6,000 highly trained professional good guys with guns, an entire metropolitan area shut down for a day, and who knows how many millions of dollars. Perhaps we should rethink gun control/rights in our country. Or at least, pressure the NRA to rethink its mantra....
Are you trying to draw an absolute from a data sample of 1?
In the end it took one guy smoking a cigarette to find the bad guy I wonder if it could have ended differently if he had a gun on him?
All but 1 of the mass shootings in public area in the past 30-50 years have happened in "gun free zones". The "Dark Knight theater" shooting took place in the ONE theater in the area with a posted "gun free zone" policy. There were other theaters that were closer or larger to the killer's home. Why did he chose that one?
There are already laws on the books that are not being enforced. How will new laws that infringe on "shall not be infringed" by the federal government save even one life?
Oh, how appropriate this is:
Except that John Stewart states that Miranda rights are found in the Constitution, but they were, instead, from a 1966 court case. The 5th Amendment states "nor shall be compelled" to give up information, it does not say that one must be told that they do not have to provide information. The 6th Amendment states that they shall be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", as someone can not be detained or arrested without cause. It does not state that a person must be told that they can withhold information. This is the reason the Miranda readings are under scrutiny. Many are calling for them to be removed, as they do not directly apply to the Constitution. For now they are the law, but they are not specifically Constitutional as a mandate.
As to his "quoting" firearm homicide rates, they are way off. In 2008 with a population of approximately 300,000,000 people, there were under 11,000 homicides by firearm. And most were committed with hand guns and not the feared "evil" rifle...while 11,000 deaths is a horrible thing for those involved, it is a very small % of the population and would not be affected by stricter laws on law abiding citizens. Enforce existing laws.
Yep, the pretend constitutionalists are very funny people.
Define "Good Guy"
Also remember that police, firemen, ambulances respond to 911 calls, not crimes.
WHAT IF THE TSARNAEVS HAD BEEN THE “BOSTON SHOOTERS”?
Great article on the different ways we respond to gun versus other violence:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j … oters.html
I can think of one thing that would be differently if it has been "Boston Shooters" Obama would have all the survivors sticking to him like glue...good props are hard to come by.
My God, an authority figure using a precedent to make changes? THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE WHAT AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!
No, it's a politician trying to manipulate emotion rather than arguing from logic.
Absolutely right Zelkiiro. That's why it has to be darn right inconvenient that they used pressure cookers instead of guns. Don't worry it seems like our nation is deteriorating fairly fast, I'm sure you'll get a mass shooting sooner or later to push your anti-gun agenda's
I think Lanza made those parents "props" (I highly object to this word) when he shot their children. I take it take... the NRA made them props when the suggested guns have nothing to do with those deaths and that their children would have been safer if there had been more guns in their schools. I think most parents would do exactly what those parents are doing if their children were shot - installing themselves on capital hill to shame politicians into making meaningful change to reduce the chances that this happens again and then when it does, it harms fewer people. Obama is doing what leaders should do - putting a human face to the tradegy that occurs when our system is not working. Our system includes: gun control measures, as well as the mental health system. People keep talking about this, and I think most people agree we need a better mental health system. The difference is that some of us are willing to pay for it, and some (often the same gun rights folks who are also anti-tax) are not. Reagan dismantled our mental health system in the 80s and it has never been rebuilt. Obama is pushing forward gun control AND he is pushing for lots of $ to go towards improved mental health, especially in schools, where funding has been cut severely to address this specific issue.
Gun rights folks: What are your solutions re: improving our mental health system and how do you suggest paying for it?
I don't know that you can generalize.
In Seattle today, it took 8 police officers and 4 innocent civilian plus the bad guy's deaths.
But how do we know the guy is a bad guy? Simply because he has a gun?
Or threatens to use the gun?
Or has already used the gun to do bad???
Uh. . .are you looking for a sign that reads "gun-free zone" as an answer? Maybe we should simply tell bad guys with guns to stop, or we could say please. Maybe if we ask nicely, that would work.
