I am 26 Yrs old and have recently (December) purchased my first Firearm. (1911 Copy will provide a picture) Now a bit more information is obviously needed. I am 26, Do not smoke, Do not drink ride motorcycles, Own a 4x4 4 door pickup truck (Ford) and Live in South Texas. I am from a Muscle Car/Gun family. I was raised by a single mother one uncle was air force, another uncle was a marine, Ones been a hot rod mechanic and the other worked odd jobs. When I went to purchase my first pistol, I had to show my ID That I was over 21 (Great) I filled out a form and in 3 hours was able to purchase and pick up my pistol. This is exactly what happened. I took a background check and it was completed and done right there (took three hours because from what I was told by a good friend is that TONS of people were buying guns in Dec.) Now I am one of those people who buys what I need before I buy what I want. (Example) My truck and bike broke a few days apart, Truck does me more good fixed the truck, then started working slowly on bike, Bills paid every month have my truck and bike running great and for my christmas gift my girlfriend gave me the option of ink work (I still have none) or a pistol I have always wanted. Went with the pistol does me more use then ink work. I live in Deep south Texas and have gone outside to see cloths spwarled over my street and my yard. We have Border Patrol race down our road on occassions and we already own a few shotguns (honestly just for hunting purposes) This is my thought on it... I love the fact I am able to purchase a gun, I think its awesome that I can finally own a firearm that I have always wanted with no worries and to go to a range to shoot for pleasure and take my girlfriend so she can shoot as well. Go shooting with friends and family. I do however think just filling out the form and background check might be a little easy, But then again I also know if more people were trained to use firearms that would be better. I have talked to people who "dont like guns" But they also have never seen/used one or if they have they had a bad experience (I was told to shoot this by my father and it knocked me back) I agree it is not the fault of the gun (They really dont just walk up on their own, I can put my gun in its case and call for it, wont come) But then again as I tell a few co-workers (I work at a school district) IF someone comes into your school and they are intent on harming you. We obviously have no knives or guns, Grab a good sturdy pen, Gine point (needle tip) or nice ball point and that becomes on heck of an improvised weapon. Grab an empty box and it makes a nice loud pop noise when it hits someone could run up and beat the person with a stapler. Keep a handy flashlight for blackouts and you have another improvised weapon. Carry a hotwheels car and you have an impact weapon as well (A toy no less to play when your bored with) I do think a few things need to change but not in the sense that I want firearms taken away from anyone. Maybe require a handgun course with every purchase of a firearm that they do there. (I purchased mine at academy and a quick breakdown of gun safety and rules would of been nice and different so i could ask all sorts of questions) Something like Howdy, I would like to purchase _________ (This was me. lol ) and after you fill out the form and wait for the background they take you to a back room to give you a quick safety run down. The sales rep can ask if they have a lockbox other then the one it comes with to store it, quick gun cleaning tips and can tell them about some of the products as well (I for instance bought Venom w V3 I think gun oil and cloth wipes) and plan to buy a (Universal gun cleaning kit - winchester brand) tomorrow so i have everything from small caliber handguns to shotguns and large caliber rifles. Just a little more safety measure would be best just not an outright ban.
How about enforcing all the laws against using a gun in a crime? How about hanging all repeat violent felons at least after their 3rd violent conviction---whether they use a gun, ballpoint pen or a chainsaw? How about hanging all illegal aliens who come here to join drug gangs, do acts of violence and are a clear and present danger to society? No need to bother the courts, try them in tribunals like the spies and other foreing agents of espionage.
Uncle Joe says Obama gonna use Executive Orders to act on guns if he has to... Obama Will Act on Guns, Can Use Executive Orders January 9, 2013 - Vice President Joe Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday that President Obama is going to take action on gun control and that he can do it through "executive orders." See also: Anti-Gun Groups At White House: Question Isnt Whether New Gun Laws Would Have Prevented Newtown January 9, 2013 After meeting with Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday, a leading gun- control activist said there was consensus on bringing back the assault weapons ban and beefing up background checks, but that the discussion over new restrictions was not about what would prevent another mass shooting.
