much more regulation of automobiles than there is of guns. The "results" that they "produce" are completely different. The results of automobiles are that people can be mobile, the world is expanded for individuals, people can live where they choose and travel to work, go far away for vacation. While accidents happen in cars -- even avoidable accidents -- they are accidents. When someone pulls the trigger on a gun that is pointed at another person, that is not an accident. It is an intentional action that produces the intended result. Now, if you want to narrow your argument to people who use cars intentionally to run people over, we can talk, but the "statistics" you are using will be far more weighted to my side than yours.

2. If I am convicted of a gun crime in, lets say, Virginia I do lose my right to legally own a gun. But, if I go to a gun show in that state, which has the most lenient laws in the country with regard to selling guns without background checks -- I could very easily walk out of the venue with a gun. Nobody watches me constantly to make sure I don't misuse that gun. It is, as those on your side of this argument have suggested, easy for someone to get their hands on a gun who should not have one. In my view, this is criminal and the person who put that gun in the hands of a another person who does not have the legal right to own a gun should be prosecuted. Simalarly, if you own a gun and allow it to get into the hands of someone who is mentally incompetent or violent, then you should be prosecuted. That is the point you were arguing against -- not whether cars or guns kill more people. That is not relavant.

 

[Irish#1]

You can hardly get a new job anymore without having a background check conducted. You can't buy a car without credit reporting agencies releasing volumes of information that they have gathered over your entire life to the dealership. You can't be a little league coach without having a background check conducted first. There are hundreds of things that you can't do without Big Brother or similar organizations watching. I read an article recently that suggested 40 percent of all guns purchased in this country do not require a background check. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm all for having to pass a test. I also believe their should be a psychological test. At a minimum there needs to be a criminal background check. The guy who killed the firemen in NY was convicted and recenly got out of prison for clubbing his grandmother to death. How is that dude able to get access to a gun?

Those of you who are for arming teachers or putting more police in the schools, do we now require firemen to carry arms or require a policeman tio respond to all fire alarms before the fire trucks arrive?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

1. The intent is absolutely what is in question. We are talking about things that are designed to kill vs. things that are designed to be used for transportation. And, the things that are designed to be used for transportation have far more laws and penalties associated with them. There is much, much more regulation of automobiles than there is of guns. The "results" that they "produce" are completely different. The results of automobiles are that people can be mobile, the world is expanded for individuals, people can live where they choose and travel to work, go far away for vacation. While accidents happen in cars -- even avoidable accidents -- they are accidents. When someone pulls the trigger on a gun that is pointed at another person, that is not an accident. It is an intentional action that produces the intended result. Now, if you want to narrow your argument to people who use cars intentionally to run people over, we can talk, but the "statistics" you are using will be far more weighted to my side than yours.

2. If I am convicted of a gun crime in, lets say, Virginia I do lose my right to legally own a gun. But, if I go to a gun show in that state, which has the most lenient laws in the country with regard to selling guns without background checks -- I could very easily walk out of the venue with a gun. Nobody watches me constantly to make sure I don't misuse that gun. It is, as those on your side of this argument have suggested, easy for someone to get their hands on a gun who should not have one. In my view, this is criminal and the person who put that gun in the hands of a another person who does not have the legal right to own a gun should be prosecuted. Simalarly, if you own a gun and allow it to get into the hands of someone who is mentally incompetent or violent, then you should be prosecuted. That is the point you were arguing against -- not whether cars or guns kill more people. That is not relavant.

1. So by your logic, because cars aren't SUPPOSSED to kill people, the fact that drunk drivers kill almost the same amount of innocent people every year as guns, it is somehow more acceptable!? Ask the mother/father/brother/sister of someone killed by a drunk driver. When you lose a loved one I don't think the intent makes it any easier on them.

