Thoughts on gun control?

[SansVarnic]

I'm 5"10 and I still can't look over the top shelf of my dresser to see what's inside... if he's that skilled then put him in rock climbing or something man!

I tell you its like we need to chain weights to him to keep him from going vertical all the time, my mother tells me I did that too but I don't see how I did honestly. He has yet to fall though so that is a plus. 

[STRMfrmXMN]

I tell you its like we need to chain weights to him to keep him from going vertical all the time, my mother tells me I did that too but I don't see how I did honestly. He has yet to fall though so that is a plus. 

Your post count....

 

I remember when I was that young I would always hide my mom's belongings in places she could never find them. It was all fun and games until I stole an expensive screwdriver set that she never found again...

[SansVarnic]

Your post count....

:blush:

 

I better find somebody to help, or be contributing.....

[stconquest]

 

People dont write reports on crimes stopped by armed civilians because it is isnt considered a hot topic since there was no collateral or death. Death and political issues being stirred up brings more people to view the stories and those people viewing the stories are money. So unless it is controversial many wont post it.

 

 

If said number of crimes stopped by armed civilians are not reported, how do you know about them? I am just curious.

 

 

They are reported, just not in main stream media. I can post links, just not atm.

 

I think you should be quoting Slash about that.

 

 

I read that and saw this /s
I hope you weren't being that.

 

No, I was quite serious in a non-serious way. I fear you might not grasp the context of that post.

 

For every citation of some violent incident posted here, where some would argue that an armed citizen would have saved the day...

 

I can point to a very real incident of an armed citizen doing something absolutely retarded with their firearm in public space.

 

Speculation versus 100% evident.

[Guest Philosophy]

Not a good idea to keep your gun in a box, besides the potential of degradation to the firearm (humidity...) children that are not properly informed or overly curious will always find it.

 

 

Firearms can be stored in all manner of ways; safes, gun cases, lockers, etc. some work better than others.

Why do you automatically assume someone will get shot? A firearm is tool just like my nail gun or stapler and they are both just as dangerous (I can shot you with my nail gun just as easily and cause almost as much damage as I can my firearm) but if they are maintained, stored, taught how to use properly the danger factor goes down.

 

 

 

I own 3 handguns, 2 rifles and 2 shoguns. The rifles and shotguns are kept locked up in gun cases under my bed.

For the handguns 1 is kept in my pack at all times unlocked in a small gun case (for personal carry when off duty) 1 is my service weapon (for on duty carry) which is kept locked up when I am off duty for obvious reasons., and last one is my favorite and it sits on my night stand in a small gun case but is not locked.

I have a 7,6,4 and 2 yrs olds in my home. Both of the older children have been taught to be respectful of the firearms and know not to touch them, we went to a range together and I shot an apple to show what damage it can make and really made the point and erased the curiosity they had. We discussed what firearms were and why I have them. I will be doing the same with the other 2 as they get to point they can understand as well. Each child is different in regards to understanding and if you are a parent you will understand my meaning. At this time my children know and even the 4 year old has figured this out that Daddy's 'guns' are off limits as they are not toys and this how I conveyed the issue I didn't not tell then they were dangerous I let them come to that conclusion their own and they did fairly quickly.

 

My point is similar to what @Thunderpup @STRMfrmXMN said but also that as long as responsible gun owners act like responsible gun owners and teach their children whats what correctly and not try to hide it the curiosity is eliminated and the risk of such accidents are removed from the equation, the gun is treated as an every day object and not thought twice about mishandling or playing with it.

This is a really good read. I agree with this very much. Assuming from your comment about on duty carrying your a LEO, in which case I thank you for your service. My father taught be to handle weapons and how powerful and dangerous they can be at a young age 8-9. Now I own guns myself, and am respect them and understand how (and when) I can/should use them. They are all locked up in a locked safe in a locked closet. 

[CalebTheEternal]

I'm for it. Maybe we don't need to go straight to banning all guns outright, but the idea that most people have the ability to buy a gun and keep it in their home is unsettling.

