Gun Control

[Timster]

 I do not think anyone under 21 should be allowed to purchase a gun.

It's alright to die for your country at 18, but you can't buy a firearm?  Please explain why?  The current age for purchase of a rifle or shotgun is 18, and 21 for a handgun.    I don't understand why people fear long guns more than they fear handguns, when your'e more likely to be shot by a handgun.

I do not think any form of handgun should be sold to anyone who does not have proof or training, and there should be a 3 month cooling off period rather than only 14 days.

Cooling off period?  What is this person cooling off from?  Do you assume only angry people buy handguns?

[lightprocess]

Crobs I hope you realize the overwhelming majority of gun-crimes involve an illegally obtained weapon (only 14% are legitimately purchased), so all of your arbitrary restrictions aren't going to do much for the crime rate. link

[Reflex]

I actually semi-agree with Crobs on that, especially the proof of training.  As for the 21 argument, it applies to both guns and alcohol and my answer is simple: Move military recruitment age to 21+.  I feel that should be the standard anyway as it would force HS grads to actually attempt a career and/or education before joining the military.  Furthermore it would improve the quality of the recruits we did get since they would either have existing skills or be better educated, and more mature about their decision to join.  Not to mention it would end the "you can die for your country but you can't do xx" argument once and for all.

[crobs808]

Originally posted by: Timster
I don't understand why people fear long guns more than they fear handguns, when your'e more likely to be shot by a handgun.

Cooling off period?  What is this person cooling off from?  Do you assume only angry people buy handguns?

#1 - why do people fear small guns rather than large guns...when was the last time there was a drive by shooting with rifles? when was the last time there was a guy walking down the street and into a convenience store, and he pulled a rifle out of his pants and started shooting? come on, think, it's obvious

#2 - a "cooling off period" is the period not that technocal a term, you could have looked it up, but i'll tell you what it is.  it it the period right after you walk in the gun shop and make the actual purchase.  You walk in, purchase a gun, then the cooling off period must occur before you can take posession of a gun.  Some places it is only required to be 14 days.  It isn't like buying food where you walk in and walk out with a gun.  Please read up on the facts of gun ownership and the process of buying before posting something obviously ridiculous.

~ Connor

[Timster]

Originally posted by: crobs808

Originally posted by: Timster

I don't understand why people fear long guns more than they fear handguns, when your'e more likely to be shot by a handgun.



Cooling off period?  What is this person cooling off from?  Do you assume only angry people buy handguns?

#1 - why do people fear small guns rather than large guns...when was the last time there was a drive by shooting with rifles? when was the last time there was a guy walking down the street and into a convenience store, and he pulled a rifle out of his pants and started shooting? come on, think, it's obvious



#2 - a "cooling off period" is the period not that technocal a term, you could have looked it up, but i'll tell you what it is.  it it the period right after you walk in the gun shop and make the actual purchase.  You walk in, purchase a gun, then the cooling off period must occur before you can take posession of a gun.  Some places it is only required to be 14 days.  It isn't like buying food where you walk in and walk out with a gun.  Please read up on the facts of gun ownership and the process of buying before posting something obviously ridiculous.



~ Connor

Read what I said in the quote.  People are  more likely to be shot with HANDGUNS than long guns.  You already have to be 21 to purchase a handgun now.  What people fear more is exactly the opposite.  If you look at previous legislation such as the AWB, it was restrictions on mostly rifles and shotguns.  The only restirction on handguns was magazine capacity.

As for #2, why don't you use a term that makes sense such as WAITING PERIOD.  "Cooling off" implies that all firearm purchases are spur of the moment, inspired by rage or impulse.  If you do some research, you'll find that most firearms used in murders and crimes are not brand new purchases, but have been owned for quite awhile before they were used.  That's why waiting periods are considered a joke.  As for knowing something about owning and buying firearms, I own over 15, so I guess I had to pick up some knowledge at some time getting familiar with Form 4473.

Most states do have waiting periods, but these are normally 3-5 business days, and the time is given to federal and local authorities to run background checks.  When buying long guns, the dealers only need to check in with the FBI's NICS system.  Within a half hour, you can walk out with a brand new rifle.  However, handgun buyers normally go through the fed check plus a local background check.

It's different from state to state if you have a concealed carry permit.  If you have a permit, you already went through a background check that is kept up to date, so you don't have to go through either the NICS or local checks.  It's already been done.

As for training, this is where it gets sticky.  That could be anything from handing out a brochure on safe handling habits (it's already contained in the instruction manual, if people actually read them,) to an actual course with classroom time and range time, which costs time and money.  Who will administer these courses, and whose pocket with this money come from?  Who decides what is covered, and the criterium for passing?  Chucky Schumer and Hillary Clinton?

[Babar]

I wouldn't own a gun. Not that I oppose responsible, sensible gun ownership (I do, and in fact my brother and uncle both hunt, and I have absolutely no second thoughts, qualms, or regrets about that).

