Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[R8ers]

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by R8ers

I have a ccw and already own 15 guns, took a course in self defense and the proper handling of firearms....

Do you think I should have a waiting period to buy a new gun when I want one?

No not at all. I am all for the process you have gone through. I am not the one that brought up waiting periods. The waiting periods were someone's rebuttale against a law that required background checks for all sales at a gun show. My response to that was there is no waiting period if you have the CCW so a law enforcing background checks at a gun should not affect you unless you are a criminal. I suppose if you don't have the permit already then you might have to wait, but to me that is the benefit of the permits in that you earn the right to purchase without waiting.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

You could have simply said you are incapable of discussing or repsonding in an intelligent manner. That would have sufficed.

Why don't you address what I was asking people earlier. What would be wrong with requiring background checks at gun shows for ALL sales? If you aren't a criminal then this would not affect you because the only ones affected would be criminals attempting to buy guns.

I remember now you, notorious, were one of the people who were agreeing with my premice on background checks for all sales at gun shows. In which case it makes no sense that you would get all pissy over what I said, given the context of the conversation in which you quoted me. My guess is you didn't read it and simply wanted to paint me as something I am not.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yay!

Its okay to destroy a fetus, but we don't want guns...

I didn't think of that before...If Holmes had killed a pregnant woman during his rampage he would be some sort of liberal icon today.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

No not at all. I am all for the process you have gone through. I am not the one that brought up waiting periods. The waiting periods were someone's rebuttale against a law that required background checks for all sales at a gun show. My response to that was there is no waiting period if you have the CCW so a law enforcing background checks at a gun should not affect you unless you are a criminal. I suppose if you don't have the permit already then you might have to wait, but to me that is the benefit of the permits in that you earn the right to purchase without waiting.

I seriously don't have a problem with a short waiting period for a handgun purchase for someone that does not have a CCW... But seriously, if a man wants to kill you he will just follow you to the walmart and mow you over with his car. In all honesty, if a man is willing to go to jail for life or get the death penalty he can easily kill any man that does not have bodyguards ... Think about it.

[pr_capone]

I'm sure that you missed my post therefore the lack of reply. Not picking a fight... sincerely curious. Slightly edited my post for clarification.

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I specifically was talking about the high powered guns like the AK-47 type guns or a sniper rifle. I get you wanting a handgun. But IMO I think smaller firearms are sufficient and regular citizens don't need assault rifles and other high powered weapons. I would say I don't mind it being in their house, but obviously people could buy them and take them whereever they want.

You didn't seem to have a problem with his .45 handgun so my question is...

Is the point of contention the fact that it is a semi automatic with a magazine? A Glock .45 can hold 13+1 rounds while my "assault rifle" holds 20. Not a huge difference. The .45 is a MUCH larger round than the .223 that my rifle holds as well. The only real spot where my rifle has the advantage is going to be in terms of distance.

If anything... the .45 semi auto is far more "dangerous" to society in general than my rifle is yet rifles like mine are the target of gun control laws such as the now defunct assault rifle ban. Why should I not be allowed to have my rifle?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by R8ers

I seriously don't have a problem with a short waiting period for a handgun purchase for someone that does not have a CCW... But seriously, if a man wants to kill you he will just follow you to the walmart and mow you over with his car. In all honesty, if a man is willing to go to jail for life or get the death penalty he can easily kill any man that does not have bodyguards ... Think about it.

I get all that. It is kind of like saying, illegal immigrants are going to come into the country anyways, so there is not point in trying to make any more laws or devote any more resources to stopping it or enforcing it once they are caught.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I'm sure that you missed my post therefore the lack of reply. Not picking a fight... sincerely curious. Slightly edited my post for clarification.



You didn't seem to have a problem with his .45 handgun so my question is...

Is the point of contention the fact that it is a semi automatic with a magazine? A Glock .45 can hold 13+1 rounds while my "assault rifle" holds 20. Not a huge difference. The .45 is a MUCH larger round than the .223 that my rifle holds as well. The only real spot where my rifle has the advantage is going to be in terms of distance.

If anything... the .45 semi auto is far more "dangerous" to society in general than my rifle is yet rifles like mine are the target of gun control laws such as the now defunct assault rifle ban. Why should I not be allowed to have my rifle?

Actually I am in the middle of trying to respond. Yours requires more thought so I am trying to not rush through it. I want to make sure I am clear and don't speak that which I do not mean

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

So who sets the standards for the training requirements in order to qualify to be able to exercise the right to a gun? Seems like the govt could just set requirements such that it is extremely difficult to qualify if they wanted to restrict gun ownership.

I should have been more clear... education/training/testing requirements to CARRY.. not to OWN. And I would leave it up to the states/courts to decide the standards. It's basically what we have in most states now, my only change would be to add more "levels" to it.

The perfect "end game" is to have a well educated heavily armed lawful citizenry. It puts armed criminals at a severe disadvantage.

