194 replies to this topic

[SacKen]

With centralized weapon storage comes easy control. The news reported at different times that the military had contingent plans on going into Pakistan to secure nuclear weapons and into Syria to secure chemical weapons. They could easily do the same thing with local armoury.

True and something I've definitely considered. But as long as a thief could easily steal guns in the home and kids can easily get ahold of guns in the home, gun control advocates will have a winning argument for banning more and more gun types in order to keep them out of the hands of those people.

The central armory idea was based on the Switzerland model. Granted, that is a Government sponsored militia in lieu of a large standing army, but the idea is the same. Just locally controlled rather than Government controlled. Even back when people in Switzerland were allowed to keep their military grade weapons at home, the ammo they were given was stored in a sealed container and was periodically audited. So maybe some sort of stricter, auditable, in-home safety setup is another option. Maybe something as simple as requiring gun safes and other safety equipment.

Again, as someone that leans toward freedom and the Constitution, I don't agree with any restrictions. But I am also a pragmatist and realize that free-reign gun ownership is not going to happen. The current path is to keep restricting guns until the 2nd Amendment is essentially abolished. I truly believe that something like what I've mentioned will be necessary as a compromise in order to maintain access to the weapons you all want to own. I think the only way to keep all of your guns is to find a way to satisfy the gun control advocate reasons for wanting gun control in a context that allows you to keep your guns.

[Logan]

To be fair, we do have "car control" in place. We try to stop people from driving that we think would be more likely to kill someone while driving. However, much like gun control, it only works on law-abiding citizens. The criminal minds still drive without a license.

Also, bad guys do use bombs, but you don't have kids killing each other on the streets daily with bombs or accidentally killing their friend with Daddy's bomb they found in his room. While current gun control laws are useless, you can't deny that having less guns easily available, in general, would result in less gun deaths. Most gun control advocates I know are coming at it from this angle... get rid of them so that people we don't trust can't easily get their hands on one.

No, you won't stop the drug cartel from having guns or people with the patience to go all Timothy McVeigh, but the average kid in the burbs with a burr up his arse, or even the average wannabe thug on the streets, won't be able to quickly and efficiently kill large groups of people, in a moment's notice, with relatively little effort.

So I should lose my freedom to possess guns because of idiots that don't secure their guns from children? I should lose my freedom to possess guns because some whack job shoots up a school? And have you looked at the actual number of gun deaths compared to the number of deaths caused by doctor malpractice or car accidents or shaken baby syndrome etc. The problem is nowhere near as big as many think it is. It's just that it gets
sensationalized by the news media.

[tsukiji]

For those with an open mind:

http://larrycorreia....on-gun-control/

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

[MSgt]

For those with an open mind:

http://larrycorreia....on-gun-control/

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

I read the first link, Larry Correia. Very good - I would suggest if you are anti gun but don't really feel informed on the issues, read it. Think it through. Like I said, I am not a "gun guy" but I am not necessarily antigun. I learned a lot by reading the Correia... article. Now I am purposely pursuing information so I might be better informed and come to an informed opinion on the issue. To many of us are basing our opinion on emotion and misinformation. It is ok to be antigun - but what are you basing your opinion on? I will try to get to the other article later.
Most importantly people define what is an assault weapon and what is a semi automatic weapon? These terms are tossed around without any defining quality. That in itself will get you started on thinking things through.

[The Average Joe]

Both articles are very well done. Kontra's is a quite a bit shorter. MSgt hit the nail on the head. Define assault weapon. It's a made up term to incite panic. The current definition uses arbitrary (and foolish) cosmetic changes to determine what is and isn't.
I was discussing this with someone recently who went ballistic (no pun intended) and said ban all assault weapons and hicap magazines. I asked him to define assault weapon. He said "they" will do that. I told him that "they" already did and gave him some examples of the cosmetic changes "they" used. I pointed out the previous ban had no definable effect. He said it didn't matter. I said of course it matters, it's not a solution unless it solves an issue. He said bs and left the conversation. I wish all who feel his way would read those articles...

