YAGT Common Sense Gun Laws

[Happy Jack 2,722]

Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

 

So what practical things other than bans, confiscations and registration might serve both sides equally.

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

The ages are just suggestions based on the FBI homicide by age data

 

[ianjoub 0]

None whatsoever. People die every day. The people who die from guns are a miniscule percentage. We, as a country, should require everyone over 18 to carry a gun everywhere they go. If they have some moral or religious objections to it, they can just not have any bullets.

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates and the precedent for doling out rights disturbs me. No.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates and the precedent for doling out rights disturbs me. No.

 

This wasn't supposed to be a dogmatic boilerplate talking point thread. But if that is the only level you are both capable of then leave the thread to those that have real contributions.

 

I'll assume you'll agree a five year old should not be able buy and carry a handgun to kindergarten. So restrictions on age are not the point of disagreement but the chosen ages might be

[Happy Jack 2,722]

None whatsoever. People die every day. The people who die from guns are a miniscule percentage. We, as a country, should require everyone over 18 to carry a gun everywhere they go. If they have some moral or religious objections to it, they can just not have any bullets..

 

I guess you don't see the ironic hypocrisy in your comments. I'm getting a strong closed mind and shallow thinker vibe from you

[Spatial Ed 162]

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Any questions?

[El Mariachi 38]

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Any questions?

 

 

So the bullet parts are ok then?.....

[ianjoub 0]

 

None whatsoever. People die every day. The people who die from guns are a miniscule percentage. We, as a country, should require everyone over 18 to carry a gun everywhere they go. If they have some moral or religious objections to it, they can just not have any bullets..

 

I guess you don't see the ironic hypocrisy in your comments. I'm getting a strong closed mind and shallow thinker vibe from you

 

Yes, I do. I just think that if there are any laws concerning firearms, this should be it.

[ianjoub 0]

 

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates and the precedent for doling out rights disturbs me. No.

 

This wasn't supposed to be a dogmatic boilerplate talking point thread. But if that is the only level you are both capable of then leave the thread to those that have real contributions.

 

I'll assume you'll agree a five year old should not be able buy and carry a handgun to kindergarten. So restrictions on age are not the point of disagreement but the chosen ages might be

 

A five year old is not part of the discussion. We have already defined what an adult, who is legally responsible for their actions, is.

[ianjoub 0]

P.S.

 

There is only one 'common sense gun law', it is:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Spatial Ed 162]

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Any questions?

 

 

So the bullet parts are ok then?.....

 

True. There is no constitutional right to ammo.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates and the precedent for doling out rights disturbs me. No.

 

This wasn't supposed to be a dogmatic boilerplate talking point thread. But if that is the only level you are both capable of then leave the thread to those that have real contributions.

 

I'll assume you'll agree a five year old should not be able buy and carry a handgun to kindergarten. So restrictions on age are not the point of disagreement but the chosen ages might be

 

A five year old is not part of the discussion. We have already defined what an adult, who is legally responsible for their actions, is.

 

 

oh really?

 

 

14 and under can only (unless you live in an agricultural state)

1. deliver newspapers to customers;
2. babysit on a casual basis;
3. work as an actor or performer in movies, TV, radio, or theater;
4. work as a homeworker gathering evergreens and making evergreen wreaths; and
5. work for a business owned entirely by your parents as long as it is not in mining, manufacturing, or any of the 17 hazardous occupations.

16 to drive

18, 17 or 18 Age of consent depending on state

18 to vote and die in the military

18 To get married ... Except Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21)

21 to drink

25 to be a congressman

35 to be president

 

You were saying?

[ianjoub 0]

 

 

 

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates and the precedent for doling out rights disturbs me. No.

 

This wasn't supposed to be a dogmatic boilerplate talking point thread. But if that is the only level you are both capable of then leave the thread to those that have real contributions.

 

I'll assume you'll agree a five year old should not be able buy and carry a handgun to kindergarten. So restrictions on age are not the point of disagreement but the chosen ages might be

 

A five year old is not part of the discussion. We have already defined what an adult, who is legally responsible for their actions, is.

 

 

oh really?

 

 

14 and under can only (unless you live in an agricultural state)

1. deliver newspapers to customers;
2. babysit on a casual basis;
3. work as an actor or performer in movies, TV, radio, or theater;
4. work as a homeworker gathering evergreens and making evergreen wreaths; and
5. work for a business owned entirely by your parents as long as it is not in mining, manufacturing, or any of the 17 hazardous occupations.

16 to drive

18, 17 or 18 Age of consent depending on state

18 to vote and die in the military

18 To get married ... Except Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21)

21 to drink

25 to be a congressman

35 to be president

 

You were saying?

 

Hey, I'm game. Pick a number 18 or under and set it as law.

[nannygovtsucks 18]

Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

 

So what practical things other than bans, confiscations and registration might serve both sides equally.

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

The ages are just suggestions based on the FBI homicide by age data

 

 

No way.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

 

 

 

Nice try, but there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Gun controllers could give two shits about "saving lives". Oh that may be their stated rationale, but controlling guns is primarily why they want to control guns. To them, guns are icky. To them guns are not needed.

 

If they were actually concerned about "saving lives" - they would be addressing the root cause of violence - like poverty, the drug trade, mental health, etc. But no..... they focus on an inanimate object. Guns are the raison d'être.

 

Case in point: Gun murders and murder in general have been steadily declining despite gun sales soaring. Along with that accidental shootings, mainly because of better education and awareness, have also been declining significantly. Yet the fervor for gun control only seems to increase among these folk.

 

No sorry, I ain't buying the notion that they want to "save lives". Its BS. they just don't like guns and think the rest of us shouldn't have them.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

 

 

 

Nice try, but there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Gun controllers could give two shits about "saving lives". Oh that may be their stated rationale, but controlling guns is primarily why they want to control guns. To them, guns are icky. To them guns are not needed.

 

If they were actually concerned about "saving lives" - they would be addressing the root cause of violence - like poverty, the drug trade, mental health, etc. But no..... they focus on an inanimate object. Guns are the raison d'être.

 

Case in point: Gun murders and murder in general have been steadily declining despite gun sales soaring. Along with that accidental shootings, mainly because of better education and awareness, have also been declining significantly. Yet the fervor for gun control only seems to increase among these folk.

