Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I don't know if its federal law, but here in Illinois I think its at least 10 years in prison for buying a firearm for someone who cant have one. They don't even have to be a felon.
We have quite a bit of gun laws. The problem is they are designed to prevent traditional crime, not these seemingly random shootings.
Because these shootings are so atypical and because we don't have a clear understanding of why they happen; we can expect the coming laws, which are a knee-jerk response, to be ineffective in stopping them.
Jim, I'm happy you finally decided to reveal your true position on the issue and stop pretending to be centrist.
Jim, its been covered ad nauseum in this thread that stopping determined people is very difficult indeed. If you take away guns (which you cant), they will just do it another way. The slaughter will continue.
The first mass school killing, which I think was the most deadly, was not done with guns.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, but it will take some time. The sooner we start the sooner guns will become harder and harder to find, then slaughter will slow and someday it will stop.
Does anyone think that in 500 years we in the USA will still be slaughtering thousands and thousands every year?
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
In a 2001 Japanese school attack, a man with a knife attacked childeren, he injured 29 students and teachers, with eight deaths, the attack was stopped by two teachers who subdued him with their hands!
In China 2010, a man attacked a school with a knife, he stabed and slashed 22 childeren, all survived!
In these two vicious, school knife attacks, 51 people were attacked and only eight died.
In our most recent school attack, but this time using GUNS, there 28 childered and teachers attacked and 26 killed.
What was the differance: In China and Japan, they don't have easy access to guns!
Knives killed 8 out of 51
Guns killed 26 out of 28.
Yes they could use other methods, but they are no where near as efficient as guns!
In China 2010, a man attacked a school with a knife, he stabed and slashed 22 childeren, all survived!
In these two vicious, school knife attacks, 51 people were attacked and only eight died.
In our most recent school attack, but this time using GUNS, there 28 childered and teachers attacked and 26 killed.
What was the differance: In China and Japan, they don't have easy access to guns!
Knives killed 8 out of 51
Guns killed 26 out of 28.
Yes they could use other methods, but they are no where near as efficient as guns!
I think in the past month, we had 12 people shot in the Chicago area, of those, 3 died.
So now guns kill 3 out of 12!
BTW, where did you get this 500 year thing from?
So now guns kill 3 out of 12!
BTW, where did you get this 500 year thing from?
Ron Earp
Admin
I'm a firearms enthusiast. No doubt about that. Like guns, don't take my guns, guns don't kill people do, personal responsibility, and all that.
But I do think we can make some changes in our laws that would help to prevent criminals and unqualified individuals from owning firearms.
If I were Gun Czar I would:
*Require private sales to go through an FFL (this is referred to as the “gun show loophole” and has nothing to do with gun shows).
*Link medical and mental health records to the NCIS background check system. Deny firearms purchases based on a framework erected on these databases.
*Impose and execute harsh penalties for straw purchasers.
*Impose and execute harsh penalties for any crime committed with a firearm.
As a law abiding citizen who collects a lot of firearms and enjoys shooting, none of these changes would prevent me from owning and obtaining firearms. It would however provide additional barriers to criminals obtaining guns (I know, there are a lot already and criminals don't obey rules) and help keep guns away from those persons who have mental health problems.
I know there are some problems with passing laws such as these, not the least of which is patient privacy issues, but I've no problem with people looking into my medical history if I wish to purchase firearms. And, when I buy guns via private transactions, paying $20 to an FFL to transfer the gun isn't that big of a deal and I have the satisfaction of knowing a proper background check was performed and the owner is qualified to own the gun.
But I do think we can make some changes in our laws that would help to prevent criminals and unqualified individuals from owning firearms.
If I were Gun Czar I would:
*Require private sales to go through an FFL (this is referred to as the “gun show loophole” and has nothing to do with gun shows).
*Link medical and mental health records to the NCIS background check system. Deny firearms purchases based on a framework erected on these databases.
*Impose and execute harsh penalties for straw purchasers.
*Impose and execute harsh penalties for any crime committed with a firearm.
As a law abiding citizen who collects a lot of firearms and enjoys shooting, none of these changes would prevent me from owning and obtaining firearms. It would however provide additional barriers to criminals obtaining guns (I know, there are a lot already and criminals don't obey rules) and help keep guns away from those persons who have mental health problems.
I know there are some problems with passing laws such as these, not the least of which is patient privacy issues, but I've no problem with people looking into my medical history if I wish to purchase firearms. And, when I buy guns via private transactions, paying $20 to an FFL to transfer the gun isn't that big of a deal and I have the satisfaction of knowing a proper background check was performed and the owner is qualified to own the gun.