No, I'm really commenting on this fantasy that it's easy for a "good guy" to stop a "bad guy." The NRA portrays it as simple, but we've seen over and over again that really well trained good guys with guns often don't succeed in stopping the bad guys with guns. We've also seen that identifying the "good" versus "bad" guy (a la Martin v. Zimmerman) is not so simple.
Right now, we're stuck in a political quaqmire, where extremist viewpoints and propoganda are determining policy and practice.
I shudder to think what would have happened if all of Boston started open firing on anyone they thought looked "suspicious."
That's not what people do though. You're painting a false picture based on fear. In real life, citizens are very careful about who they shoot. They hit less innocent people than police, and miss less of their shots than police.
There was a person within 30 feet of the bombers at one point, in a dark and concealed location, while they were shooting at the police. If he had an AR-style rifle, that would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.
Of course you all seem too assume that bad guys are never crack shots!
Bad guys in the light, with pistols. You have a rifle, they don't know where you are, and you are in the dark, with concealment.
You can put two bullets into each of them in 2 seconds. The only way they would be able to find you would be if you were shooting, and missing, at a constant rate so they could pinpoint your location, assuming they even realized there were shots coming from another direction.
Sorry, you live in a fantasy world if you think that a person with a rifle is in any real danger from the bombers in that situation.
Hm, suddenly the good guys are well concealed and in the dark whilst the bad guys are in the open and well lit!!
It's not easy for anybody to stop somebody who is armed. That's why I need to be armed too. That's not an extremist view.
If I don't have a way to protect myself, what should I do when somebody breaks into my home? After calling 9-11, what would you propose? Begging? Crying? If I'm alone, I'll call 9-11, get armed, and await help. If necessary, I'll fire upon those who are trying to hurt/kill me. If my family is present, I have to protect them. That's not unreasonable. Wouldn't most people try to protect their family? A gun is a reasonable tool when a gun is being used against you. It's a simple as that. By the way, if three men are in your home at 2 in the morning, lurking by your daughter's bedroom door, you have reason to be suspicious.
When I was burgled I asked the burglars to go away. They went, apologising to me for wakening me.
Good for you. I guess people who are beaten, raped, and murdered by burglars should have just asked them to go away o.O
When my husband was a young man living off base in Southern California, he was awakened in the middle of the night by noises in his kitchen. He found a man stealing food. He invited him to sit down to the table and eat. He discovered that the man had illegally crossed the border with his family and they had no food or place to stay. My husband told him to leave and return with his family. My husband had a meal waiting for them when they arrived. The family ended up staying for about a week, then moved on.
Or, I guess he could have shot the burglar.
I think I understand now. We should be kind to the person in our house at 2 in the morning. Is that the advice we should give to our daughters? "If a stranger is in our house in the middle of the night, offer food to them. Be nice to them." I'm sure that will always result in a great outcome.
Did I say any of that? Every situation is unique. My husband made a judgment call from a position of strength with compassion. He had a gun in the house. In fact, he had already killed many people in battle so he was not a man who would hesitate if his life is in danger. My point is that a courageous man doesn't think of his gun as the default solution, but a fearful man does.
Yes, but a gun is the solution sometimes. That's my point.
I don't have a problem with you having guns. I just think if you want to keep guns, you should be willing to submit to stringent regulations, just like if you want to drive a car.
Yeah, that works. All drivers are safe drivers. The DMV is known for how efficiently it works.
So, are you saying we shouldn't enact laws because they don't work 100% of the time? Our auto registration, driver's licensing, and laws governing the operation of a vehicle have resulted in pretty safe traveling, given the number of cars on the road.
Is there any evidence that stringent gun controls, even to the point of denying anyone the right of gun ownership, will lower the murder rate at all?
It's not a matter of working 100% of the time; it's a matter of working more than 1% of the time in return for a massive loss of freedom.
There is evidence that households with guns experience more deaths from guns. I'm not in favor of banning guns; I'm in favor of implementing measures to decrease the number of deaths from guns. If everyone who owns a gun has to undergo training and pass a competency exam, plus adhere to certain laws regarding the keeping and operating of guns (just like with autos), chances are gun deaths will decrease, even if more people own guns.
