I would almost sort of halfway go along with a national gun owner's license. However, it would need to allow me to carry concealed practically anywhere, coast to coast.
Yes. And also continue to do whatever it is that's being done, since the violent crime rate, and murder rate, has dropped 50% over the past 20 years and is continuing to drop, even though we currently have (for the most part) reasonable rights to own guns. Why do people keep dismissing this? Now there's a thought. A good thought. I would be able to get behind something like this, depending on what that sort of license involves. Instead of automatically treating law abiding citizens like automatic criminals for owning firearms, perhaps offering some incentives, or bringing something similar to the table, would help further these types of discussions vs. the "give up your guns or we'll assume you enjoy slaughtering children" line of thinking that seems to be going on right now.
Why? Do you feel you are in such danger anywhere in the country that you need to have a loaded gun on your person wherever you go?
Im sorry the magazine limits ban ideas are simply reactionary emotional claptrap as is an outright "assault rifle" ban. An assault weapons ban like Feinstein wants is not meeting in the middle. As long as that's on the table I couldn't support anything else that might be middle ground as it is not. Ive listed a few middle ground areas before in this thread. Also, here is a good article on some common ground not being discussed enough: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/avlon-obama-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/opinion/a ... ?hpt=hp_t2</a> It's less to do with feelings of danger as it is standardizing CCW laws on a national level and a good concession if there was a theoretical national license requirement passed. The laws vary state to state so much that if you do any sort of traveling it can be basically useless to have a CCW. Some states recognize other states, some recognize one groups of states CCW laws but not groups of others, some states don't recognize other CCW laws at all.
I don't expect to get into a crash every time I get into my car, but I always wear my seatbelt. I don't expect to injure myself every day I'm at home, but I have a first aid kit. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Pithy one-liners aside, I didn't read that as him feeling the need to have a gun on him 24/7. I read it as him not wanting to have to deal with the labrynthine reciprocity laws between all the states regarding open/concealed carry rights.
Okay, I can see where he's coming from with respect to interstate legality. However, you're pithy one-liners are a skewed comparison. Wearing a seatbelt and having a first-aid kit on hand are basic measures for safety. I don't consider carrying a loaded gun a "basic" measure. In my view, the more congruent comparisons would be driving an armor-plated car and having an MD living in the house. But, I'm not part of the gun culture. I own two shotguns that I haven't fired in over 15 years when I stopped hunting and shooting sporting clay and I should just sell them.
The vast majority of shots taken by NBA players are during practice. But the raison d'etre of an NBA player isn't practice; it's game time. The focal reason for the existence of ranges is the furtherance of off-range capabilities. People did not invent the gun to shoot it for fun. That being said, illegal crimes are only a fraction of the "game-time" uses of guns. And Vanilla, drawing parallels between nuclear aggression among state entities and the actions of private individuals using firearms is as big of a reach as anything else offered up in this thread. Yes, this. Car accidents and minor injuries around the home are normal consequences of driving a car and living, and with little to no downside no less. However, situations where a civilian in public needs a firearm as a consequence of his everyday life are rare unless you live in a violence plagued inner city, and the downsides of people carrying around a gun are huge. The problem is that no one really knows HOW rare these instances are. We know reported crimes, but have a much lower grasp on unreported crimes and defensive gun use. The statistics are practically non-existent, and what stats we do have are almost entirely useless. They largely consist of self-reported survey data with little to no definition or verification of what a defensive gun use is. A "yes" to have you used your gun defensively could be (1) someone was going to kill you, or (2) once, seven years ago, a guy was giving me "the eye" and he ran away once I waved my gun at him.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddd more fuel to the fire. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/10/2-shot-at-california-high-school/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/10/2- ... gh-school/</a>
I don't think you really understand what "recreational" shooting is. Of course guns weren't invented for fun, but many guns are bought for essentially that reason today regardless of the original purpose of the gun- which is why you see so damn many AR-15s at ranges. There are lots of shooters (many more than you assume) that only shoot at paper (at ranges) without any desire to shoot elsewhere. Many guns are also designed specifically for target shooting like that. Point is, just because a gun was originally designed for shooting people doesn't mean that is the intent of the buyer (and that is clearly reflected in crime data). Seems like you are assuming otherwise, like anyone who buys an "assault rifle" or whatever has an agenda.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/1...lk-through-portland-to-educate-public-on-gun/ I don't know. If two guys with assault rifles are walking down my street, my first thought isn't to go strike up a conversation with them, but that's just me. But what about those of you who carry a concealed weapon? If you were just arriving home from work and saw these two walking down the street towards your house, how would you respond? Do they pose a threat? Would you pull your weapon and confront them?
