OT: President Obama's press conference and executive decision on gun laws

[ArmyMatt]

The Patriot Act was problematic from the beginning, no slope there.

But here's the thing: guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. So shouldn't we monitor what people get guns? Shouldn't we record gun transactions? And doesn't that seem to require registering those guns?

should we do that with knives, baseball bats, etc and everything else that people routinely use to kill others? cause if we do it with guns, folks are probably gonna do it with other things down the road.

 

[inconsequential]

Conspiracy theorists aren't the only people who read history books. Where has registration not resulted in confiscation?

 

[gzt]

should we do that with knives, baseball bats, etc and everything else that people routinely use to kill others? cause if we do it with guns, folks are probably gonna do it with other things down the road.

People kill 12,000 people per year with guns. They kill less than a third of that with other weapons. The gun homicide rate in America is far higher than other similar nations. The "other methods" homicide rate is about the same as other nations. That's suggestive. Look, a big problem is gangs getting their hands on guns even though they're not supposed to. Right now it's hard to prevent and it's hard to track the guns and cut them off at the source even when there are local laws requiring people in the state to register to be able to have a gun and register transactions (see Illinois, FOID) because you can just get them in neighboring states in private transactions and then it's hard to track. I'm not suggesting getting rid of guns, I'm suggesting making it harder for, viz, gangs and felons to get guns by currently legal means. will they then resort to hammers, knives, and strangling? Perhaps, but it's going to take a lot of knife fights to replace 12,000 homicides.

 

[gzt]

Conspiracy theorists aren't the only people who read history books. Where has registration not resulted in confiscation?

What other nation hasn't confiscated most of these weapons?

 

[RKO]

Conspiracy theorists aren't the only people who read history books. Where has registration not resulted in confiscation?

I have stayed out of this discussion and will go back to that after this post. However, regarding your question, in my state all guns bought from a dealer are registered. The only guns that are ever confiscated involve the commission of a crime. Are you aware of any state where registering a gun ends up with it being confiscated? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

People kill 12,000 people per year with guns. They kill less than a third of that with other weapons. The gun homicide rate in America is far higher than other similar nations. The "other methods" homicide rate is about the same as other nations. That's suggestive. Look, a big problem is gangs getting their hands on guns even though they're not supposed to. Right now it's hard to prevent and it's hard to track the guns and cut them off at the source even when there are local laws requiring people in the state to register to be able to have a gun and register transactions (see Illinois, FOID) because you can just get them in neighboring states in private transactions and then it's hard to track. I'm not suggesting getting rid of guns, I'm suggesting making it harder for, viz, gangs and felons to get guns by currently legal means. will they then resort to hammers, knives, and strangling? Perhaps, but it's going to take a lot of knife fights to replace 12,000 homicides.

The fact that gang members have access to certain types of guns and have done much damage is a reason for taking gun control seriously - and it hits home more so for those who've been impacted by it with the lost of a loved one.

 

[RKO]

OK one more. I'm an American and believe in my right to own firearms. I personally own one weapon. however, I do not interpret the second amendment as an automatic guarantee that the mass population should own as many of ANY type of weapon that fires lead out of a barrel as I want. It just seems very unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

there is just way too much crazy in the world for me...

 

[inconsequential]

I have stayed out of this discussion and will go back to that after this post. However, regarding your question, in my state all guns bought from a dealer are registered. The only guns that are ever confiscated involve the commission of a crime. Are you aware of any state where registering a gun ends up with it being confiscated? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

I'm referring to other nations, throughout history, not individual states within the US.

 

[inconsequential]

I would be fine with registration of assault weapons but only if folks who know guns are involved in definitions that qualify a gun as such. I have no personal use for an AR15 but an AK47 is great for mid-range deer hunting. Still, I'd rather not have to register my (son's) Ruger 10/22 that I got with my dad's life insurance money, as an assault weapon.

 

[RKO]

I'm referring to other nations, throughout history, not individual states within the US.

Fair enough. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dorothea]

OK one more. I'm an American and believe in my right to own firearms. I personally own one weapon. however, I do not interpret the second amendment as an automatic guarantee that the mass population should own as many of ANY type of weapon that fires lead out of a barrel as I want. It just seems very unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

there is just way too much crazy in the world for me...

I tend to agree with your view.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

OK one more. I'm an American and believe in my right to own firearms. I personally own one weapon. however, I do not interpret the second amendment as an automatic guarantee that the mass population should own as many of ANY type of weapon that fires lead out of a barrel as I want. It just seems very unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

there is just way too much crazy in the world for me...

Seeing it the way you expressed it is something I think needs to be remembered in the entirety of debates on gun control.

 

[Gnarwhal]

OK one more. I'm an American and believe in my right to own firearms. I personally own one weapon. however, I do not interpret the second amendment as an automatic guarantee that the mass population should own as many of ANY type of weapon that fires lead out of a barrel as I want. It just seems very unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

there is just way too much crazy in the world for me...

