bloodmage2 said:
Mathurin said:
bloodmage2 said:
you know, i'd be willing to go half way on this issue. you can keep your guns, if say,
1) manatory gun safes, out of your own pocket, gun AND ammo must remain there when not in active use.
2) you may own ONE gun in an urban/sub-urban environment, or TWO if you live somewhere rural where hunting is a significant part of your food supply.
3) if you have children, you may not keep your gun or safe anywhere below 6 feet above the floor.
4) mandatory safety and training classes, with written and practical tests.
but no, no gun-nut is every going to agree to clamp down on their unhealthy addiction to tools of war.
If you think this is halfway then you have no idea what my position is.
1) How will you enforce this?
see post about cord in safe etc.
Ah, so you would do it by violating privacy without due process, marvelous, now you are violating 2 parts of the bill of rights.
bloodmage2 said:
2) You know very little about guns, correct?
Guns are not generalist devices, they tend to be very specialized for their tasks,
tell me, what exactly are the different purposes of a gun other than killing things? like i said, if you are in an urban environment, a gun in your apartment to fend of potential robbers is understandable. out in the rural areas, a gun for hunting and a gun for defense is all you need.
You have indicated you are an archer and do target practice, do you only use one bow for that?
Guns are also used for target practice, its very similar to bows actually in that it?s a weapon of hunting and warfare.
I don?t know a ton about archery, but I think I can put it into archery terms.
If you are hunting deer/elk you need a 60lb compound bow and broadhead points
If you are hunting rabbit a 60 lb compound with broadheads would go through 3 rabbits, shredding each of them. You need something weaker, like a 30 lb recurve with blunts or practice points.
Similarly, you don?t use the same rifle for deer as you would for rabbit.
Also, I will explain some of my small collection.
Semi-auto .22 rifle - gift from parents, isn?t losing value, fun for non-serious target practice
Bolt action .22 rifle ? more accurate rifle for inexpensive serious target practice
Mosin nagant ? cheap decently accurate .30 cal, good for deer hunting if needed, otherwise good for longer range target practice, common rounds are light armor penetrating.
Short double barrel ? pure toy, non-serious target practice. I bought it because I wanted one, I keep it because the trade in value would be low and I might want another one someday. Like that stereo you don?t use but might need sometime.
2 .22 revolvers ? holdovers from youth, cheap target practice, 1 is a quality and accurate pistol, the other isn?t really worth much.
.45 auto pistol ? defense pistol, this one is well tuned and accurate
9mm pistol ? got a really good deal on it, hard to pass up
Pocket pistol ? purchased when I was thinking about getting a concealed carry permit, I keep it because its the only pistol I have ?on the books? in my name.
This is the only one currently kept in my apartment, the rest stay at my parents farm.
Each of these guns has a slightly different purpose or use, and some I don?t use yet keep around because I have no reason to sell them, how is my possession of them harming anyone?
bloodmage2 said:
collectors dont collect just for kicks.
and neither do zoos, but the common man is not allowed to keep multitudes of exotic and/or dangerous animals in their homes. if its simply collection you want, then perhaps there could be a separate collectors license: removes the limit of guns, or at least raises it, but does not allow purchase of ammo.
That depends on your definition of common man, but yes, individuals are allowed to keep exotic pets.
I don?t want a gun I cant shoot, part of collecting old or replica firearms is getting a greater understanding of history by using them. Most people don?t understand how difficult a muzzleloader is to load, I do, I have one, it helps me understand the difficulties faced by early Americans.
bloodmage2 said:
3) Telling me how to raise my children eh?
When I was about 14-15 a friend came to my house, as we walked through the living room he saw my dads gun and picked it up. I immediately told him to stop, took it from him and unloaded it. When you raise kids with knowledge about firearms you dont have to worry about them being stupid with them. From the age of 7 or so I knew where a gun was, it was no mystery, I had already learned to shoot it and could do so anytime, I didnt have to sneak, I just had to ask.
i suppose i am, but you honestly need it if you are telling young, impressionable children that it is a good idea to have tool whose only function is killing things. i've no problem with teaching children how to defend themselves, but if you are leaving a gun within a child's reach its no better than leaving an open bottle of bleach or rat killer. its simply a way to ensure irresponsible parents aren't the cause of their child's untimely death.
