Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[GoIrish41]

We might be getting outdone by Nicaragua, but Columbia can suck it.

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Legalizing pot would have very little effect on gun crime. Most gun crime has more to do with the harder drugs because theres much more money on the line when it comes to territory, distribution..etc

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Yes, probably, however it is a bandaid that has worked in nearly every other developped country

Where? Europe isnt the best comparison because, prior to their regulations, their gun crimes were nowhere near the levels of the US. You have to compare similar samples. Australia would be the closest comparison.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Come back to reality, Tom

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


in canada were at 0.5 per 100k while the US is nearly 3 per 100k

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

That's lovely but it doesn't factor in gun ownership. I was talking about something a little more like this:
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

 

[DSully1995]

Where? Europe isnt the best comparison because, prior to their regulations, their gun crimes were nowhere near the levels of the US. You have to compare similar samples. Australia would be the closest comparison.

Canada? same media, basically america-lite so we are the closest comparison

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Canada? same media, basically america-lite so we are the closest comparison

Canada? the US has many more socio-economic/cultural/population factors involved. Their crime rates are nowhere near the US's. Also, just did a brief check on Canadian gun laws so i could be wrong, but semi-automatic rifles (AR15) are not illegal. Right?

 

[tommyIRISH23]

I think the bottom line with this whole debate is that people have a problem with the government disarming those who are law abiding and responsible citizens, but doing nothing to address the people who are committing 90%+ of the gun crime with illegal weapons (i.e. criminals and the mentally ill) . The US has a history of enacting misguided policies that appease the masses as these policies look great, and present themselves as viable solutions to societal problems. These policies rarely have any positive effect, and often cause more problems in their wake.

 

[irisheyes]

pass it on
Ruger - Take Action Now!

 

[DSully1995]

Canada? the US has many more socio-economic/cultural/population factors involved. Their crime rates are nowhere near the US's. Also, just did a brief check on Canadian gun laws so i could be wrong, but semi-automatic rifles (AR15) are not illegal. Right?

Pretty sure they arent, but background checks are necessary and 100 round magazines are...and if were talking socio/economic factors now nobody should ever bring up mexico or these latin american countries, as if thats a closer comparison

 

[In Lou I Trust]

DSully... where do you stand on gun legislation? I understand we're on opposite sides of the argument here but I want to know what you think would help the US in the wake of Sandy Hook, etc.

 

[DSully1995]

DSully... where do you stand on gun legislation? I understand we're on opposite sides of the argument here but I want to know what you think would help the US in the wake of Sandy Hook, etc.

Well im not expert but heres my take: you guys have to balance two different problems:

1.Day-to-day "regular" violent crime (weird to call it that but whatever)
2.Spontaneous mass shootings

I do agree with most of you on #1, the US have nearly half of the worlds guns, and the criminals will get theirs no matter what in most cases.

But #2 is IMO a result of your gun availability, every country has mentally ill people, but are guns facilitating these shootings in the US? Id say so.

Another way i look at is is like this, anyone familiar with the prisoners dilemma might see similarities.

As an individual owning a firearm immediately put you to one of the safest positions in society. However, that extra gun does remove safety (IMO) a little to everyone else, then you end up getting a situation where everyones personal dominant strategy (getting a gun) leads to a collectively worse situation.

EDIT: Itd be nice to find a way without legislation to slow down americas love of guns but im not smart enough to know how.

 

[chicago51]

Ely go

I don't care what they do in their bedrooms.

States can actually, despite what Ed Schultz has told you, declare a religion ( there is no seperation of "church" and "state" in our founding docs and the first amendment only applies to the USA, not states). Therefore, if they decided that they want to declare christinaity their offical religion and that they want to outlaw gay marriage due to their religion....

That is where my argument comes from. On the filp side, I have no problem whatsoever with states that do allow it. Good for them.

No separation of church and state? States declare a religion? This completely goes against the 1st amendment mr. Bill of rights.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Anyone interested in "saving people" by banning guns can I ask your opinion on this?
Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Health - Addictions | NBC News

Also from what I can find in 2011 there were roughly 35000 Automobile related deaths. There were roughly 32000 gun related deaths.

