Irresponsible gun owners (Page 9)

And just a side note, on statistics, gun violence, while horrible and a crisis in any number, has actually been treading down from it's peak in the early 90's.

There has been a steady decrease in gun related homicides  from 1995-2010 (with a one year trend upwards in 2004)

Again, I'm not advocating that these statistics warrant or justify doing nothing.  But while the perception that gun violence is out of control, and there are some that would use this perception to justify radical changes, perception in this case, may not be reality.

I advocate certain changes well short of total bans.  I also advocate not rushing into any action/reaction based upon the horrors of Friday.  If we do, I gurantee, or predict that whatever is done as a result of such knee jerk reaction will be ineffectual.

The problem is HUGE, it's about guns, mental health treatment options, privacy rights, due process rights, first amendment issues.  Dealing with only one component might make people feel good in the short term, but will, in the long term not solve anything.

I guess you and I will agree to disagree.  I don't find that article "eloquently written" at all.  I find it drivel.  It is accusatorial, in that it presumes that anyone that makes certain arguments is irrational.  It also uses the tactic of calling for a thoughtful debate but then out of hand dismisses any potential arguments contrary to the authors possition. (I love the way the author with a metaphorical wave of the hand dismisses the Constitutional argument, and asserts as if it is undeniable fact that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, with it's meaning ever changing.  This isn't even close to being a fact.  It is a matter of consistent and aggresive debate amoung Constitutional scholars and the members of the current and past Supreme Courts at the Federal and State levels.  This notion isn't fact, it's the authors opinion, based upon his philosophy.  There are just as many Consitutional scholars that argue that such a "willy-nilly" interpreatation of the Constitution leads to tyrrany because any person or group in power can bend the Constitution to mean whatever the prevailing sentement is, with such an interpretation there are no real rights or protections.) The article is also flat out wrong on certain points regarding other aspects of Constitutional interpretation. 

So eloquent...I think not.

And while the author points out that no one is calling for guns to be confiscated....you have advocated just that.

Again, from a Constitutional perspective, it is up to the individual that is calling for changing, altering, or amending the Constitution to justify their position.  It is not the other way around.  Some are calling for the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  It is their responsibility to articulate a valid, coherent, rational argument for just such a statement.

I never said going 253 MPH was safe (it's clearly not).  Pitt said that there is a reason they do not allow you to drive an F1 car on the roads: safety.  I was illustrating that there are vehicles that can go even faster that ARE legal.

No real context or conclusion here but out of curiosity I went to a large gun dealer I have used in the past.  It's pages upon pages upon pages of "out of stock"...

Tell me about it.  i was planning to pick up a Colt LE6940 after the first of the year. 

And once again...it's not gun owners pushing car analogies, it is gun control proponents. If 9000 firearm homicides justifies removing 2A... then over 30,000 deaths from cars most certainly justifies outlawing cars... of rather speed limiting them to 30mph.... and over 10,000 DUI deaths most certainly requires the outlawing of alcohol.... neither of which are a right and are nothing more than a mere privellege that can be reomved with the stroke of a pen.

There is no justifiable reason for cars to go faster than a bicycle or should it be a horse and buggy? There is no justifiable reson to consume alcohol in public. there is no justifiable reason to have more than one.... or shoul d we institute waiting periods and then you can only have one once a month.

Oh... but but you need a lisence to drive a car.... yes a car that you operate on public roads built with public money for hours a week. You potentially pass 100 if not thousands of people. You potentially are able to kill hundreds if not thousands of possible people each and every week. And in fact 10s of thousands die every year from carless reckless driving... DUI, speeding, texting, eating, cell phones... families are torn apart. Children are killed and maimed. And even with that reality.... most people on the road give driving not a second though that at any given time they are in control of enough kenetic energy to kill many people.... as they text, drink coffee, put on make up, and yell at their kids in the back seat. And when they do have to renew their liscence every 5-10 years, it is nothing but an inconvinient PITA. So enough already about how safe and responsible our roads and drivers are.

Unfortunately I have not seen any suggestion that would actually make any real change. I don't see a way for the law or court system to regulate guns to prevent with all certainty events like this.

Are there people who should not have guns? Yes of course. In my recent CW class there was at least one person who I was not comfortable being around at all. But she was mentally capable, she was just plain careless. How do you legislate against that?

I know another person who lost his gun rights due to 3 DUI's the last of which was a felony. He went to AA, got sober and hired an attorney to get his gun rights back. After 8 years of being sober and no problems with the law the judge saw fit to give him his rights back. He recently went back to the sauce and I fear for my safety around him because I know about his guns and I know he is violent and dangerous when he drinks. But how in the heck are you going to legislate against that?

I think the focus should be on the mental illness side of things. I highly doubt that this idiot just woke up on Friday and decided to kill his mom. I doubt that he had never been violent with her before. They interviewed the babysitter this morning and he said he was always told to never turn his back to this kid because the kid was dangerous. 

Why not spend some of our massive federal budget on solutions for parents with kids like this rather than waiting for them to go to jail to learn how to be a criminal and then unleashing them again. Or waiting until they kill others and themselves? That is something I could get behind paying some taxes for and it would actually do something toward keeping the public safer. 

