gun control?
Like many of you since recent gun crimes I have been trying to come up with a law that would have stopped these crimes. Many of the facts however have not been reported. This is just an idea, the only law I could come up with that may have worked is a double locked box law. When you leave a gun it must be locked up. Since most of the recent crimes have used stolen guns lets make it harder for them to be stolen, lock guns in one container and ammo in another, everyone I know does this now because of theft and children. Of course in recent crimes owners have been killed also, with their own guns, what do you think? I am trying it figure a way to deny guns to kooks and not punish everyone.
0
-
Sorry, but personal responsibility is what is needed and you cannot legislate that.
Anything else - is infringement.
COB0 -
that has not worked, any ideas? There are some that will only act responsibly when there is a threat of consequences. There are going to be examples made we should all know that, and responsible owners should not be part of it. how do we reach careless owners so that we are not the target. 0 -
A good way to deny kooks guns is to kill everyone that does not own a gun, eliminates 90% of the kooks.
Unrealistic and immoral I know, but makes as much since as any gun control law.0 -
come on now, I feel better about the discussion starting here than in washington with people that do not own guns only hire them because not any of their ideas are an option for me. 0 -
Seriously Kdixon, you cannot legislate responsibility.
HOWEVER, there is something we could do. It would take a bit of time but it would "fix" the problem again.
1. We start by teaching kids in school that the ONLY way to get self esteem is by accomplishing something.
2. We start requiring those receiving governmental assistance (by check, house or program) to submit to drug tests and to find a job within 5 years which allows for retraining.
3. We start holding people RESPONSIBLE for their individual behaviors.
4. We make prisons a place you DO NOT want to go back to.
5. We stop prosecuting the law abiding citizen for protecting their own home, life or loved one.
6. We admit that some people just are NOT able to change and will always be a criminal - then deal with that issue.
7. We quit sending all of the billions of $$$ outside the U.S. and start using it here inside our own country to pay persons for labor in the retraining system called the Civilian Construction Corp where they learn something other than drug delivery or sideways gun drive-bys. (This also supports the limited time for welfare program.)
8. We quit trying to legislate behaviors and instead legislate the minimum of laws required to make our country run. This eliminates all of the Czars and bureaucrats in D.C.
Now these are just a start but if you consider these as doable, then we can give the the second half of the list I've created over the years.
COB0 -
I like the way you think, sounds like the way we did things 30 years ago. What ever happened to that way of doing things? I am trying to look for an angle that may not exist, something that is unique to gun ownership besides liberals trying to take them away and I think this is the place to look 0 -
quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
Seriously Kdixon, you cannot legislate responsibility.
HOWEVER, there is something we could do. It would take a bit of time but it would "fix" the problem again.
1. We start by teaching kids in school that the ONLY way to get self esteem is by accomplishing something.
2. We start requiring those receiving governmental assistance (by check, house or program) to submit to drug tests and to find a job within 5 years which allows for retraining.
3. We start holding people RESPONSIBLE for their individual behaviors.
4. We make prisons a place you DO NOT want to go back to.
5. We stop prosecuting the law abiding citizen for protecting their own home, life or loved one.
6. We admit that some people just are NOT able to change and will always be a criminal - then deal with that issue.
7. We quit sending all of the billions of $$$ outside the U.S. and start using it here inside our own country to pay persons for labor in the retraining system called the Civilian Construction Corp where they learn something other than drug delivery or sideways gun drive-bys. (This also supports the limited time for welfare program.)
8. We quit trying to legislate behaviors and instead legislate the minimum of laws required to make our country run. This eliminates all of the Czars and bureaucrats in D.C.
Now these are just a start but if you consider these as doable, then we can give the the second half of the list I've created over the years.
COB
Well said Cob. This would absoloutly be a good foundation to start with on what can be done to fix this problem.......
You said it yourself that most gun owners you know already lock up there guns and ammo, a sign for sure of responsible gun ownership.
