Just a little venting...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So you are just against it? Even given an opportunity to discuss what would be acceptable to you and all you get is NRA this and PRO GUN that.? Really Steve?

[ants]

Ok ..... Can you supply a list of new laws that you believe would have prevented any of the tragedies that you mentioned. I'm willing to listen, but I want to hear detailed specifics, not just that we need to tighten up gun controls. If you are serious about needing new laws, you must have some kind of list in mind. I never get a chance to hear the full extent of what gun control advocates really want as an all inclusive list along with the reasons why they believe they would put a dent in the mindless mass killings that we seem to be plagued with. I'm serious. Here is a chance to lay out your vision of the perfect gun control plan along with explanations of why they would each work.

Keep in mind that gun owners are a multi-faceted group that have different needs and interests when it comes to firearms ownership. 1 Some are hunters, but we may even be in the minority among gun owners. 2 Some want sufficient home and personal protection. 3 Some are into target shooting (all kinds). 4 Some are into collecting. 5 And some are into criminal use. Let's see if your list can eliminate the last group while protecting the rights of the previous groups. Try to list new laws that really have substance and are not designed to simply make everybody feel good or have emotional appeal with no real and measureable effect.

Bueller??.....Bueller???

[ants]

I simply don't think owning a pistol should automatically give one the right to carry it at all times. Sorry. Two different issues in my view. It's not the law currently in most places, so I don't think a CC should be made any easier. I personally think it's too easy in many places already.

I don't think that criminals, who possess illegal, untraceable pistols should automatically have the right to carry them at all times. Thats B.S.!!!! Good thing there's only like 3 of them out there.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Ants. I don't understand the last sentence?

[ants]

Latest FBI report shows that there are only 3 Illegally possessed guns/pistols in the U.S. owned by criminals, who may use them against a law abiding citizen.

[Nomad]

I simply don't think owning a pistol should automatically give one the right to carry it at all times. Sorry. Two different issues in my view. It's not the law currently in most places, so I don't think a CC should be made any easier. I personally think it's too easy in many places already.

Last I knew it was the law in over 38 states and the free part of NY.

Here ya go I see A LOT of blue.....looks like way more then 38 , thats what honor my Fla. and Utah last i checked.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Edited December 18, 2012 by Larry302

[Early]

FBI reports will be managed to support the administration's position on gun control. Do NOT accept FBI reports as factual.

[ants]

Latest FBI report shows that there are only 3 Illegally possessed guns/pistols in the U.S. owned by criminals, who may use them against a law abiding citizen.

You guys know that was sarcasim, right?? Just goofing

Edited December 18, 2012 by ants

[irish_redneck]

Easy. A federal gun card for everyone. NO one be it in a private transaction, or thru a dealer can purchase a gun without one. To get this gun card, one must go thru a background check and take a gun safety course, with some actual training on a range. I have said it before. The gun manufacturers don't sell their guns directly to criminals. Criminals obviously get them in one way or another from original LEGAL purchasers. Yeah, some are gotten thru stealing, but that is not always the case. Without some sort of regulations on private sales, the sky is the limit to what criminals can buy without any questions asked. NO, this will not stop all crime, and no one here ever said it would, but I'll be damned if it wouldn't be a better system than we currently have. We have hundreds and thousands of gun laws in this country, most of them are worth $#!+, when what's illegal in one state is perfectly legal in another. Without some uniformity we can't get anywhere.

So here you go Doc and everyone. Now lets hear how you don't think this would help?

Does nothing to stop gun crime, just gives the powers that be a nice list of all the LEGAL guns, so they can round them all up when they feel like controlling us.

[nyantler]

Ok ..... Can you supply a list of new laws that you believe would have prevented any of the tragedies that you mentioned. I'm willing to listen, but I want to hear detailed specifics, not just that we need to tighten up gun controls. If you are serious about needing new laws, you must have some kind of list in mind. I never get a chance to hear the full extent of what gun control advocates really want as an all inclusive list along with the reasons why they believe they would put a dent in the mindless mass killings that we seem to be plagued with. I'm serious. Here is a chance to lay out your vision of the perfect gun control plan along with explanations of why they would each work.