Responsible gun owners are great, I like them, its the irresponsible gun owners who do not secure their weapons that I have a problem with. How many people die each year after being shot by a stolen gun or rifle? How many spree shooters use weapons they stole from a friend or family member? I sold my last firearm years ago because I was living with a person who suffered from a serious psychiatric disorder. How is it mentally ill people can get guns legally then use them to shoot up a school like Virginia Tech? What is the solution? Heck if I know, but to do nothing is insanity.
Perhaps there needs to be more education about securing ones guns, especially if one has children living with them. I think it is appropriate for the (local level) governments to pay for safety education. What I am concerned about is more laws, because many of these laws are completely ridiculous. More laws are not always the answer to every problem, and it is not always a good idea to be expecting our government to solve every problem for us. Personal responsibility needs to play a role also, even if not everyone is as responsible of citizen as they should be. That is actually a logical fallacy that business leaders and politicians so often fall into. Some problems will always be there, and every year politicians make more and more laws. The problem is that each "solution" often brings with it other problems, and it would have been better if no law had ever been passed in the first place. Just one example: there are alway going to be murders. No ammount of government regulation and punishment can ever completely stop murders from taking place entirely. It's just something we live with. There is a chance you could be murdered as soon as you walk outside your house. But for most of us, it's not something we lose sleep over. Would you really want the government putting little chips into all our brains that would prevent anyone from being able to kill another human being?
Canada has access to all the same weapons as Americans, but has a statistical fraction of the gun violence of America, while England and Australia have even less gun crime. Murder cannot be eradicated... but it can be curtailed. Other countries have done it, so can America. I am against guns being taken from Americans, but I am for better training, stricter control on who we allow to get guns, and strict fines for those whose stolen gun are used to harm another... and ban those (*)(*)(*)(*) 30 round clips... they just make it so insane gunmen can kill more people. You do not need an AR-15 with a 30 round clip to defend your home, a handgun with a 15 round clip or a pump action shotgun will do the job just fine.
I understand where you're coming from. A 30 magazine (magazine and clips are two different things) does seem a bit excessive at first consideration. But where do you draw the line? First you limit it to 15, then to 10, and now New York is trying to pass a bill that will limit it to seven. The problem with laws like these is that they will continue to expand, and expand, and expand, until they DO take all of our guns. A seven round magazine can be reloaded just as fast as a 30 round magazine. Yes, you would have to reload more but if your targets are defenseless children (Sandy Hook) does it really matter? It wouldn't have made a difference in that shooting. Also, I'm of the opinion that a 30 round magazine does have useful purposes for defense. For example; the LA riots of 1992, the looting on the east coast before and after hurricane Sandy, and the looting before and after hurricane Katrina. If a mob of angry looters intent on taking everything you own and hurting you and your family is approaching your home, don't you think being armed with an AR15 and 30 round magazines would come in handy? Is it unlikely? Only if you don't live in a natural disaster-prone area. I may be wrong here, but I thought handguns were illegal in Canada? In America, most firearm murders are committed with handguns. Not "assault weapons" as the media would have you believe.
No, these other countries you are referring to never had gun problems. Show me an example of a country with bad crime problems that reduced its violent crime by banning or restricting guns. It's interesting how the countries gun grabbers try to use as examples are the same countries racial separatists point to as examples to try to make their case too. As we already know, the availability of guns does not necessarily lead to gun violence (Switzerland and Israel), and the banning of guns does not necessarily stop out of control gun violence (Mexico and Brazil). It seems to have much more to do with immigration levels and poverty.
Please post source... or was that your opinion? You bet it does! Children are not stupid and can run if they see the opportunity. The more a shooter has to stop to reload gives the victims, weather they by young or old a chance to escape, hide, seek better cover, or tackle the gunman. You do not know that it would not have made a difference, nice opinion though. No. I think the spread of a shotgun could be just as effective. Be real, after the first shot the crowd will scatter. Who in their right mind charges a man defending his home with a shotgun? Hand guns are legal, just tightly controlled... like all firearms. Even assault style weapons are allowed, with 5 round magazine limit and strict licensing. I have no problem with hand guns or AR-15's, just the 30 round magazines and irresponsible gun owners. Most gun owners are responsible, those owners I salute. As for gun murders, I know most murders are with hand guns. But most mass shootings are done with high capacity magazine rifles or submachine gun style weapons... that is why I am for stricter control of, those 30 round magazines.