Why? What if someone breaks into your house and you don't have a way to defend yourself?

[VirtualDemon]

Why? What if someone breaks into your house and you don't have a way to defend yourself?

 

I'm not necessarily against owning guns for the purpose of self defense, but ironically you're statistically more likely to die at the hands of your own gun (either accidentally or otherwise) than have someone break in your house. Not trying to discredit the idea of wanting to defend yourself but I find that interesting. 

[SansVarnic]

No, I was quite serious in a non-serious way.  I fear you might not grasp the context of that post.

 

For every citation of some violent incident posted here, where some would argue that an armed citizen would have saved the day...

 

I can point to a very real incident of an armed citizen doing something absolutely retarded with their firearm in public space.

 

Speculation versus 100% evident. 

I did. 

I guess I saw the sarcasm in the post after reading everything else previous to yours I replied to, there has been an underlying bit of it running throughout the thread.

Unfortunately you are correct, there are to many armed citizens that attempt to go beyond their personal understanding of rendering assistance, just because one has a firearm does make one invincible or a super cop, but then again there times those that do the same with out one as well. Some individuals tend to get a hero complex when carrying a concealed or open firearm. Just like that lady that shot at the shoplifter, what was she thinking?? then again she wasn't. No police officer (at none I have ever met) would open fire on a fleeing shoplifter.

I know I that what I am about to say could seem like common sense/realistic thinking but a lot of people don't have that today; when I carry (even without the training I have) I would never pull my weapon unless a positively identified threat to loss of life was in play and even then when I go to fire I make sure without a doubt that my shot is lined up before doing so (all this occurring inside the 1-3 seconds it takes to make the motion). Even though you have a right (US) to carry arms does not mean you don't have to be responsible to yourself and get properly trained. Culturally we (US) are not the same minded individual we used to be back in the colonial days where hunting was common place and knowing how to use such firearms as everyday tools for survival in an unexplored wilderness where as everyone was taught at an early age to respect such things. Over time the US has changed from a proper, patient and respectful people that was common place to today a convenient, inpatient & zealous people (I am generalizing). 

[stconquest]

I did. 

I guess I saw the sarcasm in the post after reading everything else previous to yours I replied to, there has been an underlying bit of it running throughout the thread.

Unfortunately you are correct, there are to many armed citizens that attempt to go beyond their personal understanding of rendering assistance, just because one has a firearm does make one invincible or a super cop, but then again there times those that do the same with out one as well. Some individuals tend to get a hero complex when carrying a concealed or open firearm. Just like that lady that shot at the shoplifter, what was she thinking?? then again she wasn't. No police officer (at none I have ever met) would open fire on a fleeing shoplifter.

I know I that what I am about to say could seem like common sense/realistic thinking but a lot of people don't have that today; when I carry (even without the training I have) I would never pull my weapon unless a positively identified threat to loss of life was in play and even then when I go to fire I make sure without a doubt that my shot is lined up before doing so (all this occurring inside the 1-3 seconds it takes to make the motion). Even though you have a right (US) to carry arms does not mean you don't have to be responsible to yourself and get properly trained. Culturally we (US) are not the same minded individual we used to be back in the colonial days where hunting was common place and knowing how to use such firearms as everyday tools for survival in an unexplored wilderness where as everyone was taught at an early age to respect such things. Over time the US has changed from a proper, patient and respectful people that was common place to today a convenient, inpatient & zealous people (I am generalizing). 

 

It is not a cut and dry situation... the current mentality regarding firearms in the US. 

 

Logically, there is a very real benefit from having a firearm.  When the carrier is trained both in it's use, and when to use... if ever.

 

Logically, there is a very real benefit to take some of gun rights US citizens have been privileged to have thus far.  It may no be fair for everyone, but the dumb ones ruin it for the rest. 

 

Ideally, if the government could at least start enforcing current gun laws better it could go a long way to address the criminal aspects of "legal" gun ownership in the USA... hold on I have a news story...