The real problem is how do you stop the crazys.......and we all know that the elitists in Washington think restricting my rights some more is the answer.0 -
There is not a lock or safe that cannot be defeated by somone who is smart and determined. Guns are worth money. Any gun owner with a brain in his head secures his guns against theft. More laws will not stop a thief any more than they will stop a mass murder. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
There is not a lock or safe that cannot be defeated by somone who is smart and determined. Guns are worth money. Any gun owner with a brain in his head secures his guns against theft. More laws will not stop a thief any more than they will stop a mass murder.
[;)]0 -
Lock em up?
No thanks. I want them as acessible as possible.Dont want my daughter getting shot by some intrudor while trying to open a couple of lock boxes.
Loaded, very acessible, but well hidden- Only me, my wife, and my ten year old daughter knows where they are.0 -
I do not lock mine up at home when I am home, but they should be locked when not there. several guns that were used in recent crimes were stolen by perps than lacked the IQ of a professional criminal, locked box or very good hiding place could have stopped them 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I do not lock mine up at home when I am home, but they should be locked when not there. several guns that were used in recent crimes were stolen by perps than lacked the IQ of a professional criminal, locked box or very good hiding place could have stopped them
Lack of IQ does not mean lack of ability to open locked boxes or such.0 -
A law requiring all guns in a home with a mentally ill person be secured in a Safe or gun locker would have prevented it. That's assuming Miss Lanza just kept them on a gun rack.
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
Like many of you since recent gun crimes I have been trying to come up with a law that would have stopped these crimes. Many of the facts however have not been reported. This is just an idea, the only law I could come up with that may have worked is a double locked box law. When you leave a gun it must be locked up. Since most of the recent crimes have used stolen guns lets make it harder for them to be stolen, lock guns in one container and ammo in another, everyone I know does this now because of theft and children. Of course in recent crimes owners have been killed also, with their own guns, what do you think? I am trying it figure a way to deny guns to kooks and not punish everyone.0 -
Originally posted by Waco Waltz
A law requiring all guns in a home with a mentally ill person be secured in a Safe or gun locker would have prevented it. That's assuming Miss Lanza just kept them on a gun rack.
Of course. I mean we all know that everyone obeys the law.
....and when they do pass such a law, we can have government officials come into our homes to make sure the weapons are locked properly. And in case no one realizes this, a lot folks calling for gun control believe you are mentally ill if you want to own an "assault weapon"- Just wanting an assault weapon (and eventually any gun) shows that you are mentally unstable.0 -
There were laws in place that should have stopped all of the these crimes. Kinda self-evident.
Bottom line is that so long as tools that can kill are available, people will find a way to use them. As our society devolves into a more and more self-centered state, there will be those that leave normalcy and do that which is unthinkable to most.
If you want to stop all firearm murders, you will need to remove all firearms from society. Total recall, plain and simple. After a couple of generations, those that were held will work their way into the light, and in 100 years - no more firearm murders.
The other approach is to understand that the basic human right of protecting oneself and others from tyranny is so important that we have to accept the incredibly small number of these acts that we have seen.
Chicago had over 513 homicides in 2012, most by firearms. Most of these were one criminal shooting another, so no-one really cares all that much. The total number, however, is thrown in with the number of murders of the truly innocent, such as at Sandy Hook, tainting the discussion by inflating perception of the number of actually tragic deaths.
FWIW, it was against the law to shoot 6 year-olds in Connecticut in 2012. It remains against the law to this very day.0 -
LAWS DON'T STOP CRIME. If they did, we would be the most peaceful country on earth. 0 -
I am not looking for a lock box law because no one will be checking my home warrant or not. As far as sandy hook I think she did leave them out or he had access to the key, same thing. I am looking for a unique idea, even LEOs have accidents, one near me killed a 2 year old a few months ago. I guess it is times we live in that commonsense is uncommon and cannot be passed out. 0 -
Miss Lanza would have obeyed the law about a gun locker, we know this because she obeyed the gun laws that she was required to obey as it was.
quote:Originally posted by salzoOriginally posted by Waco Waltz
A law requiring all guns in a home with a mentally ill person be secured in a Safe or gun locker would have prevented it. That's assuming Miss Lanza just kept them on a gun rack.
