Bedford Now Chatter

Community Chatter => General => Topic started by: bedford wife on January 14, 2013, 07:27:29 AM

Title: Gun Control
Post by: bedford wife on January 14, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
I want to start by saying that I do not believe stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence or crimes that are committed with guns.  I do have one issue with the media.....I think what happened in Sandy Hook was an abomination, it struck fear into all of us and we collectively grieved the loss of those lives.  Where is the coverage on the children who die from gun violence in our cities?  They, almost to a child, die at the hands of a gun that was illegally procured.  Again, Sandy Hook was a tragedy....however, so are the kids who die in our inner cities.  I am so frustrated that the media willfully chooses not to share verified statistics that prove the point that in an area, where the chances are greater that citizens could be armed, gun violence isn't as prevelant.  Florida is a great example.  The media in this country from FOX to CNN has quit being an advocate for the truth and has become a tool for conglomerates with an agenda.  I have started reading the news about our country that is published in other countries.....I am astounded at some of what I read that doesn't even hit the radar here.  I think one of the most dangerous things is when a government seeks to disarm it's people.  A young Jewish kid on Piers Morgan said it best.  "My Grandparents were disarmed in Germany, they and many others are ashes because of it".    Should our government successfully limit our right to bear arms, or put parameters on that right, we will still have guns here.  We can't stop the drugs that come in from other countries, we can't stop the illegal immigrants who come in from other countries, the difference is that guns will end up being in the hands of those we fear most and will do us the most harm.  We will go into the gunfight with a knife and that won't end up well for most of us.  When I read the second amendment I not only see what my right is, I also walk away feeling that it is my duty to be as armed as the government over me. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2013, 04:18:02 PM
BW, I agree completely.  The point of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to be armed EQUALLY with the government.  If there is any doubt as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, Look to the 3rd Amendment--if anyone out there knows what that one is LOL.

Montpelier schools have voted to allow concealed carry by their staff.  Way to go Montpelier!!!  This will be one of the safest school districts in NW Ohio.

As soon as Feinstein's bill (or some variation on it) gets passed, Biden and the rest of them will stand up and say "We've done it!!  We've made the children safer." and will walk away from the table.  It's crucial to the safety of our children that we make sure this bill or ANY variation of it is never passed in order to keep these morons at the table talking and working on a plan that will actually keep our children safe.  Mark my words.....once a bill is passed, this administration will want nothing to do school safety.  Nothing to do with Mental Health awareness.  Nothing to do with consolidating mental health records in the criminal background checks.  They will wash their hands of the whole thing and our children will continue to be massacred.  Not THEIR children, of course.....THEIR children are guarded 24/7 by men with guns.

By the way........this bill talks about registering guns.  I have a question.  What about the guns that Obama smuggled to the drug cartels in Mexico? Do the drug cartels have to register those guns as they bring them across the border with the drugs?  Maybe someone should let them know--that way they'll be sure not to bring any guns with them on their smuggling runs. :)


 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 14, 2013, 04:39:52 PM
This government doesn't want to do anything.  The only interest of the politicians is to get reelected.  They will do and say anything to get reelected.  They don't care about the country or us.  They have proven that and we dumba--es keep voting for the same ones. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2013, 04:48:08 PM
...The media in this country from FOX to CNN has quit being an advocate for the truth and has become a tool for conglomerates with an agenda. 

And how often do you read about an attacker being stopped and lives being saved by an armed citizen?  Almost NEVER.  But it happens almost every single day somewhere in this country.  I, personally, feel safer when I'm around armed citizens who have the practice and training with their weapon (and hopefully some common sense).

...When I read the second amendment I not only see what my right is, I also walk away feeling that it is my duty to be as armed as the government over me. 

