- Apr 19, 2012
- 32,708
- 6,391
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
and what business of the government's is it who owns which guns?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
and what business of the government's is it who owns which guns?Then there should be. It's no big deal.
Then she gets access. Again, no big deal.
You said something might be done in ten to twenty.30 years is maybe a generation and a half actually
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.What good would 30 years from now do NOW though people are always complaining about NOW not 30 years from now.
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?and what business of the government's is it who owns which guns?
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.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 said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not muchYou 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.
Maybe so the government would ( supposedly) know who had what 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.
That's good. An improvement in some aspect of the gun problem before my grandson gets to college. Excellent.I said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not much
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.
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.I said that in 20 we would BEGIN to say fruit but not much
Please don't be trite. What benefits would that have? Try as best you can to think of something positive.Maybe so the government would ( supposedly) know who had what guns.
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.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.
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 numbersThere 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.
Please don't be trite. What benefits would that have? Try as best you can to think of something positive.
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.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.
The laws I mentioned would save thousands of lives each year.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
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.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.
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 upThe laws I mentioned would save thousands of lives each year.
They wouldn't, but only if it was used in an atrocity or something.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.
so then you would be OK with such people not being charged?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.
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?why that assumes that people OBAY those laws.
Yes, I would.so then you would be OK with such people not being charged?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?