There are good ideas...

Posted by: steveg

There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 07:31 AM

and great ideas! cool
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 08:00 AM

Interesting idea.. truly.
But..really??


While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

Many fewer???


LOl.. what is our language coming to...?
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 08:18 AM

Well, it makes sense to me. I can tell you that I've even come across clients that demand that their ad agencies and marketing services providers carry Errors and Omissions insurance before they'll add them to the vendor list. In may case, it's a nonstarter because it's very expensive and disproportionate to the scope of work for which they contract with freelancers.

But the idea is sound when linked to legal gun registration at a reasonable cost.

Think about it... You legally buy and register a handgun. Your house or car gets broken into and the gun is stolen, and someone is shot with it. If the gun is traced back to you, you're exposed to a lawsuit that might claim that you didn't do due diligence in securing that weapon. If you have liability insurance, your financial ass is covered.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 10:40 AM

I can hear it now: Gun ownership--unlike car, boat, airplane, home ownership--is a right, not a privilege.
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 10:59 AM

A gawd-given right, mon. Git 'er straight, y'hear? smirk
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 11:54 AM

Let them buy guns , its their right.

Just tax the bullets to 10 bucks each - make (loading) the gun so freaking expensive.
Posted by: DLC

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 03:27 PM

I like it and think it's warranted to handle many irresponsible gun owners.
The more firepower & number of guns - the more liability insurance required. After all, if someone owns 10 guns, they have more liability than someone with 1 ! Can you buy a single car insurance if you own 5 cars? Might be 1 policy but the cost is much higher to cover all vehicles.

AND insurance doesn't STOP your right to bear arms - just places responsibility on YOUR actions.

Great idea. Also might prevent stockpiling !
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Let them buy guns , its their right.

Just tax the bullets to 10 bucks each - make (loading) the gun so freaking expensive.


The problem is that making it expensive to load a gun also means that it's expensive to practice with a firearm too. I think someone with a gun and no idea how to use it is far more dangerous than someone who has taken a safety class and practices regularly. Practice and recertification is a requirement for ALL pilots, maybe something that should be mandated for firearms owners (and car drivers!).
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/01/13 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
Originally Posted By: carp
Let them buy guns , its their right.

Just tax the bullets to 10 bucks each - make (loading) the gun so freaking expensive.


The problem is that making it expensive to load a gun also means that it's expensive to practice with a firearm too. I think someone with a gun and no idea how to use it is far more dangerous than someone who has taken a safety class and practices regularly. Practice and recertification is a requirement for ALL pilots, maybe something that should be mandated for firearms owners (and car drivers!).


Yeah.. we already debunked the "make bullets expensive" line of reasoning a couple of weeks ago.
That's not a viable answer.
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 03:41 AM

Quote:
Might be 1 policy but the cost is much higher to cover all vehicles.
Until insurers offer multi-shooter discounts. sick When I took my ex off my car insurance policy following the divorce, my premium went up $30/year because I lost the multi-driver discount. Go figure... confused
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 03:42 AM

Instead of making bullets more expensive, let's make 'em out of ice cream! grin
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 08:35 AM

I agree making bullets more expensive - is not the end all answer either. Maybe just tax the bullets used in machine guns ?

Plus not everyone has car insurance too. Just buy to purchase a gun then let the insurance lapse.
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 09:14 AM

In states where auto insurance is compulsory, failure to maintain coverage results in revocation of reg and sometimes even driver's license. No reason it can't be the same for firearms liability insurance.
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 11:51 AM

Certainly - in fact driving without insurance here could mean up to 1 year in jail as well. Still there are people who get insurance so they can get registration/safety check then just let it lapse until next year.

I think gun insurance is a good thing , more so insurance companies will place some restriction on getting insurance. I still think taxing certain bullets (machine gun) and paying higher insurance premiums for machine gun owners - they would at lease think twice before buying one = keep your 7 mag Glock its way cheaper sorta thingy.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 01:12 PM

Yeah, right! Then only those who could afford it would be able to own and fire a gun. Like I really want to limit gun ownership to the top 1%. They already have way too much control!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 01:36 PM

I sort of remember reading a mystery story once, where the murder was committed with a bullet made out of ice. Made for a very difficult CSI! smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 01:37 PM

What's with these machine gun owners you keep talking about. Machine guns are illegal. There are no machine gun owners — except for gang bangers and mercenaries — and they're not bothering with normal channels or registration.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 01:46 PM

Quote:
I sort of remember reading a mystery story once, where the murder was committed with a bullet made out of ice. Made for a very difficult CSI!

