I don't think regulations on guns are a bad thing. Some people need to be told in a formal way that what they are doing, like letting there 2 year old play with a shotgun loaded and cocked, isn't very smart. I think all the crap you have to go through sometimes to get a gun these days helps give the owners a little more respect for what they have. As for the ban on assult weapons goes... I personally don't see the need for any civilian to carry an assult weapon for protection. But I also know several people, included my boss that have these weapons as collector items and fun things to shot down at the range. I don't see any problem with that. I still believe that most violent crime involving guns occurs with illegal, unregistered weapons. Accidents with guns definitly happen, and they shouldn't, but many more people are hurt or die every year by accidents involving cars and we don't see anyone looking to ban them (at least not any sane people..IMO).
Well, Since everyone tends to compare cars with guns (why, I don't know, but I will play your game), then I say we apply the same rules to guns as we do to cars!
1) You register your car, you register your gun.
2) You have a license for you car, you have a license for your gun.
3) Safety features are provided for your car (ABS, airbags), then Safety features are provided for guns (Child locks, gun safes).
4) You are required to carry insurance for your car, you are required to carry insurance for your gun.
5) (In many state) Routine inspections are required for your car, Routine inspections are required for your gun (AKA, do you still have it?).
6) To sell your car you must go through the state, to sell your gun you must also go through the state.
I can go on. But do you people really want to group guns and cars in the same way? Are you grouping cars and guns because people happen to die around them? If so, then "Steak grisle" can be grouped with guns and cars too, since do you know how many people choke to death on grisle each year? Do you see the idiocy of comparing the two?
Actually, I'd rather you applied the same rules to using a gun as we do using a car. I think it would go along way to enacting the type of beneficial gun control that many of us are looking for. Note though, no where do we say "take away". This isnt gun grabbing.
DaBoneHead: Ypropositions would have little, if any, effect on illegal weapons. Do you think somebody with a "hot" weapon is going to bother registering and licensing their weapon?
As for your "safety feature" comparison: It is diffcult to get around the usage of ABS brakes and airbags. It is a no brainer to not use the safety methods you recommend for guns. I can tell you right off, if I had a gun here it would NOT have a child lock on it.
As for your "safety feature" comparison: It is diffcult to get around the usage of ABS brakes and airbags. It is a no brainer to not use the safety methods you recommend for guns. I can tell you right off, if I had a gun here it would NOT have a child lock on it.
Funny you say that because almost everything on that list actually does apply to guns. In most places in the US you do have to register them. They do have safety features, you do need a permit to carry one, ect. ect. ect.
By comparing guns to cars I am mearly saying that guns aren't the only thing that cause peoples death. And you are right, there are many many more things that kill people besides cars and guns. So why should there be any special rules for guns then there are for anything else one could accidently kill themselves or somebody else with? As has been said before, guns are harmless, they don't fire by themselves, people fire them.
To compare to something maybe a little more on the same lines we could talk about a knife. Should we ban them because people accidently cut themselves, or even kill themselves or others with them? Most people would say that is rediculous..so why then is baning a gun not rediculous? Guns have a purpose, and if used correctly and legally, there is nothing wrong with them.
By comparing guns to cars I am mearly saying that guns aren't the only thing that cause peoples death. And you are right, there are many many more things that kill people besides cars and guns. So why should there be any special rules for guns then there are for anything else one could accidently kill themselves or somebody else with? As has been said before, guns are harmless, they don't fire by themselves, people fire them.
To compare to something maybe a little more on the same lines we could talk about a knife. Should we ban them because people accidently cut themselves, or even kill themselves or others with them? Most people would say that is rediculous..so why then is baning a gun not rediculous? Guns have a purpose, and if used correctly and legally, there is nothing wrong with them.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
Dabonehead: you do know there's been movements to get cars over x number of years off the road (and sent into a crusher). x has been values ranging from 5 years to 25 years.
People have fought these very very strongly. Collectors don't want to lose thier 69 Camero and 58 'Vettes while someone in a '88 Ranger won't keep his car tuned up enough to keep it from puffing smoke. And someone struggling to afford to live doesn't want to give up thier '74 Nova that is thier family car that is all they can afford to drive.
A large amount of the public has agreed with this and these movements remain small (as is the movements to ban all cars, they do exist). Guns just aren't "politically correct" enough to be worth taking another look at.
People have fought these very very strongly. Collectors don't want to lose thier 69 Camero and 58 'Vettes while someone in a '88 Ranger won't keep his car tuned up enough to keep it from puffing smoke. And someone struggling to afford to live doesn't want to give up thier '74 Nova that is thier family car that is all they can afford to drive.
A large amount of the public has agreed with this and these movements remain small (as is the movements to ban all cars, they do exist). Guns just aren't "politically correct" enough to be worth taking another look at.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
The only thing my guns have killed is paper and AOL CDs. I'd rather not have to actually use them on a human.
jtshaw,
I really didn't mean to accost you or anything. It is just in so many debates on these forums, people do compare guns to other things, usually cars. I was more addressing those previous posts than yours, and I apologize if you have taken offense.