 

No sorry, I ain't buying the notion that they want to "save lives". Its BS. they just don't like guns and think the rest of us shouldn't have them.

 

 

You want to play the same old game.

 

How many times have you personally lamented the political divide and stubbornness of all parties in the issues that matter to America?

 

Somewhere between "anyone of any age with any criminal or mental health record can buy, make, own, carry openly or carry under concealment any weapon ever devised by mankind" and "confiscate all the weapons" there is hopefully a rational middle ground.

 

Forgive me for an honest attempt to elicit some practical ideas in this regard.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

As I said, it was a nice try. Carry on.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

As I said, it was a nice try. Carry on.

 

I always do. Oh and btw don't ever try and pretend you are here for a serious discussion. You just proved you are just a run of the mill partisan troll.

[LenP 243]

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18, they can make their own decisions regarding their life, they can marry who they want, make decisions on parenting, raise children, drive a car, vote, and serve in the military. It seems absurd to me that we then say, sure you can undertake the most serious and risky venture of your life by deciding to have a child, but you can not have a glass of wine with dinner, and you can not have a rifle to go hunting. It is simply absurd.

 

My opinion is that for long guns, it should be up to the parents until someone turns eighteen. For handguns, it should be eighteen. Pennsylvania and many other states have a long hunting tradition. Guns are part of that tradition, and parents should have the discretion to determine when a child is ready to start hunting and owning the requisite hunting equipment. Will some parents make the wrong call? Yep, just like with everything else. I don't have a problem with handgun ownership being limited to those over eighteen as it is now.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

The age issue was not meant to be the crux of this thread. And I specifically said "The ages are just suggestions "

 

The point was to see if we could coalesce around some framework that would allow free gun ownership and at the same time reduce the criminal use and collateral damage.

 

example.

 

Requiring training in order to carry in public or to own a full auto.

 

Throw away the key laws for possession of a gun in a violent crime.

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one but if they think about it, gun safety taught in schools might actually reduce gun deaths. Schools with rifle and gun club were common in my youth.

 

There must be some practical ways to reduce gun violence and preserve gun ownership rights. That's all I'm asking you to think about.

 

We spend trillions on programs to help citizens with everything from food to cell phones. Maybe a tax break of gun safety items or even a modest subsidy for gun safes etc.

One of the arguments being repeated in the other threads is easy availability. Subsidised gun safes would help in that regard.

 

They do it for electric cars or solar panels because I assume they think it is in the national interest to encourage such things. A 25% tax credit on your 1040 for a gun safe purchase makes sense to me.

 

These are just ideas but feel free to go ape shit in responding.

[LenP 243]

I don't understand what you would expect to accomplish with any of those proposals.

 

Many states already require training to carry, and I see no benefit to making that a federal decision vs a state one. Why would I want folks in NY and CA having a say in what kind of training I need for my PA LTCF. That should be left to me and the other folks who live here in PA. I think training and education is a great idea, but I really don't think we need a govt program for that.

 

There are plenty of opportunities for education, but for it to be of any use, we would need to see a sea change in the attitudes towards guns in places like NY and CA.

 

I think laws like big minimum mandatory sentences if a gun was possessed during a crime can lead to some very bad outcomes. We have seen that in places which have implemented them. Now I am not suggesting that the states with those laws should repeal them, that is up to them, but what I am saying is that I see no reason to federalize them.

 

Subsidizing gun sales? No thanks. I am having a harder and harder time seeing the value in govt involvement in subsidizing anything at all. I am finding that more and more the unintended consequences of many of these govt programs outweigh the benefits. That is not a particularly easy position for me to arrive at considering my history of advocating for many of those programs. So it is real hard for me to see any benefit in subsidizing gun or gun safe sales while coming to the conclusion we need to put more controls and restrictions on subsidies for things like food.

 

I have said many times before that I have no doubt that the single most effective way to reduce violent crime in the US, including gun crimes, is to end the war on drugs. Just because that does not involve a further restriction on gun ownership does not mean it will nto reduce gun crimes. When we have finished with that giant piece of low hanging fruit, then I am more than willing to explore what can be done to reduce what crime is left.

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work. There's even less evidence that people need to be 35 before owning a machine gun. No evidence that young machine gunners are a problem.

 

 

The age issue was not meant to be the crux of this thread. And I specifically said "The ages are just suggestions "

 

The point was to see if we could coalesce around some framework that would allow free gun ownership and at the same time reduce the criminal use and collateral damage.

 

example.

 

Requiring training in order to carry in public or to own a full auto.

 

Throw away the key laws for possession of a gun in a violent crime.

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one but if they think about it, gun safety taught in schools might actually reduce gun deaths. Schools with rifle and gun club were common in my youth.

 

There must be some practical ways to reduce gun violence and preserve gun ownership rights. That's all I'm asking you to think about.

 

We spend trillions on programs to help citizens with everything from food to cell phones. Maybe a tax break of gun safety items or even a modest subsidy for gun safes etc.

One of the arguments being repeated in the other threads is easy availability. Subsidised gun safes would help in that regard.

 

They do it for electric cars or solar panels because I assume they think it is in the national interest to encourage such things. A 25% tax credit on your 1040 for a gun safe purchase makes sense to me.

 

These are just ideas but feel free to go ape shit in responding.

 

There's no evidence that states like Vermont, which has one of the lowest violent crime rates and murder rates in the country, need to start training people to carry concealed weapons. There is evidence that anti-gunners will use such restrictions like they did in Chicago: mandate training but prohibit training facilities. Upshot: banning legal gun ownership. The benefits Chicago has reaped from this policy seem questionable to me, but feel free to spell out the ones you see.

 

There's no evidence that full auto's require extra training for ownership, and their almost complete lack of use in crimes and accidents indicates otherwise.

 

There's no reason anyone but me should pay for my gun safe.

[PBO 3]

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18, they can make their own decisions regarding their life, they can marry who they want, make decisions on parenting, raise children, drive a car, vote, and serve in the military.

 

Everything except drink alcohol - why is that?

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work. There's even less evidence that people need to be 35 before owning a machine gun. No evidence that young machine gunners are a problem.

 

 

The age issue was not meant to be the crux of this thread. And I specifically said "The ages are just suggestions "

 

The point was to see if we could coalesce around some framework that would allow free gun ownership and at the same time reduce the criminal use and collateral damage.

 

example.

 

Requiring training in order to carry in public or to own a full auto.

 

Throw away the key laws for possession of a gun in a violent crime.

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one but if they think about it, gun safety taught in schools might actually reduce gun deaths. Schools with rifle and gun club were common in my youth.

 

There must be some practical ways to reduce gun violence and preserve gun ownership rights. That's all I'm asking you to think about.

 

We spend trillions on programs to help citizens with everything from food to cell phones. Maybe a tax break of gun safety items or even a modest subsidy for gun safes etc.

One of the arguments being repeated in the other threads is easy availability. Subsidised gun safes would help in that regard.

 

They do it for electric cars or solar panels because I assume they think it is in the national interest to encourage such things. A 25% tax credit on your 1040 for a gun safe purchase makes sense to me.

 

These are just ideas but feel free to go ape shit in responding.

 

There's no evidence that states like Vermont, which has one of the lowest violent crime rates and murder rates in the country, need to start training people to carry concealed weapons. There is evidence that anti-gunners will use such restrictions like they did in Chicago: mandate training but prohibit training facilities. Upshot: banning legal gun ownership. The benefits Chicago has reaped from this policy seem questionable to me, but feel free to spell out the ones you see.

 

There's no evidence that full auto's require extra training for ownership, and their almost complete lack of use in crimes and accidents indicates otherwise.

 

There's no reason anyone but me should pay for my gun safe.

 

 

What part of the ages are JUST SUGGESTIONS .... the salient point was an age restriction is a reasonable gun law that both sides could live with. The actual age is less of a point.

 

I was hoping people like you would suggest a law you could live and helps answer the issues the control crowd raises. Believe it of not their safety is effected by our gun ownership so they have both skin and a stake in this.

 

Is there no middle ground between 1 year old with nukes and no guns at all?

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

[LenP 243]

 

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18, they can make their own decisions regarding their life, they can marry who they want, make decisions on parenting, raise children, drive a car, vote, and serve in the military.

 

Everything except drink alcohol - why is that?

 

 

Or buy a handgun from a store.

 

In the case of alcohol, it all had to do with trying to cut down on DUIs. What really helped DUIs was strict enforcement and tough penalties combined with public awareness and education campaigns.

[LenP 243]

 

What part of the ages are JUST SUGGESTIONS .... the salient point was an age restriction is a reasonable gun law that both sides could live with. The actual age is less of a point.

 

I was hoping people like you would suggest a law you could live and helps answer the issues the control crowd raises. Believe it of not their safety is effected by our gun ownership so they have both skin and a stake in this.

 

Is there no middle ground between 1 year old with nukes and no guns at all?

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

 

It seems to me we already have an amendment which protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms, why do we need another one?

[PBO 3]

Is there no middle ground between 1 year old with nukes and no guns at all?

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

 

Not to perpetuate the age idea but it's got a logic to it that is justifyable

 

My perception of "gun control" is to preserve the right to own, while making the acknowledgement that not all guns are for all people. Making some guns harder to aquire isn't saying that guns are bad nor is it affecting the right. Gun control isn't an on/off switch & I see a wide middle ground. Fuck, I agree with you twice

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

 

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work. There's even less evidence that people need to be 35 before owning a machine gun. No evidence that young machine gunners are a problem.

 

 

The age issue was not meant to be the crux of this thread. And I specifically said "The ages are just suggestions "

 

The point was to see if we could coalesce around some framework that would allow free gun ownership and at the same time reduce the criminal use and collateral damage.

 

example.

 

Requiring training in order to carry in public or to own a full auto.

 

Throw away the key laws for possession of a gun in a violent crime.

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one but if they think about it, gun safety taught in schools might actually reduce gun deaths. Schools with rifle and gun club were common in my youth.

 

There must be some practical ways to reduce gun violence and preserve gun ownership rights. That's all I'm asking you to think about.

 

We spend trillions on programs to help citizens with everything from food to cell phones. Maybe a tax break of gun safety items or even a modest subsidy for gun safes etc.

One of the arguments being repeated in the other threads is easy availability. Subsidised gun safes would help in that regard.

 

They do it for electric cars or solar panels because I assume they think it is in the national interest to encourage such things. A 25% tax credit on your 1040 for a gun safe purchase makes sense to me.

 

These are just ideas but feel free to go ape shit in responding.

 

There's no evidence that states like Vermont, which has one of the lowest violent crime rates and murder rates in the country, need to start training people to carry concealed weapons. There is evidence that anti-gunners will use such restrictions like they did in Chicago: mandate training but prohibit training facilities. Upshot: banning legal gun ownership. The benefits Chicago has reaped from this policy seem questionable to me, but feel free to spell out the ones you see.

 

There's no evidence that full auto's require extra training for ownership, and their almost complete lack of use in crimes and accidents indicates otherwise.

 

There's no reason anyone but me should pay for my gun safe.

 

 

What part of the ages are JUST SUGGESTIONS .... the salient point was an age restriction is a reasonable gun law that both sides could live with. The actual age is less of a point.

 

I was hoping people like you would suggest a law you could live and helps answer the issues the control crowd raises. Believe it of not their safety is effected by our gun ownership so they have both skin and a stake in this.

 

Is there no middle ground between 1 year old with nukes and no guns at all?

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

 

I was hoping people like you had read some of my posts before starting yagt.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=149240

[PBO 3]

In the case of alcohol, it all had to do with trying to cut down on DUIs. What really helped DUIs was strict enforcement and tough penalties combined with public awareness and education campaigns.

 

And at the time, wasn't this seen as an erosion of the 10A?

[Happy Jack 2,722]

I was hoping people like you had read some of my posts before starting yagt.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=149240

 

 

Age is not the point of the thread but I don't see a lot of evidence you will ever get that. You're like a dog with a bone.

[LenP 243]

 

In the case of alcohol, it all had to do with trying to cut down on DUIs. What really helped DUIs was strict enforcement and tough penalties combined with public awareness and education campaigns.

 

And at the time, wasn't this seen as an erosion of the 10A?

 

 

I am sure it is by some people, but I think there are much better examples of the tenth being tortured. I am not arguing that the drinking age is wrong on constitutional grounds, but based on principle. It is absurd that we trust people to make life and death decisions and to raise children, but we don't let them have a glass of wine with dinner? We still have a huge problem with binge drinking and substance abuse in this country, despite banning drugs and the consumption of alcohol by anyone under 21. I think we would do better to give up the bans, lower the drinking age, and let parents make the decision on when a kid is old enough to have a glass of wine with dinner. Then we can focus some portion of the enforcement dollars on education and treatment for substance abuse. In a decade or two we might start to finally see some progress in reducing the abuse problems.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

The current 2nd amendment is cut and dried.

 

Unfortunately each side thinks the cut goes a different way. Both sides are in a decades long war to gerrymander the supreme court so it will see the cut their way.

 

I personally would trade some rules on safety, storage, use and training for example in exchange for a clear unambiguous right to own almost any weapon and the right to carry personal firearms in open carry or concealed.

 

Maybe the two sides could never agree on such an amendment but we won't know until we try.

 

FAIR WARNING

 

The opponents to guns may one day have the political capital to repeal the second amendment or have it reinterpreted by the Supreme court. If we can short circuit those possibilities with and more airtight wording why not try.

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

 

I was hoping people like you had read some of my posts before starting yagt.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=149240

 

 

Age is not the point of the thread but I don't see a lot of evidence you will ever get that. You're like a dog with a bone.

 

 

The topic post seems to mostly be about age. If you want, we could go back to discussing licenses and you could at last answer my questions on that subject.

 

 

 

First of all you need to read what I write rather than just knee jerk assume. I never said REGISTER guns. I said License the Gun Owner. Once you are certified to own a gun then the governments role ends.

Well, that's not quite how it seems...

 

why not mandate a short form all private sellers must collect from private buyers and keep on file for 7 years with something like the following questions....

OK, I'm a private seller and my neighbor is a private buyer and I'm going to sell him one of my guns without complying with your mandate. It's an unenforceable mandate if it's not accompanied by gun registration, as far as I can tell. How will the government ever know that it happened, or when it happened, if they don't know that I owned that particular gun at one time? The only answer I can come up with involves registering all guns. Do you have another answer?

 

Private sellers who wish to verify buyers can already use the services of a Federal Firearms License holder for a small fee, and it's a prudent move, IMO. I still don't see why private sellers who do not wish to verify buyers (for example because they have known them for years and given them a key to their house) should have to carry paperwork for seven years, even if you have some way around the registration problem. Where are the societal ills caused by all the private sellers, and how will they be diminished? Your problem seems to be with waiting for background checks from dealers. Fine, do away with them, as I don't think they stop criminals from getting guns anyway.

 

 

 

 

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

...

I personally would trade some rules on safety, storage, use and training for example in exchange for a clear unambiguous right to own almost any weapon and the right to carry personal firearms in open carry or concealed.

...

 

You will never get the exchange you want because gun controllers think they are doing the right thing by limiting gun ownership in any way possible. They'll continue.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 1,058]

HJ - I'll suggest that any approach that focuses upon the implement, instead of the behaviors simply isn't a starter. We already have sufficient laws on the books to address situations in which an individual, either by not being of the age of majority, or by their demonstrated behaviors, are prohibited from having firearms.

 

What's needed isn't more prohibition, what's needed is to address the root causes of the societal ills that make some marginalized individuals feel that violence is the only or most productive voice that they have. This "fix" will take 30 years to come to fruition, IMHO. This "fix" will require a huge change in mindset in the country, and for people to use something other than divisive, demeaning, marginalizing rhetoric to express themselves. Most importantly, it takes every person being willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and for the actions of their kids.

 

So - if you want to discuss a "fix" - it's my personal, humble opinion that identifying and addressing the root causes of the social dysfunction that makes people think that inflicting violence is a proper way to get what they want.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

The topic post seems to mostly be about age. If you want, we could go back to discussing licenses and you could at last answer my questions on that subject.

 

 

 

Quoting the first post

 

"Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

So what practical things other than bans, confiscations and registration might serve both sides equally.

I'll start with something less controversial."

Age was just one example of the above. I chose age as my example because most rational people can agree toddlers should not have guns. But if that means the thread is mostly about age to you then I'll have to reassess my evaluation of your intellect downward and you can keep gnawing that bone tom.

It is an honest thread to see if there is any common ground that serves both sides.

Are you just a one note partisan parrot or is there some creativity in you?

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

Yet Another Gun Thread but with a difference.

 

Both Gun owners and Gun Controllers share at least one thing in common. We all would like to reduce criminal and accidental gun violence. From a gun owners standpoint it reduces the threat to ownership and from the controllers stand point it save lives.

 

So what practical things other than bans, confiscations and registration might serve both sides equally.

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

The ages are just suggestions based on the FBI homicide by age data

 

 

Neighbor boy and hog he killed. He's not 21. His older brother isn't even 21. They're welcome on my property with rifles or shotguns. Especially if they kill pigs.

 

[Happy Jack 2,722]

Neighbor boy and hog he killed. He's not 21. His older brother isn't even 21. They're welcome on my property with rifles or shotguns. Especially if they kill pigs.

 

 

 

I guessing he is 14. So you think any 14 year old should be able to what? Buy, a gun stick it in his waistband and pack it wherever he wants?

 

Well I guess that's one view.

 

 

Btw ownership is not the same thing as supervised use. Each of my kids was give their first rifle at 12. BUt technically I owned them and they stay under my lock and key but they shoot them and my other guns.

[John Drake 0]

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18,they can make their own decisions regarding their life.....

This, this right here is the problem with society. Very few 18 year olds I have ever had the pleasure of meeting are actually adults at 18. I mean yes, legally we declare them adults but the reality is everyone achieves adulthood at their own pace. It takes some experience to become a responsible adult. Most people don't realize the meaning of adult behavior until they are in their mid to late 20's. Some into their early 30's.

In terms of what HJ is saying, his graph demonstrates this quite well. But it isn't just regarding gun ownership. It affects every aspect of their lives. From who they are inclined to vote for, how well they drive. their sexual habits, how they eat, sleep, their work ethic, just about every damn thing. So the greater question should be do we restrict people's rights based on their years of experience?