 

If "left wing" channels bother you, I ask you ignore that aspect.  Cenk is over the top a lot of the time.  Pay attention to the meat of the story instead:

 

[SansVarnic]

This is a really good read. I agree with this very much. Assuming from your comment about on duty carrying your a LEO, in which case I thank you for your service. My father taught be to handle weapons and how powerful and dangerous they can be at a young age 8-9. Now I own guns myself, and am respect them and understand how (and when) I can/should use them. They are all locked up in a locked safe in a locked closet. 

Thank you but I am not a LEO, I work high profile armed security, the only difference between myself and a LEO is I cannot perform an arrest but I do perform all the other functions just the same. I wish I was a LEO though but unfortunately I have an injury from my military service that prevents me from applying.

Gun ownership is similar to parenting if you explain it to the child instead of hiding it or refusing to address it the problem can resolve itself. I am a firm believer of knowledge, the more you have the more power you have to make better decisions. Those that shun anything really just complicates the matter for children and so they become curious even adults. Guns are the same way, why do children look for and think they are cool or want to play with them, because of curiosity. Remove the curiosity factor and the threat is removed (in children). Good, Bad or indifferent, you teach someone what it is and they will figure out what the good from the bad automatically.

[SansVarnic]

 

It is not a cut and dry situation... the current mentality regarding firearms in the US. 

 

Logically, there is a very real benefit from having a firearm.  When the carrier is trained both in it's use, and when to use... if ever.

 

Logically, there is a very real benefit to take some of gun rights US citizens have been privileged to have thus far.  It may no be fair for everyone, but the dumb ones ruin it for the rest. 

 

Ideally, if the government could at least start enforcing current gun laws better it could go a long way to address the criminal aspects of "legal" gun ownership in the USA... hold on I have a news story...

 

If "left wing" channels bother you, I ask you ignore that aspect.  Cenk is over the top a lot of the time.  Pay attention to the meat of the story instead:

 

<snip>

You and I are on the same page and I absolutely agree that it is not cut and dry. I had much more to say in that last reply but I was having a bit of a time putting it to words so I left it at what I had. *edit: If you refer back to some of my previous posts in this thread you will see this.

 

Every person, every situation is different and nobody can be trained 100% on what to do for every situation but it is assumed that with the training and some forethought that those with the ability can read into the situation and form the best reaction to what is happening. I tell this to all the Officers I train, you can only prepare yourself for the possibility of it [shooting] happening not the actual situation itself as no matter what even if you have two similarly identical situations from the start, either scenario will have different outcomes.

I have been in many situations myself that I prepared myself going in that  I may have to draw my weapon but never did, in fact in all the time I have been carrying either on or off duty, I have never drawn my weapon in a situation as I was able to use my skills in de-escalation to resolve the issue. I have been lucky thus far that I have been able to succeed at this. I am also very big on having de-escalation included in firearms classes as depending on the situation just having a firearm can make an issue explode and knowing how to read a situation and avoid it is just as much a factor as knowing how to draw when the time comes. 

 

*edit

Enjoyed the video, I have seen some of their stuff before and they do have some really good stories every now and again. Thanks.

Edited October 18, 2015 by SansVarnic

[Guest Philosophy]

Thank you but I am not a LEO, I work high profile armed security, the only difference between myself and a LEO is I cannot perform an arrest but I do perform all the other functions just the same. I wish I was a LEO though but unfortunately I have an injury from my military service that prevents me from applying.

Gun ownership is similar to parenting if you explain it to the child instead of hiding it or refusing to address it the problem can resolve itself. I am a firm believer of knowledge, the more you have the more power you have to make better decisions. Those that shun anything really just complicates the matter for children and so they become curious even adults. Guns are the same way, why do children look for and think they are cool or want to play with them, because of curiosity. Remove the curiosity factor and the threat is removed (in children). Good, Bad or indifferent, you teach someone what it is and they will figure out what the good from the bad automatically.