I just think there are much better ways to repel attackers. Call me insidious or whatever, but I wouldn't mind a miniature device that emits sound so loud as to split eardrums, because it wouldn't bother me in the least. Talk about pain. Id rather cause an attacker excrutiating pain than kill them outright. Tasers would be fun too, perhaps along with pictures of them pissing themselves for me to post all over the neighborhood. OK, maybe I wouldn't really do it, but the thot is nice...

[mikevalla]

Actually, wouldn't you feel vibrations, if the sound was that loud?

[Reflex]

Babar - Those weapons won't stop a determined attacker, and should you do them any harm or 'cause anguish' you'd be setting yourself up to be sued as your liable for what happens on your property.  I was hit with a taser by some individuals who attempted to mug me a few years back.  It hurt like hell(hit me in the neck, felt like I was literally on fire), but I managed to lock my knees and not go down.  They took off running once they realized I wasn't going down.  I would not rely on a weapon like that to stop someone, from personal experience I know it can be overcome.

[Timster]

If someone is in an altered state of reality brought on by drugs or alcohol, they may exhibit a reduced sensitivity of pain.  They're not superhuman, but they're going to appear superhuman when less than lethal countermeasures only take them down a notch or two instead of stopping them in their tracks.

[Babar]

should you do them any harm or 'cause anguish' you'd be setting yourself up to be sued as your liable for what happens on your property.

Well, shit. If not killing them means I get sued, then give me the gun.

[Reflex]

Timster - The only 'alteration' my state was in was fear/agitation/tired from work(was walking home after work).  Yes it hurt like hell, but it didn't take me down.

Babar - Depends on the state.  Its a sticky thing. It is somewhat frustrating to think though that sparing the life of an intruder can cost you everything however.

[Babar]

Babar - Depends on the state. Its a sticky thing. It is somewhat frustrating to think though that sparing the life of an intruder can cost you everything however.

I suppose we have to start giving robbers contracts that state, any injuries incurred during the act of robbing cannot be held against the victim... blah blah... something along those lines.

[Overkill]

Originally posted by: Timster

If someone is in an altered state of reality brought on by drugs or alcohol, they may exhibit a reduced sensitivity of pain.  They're not superhuman, but they're going to appear superhuman when less than lethal countermeasures only take them down a notch or two instead of stopping them in their tracks.

Interesting arguments there. So, if someone attacks you with possible lethal intent under the influence of drugs, or with mental health problems, you feel no qualms about shooting them? Should of course you get the chance? At the same time the argument by Reflex that if someone is detrimined to attack you must use lethal force in retaliation is also interesting.

This of course means that in this country, with no recourse to guns, that we should be constantly seeing people killed by 'detirmined attackers and crazed druggies', which of course we don't. By the same token (I've seen someone lose it on drugs) I doubt very much a mere handgun, even a 38' will easily stop someone from seriously injuring or killing you should the latter be the case.

I'm beginning to wonder how much gun use is geniune need, and how much a psychological need here.

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Overkill
I'm beginning to wonder how much gun use is geniune need, and how much a psychological need here.

And how much of the genuine need is self-induced by the national arms race. If people have guns because criminals have guns, and criminals have guns because people have guns...is that genuine need?

[Timster]

Originally posted by: Nighteye

Originally posted by: Overkill

I'm beginning to wonder how much gun use is geniune need, and how much a psychological need here.

And how much of the genuine need is self-induced by the national arms race. If people have guns because criminals have guns, and criminals have guns because people have guns...is that genuine need?

Hope for the best, prepeare for the worst.  If I decided to give up all means of defense, I doubt the violent criminals would do the same.  If they were all non-violent, I'd chase them off with a broom.  Shoo, shoo, be off you hoodlums!

So, if someone attacks you with possible lethal intent under the influence of drugs, or with mental health problems, you feel no qualms about shooting them?

I'd feel even less if I was dead.  Same would apply if the neighboring granny was off her meds and came charging at me with a butcher knife.  If I could escape or run away and call the police, I would.

[Nighteye]

Another thing to consider, after coming upon this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/...ld.shot.ap/index.html

How can you send your children to school knowing other children at that school may have access to guns, and even use them to hurt or kill your children? You can act responsibly yourself, but that is no guarantee that the parents of the other children at your children's school will act equally responsible.

[Reflex]

In a country of nearly 300 million people, something shocking is bound to happen at least a couple times a week.  If you'll notice, the owner of the firearm is a multiple time convicted criminal and was not technically allowed to own it.  That situation was a very rare border case not typical of living here.

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Reflex
In a country of nearly 300 million people, something shocking is bound to happen at least a couple times a week.  If you'll notice, the owner of the firearm is a multiple time convicted criminal and was not technically allowed to own it.  That situation was a very rare border case not typical of living here.

Yes, but it could happen with any parent that doesn't treat guns responsibly - not just convicted criminals...

[Reflex]

Which is why there are criminal penalties in most states for parents who do so.

[Timster]

Irresponsible storage and handling is a major issue, but I think we can reduce the number of incidents through safety training and awareness.  There has been safety and awareness classes available for kids of different age groups for many years through the NRA, but the schools won't have anything to do with them.  They teach about the dangers of drugs, electricity, knives, and playing with fire, you'd think teaching kids not to touch guns would be common sense.