[jocal505 86]

 

 

I'll start with some less controversial.

 

Appropriate age restriction on gun possession and ownership. 21 for a shotgun or long rifle 25 for handgun 35 for so called class III weapons (current restrictions lifted i.e. machine guns are legal again)

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work. Because the NRA squelches such evidence, mate. There's even less evidence that people need to be 35 before owning a machine gun. No evidence that young machine gunners are a problem.

 

 

The age issue was not meant to be the crux of this thread. And I specifically said "The ages are just suggestions "

 

The point was to see if we could coalesce around some framework that would allow free gun ownership and at the same time reduce the criminal use and collateral damage.

 

example.

 

Requiring training in order to carry in public or to own a full auto.

 

Throw away the key laws for possession of a gun in a violent crime.

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one but if they think about it, gun safety taught in schools might actually reduce gun deaths. Schools with rifle and gun club were common in my youth.

 

There must be some practical ways to reduce gun violence and preserve gun ownership rights. That's all I'm asking you to think about.

 

We spend trillions on programs to help citizens with everything from food to cell phones. Maybe a tax break of gun safety items or even a modest subsidy for gun safes etc.

One of the arguments being repeated in the other threads is easy availability. Subsidised gun safes would help in that regard.

 

They do it for electric cars or solar panels because I assume they think it is in the national interest to encourage such things. A 25% tax credit on your 1040 for a gun safe purchase makes sense to me.

 

These are just ideas but feel free to go ape shit in responding.

 

There's no evidence that states like Vermont, which has one of the lowest violent crime rates and murder rates in the country, need to start training people to carry concealed weapons.

Foul. A shell game. You are playing hide-and-seek with research expectations.

The right hand wants "evidence" and the left hand prevents it.

Again, you quote a vaccuum of evidence, for which you carry responsibility. You need to deny the existence of research blockage (in defiance of seven unchallenged sources I might add) because the blockage of research has become a central problem...a blockage which you guys implemented, and have maintained for 18 yrs. There is evidence that anti-gunners will use such restrictions like they did in Chicago: mandate training but prohibit training facilities. Upshot: banning legal gun ownership. The benefits Chicago has reaped from this policy seem questionable to me, but feel free to spell out the ones you see.

 

There's no evidence that full auto's require extra training for ownership, and their almost complete lack of use in crimes and accidents indicates otherwise.

 

There's no reason anyone but me should pay for my gun safe.

 

[Spatial Ed 162]

 

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18,they can make their own decisions regarding their life.....

This, this right here is the problem with society. Very few 18 year olds I have ever had the pleasure of meeting are actually adults at 18. I mean yes, legally we declare them adults but the reality is everyone achieves adulthood at their own pace. It takes some experience to become a responsible adult. Most people don't realize the meaning of adult behavior until they are in their mid to late 20's. Some into their early 30's.

In terms of what HJ is saying, his graph demonstrates this quite well. But it isn't just regarding gun ownership. It affects every aspect of their lives. From who they are inclined to vote for, how well they drive. their sexual habits, how they eat, sleep, their work ethic, just about every damn thing. So the greater question should be do we restrict people's rights based on their years of experience?

 

The only reason we granted 18 year olds the rights they currently enjoy was due to the draft during the Vietnam war. How could you force a non-voting citizen into battle? Nixon needed to relax the voting age and many other rights followed.

But if we can't trust an 18 year old with a six pack, how can we trust him with a 6 shooter?

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

In the spirit of this thres how about you can the same repetitive arguments and offer some constructive ideas that might save lives and not threaten gun owners.

[jocal505 86]

Jack. I applaud the tone and approach of the OP. I'm going to extend this for a moment, beyond the age issue.

I think that some combination of flex will evolve, due to necessity.

I find much more flex among anti's than among pro-gunners.

 

In the spread of Common Sense Gun Laws (the thread title), the range of compromise possible is all around us.

 

About extreme gun laws: To introduce a discussion of broadbrush "confiscation", we can break down the broadbrush. Any demand for confiscation, as proposed, is actually a finite request or policy. Most seem to be grounded in reason (and Tom is listing the others for us.) But proposals have a range of severity, even though yes, antis have a wish list.

 

There a scale involved in "confiscation" (a range, between confiscating all or confiscating none).

And there's a scale of probability of risk factor among those who handle guns

There's a scale of how developed a risk factor has become in a person.

There are a range of reasons to take some guy's gun (from no good reason to bigtime reason).

There is a scale of social desirability among the attitudes of "disabled" felons who want their guns back.

There's a scale of danger to each weapon: a lethality, a range of firepower.

There is a scale of extremism on the "pro-rights" side.

There is a range of needs among communities (and btw these need are suddenly blocked by "pre-emption" in 40 states).

So...there is a scale of social fairness in the outcome of SAF-based laws.

There is a scale of expectation among "anti's", a range of what is being proposed or opposed.

There is a scale of good faith to be offered, or not, on each side.

There are also measurable ranges of progress to achieve, or not (specific ways to plan benchmarks, as once imposed on automakers).

There is a scale of public health damage. (And if our gun damage rates are 20x other leading nations, that scale is pegged.)

The US gun solution is some workable combination of dialing the ranges of behavior and the gun supply, IMO. And the onus of the solution is on gunowners, IMO. But to confiscate all guns is simply not on the table. (To limit some guns is. Heller Heller, Heller.)

 

--If gun guys are just hardheads who don't address the problem behavior, or the problem supply, a tough application on the scale of common sense gun laws may be applied.

--If a workable spirit of damage control and progressive policy is presented by the gun guys, I suppose a less stringent need will be felt for tough (as opposed to common sense) gun laws.

[ianjoub 0]

 

Nice try, but there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Gun controllers could give two shits about "saving lives". Oh that may be their stated rationale, but controlling guns is primarily why they want to control guns. To them, guns are icky. To them guns are not needed.

I disagree. They don't think guns are not needed. They just want to be the only ones with guns (or their enforcers and protectors).

[ianjoub 0]

 

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Any questions?

 

 

So the bullet parts are ok then?.....

 

True. There is no constitutional right to ammo.