Heh -- I remember that as well. A great idea except it was debunked on a Mythbusters episode: a bullet made of ice would never leave the barrel intact ...
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/02/13 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
I agree making bullets more expensive - is not the end all answer either. Maybe just tax the bullets used in machine guns ?

Plus not everyone has car insurance too. Just buy to purchase a gun then let the insurance lapse.


But the only folks who can legally carry a machine gun are military and leo.
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 09:50 AM

Well the last 2 mass murders was with a machine gun - then theres that guy who carried one at a political protest because the court ruled they were legal.

If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:07 AM

Just a snowscreen of course in order to make gun ownership only for the rich. Stil using the concept that illegal guns will have insurance.

Not sure that violence is proportional to number of guns a person owns.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:13 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
Well the last 2 mass murders was with a machine gun - then theres that guy who carried one at a political protest because the court ruled they were legal.

If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.


Not at all carp. My brother had this as a lad. A Remington nylon 66. Held 15 rounds semi automatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Nylon_66

Couldn't be a machine gun. Didnt looky scary

Dave
Posted by: Jim_

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.
No a semi won't do this;

machinegun
noun
an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:24 AM

This is "junk" (junk is my word for not getting to the heart of the problem IMO)

We should make committing a crime immediately punishable. Any crime.

We don't need to make the punishment more severe, in most cases, just more certain and immediate. These are the attributes that deter crime. Just look at child rearing. Don't wait for "your daddy to get home". Do it now

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:40 AM

Quote:
If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.
Wrong. The rate of fire of a machine can be more than 10X that of a semi auto.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 10:56 AM

Given the idea of justice, which includes the opportunity for a vigorous defense, and restrictions on the authority of police powers so as to avoid the sort of tyranny that some 2nd Amendment advocates say is the key to gun ownership, and the right to pursue appeals on all sorts of grounds from evidentiary to constitutional: given all that, and more, how in the name of America can one have an immediate punishment for crime?
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 11:35 AM

A parking ticket is a/b as close as you're ever gonna come to immediate punishment. crazy
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 01:42 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Well the last 2 mass murders was with a machine gun - then theres that guy who carried one at a political protest because the court ruled they were legal.

If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.


The CO theater shooting involved a scary looking semi automatic carbine. The CT school shooting, according to the autopsy, involved multiple pistols - the scary looking semi automatic carbine was left outside in the car.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 02:37 PM

Quote:
The CT school shooting, according to the autopsy, involved multiple pistols

According to the ME the rifle was used as well, if not the primary weapon ...

Quote:
- the scary looking semi automatic carbine was left outside in the car.

Not according to the Connecticut State Police. Apparently, the weapon left in the trunk was a shotgun.
Posted by: DLC

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/03/13 08:08 PM

It would be so much easier if we followed the writers of the Constitution recommendation to allow ALL to bear arms !

IF anyone wants to walk around in T-shirts with a musket, it's FINE with me !! grin
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 02:33 AM

Where do you get your punch lines from Jack Carter?
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 02:57 AM

Thanks for those links. So it's not just Fox news makes up their facts then.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 03:23 AM

Seems the 2nd amendment in some ways mimics the UK laws that every able bodied man over the age of 7 and under the age of 60 be required to own a long bow and practice with it regularly (under the observance of the local clergy). Since at that time any able bodied man could be called up in defense of the realm.

Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today. The militia was an irregular force of civilians, who needed to supply their own weapons, but (being well regulated) those weapons needed to be of the same type as the regular state military, so that ammunition supplies could be drawn from a common supply. Hence everybody carried the cutting edge weapon of the day. Of course going by this theory one could charge that the 2nd amendment is a requirement for everyone to be able to stand in the defense of the state with their own rifle and maybe handgun, using the same caliber ammunition as the state reserve - since the state needs to be able to call up a militia for its defense.

Unlike the US, the British militia requirement for owning and practicing with a long bow (the cutting edge military weapon at the time the law was invested), was probably revoked in 1960 and definitely revoked in 1986. And of course much easier to revoke as it was a law and not an enshrined right.

In a similar way it could be argued that the 2nd amendment requiring men to own a firearm for the event of them being called up to defend the state is an anachronism, as warfare has progressed past a few rows of men standing at opposite ends of a field shooting in the general direction of "each other". We now have high tech aviation and artillery that requires a lot of specialized training and practice in addition to other hardware that to be honest makes a civilian militia more of a liability than a boon. But then it's more difficult to revoke a right than it is to revoke a law.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today.
The one part many people seem to exclude is the fact that it was referencing a "well-regulated militia " not every citizen. Most second amendment proponents leave out those crucial words, well regulated militia.
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 11:47 AM

Of course they leave that out of the equation. For these people, "Regulation" is a four letter word. smirk
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 12:42 PM

In those days the militia was a regular citizen. They were farmers and tradesmen in times of peace, but would be drafted during times of conflict, and would be expected to provide their own weapons.

Standing military was trained, and paid for their service, they would be provided weapons and uniforms, typically the cost of which would be deducted from their pay.

There is a subtle difference between regulated militia and regular military. Our modern reserves while part time are regular trained fighting men. A militia would be your friends and neighbors taking up arms to protect their homes - think the various nation resistance fighters during WWII. Though I do think that the difference between a militia and regular military is expanding as time goes by, and nations/states rightly rely less on the militia concept because of this.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
Seems the 2nd amendment in some ways mimics the UK laws that every able bodied man over the age of 7 and under the age of 60 be required to own a long bow and practice with it regularly (under the observance of the local clergy). Since at that time any able bodied man could be called up in defense of the realm.

Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today. The militia was an irregular force of civilians, who needed to supply their own weapons, but (being well regulated) those weapons needed to be of the same type as the regular state military, so that ammunition supplies could be drawn from a common supply. Hence everybody carried the cutting edge weapon of the day. Of course going by this theory one could charge that the 2nd amendment is a requirement for everyone to be able to stand in the defense of the state with their own rifle and maybe handgun, using the same caliber ammunition as the state reserve - since the state needs to be able to call up a militia for its defense.

Unlike the US, the British militia requirement for owning and practicing with a long bow (the cutting edge military weapon at the time the law was invested), was probably revoked in 1960 and definitely revoked in 1986. And of course much easier to revoke as it was a law and not an enshrined right.

In a similar way it could be argued that the 2nd amendment requiring men to own a firearm for the event of them being called up to defend the state is an anachronism, as warfare has progressed past a few rows of men standing at opposite ends of a field shooting in the general direction of "each other". We now have high tech aviation and artillery that requires a lot of specialized training and practice in addition to other hardware that to be honest makes a civilian militia more of a liability than a boon. But then it's more difficult to revoke a right than it is to revoke a law.


The medieval practices that you refer to are probably very apropos. If so, then the initial phrase concerning the "well regulated militia," is even more important, since those well-fletched yeomen of yore were all organized by and under the authority of their feudal lords, who in turn owed service to their feudal overlords from whom they held property in fief.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 05:22 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
The medieval practices that you refer to are probably very apropos. If so, then the initial phrase concerning the "well regulated militia," is even more important, since those well-fletched yeomen of yore were all organized by and under the authority of their feudal lords, who in turn owed service to their feudal overlords from whom they held property in fief.

Keep in mind that when the 2nd amendment was written and adopted, we had no standing army. It was essential to the new nation's defense to have an armed and trained citizenry. The tyrannical government phrase referred to external governments that would like to invade and conquer the new found US.
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim_
Originally Posted By: carp
If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.
No a semi won't do this;

machinegun
noun
an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.


My understanding from WiKI;

Auto fire - you press the trigger to fire and press again to stop.
semi auto - you press the trigger and you have to hold the trigger to continue to fire.

Simply - with full auto you fire and then your (hand) can be doing something else like re-loading and not be on the trigger like a semi.

Hence to me they are both machine guns - just trigger management is different.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: carp

My understanding from WiKI;

Auto fire - you press the trigger to fire and press again to stop.
No, you press the trigger to fire and when you release it stops firing. I don't know of any firearm that requires you to press the trigger again to stop firing. That would be insane, what if you dropped the weapon while it was firing? It would continue to fire.
Quote:
semi auto - you press the trigger and you have to hold the trigger to continue to fire.
That's not the way a semi works, from wiki;

A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon.


Unlike semi-automatic firearms, which require one trigger pull per round fired, a machine gun is designed to fire as long as the trigger is held down.
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 08:14 PM

Humm.

I may have gotten that revise , been awhile since the last debate we had a few years ago.

Anyway - I do question this ?

Unlike semi-automatic firearms, which require one trigger pull per round fired,

Really ? this is just like any other gun thats out there <- think about it.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Humm.
Unlike semi-automatic firearms, which require one trigger pull per round fired,

Really ? this is just like any other gun thats out there <- think about it.
I don't get your point. We were discussing your definition of a machine gun, not what is a semi-automatic. Fully automatics (machine guns) keep firing as long as you keep the trigger down, not like the one bullet one pull like semis and revolvers.
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/04/13 11:55 PM

One can not have exactly immediate punishment , of ourse, but it needs to be much quicker.

