Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure? - Page 5

Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

This is a discussion on Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people – a sharp decline from 1993 when the rate of firearms-related murders was ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80
Like Tree40Likes

Thread: Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

  1. #61
    Member Array Wheelspinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida, west of the Suwanee.
    Posts
    78
    The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people – a sharp decline from 1993 when the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people.
    The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.

    As I said...............leave it alone.


  2. #62
    JNC
    JNC is offline
    Member Array JNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    As a responsible gun owner, I would object wholeheartedly to anymore legislation, regulation, restrictions, laws, or any other term you choose to put forth. I'm thinking repeal some of these gun laws is the way to go here.

    Mental illness? That is not a slippery slope, that is a vertical cliff.

    Required storage? If it is not worded properly, I could install a bank vault, go on vacation, get robbed and the firearms were subsequently used in a crime, and then I get charged for failing to secure my firearms? The fact that they entered my house illegally should be enough. But noooooo. Some prosecuter looking for the DA slot will use that just so they can chock up another conviction to their record.

    Have friends with kids over - don't let them wander the house unattended. That's called parenting.

    There are already so may laws on the books that do nothing but add charges when someone intentionally goes forth to commit a crime. Words on paper to them, not some magical barrier that will stop them from crossing that line.

    I am beginning to feel like a broken record player...I've posted this so much in the last 4 days. Laws only affect the law abiding citizen, not the individual intent on committing a crime. Your typical law abiding citizen is responsible, and of sound mind. Nuff said.
    This is one of the best responses I have read to these questions.

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    My car is insured, and it's insured for the people who I lend my car to. If I make my car too easy to steal, or if I lend it to someone unqualified, I run the risk of my insurance not being on the hook for any damages.

    Something similar for gun is what I'd like to see. Want to own a gun? Have insurance for negligence. The insurance companies can run the risk assessments. If gun culture is really safe in your neck of the woods, then the premiums will be really low.
    Following that logic, you would be making owning a firearm for low income, honest hardworking families trying to get by in bad neighborhoods cost prohibitive.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,795

    Re: Would the gun community be opposed to such a measure?

    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    My car is insured, and it's insured for the people who I lend my car to. If I make my car too easy to steal, or if I lend it to someone unqualified, I run the risk of my insurance not being on the hook for any damages.

    Something similar for gun is what I'd like to see. Want to own a gun? Have insurance for negligence. The insurance companies can run the risk assessments. If gun culture is really safe in your neck of the woods, then the premiums will be really low.
    Driving a car is more dangerous than owning or carrying a gun.

    Driving is also a privilege granted by the state.

    Owning and carrying a gun is a human right and should not be subject to any infringements whatsoever.



    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,882
    Lima,

    I am not suggesting that people who have their guns stolen be held responsible for the actions of the BG. However in you scenario where he goes to his brothers home, does he have a key to that home, or has he broken in to get the gun. If the bad actor has been given a key, essentially being given access to the home, and then gets the gun because it is unsecure then I see some fault on the home owner.

    In my example of the drunk driver. Yes, if I give them the keys, I am responsible, and if I allow that person into my home and don't secure my keys, knowing they are they and can do damage by gaining access to my keys I also have fault. I would never leave guns unsecure while there were drunk folks, kids, or mentally ill people in my home. However, currently the law only makes it illegal for children to gain access to those weapons. In reality is there much difference in the reasoning for securing them from a child or a mentally ill person.

    The answer to stopping these mass shootings by mentally ill persons is not going to be easy. However, I think we can all agree that it isn't the gun's fault. That is where the argument will be in the upcoming months. If no other sensible solutions are presented, I fear the result will be a new ban, possibly more restrictive than the previous one based on what I am currently hearing.