I'm sure you'll come back with there is no proof that those measures will help. Until seat belt laws were enacted, there was no proof that enacting a law would decrease deaths, just a common sense idea that they probably would, and lo and behold, they did.
Yes, but driving legally on our streets is not a right, owning a firearm is.
Why is that every person I ask that question of immediately changes the subject to gun deaths rather than plain old murder? Because they know it won't help stop the murder rate at all?
But (surprise!) you won't get any argument from me that removing all guns from all households will limit the number of accidental deaths overall. Without a gun in the house, there won't be children playing with loaded guns, there won't be idiots shooting themselves while cleaning the gun. That will save lives, but the cost of a handful of lives saved is extremely high - far better to drop speed limits just 5 mph and save 100 times the lives at the cost of taking 10 minutes longer to get where you're going.
It just won't help the murder rate, which was what I asked.
Seat belts - this is absolutely another place big daddy Washington has interfered in our lives without reason. I do not accept that the American people need a nanny in Washington watching over them - that we are quite competent enough to do that ourselves. If our nanny wants to investigate the lives saved from seat belts and publicize that knowledge so that we all know it, fine, but our nanny politicians do not have the ethical right to require wearing of seat belts. Or motorcycle helmets, or any of dozens of other things safeguarding, not the lives of our neighbors from our actions, but the individual from the stupidity of his own actions. We are NOT, in this case, our brothers keeper.
I might add that taking actions with extreme costs because it might help is silly. When those actions have been tried over and over with no results it is even sillier. It is not the mark of intelligence to try the same thing again and again, each time hoping the result will somehow be different.
Yes, there is, but I'm not getting into a pissing match about statistics. That's been done many times on these forums.
I'd sure like to see fewer laws. I'd sure like to see our current laws enforced. No, I am not saying that there should be no new laws. I am saying that new laws should actually address the need. This is more about guns than it is violence. We'd be far better off looking at our gangs and drug culture, but nobody wants to look at these issues; these issues don't have a simple fix, so they are ignored and guns are blamed.
You're right in that it is more about guns (and the irrational fear in an inanimate object) than about violence.
Can I add a couple more that either do or that might play a part in the violence? As in mental illness or the love of violence in the country? A love that is catered to in the form of movies, video games, sports such as TV wrestling, hockey and the MMA, etc.
I would hardly say that the issue of gangs and drug culture are ignored? Ever hear of the DEA?
So, the reality is that guns sometimes make people safer - be in walking down the street or deterring someone in your home. There are lots of examples of this. And, lots and lots of data make it clear that the opposite is also true - that gun ownership is also related to high rates of homicide and suicide. In fact, suicide by gun is twice as high in states with high gun ownership than in states with low gun ownership, suggesting that merely having access to guns is a risk factor. This makes sense, since suicide is often impulsive, and guns make it a definite kill, which is not the case in any other method of suicide. But, I digress.
I'm not saying that no one should have a gun. But, why not try to figure out ways to get hands out of the bad guys so there wouldn't be the as much of a "need" to use guns to fend them off? Nothing foolproof, but let's at least look at what could move us in that direction - better background checks (and other measures that help keep guns out of the wrong hands - we could debate this until the cows come home), more accessible and higher quality mental health care (and other behavioral health) services,changes in media coverage and portrayal of violence, etc. Fear tactics and politics are distorting reality. It's time to move on, have an open dialog based on reality, and make some changes that will make children (and all people) safer.
So, before you jump on the "data lies" and "propoganda of the government" and "send me the link" (I'm not your research assistant - you can find it online), just consider that there are many shades of grey here. We don't have to bicker about this - we all know the reality is somewhere in the middle.
It is very likely that tens of millions of guns are not on the books. Good luck regulating guns out of the hands of criminals. By regulating all gun sales, all you will be doing is regulating the sale of guns to people who are willing to go through a background check in the first place.
I agree - and I would like to see more of those guns sales be on the books. There is no one solution to this problem, and things won't change overnight, but putting up road blocks to any possible steps that might nudge things in the right direction is not productive. Guns (some guns) are *part* of the problem - so, a discussion around guns has to be *part* of the conversation around the solution (along with many other factors that influence violence in our society as well).