How many of these alcohol and automobile related deaths are children (under 18) too? In 1996, latest I could find, there were 3310 alcohol (vehicle related only) related child deaths. In 2003, latest I could find, Automobile related deaths of children were 7200. Gun related children deaths 2009, latest I could find, were 2,793. Why are you not outraged and trying to ban hard liquor and sports cars ("assault weapon" of their respective category)? Shouldn't you be calling for alcohol percentage limits and speed limiters (Magazine round limitation)? Maybe everyone should drink low alcohol beer or wine and drive old VW bugs. I mean it would suck for us but "if it only saves one life". I am not trying to be mean about this I am just trying to get your honest opinion.

 

[chicago51]

Anyone interested in "saving people" by banning guns can I ask your opinion on this?
Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Health - Addictions | NBC News

Also from what I can find in 2011 there were roughly 35000 Automobile related deaths. There were roughly 32000 gun related deaths.

How many of these alcohol and automobile related deaths are children (under 18) too? In 1996, latest I could find, there were 3310 alcohol (vehicle related only) related child deaths. In 2003, latest I could find, Automobile related deaths of children were 7200. Gun related children deaths 2009, latest I could find, were 2,793. Why are you not outraged and trying to ban hard liquor and sports cars ("assault weapon" of their respective category)? Shouldn't you be calling for alcohol percentage limits and speed limiters (Magazine round limitation)? Maybe everyone should drink low alcohol beer or wine and drive old VW bugs. I mean it would suck for us but "if it only saves one life". I am not trying to be mean about this I am just trying to get your honest opinion.

I actually do kind of like the idea of managing the guns they way we do cars. My proposal to do so would be as follows.

To use a gun one has to be licensed by the state to a own gun. One must always renew their license every year and pay the annual fee just like a driver's license. It is a major felony to sell a gun or aminution unless one presents their gun license at the time of sale. Guns could still be sold at gun shows as long as the buyer presents his or her state firearm license.

To get a license for a particular gun one must demonstrate proficency in using that particular gun via a state licensing exam ran by law enforcement officals. One must also go through a criminal background check to get a gun. Background check rules: 1 - No guns for convicted felons. 2 - No guns for those that are documented to have certain mental illnesses. 3- Crimes less than felonies do not prevent one from owning a gun but may lead to an increase in gun insurance rates (see below).

To keep their gun one must purchase liability insurance for the gun. The insurance would cover the following:
1 - Life insurance type benefits to any gun victim families killed by the gun.
2 - Medical expenses for anyone injured by the gun.
3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours.

Insurance rates would also be different for different types of firearms. So a potentially more dangerous firearm would require a higher insurance rate.

I think regulating guns like cars would solve a ton of issues. The insurance companies will want a lengthy background check before they consider one insurable. Secondly gun families of gun victims would actually be compensated when they die. Third by passing a firearm licensing exam one has to show they really know how to use the gun. Under this proposal you can own an assault weapon but you have to pass a different state exam for those types of weapons. In my proposal I do still want a magazine limit of 10 bullets and no armor piercing bullets. Also your insurace will be higer if you do own an assault type weapon. Not to mention this would be more revenue for the states because the license fees. The revenue from gun licensing fees can be used to help pay for having an armed police officer (and not armed teachers) on duty at public schools.

 

[brandonnash]

Your no armor piercing bullets idea would get rid of most rifles and some shotgun ammo. Most body armor is only good against handgun ammo which is lower powered than nearly all rifles. So there would be no more big game hunting, no more 3 gun competitions, no more long range shoots.

 

[BGIF]

Your no armor piercing bullets idea would get rid of most rifles and some shotgun ammo. Most body armor is only good against handgun ammo which is lower powered than nearly all rifles. So there would be no more big game hunting, no more 3 gun competitions, no more long range shoots.

You won't shoot your muzzle loader?

It's what the Founding Fathers shot.

 

[irishpat183]

Where? Europe isnt the best comparison because, prior to their regulations, their gun crimes were nowhere near the levels of the US. You have to compare similar samples. Australia would be the closest comparison.

Yet their violent crime is much worse than ours.


Funny how a gun ban shot up the crime rates in the UK and Austrialia......Wonder why?

 

[irishpat183]

Ely go

No separation of church and state? States declare a religion? This completely goes against the 1st amendment mr. Bill of rights.

Go do your homework.

