Bang and Blame

Ok to Lily's post:

If you are against gun ownership how on earth in America could you ban guns? What could you do that could flush them out? What would you as President do to implement a ban on guns? I'm just curious how plausible this actually could be.

Also are you for against people having the right to hunt?

Re: Bang and Blame

Me:

I'm against guns in the idea of hoarding them in your home. I know people who lived in suburbia and had sawed off shotguns under their couches, fully loaded, because you never knew when the government was going to go to pot...

But hunting, I'm all for. I have family members who live in rural Arkansas where population is 1000, and hunting is a necessary source for food. They have very little income, the nearest Wal-mart is almost an hour away, and yes squirrel in the freezer is a norm. I'd sure hate to take this right, and need, away... My dad owns a black power gun, the kind used in the Civil War, and makes his own bullets. It's hardly an easy gun to load and shoot on a whim, and he has it locked up.

So that leaves me one side totally improper gun ownership, another who has proper and useful gun ownership.

What could we do? I say ban certain guns, why exactly does someone need arsenal only the military actually uses??? Then we do... I don't know... bi-yearly registration or household weapon checks (as self reported, so maybe that wouldn't work...) I really don't see anyway to sweep away guns... Anyone got constructive thoughts?

Re: Bang and Blame

I don't think guns should be banned. I have no problem with hunting or RESPONSIBLE gun ownership for home & family protection (although I don't buy into guns in the home making you safer in our personal choices). What I do have a problem with are Uzi's, sub-automatic and/or automatic, AK-47's -- that kind of stuff being available. You don't need an uzi to kill a deer. You don't need an uzi to protect your home.

Re: Bang and Blame

So ... how do you mandate responsible gun ownership?

[McPants]

Re: Bang and Blame

I believe all guns should be banned, with the exception of hunting rifles. These should be strictly regulated and you would need to pass a hunter's exam and have no prior violent felonies committed in order for you to qualify to own one. In other words, I fully support the way my native country, Sweden, handles gun regulations. I of course realize that this would never work in the U.S., given the strength of the gun lobby and the multitude of guns already present in the country. The right to bear arms is simply inherent in the American culture and it would take a lot to convince people to give up that right.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Bang and Blame

I believe all guns should be banned, with the exception of hunting rifles. These should be strictly regulated and you would need to pass a hunter's exam and have no prior violent felonies committed in order for you to qualify to own one. In other words, I fully support the way my native country, Sweden, handles gun regulations. I of course realize that this would never work in the U.S., given the strength of the gun lobby and the multitude of guns already present in the country. The right to bear arms is simply inherent in the American culture and it would take a lot to convince people to give up that right.

I agree.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Bang and Blame

Coming from a law enforcement and a hunting family I totally agree that there is NO reason for Uzi's and AK-47 type guns to be legal - anywhere with any type of training, etc.

Its to bad that will never happen in this country.

[ladymoreta]

Re: Bang and Blame

I do not believe guns should be banned in general. I am okay with the background checks and waiting period and stuff, but I'm not sure they do a whole lot to prevent crime. At least they don't prevent honest people from buying guns for legitimate reasons. If there were a lot of cases of 8 year olds killing themselves with uzis, it might justify a law change to maybe place an age limit on certain classes of guns, but I really don't think this is an ongoing problem.

I think that the accidental death ruling was appropriate. This was a terrible tragedy, but I don't think anyone was at fault. If I were the boy's parents, I wouldn't have let him use the gun, but I believe that should be the parents' decision. There are lots of activities kids do that could lead to injury or death, and I don't want the government regulating all of that. Kids die from guns, horseback riding, sports injuries, car accidents, etc.

I believe that if someone has not taken reasonable precautions to make their home a safe environment, they should be responsible. For example, if you have a dog that bites a visitor, you (or your insurance policy) must pay for any medical bills and often must euthanize the dog. If the dog has a history of violence, the owner may face criminal charges. In the same way, if someone is injured by a gun, but the owner had secured their guns in a locked gun case, they should be responsible for the medical/funeral bills. If the gun owner did not keep their guns in a secure container, they should face criminal charges.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Bang and Blame

I don't think guns should be banned. I have no problem with hunting or RESPONSIBLE gun ownership for home & family protection (although I don't buy into guns in the home making you safer in our personal choices). What I do have a problem with are Uzi's, sub-automatic and/or automatic, AK-47's -- that kind of stuff being available. You don't need an uzi to kill a deer. You don't need an uzi to protect your home.