Sadly, it wasn't the 6,000 trained officers that found the guy. Their dragnet failed.
It was an elderly boat owner.
"It's better to have a gun and not need one
than to need a gun and not have one"
Question; How many people can a nut job shoot when all those people have guns?
Answer; Not even close to 27 or 32 or 12 or...get the point?
And how many more accidental shootings, domestic violence shootings, or crimes using stolen guns will there be? Quite possibly just as many or more.
Mass shootings happen in gun free zones. There a bit less frequent at gun ranges though...or police stations. More gun free zones just expands the possibility's.
It's been said before; Gun laws take guns from law abiding citizens not criminals. I think we can agree on that. Also, the police come after the crime has been committed so self defense is prudent to say the least.
"Gun laws take guns from law abiding citizens not criminals. I think we can agree on that."
I don't agree on that. Why would regulating guns mean you would not be allowed to have a gun if you are law abiding?
I'm not talking about regulations like extensive background checks, psych evaluations, and felony denials.I'm talking about making semi autos,certain clips, and configurations being made illegal. There's a grey area of classifying weapons that can effect all weapons because all firearms share some common features. Take assault weapons away from the good guys[law abiding citizens]and the bad guys have the advantage by default....and reducing the number of guns through prohibition...well, look at the war on drugs and how successful that is.28 billion a year to the DEA and there are more and higher quality drugs than ever.
They grey area will need to be addressed. As far as I know, there is no credible movement among politicians to ban all guns. The majority of Americans support regulating guns, not banning.
Washington, D.C. now bans the possession of handguns.
Chicago bans the possession of handguns.
In 1982, San Francisco banned handguns, but it was overturned in court.
I could keep going. The fact remains that there IS a movement to ban guns, and I'm not even talking about "assault weapons." It starts locally and in small increments. Then, it becomes bigger and spreads.
Those are local governments. I thought conservatives prefer local government over federal government regulation. After all, if a city council votes to do something like that, it is probably because the citizens want it. If they don't, they will vote out the politicians who did it and install ones who will undo it.
Conservatives do prefer local government. What's that have to do with your statement that there is no movement to ban guns? I proved that there is a movement, many movements to ban guns. You were wrong, so you try to use my ideology against me? That's not a strong debate.
It is a fact. There are movements to ban guns in America.
Of course there is a movement to ban guns. It's an ongoing movement. Local or federal makes no difference. Typically, the way the gun-grabbers get their feet in the door is to start locally, and then use that as a precedent to expand.
Okay, I worded that poorly. There is no credible movement to ban guns by the federal government. My comment about conservatives favoring local government over federal is to point out that individual cities still have a right to enact their own laws to the satisfaction of the people who live there. It seems rather hypocritical to be in favor of local governance then gripe about what the citizens who make up those local governments enact as laws, especially if you don't live there.
Uh, no it is not hypocritical. That's the point of local government. I can love it or leave it.
You don';t consider Dianne Feinstein at the federal level? I can provide at least 5 more people in Congress who echo her opinions on banning guns. At what point do we call it a movement?
... a hug. Love and peace, brother. Make love, not war.
Here we go again , throwing facts ,figures , statistics and Ideals around like a food fight in the dining hall ! Right , wrong , indifferent ! I'll say this , if you know how to lock and load AND shoot it gives you an unbelievable sense of security in and around your home ! Stop the hysteria , calm down and stop worrying , Someone with a gun is in the neighborhood ! And they are as apt to stand up for you as if you were there own family , in fact they do that every day in the cruisers and in the back of hum-vees !
The answer is to give everyone a large angry pet dragon. Nobody would shoot a person with a large, angry pet dragon.
This will only work if it is not an assault dragon. If it has one too many teeth, it must be banned. Also, please make sure anybody wishing to adopt the dragon undergoes a background check.