 

[irishpat183]

And those arguing that "private" sellers sell guns without background checks....Yeah. They do. Tons of property is sold privately.

How do you purpose we fix that? Tell people they can't sell their property?


I mean, I'm not sure how this can be fixed. To me, all this new gun law stuff is just BS.


IF they really wanted to do damage, go after CRIMINALS or the MENTALLY UNSTABLE in possession of firearms. Do that first, then come talk to me about new laws if things don't improve.

 

[chicago51]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I9KVvIq5aSU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

I actually do kind of like the idea of managing the guns they way we do cars. My proposal to do so would be as follows.

To use a gun one has to be licensed by the state to a own gun. One must always renew their license every year and pay the annual fee just like a driver's license. It is a major felony to sell a gun or aminution unless one presents their gun license at the time of sale. Guns could still be sold at gun shows as long as the buyer presents his or her state firearm license.

To get a license for a particular gun one must demonstrate proficency in using that particular gun via a state licensing exam ran by law enforcement officals. One must also go through a criminal background check to get a gun. Background check rules: 1 - No guns for convicted felons. 2 - No guns for those that are documented to have certain mental illnesses. 3- Crimes less than felonies do not prevent one from owning a gun but may lead to an increase in gun insurance rates (see below).

To keep their gun one must purchase liability insurance for the gun. The insurance would cover the following:
1 - Life insurance type benefits to any gun victim families killed by the gun.
2 - Medical expenses for anyone injured by the gun.
3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours.


Insurance rates would also be different for different types of firearms. So a potentially more dangerous firearm would require a higher insurance rate.

I think regulating guns like cars would solve a ton of issues. The insurance companies will want a lengthy background check before they consider one insurable. Secondly gun families of gun victims would actually be compensated when they die. Third by passing a firearm licensing exam one has to show they really know how to use the gun. Under this proposal you can own an assault weapon but you have to pass a different state exam for those types of weapons. In my proposal I do still want a magazine limit of 10 bullets and no armor piercing bullets. Also your insurace will be higer if you do own an assault type weapon. Not to mention this would be more revenue for the states because the license fees. The revenue from gun licensing fees can be used to help pay for having an armed police officer (and not armed teachers) on duty at public schools.

I'm actually ok with most of it...here is where I say no..."3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours."

Dude, I have a couple recreation properties stuck on the fringe of wilderness...two of which I cannot get to 3 months out of the year...but they contain weapons. Those weapons are in safes, but if someone got in there with snow machines and ransacked the joint...they could take 3 days to load the safe out, and torch t somewhere else...I may not know anything for Months. I leave those weapons there because those places have mountain Lions, Bears, Coyotes, Badgers...and so I hear recently Wolves. Employees who use them are encouraged to cary one of the shotguns or sidearm when they are out exploring...

Where I live there are literally thousands of places like that....you do Federal level crap, and its situations like this that get missed...and suddenly I'm a criminal or liable...see any time you say insurance, the very next step is liability for instances falling outside coverage. NO effing way. This is a perfect example why the Feds can't do this...gotta be at the state level where rules that make sense based on how people live (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) can be applied.

 

[GoIrish41]

I actually do kind of like the idea of managing the guns they way we do cars. My proposal to do so would be as follows.

To use a gun one has to be licensed by the state to a own gun. One must always renew their license every year and pay the annual fee just like a driver's license. It is a major felony to sell a gun or aminution unless one presents their gun license at the time of sale. Guns could still be sold at gun shows as long as the buyer presents his or her state firearm license.

To get a license for a particular gun one must demonstrate proficency in using that particular gun via a state licensing exam ran by law enforcement officals. One must also go through a criminal background check to get a gun. Background check rules: 1 - No guns for convicted felons. 2 - No guns for those that are documented to have certain mental illnesses. 3- Crimes less than felonies do not prevent one from owning a gun but may lead to an increase in gun insurance rates (see below).

To keep their gun one must purchase liability insurance for the gun. The insurance would cover the following:
1 - Life insurance type benefits to any gun victim families killed by the gun.
2 - Medical expenses for anyone injured by the gun.
3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours.

Insurance rates would also be different for different types of firearms. So a potentially more dangerous firearm would require a higher insurance rate.

