1) I do not think there is a legitimate reason for anyone other than the military to be able to own a firearm that is capable of firing off rounds in very rapid succession.
2) The gun lobby has shamefully and almost always effectively fought any reasonable restriction or requirement or delay to gun ownership.
3) If gun ownership is to be allowed, I think that people should have to be licensed to own one, such that they must:
-be at least 21 to own a gun
-undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check
-give proof of residency
-successfully complete a firearms safety course and test.
I also think there needs to be stricter liability laws for how people store their guns and ammunition.
I also think there needs to be stricter laws with regard to child safety locks; as in, all guns sold to private citizens in the US should have them.
Okay, I totally missed this because nuggin and I were having a post pissing contest, and I think somebody else jumped on you.
Okay, I will completely buy this if two things are tweaked:
1)Keep the rifle/shotgun age at 18, with the exception of handguns. They should be 21-and-up in all states if they aren't already.
2)Please define rapid succession. If you mean you have to reload after every shot, then home defense is nerfed because you might miss in the panic, even with a shotgun. As for hunting, that's not a bad idea because that's where to skill comes in.
The rest of my replies will have the above in mind.
think we already know that many, many many people are, indeed, this stupid. The 800-900 accidental shooting deaths per year should tell you that. That doesn't even include the number of guns that are stolen out of people's homes or used in suicides because they were not adequately secured.
Okay, this might solve some problems. But I haven't read you acknowledging anything I meantion about psychological approaches to these nationwide issues; don't you think putting a dent in 'stupid' and 'psychotic' would also be an effective approach?
Consider that these gun laws would take about as long to get passed as the research and execution of this proverbial 'War on Crazy'.
don't expect accidents and misdeeds to never happen. That is impossible. I am simply proposing that we take steps to reduce the liklihood of them happening. As it stands right now, the laws are far too lax WRT liability. For example, gun owners should be held reasonably responsible for securing their firearms and if they don't, should be held liable if the gun they failed to secure properly is stolen and then used in the commission of a crime.
Okay, but if these guns are secured properly and still somehow stolen, it's not the private citizen's fault that these government standards aren't enough. Deal?
the mental block is is this:
I say, "Guns in a home greatly increases the liklihood of someone in that home being killed with a gun."
Then you say, "Yeah, but if they didn't shoot themselves, they would just stab themselves in the hand with a pair of scissors instead."
This response, in different forms, is brought out over and over again, and I don't understand how someone can seriously equate a pair of scissors and a gun.
Can't you see that a gun and a pair of scissors have entirely different potentials for lethally wounding someone?
I have said a billion times to nuggin that I am aware that it's easier to do these stupid things with a gun. Take a gander through that if you don't believe me. I was countered by being portrayed as a hyperbolizing strawman that wanted gattling guns sold at Target when I pointed out that, although some less damage might be done, stupid people could find ways to kill themselves with less guns around just fine. When it felt like I was being portrayed as such, it's hard to remember that the underlying point is
not to ban all guns and expect happy-world-land to come to life.
Oh, and their POTENTIALS aren't different-- They can both kill something. What you meant was the difference in LIKELYHOOD and ACCESSIBILITY of their full potential.
Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. The data I've seen suggests that you are more likely to be shot or kill yourself if you have a gun in your house, and more likely to be burgled, too. The data also suggests that the chances of you using your gun in a legitimate case of self-defense are very small.
Again, this sounds like a problem with the sanity of the world we live in than guns being around, because if a group of people stay sane and sensical in the presence of gun then the chance of people shooting themselves is ZERO.
I'm not worried about accidently shooting myself with the rifle back home, because I only take it out to either a)go shooting or b)stop somebody from breaking in. At least in
that house, b's never been an issue... yet
I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
™ Version 4.2