[mando]

More suggested reading/listening: http://www.npr.org/2...civilian-market

[SacKen]

So I should lose my freedom to possess guns because of idiots that don't secure their guns from children? I should lose my freedom to possess guns because some whack job shoots up a school? And have you looked at the actual number of gun deaths compared to the number of deaths caused by doctor malpractice or car accidents or shaken baby syndrome etc. The problem is nowhere near as big as many think it is. It's just that it gets
sensationalized by the news media.

No. But what should be is not necessarily what will be. The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not working. It is not enough. You can keep shouting it until you are blue in the face and it probably won't matter because the counter argument is too easy: [puts on devil's advocate hat] those people that killed wouldn't be able to so easily if the guns were not easily accessible and your right to own more firepower than is necessary for hunting, protection, recreation, etc., is not worth the risk when you could satisfy all of those with much less firepower. [devil's advocate hat off]

Again, my point is not that you should lose any rights. My point is that you most likely will lose rights because of those things. I'm not trying to argue ideology. I'm trying to deal with reality. Whether you like it or not, your gun ownership rights will probably take a hit, once again. I'm just wondering if there is an alternative solution that satisfies gun owners, maintains the intent of our Constitutional rights, but is still effective at reducing gun deaths. Current gun control policy does neither.

[MSgt]

I just read the second article that tsukiji posted (Kontradiction) . A very informative view from a liberal.

[tsukiji]

I came upon this on a different forum: http://en.wikipedia....ki/File:Rtc.gif

Keep in mind the words, irony, Stockton (very limited LTC) and Chicago (some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country) when you get to the end periods of the graphics.

Coincidence? Perhaps not.

[Logan]

No. But what should be is not necessarily what will be. The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not working. It is not enough. You can keep shouting it until you are blue in the face and it probably won't matter because the counter argument is too easy: [puts on devil's advocate hat] those people that killed wouldn't be able to so easily if the guns were not easily accessible and your right to own more firepower than is necessary for hunting, protection, recreation, etc., is not worth the risk when you could satisfy all of those with much less firepower. [devil's advocate hat off]

Again, my point is not that you should lose any rights. My point is that you most likely will lose rights because of those things. I'm not trying to argue ideology. I'm trying to deal with reality. Whether you like it or not, your gun ownership rights will probably take a hit, once again. I'm just wondering if there is an alternative solution that satisfies gun owners, maintains the intent of our Constitutional rights, but is still effective at reducing gun deaths. Current gun control policy does neither.

Well, I'm well aware of reality. That doesn't mean I have to accept the BS arguments the anti-gunners use to pass their BS legislation. I'm well aware of the fact our society is going to heck in a hand basket. The entitlement crowd is growing and growing, our government is becoming more and more socialistic. Nanny laws are the norm now. Taking responsibility for your own behavior is not. Our nation is becoming a disaster. We are losing our rights and our economy is being destroyed. I expect that someday our 2nd ammendment will become history. As our society becomes more and more dominated by liberals, our government will continue to further limit our freedoms and control our lives. Our State is leading the way with it's current "Super Majority". I'm just glad I'll likely die before it gets so bad that I would want to commit suicide for the lack of free choice. But liberals aren't the only problem, the conservative politicians are also just as guilty of destroying our nation, they just attack it from a different perspective.

[eVader]

Another good video from a San Jose cop explains the truth about semi-auto firearms

[Chris]

For those with an open mind:

http://larrycorreia....on-gun-control/

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

Just took the time to read both of these. They were very good, I especially liked the "Kontradiction" one. Chris

[supermom]

When did Ca outlaw automatic rifles?
Im curious if the ratio per capita deaths by guns has significantly lessened since that time, in california

[camay2327]

Judge Jeanine: Put on your big boy pants and face the music.

Check this out.


http://video.foxnews.../2075684002001/