Over the last four years I've had the opportunity to be at court hearings at our local level. I've seen case after case deferred , continued or what ever, to put off the miscreant having to pay for his crime. With o much time between the crime and the punishment , the perp forgets what he did. Well, he doesn't forget but it's severity diminishes .

There was one case where a man was in court for a DUI. But before he could be adjudicated for the crime he had another DUI. Something wrong there.

Another one was for the guy who walked into my home and threatened me. When we went to court, he was out of town . He'd skipped. He had been in trouble in another town when he accosted my home.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 12:38 AM

Also this:

A handgun is designated single action or double action.

A single action handgun, like the early rifles and revolvers one has to manually cock the hammer before firing and after loading the round in the chamber or barrel. The trigger does nothing but release the hammer letting it strike the primer in the cartridge.

A double action handgun is one that the trigger pull first cocks the hammer then releases the hammer when the trigger has pulled back far enough . This extra action takes more strength as pulling the trigger has to pull against the spring of the hammer.

The early revolvers, like the Colt, Smith, Remmington and many others, were single action only. One had to pull back the hammer which rotated the cylinder and cocked the hammer. Thus the trigger pull could be very slight, sometimes called a hair trigger.

Later some revolvers were double action. The heavy trigger pull , rotated the cylinder, cocked the hammer against its spring, then released the hammer.

Modern semi automatic pistols can be single or doulble action. Or double action only. With The single/ double action modes , the first shot is double action. Since the next shot is loaded in the chamber by the recoil of the first and has the hammer cocked, it will be single action with just a slight trigger pull.

Some of the most modern pistols have no hammer at all but are fired by a striker which isa small pin hitting the primer. All shots are double action only, but the first round is cocked when the user pulls the slide back to chamber the first round. Up until he chambers that first round the gun is useless. The Glock as well as others are of this type. Some like this as every trigger pull has the same tension. Also, there is no external hammer to catch on clothing when concealed.

In early repeating rifles the user had to chamber the round then cock the hammer. I believe the Spencer was like this. The Henry and its successor, the Winchester , clambering the round also cocked the hammer.

As an aside, remember the TV show Rifleman where Chuck Conners would cock and fire his rifle blazingly fast? His rifle was equipped with a screw that intruded into the trigger guard to push the trigger back to fire automatically as he finished cocking. He did not have to pull the trigger. It was used in some scenes but not all as it would fire every time it was cocked.

Dave
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 02:20 AM

What is the difference what they are described as they all kill anyway.GUNS KILL PERIOD!
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 03:37 AM

The difference would be how many people you can potentially kill in a given length of time. Automatics run at 500+ rounds per minute, semi-autos closer to 100, and manual fire about 20-40. Then you have to consider magazine size, a well practiced person can change a magazine in a couple of seconds, where weapons without removable magazine can take 10 seconds (depending upon how many cartridges it holds) and single shot muzzle loaders 20-30 seconds.

Reducing the number of rounds a person can fire in a minute, while increasing the time it takes to reload reduces the effectiveness of a mass shooter (so in theory more people will survive) and give the chance for a hero to attack the shooter while he's having to reload. This of course assumes the shooter is not carrying multiple weapons, or has weapons that he's not legally allowed to own.
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 05:18 PM

I will tell you what they can do. Pass a law that a person can have as many guns as he wants. But it can only hold one bullet at a time. Further legislate that this one bullet must be stored separate from the gun in a locked box . This locked box must be kept in a separate room. The two rooms must be separated from each other by a locked door.

crazy

Dave
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
I will tell you what they can do. Pass a law that a person can have as many guns as he wants. But it can only hold one bullet at a time. Further legislate that this one bullet must be stored separate from the gun in a locked box . This locked box must be kept in a separate room. The two rooms must be separated from each other by a locked door.

crazy

Dave


Extremism at its best.
You're showing your true colors. I'm still waiting for some links to libtards/progressives/Democrats who are clamoring to have ALL guns banned and confiscated.
In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a site like that, Dems advocating extreme measures... yet I have no problem running across several GOP/redneck/pro-gun conspiracy wing nut sites every week.
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 05:34 PM