This morning while driving to work (in my car), it occurred to me that we do alot more to regulate motor vehicles than weapons, and as boberfett pointed out, it does have alot to do with one being a right, and the other a privaledge, and that gets to the heart of the matter. You can't compare them for that reason.
Though an interesting thought has occurred to me. Though "the right to bear arms" is garaunteed, the right to bear steak-knives isn't. Perhaps we need a "National Knife Association" (NKA) to protect the rights of hungry steak enthusiasts all over the country from the oppressive liberals "Knife-Grabbers" running around. It can be headed by O.J., rather than Charleton Heston. I don't know... the way things are going we just might!
Haha, I think we should rush to have the first NKA meeting asap! Afterall, I could have missed my plane when the Atlanta airport security took 5 minutes to decide it was ok that my pocket knife went on the plane. I guess you can't take blades over 2.5 inches on an aircraft..good thing mine was exactly 2.5 inches... I really recommend tucking those things in a bag or something to save hasle. Guess I never though a pocket knife could be considered a weapon.
And you are definitly right about the car vs. gun thing.
And you are definitly right about the car vs. gun thing.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
I always remembered it as less than 4" constitutes a pocket knife, and if you conceal a knife w/ a blade longer than 4" (kitchenware for example) then it is a concealed weapon.
I'll make it even simpler.
The Anti-gun activist/believers... are just as dangerous as the criminals that use them in crime.... THEY BOTH WANT guns taken away from the people.
That... and I have concluded they are idiots, They belong in another country, and they are afraid of loud noises.
The Anti-gun activist/believers... are just as dangerous as the criminals that use them in crime.... THEY BOTH WANT guns taken away from the people.
That... and I have concluded they are idiots, They belong in another country, and they are afraid of loud noises.
We have guns lots of em, just not handguns.
Its been that way for 100 years justification is its hard for a criminal to conceal a rifle so consequentially nobody feels there is any danger. Which is true you are very unlikely to be held up at gun point. You can own a handgun with special collectors licences, but with our new gun law that is increasingly difficult.
What the law should really do is register owners, currently most firearms owners are not registered to own a firearm. By doing so trhey can trade or own as many weapons as they so choose with opther legitimate firearms owners and with a simple 1800 and an ID number they can confirm if they are dealing with somebody who is not a criminal. Then anybody who does not carry a firearms licence can be prosecuted and the firearm confiscated.
Say for example I go hunting but lend my rifle to somebody without a licence and he is caught then many different penalties could be applied currently there is nothing.
What we need is not gun registratiuon but owner registration.
Its been that way for 100 years justification is its hard for a criminal to conceal a rifle so consequentially nobody feels there is any danger. Which is true you are very unlikely to be held up at gun point. You can own a handgun with special collectors licences, but with our new gun law that is increasingly difficult.
What the law should really do is register owners, currently most firearms owners are not registered to own a firearm. By doing so trhey can trade or own as many weapons as they so choose with opther legitimate firearms owners and with a simple 1800 and an ID number they can confirm if they are dealing with somebody who is not a criminal. Then anybody who does not carry a firearms licence can be prosecuted and the firearm confiscated.
Say for example I go hunting but lend my rifle to somebody without a licence and he is caught then many different penalties could be applied currently there is nothing.
What we need is not gun registratiuon but owner registration.
With all the in depth replies here, I'll hold back.
But one thing: I have guns, I love my guns, nobody will take them away. Period.
I have owned a gun for over 20 years, never any problems.
It is the person holding the gun, not the gun itself.
It is a shame when the premier manufacturers have to stop producing for the public because of liberal pressure.
Grab any Colts while you can!
But one thing: I have guns, I love my guns, nobody will take them away. Period.
I have owned a gun for over 20 years, never any problems.
It is the person holding the gun, not the gun itself.
It is a shame when the premier manufacturers have to stop producing for the public because of liberal pressure.
Grab any Colts while you can!
You always have to make a big deal about criminals with guns, Russ?
The simple fact is most firearm incidents don't even involve criminals (or should I say recidivous criminals, I wouldn't referr to someone with one or 2 charges in the course of their life as a 'criminal') They actually involve average normal everyday people & are either accidents or impulsive/compulsive acts such as domestics & what not cause by drunkenous, simple jealousy or just by someone losing it. Really the average person is more at risk of being shot by an alcoholic with a gun than a criminal with a gun - Here in Oz we have that 'Cops' program & also that 'LAPD' program on at about 3AM, every so often, & if you watch either of those programs you'll notice that just about every 2nd callout (well it almost seems like that) is to some drunken domestic, where some drunken black man or redneck white has pulled a gun on someone in a fit of rage, so then they have to go searching under all the beds & in the back yard till they find it.
The fact is even most criminals don't actually own firearms. Just do a survey of people who have decent rap sheets - I bet the vast majority are the type of people, that if ever they came a cross a firearm, they'd sell it before the day is out, just so they could get an extra hit. Even the vast majority of people who break into houses, have no intent in comiting actual bodily harm on residents, they just want to grab your VCR (& any money or jewellery lying arround) to flog for drug money. If you were actually at home when one of these scrotes climbed through your window, all you'd have to do is turn on your bedside light & they be out the door & running down the street as far as their abused bodies will take 'em.