Ah, well the thanks for your service still stands (military). I can't agree more. I don't have children though that is a good approach I feel. I graduated the law enforcement academy last year, worked in it for a few months (14 months?) and was laid off (they hired a bunch of more experienced laterals). I just put my application in at a agency a friend works at. I'll know mid December whether I am hired. 

[Camul]

Why? What if someone breaks into your house and you don't have a way to defend yourself?

I don't really expect it to happen, but if I does I'm pretty sure they're only trying to steal my shit. I don't think that they deserve to die for that, even if it is shitty.

[CalebTheEternal]

I don't really expect it to happen, but if I does I'm pretty sure they're only trying to steal my shit. I don't think that they deserve to die for that, even if it is shitty.

Well some people would rather kill than go back to jail. Keep that in mind if someone ever breaks into your house. 

[Mug]

Americans.

 

Defying common sense since the NRA became a political indoctrination machine.

 

[Tie Lightning]

I am writing an argument essay on gun control in my English class and I was wondering what some peoples ideas were on this, I already have my own and you will not change my thoughts on it, but I just want to see what you have to say. 

 

Should there be more gun control?

My opinion - No, there should not be, there will always be those crazy people who will shoot someone. We cannot stop these people from getting guns, if they want to do it, they will find a way, even with more gun control. What would keep them from stealing a gun, or buying one off of the black market? They are already committing a crime, so what would stop them from committing another one? 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

My opinion - Yes, I believes in order to shoot at a gun range you should have to take a safety class by them. The reason I support this is because when I lived in Texas, we just joined a gun range that didn't have a safety training, and when we were visiting it finding out if we wanted to join someone was shot. The person was shot because the person in the bay next to him had a hang fire (When you pull the trigger and the bullet does not go off) and didn't know what to do, so he looked at the gun, which meant pointing it to the left of him, towards another person, and the gun went off. The man had two kids and a wife, and that is why I support this. 

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

My opinion - No. You have the right in your own home to keep your guns unlocked, do I think it's smart, no because if someone breaks into your house and commits a crime with that weapon you're in trouble. If someone does break into your house when you are home with your family, and they have a gun and yours are all locked up, you wont have time to get your gun, and if you do, the intruder might already have a gun to your family. 

 

 

I would go a lot more into depth on this, but I don't want to start a war on here. 

 

Any other things you want to talk about on guns? Post it too!

1) In The US where guns are allowed there are 11,000+ gun related homicides a year. In Japan where guns are illegal, there are about 11 gun related homicides. In the UK (also where guns are banned) last year there were 54 i believe...seeing my point? If guns were banned outright it would be INCREDIBLY difficult to get a gun and shoot up a school, movie theater, etc. 

 

2) Also people quote the second amendment saying. "oh it says i have the right to bear arms!" What it actually says and i quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." My 19 year old friend who has a gun is not a militia, a militia is "A group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers" (Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2015) We were seniors in high school when he got his assault rifle. In no way is he trained to do anything with it. Sure he can shoot it but he can't even run a mile without wheezing. Not anybody's idea of a "trained soldier." Someone who was in the military and was honorably discharged i would feel alright having a gun, but not the majority of people.

 

3) When people say, "Well cars kill people too, so why aren't we banning cars? Don't take away my guns." Well cars weren't invented with the intent to hurt/cause loss of life...guns were.

 

4) Also, with the word United in the name of the country, how is it United to let its citizens have the ability to easily murder one another at a whim? 

 

I'm interested to see what you have to say because i'm also writing a paper on this

[CalebTheEternal]

1) In The US where guns are allowed there are 11,000+ gun related homicides a year. In Japan where guns are illegal, there are about 11 gun related homicides. In the UK (also where guns are banned) last year there were 54 i believe...seeing my point? If guns were banned outright it would be INCREDIBLY difficult to get a gun and shoot up a school, movie theater, etc. 