Of course. I mean we all know that everyone obeys the law.
....and when they do pass such a law, we can have government officials come into our homes to make sure the weapons are locked properly. And in case no one realizes this, a lot folks calling for gun control believe you are mentally ill if you want to own an "assault weapon"- Just wanting an assault weapon (and eventually any gun) shows that you are mentally unstable.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I am not looking for a lock box law because no one will be checking my home warrant or not. As far as sandy hook I think she did leave them out or he had access to the key, same thing. I am looking for a unique idea, even LEOs have accidents, one near me killed a 2 year old a few months ago. I guess it is times we live in that commonsense is uncommon and cannot be passed out.
If you keep looking and keep digging eventually you will come to the conclusion the left has.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
...the only law I could come up with that may have worked is a double locked box law.
I am not looking for a lock box law because no one will be checking my home warrant or not.
WHAT? I think, instead, we should just make it illegal to kill someone illegally. You know, how we make it illegal to be an illegal alien who's broken the law.0 -
I will never come to the conclusion the left has . I think that for now the only solution I can support is police guards in schools. the reason is two articles I have read this week, one was top ten killers in the US, and one about who is being killed. In the first one guns were very low on the list and in the other one who was being shot was mostly felons. From this I get that criminals are mostly killing each other and the liberal press is winning by making people that don't understand gun or civil rights think that innocent people are being killed at a much higher rate than they are. On fox the other day a study was quoted that said there were over 5000 cases of law abiding citizens defending themselves with guns last year. One of the 5 said he did not believe it, because from his experience he has on idea how the rest of society lives. And just because he can't or won't see the truth it must be the guns. What they dont understand is that if they take all guns, knives will be much harder to control and they kill more than guns do even with guns out there now. and knives are no fun at the range, difficult to run down a deer with a knife and when you throw it you're unarmed. Im done with my rant have fun and protect the right with all your might. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I will never come to the conclusion the left has . I think that for now the only solution I can support is police guards in schools. the reason is two articles I have read this week, one was top ten killers in the US, and one about who is being killed. In the first one guns were very low on the list and in the other one who was being shot was mostly felons. From this I get that criminals are mostly killing each other and the liberal press is winning by making people that don't understand gun or civil rights think that innocent people are being killed at a much higher rate than they are. On fox the other day a study was quoted that said there were over 5000 cases of law abiding citizens defending themselves with guns last year. One of the 5 said he did not believe it, because from his experience he has on idea how the rest of society lives. And just because he can't or won't see the truth it must be the guns. What they dont understand is that if they take all guns, knives will be much harder to control and they kill more than guns do even with guns out there now. and knives are no fun at the range, difficult to run down a deer with a knife and when you throw it you're unarmed. Im done with my rant have fun and protect the right with all your might.
Will do, especially against those who are 'just trying to come up with laws that will stop these crimes'.
As noted in an earlier post: It was against the law to shoot 6 year-olds in Connecticut in 2012, and it remains against the law to this very day.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I will never come to the conclusion the left has . I think that for now the only solution I can support is police guards in schools. the reason is two articles I have read this week, one was top ten killers in the US, and one about who is being killed. In the first one guns were very low on the list and in the other one who was being shot was mostly felons. From this I get that criminals are mostly killing each other and the liberal press is winning by making people that don't understand gun or civil rights think that innocent people are being killed at a much higher rate than they are. On fox the other day a study was quoted that said there were over 5000 cases of law abiding citizens defending themselves with guns last year. One of the 5 said he did not believe it, because from his experience he has on idea how the rest of society lives. And just because he can't or won't see the truth it must be the guns. What they dont understand is that if they take all guns, knives will be much harder to control and they kill more than guns do even with guns out there now. and knives are no fun at the range, difficult to run down a deer with a knife and when you throw it you're unarmed. Im done with my rant have fun and protect the right with all your might.