2.If you have commited a felony and purchase a firearm from a gun/trade show than you have just commited another crime. If you read my previous post you would see that I've already said this law needs to be changed. But, it's just another example of how criminals do not obey laws.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

What needs to be understood is that gun ownership is seen as a civil liberty by many people (not to mention the Constitution). So you can't just compare it to common activities we regulate all the time. I love driving on public roads as much as the next guy, but it's not in the Bill of Rights.

So, for example, remember how people were so up in arms (no pun intended) about requiring ID to vote? Some people see gun ownership as important as that right. They're not "nuts" -- they just value their rights differently from the way you do.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. So by your logic, because cars aren't SUPPOSSED to kill people, the fact that drunk drivers kill almost the same amount of innocent people every year as guns, it is somehow more acceptable!? Ask the mother/father/brother/sister of someone killed by a drunk driver. When you lose a loved one I don't think the intent makes it any easier on them.

2.If you have commited a felony and purchase a firearm from a gun/trade show than you have just commited another crime. If you read my previous post you would see that I've already said this law needs to be changed. But, it's just another example of how criminals do not obey laws.

When did this tread turn into a drunk driving thread? And when it did, when did I become an advocate for drunk driving? I'm not saying it is more acceptable at all. Indeed, I believe drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But, more than anything, I'm saying we aren't even talking about drunk drivers. This is a tread about guns , dammit! Why are we trying to change the subject?

There are way more laws that have to do with the ownership and operation of motor vehicles than their are for guns and I think this is idiotic. I would further argue, if the drunk driving laws that are currently in place across the states were not in place, the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents might be much, much higher. That being the case, I think that stronger gun laws are certainly a step in the right direction to curb gun violence. Some would argue they won't do any good, I'd argue that they can't hurt.

As I have said, my orginial post on this topic as that the owner of the gun should be held accountable if that gun gets into the hands of someone who should not have a gun and uses it in the commission of a crime. It is about accepting the responsibility when exercising ones right to own a gun.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

When did this tread turn into a drunk driving thread? And when it did, when did I become an advocate for drunk driving? I'm not saying it is more acceptable at all. Indeed, I believe drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But, more than anything, I'm saying we aren't even talking about drunk drivers. This is a tread about guns , dammit! Why are we trying to change the subject?

There are way more laws that have to do with the ownership and operation of motor vehicles than their are for guns and I think this is idiotic. I would further argue, if the drunk driving laws that are currently in place across the states were not in place, the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents might be much, much higher. That being the case, I think that stronger gun laws are certainly a step in the right direction to curb gun violence. Some would argue they won't do any good, I'd argue that they can't hurt.

As I have said, my orginial post on this topic as that the owner of the gun should be held accountable if that gun gets into the hands of someone who should not have a gun and uses it in the commission of a crime. It is about accepting the responsibility when exercising ones right to own a gun.

At the heart of the matter(Don Henley) it's not about gun laws or drunk driving, it's about finding a way to preserve inoccent life. I, along with some others, are just pointing out how firearms are statistically no more dangerous than a vehicle. But, like I mentioned before, firearms are an easy target and it would help many people sleep warm and cozy in their beds if there were stricter gun laws(that criminals won't obey) in place, all the while acting completely oblivious to a very similar problem that doesn't get nearly the amount of attention.

Concerning the process that people must go thru to drive a vehicle and how it is regulated, yet still produces nearly the same amount of deaths, IMO does not help your cause.

Guns are an easy target, they make headlines, if preserving innocent life is what this is all about, why aren't people calling for stricter driving laws?

Oh, that's right, because guns are bad and cars just get you from A to B.

Also, guns are used far more to protect and preserve life than they are to take innocent life, all depends on how you want to see it.

 

[GoIrish41]

What needs to be understood is that gun ownership is seen as a civil liberty by many people (not to mention the Constitution). So you can't just compare it to common activities we regulate all the time. I love driving on public roads as much as the next guy, but it's not in the Bill of Rights.

So, for example, remember how people were so up in arms (no pun intended) about requiring ID to vote? Some people see gun ownership as important as that right. They're not "nuts" -- they just value their rights differently from the way you do.

