Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

[Revoltingest]

Do with it as you will. Personally I do not like to spread false news for either side. I am for gun rights, but I can see implementing some restrictions. Too many loons can simply by a gun and do with it what they will. As we have seen far too often lately.

True dat....I know gun owners I'd like to see give'm up.

 

[Milton Platt]

As most of you know I am what some here on Religious Forums consider a right wing gun-nut (your term not mine). So I have some serious questions and my own response to them that I would be open to a discussion about. I just watched a talking head, Chuck Todd, on NBC. A few points were brought forward by his guest and he, Todd, did some song and dance around a couple of points. Let's look at a couple of issues.

1. It seems that there are those that think you have to be over the age of 18 or over to have in their possession a handgun or to purchase one. This is False and True.
Federal Law: You must be 21 years of age to purchase a handgun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer. However, as a private citizen I can sell a handgun to anyone 18 and over in Idaho. In addition, a person 18 and over may carry a concealed weapon in Idaho outside the border limits of cities and/or towns . Therefore, the 18 year restriction is a State by State issue. All media networks cable and over-the-air have promulgated false information.

2. Raise the minimum age to 21 to purchase a AR-15 style weapon.
My contention is that this is a knee jerk reaction.
What mental attributes does a 21 year old person have over a 18 year old person?
Do they not realize that a person 17 years of age can join the US military and be issued a automatic weapon. What do they want to do, pass a law that you must be 21 years old to join the military?
Again this is a knee jerk reaction by those that have not set down a looked at the issue.

3. Mr Todd kept bringing up the subject of "expanded background checks". However not once did he say what a "expanded background" check would consist of. Of course he mentioned internet sales, but does he not realize that to purchase a firearm over the internet that the transaction must go through a FFL dealer on both ends of the sale. That is unless the sale is by a private party to a resident of the same state. If a private party sells a firearm to a person from another state they have violated Federal law without going through a person with a FFL at both ends of the transaction.
Note: I would like to see "gun show" sales go through a FFL dealer. But I do not want to require this of sales between private parties. See ZIdaho.com for an example of sales between private parties that I do not think should be required to go through a FFL dealer.
Also what do they mean by "expanded background" checks? Mr Todd kept mentioning adding something (he never specified what he meant) to the background checks. Well he did say if a person is expelled from school it should go on his record. So you can get expelled from school for many "minor" incidents. Say like causing a traffic jam in the school hallways for one.

Now those are only three items. If you are willing to have a intelligent conversation on what additional firearm laws you would like to see enacted I and others would probably be willing to do so. The key word is "Intelligent". Of course I can't stop person from posting, but I will only answer to "Intelligent" statements or ideas. (My post, my definition of intelligent)

I am in the left-leaning camp and want to see much stronger gun regulation. I am not anti-gun....I have owned guns all of my life and do so now. But as the country has become less rural and much more populous, it is time to reconsider things. I do not pretend to have the ultimate answers, I simply think we need to revisit the gun issue and base decisions on factual information and minus the emotional components. I see emotionally charged rhetoric from both camps, and that is not productive.
Expanded background checks might be a part of that solution, and yes, we need to flesh out what that might actually mean. There is an over-arching issue which nobody seems to acknowledge. There are millions of guns in the country, and nobody knows who owns the majority of them or where they are kept. No amount of legislation will prevent those guns from being misused.
Personally, I am for making people much more accountable for gun ownership. For instance, if your guns are stolen because you did not have them secured in a gun safe and are used in a crime, you should bear some of the culpability for that crime.

 

[esmith]

I am in the left-leaning camp and want to see much stronger gun regulation. I am not anti-gun....I have owned guns all of my life and do so now. But as the country has become less rural and much more populous, it is time to reconsider things. I do not pretend to have the ultimate answers, I simply think we need to revisit the gun issue and base decisions on factual information and minus the emotional components. I see emotionally charged rhetoric from both camps, and that is not productive.
Expanded background checks might be a part of that solution, and yes, we need to flesh out what that might actually mean. There is an over-arching issue which nobody seems to acknowledge. There are millions of guns in the country, and nobody knows who owns the majority of them or where they are kept. No amount of legislation will prevent those guns from being misused.
Personally, I am for making people much more accountable for gun ownership. For instance, if your guns are stolen because you did not have them secured in a gun safe and are used in a crime, you should bear some of the culpability for that crime.

Counter:
If someone steals you car and kills someone should you be held liable?

 

[bobhikes]

I think your data fro smartgunlaws.org which is really Browse Gun Laws by State | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in really not smart. Let's take a look at the incorrect map. It says that in Idaho one must be 18 to have in their possession a long gun. WRONG!!!!



This site along with many others have a tendency to not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words I will have nothing to do with them.

The point is that it is not Necessary for people under 21 to buy an AR-15 as there parent or legal guardian can buy and allow them to use it.
But it is also not necessary to buy an AR-15
If you look for the Top guns for
Small game
deer
bear
Big game
Target shooting
Clay pigeons

The AR-15 will not be on any top list. The AR-15 is a copy of a military weapon that is easy to carry, use and allows rapid fire. The military gun doesn't even have a scope as they use phosphorous bullets so they can see what they are shooting and don't even have to aim. It point and shoot for the various less trainable enlisted men they get. Anyone that show's ability will be carrying a far better gun, which exist for personal use as well but idiots buy the AR-15

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Counter:
If someone steals you car and kills someone should you be held liable?