Anyone who knows me here knows that I am quite politically conservative. However, I happen to agree with this point.

I have no problem with the government determining certain types of firearms (such as an Uzi) being considered contraband for common ownership. A person can buy and possess aspirin (a very effective pain reliever) without a prescription, but a person cannot buy morphine without the imposition of government regulation. Why? Because there is no ordinary, legitimate use for morphine other than under a doctor's care. Same with an Uzi. There is no ordinary, legitimate use for an Uzi (other than perhaps the sheer desire to target shoot with one--a use so marginal that I don't personally think it is worth protection when compared to the overwhelming illegitimate uses). And given the (1) number of illegimate/illegal uses for an Uzi combined with (2) the serious results of such use, this seems like an appropriate thing for the federal government to regulate under its Interstate Commerce powers. There seems to be a legitimate state interest in controlling the ownership of Uzis.

Re: Bang and Blame

I don't think guns should be banned. I have no problem with hunting or RESPONSIBLE gun ownership for home & family protection (although I don't buy into guns in the home making you safer in our personal choices). What I do have a problem with are Uzi's, sub-automatic and/or automatic, AK-47's -- that kind of stuff being available. You don't need an uzi to kill a deer. You don't need an uzi to protect your home.

Anyone who knows me here knows that I am quite politically conservative. However, I happen to agree with this point.

I have no problem with the government determining certain types of firearms (such as an Uzi) being considered contraband for common ownership. A person can buy and possess aspirin (a very effective pain reliever) without a prescription, but a person cannot buy morphine without the imposition of government regulation. Why? Because there is no ordinary, legitimate use for morphine other than under a doctor's care. Same with an Uzi. There is no ordinary, legitimate use for an Uzi (other than perhaps the sheer desire to target shoot with one--a use so marginal that I don't personally think it is worth protection when compared to the overwhelming illegitimate uses). And given the (1) number of illegimate/illegal uses for an Uzi combined with (2) the serious results of such use, this seems like an appropriate thing for the federal government to regulate under its Interstate Commerce powers. There seems to be a legitimate state interest in controlling the ownership of Uzis.

I agree.

[ladymoreta]

Re: Bang and Blame

Guns are just a cog in the wheel of problems in this country. There are reasons they are so prevalent in our culture, and those reasons as far as I am concerned include ignorance, poverty, illiteracy, lack of opportunity, lack of compassion, and lack of proper parenting, along with an ever-increasing berth between the haves and have-nots.

That really doesn't describe any of the gun owners I know. Maybe it just depends on the part of the country you were raised in, but most of the people I know who own a gun were either raised around them and taught almost obsessive respect for them, or they went to training on their own to learn to use it. Granted, some people who fit your description own guns, but to say that people own guns because they are like that is, to be honest, insulting.

I think that good parenting includes teaching your children about guns and gun safety, and that every parent should do so, regardless of whether they choose to own them themselves. You can never be 100% sure that friends or family do not own them, and a child can find one in the blink of an eye. Children should never be allowed to play with metal toy guns, and it should be emphasized that any "toy" gun could be real. A toy gun (unless bright colored plastic and filled with water) should never be allowed to be pointed at any person or pet. I know that, having grown up in a household with guns, I am much more careful and respectful of them than people I know who were not exposed to or taught the dangers of them.

I will (grudgingly) agree that there isn't a realistic need for the types of guns that have been mentioned here - semi-automatic, uzis... I wouldn't be opposed to banning future sales of those weapons to civilians. Maybe allowing gun ranges to have them would answer the legitimate reason of people just liking to shoot them.

[madeintaiwan]

Re: Bang and Blame

Guns are just a cog in the wheel of problems in this country. There are reasons they are so prevalent in our culture, and those reasons as far as I am concerned include ignorance, poverty, illiteracy, lack of opportunity, lack of compassion, and lack of proper parenting, along with an ever-increasing berth between the haves and have-nots.