I think you guys are completely correct on many of the issues that need to be covered by fire arms. On behalf of one of the non crazy (I'd like the think!) gun owners who enjoys the sport of firing at a range. Please do what will save lives, not a knee jerk. I own a SIG, a Glock and a custom built 20" barrel AR-15. I come from a father who was a special forces Marine in Vietnam. Both of my pistols, all my equipment and several pieces of my rifle are stored in a biometric safe in my house. I also live in down town Los Angeles and only squeeze off rounds at a range, while all my weapons are legal under one of the most heavily gun controlled states in the union. Please don't go to 5 round clips. I think 10 is fine, although useful at a range I wouldn't even try arguing 30+ round magazines are needed. 5 round clips greatly impede the ability to perform many "games" and "trials" at a range however. I truthfully don't think limiting magazines will help the actual problem at all. I do see the need for immediate action however and think limiting magazines to 10 would be a good way to show the public that action is being taken. Please don't do 5!
When i read some of the post and it says 1% of gun owners are irresonsible it reminds me of Motorcycles because of abate (if I am correct) made a statement about 99% of motorcyclist are law abiding citizens and the 1% are the criminals.
(Almost two weeks after a shooting spree stunned Australia in 1996, leaving 35 people dead at the Port Arthur tourist spot in Tasmania, the government issued sweeping reforms of the country’s gun laws. There hasn’t been a mass shooting since.) (Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.) (Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree. In the wake of the shooting) http://news.yahoo.com/could-us-learn-australias-gun-control-laws-174307680.html England has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, but none the less they have had a spree shooting (1996 11 dead) after the passing of their tough gun laws. So not perfect, but with a murder rate just a small fraction of the U.S. I say a success. A valid point, Brazil's gun control measures have been a complete failure... whereas Japan has very few gun murders and a total ban on firearms. But America and Canada are more alike than different. Canadians love to drink, love their pot, love their violent media, have the same weapons, and way fewer murders when statistically compared with the USA.
You know, my post was respectful. Yours came off as very disrespectful and sarcastic. Why is it that anyone who is for gun control has to resort to sarcasm and personal attacks? Anyways, my responses are in bold and they aren't as respectful as the first time.
I agree. Canada has a 5 round limit on long guns... a bit excessive IMO. A 10 round limit is a much better compromise, or even a 15 round limit... although I support the 10 round limit personally... again, talking about long guns here. You keep you firearms in a safe, I applaud that. It really irks me when I see a story on the news where a friend or family member steals a gun and kills someone. I think 30 round magazines belong to our soldiers in combat zones. The whole "I need my 30 round magazine to protect my home" argument does not work with me. Time and time again we see stories of a man, woman, or child, killing, wounding, or scarring off an intruder with a simple hand gun.
Really? Please point out my personal attack. As for my sarcasm... go to the Disney forums, because you will need a thick skin to survive here. By the way, welcome to PoliticalForum.com
I agree with both of you except home defense 3-8 rounds might work. Really but in a mod situation more rounds matter I own a Browning A500R my hunting shotgun holds 3 rounds I could always buy a 10/20 round shotgun drum but I decided to buy a 1911 .45 which will hold 7 in the magazine one in the chamber. I bought this particular one for safety reasons such as grip safety 5lb trigger pull and the slide safety I have a 2/4 yr old neices who cone over and wish to keep them safe. So my shotgun stays in a locked cabinet and my pistol stays in its box stored in my room where they won't find it. But in a mod situation I know I would be outgunned 20/30 determined people to do me harm will wait till the bullets stop and I have to reload to re-attack.
I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned personal attacks, but it has happened with other members. The way I see it, if you have to resort to sarcasm and personal attacks, your argument doesn't have any credibility. IMO.