Really most Americans who keep guns for self defence, do it mainly because they have tickets on themselves & there own self importance & have watched too much Hollywood TV & are thus paranoid they need a gun for self defence. When really they are only at risk from other people, who also have guns for self defence too. About the only people who truelly need firearms for self defence are people in law enforment/security/military & drug dealers. Afterall they are about the only people who are at risk of geting held up regully - most of the drug dealers I know have been held up at least once, useally by toecutters (Oz talk for standover merchants) or by crooked police. As far as everyday people are concerned the odds are like about 1000 to 1 or something that they'l be held up just once (let alone more that that) in their lifetime.
However I do agree with DaboneHead, the US is to saturated with Guns, for 'guncontrol' to be worth bothering about. & He's also right about compulsary gunsafe storage, too. Here in Oz & the UK its been compulsary for donkeys years, that all firearms have to be stored unloaded (& if possible disabled) in a steel gunsafe that's bolted to concrete & the bolts lockwelded down. Consequently domestic firearm accidents are very low in Australia & the UK compared with the US (both in relation to hunting/handling accidents & as a percentage of all firearm deaths too).
Such gunsafes make legal firearms harder to steal, which in the long term would have a negative (if initially negligable) effect on the supply of ilegal firearms. Afterall the main reason why the US has so many illegal firearms arround is because of the huge number of legal firearms that are arround. Because as we all know virtually all illegal firearms start out as legal firearms.
Maybe if Tasmania then had 'Fair dinkum' gun storage laws (Tasmania was at that the only Australian state that didn't have gunsafe laws, actually they were phazing them in at that time), than that recesive might not have been able to steal that Armalite & blast away 30 people. Then the politicians wouldn't have been lobbied (by that womens antigun group) into bringing in that stupid over-the-top expensive, gun buy-back scheme.
The simple fact is most firearm incidents don't even involve criminals (or should I say recidivous criminals, I wouldn't referr to someone with one or 2 charges in the course of their life as a 'criminal') They actually involve average normal everyday people & are either accidents or impulsive/compulsive acts such as domestics & what not cause by drunkenous, simple jealousy or just by someone losing it. Really the average person is more at risk of being shot by an alcoholic with a gun than a criminal with a gun - Here in Oz we have that 'Cops' program & also that 'LAPD' program on at about 3AM, every so often, & if you watch either of those programs you'll notice that just about every 2nd callout (well it almost seems like that) is to some drunken domestic, where some drunken black man or redneck white has pulled a gun on someone in a fit of rage, so then they have to go searching under all the beds & in the back yard till they find it.
The fact is even most criminals don't actually own firearms. Just do a survey of people who have decent rap sheets - I bet the vast majority are the type of people, that if ever they came a cross a firearm, they'd sell it before the day is out, just so they could get an extra hit. Even the vast majority of people who break into houses, have no intent in comiting actual bodily harm on residents, they just want to grab your VCR (& any money or jewellery lying arround) to flog for drug money. If you were actually at home when one of these scrotes climbed through your window, all you'd have to do is turn on your bedside light & they be out the door & running down the street as far as their abused bodies will take 'em.
Really most Americans who keep guns for self defence, do it mainly because they have tickets on themselves & there own self importance & have watched too much Hollywood TV & are thus paranoid they need a gun for self defence. When really they are only at risk from other people, who also have guns for self defence too. About the only people who truelly need firearms for self defence are people in law enforment/security/military & drug dealers. Afterall they are about the only people who are at risk of geting held up regully - most of the drug dealers I know have been held up at least once, useally by toecutters (Oz talk for standover merchants) or by crooked police. As far as everyday people are concerned the odds are like about 1000 to 1 or something that they'l be held up just once (let alone more that that) in their lifetime.
However I do agree with DaboneHead, the US is to saturated with Guns, for 'guncontrol' to be worth bothering about. & He's also right about compulsary gunsafe storage, too. Here in Oz & the UK its been compulsary for donkeys years, that all firearms have to be stored unloaded (& if possible disabled) in a steel gunsafe that's bolted to concrete & the bolts lockwelded down. Consequently domestic firearm accidents are very low in Australia & the UK compared with the US (both in relation to hunting/handling accidents & as a percentage of all firearm deaths too).
Such gunsafes make legal firearms harder to steal, which in the long term would have a negative (if initially negligable) effect on the supply of ilegal firearms. Afterall the main reason why the US has so many illegal firearms arround is because of the huge number of legal firearms that are arround. Because as we all know virtually all illegal firearms start out as legal firearms.
Maybe if Tasmania then had 'Fair dinkum' gun storage laws (Tasmania was at that the only Australian state that didn't have gunsafe laws, actually they were phazing them in at that time), than that recesive might not have been able to steal that Armalite & blast away 30 people. Then the politicians wouldn't have been lobbied (by that womens antigun group) into bringing in that stupid over-the-top expensive, gun buy-back scheme.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter