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
-
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage locker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Great. Glad you don't live in my state! Keep your nonsensical laws away from me.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Care to point to an event where such a 'storage licker' law would have made a difference?
Perhaps we are just playing a game whereby we make up a situation and create a law to solve it.
Lets see if I can play:
All safes can be defeated. Most within minutes with the proper tools.
Perhaps each community should maintain a secure and staffed storage facility for all firearms. Access would be limited to only those who had firearms within the facility, and all firearms that are checked out need to be within reach of the owner at all times they are not locked within the facility. Failure to secure any and all firearms within the facility would result in the forfeiture of the privilege of ownership.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Good lawd. Id feel a lot safer if the author of such redirtydiculous nonsense got rid of his safe, and the guns he has in them.0 -
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.
And what would you do in the middle of the night when you realize that someone has broken into your home?0 -
There is already an excessive number of firearm laws in place. 0 -
I think that there are too many gun laws also. that being said if you think a locked container will not stop anyone you are giving way to much credit to burglers. I once lost a set of keys during a move and it is not easy to get in with good tools. Had to use my best set of drill bits to drill out the locks after waiting 2 weeks for new locks. Broke a few normal bits starting out and I have been a machinist most of my life, without much better than normal tools I would still be breaking bits in that lock. Took me 3 hours to drill out and replace the locks. No burglar would stick around that long, they are drug addicks and drunks. Safe crackers don't waste their time doing homes and account for less than 1% of crooks. If you don't think so when is the last time you saw a story in the paper where a bank was robbed that way. The safe I am talking about cast $85 twenty years ago, those new big ones would never get opened by anyone except a lock smith. The most likely ones that you have to worry about are teens and it will work but I am not for a new law because I think in most states there is already a requirement to secure gun from children. The main reason I am for locked boxes are to stop accidents with children and it will work. If it will keep 99% out then why not? I lock mine up before I leave the house and unlock when I get home first thing, Giving me 100% access anytime and keeping out all children. If mre lanza had a locked safe sandy hook would not have happened period. As an added not I also kept a digital handgun safe for my family to get into if needed. If I can keep out 99% then I feel like I have made a reasonable effort to keep guns away from criminals. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Care to point to an event where such a 'storage licker' law would have made a difference?
Perhaps we are just playing a game whereby we make up a situation and create a law to solve it.
Lets see if I can play:
All safes can be defeated. Most within minutes with the proper tools.
Perhaps each community should maintain a secure and staffed storage facility for all firearms. Access would be limited to only those who had firearms within the facility, and all firearms that are checked out need to be within reach of the owner at all times they are not locked within the facility. Failure to secure any and all firearms within the facility would result in the forfeiture of the privilege of ownership.
Yes in the Lanza case. Don't you watch the news?0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Good lawd. Id feel a lot safer if the author of such redirtydiculous nonsense got rid of his safe, and the guns he has in them.
You guys just don't get it do you? We are all about to lose some or all gun rights because Miss Lanza did not secure her firearms. The longer we allow guns to be un secured the more shootings will happen that allow the left to take our guns.
They say you can't fix stupid.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
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.
And what would you do in the middle of the night when you realize that someone has broken into your home?
Did not say the law requires they ALL be LOCKED up at ALL times. Hide a hand gun like I do.I honestly don't need an AK-47 for defense against Criminal break ins. The Rounds would go through my place and into and out of several neighbor's dwellings too so any long guns are locked.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I think that there are too many gun laws also. that being said if you think a locked container will not stop anyone you are giving way to much credit to burglers. I once lost a set of keys during a move and it is not easy to get in with good tools. Had to use my best set of drill bits to drill out the locks after waiting 2 weeks for new locks. Broke a few normal bits starting out and I have been a machinist most of my life, without much better than normal tools I would still be breaking bits in that lock. Took me 3 hours to drill out and replace the locks. No burglar would stick around that long, they are drug addicks and drunks. Safe crackers don't waste their time doing homes and account for less than 1% of crooks. If you don't think so when is the last time you saw a story in the paper where a bank was robbed that way. The safe I am talking about cast $85 twenty years ago, those new big ones would never get opened by anyone except a lock smith. The most likely ones that you have to worry about are teens and it will work but I am not for a new law because I think in most states there is already a requirement to secure gun from children. The main reason I am for locked boxes are to stop accidents with children and it will work. If it will keep 99% out then why not? I lock mine up before I leave the house and unlock when I get home first thing, Giving me 100% access anytime and keeping out all children. If mre lanza had a locked safe sandy hook would not have happened period. As an added not I also kept a digital handgun safe for my family to get into if needed. If I can keep out 99% then I feel like I have made a reasonable effort to keep guns away from criminals.
Correct. And if we don't need a new law fine then let the industry self regulate. You buy a gun and the FFL checks to see that you have a gun locker. He does not get any guns from the distributor unless he does this. The distributor does not get them from the manufacturer unless this is done.
NO new laws? Great get it done from the inside. But it needs to be done before we lose it all.0 -
Yes that is correct, we as gun owners can act responsible and secure our weapons, those who are not securing their weapons will cause all of us problems. We can fix this if we all work to fix it together without interference from the liberals. Even a cheap safe is better than nothing. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Care to point to an event where such a 'storage licker' law would have made a difference?
Perhaps we are just playing a game whereby we make up a situation and create a law to solve it.
Lets see if I can play:
All safes can be defeated. Most within minutes with the proper tools.
Perhaps each community should maintain a secure and staffed storage facility for all firearms. Access would be limited to only those who had firearms within the facility, and all firearms that are checked out need to be within reach of the owner at all times they are not locked within the facility. Failure to secure any and all firearms within the facility would result in the forfeiture of the privilege of ownership.
Yes in the Lanza case. Don't you watch the news?
You cannot seriously believe that the firearms Lanza used were not his own.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You guys who are saying a gun storage law won't work are wrong. I did not buy a safe till abouts 2011 when I could afford one and when I felt the need to protect my investments.
At any point someone could have broken into my home and stole then and they could have been used in one of these school shootings.
Had a law been in effect rather then always putting the safe off to buy another gun I'd have bought a safe. And having it on hand it would have been used.
Will it stop every crime? NO but it would cut down on the opportunities for the guns to fall into the wrong hands. Everyone should have a secure storage licker for their guns and folks like me who put that off should be forced to do so by law.
I support a gun safe or locker in every home as law.
Care to point to an event where such a 'storage licker' law would have made a difference?
Perhaps we are just playing a game whereby we make up a situation and create a law to solve it.
Lets see if I can play:
All safes can be defeated. Most within minutes with the proper tools.
Perhaps each community should maintain a secure and staffed storage facility for all firearms. Access would be limited to only those who had firearms within the facility, and all firearms that are checked out need to be within reach of the owner at all times they are not locked within the facility. Failure to secure any and all firearms within the facility would result in the forfeiture of the privilege of ownership.
Yes in the Lanza case. Don't you watch the news?
You cannot seriously believe that the firearms Lanza used were not his own.
The kid used his mothers guns, reports say he tried to buy some himself but was denied.
Or are you alluding to conspiracy theories? Even if it was a total government set up guns need to be locked. Lets say some hired mercenaries forced the Lanza boy into the school after killing his mother, they did the deed and killed the Lanza boy. They still used her guns.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
The kid used his mothers guns, reports say he tried to buy some himself but was denied.
Or are you alluding to conspiracy theories? Even if it was a total government set up guns need to be locked. Lets say some hired mercenaries forced the Lanza boy into the school after killing his mother, they did the deed and killed the Lanza boy. They still used her guns.
Yes, the mother purchased the guns.
The boy was familiar with them, and had used them previously. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to deduce who the actual owner was. No conspiracy at all. It is pure speculation to suggest that locked or not, Lanza would not have had access to these weapons.
FWIS, he was not denied, rather he went to purchase and was informed of the Connecticut waiting period before he could take possession.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I have been trying to come up with a law that would have stopped these crimes.
For starters, rigorously enforce existing laws.
Second, realize that prisons are not for rapists, murderers, burglars, drug dealers, etc.
That is what the gallows is for.0 -
quote:Originally posted by crstrode
quote:Originally posted by kdixon
I have been trying to come up with a law that would have stopped these crimes.
For starters, rigorously enforce existing laws.
Second, realize that prisons are not for rapists, murderers, burglars, drug dealers, etc.
That is what the gallows is for.
Cut down on the multicultural chaos by closing the borders. According to our unemployment rates and crashing social services we are all full now. Then put armed guards in schools to protect the children. Piers Morgan is responsible for the dead children since he opposes the armed guards that could have prevented several school massacres.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
The kid used his mothers guns, reports say he tried to buy some himself but was denied.
Or are you alluding to conspiracy theories? Even if it was a total government set up guns need to be locked. Lets say some hired mercenaries forced the Lanza boy into the school after killing his mother, they did the deed and killed the Lanza boy. They still used her guns.
Yes, the mother purchased the guns.
The boy was familiar with them, and had used them previously. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to deduce who the actual owner was. No conspiracy at all. It is pure speculation to suggest that locked or not, Lanza would not have had access to these weapons.
FWIS, he was not denied, rather he went to purchase and was informed of the Connecticut waiting period before he could take possession.
Thanks for clearing that up. The Waiting period. I don't think my speculation is too far off considering I read reports that said Miss Lanza was aware that guns in her sons hands could be a problem and she told others in the home not to turn their backs on the kid around the guns. So it stands to reason if she could secure them while not in use she would have rather then worry as she obviously did.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Did not say the law requires they ALL be LOCKED up at ALL times. Hide a hand gun like I do.I honestly don't need an AK-47 for defense against Criminal break ins. The Rounds would go through my place and into and out of several neighbor's dwellings too so any long guns are locked.
"Why should a handgun be exempt from your locker law? Considering your arguments for a mandatory locker law, I do not understand why you think a handgun should be exempt. Does a burglar not bother stealing handguns-are they only looking for rifles of the "assault" type. How about psychopath children? Handguns are not an appropriate tool for them to express themselves via homicide?I WOULD think that in the hands of a psychopath child or any other deranged person, a handgun would do just fine.
Please explain why you do not think so?0 -
I have read most of the posts in this thread. I think the point is getting diluted. This in my opinion is what anti-gun enthusiasts want. The rhetoric about assault weapons...rifles...has nothing to do with the recent crimes. It has everything to do with being able to defend yourself against a tryanical government. That defense is the basis of the second ammendment. If we were really serious about stopping gun related crimes, task forces would target the criminals carrying guns, not law abiding citizens owning guns. Instead we are going to have this huge debate on gun control again, spend how many millions lining politicians pockets to defend our second ammendment right. By using this message board we are exercising our first ammendment right. Next that right will be under scrutiny. Watch the media and hollywood defend the first ammendment...$$$$ to the politicians.
Don't you think Quinton Tarantino's responses of late are indicative of a attack on the first ammendmnet. Let alone the hypocritical statements coming from celebrities who make their living depicting violence on screen.
In my opinion there are too many gun laws now. So many in fact no one person knows them all. So who can ligitimately tell us one more will change the outcome. Albert Einstein wrote...to continue to do the same thing twice and expect different results is the definition of insantity. Do you think we have reached that point? Do you think it is time to apply good old fashioned logic and actually prosecute criminals. If we actually spent all the money lining the politicians pockets to fight the crime logically, we would win.
Just my humble opinion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Did not say the law requires they ALL be LOCKED up at ALL times. Hide a hand gun like I do.I honestly don't need an AK-47 for defense against Criminal break ins. The Rounds would go through my place and into and out of several neighbor's dwellings too so any long guns are locked.
"Why should a handgun be exempt from your locker law? Considering your arguments for a mandatory locker law, I do not understand why you think a handgun should be exempt. Does a burglar not bother stealing handguns-are they only looking for rifles of the "assault" type. How about psychopath children? Handguns are not an appropriate tool for them to express themselves via homicide?I WOULD think that in the hands of a psychopath child or any other deranged person, a handgun would do just fine.
Please explain why you do not think so?
I am not concerning my position and the proposal with petty criminals and one off shootings I am only worried about mass shootings by people on psych meds.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I am not concerning my position and the proposal with petty criminals and one off shootings I am only worried about mass shootings by people on psych meds.
A lot more people are killed in "one off" shootings than are killed in mass shootings. Mass shootings are quite rare, but they get a lot more attention.
And I have not looked at the statistics, but Id bet the farm that more people have been murdered by pistols than the type of guns that YOU seek a law requiring mandatory lock up.
YOu are not concerned about mass shootings by Pistol weilding people on psych meds- just the ones who use an semi automatic long gun. Got it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I am not concerning my position and the proposal with petty criminals and one off shootings I am only worried about mass shootings by people on psych meds.
A lot more people are killed in "one off" shootings than are killed in mass shootings. Mass shootings are quite rare, but they get a lot more attention.
And I have not looked at the statistics, but Id bet the farm that more people have been murdered by pistols than the type of guns that YOU seek a law requiring mandatory lock up.
