Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Ghost]

I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with politics of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.

So where do YOU think the line gets drawn? 50 cals are out for home defense, sure...but what about legal recreational shooting off a gun range? What is a "normal" gun for defense?

I see both sides as well, and I see you just sitting on the fence.

[dribblepebble]

Pistols are enough for self-defense right?

I don't get it why people are pushing for rifle-class guns.

[Ghost]

Pistols are enough for self-defense right?

I don't get it why people are pushing for rifle-class guns.

Also known as "rifles."

Pistols are adequate for self defense, but I think I'd prefer a shotgun at home.

So you don't approve of sport shooting or hunting, then?

[Dan H]

Pistols are enough for self-defense right?

I don't get it why people are pushing for rifle-class guns.

Did you know most gun homicides use pistols? Why the desire to control rifles so thoroughly?

[Ghost]

A rifle is a terribly inefficient murder weapon in most situations, I agree. I love agreeing with Dan!

Seriously, that's ridiculous. Rifles? Just regular rifles? What is wrong with rifles?

By the way, you are currently arguing with people who are both pro and con gun control. So, that must feel weird, dripple.

[Dan H]

Get out of my head! AGH!

[Nodack]

I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with politics of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.

So where do YOU think the line gets drawn? 50 cals are out for home defense, sure...but what about legal recreational shooting off a gun range? What is a "normal" gun for defense?

I see both sides as well, and I see you just sitting on the fence.

Where do I think the line gets drawn? Thats a tough question. Like Dan will argue, you can kill people with lots of weapons like knifes, cars, planes and not just guns. You can't ban them all. Then again a man with a knife is only going to be able to do so much damage compared to a guy with an AK 47 and multiple magazines with banana clips.

Cops used to only carry side arms until one day the bank robbers put on body armor and had assault weapons and made a stand. The cops had to raid a gun store to get weapons that could compete. Now everybody has assault rifles including the cops.

In the days of our forefathers a man had a rifle that took about 30 seconds to a minute to load one round and then he had one shot before having to reload again. The lethality of the weapons has increased over time to where one man with an assault weapon can do the damage of about fifty men back in 1776. The Constitution was a great document, but none of those who wrote it had time machines and had no idea what life in the US would be 200+ years later. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our Constitution, but what types of arms are guaranteed?

While I think guns are fun to shoot and would love to spray a target with a 50. cal machine gun for fun, I know that I would never ever want that gun in the hands of ordinary people to own. Now Ghost is thinking that I am not giving any specifics about where I would draw the line. The line is hazy. Do we go after assault rifles only? A man with a pair of 9mm hand guns in a crowded theater can fire 30 rounds as fast as he can squeeze the trigger without reloading and can reload in a matter of a few seconds. A man with an AK47 can do the same, but with a little more lethal bullets and be more accurate at longer range.

It's complicated. The cat's already out of the bag. There are millions of guns out there. Ban assault rifles and try to round up millions of guns in the hands of people already? Deal with an NRA and base that apposes any type of restrictions what so ever? Ban certain length clips so people have to reload more often? Will it make a difference? I don't know.

What would I do if I could do whatever I wanted? Every gun would be registered to an owner who would be responsible for that weapon. No gun can be sold without a background check. Anybody with a history of mental problems shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Anybody caught with a weapon that isn't registered to them should be prosecuted and have that gun confiscated. Time has made gunsmore lethal, but has also introduced new tech that can help save lives. Guns that can only be fired by the owner are possible now. Maybe in the future all guns sold to the public would have that feature. Then nobody could take your gun and use it on other people.

[Dan H]

http://fox59.com/2015/04/10/woman-shoot ... d-robbery/

According to police, three men approached a woman in the complex’s parking lot. The woman told police they tried to rob her, but that’s where the men made a mistake. The woman took out her gun, and began shooting. She wounded one of her attackers and the other two ran.

http://www.newson6.com/story/28712218/9 ... a-burglars

She had just locked the back door and put a board up when she heard the thieves trying to break into her home.

That's when she went for her pistol.

"I got up close to the door and said, 'Come on in, boys! The police won't take you away, the morgue will. I'll take care of you,'” Smock told them.

[Nodack]

Sounds like they both defended themselves fine with just a hand gun.

[Ghost]

What would I do if I could do whatever I wanted? Every gun would be registered to an owner who would be responsible for that weapon. No gun can be sold without a background check. Anybody with a history of mental problems shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Anybody caught with a weapon that isn't registered to them should be prosecuted and have that gun confiscated. Time has made gunsmore lethal, but has also introduced new tech that can help save lives. Guns that can only be fired by the owner are possible now. Maybe in the future all guns sold to the public would have that feature. Then nobody could take your gun and use it on other people.