Keep in mind that gun owners are a multi-faceted group that have different needs and interests when it comes to firearms ownership. 1 Some are hunters, but we may even be in the minority among gun owners. 2 Some want sufficient home and personal protection. 3 Some are into target shooting (all kinds). 4 Some are into collecting. 5 And some are into criminal use. Let's see if your list can eliminate the last group while protecting the rights of the previous groups. Try to list new laws that really have substance and are not designed to simply make everybody feel good or have emotional appeal with no real and measureable effect.

Been trying to stop criminal activity since the beginning of time... it just isn't going to happen. As far as illegal gun use that will always be here as well, that is, unless we can get every country in the world to melt down every gun in the world. Now we all know that won't happen either because logistically it would be impossible seeing how criminals would hide guns from being melted.. in fact, I don't think that anyone alive really knows how many guns truly exist in the world. Its an utter impossibility to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It would be far easier to eliminate the criminals over time than the weapons.

The truth is that it would be much easier to eliminate the first 4 groups without affecting the last group. Sad, but that's the reality. Why the "smart" people that have all the answers haven't figured this out is beyond me.

[ants]

Pretty sure that the assault weapons ban was in effect when the Columbine shootings happened. Evil will always do evil

[irish_redneck]

I came here from Ireland, having lived in Ireland, The UK , and Spain. So I have first hand experience living in nations that don't allow public gun ownership. I can say that the criminals still have guns, there are still shootings, there have still been cases of mass murder (even in elementary schools) , there are also lots of bombings which kill MANY innocent civilians. So where did the gun bans get the people other than under the thumb of the criminals and the government.

[agross]

The problem that you always face when "giving" a little of your gun rights up is that it turns into a slippery slope that eventually leads to further bans...This maniac in Conn used an AR and now that is the flavor of the week so to speak to ban because it is hard to stick up for your gun rights when faced with 20 little kids deaths.

BUT remember the Virgina Tech shooting involved 1 guy and two handguns. Ban AR can turn into ban anything with that carries over 5 shots or is semi automatic. Its like banning or making alcohol illegal because of the amount of dwi's deaths and arrests yearly.

Also the examples of inner city shootings or crime shootings wont be affect because those guys dont care about the law to begin with.

Its an ugly fact of life that things happen. He was a nut who had access to a gun. Its like when everyone starts talking of keeping old people from driving when a story pops up on the news that they ran over a crowd of people because they forget to put their car in drive instead of reverse.

I heard today(i know it was just news channels stretching the issue for ratings) on a news talk show that people should "look into violent video games" and "look into the violence of movies" and they started to b*#ch about Quentin Taratino and his new movie Django thats coming out.

Just saying these once upon a time whackos that make a big splash in the news shouldnt mean that everyone else's life should change. Look at the statistics on the number of AR rifles sold in this Country in the last 10 years and compare to the number of shootings that occurred.

Edited December 18, 2012 by agross

[nybuckboy]

As many of you know, I am one of the more liberal members of this site. I think our country needs stricter gun laws. That is not to say I want law abiding citizens to lose the right to bear arms. I'm an avid hunter. My sons just turned 12 and I can not wait to be able to take them out this spring for their first turkeys. I live in NYC, where gun registration and 5 round max magazines are already the norm, and I'm OK with that. I think private sales at gun shows with no background checks are ridiculous. I believe fully automatic weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens. I don't think a fifty round drum is a necessity to have fun at the gun range. I could list more examples, but I think that is enough to give you an idea of where I stand.

That being said, I also hate people who turn a national tragedy into disaster-porn, and use it to push an agenda. I despise articles that blindly condemn firearms, written by people who have absolutely no idea about how a gun works. Every time I see current buzz words like, "military-style", "high-capacity" or the ever popular "assault weapon" without any quantifying guidelines about the definition of such words, I cringe. Seriously, how is one supposed to interpret what a "military-style" weapon is? Last time I checked the M24 was still used by the Army. Does that make my Remington 700 "military-style"? Where is the line that separates "high-capacity" from a normal magazine? More than five? Ten? Twenty? I won't even comment on everything that gets called an "assault weapon" these days, it would take too long.