Joke all we want, but the gun debate really is a story of dragons , A fantasy story ! The media and the hysteria of a non-gun -owning public look for instant closure to the current and tragic issues of the day so that you don't have to feel a collective shame and guilt of the condition of a non-existant mental healthcare system, --for a tired and worn out revolving doored justice system , and for representitive government that splurges tax revenues that should be used to fix an entirely broken penal system , Its always the gun though ! And why , because in reality , your general apathy to think beyond the noise of the media , to used one sided "statistics " , polls and personal agendas , rises beyond the ability to THINK of real solutions ! Your apathy has allowed the civil rights of career lawbreakers to be foremost front and center in our court systems , has allowed our justice system to morph into an industry of defense attorneys getting paid by tax dollars to spend years defending some of the worst social deviants in the world ! As soft as this America culture [ YOU] is on crime , what is another slew of laws against a lawful group of gun owners going to accomplish anyway ? Yes .....but lets remember we must slay the firebreathing dragon !
LOL, the hysteria is on the side of those who quiver at the thought of having their guns registered and tracked.
That's a word that just doesn't go with freedom. Sounds Orwellian.
So scared of your guns being tracked when you yourself can easily be tracked? Doesn't compute.
Nope. I know I can be tracked, but what kind of a government does that? I'm scared of a government that feels that it needs to do that.
So, you're opposed to social security numbers? State identification? VIN numbers on cars? Tax returns?
Nobody is talking about confiscating your car. I'm opposed to tracking being used against people. I feel that tracking guns is the first step in confiscation. Before you say that would never happen, you might want to look into how many politicians are on the record about wanting to confiscate or ban all guns. Start with Dianne Feinstein.
All of those things are used to help find people, should the government decide to look.
Sure, some politicians want to ban guns. They're in the minority and there is no danger that will happen any time soon.
I'm far from that. You don't know me. Don't assume. I just don't want a freedom eroded.
Just for the record ,for those who know not of which they speak ! Whenever I have purchased a gun in a gun shop . I fill out a universal backgrouund check , two pages worth of questions , The store owner immediately calls the feds and does an instant background check on my legal status , S.S. number is given , criminal records [if any ] are accessed , and then we wait for the " Proceed " or not ! I have never purchased a gun illegally , once in a while there will be a "delay "if anything is wrong , including computor glitches , Then after the said ," proceed ", I have to show my drivers licence to varify my in state residence . ...this is all normal for a gun purchase , The only online transactions I have had also had to go through a official dealer withing my state of residence and the state of origin ! I grow old when I hear about the ignorance of non-gun owners , saying" there are no regulations ! No registrations , no controls at all "! My advice to the senseless drivel of anti-gun people is to learn of what you speak , BEFORE making statements about that which you niether know about or experience first hand ! Ask law abiding gun owners what they experience , Just to protect ourselves from doing something illegal !
I have not seen anyone say there are no gun regulations. You just made that up.
If I want to buy a gun without a background check, all I have to do is go to a local gun show or buy one from my neighbor. So easy.
Have you been to a gun show? You are wrong about this. Only some guns at gun shows do not require a background check. If you purchase a gun from a dealer at a show, you still have to have a background check.
Correct. All gun dealers that exhibit at the shows - run checks.
There are a few individual collectors here and there- but most are dealers, so this issue is a non-starter.
Yes, I've been to gun shows. Yes, background checks are required at gun shows when you purchase from a dealer. The definition of individual vendor is quite loose, though. Haven't you heard of the "gun show loophole"?
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html
Yeah, I have heard of it. I do not believe that additional background checks will help, so for me, this point is pointless unless you can get criminals to abide by the same rules we must adhere to.
You don't think requiring a background check for every single gun purchase will help? Okay.
Of course, criminals won't abide by the same rules that we do; that's the definition of criminal. Does that mean we don't enact laws to deter them? I'm pretty sure if there was no law against stealing, more people would do it.
In theory, that all sounds good PP, but there are no stats to back up the idea that adding more regulations will deter criminals. That's why the death penalty is falling away. It's not a deterrent after all.
Logistically, there is no way to enforce the provision you suggest. The vast majority of gun crimes feature handguns that are stolen, traded for drugs or sex and these guns change hands constantly.
Do you honestly think a drug dealer is going to run a background check on the gun he sells to a pimp? Seriously?