If it were up to me, we'd offer handgun training starting in high school and instill a nationwide culture of taking responsibility for our own safety and not relying as heavily on the "state."

[R8ers]

I would also like to see armed plain clothed FBI agents on all flights.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I get all that. It is kind of like saying, illegal immigrants are going to come into the country anyways, so there is not point in trying to make any more laws or devote any more resources to stopping it or enforcing it once they are caught.

They are only coming in this country because The Reps want the Labor and the Dems want the votes.....


We could keep them out if we wanted too Just put another fence up 50 ft from border and put land mines in it with signs warning people they are there.

[Aries Walker]

This thread's not about illegal immigration, or health insurance, or cars, is it? Keeping it on track about guns . . .

Originally Posted by R8ers

I have a ccw and already own 15 guns, took a course in self defense and the proper handling of firearms....

Do you think I should have a waiting period to buy a new gun when I want one?

Is having to wait before you get your new gun an outrageous problem? Beyond just "I want it now", I mean. It's an inconvenience, sure, but I think we can afford to suffer some inconvenience, even if it only might maybe a little cut down on some people getting shot to death.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The perfect "end game" is to have a well educated heavily armed lawful citizenry. It puts armed criminals at a severe disadvantage.

I get nervous when I hear the term "heavily armed" because I picture M-60s and grenade launchers, but I, even being as anti-gun as I am, would support the idea of a Civil Defense Force. If it was made up of civilians (perhaps the training course fee would be waived for current or ex-military, or ex-police) with no criminal record, fully trained in whichever weapons they choose to carry, and with an additional level of federally-consistent and yearly-updated training in emergency preparedness, tactics, and first response, I think it would do well for us.

Along those lines, let me ask this: Would you all be willing to support replacing carry permits with membership in this hypothetical Civil Defense Force? It would require extra training, yearly retesting, and I'd imaging some level of psychological profiling. The standards could be set federally so that each CDF member could operate nationwide, but each state (or even each county), could govern their own.

Thoughts?

[notorious]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

You could have simply said you are incapable of discussing or repsonding in an intelligent manner. That would have sufficed.

Why don't you address what I was asking people earlier. What would be wrong with requiring background checks at gun shows for ALL sales? If you aren't a criminal then this would not affect you because the only ones affected would be criminals attempting to buy guns.

Your post was simply horrific. but I'll admit I went way too far. I apologize for telling you to **** a pineapple, but for some reason you put me in "CP Asshole" mode with that post.



In a previous post I agreed with what you said about background checks. It's crazy that a private sale can be made to a complete stranger. I think I suggested that any transfer of a firearm should be done through an FFL.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

This thread's not about illegal immigration, or health insurance, or cars, is it? Keeping it on track about guns . . .


Is having to wait before you get your new gun an outrageous problem? Beyond just "I want it now", I mean. It's an inconvenience, sure, but I think we can afford to suffer some inconvenience, even if it only might maybe a little cut down on some people getting shot to death.


I get nervous when I hear the term "heavily armed" because I picture M-60s and grenade launchers, but I, even being as anti-gun as I am, would support the idea of a Civil Defense Force. If it was made up of civilians (perhaps the training course fee would be waived for current or ex-military, or ex-police) with no criminal record, fully trained in whichever weapons they choose to carry, and with an additional level of federally-consistent and yearly-updated training in emergency preparedness, tactics, and first response, I think it would do well for us.

Along those lines, let me ask this: Would you all be willing to support replacing carry permits with membership in this hypothetical Civil Defense Force? It would require extra training, yearly retesting, and I'd imaging some level of psychological profiling. The standards could be set federally so that each CDF member could operate nationwide, but each state (or even each county), could govern their own.

Thoughts?

Do you have to wait to buy a new car or a Ice pick?-+

[Bump]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

It could just as easily have cost more. Anyone in there, once they realized it was for real at all, would still have to retrieve their handgun and get into position while under fire. Even then, they'd be firing into smoke and darkness, with the flashing lights and noise of the action scene that was playing at the time. Within a few seconds, there is screaming and running and chaos everywhere. Visibility would be awful and target ID would be hard to establish, so now you've got two people with bullets flying. Returning fire would also prevent them from doing what several people so far have said saved their family's lives - running away.

It gets even worse if more than one theatergoer had a carry permit. In that case, there would be several people firing at unknown targets, with (since carry permits don't require any kind of tactical response training) no coordination between them. It would be very likely that they would mistakenly target each other. Since few people go to movies alone, each firer would probably have innocents they're each trying to protect. Police were also on the scene within 90 seconds, and it would be a lot harder on them to walk into a firefight.

This, in a nutshell, is the main thing that bothers me about the idea that randomly scattered armed citizens is a viable way of discouraging or ending spree killings in general.

Ya, criminals and sociopaths should be the only one's with the gun in that situation.