Depends how reasonably forseable it was they'd steal your car, maybe? If it's in a locked garage with an engine immobilizer applied? Probably not. If it was left running on a street corner with the doors unlocked? Well, maybe, yeah.

 

[Milton Platt]

Counter:
If someone steals you car and kills someone should you be held liable?

An automobile is not a weapon that was designed for killing. I get your point, but it is a false equivalency.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends how reasonably forseable it was they'd steal your car, maybe? If it's in a locked garage with an engine immobilizer applied? Probably not. If it was left running on a street corner with the doors unlocked? Well, maybe, yeah.

And because how easy that makes a car to steal, leaving a running car is a ticketable offense in many states. In fact most of them:

It's Illegal to Warm Up Your Car in These States

 

[esmith]

The point is that it is not Necessary for people under 21 to buy an AR-15 as there parent or legal guardian can buy and allow them to use it.
But it is also not necessary to buy an AR-15
If you look for the Top guns for
Small game
deer
bear
Big game
Target shooting
Clay pigeons

The AR-15 will not be on any top list. The AR-15 is a copy of a military weapon that is easy to carry, use and allows rapid fire. The military gun doesn't even have a scope as they use phosphorous bullets so they can see what they are shooting and don't even have to aim. It point and shoot for the various less trainable enlisted men they get. Anyone that show's ability will be carrying a far better gun, which exist for personal use as well but idiots buy the AR-15

Well you now have shown your complete ignorance about firearms. The only weapon that the military has that fires tracer rounds are machine guns. Your other statement about scopes is totally ridiculous. Ever hear of Picatinny rails?

What to try again.

 

[bobhikes]

Well you now have shown your complete ignorance about firearms. The only weapon that the military has that fires tracer rounds are machine guns. Your other statement about scopes is totally ridiculous. Ever hear of Picatinny rails?
View attachment 20517View attachment 20518View attachment 20519View attachment 20520

What to try again.

I don't think so.

Shooters also like that the semiautomatic rifle is a civilian version of the similar M-16, used by the American military.

I was in ROTC and part of the Training was shooting a M-16 and every 6th bullet was a tracer. Who is ignorant?

Added with edit, Available to buy on-line as well.

5.56mm M16 Tracer Ammo

5.56mm M16 Tracer Ammo | Bismarck, ND Classifieds

 

[esmith]

I don't think so.

Shooters also like that the semiautomatic rifle is a civilian version of the similar M-16, used by the American military.

I was in ROTC and part of the Training was shooting a M-16 and every 6th bullet was a tracer. Who is ignorant?

That training not combat.
Marine Corps Will Likely Adopt Army 5.56 Rifle Round, General Says

 

[bobhikes]

That training not combat.
Marine Corps Will Likely Adopt Army 5.56 Rifle Round, General Says

I never said it was. I thought you wanted an honest discussion and didn't want to deal with name calling idiots. So far you have been far from honest and only insult idea's you don't like. So my guess is everybody that doesn't agree with you is not being honest.

 

[Valjean]

I have worked and know 17-18 year old persons who are more mature than someone who is 25 years old.
Where did you obtain the facts that the brain of a 18 year old is different from that of a 21 year old?

The brain's still developing during these years. I thought this was common knowledge. Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

A background data base should contain all data that would invalidate a person from possessing a firearm under current laws.

I agree, but apparently they don't. Even when they do there's nothing stopping private sales or no questions asked sales at gun and knife shows.

We still require a court of law to determine who may posses a firearm. Would you change that to not requiring a court of law, remember under our current Constitution we have the "right" to own a firearm, unless a court of law removes that right.

Most firearms sales don't involve a court of law. You just walk into a shop and buy a gun.
Psychiatric records are protected by HIPPA regulations, and police records don't necessarily appear on background checks, either.
People who should not be trusted with firearms don't seem to have a great deal of trouble acquiring them.

 

[esmith]

I never said it was. I thought you wanted an honest discussion and didn't want to deal with name calling idiots. So far you have been far from honest and only insult idea's you don't like. So my guess is everybody that doesn't agree with you is not being honest.

Ok, made a mistake. Sometimes one get pushed to the breaking point and I overreacted.
However, military combat rifles do have optics
Also one fires in burst mode for accuracy, pray and spray is only for covering fire or against a horde of zombies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Counter:
If someone steals you car and kills someone should you be held liable?

Perhaps there should be some liability for not properly securing keys to one's car.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps there should be some liability for not properly securing keys to one's car.

Criminal liability...nope.

 

[Revoltingest]

Criminal liability...nope.

With vehicles now known to be useful to terrorists as weapons,
this could become a possibility. To require reasonable security
is a small inconvenience.