Will do, especially against those who are 'just trying to come up with laws that will stop these crimes'.
As noted in an earlier post: It was against the law to shoot 6 year-olds in Connecticut in 2012, and it remains against the law to this very day.
IIRC the penalty was pretty high too.[:I]0 -
strangely enough the unique idea I was looking for was right under my nose, 2nd Amend. Just can't argue with it on soooo many levels. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
strangely enough the unique idea I was looking for was right under my nose, 2nd Amend. Just can't argue with it on soooo many levels.
Those old dead white guys (though not perfect) were pretty good at what they did.[:)]0 -
just reminds me of just how unique that group was, to trust ordinary people with such a right. that is why we must defend it, in all the world only here. sometimes it is expensive, but if you ever wonder about its value think about all the places that wish they had it 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
just reminds me of just how unique that group was, to trust ordinary people with such a right. that is why we must defend it, in all the world only here. sometimes it is expensive, but if you ever wonder about its value think about all the places that wish they had it
remember, they viewed themselves as ordinary people.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
just reminds me of just how unique that group was, to trust ordinary people with such a right. that is why we must defend it, in all the world only here. sometimes it is expensive, but if you ever wonder about its value think about all the places that wish they had it.
Not to pontificate, but one needs to understand the why and what while thinking about basic human rights.
Our founding fathers did not believe they were 'trusting ordinary people' with a right. The 2nd Amendment ensures that ordinary people (as in a majority of voters) are not empowered to deny a minority of what is a basic human right. More significantly it denies to government the power to infringe upon this right.
The basic human right in question is the ability for the individual to be able to ensure that he and his family will always live in a state of freedom. The recognition of the individual and of the actual existence of basic human rights that are superior to government, while not uniquely American ideas, are at the heart and soul of our Constitution and of our country.
We are charged as citizens to defend these freedoms for ourselves, but more importantly to ensure that they remain for those that come after us.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
just reminds me of just how unique that group was, to trust ordinary people with such a right. that is why we must defend it, in all the world only here. sometimes it is expensive, but if you ever wonder about its value think about all the places that wish they had it.
Not to pontificate, but one needs to understand the why and what while thinking about basic human rights.
Our founding fathers did not believe they were 'trusting ordinary people' with a right. The 2nd Amendment ensures that ordinary people (as in a majority of voters) are not empowered to deny a minority of what is a basic human right. More significantly it denies to government the power to infringe upon this right.
The basic human right in question is the ability for the individual to be able to ensure that he and his family will always live in a state of freedom. The recognition of the individual and of the actual existence of basic human rights that are superior to government, while not uniquely American ideas, are at the heart and soul of our Constitution and of our country.
We are charged as citizens to defend these freedoms for ourselves, but more importantly to ensure that they remain for those that come after us.
Spot on as usual Mr. McManus.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
just reminds me of just how unique that group was, to trust ordinary people with such a right. that is why we must defend it, in all the world only here. sometimes it is expensive, but if you ever wonder about its value think about all the places that wish they had it.
Not to pontificate, but one needs to understand the why and what while thinking about basic human rights.
Our founding fathers did not believe they were 'trusting ordinary people' with a right. The 2nd Amendment ensures that ordinary people (as in a majority of voters) are not empowered to deny a minority of what is a basic human right. More significantly it denies to government the power to infringe upon this right.
The basic human right in question is the ability for the individual to be able to ensure that he and his family will always live in a state of freedom. The recognition of the individual and of the actual existence of basic human rights that are superior to government, while not uniquely American ideas, are at the heart and soul of our Constitution and of our country.
We are charged as citizens to defend these freedoms for ourselves, but more importantly to ensure that they remain for those that come after us.
Don, I hope you don't mind but I stole your post and sent it to my Governor along with a few of my own words. It's hard to rewrite something that's very well written.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
74 comments