Disarming you is exactly what they are trying to do.  I'm not trying to sound like an extremist or a radical or a conspiracist or anything like that but they are trying to pass a bill that requires your guns to be forfeited to the government upon your death.  Regardless of how much money you've got invested in it or how long it's been in your family or whatever......you cannot leave your (Banned) gun to your heirs.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on January 15, 2013, 11:31:07 PM
  The Second Amendment says that a strong MILITIA
being necessary, the right of the PEOPLE to bear
arms shall not be infringed. When that was written, there
was no National Guard. The only militia was the armed
individuals living in the states, who could be called out
during wars (against Indian tribes, or during the war of
1812, for example).
   By the time of our Civil War, the militia had evolved into
an organized militia, with standing units that drilled every
month, who had uniforms, and were all armed with the
same weapons, provided by the government.
   In 1905 or 1906, Congress passed an act reorganizing
the various state militias as the National Guard.
   Every state has a National Guard, under control of the
state government. This is a locally raised force, made up
of your neighbors. The National Guard is the militia, as
stated in the Second Amendment. Your "right" to own
a gun is a very loose interpretation of this amendment.
  I find it interesting that much of the talk about arming
ourselves "against" the government in Washington, D.C.
comes after years of bashing the Obama administration
by such right wingers as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
  Also, the debate on gun control conveniently ignores
some very pertinant realities. Why is it bad to license guns
and gun owners, but good to license motor vehicles and
their drivers? Why should it be good to register the sale
of every motor vehicle with a title issued by the DMV, but
an infringement of "our rights" to ban selling guns without
a bill of sale registered with the state government?
    If it is a good idea to require someone to pass a driver's
education class and a test before being issued a diver's
license, why shouldn't we require people to pass a gun
safety course before letting them own a gun?
    If it good for states and the Federal Government to
require safety features on cars (seat belts, air bags,
turn signals, brake lights, headlights, back up lights, etc.)
why is it bad for the government to restrict what kind of gun
you can own? If you think that you need a military assault
rifle with a 30 - round clip, my question is what battle are
you planning on fighting? Since the police officer who will
respond to a crime in your community does not carry that
much firepower, why should he feel good about some nut
having that weapon?
    I grew up with guns; I have owned guns; I think that you
should be allowed to own guns - bolt action or lever action
rifles or pump shotguns. These assault rifles with large
capacity clips are only good for shooting a lot of people at
fairly short ranges in a very short amount of time. No private
citizen NEEDS one of these, and I think that these weapons,
and the large capacity clips should be banned, not only for
slaes, but for current ownership. A law should be passed
requiring individuals to surrender these military grade rifles
for a cash reimbursement.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 16, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
 licensing of motor vehicles, pets, boats etc., was done to generate revenue.  Nothing else.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 16, 2013, 01:35:46 PM
Signal, we've been through this before.  I don't feel like repeating or copy/pasting everything I wrote so........I ask that look to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) for clarification on the individuals rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Driving a car is not your "right"....it's a privileged.  Also what STB said. 

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting (with bolt-action rifles)......it's about keeping our own (and any other) government in "check" thus requiring us to be "equally" armed as they are.




Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Heisenberg on January 16, 2013, 08:43:36 PM
Why is it bad to license guns and gun owners, but good to license motor vehicles and their drivers? Why should it be good to register the sale of every motor vehicle with a title issued by the DMV, but an infringement of "our rights" to ban selling guns without a bill of sale registered with the state government?

The simple answer is that governments do not respect the rights of people to own guns the way they respect our privilege of owning a car. This is why we needed to include this right specifically in not only our U.S. Constitution, but most state constitutions as well.

Because the threat of having our right to keep and bear arms is constantly under threat, we have to be vigilant in protecting it. We have to make sure that attempts to curtail it actually provide a solution to a legitimate problem, and they are the least restrictive measures that will do so.

To lower our guard is to invite the sort of mind-numbingly stupid laws like those recently passed in New York.

Quote
If it is a good idea to require someone to pass a driver's education class and a test before being issued a diver's license, why shouldn't we require people to pass a gun safety course before letting them own a gun?

Motor vehicles account for 40,000 accidental deaths in the United States each year. Firearms, 600. I am curious why you think guns are the appropriate things to target for mandatory training when guns are pretty low on the causes of accidental death.

So already I suspect that you want a testing requirement not to reduce accidental gun deaths, but because you want to make it inconvenient for people to own guns. And I come back to that we have to make sure that restrictions actually provide a solution to a legitimate problem, and they are the least restrictive measures that will do so.

Quote
If you think that you need a military assault rifle with a 30 - round clip, my question is what battle are
you planning on fighting?

I think the concern is the battle you're not planning on fighting. If I were planning to fight a battle, I'd want more than just my AR-15. Need doesn't really have anything to do with it either. Military-style rifles are in common use for lawful purposes, and as such are protected under the 2nd amendment.

Quote
Since the police officer who will respond to a crime in your community does not carry that much firepower, why should he feel good about some nut having that weapon?

Police officers are actually pretty well armed, with military grade weapons available in their squad cars.

Quote
These assault rifles with large capacity clips are only good for shooting a lot of people at fairly short ranges in a very short amount of time.

They're pretty good for hunting coyote too.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on January 16, 2013, 11:01:48 PM
    License plates for cars were started before 1920 in most states,
not as a money maker.
    I want gun safety and tests for gun owners for the same reason
all states want drivers' ed. and tests for drivers licenses - to insure
that the owner/operator knows the laws, understands the safety
requirements, and can be held responsible for violating them.
    Drivers license training and testing was not started to make money,
but to institute a minimum level of safe driving.
     The NRA says it represents responsible gun ownership. Fine,
let's see them put their lobbying money where there mouth (slogan)
is. They should support mandatory gun safety training for all gun
owners. How ridiculous would it be if the Automobile Association
lobbied against drivers' training, drivers' licenses, license plates,
and motor vehicle titles?
      Everyone agrees that cars can be dangerous if not safely driven.
Why is it debateable that guns are dangerous when not safely handled?
How many times has someone been accidentally shot, and the gun owner
uses the excuse, "I didn't know"?. How many guns are improperly stored?
Why shouldn't gun owners be held to the same safety liability as auto
drivers?
      Think about this - I cannot accelerate my car to the speed of sound,
and send it hurtling down the street with no steering and no brakes.
Yet that is exactly what happens to a bullet when you pull the trigger
on a gun.
 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 17, 2013, 09:48:33 AM
I think the previous poster answered all your questions and concerns.
40,000 vs 600
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: JustJen on January 18, 2013, 08:06:05 AM
Signal, I agree with you completely.  Completely.

And, if the point of the 2nd amendment is that we are able to be armed to the same level as our military, I want a rocket launcher, a tank, a few land mines and some grenades.



Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Hondo on January 18, 2013, 12:09:25 PM
The number of gun owners is what, around 150 million (around half of the US pop.). The number of firearm accidental deaths per year, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, http://webappa.cdc.gov, . - around 606, or .0000404 (someone check my math) per gun owner per year.  The number of accidental injury (and this includes a weapon discharge or not) is 14,675, or . .0000978 per gun owner per year.

I'll ask, What would more training accomplish?
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: PackersFan on January 18, 2013, 01:23:04 PM
Analogy of cars to guns is nonsensical.  They have no correlation.  If yer gonna use cars, use boats next.

I never had formal driver training.  I was self taught...with the help of friends and relatives.  And I started out on a tractor...then a truck...then a car.  Same with guns...self taught. 

Nowadays, EVERYTHING that attracts a large part of the population is being licensed.  Its a tax, of course.  Why do cars, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, etc. need to be licensed.  Ridiculous.

Luckily, I don't need to put a license plate on my horse to go for a ride.  And there is no state agency...yet...that requires equestrian lessons.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on January 19, 2013, 06:47:32 AM
    The statement was made in this forum, that the 2nd Amendement
guarantees your right to be as well armed as the government. Gee, I
hope not. I don't want private citizens to have landmines, rocket
launchers, machine guns, etc. It's the sentiment behind this statement
that bothers me. It implies that some people are seriously thinking about
an armed rebellion against their elected government.
    As far as police officers having military weapons in their patrol cars,
this is not so. Most communities have no extra weapons in the patrol cars,
so the officer has only a handgun and a bullet proof vest, which is not
bullet proof against high powered rifle slugs.
   The following items are currently available, and legal for you to own in
most states: gas masks, modern helmets, bullet proof body armour for
your chest, back, upper arms, hips, and thighs, .50 cal. sniper rifles that
can penetrate a bullet proof vest at a range of 3,000 feet, or a car door
at 1,000 feet, and all kinds of military rifles with larger clips than even those
used by our military.
    Less than 15 years ago, two men staged an armed robbery of a bank
in Los Angeles. The responding police were helpless. The robbers had
full body armour from their knees to their chins, helmets, gas masks, and
assault rifles with hundreds of rounds of ammo. Several policemen were
wounded, and several police cars were disabled. Finally, two policemen
went to a nearby sporting goods store and commandeered two high
powered hunting rifles. Using these, they were able to wound both men,
and stop a gun fight that had lasted more than 45 minutes.
    There is no excuse for this kind of firepower to be in the hands of
any private citizen. There is no legitimate peaceful use for body armor,
gas masks, helmets, AK-47's and other assault weapons, or large
capacity clips.
     You can defend your home and family with a handgun, bolt action
or lever action rifle, or a shotgun. You cannot seriously believe that
you need the same firepower for your home that our army used in
firefights with the Viet Cong, or has used recently against the Iraqi
Army, or insurgents in Afghanistan.
   
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 19, 2013, 09:47:56 AM
Even though a president has been elected by a majority vote of the people, he still has to abide by certain rules.  A president, even though legally elected, does not have the authority to break certain rules. Once he does, he is no longer our "elected" president, but instead a criminal just as you and I when we break certain rules.  A rebellion would not happen against our "elected government".  We did not "elect" a king or a dictator.  I'm sorry to hear that you (or anyone) feels that the 2nd Amendment does NOT give us citizens the right to protect ourselves against tyranny.  You cannot ever, under any circumstances, protect yourself from tyranny without being equally as armed (ie. weapons, training, intelligence) as your enemy.

Nobody has access to anything that the military doesn't.  In fact, the military (generally) has access to better-made ones than civilians.  The reason the military doesn't use the large capacity magazines your talking about (100 round drums I'm assuming...?) is because it isn't as practical and/or effective for them. Those 100 round drums weigh more and are more prone to jams/misfeeds.  In fact, that is exactly what happened in the LA robbery being referenced.  One of the Gunmen had a jam and elected to discard the "Assault Rifle" for his handgun rather than clear the jam.  He was killed shortly afterward.......by an officer's handgun if I remember correctly (though there's controversy over whether the gunman killed himself before the officer got the shot off).  When the military goes into an operation that requires large capacity magazines, they have it.....assuming it's still in their budget. >:(

The unfortunate incident in L.A. happened because the LAPD didn't/couldn't respond fast enough with proper weapons due to the gunmen's body armor.  The "Hunting Rifles" you refer to were the AR-15.  I believe the LAPD has taken necessary steps to ensure this type of episode doesn't happen again.  Had there been a couple of citizens with AR-15's in their trunk at the time of this tragedy, the incident could've been stopped long before the 45 minutes it actually took.....whether the citizen takes the shot or he puts the weapon in the hands of an expert LEO.

Defending your home with a bolt-action rifle or a lever-action rifle would be very risky to your family and neighbors for a couple reasons.
1.  Both of those rifles, depending on the caliber, will most likely penetrate the intruder and multiple walls of your home--possibly exiting your home entirely and traveling outside.  The same can be said of the AR-15 but the issue of the 2nd Amendment and the right to own an "assault rifle" is not about home defense.
2.  Many break-ins are committed by more than one intruder.....If you are going to shoot, you better be able to hit all of them before they can return fire.  Hopefully you never, ever have a break-in.  Hopefully you never, ever have to shoot at somebody.

Handgun and shotgun (with proper ammo, practice and training) are by far the best choice for home defense.

 





Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 19, 2013, 09:49:31 AM
Nobody needs an "excuse for this kind of firepower".....but if you're looking for a reason, look to the Whitehouse.

Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 19, 2013, 10:31:25 AM
The more the democrats try to ban guns the more the gun owners want to buy.
If they would shut up about guns things would get back to normal.
Treat the sick people.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 19, 2013, 04:14:38 PM
NBC now reporting that there was NO assult rifle used in the school massacre.  One report was there were 4 hand guns found in the school and another account says only 2.  And there was probably no assult rifle in the car either.  There was some kind of rifle but not an assult rife.
Our media is really corrupt..
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on January 20, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
     Obviously this is a very touchy issue, and a serious debate.
I used to own guns, but I had no place to shoot, so I let my father
sell one, and I gave the other one to a shooter who had no gun
of her own. My father still owns a gun. My girlfriend's older son
is the only licensed gun dealer in Toledo, and is a collector and
military reenactor. Guns are O.K. - if they are stored and used
safely.
     I see no reason to oppose mandatory gun safety training.
There is a perfect correlation between cars and guns. Both are
widely owned, both are dangerous when misused, and both are
controlled (in varying degrees) by the government.
     Every time the debate on restricting what type of guns comes
up, the "home defense" arguement surfaces. Someone here
posted that accidental gun deaths are only 600 per year. Great, nice
to know that cars are much deadlier - if you ignore that most people
use their cars several times each day, and that gun owners only use
their guns once or twice a month. How many gun toting intruders
committed a home invasion last year?
    Remember, home invasions are when you are in your home.
So, whatever that number is, you are assuming that you have to
shoot down 2 or more armed intruders. I think you have better
odds of a heart attack, or maybe even being struck by lightning,
than having to face two men with guns breaking into your home.
And why wouldn't a bolt or lever action rifle, or a 9mm handgun
with 7 or more rounds in the clip be insufficient for this?
    Half ot the arguments posted here are that you need military
assault weapons with 30 round clips to fight the U.S. Government,
and the other half are apparently that a whole battalion of Viet Cong
are going to break into your house, and you need to be armed for
a major firefight until the police show up.
    The question that is really before us is, what can be done to
reduce gun violence in this country? As for your views on our
President, remember two things - Congress has been deadlocked
on virtually every major issue, including emergency aid for the
storm victims on the East Coast, and being President is a risky
job. Someone tried to shoot President Jackson, but his pistols
misfired. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and  J.F.Kennedy were shot
to death. Robert Kennedy was shot and killed while running for
President. FDR was shot at after his election in 1932, the
shooter missed, and killed the Mayor of Chicago. T. Roosevelt
was shot and wounded while running for President in 1912.
George Wallace was crippled by a shooter while running for
President. Reagan was shot and wounded. Two women tried to
shoot President Ford with Handguns. While the White House
was being remodeled during the Truman administration, two
men broke into Blair House, where Truman was staying, and had
a gunfight with the Secret Service. They were killed, but at least
one of the guards was wounded. Presidents are targets, and every
President since Eisenhower has had death threats.
    I think that any President is going to take gun violence seriously.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: bedford wife on January 20, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
If you want to reduce gun crime, make any offence relating to a gun crime a federal offense.  That will take the burden of prosecution and jailing off of the state.  I don't believe that limiting what kind of gun someone can own is the answer.  I do believe in things like the Laughtenburg (sp) amemdment, that's the sort of thing we should be looking at.  I don't have to justify why I want a higher powered gun, or a larger clip anymore that I have to justify why I want to wear purple or disparage a public official....it's my right and I personally am not going to ever justify why I choose to exercise any right. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 21, 2013, 07:36:52 AM
   
 ...I see no reason to oppose mandatory gun safety training.
 

Signal, I knew we could agree on something.  Anyone who owns a gun (whether carried on a daily basis or not) should practice and train with it/them.  Basic gun safety classes are abundant and relatively affordable but more advanced training is much harder to find and not necessarily cost effective for the average person.  The cost to practice at a range can also get expensive---especially when you have to spend half your time reloading small, 10 round magazines while you're "on the clock".  If this training & practice were available and affordable, I think we would see many, many more people taking advantage of it, thereby making more gun owners even safer than what they already are.
 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 21, 2013, 07:42:25 AM
If you want to reduce gun crime, make any offence relating to a gun crime a federal offense.  That will take the burden of prosecution and jailing off of the state. 

Another good point.  However, according to VP Biden, they don't have the "time or manpower to prosecute everybody" that lies on their background check.

and we're back to......enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Mike Malone Sr. on January 21, 2013, 12:57:16 PM
Check out this video on YouTube:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on January 22, 2013, 11:37:14 AM
  Why is it that every gun license, background check requirement,
or limitation on what type of gun you can own, is automatically
an "attempt by the government to take away our guns"?
   Gun licensing started in the 1970's - and we still can own guns.
The Brady Bill (which made background checks mandatory, only
to reveal those who are banned from owning guns anyway) is now
30 years old - and we can still own guns.
    There has been no proposal to ban private gun ownership. No
President, no member of Congress has proposed a law banning
your "right" to own guns. And yet, the howls from the right wing
grow ever shriller year by year, that somehow, the "government"
is going to send agents to your door to seize your guns. These
lies are out there just to scare you into voting Republican and
sending money to certain groups who "support" efforts to
"maintain your rights".  The NRA spent 40 Million dollars lobbying
against the Brady Bill, which only required you to wait, until a
background check was performed, before buying a firearm. The
NRA told Congress and the American public, that this law would
severely restrict your right to own a gun. They lied. There are more
guns, and more kinds of guns, per 1,000 citizens in this country
now, than 30 years ago.
   We are the most heavily armed public in the world - and we pay
for it with gun homicide rates 5 times higher than countries like
Norway,Sweden, and Australia.
   Where will it all end?
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Hondo on January 22, 2013, 01:02:00 PM
1. Background check on all new retail gun sales.  Close the loopholes for gun shows and private dealers.  Antique or classic firearms (pre 1900) and any firearms given to family members are exempt.

2. Include a more comprehensive mental health check (see #3) as part of the background investigation.  Purchaser of the firearm pays a fee to cover costs of background check.

3. Create a mental health database that contains individuals who are deemed a hazard to themselves or to others.  Doctors already have the ability to make this diagnosis.  They should be mandated to share it and protect others.

4. Enforce current laws on crimes committed using a firearm.  We have to make laws (and enforcement) a more effective deterrent and we have to be better at catching criminals.

5. Provide the option of teachers/administrators or public safety officers to carry concealed weapons while on school grounds.  Train them appropriately and pay them more.

There is no need to require additional training for those who legally purchase a firearm.  There is no need to ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines.  The vast majority of firearm deaths are the result of criminal behavior or mental instability.  Let's focus on the problem but take reasonable steps.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on January 22, 2013, 04:29:45 PM
Are you kidding me!!!
"3. Create a mental health database that contains individuals who are deemed a hazard to themselves or to others.  Doctors already have the ability to make this diagnosis.  They should be mandated to share it and protect others."
I might add that i agree with you but this country is now to politically correct to ever do that.
The ACLU would have a field day.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Hondo on January 22, 2013, 05:21:51 PM
Yeah, I know.  But that is really the issue that no-one wants to tackle.  Most of these high profile attacks are done by a person with known psychological issues.  That really is the issue and no-one will tackle it.  They'll make assault weapons and high capacity magazines illegal, they'll make every law abiding citizen register the purchase of their weapon.  They'll require all kinds of "training" to make sure you can field strip your weapon blindfolded ( ah, I remember doing that!).

NONE of those measures would have stopped Newtown, nor most of the other mass shootings.  NONE of those measures will stop the murder-a-day rate in Detroit.  But, they'll feel good and tell everyone that they've protected you more.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: chartres on January 25, 2013, 11:57:30 AM
In reply to a comment above, we may have a higher murder rate than Australia, but Australia has a rate of rape three times higher than the USA, also Australia's rates of assault, robbery, and most other violent crime is much higher than the USA. They can't have guns to protect themselves, so they all become victims. I have asked all of my friends and family to please send me a recent picture of themselves if they feel guns should be outlawed, in return I promise to not intervene if I see them being beaten, robbed and raped. As for me, I carry and I refuse to become a victim!
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 27, 2013, 05:42:23 PM
In reply to a comment above, we may have a higher murder rate than Australia, but Australia has a rate of rape three times higher than the USA, also Australia's rates of assault, robbery, and most other violent crime is much higher than the USA. They can't have guns to protect themselves, so they all become victims. I have asked all of my friends and family to please send me a recent picture of themselves if they feel guns should be outlawed, in return I promise to not intervene if I see them being beaten, robbed and raped. As for me, I carry and I refuse to become a victim!

Chartres, I applaud you in your decision to exercise your right to defend yourself and others.  If I ever have a child or loved one in danger, and I cannot be there, I hope that you or another armed citizen is there to protect them.

It's a statistical fact that where there are more guns (armed citizens), there is less violent crime.  Almost all countries that have less guns per capita than the U.S. have more (much more) violent crime.  So, yes, I suppose, I would have a better chance of not being shot in that country........but I have a much, much higher chance of being beaten, raped, robbed and stabbed.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Heisenberg on February 05, 2013, 10:40:59 AM
Why is it that every gun license, background check requirement, or limitation on what type of gun you can own, is automatically an "attempt by the government to take away our guns"?

Those of us who have paid attention to the gun control issue long enough have learned that the disarming of Americans won't happen a la Ferdinand Marcos making gun ownership a capital crime overnight. It will happen slowly, with small limitations touted as "reasonable" even if they are completely ineffective.

This is why we stand staunchly against small intrusions on our liberty. Because we know it will never be enough. If we compromise on certain weapons, that will only serve to move the debate. Once AR-15s are banned, next will be all semi-automatic rifles. Then the next will be anything that shoots supersonic ammunition, because "why does anyone need a supersonic bullet to shoot deer?". After that it will be any rifle with a magazine.

We won't budge because we have learned that the people who say they only want "reasonable" gun laws are lying. They were lying in the past, and are lying now. If you want to convince us that you really care about solving gun violence, then show us how your solutions will actually solve the problem. Until you can do that, expect every one of your ideas to be ridiculed and dismissed.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on February 08, 2013, 07:31:27 PM
    "I carry" --- If you do carry a firearm on your person,
and you do so legally, then you have completed a CCW
course, which teaches gun safety, and gives you the
permit to carry a firearm.
     WHICH IS MY POINT - mandatory gun safety classes.

      If it's OK for handguns, so that you can carry one,
why not for all guns and gun owners? Please note that
the CCW requirement has not stopped anyone from owning
a gun.
      Senator Diane Feinstein (D), of California, has introduced
a bill which would reinstate the now lapsed assault gun ban.
It would ban 157 different kinds and models of military style
assault rifles, and any clips that hold more than 10 rounds.
For those of you who have heard that this is another liberal
attempt to take away you right to own a gun, the "liberal"
media, in the same story, pointed out that this bill, if it
became law, would still permit the sale and ownership of
more than 2,000 other makes and models of firearms to
you and your fellow citizens!!!
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: bedford wife on February 08, 2013, 09:15:07 PM
We live in MI.  We do not need a license to carry as long as the gun we carry is NOT concealed.  If you drap your shirt over it, put it in your pants, holster it under you skirt....etc you must have a concealed carry permit!
 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: KeepItPositive on February 12, 2013, 12:31:43 PM
We live in MI.  We do not need a license to carry as long as the gun we carry is NOT concealed.  If you drap your shirt over it, put it in your pants, holster it under you skirt....etc you must have a concealed carry permit!
 

Good point.  I wonder what our trusty school door "monitors" or "greeters" or "security" or whatever you want to call them (I call them a WASTE of money) would do if this legally armed person came to the door?  Probably call the police LOL. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: StopTheBurning on February 12, 2013, 01:10:00 PM
KIP,  I would hope they called the police if someone showed up at a school carrying a gun.  Might be legal but with what has been going on i wouldn't want to take the chance.  Maybe the school has a policy of "having a right to enter".  If a person has no relation with the school they why let them in.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: KeepItPositive on February 12, 2013, 01:35:08 PM
KIP,  I would hope they called the police if someone showed up at a school carrying a gun.  Might be legal but with what has been going on i wouldn't want to take the chance.  Maybe the school has a policy of "having a right to enter".  If a person has no relation with the school they why let them in.

My point was the school district had 2 qualified and visible police officers working in the schools until December when the district cut one due to "budget" concerns.  And then they place 11 door monitors in the school buildings for security and this cost twice as much as the second deputy did!!  Doesn't make much sense to me.   And now I understand that Mr. White has asked the Sheriff and the township to have the township paid deputies patrol inside every building every day, and they have agreed.  That is a wonderful idea, BUT who is patrolling our roads, subdivisions and businesses when the deputies are in school everyday?  If the school wants an increased police presence, then bring back the second deputy.  The school should PAY FOR extra services just like the rest of us do in this township. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: chartres on February 12, 2013, 05:49:39 PM
A person can openly carry a handgun in a school, but only if they also possess a Concealed Pistol License. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Hondo on February 12, 2013, 06:47:21 PM
A person can openly carry a handgun in a school, but only if they also possess a Concealed Pistol License.

I do not believe you can carry a handgun, openly or concealed, in a school or school property . I believe there are several other places you can't carry unless you're a police officer.  (i.e., sports arenas, day care, bars, church etc.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: randysehl on February 12, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
A person can openly carry a handgun in a school, but only if they also possess a Concealed Pistol License.

