Quote:
|
Originally posted by Darkblack I disagree. I find it funny that people such as yourself will complain about civil liberties yet elect people that are trying to take them away. It is not a 2 way street.
|
Sorry chief, but I'm not republican. Had I not turned 18 four days after the election, I would've abstained.
Quote:
I am not trying to restrict your civil liberties. I don't care if you have a gun. I care about what type, how easy it is for any Joe blow to get one, and how you store said guns.
Mental stability, education level, gun safety knowledge, and basic laws and regulations should all be tested.
|
That's unacceptable, particularly since all of those are entirely subjective and therefore extremely hard to judge. Individuals who have proven to be a danger to society are already prevented from obtaining a firearm; how are you going to accurately predict those who might be? The answer is you won't.
Quote:
Main Entry: trag·e·dy
Pronunciation: 'tra-j&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
1 a : a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall of a great man b : a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that excites pity or terror c : the literary genre of tragic dramas
2 a : a disastrous event : CALAMITY b : MISFORTUNE
3 : tragic quality or element
I do not consider murder a tragedy. It might fall under number 2 but still think it is far worse than that. I am sure the friends and family are NOT using the word tragedy when speaking of this. That is a word used to make it not so bad. I think they would use the word Horrific.
|
I think it's pretty disastrous, but this is irrelevant.
Quote:
Nothing has changed. I still see you not showing any remorse for the child. I didn't jump down your throat because I thought you were a gun toting anything. I jumped down your throat because you said, "It's obvious he didn't intend to kill anyone, or at least that's the impression I got based on the limited information provided. It seems to me like he just shot into a cornfield, figuring he could scare them away." basically trying to make it so that they guy with the gun wasn't really in the wrong it was those damn kids with their tomatoes.
Yeah nothing wrong with shooting kids in a cornfield.
|
Please; I wasn't justifying his actions and you know it. There is no doubt that he was in the wrong, but I sincerely doubt he did this out of some malevolent desire to kill. But as I already said, the information is limited.
You jumped down my throat for saying it was an accident, as well as for saying I didn't feel it showed a need for gun control. You immediately assumed I owned guns, and immediately assumed I was trying to justify keeping me guns. You assumed wrong; I simply commented that the situation seemed to me like more than an accident than a deliberate murder, and that as a result the issue of gun control didn't seem that relevant.
Quote:
Yes, but like I said with a ribbon it is a lot easier to get away now isn't it? I do not find this irrelevant.
Ideal level of gun control would be no handguns for the public (never happen). No automatic weapons in the hands of the public. Semi-automatic weapons should be regulated with strict testing on gun education, mental stability, and you should need personal references before purchase. All guns should be listed in a public database for tracking and public safety. All guns should be stored in a locked cabinet unloaded. People who own guns and have children should be required to put the children through gun safety and education classes.
|
You already pretty much have this. Concealed handguns require permits, automatic weapons are banned, and it's illegal to modify a semi-automatic in such a way as to make it fully automatic.
As for the mental testing and personal references, I think that's way out of line. As I already said, if they're considered a danger to society then they aren't allowed to purchase a firearm. If they can drive a car (an act which poses far more risk to more people than owning a shotgun) and do not possess a criminal record, then they should be allowed to purchase a firearm.
You can't tell people what to do in their own homes. A law on locked gun cabinets is like a law on sodomy; it's unenforcable and a waste of time. As for education, it is the responsibility of the individual to learn gun safety and ensure their kids know it as well. Everyone knows a loaded gun is dangerous, and that you shouldn't play with it. But it still happens.
As for gun registration, do you have any idea how easy it is to modify a weapon such that it doesn't leave a trail? Running a file down the barrel modifies the bullet markings, and similar procedures can be performed on the brass.
Quote:
I am not saying that stricter laws will prevent all murder and all gun violence. I think it will help our current situation though. Yes it may inconvenience some people because to by their gun it may take a few extra days but if you want to be a hunter it isn't that much of an inconvenience.
This here is an extreme stance. I know that. I also know it will never happen but you asked what level of gun control I was after. This is it. [/B]
|
Psychological exams, educational tests, and examination of personal references would take far more than a few days. You would have to create a mammoth organization just to handle the paperwork of that many records, not to mention people to conduct the testing. And for what? It's not going to catch more people or save any lives; just waste more money.
And frankly I've had enough of that.