I think you mean the only function is killing AND target practice, similar to bows.
I wish I could find an old link to CDC mortality stats I had which showed that accidental firearm deaths of kids under 12 were minute, like a half dozen or so.
This is another manufactured problem, when people present studies about 'children' killed by guns they include anyone under 18, fluffing their stats with gang shootings
bloodmage2 said:
4) Excellent area for a backdoor ban, just make the tests too hard to pass,
a valid point, but i feel it is necessary. guns should be owned by those who NEED them. not WANT them, NEED them. as in, you live in a part of the city that sees daily muggings bellow your window, or that hunting deer, birds, and squirrels is a significant part of your diet. if one just wants a collection big loud bang-device to make up for one's tiny dick, one should not have one. the test is there so that A) all persons with a legal firearm know every inch of their device and the consequences for using it incorrectly and B) to deter anyone who, as before said, does not strictly NEED a firearm.
The biggest part of this issue is, who asked you, and who decided that your opinion should be law.
Making possession of anything based on need, really major serious need like you indicate, sets a precendent where virtually anything can be outlawed, because you don?t NEED it. This is not a hallmark of a free society.
Do you NEED those cheetos, really?
Do you need those square feet of living space, I think you can squeeze into a place half that size.
That aside, using overly difficult tests to block things has been done before, hence the only way I can get behind any test is if they are tied to something else, like a high school diploma, in this way they cannot be denied without causing a massive uproar of discontent.
bloodmage2 said:
also, literacy tests have already made a precedent in the US, you may not test someone before they are allowed to access a right.
and it is my opinion that a gun is a PRIVILEGE as is a car and driver's licence: something potentially dangerous, but a necessary danger in the hands of the capable who need them.
Its nice that you have that opinion, but the Supreme court of the US is of the opinion that it is a right.
bloodmage2 said:
How about this for halfway
A) Increased sentencing for anyone caught committing a crime while in possession of a firearm
B) Felon in possession = 10 years
C) Knowingly providing a firearm to a felon or for use in a crime = 10 years.
D) Theft of a firearm = 10 years
E) Mandatory firearms training, as part of high school education.
Punish individual criminals, not collective society.
while those are good, and a high-school course in firearms is not exactly terrible, i would find it better if it was done the same way drivers ed. is: not exactly mandatory, but anyone who has any intention of using it will take it. i enjoy archery, and when you are just using a bow to hunt or target shoot, its fine with me, and the same thing goes for guns. the difference is, most people that own bows know a good deal about their use, and use them only for the purpose of target shooting or hunting game. far too many people in the U.S. own guns that really don't need to for reasons ranging from lack of self-confidence to right wing delusion (i.e. "da gubbmint be takn muh gurns, dey be takn muh raits!" sort of nonsense).
You have fallen into a strawman delusion. Very few of those people exist, its simply how they are represented.
Anyway, I suggest it as mandatory for 2 reasons
1. Licensing can be tied to it without fear that the test will be made too difficult to pass as a backdoor ban
2. Demystifying firearms will reduce the number of people scared of them, hence reducing the people wanting to ban them
This is called ?meeting halfway? you get a license, I get assurance it cant be a ban, and more people get exposed to my hobby, making demonization of it harder.
bloodmage2 said:
To clear out prison space I suggest we legalize drugs and prostitution, which will also deprive gangs of their income.
that is completely irrelevant, but i wholeheartedly agree.
I actally disagree with you on relevance, the majority of gun crime in the US occurs through drug gangs, yet people engaged in the debate are trying to remove guns from the stereotypical ?ignorant small dicked redneck? which barely exists. It?s a perceived, I would even say imagined, danger.
The majority of gun crime is a symptom of drug crime, gangs and poverty. That?s it.
If we tackle these issues, gun crime wont be an issue anymore.
Sure, we will have the occasional nutter who goes nutter with a gun, but then japan has the occasional nutter who goes crazy with a knife, any anybody can go nutter through a street festival with a car, wracking up a higher kill count. Its like the commonly mentioned ?lone gunman? that the secret service so fears, because they cannot be stopped or prevented by any means.