But it seems that there is a correlation between gun bans and violent crimes. In places with stricter gun laws there seems to be a higher violent crime rate. So there is a chance, if they ban guns, that crime will actually increase. Is it worth the few less shootings a year that will increase crime, or keep those few shootings and have less crime, and let the people have their right to bear arms. Also how would they ban them? Would they just come to our house and take them? I sure hope not, the people taking them would probably be shot, there are collectible guns from wars that there are less than 10 of and people have those. People spend thousands of dollars on collectible guns, and shooting guns. If they come take my guns they better be paying me double or triple what I paid for them.

[stconquest]

But it seems that there is a correlation between gun bans and violent crimes. In places with stricter gun laws there seems to be a higher violent crime rate. So there is a chance, if they ban guns, that crime will actually increase. Is it worth the few less shootings a year that will increase crime, or keep those few shootings and have less crime, and let the people have their right to bear arms. Also how would they ban them? Would they just come to our house and take them? I sure hope not, the people taking them would probably be shot, there are collectible guns from wars that there are less than 10 of and people have those. People spend thousands of dollars on collectible guns, and shooting guns. If they come take my guns they better be paying me double or triple what I paid for them.

 

 

I live in a city of 3M+.  Gun laws are very restrictive and the reported annual murder rate is roughly 100.... under and over depending on year.

[Tie Lightning]

But it seems that there is a correlation between gun bans and violent crimes. In places with stricter gun laws there seems to be a higher violent crime rate. So there is a chance, if they ban guns, that crime will actually increase. Is it worth the few less shootings a year that will increase crime, or keep those few shootings and have less crime, and let the people have their right to bear arms. Also how would they ban them? Would they just come to our house and take them? I sure hope not, the people taking them would probably be shot, there are collectible guns from wars that there are less than 10 of and people have those. People spend thousands of dollars on collectible guns, and shooting guns. If they come take my guns they better be paying me double or triple what I paid for them.

Well violent crimes will happen regardless, and when crimes happen, what what is worse, someone getting robbed or someone innocent getting shot and killed? Even if the statistic you said about violent crimes rising is true, i believe and i hope you believe that a human life is more valuable than someones possessions or a convenience store's cash register.

 

Also you were saying about taking people's guns. One way they could do it gradually is to 1) Stop gun imports to the US. 2) Release a press statement saying that all US Citizens have the ability to turn in their guns to the government or a 3rd party company within two years of the law going live and they will receive compensation for what they paid for their guns/ammunition. 3) Then after that 2 year point, anyone found in possession of a firearm will get some sort of monetary fine along with the firearm being confiscated. (So in this case, if someone say gets pulled over for driving recklessly and a gun is found in the trunk of the car, they will get a fine and a gun take away...kinda like they would with drugs)

 

This plan wouldn't get rid of guns immediately and many people would still have guns, but say 20 years from now after these laws have been in place for awhile, 99% of all the guns would be gone. So the government wouldn't be taking them away, they would give people a chance to get rid of them and if they don't hide their guns well enough then they would get confiscated on a case by case basis only when someone is seen with a gun. Pretty much just treat guns like illegal drugs.

[stconquest]

Well violent crimes will happen regardless, and when crimes happen, what what is worse, someone getting robbed or someone innocent getting shot and killed? Even if the statistic you said about violent crimes rising is true, i believe and i hope you believe that a human life is more valuable than someones possessions or a convenience store's cash register.

 

Also you were saying about taking people's guns. One way they could do it gradually is to 1) Stop gun imports to the US. 2) Release a press statement saying that all US Citizens have the ability to turn in their guns to the government or a 3rd party company within two years of the law going live and they will receive compensation for what they paid for their guns/ammunition. 3) Then after that 2 year point, anyone found in possession of a firearm will get some sort of monetary fine along with the firearm being confiscated. (So in this case, if someone say gets pulled over for driving recklessly and a gun is found in the trunk of the car, they will get a fine and a gun take away...kinda like they would with drugs)

 

This plan wouldn't get rid of guns immediately and many people would still have guns, but say 20 years from now after these laws have been in place for awhile, 99% of all the guns would be gone. So the government wouldn't be taking them away, they would give people a chance to get rid of them and if they don't hide their guns well enough then they would get confiscated on a case by case basis only when someone is seen with a gun. Pretty much just treat guns like illegal drugs.