I think regulating guns like cars would solve a ton of issues. The insurance companies will want a lengthy background check before they consider one insurable. Secondly gun families of gun victims would actually be compensated when they die. Third by passing a firearm licensing exam one has to show they really know how to use the gun. Under this proposal you can own an assault weapon but you have to pass a different state exam for those types of weapons. In my proposal I do still want a magazine limit of 10 bullets and no armor piercing bullets. Also your insurace will be higer if you do own an assault type weapon. Not to mention this would be more revenue for the states because the license fees. The revenue from gun licensing fees can be used to help pay for having an armed police officer (and not armed teachers) on duty at public schools.

gotta spread it around before I rep you, but wanted to say that this was a great post.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm actually ok with most of it...here is where I say no..."3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours."

Dude, I have a couple recreation properties stuck on the fringe of wilderness...two of which I cannot get to 3 months out of the year...but they contain weapons. Those weapons are in safes, but if someone got in there with snow machines and ransacked the joint...they could take 3 days to load the safe out, and torch t somewhere else...I may not know anything for Months. I leave those weapons there because those places have mountain Lions, Bears, Coyotes, Badgers...and so I hear recently Wolves. Employees who use them are encouraged to cary one of the shotguns or sidearm when they are out exploring...

Where I live there are literally thousands of places like that....you do Federal level crap, and its situations like this that get missed...and suddenly I'm a criminal or liable...see any time you say insurance, the very next step is liability for instances falling outside coverage. NO effing way. This is a perfect example why the Feds can't do this...gotta be at the state level where rules that make sense based on how people live (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) can be applied.

If I were in that situation, I'd take the guns to and from those remote locations when I went there instead of leaving them there year-round. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, and actually commend you for locking your guns in safes. A lot of irresponsible people don't do that and make it easier for someone else to get their hands on their guns. I do however believe that their needs to be "responsibility" that goes along with the "right to bear arms" and believe that the gun owner must be accountable for keeping his or her guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm someone.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Your no armor piercing bullets idea would get rid of most rifles and some shotgun ammo. Most body armor is only good against handgun ammo which is lower powered than nearly all rifles. So there would be no more big game hunting, no more 3 gun competitions, no more long range shoots.

You are wrong on this. "Armor piercing" actually have a steel penetrater inside of the bullet. A normal rifle round will go through soft armor because it is not designed to take that kind of hit. If you buy rifle plates though it will stop a normal rifle round. It will not however stop an "armor piercing" round. The two are different things.

 

[irishpat183]

I actually do kind of like the idea of managing the guns they way we do cars. My proposal to do so would be as follows.

To use a gun one has to be licensed by the state to a own gun. One must always renew their license every year and pay the annual fee just like a driver's license. It is a major felony to sell a gun or aminution unless one presents their gun license at the time of sale. Guns could still be sold at gun shows as long as the buyer presents his or her state firearm license.

To get a license for a particular gun one must demonstrate proficency in using that particular gun via a state licensing exam ran by law enforcement officals. One must also go through a criminal background check to get a gun. Background check rules: 1 - No guns for convicted felons. 2 - No guns for those that are documented to have certain mental illnesses. 3- Crimes less than felonies do not prevent one from owning a gun but may lead to an increase in gun insurance rates (see below).

To keep their gun one must purchase liability insurance for the gun. The insurance would cover the following:
1 - Life insurance type benefits to any gun victim families killed by the gun.
2 - Medical expenses for anyone injured by the gun.
3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours.

Insurance rates would also be different for different types of firearms. So a potentially more dangerous firearm would require a higher insurance rate.

I think regulating guns like cars would solve a ton of issues. The insurance companies will want a lengthy background check before they consider one insurable. Secondly gun families of gun victims would actually be compensated when they die. Third by passing a firearm licensing exam one has to show they really know how to use the gun. Under this proposal you can own an assault weapon but you have to pass a different state exam for those types of weapons. In my proposal I do still want a magazine limit of 10 bullets and no armor piercing bullets. Also your insurace will be higer if you do own an assault type weapon. Not to mention this would be more revenue for the states because the license fees. The revenue from gun licensing fees can be used to help pay for having an armed police officer (and not armed teachers) on duty at public schools.

So insurance companies are ok to regulate guns....but not our health?


I thought insurance companies were greedy and screwing people over? Now you want them to regulate who can and can't buy guns???


