my take on what would be helpful with guns

[dogs4thewin]

Then there should be. It's no big deal.

Then she gets access. Again, no big deal.

and what business of the government's is it who owns which guns?

 

[Bradskii]

30 years is maybe a generation and a half actually

You said something might be done in ten to twenty.

What good would 30 years from now do NOW though people are always complaining about NOW not 30 years from now.

Yes, they are. And there are things that can be done now. But that doesn't stop us also starting some processes that will bear fruit later.

 

[Bradskii]

and what business of the government's is it who owns which guns?

Oh, good grief. Please don't waste my time. You can't even drive a car without it being registered. And you want to plead that it's government overreach?

How about you play the Devil's Advocate and suggest why it might be a good reason to register guns. Give it a go. There'll be something you can come up with.

 

[Neogaia777]

Currently the age limit is 18 ( for long guns and 21 for hand guns. Which is ironic in a way this particular shooter used an AR-15 style weapon, but most gun deaths are actually committed by hand guns which not only is the type of guns with the highest age minimum, but is also the type of guns people are least likely to want banned or anything like that

How secured is secured I mean there is a difference in a 14 year old getting a gun and a four year getting a gun. There are cases where a minor say 12 years old has actually shot someone breaking into the family home when the children are home alone they could not do that if they could not access the gun. If that would be a case should a parent face a charge because their child used a gun in self defense?

Before you say do not leave your children home alone again consider what is a child by that logic should teenage minors not be trusted at home alone just because they are teenage minors? I mean what if you have a 17.5 year old should that "child" not be left alone with guns in the house? If you were to raise the age to 21 for everything should a 20 year old college junior ar home for Christmas break not be allowed to be home alone with unsecured guns. ( Assuming that the parents do not have reason to believe they are a risk to themselves or others?

I think the liklihood of a minor having to use a firearm in the case of self-defense is much, much lower/smaller than all the other shootings happening or going on because a minor did have easy access to a firearm, etc. So if we are talking about the most amount of lives probably being saved or spared overall here, then it's probably still best to make laws for minors not being allowed to have their own guns or firearms in their possession period, etc. And I recommend the age limit be either 21 or 24 for all guns, but at least 18 federally at least, and states can make their own more strict laws from there, raising that limit to 21 or 24 in their state maybe. No minor should be able to have their own firearms, or another's firearms that are kept in their possession most of the time mostly, etc, because that should be against the law, etc. But as far as securing them, it's up to the adults how secure they want to make them, etc. If they think they don't need to secure them at all even, then they should still be allowed to choose to not secure them at all even, etc. But if any minor or person underage anywhere ever gets access to their firearms, and something like this is done with them, etc, then they should have to face the full penalties of these new laws, etc, which would be considering them just as much responsible/accountable as the shooter themselves, etc.

But there would have to probably be some laws made so as to define what kind of measures would be considered fully securing a firearm or not, etc, but if people still want to take the risk of not securing them at all, then let them, etc. But also let them understand the new laws also, and that if something should ever happen with any of their not fully secured firearms under the law, with any minor anywhere with one of their firearms ever at all, etc, that they will then have to face the full consequences of those new laws also, with very little to no exceptions, etc. Which would be holding them just as much equally accountable/responsible as the shooter or perpetrator themselves, and whatever happens with them, etc.

If you can't handle these kinds of laws, then maybe you don't need or shouldn't have firearms, etc.

God Bless.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You said something might be done in ten to twenty.

Yes, they are. And there are things that can be done now. But that doesn't stop us also starting some processes that will bear fruit later.

I said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not much

 

[dogs4thewin]

Oh, good grief. Please don't waste my time. You can't even drive a car without it being registered. And you want to plead that it's government overreach?

How about you play the Devil's Advocate and suggest why it might be a good reason to register guns. Give it a go. There'll be something you can come up with.

Maybe so the government would ( supposedly) know who had what guns.

 

[Bradskii]

I said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not much

That's good. An improvement in some aspect of the gun problem before my grandson gets to college. Excellent.

 

[JosephZ]

The problem is as I said before 30 years a long time and really that action would have very little impact in the next ten to twenty anyway.

I said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not much

There are some gun control measures that would immediately start saving lives. One being child access laws and how guns are stored in one's home. It's estimated that these types of laws alone would result in a 6% percent reduction in gun deaths each year. That would have saved more than 2,500 deaths last year alone. Another law that would immediately start saving lives is requiring a background check for private sales of guns.

Red flag laws and a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases would also have an immediate effect.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe so the government would ( supposedly) know who had what guns.