 

[sayak83]

1. Not sure what you mean by the statement "A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements" Please clarify
2. What does being employed have to do with a requirement to own a firearm? Please explain
3. We do not have local citizen councils in the US other than our governmental agency. If we did what qualifications would the persons selected for this "council" have? Be specific.
4. Some States have a requirement to have a license to purchase a firearm others don't. I would leave it up to the States to make that determination.
5. If you want a refresher gun training period every two years do you also want a driving refresher training program every two years. More people are killed in automobile accidents that with firearms.
6. What do you consider "responsible citizen requirement" to entail?
7. DMV style office for giving, revoking, or renewing permits. See #4


1. You do realize that there are certain restrictions on who may purchase or have in their possession a firearm. It is the current law in all States.
2. One must be adjudicated as mental ill in order to have a Constitutional right revoked. Until the Constitution is amended this right can not be taken away. Therefore one must exhibit a condition of mental illness and brought before a judge, with both parties represented in order for this to happen.


That is covered under current Federal law concerning who may or may not purchase or have possession of a firearm.

1) Suppose the guy works in personal security firm, private investigator, professional Hunter etc. Victims of domestic abuse, stalking etc. will also get permits under "profession and security" exemption.

2) Having a job or being gainfully self employed are good credentials that show a person is independent, disciplined and responsible for their own lives and capable of making good decisions. Having, owning, looking after and using a gun should require a criteria of discipline and competency. This is a good one.

3) I don't know about US, but in India every locality has an official citizen's council that works with the local police station, helps the locally elected leaders in developmental proposals for the zone etc. Whatever it is that does the same thing in US should be given the responsibility of recommending or not recommending a person for gun ownership, if he/she fails to meet employment criteria.

4) The law needs to be promulgated in every state. If the states are instruments of enacting these laws, the people should lobby their respective state legislators.

5) Yes a refresher driving lesson every two years is a great idea, especially for people under 30 who are most responsible to avoidable car crashes. Written and eye test for all every two years and live driving test for folks under 30 every two years is a great idea.
I will note however that your fatality data is wrong. Every scientist knows that data needs to be appropriately normalized before comparison. Here the normalization metric is fatality per unit of use. So, for a correct comparison, the fatality rate by cars per unit of gasoline consumption needs to be compared with that of guns per unit of discharged bullet. I would bet the fatality rate would be orders of magnitude smaller than that of guns.

6) Explained in 2 above + mental competency assessment.

7) How the Constitution needs to be interpreted (by the SC) or amended to make the above happen is the concern for US citizens. You asked for recommendations, I have provided them. These things can certainly be done if people actively march out for them.

 

[esmith]

1) Suppose the guy works in personal security firm, private investigator, professional Hunter etc. Victims of domestic abuse, stalking etc. will also get permits under "profession and security" exemption.

2) Having a job or being gainfully self employed are good credentials that show a person is independent, disciplined and responsible for their own lives and capable of making good decisions. Having, owning, looking after and using a gun should require a criteria of discipline and competency. This is a good one.

3) I don't know about US, but in India every locality has an official citizen's council that works with the local police station, helps the locally elected leaders in developmental proposals for the zone etc. Whatever it is that does the same thing in US should be given the responsibility of recommending or not recommending a person for gun ownership, if he/she fails to meet employment criteria.

4) The law needs to be promulgated in every state. If the states are instruments of enacting these laws, the people should lobby their respective state legislators.

5) Yes a refresher driving lesson every two years is a great idea, especially for people under 30 who are most responsible to avoidable car crashes. Written and eye test for all every two years and live driving test for folks under 30 every two years is a great idea.
I will note however that your fatality data is wrong. Every scientist knows that data needs to be appropriately normalized before comparison. Here the normalization metric is fatality per unit of use. So, for a correct comparison, the fatality rate by cars per unit of gasoline consumption needs to be compared with that of guns per unit of discharged bullet. I would bet the fatality rate would be orders of magnitude smaller than that of guns.

6) Explained in 2 above + mental competency assessment.

7) How the Constitution needs to be interpreted (by the SC) or amended to make the above happen is the concern for US citizens. You asked for recommendations, I have provided them. These things can certainly be done if people actively march out for them.

Your ideas may work in your country but they will not work in this country at the present time or anytime in the near future. The country is too divided on the gun issue for Congress to do anything.
In addition as one of the Fathers of a girl killed in Florida said (basically....gun control will not fix the problem with schools, it will require security implementations.

 

[sayak83]

Your ideas may work in your country but they will not work in this country at the present time or anytime in the near future. The country is too divided on the gun issue for Congress to do anything.
In addition as one of the Fathers of a girl killed in Florida said (basically....gun control will not fix the problem with schools, it will require security implementations.

There goes your claim of having open and honest discussion. Let me put it to you this way, if a governor or a political party campaigns on the basis of the above reforms, would you vote for them. Yes or No? If a citizen group campaigns to have these reforms in gun law for your state, would you send donations them? You are responsible for whom or what you support, not what others do.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'd like to see a background check for all gun sales, private or otherwise, as long as NICS is opened up so that you don't need to be an FFL to run a check.