Correlation does not imply causation. Until you provide a source for your info (link) I will have to view your point as an opinion. A reload gives the victim a brief window to take action... this is a good thing IMO. A weapon can jam or have a mechanical failure during a reload too. Also a hasty reload can cause the cartridge and or magazine to not be seated right, potentially causing problems. OK, so the shooter was an idiot and did not empty his clips, thank God. But this does nothing to prove your statement as being factually correct. My response was purposely meant to equal your ridiculous assertion that Seriously, when was the last time someone let off 30 rounds at a mob during a natural disaster in the U.S.? Try never!
You are in the wrong place then buddy, as sarcasm is omnipresent here. If you know of a forum where people debate hot button topics in complete serene civility... send me the link because I want to join that forum! I been to many forums, this is the best I have found. Also, direct your allegations of personal attacks towards those who issues said attacks.
Is it too late to hope for some common sense in this debate - I mean the topic, not this thread. I am in favour of gun control laws but I wouldn't support a complete ban on firearms ownership by civilians and non-LE people. It gets up my nose when in PF, there are hysterical accusations of "gun-grabbing" and completely unfounded claims that governments want to confiscate all firearms in private ownership. Not only is that not going to happen, it shouldn't happen. Unfortunately though there are those who will come screaming into a thread like Alex Jones and proclaim that all privately held firearms are going to be "grabbed". I don't know what the motive is but it sure looks ignorant to me. As for Australia, the post-1996 evidence is not clear. True, firearms-related suicides are down, which is good, but those who seek to terminate their lives will find other ways. Not using a gun is good though, if you've been to the scene of a .303 or shotgun in the mouth you'll know what I mean - an overdose is much cleaner. True, we haven't had a mass killing either - but we'll have another one sometime, but good that Port Arthur was the last so far. As for crime, it continues. The hysterical mob who will tell you that your guns are going to be confiscated will come up with all sorts of claims about crime going through the roof in Australia since the buybacks. It hasn't. But as I say, the evidence about the changes (up or down) in gun-related crime (as opposed to a tragic mass shooting) is a bit iffy either way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia I don't want to take the thread spiralling off course but since Australia is referenced quite a bit I thought it appropriate to bring it up. I reiterate - claims that everyone will be disarmed are silly and should be treated as such.
You're right, correlation does not imply causation. Good to know you've taken a statistics course (unless you learned that off of the internet somewhere). However, we can draw conclusions based off of STRONG correlations. There is a strong correlation between gun registration and confiscation, therefore, it is safe to assume, that there is a high probability gun confiscation will follow after registration. While I'm not going to write a book on the history of world gun control for you, here is a link with a helpful table "Death by Genocide" that will illustrate the point. In every instance, registering or permitting of firearms was present before confiscation. http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf While you're right about the hasty reloads and malfunction aspect, that doesn't mean anything. The Sandy Hook shooter had two handguns on him, most likely for that exact scenario. Sure it does. It means he didn't expend his magazines. This means that a magazine capacity limit would have been ineffective. Pretty simple concept, I think. Were the LA riots a natural disaster? No they weren't. While I couldn't find the original article, here is one from the LA times that recounts Korean shop owners firing over 500 rounds. Over five hundred. My same scenario still applies. Your shotgun ran out after you fired the first 8 rounds, now you're hastily trying to reload (and a shotgun takes much longer to reload than a semi-auto rifle) and the mob of looters is closing in on you. I bet you would wish you had those 30 round "clips" then. http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-103704.html
I think you're misinterpreting the term "gun-grabber." A gun-grabber is someone who already owns guns and doesn't want anyone else to own one. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein who owns multiple guns and has a Concealed Carry Permit herself. It's hypocrisy at its finest. I do believe Alex Jones is a loon, but he does have some good points. Just look at what happened in England. Gun owners were forced to register their firearms, then all of those registered firearms were confiscated. I don't believe my government is going to confiscate all of our guns (not in my lifetime, anyways) but we have to keep in mind that things do change. We don't know what will happen in 10, 50, or 100 years from now, that's why it's important not to become complacent. "Because it hasn't happened, means it won't happen" is a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that. Claims that everyone will be disarmed are not silly, and that kind of thinking leads to complacency.