An "assault weapons" ban is absolutely not meeting in the middle, and to my eyes is simply a lot of misunderstanding about how guns work and the difference between looks and function. However, the NRA seems totally unwilling to budge on any aspect of gun ownership/licensing and is thus as much to blame for the mess as the extreme gun-eradication proponents. However, magazine size limits are something I could see effectively limiting the ability of someone to go for a spree-style shooting, while having a limited impact on the other uses of firearms. I'm not talking about handguns, just rifles here. Please elaborate on why you categorize this as "reactionary emotional claptrap"? It seems like a refusal to discuss any middle ground if something like this is even an option is itself, ironically, "reactionary emotional claptrap."
Without getting into this debate at all, can I ask a question? Why schools? Why not any other establishment? Why go into a place with hundreds of innocent children with a weapon intending to kill? Because that seems to be a growing and horrifying trend these days... Shooting erupts at high school in California This is not to say that mass shootings anywhere are good or acceptable, but why schools?
Oh for fuck's sake. I had this idiot for for Public Relations. You've never met a more pompous, posturing psuedo-intellectual. <a class="postlink" href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pro ... 30799.html</a> Argh. Of all the kooks on the internet Yahoo gave this one an audience.
How? On a fundamental level, it's the same thing. Fuck with me, and I'll kill you. That's the part about these gun control conversations that is so frustrating. It's a constantly moving target that evades the core issue- we have the right to arm ourselves and form a militia. Then we talk about changing technology. Then we talk about hunting. Then we talk about target shooting. Then we talk about what would happen if there was a gun ban. Then we talk about a whole bunch of shit that's already a law, like owning machine guns or grenades. Here are some fun facts about gun laws. -It's illegal to own an unlicensed assault rifle. (machine gun) -It's illegal to sell a gun to someone who you believe isn't qualified to own one. -It's illegal to buy a gun for someone that wouldn't be able to buy one on her own. -In most states, it's illegal to travel with a loaded firearm in your car unless you have a concealed carry license. -Most concealed carry licenses require fingerprinting and an in-depth FBI background check. -Most firearms sales performed by a firearms dealer must be accompanied by a federal background check. -It is illegal for felons to own guns. -It is illegal for people convicted of domestic abuse to own guns. -A concealed carry license is null and void if the license holder uses his gun illegally. In other words, if I were to use my firearm in a gun free zone to defend my life or the lives of others, I would be convicted of a felony, even if I was 100% justified in using my firearm. That also applies to stuff like DUI. So, if you're caught, go ahead and tack a concealed weapon charge on there as well. -It is unlawful for a person who has been adjudicated to a mental health institution to own firearms under many circumstances. Sometimes, it is illegal to own guns if you have been committed to a mental institution. -Most terms of probation forbid the ownership of firearms. I can keep going all day with laws that are already on the books that are poorly enforced. Here is what I would like to see. - All firearms sales need to go through a federal check system, including private party sales. It's a ten minute process that can be performed at any gun retailer in the country. - Open up the opportunity for non-violent felons to own firearms after some type of vetting process. I think fifteen years of a clean nose would be a start. - Make gun free zones a state issue, especially our schools. - Continue to shut down FFL dealers who are selling guns illegally. Set up a penalty process rather than a license/no license system. - Allow more open access to mental health records during background checks. - Increase PO presence in the home. This is just a start, and very few new laws would need to be written. Only enforcement of the ones that are already on the books.