    I put this out simply for discussion. I don't know what the answer is to stopping this type of violence, but it does appear to be a mental health issue so I think that is where things should start.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  6. #66
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Following that logic, you would be making owning a firearm for low income, honest hardworking families trying to get by in bad neighborhoods cost prohibitive.
    Yeah, I know. It's not a perfect world, but I recognise that my idea has some serious flaws.
    It offends me, though, that a person can get compensation if they're accidentally or negligently hit by a car but not if they're shot by a gun. Or, I guess you could sue, but the odds of getting blood out of the stone are low if the owners are poor.
    There WILL be patents with this (simple) discovery. That, and "type III levers". It's untapped wealth, waiting for you who Google. Or your kids. People expanding on the potential are welcome to elucidate; I didn't phrase it well

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,673
    The signs were there that something was wrong with this individual and no one took action.

    When you notice evil it is our job as good people to take action to stop it.

    Afraid She Was ‘Losing’ Him: Slain Mother of CT Shooter Reportedly Said Son Was ‘Getting Worse’ Last Week | TheBlaze.com

    Ex-Babysitter Says Conn. School Shooter’s Mother Cautioned: Don’t Turn Your Back on Him | TheBlaze.com
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,254
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I am not suggesting that people who have their guns stolen be held responsible for the actions of the BG.

    In my example of the drunk driver. Yes, if I give them the keys ...
    The actor is to blame for the actions, yes.

    But as you point out, contributing factors often abound ... from the unsecured weaponry to the free-flowing tap at the local bar, to the "buddy" who blindly/willingly hands over the keys. None of it helps, blameless though such folks might otherwise be.

    The "solution" to such things is going to necessarily entail improvements on all fronts: identification and mitigation of "problem," at-risk folks before they blow; parenting refocus; changes in schooling; changes in psychology and our treatment of it as part of healthy living; revamp of some aspects of the statutes (ie, to accommodate smoother reporting of health/HIIPA stuff to appropriate channels); changes in hardening of facilities, procedures; changes in arming citizens, staff, and the whole "gun-free zone" debacle.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #69
    New Member Array Hondo70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The Black Hills of South Dakota
    Posts
    1

    Is there a precedent?

    Quote Originally Posted by SayVandelay View Post
    I dont know how serious you are, but forcing something on everyone is as bad as taking it the option away from them. It almost sounds like our new approach to health insurance
    Could the military draft of the past be an infringement of a citizens rights? I think that it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, at least as far as militia is concerned. I believe there are freedoms and obligations within the US Constitution, both are necessary to keep the Republic and preserve our God given rights.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    Define mental illness.
    Why, certainly. One of the telltale signs is frequenting gun rights and civil liberties internet lists under a pseudonym to remain anonymous...or at least, that's what the government psychologists would say for the guidelines.

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,254
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWorkman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    Define mental illness.
    Why, certainly. One of the telltale signs is frequenting gun rights and civil liberties internet lists under a pseudonym to remain anonymous...or at least, that's what the government psychologists would say for the guidelines.
    You're a sick man, Dave.

    "Hello, congressman? I wanna report a 'telltale' sign ..."
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #72
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    What if you did not know that they had been diagnosed? Or what diseases count? Too many questions. How about people just take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.
    Walk softly ...

  13. #73
    Member Array FTG-05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Lincoln County, TN
    Posts
    166
    All this:

    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    D & D Concealed Handgun Home Page
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

    And you still don't understand the words "Shall Not Be Infringed"????

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,882
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG-05 View Post
    All this:

    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    D & D Concealed Handgun Home Page
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

    And you still don't understand the words "Shall Not Be Infringed"????
    I may or may not agree with you as to what "shall not be infringed" means, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand what it means. As has been pointed out in the various threads running currently and in the past, this has been debated since the bill of rights was enacted. The concensus certainly isn't that there should be no regulations whatsoever regarding the 2A. If you are in that camp, you are in the extreme minority.

    Legislatures, nor courts have held that belief. As has been stated in the most recent court rulings, "reasonable" restrictions may be placed for the safety of the community.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,524
    Court rulings made by Judges put in place, for life, and not by the choice of the people.

    Who decides what "reasonable" is?

    Shall not be infringed, period. So it was written, so should it be.
    zacii and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

mental illness firearms

,

what does that mean lawful defense of person or property

Click on a term to search for related topics.