But, that's where the majority of the gun crime takes place - in gang- and drug-ridden urban areas.
If your provision will NOT affect gun crime stats - why do it? Why spend millions of taxpayer dollars to implement a problem that won't have an impact on crime?
Background checks alone will not be enough. I agree with that much. There are ways to do it, though. If you oppose it because you cannot think of how it could efficiently be done, then you would be in favor of it if an efficient way could be devised?
I oppose it for two reasons. First, given the "honesty" of the criminal element - it can never be efficient. We're never going to get them to tell anyone about gun purchases/sales, much less actively seek background checks.
Second, for law-abiding citizens, the only ones who would follow the rule - mandatory background checks is very close to an active gun-ownership list. That might not sound too bad either, until you remember what just happened in one state, where a newspaper published the list of all registered gun owners.
There's no reason to put honest citizens at risk. Especially, when the added risk does not solve the problem for which it was implemented.
If a newspaper can get a list of all registered gun owners, then it must be public record, which means a criminal who would use such a list can also get it.
As far as the rest, I'm not clear how any of that puts gun owners at risk. If you are talking about criminals wanting to break into homes to steal guns, I'm repeatedly being told by those who oppose any additional gun control laws that gun owners would use their guns to protect themselves from an intruder in their home. I've also repeatedly been told that the more people who own guns, the fewer crimes would be committed.
So, I guess I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't your name on a list of gun owners mean that a burglar would be less likely to enter your home? And, if a burglar did enter your home, wouldn't you be prepared, since you own a gun?
I'm sure you can understand why publishing the personal information is probably a hazard. It isn't your or anyone's business if I own a gun. I bet you could understand the thinking behind "if more people had guns we would be safer" if you were a bad guy and you saw someone carrying a weapon. You would move on to a much safer target, wouldn't you? Sadly much easier prey await in gun-free zones.
Publishing personal information is a separate issue.
So, if a bad guy would move on to a gun-free zone if he saw someone carrying a weapon, why are gun owners put at risk by people knowing they have a gun? Seems contradictory to me. Seems from what you said that if you own a gun you would want the bad guy to know it so he would leave you alone.
Just trying to follow the logic.
Publishing that I own a gun is publishing personal information so it is not a separate issue. I can't be home 24 hours a day so publishing information that I have a gun lets a burglar know what is possibly in my house and provides incentive to break in. If a burglar breaks in steals my gun then there is one more unsecured weapon on the street, is that what you want?
Well, the original point (by Howard) was that criminals knowing you own a gun would put gun owners at risk, which contradicts previous claims by others that criminals knowing you own a gun would mean they would be less likely to break into your home.
So, you think criminals knowing you own a gun would make it more likely you would be burgled? I guess that differs from what others have said.
In any case, whether or not gun ownership should be public knowledge is a separate issue because gun registration already exists. If you don't like it being public knowledge, then you should be talking to whoever could change that.
Outside of the business that a weapon is purchased from where is the gun registry?
I believe in the case of the newspaper that published names of gun owners, they obtained the information from county clerks through the FOIA.
If I remember that was in New York where gun control is stringent, I think you must have a license in that state. So no, a gun registry does not exist.
What is the benefit other than confiscation would a gun registry provide?
PP, you misquoted me when you said that I indicated publishing the names would put the owners at risk from criminals. Perhaps that's true in some areas - but I meant at risk from employers, etc.
Besides, no one knows where Lie Detector lives anyway.
Just a little west of Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Great, now all the bad guys are gonna look you up in the phone book. Boy that was really stupid Mr.
Just search for Lie Detector in the white pages.
PP, I'm not sure if a public gun list would make your home a bit more burglar-proof - it very well could - but that wasn't my point.
When the newspaper published the names of the gun owners - they did so in an attempt to "expose" and harass them. The gun owners turned the tables by publishing the names and home addresses of everyone who worked at the newspaper. The newspaper cried "foul" but, of course, they started the whole mess.
While owning guns is certainly legal, some people feel it's controversial and they'd prefer to keep their gun ownership private.