Hilarious.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I'm actually ok with most of it...here is where I say no..."3 - Protects owner from any potential liability if the gun is stolen and used in a crime. With the requirement that the theft is reported to authorities within 48 hours."

Dude, I have a couple recreation properties stuck on the fringe of wilderness...two of which I cannot get to 3 months out of the year...but they contain weapons. Those weapons are in safes, but if someone got in there with snow machines and ransacked the joint...they could take 3 days to load the safe out, and torch t somewhere else...I may not know anything for Months. I leave those weapons there because those places have mountain Lions, Bears, Coyotes, Badgers...and so I hear recently Wolves. Employees who use them are encouraged to cary one of the shotguns or sidearm when they are out exploring...

Where I live there are literally thousands of places like that....you do Federal level crap, and its situations like this that get missed...and suddenly I'm a criminal or liable...see any time you say insurance, the very next step is liability for instances falling outside coverage. NO effing way. This is a perfect example why the Feds can't do this...gotta be at the state level where rules that make sense based on how people live (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) can be applied.

The big problem I have with registering all firearms is the government has the knowledge of what guns you have. If they were to overstep their boundaries they will know what you have and where they are when they want them.

Another thing why the fixation of only 10 rounds? What do you think it will stop? I can reload all my firearms with magazines rather quickly. The round count will mean the shooters just bring more magazines.

 

[irishpat183]

If I were in that situation, I'd take the guns to and from those remote locations when I went there instead of leaving them there year-round. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, and actually commend you for locking your guns in safes. A lot of irresponsible people don't do that and make it easier for someone else to get their hands on their guns. I do however believe that their needs to be "responsibility" that goes along with the "right to bear arms" and believe that the gun owner must be accountable for keeping his or her guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm someone.

So......

You want me to start listing "irresponsible" things people do to tax payers everyday?

Why is it that we need to be responsible about this...but there is no demand for citizens to be responsible for themselves when it comes to working, eating, their own health....etc.?????


I'm just saying that it's hypocritical. You want government to be in charge (new legislation)...yet scream about personal responsiblity?



And I'm sure most people do what is necessary to keep weapons out of bad guys hands. I mean, I haven't sold any guns to mexican drug cartels lately or anything...

 

[phgreek]

If I were in that situation, I'd take the guns to and from those remote locations when I went there instead of leaving them there year-round. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, and actually commend you for locking your guns in safes. A lot of irresponsible people don't do that and make it easier for someone else to get their hands on their guns. I do however believe that their needs to be "responsibility" that goes along with the "right to bear arms" and believe that the gun owner must be accountable for keeping his or her guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm someone.

I have a hard time with saying...well, just take them to and fro. People coming from all over use those places, and at times when I'm not there. They are beautiful and magestic, but VERY dangerous at times. Personally, I look at having guns on site as the responsible thing to do. It is far more likley someone forgets their gun, and gets hurt than someone stealing the weapons on site...

I totally see the need for a different standard in suburbia, where it is far more likley your guns would get stolen than being attacked by a Momma Bear. See...my point is the Fed. cannot do this...Can't. It needs to be dealt with at State and local levels, or good people are turned into criminals....There are too many differences in how we live in this nation to think "safety" precautions are one size fits all...just cannot work.

 

[phgreek]

And I'm sure most people do what is necessary to keep weapons out of bad guys hands. I mean, I haven't sold any guns to mexican drug cartels lately or anything...

I have to admit...I LOL'd. I'm a sucker for slapstick sarcasm.

 

[irishpat183]

The big problem I have with registering all firearms is the government has the knowledge of what guns you have. If they were to overstep their boundaries they will know what you have and where they are when they want them.
Another thing why the fixation of only 10 rounds? What do you think it will stop? I can reload all my firearms with magazines rather quickly. The round count will mean the shooters just bring more magazines.

Hell, look what 1 article in the newspaper did to two people already! Two people have already been robbed of their weapons after that article posted in that NY newspaper.

My handgun holds 15 rounds. It never leaves my house. 15 rounds ensures me that I probably won't have to reload if some scumbag comes in my place...And it's likely that he's got a 10-12 round weapon. Advantage Me.


I mean, I don't see the point at all in that logic. It's ridiculous.