People shoot people not guns?

[ToadHill]

If my memory serves me, in England if you commit a crime and a gun is involved the sentence is very long, much longer than if the same crime were comitted without a gun. Maybe that's a starting point to get the "crime with gun" issue under control. Commit a violent crime and use a gun, Life in prison, never to see the light of day again.

 

[thingy]

Whata mean it wouldn't work,,next day,,they say,,less than 20 percent of people who coulda voted,,voted,,,think about it,,,thingy

 

[TrippleT]

When I was about 16 I hitchhikked about 20, or so, miles and bought a British 303, and a box of shells. Was about a good half mile to the road where I could thumb a ride back. SO, with rifle and box of shells I went through town walking and did not take long to catch a ride back. DO THAT TODAY. In the first place I wouldn't because of who might pick you up. Secondly, the police would have you in the slammer, before you could get out the door.
Many years ago you could order a gun from Sears. As far as I know you can't now. In fact I have a J C Higgins 22 rifle that my uncle bought me about 55 years ago.
Slowly, our freedoms slip away. Then you wake up one day and wonder when they will come knocking on your door.
No, I wouldn't bet that we will always be able to have guns for sport, or defending our homes and persons.

 

[N80]

I do, however, disagree that anybody who has no record should be allowed to buy and drive around in a loaded M1A1 (assuming he can afford it).

I am in general agreement with that. Even Constitutional rights have boundries, including our beloved and oh so abused right to free speech. But, I will acknowledge that a strict Constitutionalist might say that the original intent of the the right to keep and bear arms included just such provision. At the time of that amendment, a rifle represented the state of the art weaponry exceeded only by field artillary, which to my knowledge was not regulated. In this regard the spirit of the amendment was that citizens had the right to keep and bear the same weaponry as the government. This argument encompasses a lot of twists and turns, but it is not a specious one.

Just like locking the cockpit door is prudent, allowing weapons of mass destruction to be available to everybody except those with a prior record is too big of a risk.

Again, playing devil's advocate, too big a risk of what? A regional tank crime? Hundreds killed and wounded? Terror in the streets? How does this compare to a citizenry that is impotent to challenge a despotic government? To trivialize that risk is to misunderstand human history.

There comes a point at which it is prudent to say, "too big." I think there is a point somewhere on the continuum beyond which ordinary citizens do not need to have access to weapons. I don't know where that line is, but I'm sure it's somewhere lower than the demarcation between fission and thermo-fusion nukes. My guess is that many would say it is somewhere between a semi-automatic rifle and the gattlin guns on one of those C-130 gunships.

Pragmatically speaking I would agree. There has to be a line somewhere. But I don't think that was ever a point of contention in this discussion so far. But the truth is that the gun violence around is is almost ubiquitously committed with the lowliest of all firearms, the handgun, usually a cheap one. And that is what the left wants to take away. And if they can take away the smallest, cheapest and least accurate of all firearms, then everything else is up for grabs. So if the battlelines are drawn there, tanks and nukes become irrelevant.

There is a lot to be said for your statement about who should be allowed access to weapons.

Well, this may sound picky but it isn't. The issue is who will not be allowed to access weapons. So far that access is still a right. It has to be removed since it has already been conferred.

I agree that if you took all legal guns away from honest people that there'd still be a huge black market for crooks. The genie is out of the bottle.

Again, I don't think that is accurate. The genie, in this country, was never in the bottle. Guns were always here. There was no black market until they became regulated.

The thing is, the process of deciding who gets to buy the weapons and who doesn't is also nothing close to an exact science either.

This is true of all civil liberties. It's hard. That's life. But if you are willing to acknowledge the extremes that impact this particular civil liberty, those who want all guns banned are in the same ilk as those who say that anyone who can afford a tank should have one. That's the problem, in general the anti-gun left is portrayed just left of center and the guy who wants to own a registered/permitted machine gun is portrayed as a wild eyed lunatic.

Would it only be people with a record, or should the shooter from Va Tech have been on the list due to his particular background?

It is my understanding that he had a medical record, that listed him as mentally unstable (to some degree, in some parlance) that was part of the public record in much the way a seizure patient is unable to legally fly a plane. Sometimes things are a little blacker than they are gray.