 

That is a step too far.  Defenses HAVE to be available to citizens.  Their constitution (I'm a canuck) requires the training of militias (state).  We can have guns up here, my cousin loves his guns.  As I said before, we just don't carry our AR-15s to the local Dennys.

[Guest Ranterbach]

Well violent crimes will happen regardless, and when crimes happen, what what is worse, someone getting robbed or someone innocent getting shot and killed? Even if the statistic you said about violent crimes rising is true, i believe and i hope you believe that a human life is more valuable than someones possessions or a convenience store's cash register.

 

Also you were saying about taking people's guns. One way they could do it gradually is to 1) Stop gun imports to the US. 2) Release a press statement saying that all US Citizens have the ability to turn in their guns to the government or a 3rd party company within two years of the law going live and they will receive compensation for what they paid for their guns/ammunition. 3) Then after that 2 year point, anyone found in possession of a firearm will get some sort of monetary fine along with the firearm being confiscated. (So in this case, if someone say gets pulled over for driving recklessly and a gun is found in the trunk of the car, they will get a fine and a gun take away...kinda like they would with drugs)

 

This plan wouldn't get rid of guns immediately and many people would still have guns, but say 20 years from now after these laws have been in place for awhile, 99% of all the guns would be gone. So the government wouldn't be taking them away, they would give people a chance to get rid of them and if they don't hide their guns well enough then they would get confiscated on a case by case basis only when someone is seen with a gun. Pretty much just treat guns like illegal drugs.

American here. No. I have the right to own a firearm if I choose, and if my government decided to fine me and confiscate my possessions, I would move to a country that does not have a tyrannical government. 

Guns do not cause crimes, guns are not inherently evil, and you cannot simply remove guns from the US. As I'm sure you've heard a million times before, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about it, if someone is planning to commit a crime with a firearm, would they choose any old place, or would they gravitate towards a posted gun-free zone? Civilians HAVE to have the ability to defend themselves and their families. 

I have family in New York who are avid firearm enthusiasts. Under NY's SAFE Act, all AR15s were supposed to be registered with the state by midnight on April 14th of last year. Less than 5000 were registered. That means an estimated 99.995% (as of 2014) "assault weapons" are unregistered and illegal in the state of New York. What makes you think that gun buyback programs (which already exist, by the way) will rid America of firearms in 20 years? I think it's quite clear that the American people will not tolerate the government infringing their right to keep and bear arms. 

As to your point about stopping the import of firearms to the US, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. First of all, here is a rough list of American firearm manufacturers:

Ruger

Kimber

Wilson Combat

CMMG

DPMS

Kel-Tec

Hi-Point

Colt

Springfield (not models)

Charter Arms

Remington

Ithaca

Henry Rifles

Keystone Sporting Arms

Bond Arms

Heritage Manufacturing

American Derringer

Lewis Machine & Tool

Noveske Rifleworks

Patriot Ordnance Factory

Barrett Firearms

Lazzeroni Rifles

Jarrett Rifles

Volkmann Inc.

JP Enterprises

Rainier Arms

North American Arms 

L.W. Seecamp

Kahr Arms 

Rohrbaugh Firearms

 

You see the point I am trying to make? Sure, you could place an embargo on all foreign firearm manufacturers, but that's only a small percentage of the world's firearms. Next you have to put at least 30 companies out of business on your own soil. How do you plan on making that work? 

The chances of removing firearms from America in our lifetime without causing a full on revolution are so incredibly slim. Confiscating weapons from American citizens would require the National Guard. How many Guardsmen do you think are going to take up arms against their friends and family because the government told them to? They swore an oath to protect this nation from all threats, foreign and domestic. That would count as a domestic threat to the nation and its people. 

[cluelessgenius]

here is my take on the matter:

 

pro gun people always say "im a responsable gun owner" "why should i give up my gun just because jimmy went crazy and shot his wife or some kid went crazy and well went crazy".