Please don't be trite. What benefits would that have? Try as best you can to think of something positive.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think the liklihood of a minor having to use a firearm in the case of self-defense is much, much lower/smaller than all the other shootings happening or going on because a minor did have easy access to a firearm, etc. So if we are talking about the most amount of lives probably being saved or spared overall here, then it's probably still best to make laws for minors not being allowed to have their own guns or firearms in their possession period, etc. And I recommend the age limit be either 21 or 24 for all guns, but at least 18 federally at least, and states can make their own more strict laws from there maybe. No minor should be able to have their own firearms, or another's firearms that are kept in their possession most of the time mostly, etc, because that should be against the law, etc. But as far as securing them, it's up to the adults how secure they want to make them, etc. If they think they don't need to secure them at all even, then they should still be allowed to choose to not secure them at all even, etc. But if any minor or person underage anywhere ever gets access to their firearms, and something like this is done with them, etc, then they should have to face the full penalties of these new laws, etc, which would be considering them just as much responsible/accountable as the shooter themselves, etc.

But there would have to probably be some laws made so as to define what kind of measures would be considered fully securing a firearm or not, etc, but if people still want to take the risk of not securing them, then let them, etc. But also let them understand the new laws also, and that if something should ever happen with any of their not fully secured firearms under the law, that they will then have to face the full consequences of those new laws also, with very little to no exceptions, etc. Which would be holding them just as much equally accountable/responsible as the shooter or perpetrator themselves, etc.

God Bless.

I will say that sometimes a DA will not charge for example a felon uses a gun in self defense ( assuming that they did not use it after starting a fight. This is particularly true if it is a non- violent felon who has been out of trouble for quite a while.

All of this to say they may could have an exception for self-defend situations (even if they made it what is known as an afirmtive defense. That is to say that the defendant must prove (usually by the standard of more likely than not) as opposed to the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not true.

 

[dogs4thewin]

There are some gun control measures that would immediately start saving lives. One being child access laws and how guns are stored in one's home. It's estimated that these types of laws alone would result in a 6% percent reduction in gun deaths each year. That would have saved more than 2,500 deaths last year alone. Another law that would immediately start saving lives is requiring a background check for private sales of guns.

Red flag laws and a 10 day waiting period on all gun purchases would also have an immediate effect.

How many lives would that actually save would it make a difference. Yes,it may make a difference for the FAMILY, but taking the emotion out of what difference would it make in the reported numbers

 

[dogs4thewin]

Please don't be trite. What benefits would that have? Try as best you can to think of something positive.

What is not postive about that?

 

[Neogaia777]

I will say that sometimes a DA will not charge for example a felon uses a gun in self defense ( assuming that they did not use it after starting a fight. This is particularly true if it is a non- violent felon who has been out of trouble for quite a while.

All of this to say they may could have an exception for self-defend situations (even if they made it what is known as an afirmtive defense. That is to say that the defendant must prove (usually by the standard of more likely than not) as opposed to the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not true.

I don't think firearms need to be left unsecured just in case a minor who is left at home without adult supervision might need to use them in case of a self-defense situation that might happen or might come up with them sometime, etc.

God Bless.

 

[JosephZ]

How many lives would that actually save would it make a difference. Yes,it may make a difference for the FAMILY, but taking the emotion out of what difference would it make in the reported numbers

The laws I mentioned would save thousands of lives each year.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I don't think firearms need to be left unsecured just in case a minor who is left at home without adult supervision might need to use them in case of a self-defense situation that might happen or might come up with them sometime, etc.

God Bless.

You said that you had no problem with it so long as people are willing to assume the risk, so if the only reason the minor used the gun was self defense then that is considered a defense and a legal reason to use a gun, so why should the parent's be held liable if a minor uses a gun in a "correct" way if that same minor would not be held liable if he or she was an adult.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The laws I mentioned would save thousands of lives each year.

why that assumes that people OBAY those laws. which in the vast majority of cases the person either does not care or the time would be up

 

[Neogaia777]

You said that you had no problem with it so long as people are willing to assume the risk, so if the only reason the minor used the gun was self defense then that is considered a defense and a legal reason to use a gun, so why should the parent's be held liable if a minor uses a gun in a "correct" way if that same minor would not be held liable if he or she was an adult.

They wouldn't, but only if it was used in an atrocity or something.

So if they want to take that risk, then they can, but I personally would not.

The law would not just only be restricted to just your own under the age limit young children, etc.

 

[dogs4thewin]

They wouldn't, but only if it was used in an atrocity or something.

So if they want to take that risk, then they can, but I personally would not.

so then you would be OK with such people not being charged?

 

[JosephZ]

why that assumes that people OBAY those laws.

Do you think a FFL dealer is going to sell a gun to someone without waiting 10 days if there is a federal law that requires it?

If there was a law that required you to secure all guns in your home from minors and those not allowed to possess a gun, with the penalty for breaking such a law being a felony charge, forfeiture of all of your guns, the inability to purchase a gun in the future, and the possibility of an active prison sentence, would you choose not to follow it?

 

[Neogaia777]

so then you would be OK with such people not being charged?

Yes, I would.

But the law would be if anyone, anywhere under the age limit anywhere got access to your not fully legally secured firearm, then doing something bad with it, you'd be held just as much equally accountable/responsible for whatever happened with it, etc.