I do not believe you can carry a handgun, openly or concealed, in a school or school property . I believe there are several other places you can't carry unless you're a police officer.  (i.e., sports arenas, day care, bars, church etc.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Hondo, yes a person can LEGALLY carry an open firearm on school property.  When the State expanded the CPL laws and allowed more citizens to obtain them, the legislature designated "no carry" zones such as arenas, banks, church, etc. like you described, and schools were included on that list.  However, the restricted zones do not apply to an openly carried firearm, only a concealed weapon.  Kind of contradictive I know.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: BUZZARDCS on February 13, 2013, 10:36:29 AM
My wife and I have been watching with great interest over the last few months the ongoing debates in this forum about gun control and the varrying opinions expressed by those involved, both informed and totally uninformed.  It's no wonder the people who "think" they may have answers or "might" be able to answer questions of others by simply posting here make this issue so darn impotant. The answers to all of these posts are very simple. Take a gun safety course, period!  Weither you own a gun now, are going to get a gun, or never will own one,  you will receive the training and information you need to give you the tools to answer questions you have. The "informed" folks, law enforcement, CPL holders, etc. have already been exposed to this information through testing and knoledge of gun laws and safety.  The costs of these programs is minamil compared to the wealth of information you will receive, and you can USUALLY complete the course in one weekend, tops.
I received my CPL years ago and my wife completed her course last June after never having fired a firearm until I took her out a few weeks before her class began, and guess what, she's a darn good shot, not afraid of her firearm, and now feels much safer when she's by herself.  I'm very proud of her and you will be of yourself too. I've never met a law enforcement official who thought that educated, armed citizens were a bad thing. Most even encourage it.
As far as home defense weapons are concerned, my Mossberg JIC shotgun will do just fine, it "sleeps" by us every night. But Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson also live here too!
Information is a very powerful thing, seek it out and use it to your advantage, and good luck!
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: BUZZARDCS on February 13, 2013, 10:51:10 AM
Opps, forgot to mention, we strongly urge our reprosentatives to make it a federal offense to use ANY gun in the commission of a felony with a punishment of a manditory 10 year sentance BEFORE serving any other type of related sentance.   AND, manditory background checks are a part of obtaining a CPL.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on February 14, 2013, 10:13:27 AM
     Interesting story this morning on the Today show,
illustrating the hypocrisy of the NRA. "Smart guns"
are now becoming available. They cannot be fired
by someone not wearing the ring or wristband worn
by the gun's owner. One has been invented by no
less a person than one of the Mossberg family, makers
of excellent shotguns. This is in response to the approx.
500,000 (yes, half a million) guns reported stolen or
lost in the U.S. last year, and the 600 accidental shooting
deaths (not to mention those only wounded), many by
guns being handled by someone other than the owner-
children and houseguests, for example.
   The response by the President of the NRA was very
illuminating. He opposes this attempt to make guns
safer. His reason: it might make guns "too expensive".
He feels it is better to have more, and cheaper guns, than
safer, more expensive guns. He then went on to say that
we don't need smarter guns or gun bans, but more gun
education and gun safety.
   This sounds great, but the NRA opposes mandatory gun
safety classes to obtain gun licenses and ownership. I say,
let the NRA put its money (and there is a lot of it) where its
mouth is, and lobby on behalf of mandatory gun safety classes.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: chartres on February 14, 2013, 10:48:15 AM
These guns are nothing new, they were around when Clinton got the first gun ban passed. They are very expensive and unreliable. So you have to switch hands, the gun won't fire, make the distance it works greater and someone could use it against you. The NRA doesn't oppose gun education, they have been trying for years to get more schools to allow the Eddie Eagle Program which educates young children on the dangers of firearms, but the gun control people are dead set against it, they would rather continue making firearms a fantasy item among children, something to be explored if found, and.....played with to find out what all the mystery is about a gun. I educated my children from birth about firearms and had them shooting by the time they were four, this took all the mystery away and they knew that anytime they wanted to shoot one, all they had to do was ask. They never had to look for a hidden gun or pick a gun lock, because they were never hidden or locked up, to them a firearm was nothing mystical and they knew not to play with one. I worried much more about my children playing with my power tools and getting hurt or running in the road and getting hit by all the speeders on my road.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: randysehl on February 14, 2013, 11:53:13 AM
These guns are nothing new, they were around when Clinton got the first gun ban passed. They are very expensive and unreliable. So you have to switch hands, the gun won't fire, make the distance it works greater and someone could use it against you. The NRA doesn't oppose gun education, they have been trying for years to get more schools to allow the Eddie Eagle Program which educates young children on the dangers of firearms, but the gun control people are dead set against it, they would rather continue making firearms a fantasy item among children, something to be explored if found, and.....played with to find out what all the mystery is about a gun. I educated my children from birth about firearms and had them shooting by the time they were four, this took all the mystery away and they knew that anytime they wanted to shoot one, all they had to do was ask. They never had to look for a hidden gun or pick a gun lock, because they were never hidden or locked up, to them a firearm was nothing mystical and they knew not to play with one. I worried much more about my children playing with my power tools and getting hurt or running in the road and getting hit by all the speeders on my road.

"Eddie Eagle" from the NRA is a great program.  The Sheriff's department has taught that to elementary students for years.  Students are encouraged to use Eddie's simple safety message of "STOP!  DON'T TOUCH!  LEAVE THE AREA!  TELL A TRUSTED ADULT! in any situation involving ANYTHING potentially dangerous such as a gun, knife, broken glass, spilled liquid or other hazard.  The NRA funds the entire program including a life-size "Eddie" mascot costume, videos, coloring books, etc.   The local chapter of the NRA was responsible for bringing it to Monroe County.  Thank you.   

http://www.aaof.com/ed.htm
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: signal on February 14, 2013, 02:21:26 PM
   Warning kids about finding a stray gun is great.

    I'm talking about making gun safety education
mandatory for any adult who wants to own a gun.
The NRA opposes this, even though there is no
evidence that it would reduce your ability to own a gun.

   The new smart guns are very reliable, the ring or
wristband would be worn on the same hand/wrist as
your shooting hand. Not only would it prevent someone
from picking up your weapon and using it, but it also
means that if someone took your weapon away from you,
it would not fire - you could not be shot with your own gun.