 

too that i say youre right and also why do i have to drive freaking 60mph(100km/h) why cant i drive as fast as i can. i am a responsable driver i can handle more than 60.

 

but unfortunately thats not how society works. we are always just as good as the worst of us. so jonny got drunk and ran over a homeless guy and stupid jenny hit a tree while texting and driving and now we all have to pay. it maybe feels unfair but thats the way we handle things and gun control shouldnt be an exception. people as a whole have proven that they cant handle guns and therefore they should be illegal. ofcourse you can handle your gun but enough freaking people cant so im sorry but you will find another hobby.

 

there is a million examples like this but the essence is that if enough people fuck up there need to be a general rule to prevent that. if i would apply this to my life id say i am capable of driving as fast as i want. i can walk across the street wherever i want since i be careful and also i can drive whatever car i see fit for the job.

 

because americans wont know this but thats another thing in germany it is mandatory to have car insurance and to get a checkup every 2 years. and if your car doesnt pass its illegal to drive. i could argue that i take care of my car and know if its safe to drive it with this or that not working right but again there are rules for a reason. it just needs a few people to fuck up to mess it up for everyone thats just how it is. 

 

and for closing words id say that in germany in most cases guns are illegal and ive yet to hear of a single school shooting or street robbery where someone got shot. 

[Khajiit Dealer]

Well violent crimes will happen regardless, and when crimes happen, what what is worse, someone getting robbed or someone innocent getting shot and killed? Even if the statistic you said about violent crimes rising is true, i believe and i hope you believe that a human life is more valuable than someones possessions or a convenience store's cash register.

 

Also you were saying about taking people's guns. One way they could do it gradually is to 1) Stop gun imports to the US. 2) Release a press statement saying that all US Citizens have the ability to turn in their guns to the government or a 3rd party company within two years of the law going live and they will receive compensation for what they paid for their guns/ammunition. 3) Then after that 2 year point, anyone found in possession of a firearm will get some sort of monetary fine along with the firearm being confiscated. (So in this case, if someone say gets pulled over for driving recklessly and a gun is found in the trunk of the car, they will get a fine and a gun take away...kinda like they would with drugs)

 

This plan wouldn't get rid of guns immediately and many people would still have guns, but say 20 years from now after these laws have been in place for awhile, 99% of all the guns would be gone. So the government wouldn't be taking them away, they would give people a chance to get rid of them and if they don't hide their guns well enough then they would get confiscated on a case by case basis only when someone is seen with a gun. Pretty much just treat guns like illegal drugs.

What you just outlined is the American Civil War 2.0

[Guest Ranterbach]

- snip -

 

17 states in the US require annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and all of the US requires insurance to drive. 

What you fail to understand is that guns are already in the wild. You cannot undo that. Rules and laws will only be followed by law-abiding citizens. There are already laws against using a firearm to commit a crime, just like there are speed limits. All the rules you're talking about already exist. Felons and the "mentally unfit" are barred from purchasing and owning firearms. Everybody that has proven they should not own a firearm is currently barred from purchasing one. 

Clearly implementing more laws will only disadvantage the law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to stop or even slow down those who intend to cause harm with a firearm.. 

 

[cluelessgenius]

17 states in the US require annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and all of the US requires insurance to drive. 

What you fail to understand is that guns are already in the wild. You cannot undo that. Rules and laws will only be followed by law-abiding citizens. There are already laws against using a firearm to commit a crime, just like there are speed limits. All the rules you're talking about already exist. Felons and the "mentally unfit" are barred from purchasing and owning firearms. Everybody that has proven they should not own a firearm is currently barred from purchasing one. 

Clearly implementing more laws will only disadvantage the law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to stop or even slow down those who intend to cause harm with a firearm.. 

 

well i wasnt that sure about the vehicle laws in the us ill give you that and i see how them already beeing out there is a problem but my point stands firearms shouldnt only be forbidden for the mentally unfit but for everyone no guns fo anyone but the police and military. listen im not saying im an expert on this matter but this is just my take on it.