Yes, but with more sophisticated weapons, and there will still be more deaths due to drugs, alcohol, Dr error, and tobacco, with a few new catagories we haven't heard of. Criminals will always have weapons, they have them in prison. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time, now they are better at it. Pretty naive.
Of the 300 million firearms in the country, only 32% of the population own those. The rest of the population are potential/willing victims?
No good answer, but that is a part of the problem little addressed. Mental health care (lack there of)is a very large part of the real problem.
I don't hunt anymore, but I can punch holes into paper at various distances. I don't hold prejudice against someone choosing to not own a firearm, as they should not with me owning a firearm. Some of us have been around firearms all out lives.
Gun Show this weekend in Asheville, NC.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
What are you talking about?
Tom using your logic, we should we stop trying to cure cancer because people will just die from something else.
Of the 300 million firearms in the country, only 32% of the population own those. The rest of the population are potential/willing victims?
No good answer, but that is a part of the problem little addressed. Mental health care (lack there of)is a very large part of the real problem.
I don't hunt anymore, but I can punch holes into paper at various distances. I don't hold prejudice against someone choosing to not own a firearm, as they should not with me owning a firearm. Some of us have been around firearms all our lives.
Gun Show this weekend in Asheville, NC.
Well... That post I made about knowing someone in a convertible using a firearm to prevent a crime.... That was me.
So having a legal firearm on me and being aware of surroundings did make me safer that night. Those thugs, saw that I was onto them and they changed their minds about making me a target of opportunity. My 1911 never came out of the holster, and they did not see it, but they saw my actions and that I was prepared.
So I will stand by my statement 100000% that there are law abiding gun owners who prevent crimes from happening.
And for the record, I hope that is as close to I come for ever needing it for protection. Contrary to what some may think, those of us who can and do carry for protection, are not looking to shoot it out with anyone. Just as we all keep fire extinguishers in our homes, we are not looking for our houses to catch on fire.
Sorry, Mr. Craik, but here is where my gun, in a lawful manor prevented me from becoming a statistic.
(What happened to your uncle and friend are sad, but both shooters showed no concern for laws and should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the "twinky defense" got George's murderer off, then the defense attorney and jury are pathetic people.)
Last edited:
Jim, If firearms offend you, then don't have one. It's obvious that it's not the number of firearm deaths that bother you, if it were numbers, the other useless causes of death would get your interest. You want to control everyone so they can't own a firearm.
Ron has the right idea, I don't have a problem with that. It's the "take all of them" approach that bothers me. There are 270,000,000 firearm owned by private citizens in the US, one death is not a small number and 12,000 is definitely not a small number, but you figure out the percentage per occurance, and then tell me it's right to make everyone pay.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, you just choose not to understand. Prohibition of anything does not work.
You tried prohibiting alcohol, all that happened was criminals prospered.
Drugs are banned, yet you have a massive drug problem.
Ron's solution has merit.I think it would work, particularly with the mental health
Checks.
Would it stop killings, would it stop gun related crime? Of course not.
Australia banned guns some time ago, shootings and gun crime still happens,
How come if guns are banned?
Yes I know you will trot out stats that say death by guns in OZ have diminished since the ban, but what has lowered the number is suicide by gun.
Violent crime using a fire arm has increased.
You tried prohibiting alcohol, all that happened was criminals prospered.
Drugs are banned, yet you have a massive drug problem.
Ron's solution has merit.I think it would work, particularly with the mental health
Checks.
Would it stop killings, would it stop gun related crime? Of course not.
Australia banned guns some time ago, shootings and gun crime still happens,
How come if guns are banned?
Yes I know you will trot out stats that say death by guns in OZ have diminished since the ban, but what has lowered the number is suicide by gun.
Violent crime using a fire arm has increased.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
For some reason, this post gets ignored. I am not a gun ethusiast. Don't like guns, don't want to own any guns and probably never will, and all that.
But I also think reasonable, responsible people should be allowed to own essentially whatever firearm they want.
What kills me is the gun lobby refusing to agree to anything, and simply accepting the status quo as acceptable. It isn't.
The below to me seems reasonable. So for the other gun enthusiasts on this board, what in the below is problematic and why?
But I also think reasonable, responsible people should be allowed to own essentially whatever firearm they want.
What kills me is the gun lobby refusing to agree to anything, and simply accepting the status quo as acceptable. It isn't.
The below to me seems reasonable. So for the other gun enthusiasts on this board, what in the below is problematic and why?