And I'm not saying that they are wrong. I am not advocating taking anyone's guns away. I'm simply suggesting applying common sense gun laws that could keep people from walking into a kindergarten class and opening fire on 6-year-olds with an automatic weapon. I'm suggesting that those who are mentally unstable should not be given access to firearms, and if they are, those who gave them access should be held accountable for their actions when said guns are used in the commission of a crime.

I am reading your post and hoping that you are not suggesting that firearms not be regulated at all. I doubt you are advocating that mentally incompetent should be given their right to bear arms -- even if it means something tragic can happen to innocent people as a result. We've diagreed on a lot of things is these political treads, but please tell me these aren't points of disagreement.

 

[brandonnash]

Those of you who are for arming teachers or putting more police in the schools, do we now require firemen to carry arms or require a policeman tio respond to all fire alarms before the fire trucks arrive?

It has already happened some places. District chiefs and I believe even some squad captain carry weapons in Los Angeles because of this same thing happening there. No surprise, we haven't heard of another incident happen there since being armed.

This was several years ago so being California it could have changed since then.


Columbus Ohio has issued 14 guns to firefighters and this was before this last incident in new York. Other agencies around the country allow firemen with carry permits to carry while working.

Where I work police are called to the scene of most fires and nearly half of the medical calls.

 

[GoIrish41]

At the heart of the matter(Don Henley) it's not about gun laws or drunk driving, it's about finding a way to preserve inoccent life. I, along with some others, are just pointing out how firearms are statistically no more dangerous than a vehicle. But, like I mentioned before, firearms are an easy target and it would help many people sleep warm and cozy in their beds if there were stricter gun laws(that criminals won't obey) in place, all the while acting completely oblivious to a very similar problem that doesn't get nearly the amount of attention.

Concerning the process that people must go thru to drive a vehicle and how it is regulated, yet still produces nearly the same amount of deaths, IMO does not help your cause.

Guns are an easy target, they make headlines, if preserving innocent life is what this is all about, why aren't people calling for stricter driving laws?

Oh, that's right, because guns are bad and cars just get you from A to B.

Also, guns are used far more to protect and preserve life than they are to take innocent life, all depends on how you want to see it.

obesity kills more than both combined each year, but nobody is going to go into a kindergarten classroom with a Big Mac to murder everyone. You are introducing something into the argument that has no relevance in the argument. I suspect that if this were a thread about drunk driving, people would advocate stronger drunk driving laws. The are innumerable things we are not talking about, because we are talking about guns. Shifting the argument to other things that kill people does not change the fact that guns do exactly what they are designed to do -- kill people.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons


Stay informed


In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

• Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
• Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012

Summary of 2013 legislation


Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

Effectivenness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban


Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:

• In an Urban Institute study for the Department of Justice (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
  • Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
• In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
  • Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004).
• In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
  • Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
• In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
  • Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
• A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
  • Original source (pages 6-7): Violence Policy Center, "Target: Law Enforcement—Assault Weapons in the News," (Feb. 2010).
• A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
  • Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).

Assault weapons in the news

• NRA misleads on assault weapons (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
• "Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
• "A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
• "Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
• "Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
• "Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
• "Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)

Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

 

[brandonnash]

When did this tread turn into a drunk driving thread? And when it did, when did I become an advocate for drunk driving? I'm not saying it is more acceptable at all. Indeed, I believe drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But, more than anything, I'm saying we aren't even talking about drunk drivers. This is a tread about guns , dammit! Why are we trying to change the subject?

There are way more laws that have to do with the ownership and operation of motor vehicles than their are for guns and I think this is idiotic. I would further argue, if the drunk driving laws that are currently in place across the states were not in place, the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents might be much, much higher. That being the case, I think that stronger gun laws are certainly a step in the right direction to curb gun violence. Some would argue they won't do any good, I'd argue that they can't hurt.

As I have said, my orginial post on this topic as that the owner of the gun should be held accountable if that gun gets into the hands of someone who should not have a gun and uses it in the commission of a crime. It is about accepting the responsibility when exercising ones right to own a gun.