That makes sense to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[ArmyMatt]

People kill 12,000 people per year with guns. They kill less than a third of that with other weapons. The gun homicide rate in America is far higher than other similar nations. The "other methods" homicide rate is about the same as other nations. That's suggestive. Look, a big problem is gangs getting their hands on guns even though they're not supposed to. Right now it's hard to prevent and it's hard to track the guns and cut them off at the source even when there are local laws requiring people in the state to register to be able to have a gun and register transactions (see Illinois, FOID) because you can just get them in neighboring states in private transactions and then it's hard to track. I'm not suggesting getting rid of guns, I'm suggesting making it harder for, viz, gangs and felons to get guns by currently legal means. will they then resort to hammers, knives, and strangling? Perhaps, but it's going to take a lot of knife fights to replace 12,000 homicides.

forgive me but you make it sound like a numbers game. not enough people are killed with knives or anything else that they need to be registered?

plus, most guns used in gang related crimes, to my knowledge, already are illegal. so you won't put any hurt on gangs.

personally, the Fed does not need to know what I have to do not have, and I don't like the idea of them having any database or register on me.

 

[gzt]

Why don't they need to know what you have? They get to know what car you drive. They even make you get a license and insure it. They get to know about a lot of your stuff, even stuff that doesn't have the capability of killing people.

I think the numbers are very relevant. If something started killing 10,000 Americans each year, I think we'd want to investigate what's going on and, if there were reasonable ways to increase safety, enact them. We did this with cars. Safety regulations, propaganda campaigns to reduce drunk driving, more safety regulations... There's a reason the morbidity is going down, and it's not just that we're getting better at emergency medicine.

Yes, the guns getting to gangs are already illegal. But it's hard to stop them from getting those guns, even though they are illegal, because there are so many ways for guns to slip through the cracks. The suggestions I made in that very post plug up some of those cracks while keeping gun acquisition quite easy for normal citizens. I mean, if you were an IL resident who buys all your guns from dealers, there would be no difference! You have to get a license to own a gun (FOID) and the gun dealer runs a background check when you buy it. Is that such a hardship? There'd be another form, maybe, but the gun dealer is already keeping paperwork on what gun he sold you, so I don't think this would really multiply. Is this tyranny? Research in illegal gun markets shows that slightly increasing the burdens puts a real hurt on that already illicit gun market.

So the reason the government needs to know what you have is that other people like you let their guns get to bad guys and we can't figure out where they came from.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why don't they need to know what you have? They get to know what car you drive. They even make you get a license and insure it. They get to know about a lot of your stuff, even stuff that doesn't have the capability of killing people.

I think the numbers are very relevant. If something started killing 10,000 Americans each year, I think we'd want to investigate what's going on and, if there were reasonable ways to increase safety, enact them. We did this with cars. Safety regulations, propaganda campaigns to reduce drunk driving, more safety regulations... There's a reason the morbidity is going down, and it's not just that we're getting better at emergency medicine.

Yes, the guns getting to gangs are already illegal. But it's hard to stop them from getting those guns, even though they are illegal, because there are so many ways for guns to slip through the cracks. The suggestions I made in that very post plug up some of those cracks while keeping gun acquisition quite easy for normal citizens. I mean, if you were an IL resident who buys all your guns from dealers, there would be no difference! You have to get a license to own a gun (FOID) and the gun dealer runs a background check when you buy it. Is that such a hardship? There'd be another form, maybe, but the gun dealer is already keeping paperwork on what gun he sold you, so I don't think this would really multiply. Is this tyranny? Research in illegal gun markets shows that slightly increasing the burdens puts a real hurt on that already illicit gun market.

So the reason the government needs to know what you have is that other people like you let their guns get to bad guys and we can't figure out where they came from.

I said the Fed, I did not say state and local governments. my car is registered to the state I live in. I don't care what states do, I do care about the Fed. the Fed has a history of starting off with stuff that looks good on paper, and then causes problems down the road.

so I have no problems with checks and registration and whatnot, just not on a Federal level

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I said the Fed, I did not say state and local governments. my car is registered to the state I live in. I don't care what states do, I do care about the Fed. the Fed has a history of starting off with stuff that looks good on paper, and then causes problems down the road.

so I have no problems with checks and registration and whatnot, just not on a Federal level

I think it gets difficult when seeing that the States are an extension of the Fed and many are just as concerned with checks and registration on a State level.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it gets difficult when seeing that the States are an extension of the Fed and many are just as concerned with checks and registration on a State level.

they certainly can be that's for sure, but it is within a states right to do the kind of regulation that gzt is talking about, so personally, if Massachusetts wants tough gun restrictions or whatever, then fine.

even when the states are used as an extension of the Fed, there is a difference between that, and centralizing the power in the Fed. personally, I'd rather have the former.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

a person can use a shotgun to kill just like an M-16. the gun makes no distinction, the person squeezing the trigger does.

Saw this and thought it'd interest you - as it concerns the perspective of how others formerly in Military Service went to feeling that the use of guns/violence should be opposed at all times:

• From Soldier to Pacifist - Matt Young - Red Letter Christians

 

[ArmyMatt]

Saw this and thought it'd interest you - as it concerns the perspective of how others formerly in Military Service went to feeling that the use of guns/violence should be opposed at all times:

• From Soldier to Pacifist - Matt Young - Red Letter Christians

typical pick and chose outta the Bible what he wants stuff, so meh. the problem is that Christ never actually condemned a soldier for being a soldier, and John the Baptist actually gave instruction on how they can live virtuous lives. St Paul also says that the government's role is to bear the sword of vengeance, etc.

so while his article has good points, it's not very accurrate if you look at both the Bible and Christian history.