Not quite. What I am suggesting is that, were it not for the desire and/or perceived need to hone one's shooting capabilities for real world use, the entire range itself would not exist. The "fun gun" industry is a tangential outgrowth of this initial aim. At the risk of being painfully blunt, it's really easy to kill people there. Children don't/can't fight back, and tend to be bad at escaping. They're looking for target rich, low-awareness areas with defined exits. Think back to an actual classroom. There are at least 25 targets in there, 24 of whom are children and one of whom is likely a woman. Unless you count the window, there is only one exit. No one in there is on high alert. It's a small, contained space unlike a mall, making accuracy less important. Oh come on. Now you're playing coy. One kills people individually; one kills on the scale of millions. One can be operated by a single shooter; one requires extremely technologically advanced apparatuses such as fighter jets and missile launchers. One can be operated by anyone who knows which end points outwards; the other requires extensive teams of scientists. One requires $100; one requires investments on the scale of billions. One is so common that a plurality if not a majority of Americans own it; the other is so rare you can count its owners on your hands. One is commanded by yokels in Kentucky; the other one is controlled by state bureaucracies on the scale of hundreds of thousands with, to some degree, institutional checks and balances. One is used every single day to commit murders; the other has literally never been used offensively or defensively in the history of mankind. They are the same insofar as building the Burj Khalifa was the same as that time I built a sand castle at the beach when I was four. Or how my HTML project in school where I made a fan page for Paul Pierce was "fundamentally" the same as developing Windows.
Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with people? Why on EARTH would someone walk up to two guys walking down the street with guns, in this day and age, and say "Hey, how's it going? Nice guns!" How is that the reaction you not only expect, but WANT? Why, so next time maybe it WILL be a psychopath and you're encouraging people to just stroll up to them and ask about their guns? Look, you want to educate people about guns, that's fine. Start a class or hand out flyers or something. More gun education should absolutely be one of the solutions to this problem. But this might be the most backwards-ass stupid fucking way to do it I've ever seen. On a semi-related note, one of the guys who frequents my video store came in while we were not busy (most of the time, really), and we discussed gun laws for a while. I made it known that I am in favor of more strict gun laws.* He has a concealed carry permit and always carries a handgun. It is also rarely "concealed." He wears it as out as he possibly can, because he admits that he 'loves' seeing the looks on people's faces when they see it. He also admitted that he openly hopes that someone will try to rob a store he is at, or that someone will pull a gun when he is in the mall shopping, because he says he is just 'itching' to use that gun. Now, this guy lives in a town that has one or two violent crimes every ten years. There are occasional break-ins, but there is rarely any kind of crime, and he admits he has never 'needed' his gun in the 6 years he has carried it. Still, he loves to show it off, he makes a point to wear it so everyone can see it, and he openly hopes for a scenario where he can go all Dirty Harry on some bad guy. Is this normal for people who carry concealed weapons? I'm honestly wondering, because he came off kind of fucking crazy, and while I've made it known my feelings on gun laws, I'd really like to think that everyone carrying a concealed weapon isn't walking around praying for someone to start shooting up a place while he is there so he can fulfill some kind of crazy hero fantasy. Someone please tell me this dude isn't the norm. *The specific laws I said I'd be in favor of were making a background check a requirement for every single gun purchased in America, regardless of who the seller is. I said I'd be in favor of making a person who sold a gun WITHOUT the proper background check legally responsible for any crimes committed with said gun. So if you sell a gun to someone without a background check, and that gun is used in an armed robbery, or a murder, or any crime, you'd face legal ramifications. Yes, even if the gun was stolen from the person you sold it too and then used in a crime, you'd be legally responsible IF you didn't perform the legally required background check. This provides an incentive for anyone selling a gun to perform the background checks, so that they are legally covering their own asses.
Magazines are very simple things that I could make in my basement with simple tools (just like prohibition and booze). Ban them and they definitely won't go away. Also there are millions upon millions of untraceable high-capacity magazines already in existence that you'd need to address too. Because "Gun Free Zones" are ineffective and enable those that want to do harm to others. It severely limits those childrens' teachers, etc. ability to defend themselves. Case in point the movie theater shooter in Aurora, CO had seven theaters in a 20-mile radius to choose from... one out of seven was a "gun free" zone and you can guess which he picked. Holy shit we agree on something in this thread! Seriously though, what absolute dumbasses. One step forward, one giant leap back. Also your co-worker sounds to me like a huge jackass on a few levels... no he definitely is NOT the norm!