Life is not all black and white. There's plenty of gray.

Becasue an issue has two sides does not make it impossible. Decisions have to be made. Some will be easy, some will be hard. Some will allow a murderer access to weapons, some will allow a harmless man to be deprived of his civil liberties. That can't make us freeze in confusion.

Should a person who's been in therapy be off the list? someone on anti-depressants? Some might say yes, some might say no. What if we leave this person off, but then discover the person in counseling and on anti-depressants got that way by being raped and now wants to have a gun? Do we now change her from the "denied" list to the "permitted" list? And how deeply do we allow the govt. to dig into our lives to determine whether we qualify? And if not the govt., then who does decide?

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. The ability to drive, to fly a plane, even to vote are surrounded by complexities that we are able to handle just fine, or at least to a reasonable and acceptable standard. There are always special cases and exceptions. Those don't really make issues gray. As a doctor I confront them regularly. Funny thing is, if I let a man out of my office after determining that he is an emminent threat to others and he kills someone, I am liable, at least in civil court, which I can live with. If a judge does the same thing at the time of sentancing or a parole hearing, he is immune from any recourse. That's hard to live with. And it is a huge part of the problem. Recidivism seems to be totally lost on the courts.

There's a lot of gray and room for discussion here. Having half the population at one extreme and half at the other just doesn't help society make progress.

Again, some of this comes from a skewed and specious idea of what is extreme. The largest part of those who advocate the right to keep and bear arms are relatively comfortable with the way things are now! That's not extreme. Gun ownership is already highly regulated and yet the regulations are under-enforced. It is the pro-gun lobby begging for better enforcement and more adequate sentancing. But the pro gun advocates are always portayed in the media as loose screws.

There needs to be real talk.

Well, we've got it here, with the gracious tolerance of our TBN hosts. But where else will you get what you call 'real' talk? Who is going to open a 'real' public discourse on this? Oprah? Rosie? Wolfe Blitzer, Dan Rather, Dr. Phil? There can't be a dialog when those who simply want their basic civil rights acknowledged and protected are shown to the world as ignorant hate mongers while those in total opposition to the ammendment are lionized as quiet, thoughtful protectors of public safety and the greater good.

I am here because I do not have a fully made up mind (I don't know that I ever will,

To be so open minded that one can never take a stand might not be seen as a virtue by some. I think it is encumbant on all of us to figure it out though.

or whether it's even wise to permenantly lock all of one's opinions with no option of ever changing one's mind) and I am open to rational discussion.

It would certainly not be wise to lock all of one's opinions. It would be equally unwise to lock none of one's opinions. That is the very heart of this matter and many others. If nothing can ever be absolute, then all things, no matter how dear or precious or pragmatic or reasonable are subject to dismisall and obliteration by the whimsy of fools and despots.

 

[cp1969]

Here's the problem. it's not 'what' weapons should be legal.. it is 'who' should have them.

A law abiding citizen is no more of a threat if he owns a rock, knife, gun, grenade or tank. IE.. if it's a good law abiding person who owns it.. then that is that.
Soundguy

Which leads to yet another question...Just exactly 'who' is to decide 'who' should have what?

The Constitution says NO ONE, least of all congress, should have the ability to infringe upon the right to keep and bear 'arms'. Notice the writers of that amendment didn't say 'rifles'; nor did it say 'except cannons'. It says 'arms.'

Why do you suppose they worded it that way?

 

[Alan L.]

As a gun owner and NRA member I am OK with the current gun laws in Texas. There should be some prudent regulation of who can walk into a store and buy a gun, or who can legally own or carry one.

I guess as long as I'm legal I'll be happy.

My fear is that this is not good enough for some who are now taking office, and who might take office in the future, who believe that guns are evil and should be outlawed. The scenario of having guns confiscated is not farfetched I don't believe, although such a boondoggle would probably go the way of prohibition after so many "cold dead hands" are encountered.

I have difficulty equating guns with nuclear weapons or tanks. I think its pretty easy to draw the line at least to a weapon you can hoist to one man's shoulder.

I believe gun free zones are the most dangerous places to be, because thats where these crazy gun crimes usually take place because the perpetrator knows there won't be any defense there. You never hear of any of these guys going into a gun range and doing these kinds of crimes.