That really doesn't describe any of the gun owners I know. Maybe it just depends on the part of the country you were raised in, but most of the people I know who own a gun were either raised around them and taught almost obsessive respect for them, or they went to training on their own to learn to use it. Granted, some people who fit your description own guns, but to say that people own guns because they are like that is, to be honest, insulting.

I think that good parenting includes teaching your children about guns and gun safety, and that every parent should do so, regardless of whether they choose to own them themselves. You can never be 100% sure that friends or family do not own them, and a child can find one in the blink of an eye. Children should never be allowed to play with metal toy guns, and it should be emphasized that any "toy" gun could be real. A toy gun (unless bright colored plastic and filled with water) should never be allowed to be pointed at any person or pet. I know that, having grown up in a household with guns, I am much more careful and respectful of them than people I know who were not exposed to or taught the dangers of them.

I will (grudgingly) agree that there isn't a realistic need for the types of guns that have been mentioned here - semi-automatic, uzis... I wouldn't be opposed to banning future sales of those weapons to civilians. Maybe allowing gun ranges to have them would answer the legitimate reason of people just liking to shoot them.

I think you completely missed the intended point of "Lily's" last statement.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Bang and Blame

Guns are just a cog in the wheel of problems in this country. There are reasons they are so prevalent in our culture, and those reasons as far as I am concerned include ignorance, poverty, illiteracy, lack of opportunity, lack of compassion, and lack of proper parenting, along with an ever-increasing berth between the haves and have-nots.

That really doesn't describe any of the gun owners I know. Maybe it just depends on the part of the country you were raised in, but most of the people I know who own a gun were either raised around them and taught almost obsessive respect for them, or they went to training on their own to learn to use it. Granted, some people who fit your description own guns, but to say that people own guns because they are like that is, to be honest, insulting.

I think that good parenting includes teaching your children about guns and gun safety, and that every parent should do so, regardless of whether they choose to own them themselves. You can never be 100% sure that friends or family do not own them, and a child can find one in the blink of an eye. Children should never be allowed to play with metal toy guns, and it should be emphasized that any "toy" gun could be real. A toy gun (unless bright colored plastic and filled with water) should never be allowed to be pointed at any person or pet. I know that, having grown up in a household with guns, I am much more careful and respectful of them than people I know who were not exposed to or taught the dangers of them.

I will (grudgingly) agree that there isn't a realistic need for the types of guns that have been mentioned here - semi-automatic, uzis... I wouldn't be opposed to banning future sales of those weapons to civilians. Maybe allowing gun ranges to have them would answer the legitimate reason of people just liking to shoot them.

I think you completely missed the intended point of "Lily's" last statement.

From your description I'm guessing the people you were raised around are the not the problem. Irresponsible gun ownership is 99% of the gun problem in this country. Its the people that were not raised in that environment or don't understand that type of ownership that are the problem IMO.

[ladymoreta]

Re: Bang and Blame

Ah, that's clearer. I do agree that a good education, safe activities, and better jobs would help prevent people from becoming criminals who use guns for criminal activity. I just don't know that the ones who are already criminals would be willing to turn in their guns for other compensation, unless they knew where to get more guns. I know it is idealistic, but I think that if we could figure out a way to address the root causes, the illegal drug/gun market would dry up on its own and legitimate gun owners would be able to keep their guns.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Bang and Blame

What do you mean by "assault" rifles exactly? That's not a term that is actually used with guns - it's a political invention. So, I'm curious: What does the 'assault' part of that mean to you?

Semi-automatic guns include almost every "normal" gun you might think of that isn't an old-fashioned revolver. All semi-automatic means is that you can pull the trigger of a weapon immediately after pulling it once. It's like the difference between a manual auto transmission and an automatic auto transmission.

Now, I will concur that fully-automatic guns do not have a place outside of the battlefield. Their purpose is solely to do as much damage to as many people as is possible. However, semi-automatics are not this type of weapon in the least.

I'm just wondering what people's ideas are on the terms they are throwing around.