 

Yes, there is. The 2nd Amendment. Arms means weapons and ammunition.

[Spatial Ed 162]

 

 

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Any questions?

 

 

So the bullet parts are ok then?.....

 

True. There is no constitutional right to ammo.

 

Yes, there is. The 2nd Amendment. Arms means weapons and ammunition.

 

No really it doesn't. Arms means arms. Militia means militia.

[Raz'r 1,429]

 

This, this right here is the problem with society. Very few 18 year olds I have ever had the pleasure of meeting are actually adults at 18. I mean yes, legally we declare them adults but the reality is everyone achieves adulthood at their own pace. It takes some experience to become a responsible adult. Most people don't realize the meaning of adult behavior until they are in their mid to late 20's. Some into their early 30's.

In terms of what HJ is saying, his graph demonstrates this quite well. But it isn't just regarding gun ownership. It affects every aspect of their lives. From who they are inclined to vote for, how well they drive. their sexual habits, how they eat, sleep, their work ethic, just about every damn thing. So the greater question should be do we restrict people's rights based on their years of experience?

 

there's a reason for that

 

 

The "Visible" Brain

A clue to the degree of change taking place in the teen brain came from studies in which scientists did brain scans of children as they grew from early childhood through age 20. The scans revealed unexpectedly late changes in the volume of gray matter, which forms the thin, folding outer layer or cortex of the brain. The cortex is where the processes of thought and memory are based. Over the course of childhood, the volume of gray matter in the cortex increases and then declines. A decline in volume is normal at this age and is in fact a necessary part of maturation.

The assumption for many years had been that the volume of gray matter was highest in very early childhood, and gradually fell as a child grew. The more recent scans, however, revealed that the high point of the volume of gray matter occurs during early adolescence.

While the details behind the changes in volume on scans are not completely clear, the results push the timeline of brain maturation into adolescence and young adulthood. In terms of the volume of gray matter seen in brain images, the brain does not begin to resemble that of an adult until the early 20s.

The scans also suggest that different parts of the cortex mature at different rates. Areas involved in more basic functions mature first: those involved, for example, in the processing of information from the senses, and in controlling movement. The parts of the brain responsible for more "top-down" control, controlling impulses, and planning ahead—the hallmarks of adult behavior—are among the last to mature.

[ianjoub 0]

 

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

Rights are something that exist independently of government. Government doesn't give them and has no right to take them away.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

 

As I said, it was a nice try. Carry on.

 

I always do. Oh and btw don't ever try and pretend you are here for a serious discussion. You just proved you are just a run of the mill partisan troll.

 

 

How so? There was nothing left/right about my reply. Its a fact, IMHO, that grabbers are not truly interested in saving lives. If they were, they wouldn't be so fucking focused on AW pistol grips and flash hiders and would instead be focused on swimming pools, ladders, matches, and kitchen knives.... ALL of which kill far more people than ARs ever do.

[jocal505 86]

 

 

 

Neighbor boy and hog he killed. He's not 21. His older brother isn't even 21. They're welcome on my property with rifles or shotguns. Especially if they kill pigs.

 

 

Idyllic. Those boys are lucky. Hi Libby.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one

 

Who's the partisan fuckwit now?

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

Rights are something that exist independently of government. Government doesn't give them and has no right to take them away.

 

 

Really?

 

Ever hear of incarceration?

Baker Act?

Felons losing the right to vote?

property condemnation?

Capitol Punishment?

Conscription?

Truancy?

Eminent domain?

 

There aren't many they can't take away.

[ianjoub 0]

 

 

 

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

Rights are something that exist independently of government. Government doesn't give them and has no right to take them away.

 

 

Really?

 

Ever hear of incarceration?

Baker Act?

Felons losing the right to vote?

property condemnation?

Capitol Punishment?

Conscription?

Truancy?

Eminent domain?

 

There aren't many they can't take away.

 

I know that the government does take away rights. I am saying they have no right to do so.

[jocal505 86]

 

 

 

In the spirit of this thres how about you can the same repetitive arguments and offer some constructive ideas that might save lives and not threaten gun owners.

 

I just did. I was suggesting we not play the extremes.

I was suggesting flexibility on both sides.

I began to quantify a few sweeping hot points.

I suggested specific safety benchmark proposals to be attained by responsible gun owners.

I addressed reigning in yahoos, indirectly. OMG.

I'm big on progressive leadership by gunowners. Miss that?

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work.

 

Yeah, that would have sucked. I was in a skeet league at 14 and I owned (and bought with my own money I earned mowing lawns & such) a Rem 1100 Skeet gun in 20 ga. I reloaded my own as well at that age. Unsupervised.......

 

Strangely enough I didn't kill anyone or myself with that evil semi-automatic shotgun. I wonder how that happened??

 

Oh and the icing on the cake - I bought the gun through a private sale without a background check. That must just fucking drive jocal insane. Hehehe.....

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

 

I don't agree with it on principle. People are adults at 18, they can make their own decisions regarding their life, they can marry who they want, make decisions on parenting, raise children, drive a car, vote, and serve in the military.

 

Everything except drink alcohol - why is that?

 

 

I think that is stupid as well. If you can die for your country at 18, you outta damn well be able to buy a beer.

[Raz'r 1,429]

Jeff, I had the same gun, did yours jam with reloads? PITA!

 

Parents divorced and family moved just as we were going to buy a 28 gauge over/under

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

HJ - I'll suggest that any approach that focuses upon the implement, instead of the behaviors simply isn't a starter. We already have sufficient laws on the books to address situations in which an individual, either by not being of the age of majority, or by their demonstrated behaviors, are prohibited from having firearms.

 

What's needed isn't more prohibition, what's needed is to address the root causes of the societal ills that make some marginalized individuals feel that violence is the only or most productive voice that they have. This "fix" will take 30 years to come to fruition, IMHO. This "fix" will require a huge change in mindset in the country, and for people to use something other than divisive, demeaning, marginalizing rhetoric to express themselves. Most importantly, it takes every person being willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and for the actions of their kids.

 

So - if you want to discuss a "fix" - it's my personal, humble opinion that identifying and addressing the root causes of the social dysfunction that makes people think that inflicting violence is a proper way to get what they want.