Thank you. I'll go on step further.

Everyone who owns a gun must be registered. Everyone who SHOOTS a gun must get training. I feel this falls very soundly under the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment.

In the event you sell or give away a gun, you must legally transfer that registration. This makes it a matter of public record where a gun used in a murder came from.

It is the obligation of the gun owner to control that gun. If you have kids, you lock it up and prevent them from getting access without your permission. At all times, in all cases.

In the event your gun is stolen, you must immediately notify the authorities that there is a rogue gun, and provide your information.

If your gun is used in a crime and you have not followed the steps above, you are guilty of a very serious felony. I have said in the past that you are "complicit in the crime," but that is not entirely fair. However, if you fail to "regulate" your personal armory, then you need to pay, and pay a lot.

I view this as "people control" more than gun control. I don't really have a problem with people owning the bigger guns as long as they are responsible about it. In our current system, I do think some classes of gun (and ammo) pose an excessively high risk, but that is more due to the lack of people control. I would rather people own whatever they want without restrictions on the firearms themselves, as long as they are held to some very high standards when it comes to ownership, possession, and usage.

As the NRA likes to tell us, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Nodack]

I could live with all of that.

[Mori Chu]

All of that would be an improvement.

[Indy]

I could live with all of that.

I like it too. The first part is very similar to how we control vehicles in this country.

[dribblepebble]

Pistols are enough for self-defense right?

I don't get it why people are pushing for rifle-class guns.

Also known as "rifles."

Pistols are adequate for self defense, but I think I'd prefer a shotgun at home.

So you don't approve of sport shooting or hunting, then?

strictly regulated sports hunting, I approve.

Other than that, no.

[Dan H]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Dan H]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s ... end_u.html

Within a matter of days, the same gun that Flint taxpayers bought to help protect and serve the public was used by a teen robber who accidentally shot himself in the leg with it.

Another Flint officer's gun ended up in the hands of Detroit police after it was used in a crime there, while a third Flint police gun was missing for nearly a decade before it was entered into a nationwide database that tracks stolen guns.

In all, 17 service pistols and shotguns belonging to Flint police are officially listed as stolen, while another 22 guns used by Flint police are listed as lost or missing -- including a sub-machine gun and a short-barreled shotgun.

Police department records obtained by The Flint Journal through the Freedom of Information Act detail how poor record keeping, break-ins and questionable gun storage practices allowed these firearms to go missing from Flint police inventory.

No background check required, apparently. Just steal it from the PD.

[Nodack]

Ouch. Yeah, people are supposed to have their stuff together, but appearently the cops don't.

A beef I have. Cops enforce driving laws, but never seem to obey them themselves. Ever see a cop use a turn signal?

As a musician it's always a good idea to stay away from politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/ ... index.html

Country star Tim McGraw takes flack from gun rights supporters over concert.
(CNN)Country music star Tim McGraw has found himself in the middle of the nation's ongoing debate over gun control after agreeing to perform at a benefit concert for the Sandy Hook Promise foundation.

[Indy]

Ouch. Yeah, people are supposed to have their stuff together, but appearently the cops don't.

A beef I have. Cops enforce driving laws, but never seem to obey them themselves. Ever see a cop use a turn signal?

As a musician it's always a good idea to stay away from politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/ ... index.html

Country star Tim McGraw takes flack from gun rights supporters over concert.
(CNN)Country music star Tim McGraw has found himself in the middle of the nation's ongoing debate over gun control after agreeing to perform at a benefit concert for the Sandy Hook Promise foundation.

From their website:

OUR MISSION
1) Protect children from gun violence so no other parent experiences the loss of their child by engaging and empowering parents and communities with targeted prevention programs in the areas of mental wellness early-identification & intervention, social & emotional development and firearm safety & security.

2) Help our community through this tragedy by providing resources and programs that foster connection, resiliency and overall wellness.

Yep, he should sure take plenty of heat for wanting to help anyone on either of those issues.

[Dan H]

There are suggestions out there that they're affiliated with Bloomberg, I'm trying to find some sourcing for it though.

Mom's Demand Action, for example, is headed by a long-time PR flack who's done all sorts of professional lobbying and funded by Mike Bloomberg.

[Dan H]

And this sort of government action is why so many are leery of further government gun control or ability to confiscate.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... t-n1985787

According to Grassley's office, the VA "reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits," keeping them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies. And that percentage remained virtually unchanged as of April 2013. Given the numbers, it is essential to ensure that the process by which the VA reports names to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for placement on the NICS list recognizes and protects the fundamental nature of veterans’ rights under the Second Amendment," Grassley wrote in the letter. "Specifically, once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun ban list, consequently denying his or her right to possess and own firearms.