I believe, as a nation, our gun laws are too relaxed. I believe there are measures that can be put into place which would help prevent tragedies like the ones that happened in Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown. If you are of mind set that any restrictions are evil and against our rights as citizens, you are a dinosaur and useless to this discussion. Equally useless is the other side of the spectrum. If you tell me "Weapon Free Zones" are the answer, I have two words for you, "Soft Targets". Banning responsible, law abiding citizens access to firearms should never, and will never, happen.

Both sides need to come together and work towards making our country safer. I hope that our elected officials can focus more on common sense, and less on political posturing. No law can be passed that will completely eliminate the possibility of another catastrophe like this from happening. However, I do feel that changes can be made to lessen the likelihood.

Our country is in mourning. Again. I wish that all of our representatives have the wisdom and the desire to help us heal.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

Couldn't have said it better. Someone offering a similar thought as my own post. Let's see if we can work together to come up with some solutions. Maybe some of us the are NRA members can actually send some of our suggestions to them.

[nybuckboy]

Easy. A federal gun card for everyone. NO one be it in a private transaction, or thru a dealer can purchase a gun without one. To get this gun card, one must go thru a background check and take a gun safety course, with some actual training on a range. I have said it before. The gun manufacturers don't sell their guns directly to criminals. Criminals obviously get them in one way or another from original LEGAL purchasers. Yeah, some are gotten thru stealing, but that is not always the case. Without some sort of regulations on private sales, the sky is the limit to what criminals can buy without any questions asked. NO, this will not stop all crime, and no one here ever said it would, but I'll be damned if it wouldn't be a better system than we currently have. We have hundreds and thousands of gun laws in this country, most of them are worth $#!+, when what's illegal in one state is perfectly legal in another. Without some uniformity we can't get anywhere.

So here you go Doc and everyone. Now lets hear how you don't think this would help?

Good suggestion Steve. Some will find this to troublesome though.

[nybuckboy]

Steve. If you throw in pistols on that card and that it also allows CC nationwide, I would buy that.

Culver... I think CC should be nationwide and anywhere except Fed Bldgs, churchs, etc. It is a federal background check so it should be nationally.

[nyantler]

I came here from Ireland, having lived in Ireland, The UK , and Spain. So I have first hand experience living in nations that don't allow public gun ownership. I can say that the criminals still have guns, there are still shootings, there have still been cases of mass murder (even in elementary schools) , there are also lots of bombings which kill MANY innocent civilians. So where did the gun bans get the people other than under the thumb of the criminals and the government.

Always good to hear the reality that people in this country sometimes refuse to believe... the problem can only be remedied by controling the people not the instrument.

[irish_redneck]

Culver... I think CC should be nationwide and anywhere except Fed Bldgs, churchs, etc. It is a federal background check so it should be nationally.

When you make gun free zones, you just made easy targets

[sits in trees]

^{What country planet are you living in on?}

well i guess its not the planet that you enjoy such a safe life on with no history of violence. I live on the planet earth, its the 3rd one out from the sun. ohh yea the one where we had the L.A. riots about 2 decades ago where hard working Americans where pulled out of their cars and businesses and beaten to death in the street for the color of their skin, ohhh and yes many were also gunned down in the street with black rifles that used high cap mags. the same ones i would like to keep if you want we can go back to the Watts riots of 65 or even back another minute in history in a period of time that we refer to as the civil war where one part of the country didnt like the other part and 600 thousand died many innocent unarmed women and children in southern towns and cities burned in thier homes for just being a southerner. you should come down for a visit...lol. Edited December 19, 2012 by sits in trees

[Doc]

I appreciate the list, although it seems that only one person here has given a whole lot of thought as to what new laws would "do the trick". So I am guessing that the rest have simply signed onto the line that we just need more laws ..... any laws ..... and the heck with whether they even make any sense or have any effect. I'm surprised that the author of this thread did not have a laundry-list of new laws and reasons why they would work.

I don't have a lot of time to respond this morning. I can say that I have no problem with the national registry and laws regarding handguns. Although the disputes from one state to another may cause more crazy fighting between the states than anything the NRA could throw at it. I'm sure each state believes that they have it exactly right. My feeling is that states like NYS would abstain from any such plan because they surely would lose a lot of their precious gun laws during negotiations. So, there may be an element of practicality that has to be dealt with. See, there's two sides to that one.