 

[AMP762]

I'm just a simple ol country boy but it seems that if common sense were more common it would solve a lot of these problems. If you commit a crime you pay the price.

 

[Tractors4u]

Would it only be people with a record, or should the shooter from Va Tech have been on the list due to his particular background? Life is not all black and white. There's plenty of gray. Should a person who's been in therapy be off the list? someone on anti-depressants? Some might say yes, some might say no. What if we leave this person off, but then discover the person in counseling and on anti-depressants got that way by being raped and now wants to have a gun?

There was a guy in my home town that had been on anti depressants that took a semi auto rifle, called the cops to his home, hid behind a bush and shot and killed the cops about 3 years ago. Now he did not have an arrest record, but it was well documented that he had problems. Here in lies another problem. Should doctors report their patients that are on anti-depressants or have diagnosed paranoid schitzophrentic? The ACLU would say that this is an infringement on their privacy, but they would also be the same type to want to infringe on our right to own or carry. Tom_H is right about a line of demarcation, but I don't think it is as much about the type of weapon but who.

For those who don't know, Joe Citizen can not go to the gun store and buy a fully automatic weapon. Someone above explained that process earlier. Assault weapons, as described by our main stream media are always semi automatic weapons. Remember the crime bill of about 10 years ago? Here are a few things that made an assault weapon what it was. It had a pistol grip, a flash hider(actually a flash suppressor as it does not hide the flash), and a bayonet lug. It was not how many rounds per minute it fired or the size of the bullet. Does that make since? This shows the intellect of those writing these laws.

Some are going to say that now one needs a gun that holds 17 rounds, (like my Glock 17). To them I say, no one needs a Corvette, the speed limit is at it's highest on the interstate highway system, 70 MPH?

 

[Soundguy]

The only probelm i see with nukes being available to all countries.. is that some of those countries won't view 'MAD' the same way we do.

MAD works because 'most' people don't want to die.. thus they don't bomb us.. provoking us to bomb them.

This hits a huge problem in the middle east when you get to 'suicide bombers' and 'zealots'. MAD falls apart because'thay' are not afraid to die.. ias long as it kills others.. etc.

Soundguy

Bingo. And the world community pretty much acknowledges this in regard to nucelar weapons. 'They' aren't doing a good job with it, but they do agree that certain countries should be able to have them, and others not have them based on the recent history of that countries behavior.

But you can take the analogy farther. Much like the gun issue, when everyone is packing, the average coward school room assassin isn't going to come in shooting. And its a scary thought but if Iran knew that all its equally unstable nutbag neighbors (like Iraq) had nukes, they wouldn't use theirs. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an insane and pitiful concept, but it worked in the cold war and the concept is so visceral, intuitive and basically understood that it would likely work with unbridled nuclear proliferation as well. I'm not advocating this, just applying it to the already tortured gun/nuke analogy. (And if two clearly evil and despotic powers like Iran and Iraq had had nukes during the Iran/Iraq war, they could have obliterated themselves and the world might be a better place today.)

And lest we forget, we have a tendancy to idolize nuclear weapons beyond their actual implications. This is based largely on the concept of MAD gone wild resulting in a nuclear holocost, and yes, it would be all that. But single nukes, particularly primitive ones can destroy a city. In the annals of world history that aint really no big deal. Every major world power since the dawn of civilization have depopulated and destroyed entire cities. In WWII we killed far more Japanese with fire than with nuclear weapons. Which is just to say that comparing nukes and guns might not be as insane as it first appears.

Regardless, it is an international issue with far more complexities than comparably simple US gun control issues.

 

[Soundguy]

Lets see.. I'll just touch on some of the high points.

While I don't advocate that private citizens should be able to own.. say.. weapons of mass destruction like a nuke.. I also don't believe we should limit ownership solely based on a hypothetical 'possible kill' rate for a weapon either.

I have no problem with a properly licensed and otherwise lawfull and responsible individual owning a .22lr derenger.. or a .50 cal machingun. ( or both .. -wink- )

We live in an imperfect world.. and an imperfect system. We need to take reasonable care to -try- to have a gov and law system that does what it can to protect the citizens thru rule of law without sufficiently damaging or curtailing quality of life. What that means is there will be a grey line between danger from being shot/killed with an illegal weapon / vs private ownership and civil liberties.