I've read all of the posts and while I have certain opinions regarding the current state of affairs, I don't truly believe anything is going to make a change in the path society is currently taking. I spent about 5 minutes using Google to get these statistics.

Over 30,00 deaths from Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes per year. Except for infants to 3 years old, a person has a higher chance of being killed from a traffic crash than a homicide.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811620.pdf

According to the Institute of Medicine, over 98,000 deaths per year are caused by Medical mistakes.

http://www.medmalfacts.com/

There were over 1,200,000 abortions performed in the last year.

http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

As a society, what is an acceptable number of deaths caused by any of the above as well as gun violence? Obviously no death is acceptable. If society wants to reduce the number of Motor Vehicle Deaths, reduce the speed limit to 25 mph on any street or road not an interstate, 40 mph on any highway and 50 mph on the interstate. Anyone caught speeding loses their license for a year, anyone caught using a cell phone while driving loses their license for 2 years, anyone caught drinking and driving goes to jail for a year and never gets a license again. Do not allow any production car to go over 50 mph and severely sanction the automakers that produce one that does. CEO goes to jail. Those examples would make the streets safer. Is that something society is willing to tolerate to make the streets safer? I doubt it.

Medical errors are simple - you make a mistake and kill someone, you go to prison. Is society willing to go that far to make the hospitals safer? Will there be anyone that wants to become a nurse or doctor if that is the law? I doubt it.

Both of these causes of death are substantially higher than gun violence, yet no one is talking about them. The only articles I've seen on traffic matters is the new 85mph speed limit on a road in Texas that had 4 accidents the first day it opened. I didn't read the article but just saw the headline on Yahoo.

If a person is intent on causing a certain end result, and are willing to die to achieve that result, no law or limitation is going to stop them. This doesn't mean society shouldn't try to prevent or stop them though and society as a whole needs to put more value on ALL human life. I can't imagine watching violent television and playing combat video games from age 9-15 doesn't desensitize a person a little bit. While I played cowboys and indians as a kid, I didn't see a Zombie head exploding with blood splatters when I fired my cap gun.

I don't have a solution. I know that gun control is not going to make any significant change to the tragic deaths that have been taking place since the 1930's (and during the Assault Weapon Ban).  I feel that until society as a whole starts putting a greater value on human life and teaches our children that human life is sacred, there won't be any noticeable change to the current state of affairs.

I think mr2tony is on the right track...in a way...sort of...kinda...

From a Canadian perspective...we have guns.  We have lots of guns.  And we like our guns.  But, it is not so entrenched in our culture as a means of protection, but more of "another tool" in the ol' toolkit.

To get a firearms license in Canada, you need to take a course and then pass a test.  The course is about a week and covers everything from maintenance to gun safety to the laws and responsibilities you have owning a gun. You also need a criminal background check.  And voila.  The laws of the land could be improved...but they cover gun safety, how to store your gun and ammunition, transporting firearms, etc.  There are severe punishments for anyone who misuses there firearms.  Every 5 years you need to renew your license.  Part of the renewal is more checks, the local firearms officer will check with your spouse and make sure everything is copacetic, etc.   And voila..your renewed again.  Gun violence by legal owners is fairly rare in Canada.  Most of the gun crimes happen with illegally obtained guns on the black market. The number jumps from year to year but I've seen it as low as 77% and as high as 89% of gun deaths by legal owners is from suicide. 

I guess what I'm getting at is.  Ownership with responsibility.  The laws should be there to protect everyone, but not infringe on the right of responsible adults to make the choice whether to own one or not. 

what concerns most firearm owners is the anti gun lobbyists.  They come across like any other lobby group.  They start off with "oh no..we don't want to take away your firearms, we just want to change this law a little bit, and restrict this type of gun from certain people..." and then when they have a foothold...slowly and over time guns become totally illegal and forbidden. we are left with nothing. Everyone is for gun safety.  anti gun crazies insist on enforcing there will on the rest of us.  Thats what bothers a lot of us gun owners. 

Gun laws are federal jurisdiction in Canada.  I understand its a state by state thing in the US? 

And who do we have to blame for that?  The entertainment industry carries a BIG share of the blame in my opinion.

You see these "runs on gun" every time the potential for gun control comes up.

Why?

Probably because the 60 round magazines are really expensive!

I just assumed he was serious, but now that you mention it, maybe he wasn't. If he was joking, I'm still certain there are people out there who think exactly like this.

The spring strength for such a magazine would have to be ridiculous.

Why not. I do a lot of shooting, both hunting and target and I used to do serious IPSC competition as well as 3 gun matches. The magazines wear out, break, get dropped and stepped on, etc. They are $14.95 right now or at least they were Saturday. I imagine if you look online you won't be able to find Magpul 30 round magazines in stock pretty much anywhere, and probably not for that price. I didn't need them but can't hurt to have some spares. After the 2008 election when everyone feared the new president would push for gun control legislation, the magazines were at least twice the price, if you could get them. Just basic economics.

I'm sure there were lots of other people doing the same thing. The people I saw did not appear to be anyone other than shooters/sportsmen and women who like to shoot.

That's why they have a lever to assist compressing the springs. Trying to load the 89th round is tough on the fingers.

As a gun owner, and an owner of two AR15 type weapons, I'd be down with this scenario.