In NO way should an owner of a gun be held responsible if his gun were stolen then used to commit a crime. Lawful owners have guns to hunt, target shoot, and/or personal defense. Same as lawful car owners if they get their car stolen to be used in a crime.

As for the more laws for cars than guns, there are more cars than guns, they are used more often, and also usually used more stupidly than someone with a gun. How many times have you noticed people breaking a law with their vehicle? Now ask the same with guns. While there are more vehicles in america there are still a lot of guns. Explain the last time you actually witnessed a gun law being broken. Gun owners are typically law abiding people who don't want trouble. There are the few that look for it, but it will be this way with any group of people.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

obesity kills more than both combined each year, but nobody is going to go into a kindergarten classroom with a Big Mac to murder everyone. You are introducing something into the argument that has no relevance in the argument. I suspect that if this were a thread about drunk driving, people would advocate stronger drunk driving laws. The are innumerable things we are not talking about, because we are talking about guns. Shifting the argument to other things that kill people does not change the fact that guns do exactly what they are designed to do -- kill people.

Correct, and in most cases they are used to kill the criminal, not the victim.


You can try to dismiss the correlation between gun related deaths and drunk driving deaths all you want, throw obesity or whatever else you want in there too. You're proving my point for me. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet they both claim lives at nearly the same rate because of irresponsible people.

You see guns as a way to take innocent life, I see them as a way to preserve innocent life.

Apparently, it's just perspective.

 

[GoIrish41]

In NO way should an owner of a gun be held responsible if his gun were stolen then used to commit a crime. Lawful owners have guns to hunt, target shoot, and/or personal defense. Same as lawful car owners if they get their car stolen to be used in a crime.

As for the more laws for cars than guns, there are more cars than guns, they are used more often, and also usually used more stupidly than someone with a gun. How many times have you noticed people breaking a law with their vehicle? Now ask the same with guns. While there are more vehicles in america there are still a lot of guns. Explain the last time you actually witnessed a gun law being broken. Gun owners are typically law abiding people who don't want trouble. There are the few that look for it, but it will be this way with any group of people.

In an earlier example in this thread, we talked about if my 16-year-old daughter taking my car and running over two kids playing in the street. If that happened, who do you suppose would be held responsible? Where do you suppose the kids at Columbine got their guns? How about the elementary kids a few years back in Tennessee (might be wrong about the state) who pulled the fire alarm and as their classmates filed outside, two kids opened fire on them. Where do you suppose they got those guns? Do you think that the parents who owned these guns was acting responsibly in allowing their children access to them? Shouldn't they receive some kind of penalty in the same way as I do when my 16-year-old daughter takes my car? Come on man, be reasonable.

I would not see a gun law being broken because I avoid being in places where guns are around. Those kids in Conn. didn't have that option, and neither would children who went to school where armed security guards are hired, or teachers are armed. Should movie theater ushers be required to carry guns as well after the Colorado shooting? -- there goes the movies for me. I don't want to live in a nation where there are always guns around me, it would make me uncomfortable and afraid. What some perceive as a "right" to own a gun, can infringe on my right to not be around them -- to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I too am a law-abiding citizen. Whose rights are more important, mine or theirs?

 

[GoIrish41]

[/B]

Correct, and in most cases they are used to kill the criminal, not the victim.

You can try to dismiss the correlation between gun related deaths and drunk driving deaths all you want, throw obesity or whatever else you want in there too. You're proving my point for me. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet they both claim lives at nearly the same rate because of irresponsible people.

You see guns as a way to take innocent life, I see them as a way to preserve innocent life.

Apparently, it's just perspective.

Really? there were 11,000 murders in this country last year. If "the good guys" shot that many people, the problem is much, much broader than any of us thought.

You can tell yourself it is all about perspective if you want. I think it is about too many, too powerful guns in the hands of too many people who should not have access to them.