 

DING DING DING

[Raz'r 1,429]

 

HJ - I'll suggest that any approach that focuses upon the implement, instead of the behaviors simply isn't a starter. We already have sufficient laws on the books to address situations in which an individual, either by not being of the age of majority, or by their demonstrated behaviors, are prohibited from having firearms.

 

What's needed isn't more prohibition, what's needed is to address the root causes of the societal ills that make some marginalized individuals feel that violence is the only or most productive voice that they have. This "fix" will take 30 years to come to fruition, IMHO. This "fix" will require a huge change in mindset in the country, and for people to use something other than divisive, demeaning, marginalizing rhetoric to express themselves. Most importantly, it takes every person being willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and for the actions of their kids.

 

So - if you want to discuss a "fix" - it's my personal, humble opinion that identifying and addressing the root causes of the social dysfunction that makes people think that inflicting violence is a proper way to get what they want.

 

DING DING DING

 

An example would be that nut who killed those college kids in Chapel Hill.

 

I would think that "brandishing a weapon" should get you a pretty quick time-out.

 

 

Also heard on NPR that something like 25% of the inmates in the Cali prison system are on mental health drugs of some sort. Seems our approach of turning the mentally ill out to the streets might be a big component of the problem.

[jocal505 86]

 

 

There's no evidence people need to be 21 before owning a shotgun, nor any evidence such a restriction would work.

Tom, you employ dishonest research blockage denial all over our threads, then ask for evidence?

 

...

 

Oh and the icing on the cake - I bought the gun through a private sale without a background check. That must just fucking drive jocal insane. Hehehe.....

 

yawn

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

Jeff, I had the same gun, did yours jam with reloads? PITA!

 

Parents divorced and family moved just as we were going to buy a 28 gauge over/under

 

No, it seemed to run fine. Maybe I was a better reloader than you

 

I think I used something similar to this one. I'm pretty sure it was a MEC....

 

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

The left I'm sure will cringe at this one

 

Who's the partisan fuckwit now?

 

 

you

[Raz'r 1,429]

Similar to our reloader, but ours had a little semi-circlular track that you fed the empty in on the left, and every stroke did about 4 operations. Made it much quicker.

 

We has a 'smith look her over, he said it was a known problem with the Skeet gun, springs weren't set for those light loads. Got to borrow a 28 OU one day on the range and wow, fell in love. Finally bought one about 5 years ago(35 years late) for the last hunt my Dad ever did, he can't get out there anymore. She's gathering dust now back in a case in Mn.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

 

 

 

You see tom I would like an amendment that protects gun ownership and the right to bear arms in exchange for some wording that creates a reasonable set of rules for responsible ownership and that establishes the process and limits on the governments ability to take that right away.

 

Rights are something that exist independently of government. Government doesn't give them and has no right to take them away.

 

 

Really?

 

Ever hear of incarceration?

Baker Act?

Felons losing the right to vote?

property condemnation?

Capitol Punishment?

Conscription?

Truancy?

Eminent domain?

 

There aren't many they can't take away.

 

I know that the government does take away rights. I am saying they have no right to do so.

 

 

Nonsense. What is your alternative? The law of the jungle? Might makes right?

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

Similar to our reloader, but ours had a little semi-circlular track that you fed the empty in on the left, and every stroke did about 4 operations. Made it much quicker.

 

We has a 'smith look her over, he said it was a known problem with the Skeet gun, springs weren't set for those light loads. Got to borrow a 28 OU one day on the range and wow, fell in love. Finally bought one about 5 years ago(35 years late) for the last hunt my Dad ever did, he can't get out there anymore. She's gathering dust now back in a case in Mn.

 

Yeah I liked the 1100. I'm not sure I shot "light" loads all the time. But it seemed work well. I wish I had never sold it - it was a truly beautiful gun. Had the "skeet B" grade version. The wood was amazing.

 

Having said that, I am an O/U guy now. I have a Ruger Red Label that I love more than my mother. Well maybe not that much but close.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 1,058]

 

 

HJ - I'll suggest that any approach that focuses upon the implement, instead of the behaviors simply isn't a starter. We already have sufficient laws on the books to address situations in which an individual, either by not being of the age of majority, or by their demonstrated behaviors, are prohibited from having firearms.

 

What's needed isn't more prohibition, what's needed is to address the root causes of the societal ills that make some marginalized individuals feel that violence is the only or most productive voice that they have. This "fix" will take 30 years to come to fruition, IMHO. This "fix" will require a huge change in mindset in the country, and for people to use something other than divisive, demeaning, marginalizing rhetoric to express themselves. Most importantly, it takes every person being willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and for the actions of their kids.

 

So - if you want to discuss a "fix" - it's my personal, humble opinion that identifying and addressing the root causes of the social dysfunction that makes people think that inflicting violence is a proper way to get what they want.

 

DING DING DING

 

An example would be that nut who killed those college kids in Chapel Hill.

 

I would think that "brandishing a weapon" should get you a pretty quick time-out.

 

 

Also heard on NPR that something like 25% of the inmates in the Cali prison system are on mental health drugs of some sort. Seems our approach of turning the mentally ill out to the streets might be a big component of the problem.

 

 

Indeed so, Flash - in the statutes that I've read (not an exhaustive list), brandishing is illegal. It's worth a trip to jail in and of itself. You don't use a gun to win an argument, any more than you use a tractor to win a sailboat race.

 

Your second comment's appropriate as well, and we need to decriminalize and de-stigmatize being crazy, and figure out how to identify and help those folks who have mental problems.

[Raz'r 1,429]

 

Similar to our reloader, but ours had a little semi-circlular track that you fed the empty in on the left, and every stroke did about 4 operations. Made it much quicker.

 

We has a 'smith look her over, he said it was a known problem with the Skeet gun, springs weren't set for those light loads. Got to borrow a 28 OU one day on the range and wow, fell in love. Finally bought one about 5 years ago(35 years late) for the last hunt my Dad ever did, he can't get out there anymore. She's gathering dust now back in a case in Mn.

 

Yeah I liked the 1100. I'm not sure I shot "light" loads all the time. But it seemed work well. I wish I had never sold it - it was a truly beautiful gun. Had the "skeet B" grade version. The wood was amazing.