Yikes! I'm thinking separate rooms and locked doors, too. Rooms with rubber walls. Dave, are you really f'n serious? eek
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 05:51 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
I will tell you what they can do. Pass a law that a person can have as many guns as he wants. But it can only hold one bullet at a time. Further legislate that this one bullet must be stored separate from the gun in a locked box . This locked box must be kept in a separate room. The two rooms must be separated from each other by a locked door.

crazy

Dave


They were most of the way there in the UK back when you could own firearms. The gun had to be locked in a safe, unloaded. The bullets had to be locked in a separate safe, both safes had different keys. Result was you could not rely on a firearm for protection as it would take too long to retrieve it and the ammunition and get it loaded. And criminals kind of ignored these restrictions. All the regulations tend to do is to defang folks wanting firearms for protection, while the folks you want following the regulations ignore them like the do the existing regulations.
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 05:55 PM

Okay I got it,

Not sure where I get that definition (above) from - I could swear from Wiki a few years ago ?
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 06:15 PM

I heard someone say that if access to guns is meant to protect us, then we ought to be the safest country in the world. Alas, it ain't so.



Open in separate window to embigify.
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 10:03 PM

The anti gunners don't come out to say they want to take guns away , but they keep referring to other countries who they say have great gun laws. An these countries basically have done that.

Also I don't make personal posts here as It doesent serve a positive purpose , but do you think are my true colors that I've been showing. Just what do you think are my colors? I think I'm pretty open here.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 10:08 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Yikes! I'm thinking separate rooms and locked doors, too. Rooms with rubber walls. Dave, are you really f'n serious? eek


I think everyone understands sarcasm.

Dave
Posted by: drjohn

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/05/13 10:09 PM

Wonder why Mexico was excluded?
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/06/13 03:35 AM

Indeed. Well enough to recognize when it's dipped in cynicism.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/06/13 05:44 AM

[quote=MrB]The anti gunners don't come out to say they want to take guns away , but they keep referring to other countries who they say have great gun laws. An these countries basically have done that.

Also I don't make personal posts here as It doesent serve a positive purpose , but do you think are my true colors that I've been showing. Just what do you think are my colors? I think I'm pretty open here.

Dave


I didn't mean to suggest that you have been hiding anything... it was just an expression.
But your responses seem a bit on the extreme side.
I don't think you see anyone in here advocating for a complete gun ban... so why such a severe, and silly, reaction.

What other countries? Britain?
Australia.
I have been referencing Australia for a while. Australia didn't ban guns.. just certain ones and limited others. We don't have to do exactly what they did... but enacting stricter control on guns will be a positive measure for our society.

From Wiki:

Current Australian firearm laws

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

[edit]Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/06/13 05:46 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinio...p&_r=1&

John Howard/Former PM of Australia... and how he went about it.

Again... this is not a blueprint.
But it does show favorable reason.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/06/13 06:25 AM

The chart is for "developed" countries, and I think Mexico isn't on that list.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/08/13 03:13 PM

Will be passing this on. I am curious of the reactions of a few gun rights people when I send this link to them. None probably - it's only the weaker arguments they are willing to tackle.

Thought I just had. By many measurements gun control advocates could be called pro-life and gun rights advocates could be called pro-choice. Herm..
Posted by: carp

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/08/13 08:31 PM

Thought I just had. By many measurements gun control advocates could be called pro-life and gun rights advocates could be called pro-choice. Herm..

Very good
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 02:58 AM

Unfortunately we are not at all.Our country is leading I believe with killings so far compared to other ones.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 04:32 AM

/crickets.....
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 05:03 AM

Crickets don't kill people. Aussies do! grin

With an issue this sensitive and this polarizing, the tone of the message is as important as the content. "I went after guns..." is the worst possible headline the Times could have chosen. It's precisely the validation the Wayne LaPierres of the world need to turbocharge the paranoid POV of their constituents.

I agree with just about everything that Howard says. But the Times editorial staff threw what could have been three steps forward five steps backward.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 06:30 AM

The crickets was in reference to when someone makes a statement and I offer up an alternate viewpoint and then there is silence after that. ? Was it too sensible. No response?

Ah.. well.....
Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 06:36 AM

I get it. Really. Just tell yourself it's because your point is inarguable. Supreme. Without peer. And in it's radiance, the rest of us are just unworthy. laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 08:00 AM

I thought it was about cricket bats. Dangerous things!
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 08:46 AM

Hey!
It happens..


http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/cricket-bat-murderer-given-life-sentence-4837183

Posted by: steveg

Re: There are good ideas... - 02/09/13 09:29 AM

WTF language are they speaking? confused grin