All of us want a bit of privacy. In the small community I used to live in - one woman was very vocal about her pro-choice rights. Vocal to the point of being kind of obnoxious. She fell upon sad circumstances and had to get an abortion and it upset her badly. What happened next was even worse. A man from our community (very pro-life) saw her the day she entered the clinic in a nearby town. He was picketing the clinic. He quickly "spread the news" and the woman - very drunk one night soon after - drove off the road, flipped her car in a ditch where she drowned. The whole town got involved in the argument. The man and his church members said that she publicly walked into the clinic - so there was nothing wrong with spreading the news. Those of us who were appalled - said she deserved privacy. The debate went on for over a year.
Although I don't expect the gun list argument to rise to that level of personal hurt, there are employers who might not approve, neighbors, etc. In my opinion, unless the gun owner wants to share the info - it's no one else's business.
I own guns and I've never bought one because I was afraid of a "bad guy." I don't hunt, but I do shoot competitively. Where I live, I don't lock my doors but my guns and ammo are very securely locked up -- separately. If your "bad guy" broke in - I might not have time to get to my guns. But as I said - that's not why I own them. I don't foresee a war in which I would need them either.
I enjoy my small collection for the history behind it. My guns pose no threat to anyone. Why do you think it would be okay to publish my name as if I'd done something wrong?
Do you know when the majority of breakin's take place? A good many of them take place during the day, while a person is at work.
It means we enact laws that actually will deter them. Why should we waste time and resources enacting a law that will accomplish little to nothing, so we can feel like we did something? We need to start looking at what is causing the violence. Guns don't cause violence; they are merely a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Of course there are regulations. The process you had to go through doesn't sound particularly cumbersome. I think people are arguing that that kind of check should be required no matter where someone is buying a gun, not just at licensed firearm dealers. Currently, many guns are sold at gun shows, through private transactions, etc, and my understanding is that checks are not required in those situations, contributing to guns being sold to less well-standing citizens than yourself.
The problem that bumped this issue out was that it would be impossible to implement the checks for private, neighbor-to-neighbor, dad-to-son-type transactions. If they tried to implement that - it would severely hamper law-abiding citizens, but, of course, criminals would keep trading guns for drugs for sex....whatever.
What's happening now - under the radar - is that the DHS is making HUGE ammo purchases. That pulls ammo off the shelves. Right now, there are a limited number of ammo manufacturers, so it will remove some ammo from the public scene. Once again, that's shortsighted because anyone intent on getting large amounts of ammo - can do so. It's just takes a bit longer. Recent rampage shooters have all planned and schemed over months or years, so they won't be impacted.
This is all fee-good fluff. If the govt. IS successful in reducing the overall number of firearms - all the wanna-be killer have to do is purchase a pressure-cooker and some fireworks.
Laboring over dunghills, folks.
Wow , i think you just hit that one on the head !.......All of this, this entite issue , is but smoke and mirrors anyway! Want to stop crime with guns ........stop crime !
In Arizona, we have a severe problem with illegal aliens. Many of us want to make sure that all people who are here to work legally carry a permit. It is believed that there are as many illegal aliens in Arizona as there are soldiers in the U.S. military! We're not aloud to require evidence of legal entry to our country according to liberals and courts. You want American citizens to go through background checks and registration for guns, but we can't do that for illegal aliens. That's rich. Do you have any idea how much crime is being committed by illegal aliens? Why don't we start there? Let's have security and background checks for people entering our country. That would save a lot more lives than more background checks for gun owners.
by SpanStar3 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a...
by jleblanc13173 years ago
Why do the the left wingers think that tighter gun laws and more through background checks will keep the "bad guys" from getting guns? The bottom line here is that "bad guys" are not going into gun...
by Josak3 years ago
Particularly in teens who use the family gun, across all states, higher gun ownership correlates to higher suicide rates, households with guns are far more likely to have a member commit...
by Ralph Schwartz7 months ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free...
by Mike Russo3 years ago
Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.htmlWhat are your thoughts?
by Thaddeus Byron Bullock Jr.4 years ago
There has always been debate and contention about whether or not people should own guns. There are many people who are firmly anti-gun, and there are equally as many people who believe that when used responsibly, there...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.