And from my experience buying a rifle recently, it looks like background checks for all firearms (including long guns) is already in effect (at least for some stores). Whether that is a law or just their idea, I don't know. But I could live with that. I have no idea whether this would have a significant effect on anything.

I'm surprised that the famous ban of modern sporting rifles was not first on the list.

And then there was the question of why you think these new laws would be a solution. I don't recall reading a lot of that when I first scanned the response. I'll have to go back and look again later.

I would have to go back and look at the other suggestions you had, and I don't have time for that now. To me the list looks suspiciously small. But then that may be because there is only one person responding.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Let's not confuse the "concern" of those beating their chests for something to be done. They either have no true desire to pass any reform that would reduce these horrors (if that is even possible) or are too unimformed to understand statistics. They have an agenda and it is about control.

Let me start by saying this. Murder rates in the Nation have been declining since 2007. That includes the declining portion involving firearms during the same period.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is possible to decrease murder by implementing regulations. The assault rifle is NOT the place to start. I is a minimal contributer to the overall statistics. trying to stop murder by banning assault weapons is a kin to trying to reduce the nations dependency on foreign oil by mandating better effeciency in Coleman lanterns.

If a long gun should be banned it is the shotgun becasue the incident rate for it's use is higher than all rifles for every year since 2007 except one and that was only a difference of 1. Mind you that is all rifles. 22LR's, bolt actions, lever guns, single shots and those evil assault rifles. SO if we truely wnat to make an impact (they are telling us we can) We should be banning shotguns as the first long gun to go the way of the dinosaurs. Assault rifles are much smaller contributors that shotguns.

As would come as no surprise to anyone handguins are the primary tool for murders. Not even close. So again those should probably be the first firearms to be taken away to really see a big change.(Again, from what they tell us)

The media has the country fired up into a frenzy and the mass shooting do get the press becasue that is what sells. The ex wife that gets her head bashed in by a baseball bat or the boyfriend that is stabbed just isn't as glamorous. BUT. if we wanted to really effect the numbers on a whole and not focus on the hype, the use of blunt objects and cutting objects are two categories that each score a higher body bag count that rifles or shotguns. What agency will license those?

Maybe I am just being too simple minded. maybe it is the evil assault rifles that caused this latest tragedy.

Of was it the actual rounds fired? Is it Bushmaster's fault? (well they certainly will be getting sued in some fashoin) Or was it the ammo manufacturer? Well the rounds are not dangerous on their own. The bullet that made impact with the victims is nothing but a hunk of metal without the powder.....Must be the evil powder manufacturers fault. Well that doesn't work does it. The powder won't do anything unless the primer goes off. Must be the Primer makers fault. But that wouldn't explode unless something hit it. OK. we get back to the gun. Well do we? Would the firing pin have been able to start the whole process, ending up in a casuality if it weren't there? Maybe the car dealer shouldn't have sold the car to the mother and then there would not have been a way for him to get there? What if the car maker didn't make a vehicle where guns could so easily be concealed?

The Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters all drove cars. All 3 had trunks , from reports I have read. Should we mandate vans, pickups and SUV becasue they don't have a trunk?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Weapons.pdf. Edited December 19, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

Culver, you keep making the same point about shotguns. But, i don't recall shotguns being used in any of the recent mass shootings- I could be wrong about that. I just don't understand where you're going with this argument. Honestly, it sounds like another attempt to avoid a serious discussion.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Aside from the Hype of the specific mass shootings if we want to join hands and attack the weapon with this highest body count shouldn't we start there? We should feel lucky Lanza didn't bring the shotgun in that is reported to have been in his trunk.

I think the focus on assault rifles is an attempt to side step the real killers. The stats don't hold up that the effort should be there. It should be on pistols and shotguns.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Culver, you keep making the same point about shotguns. But, i don't recall shotguns being used in any of the recent mass shootings- I could be wrong about that. I just don't understand where you're going with this argument. Honestly, it sounds like another attempt to avoid a serious discussion.

Aurora it was used.