Crime is -never- going to go away... at least untill we are all dead. With that in mind.. I'd just as soon have a legal system that will let me defend myself thru private legal ownership of weapons.. especially since the courts have ruled that the police havy no duty to protect private citizens.

I don't mind 'difficult' to obtain permits.. At least for background or skill.. etc.. as long as outright ownership is not curtailed.

for those that simply can't stang guns, for instance.. seeings as how they tie so deeply into this nation.. i suggest you ( not you tom.. 'you-people' ) move to a country that has outlawed firearms.

Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon. a rock, stick, car.. plane.. gun.. etc. We can't outlaw everything. At some point.. we just need to toughen up.. allow civil liberties so people can have some quality of life.. and REALLY get tough on crime. IMHO.. if more criminals were killed in the commission of their crime.. then we'd all be better off. That may not be a popular view.. but that's fine with me.

I choose to carry a gun ( legally of course ).. i take the extra associated personal risk and responsibility that needs to be exercised with that decision. With that comes the knowledge that I at least have a 'say' in my own personal defense.. and -may- have some options available to me in a crisis situation other than kneeling down in execution position while someone walks down the line shooting the people ahead of me.. all the time waiting for the police to arrive and save me... ( I'm not saying that I would be successfull.. or would survive.. but at least I may have another option.. )

Soundguy

No, I did not say that and you are putting words into my mouth. No need to be defensive, I didn't say I am your opponent. I said I have mixed feelings. Just because someone doesn't hold another's strong views is not cause to rush to condemnation. I'm not here to have a war with anyone, but I am open to rational discussion in which the parties are not in full agreement.

Large planes obviously can be (and have been) used to kill many people. Nobody said anything about illegal, but it does seem prudent to put a reinforced lockable door between the cabin and cockpit. Your arguement that it goes to the person applies here, as we cannot know the full mindset of everyone who gets on a plane, regardless of no fly lists or not. Letting anybody and everybody who's simply not on the no-fly list have access to the cockpit is just too great of a risk.

I don't agree that the person is the only consideration. The arguement for concealed weapons with permits is not without merit. I don't agree with it fully, but I also don't oppose it strongly. I do, however, disagree that anybody who has no record should be allowed to buy and drive around in a loaded M1A1 (assuming he can afford it). I would apply the same arguement about the plane to the tank. The tank has the potential to do more harm than a gun, and the arguements on reasons for owning a gun are stronger than any reasons I've ever heard of for individuals owning tanks. Just like locking the cockpit door is prudent, allowing weapons of mass destruction to be available to everybody except those with a prior record is too big of a risk. There comes a point at which it is prudent to say, "too big." I think there is a point somewhere on the continuum beyond which ordinary citizens do not need to have access to weapons. I don't know where that line is, but I'm sure it's somewhere lower than the demarcation between fission and thermo-fusion nukes. My guess is that many would say it is somewhere between a semi-automatic rifle and the gattlin guns on one of those C-130 gunships.

There is a lot to be said for your statement about who should be allowed access to weapons. I agree that if you took all legal guns away from honest people that there'd still be a huge black market for crooks. The genie is out of the bottle. That makes sense to me (remember, I am not on either of the extremes on this issue). The thing is, the process of deciding who gets to buy the weapons and who doesn't is also nothing close to an exact science either. Would it only be people with a record, or should the shooter from Va Tech have been on the list due to his particular background? Life is not all black and white. There's plenty of gray. Should a person who's been in therapy be off the list? someone on anti-depressants? Some might say yes, some might say no. What if we leave this person off, but then discover the person in counseling and on anti-depressants got that way by being raped and now wants to have a gun? Do we now change her from the "denied" list to the "permitted" list? And how deeply do we allow the govt. to dig into our lives to determine whether we qualify? And if not the govt., then who does decide? There's a lot of gray and room for discussion here. Having half the population at one extreme and half at the other just doesn't help society make progress. There needs to be real talk.

Again, I am not here to make war. I am here because I do not have a fully made up mind (I don't know that I ever will, or whether it's even wise to permenantly lock all of one's opinions with no option of ever changing one's mind) and I am open to rational discussion.