YOu are not concerned about mass shootings by Pistol weilding people on psych meds- just the ones who use an semi automatic long gun. Got it.
I don't think you have it no. Of course more people are murdered on one off shootings. But the media don't care about that they are focusing on the mass shootings. So that is all I care about. I don't care kids get killed in schools, I don't care about the one off shootings and people or criminals killed by guns, I DON'T even care if you told me I would get shot and killed in a one off shooting at some point in the future should gun control not be implemented. I don't care because all those things are going to happen sometime as a matter of what we call "That's Life".
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.0 -
quote:Originally posted by us55840
Your assumption is that IF she had kept them in a lock box, the nutty fruit cake kid would have not have access to the key or combination.
Locks have never stopped those intent on getting the goods. Locks only keep honest people honest.
[:0]
We are hearing many solutions to situations that may or may not exist. Some are couched in the simple and fanciful 'What If?' and some are couched in speculation of how and actual situation may have been created.
As noted previously, this is a solution to a problem that does not necessarily exist, just like universal background checks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I only care about the Second Amendment and closing the avenues of attack exploited by the media.
We clear now? Cause you don't seem to get it at all.
Oh I get it. YOu believe the way to close the attack on the second amendment is by attacking the second amendment.
I love you guys! We've been hearing a lot lately the "I believe in the second amendment, and dont want to take your guns", and then the next breath they say how they want to violate the second amendment, and take away guns.
THe second amendment is quite clear; read it. Read it ten times in a row, and then apply your little gun safe law to the amendment, and see if it holds up-it doesnt.
It is quite clear that the amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting gun laws. If you cant see that, you are hopeless. But lets assume you belive that "shall not be infringed", means "shall be infringed"; read the rest of the constitution in its entirety, and show me where you believe the federal government gets the authority to make a law mandating gun safes?
There is no such authority. Now if you would feel "safer" living with mandatory safe laws, there are several places right here in the United States where you can live in such safety. I know Massachusetees has mandatory storage laws, and I would imagine Illinois, New York, Marlyland, DC, Jersey, etc probably also have similar laws.If you prefer a society with such laws, you should move to such a place, where people share your sentiments.
Funny, my idea is not a gun control law it's a safe or gun cabinet law that does nothing to attack the second amendment. Nothing at all, not a single person who wants a gun would be barred from getting one under the current laws already on the books. And yet you insist I am attacking the Second Amendment with my position. I think you have me greatly confused with Diane Feinstein.
That's funny cause I was sure it was you advocating that a person not be allowed to buy a gun if they didn't have a registered safe. Can you show me the provision in Amendment 2 that requires that sort of restriction and regulation?0 -
Ok, back to the post topic. Two suggestions: First, require mental health professionals to report anyone with potentially violent problems to the ATF so they can be flagged and not be allowed to buy a gun. Also the mental health industry could adopt a new approach by talking to a troubled person's family about the risks of violence by that person. Second, give out a booklet with gun purchases that talks about the risks of having weapons in a home with mentally unstable people.
However, kdixon you must realize that gun control is also a political issue. If the liberals can impose new gun laws it's a victory over the conservatives and one more slice in the "death of a thousand cuts" inflicted on the constitution. That's why there's no talk about a balanced approach of real solutions to these mass shootings. They don't care about shooting victims; only about political advantage.0 -
If I'm a gun owner with those horrible anti-social tendencies all gun owners have and I failed to sire any offspring before causing my wife to leave me and mother died of a drug overdose and I now live alone with no friends as so many gun owners do, why should I have to have a locker or gunsafe if I keep my house locked? 0 -
because I can get into your house with a rock and take them, its another layer of security. If we as gun owners do not try harder to keep others from stealing our guns we will eventually lose the right to have them. Buy a safe, use it, and hide it if possible. By the way there is already laws on the books that require mental health professionals to report those that may do violence. those laws are not being inforced either. I don't want more laws I want gun owners to make it as hard as possible for anyone to steal one, no safe police no more laws, its up to us as responsible gun owners. I know also nothing is 100% , but that does not mean don't try. what Law do I want? I want no plea bargains for those that commit a crime with a gun, and I want much longer sentences for those convicted. I also think I should be able to carry anywhere I want as a law abiding citizen in any state and in any city because there are a lot of cites I would consider visiting but not without a gun, I watch the news. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
74 comments