   Mr. Mossberg demonstrated this with a shotgun from his
company, and another demo was shown with a Beretta handgun.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: bedford wife on February 14, 2013, 03:58:57 PM
I am NEVER going to take a class to exercise a right granted to me.  I understand your point but....once we put hoops and loops on one right, what stops that from spilling over to another right?  How about, you have to take a sensitivity class before you can exercise your right to speak freely, or even..minoritys and women must pass a test to be able to vote.  The new smart guns are very expensive crap.  They don't work well, misfire, and are just not great.  The military tried them for a bit and even they rejected them....and believe me, they'll fall for 20,000 toilets!  I have friends in my synagogue who have numbers on thier forearms that can tell you how things turn out when a government decides to control guns or put quantifiers on who can have one.....
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Mike Malone Sr. on February 14, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
Education is power. Period. I feel that in most situations you need to be educated somehow. I know when i build something with instructions it educates me to some form of degree to assemble that task. As far as gun safety, i'm all in favor of training or taking a class to learn more. And i have. I unfortunately missed the CPL re-certification class or seminar that was offered for free at Cabelas last weekend. I try to go to these classes or workshops to keep up on current laws and procedures. I feel if you are a gun owner you need some form of training, whether you get it from your elders or by taking classes. Once you pull the trigger, you can't change the outcome.
 As far as "Smart Guns" go, i don't think i would ever purchase such a thing. One thing that come to mind to me, is that all the technology in security systems in automobiles,and yet they still manage to steal them. Or better yet, computer hackers that still manage to hack the most fool proof systems. So having this technology in a handgun just doesnt sit well with me...
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Heisenberg on February 15, 2013, 07:27:17 AM
"Smart guns" are now becoming available. They cannot be fired by someone not wearing the ring or wristband worn by the gun's owner.

If they were so great, then law enforcement would be one of the first in line to use them. After all, weapon retention is a big deal for police officers when dealing with dangerous people. Yet no law enforcement agency I am aware of is considering adopting them. And every proposed mandate of so-called "smart guns" includes an exemption for law enforcement.

And the reason? The technology is not proven, and police officers need reliable guns that won't fail. Well guess what, so do I. I am not interested in spending 4x as much for a gun that is less reliable just to assuage the ignorant fears of gun-control advocates.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: chartres on February 15, 2013, 10:26:01 AM
If "Smart Guns" are the way to go, then invest in a company to put them on the market and let the market decide if they are reliable or not. You will be as well off as if you invested in Enron or M.F. Global.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: BUZZARDCS on February 15, 2013, 11:22:11 AM
B.W. , Please re-read and TRY to understand what I posted yesterday.  I never said ANYTHING about the training and safe handling of a firearm in these classes will somehow  infrindge on your 2nd. amendment rights,
PERIOD!!!! ......................  GOT IT NOW? I will stand beside you and help defend it.  Hoops & loops, ah,..... come on.  Simply said again, when or if you ever decide to take a gun SAFETY course you will be much more informed about your right to defend yourself.  You DO NOT have to register any weapons,(if you own any), and many classes want you to use their firearms so you may become more comfortable arould them. So please don't condemn something you apperantly don't know anything about.   
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: bedford wife on February 18, 2013, 09:24:30 AM
Buzzard....I am not going to reply to you in a snarky manner....although the temptation is great.  I don't think I did a great job telling my point.  I am most certainly for responsible firearm ownership.  I belive in developing muscle memory for any sidearm, firearm or weapon you carry.  What I am against is making said training a condition of ownership.  Some of the people on here know me personally and know that I am a huge proponent for training and training safely.  As far as not knowing or being uncomfortable....I will only say that my job reqired my proficiency with many different weapons.  My comfort level and knowledge level are well where they should be...better than some, less than others. BTW....should you wish instruction in said safety courses...or even some higher level courses...private message me and I will be glad to instruct you.  I am quite confident in my skill set and I keep my certifications up to date with ongoing training.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: BUZZARDCS on February 18, 2013, 09:59:38 AM
Thank you for your reply and I DO apalogize if I came accross as "snarky".  This is a very important subject to both you and I and there are a lot of folks out there that think they have all the answers  only to find out they are just opinions, not a lot based on facts. I'm impressed by your post and appreciate it.  I, and many others are painfully aware of this current administrations goals and will reject any efforts by them or anyone to denigrate the Constitution in any way. I think of  all the men and women who've died to protect it, and I thank you to all who have served.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: PackersFan on February 18, 2013, 01:25:48 PM
Although many parts of the Constitution are still pertinent to our modern world, in general it is an outdated document and should constantly be revised.  I fear we don't scrutinize it often enough.  It been a long time since we've added any amendments to it.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 18, 2013, 04:13:45 PM
We should should add an Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the government from amending the constitution.


 ;)
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: PackersFan on February 18, 2013, 04:44:18 PM
The 'government'?  Not sure I understand.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Heisenberg on February 18, 2013, 10:20:49 PM
Although many parts of the Constitution are still pertinent to our modern world, in general it is an outdated document and should constantly be revised.  I fear we don't scrutinize it often enough.  It been a long time since we've added any amendments to it.

21 years. Not THAT long of time.