Firearms/NRA/Gun Laws

[Branch]

It sounds like we've come full circle. If I understand your last post correctly then you do see the good, and the right, of the citizenry to be armed. We seem to be disagreeing on how.
I get passionately vocal on this subject because I see a slow and steady movement in this country to move towards an oppresive society where a few people in power are systematically removing our rights of choice. They think the populace is to stupid to make decisions on their own. Maybe it's always been this way, I don't know. I put my faith in those that came before me and wrote the Constitution. I choose to have faith in my fellow man. That may sound corny but I prefer that to the alternative. I have faith in you Toddler. Please have a little faith in me. I work hard, pay my taxes, love tractors, my wife, kids, and grandkids. I think I'm just average and like 99.999% of the population. No better, no worse.

Branch

 

[fishman]

O.K. Toddler, peace. We'll agree to disagree.

Kudo's to Branch! Well said!

 

[skent]

Again though it falls back on enforcing the existing laws. There was a case here in MD where a divorced father of two, who had been arrested for domestic violance (against his X-wife), was supposed to be flagged in the 'system' so to prevent him from owning a hand gun, out awaiting trial, applied for and 3 weeks later received approval (via county sheriff / state police) to purchase a handgun, Finger prints and all.. He went into the sporting goods store, filled out the application and paid for the gun. At the end of the waiting period and after the background check went through, He then proceded to kill both kids, a 5 year old girl and 3 year old boy, (on a trip to the ocean) leave their bodies in the car, and say he had been car-jacked. His story didn't check out and he ended up confessing.

It boiled down to being a foulup in the processing of the domestic violence report that caused the info not to turn up in the 'computer' (there they go - blaming the computer AGAIN) He stated he did it to "get even" with his Ex-wife.

And the bottom line is if he wouldn't have been able to obtain a handgun or rifle, he would have most likely stabbed or beaten them to death.

Finally, I (like the mother) can't understand why the court system would grant unsupervised visitation of minor children to a parent with a violent history.

What good would a new law do? In this case, he was well aware he was not supposed to have/buy/posses a firearm.


Steve

 

[ejb]

>>What good would a new law do? In this case, he was well aware he was not supposed to have/buy/posses a firearm.


He was probably also aware that it is illegal to kill people...but that did not stop him.

As long as we proposing more gun laws to cut down on crime, I think it should be illegal to drive more than 10MPH anywhere near a bank, that way, if someone robs the bank, it will be easier for the police to catch the crimanals since they won't be able to drive away so fast...

 

[skent]

Now yer ketchin' on. . . .

Steve

 

[toddler]

Deal, I'll suffer 10mph in a bank zone if you'll increase the enforcement of the 25mph school zone laws. No, I don't think it's needed, but I'll suffer through it to save one child from getting hit by a speeding car.
I'll vote for the right to own and carry anything bigger than a zip gun and smaller than a rail gun with as big a clip as you can lift, if you agree with a mandatory gun safety course before a permit can be obtained, a 2 week wait on the first gun purchased, and however long a serious backround check, with digital photo ID and fingerprint confirmation, takes on all subsequent gun purchases.
I agree a lot of the laws are stupid, because the size of the gun or the number of bullets doesn't make much difference to in a lot of cases. Didn't Brady (?sp) get shot with a 22? Anyway, the point is, I'm not asking for "more" laws or restrictions, I'm asking for better ones. I vote for compromise.
One of my family members has a gun collection that would make most guys drool. From civil war stuff to an uzi to a beautiful $15k shotgun(Don'task me what it is, I don't know.) Like I said, the guns don't bother me, but it bothers me that somebody like me could go and buy them as easily as I can. I don't even know how to lock the safety on most of them!
Gotta run, baby time.
Todd

 

[mbjacobs]

Toddler

A bunch of kids are injured and killed each year by abusive parents. I'd bet many times more than by untrained strangers with handguns. I suggest we require a thorough background check before couples are allowed to conceive, they should also be required to pass a training course in parenting. Probably should be a waiting period to be sure they really want kids (how about 3 years?). Now this may be a little inconvenient but "If only one child is saved..."

Now lets see, who should be in charge of the background check criteria? How about the training curriculum? Who should decide if you are qualified to have children? Would you be comfortable with some appointed clerks or would you rather trust your elected lawmakers?

Maury Jacobs

 

[Bird]

Sounds good to me, Maury./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif However, when you say <font color=blue>they should also be required to pass a training course in parenting</font color=blue>, I have to wonder who'd teach it. It always seemed to me that the only people who know how to raise kids are those who don't have any./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif For many years, I told folks that there are two things that nearly everyone does and which very few of us really know how to do right. One is raising kids, and the other is driving motor vehicles. Most driver's ed programs are barely more than a joke. They teach you just enough to get a license without actually teaching you hardly anything about driving in different conditions, defensive driving or accident avoidance, the physics involved in accelerating, braking, turning, etc., etc., etc.

Bird

 

[Phred]

Todd & Rich,

The key issue that many of the folks on your side of this issue ignore is that guns can be used for both positive and negative goals. No one minds the policeman with a concealed handgun because he / she is a responsible trained adult using a gun as a tool to prevent violence and crime? So why do you have a problem with other trained responsible adults using a tool (the handgun) for personnel protection?

Why would a person spend the money, time, and hassle to get a CCW permit to use in a criminal activity? Are you aware that they are forced to submit to finger printing, like some common criminal? Obviously those that submit to the process are good guys going out of the way to comply with the law.

Does a 100 lb unarmed women have a chance against a 200 lb man? In many parts of this country, particularly the rural portions, the police provide a clean up and blame mechanism but cannot possibly prevent bad things from happening to some good people. Just not enough resources exist.

I have a handgun, and life insurance. I am not planning on using any of the above but I will keep them anyway.

Fred

 

[cowboydoc]

Maury,
Yes you're right. According to the study that I looked at homicide of young children was #4. This did not include homicide with a firearm, which was a separate category and last on the list. Motor vehicle accidents #1, Fire #2, Drownings #3.