 

Having said that, I am an O/U guy now. I have a Ruger Red Label that I love more than my mother. Well maybe not that much but close.

 

My father is nuts. I was going to buy him the Browning Citori 28 OU (after open heart surgery, you have to have light recoil) and was chatting with him about it. Had it all chosen, was going to ship it to him, but was going to be a surprise. He got a bug up his ass and went and bought some Mosberg or something. He didn't know what was coming, and he is of the opinion that you never return something unless it's defective.

[LenP 243]

 

 

Similar to our reloader, but ours had a little semi-circlular track that you fed the empty in on the left, and every stroke did about 4 operations. Made it much quicker.

 

We has a 'smith look her over, he said it was a known problem with the Skeet gun, springs weren't set for those light loads. Got to borrow a 28 OU one day on the range and wow, fell in love. Finally bought one about 5 years ago(35 years late) for the last hunt my Dad ever did, he can't get out there anymore. She's gathering dust now back in a case in Mn.

 

Yeah I liked the 1100. I'm not sure I shot "light" loads all the time. But it seemed work well. I wish I had never sold it - it was a truly beautiful gun. Had the "skeet B" grade version. The wood was amazing.

 

Having said that, I am an O/U guy now. I have a Ruger Red Label that I love more than my mother. Well maybe not that much but close.

 

My father is nuts. I was going to buy him the Browning Citori 28 OU (after open heart surgery, you have to have light recoil) and was chatting with him about it. Had it all chosen, was going to ship it to him, but was going to be a surprise. He got a bug up his ass and went and bought some Mosberg or something. He didn't know what was coming, and he is of the opinion that you never return something unless it's defective.

 

 

Depending on which Mossberg, he may not need to wait too long to return it.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 1,058]

 

 

Similar to our reloader, but ours had a little semi-circlular track that you fed the empty in on the left, and every stroke did about 4 operations. Made it much quicker.

 

We has a 'smith look her over, he said it was a known problem with the Skeet gun, springs weren't set for those light loads. Got to borrow a 28 OU one day on the range and wow, fell in love. Finally bought one about 5 years ago(35 years late) for the last hunt my Dad ever did, he can't get out there anymore. She's gathering dust now back in a case in Mn.

 

Yeah I liked the 1100. I'm not sure I shot "light" loads all the time. But it seemed work well. I wish I had never sold it - it was a truly beautiful gun. Had the "skeet B" grade version. The wood was amazing.

 

Having said that, I am an O/U guy now. I have a Ruger Red Label that I love more than my mother. Well maybe not that much but close.

 

My father is nuts. I was going to buy him the Browning Citori 28 OU (after open heart surgery, you have to have light recoil) and was chatting with him about it. Had it all chosen, was going to ship it to him, but was going to be a surprise. He got a bug up his ass and went and bought some Mosberg or something. He didn't know what was coming, and he is of the opinion that you never return something unless it's defective.

 

 

If you need someplace for that sweet shotgun to go, I've got a spot in my cabinet.... IF ya need it.

[Raz'r 1,429]

cancelled that purchase unfortunately...

 

Reality is, it was perfect, he carried it around that last week, maybe fired once or twice at some sharp-tailed grouse, and it's been in the cabinet ever since.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

Is a legitimate discussion toward a positive result really that threatening you

[Raz'r 1,429]

Happy, the adults are having a conversation - would you mind keeping quiet for awhile?

[Happy Jack 2,722]

Happy, the adults are having a conversation - would you mind keeping quiet for awhile?

 

Hey no problem my work in this thread is done anyway and I have date with my Valentine to get ready for. I wasn't disappointed either. You see I'm an engineer and I live to solve problems. I get it that you all find bitching and slinging insults is a lot less mental strain than contributing solutions that solve problems.

 

Oh and when you refer to yourselves as the adults in SA I interpret it the same way I would if congress were to refer to themselves as the adults in government.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 1,058]

 

Happy, the adults are having a conversation - would you mind keeping quiet for awhile?

 

Hey no problem my work in this thread is done anyway and I have date with my Valentine to get ready for. I wasn't disappointed either. You see I'm an engineer and I live to solve problems. I get it that you all find bitching and slinging insults is a lot less mental strain than contributing solutions that solve problems.

 

Oh and when you refer to yourselves as the adults in SA I interpret it the same way I would if congress were to refer to themselves as the adults in government.

 

 

Just curious - if you're interested in solving the violence problem, then why did we constrain the conversation to topics having to do with enacting more laws about firearms?

[jocal505 86]

 

HJ - I'll suggest that any approach that focuses upon the implement, instead of the behaviors simply isn't a starter. We already have sufficient laws on the books to address situations in which an individual, either by not being of the age of majority, or by their demonstrated behaviors, are prohibited from having firearms.

 

What's needed isn't more prohibition, what's needed is to address the root causes of the societal ills that make some marginalized individuals feel that violence is the only or most productive voice that they have. This "fix" will take 30 years to come to fruition, IMHO. This "fix" will require a huge change in mindset in the country, and for people to use something other than divisive, demeaning, marginalizing rhetoric to express themselves. Most importantly, it takes every person being willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, and for the actions of their kids.

 

So - if you want to discuss a "fix" - it's my personal, humble opinion that identifying and addressing the root causes of the social dysfunction that makes people think that inflicting violence is a proper way to get what they want.

 

DING DING DING

 

 

Now all you have to do is convince the National Acadamy of Sciences.

 

The IOM was chartered by the CDC to do Priorities for Research, remember? They're a part of the revered NAS (National Academy of Sciences). Their reputation is simply five-star, I have read.

.

The researchers who gathered fell back on NAS basics gleaned from epidemiology. Guns (and/or the holder of the guns), were easily defined as one (of three) elements making up gun violence incidents. Chop chop, all three get addressed.

 

Your "guns-are-an-implement" exemption is a horse in the next county. You are slamming the barn door 20 months later, repeatedly. Just sayin'.

 

The course was charted by the joint social service agencies at the IOM/CDC setting. Tom should have read that baby. Same for the front row of the choir.

 

They fell back on NAS basics, and were honest about it.

Here is where they did it.

 

A Gun is an agent in a gunshot, which is a public health incident of measurably epidemic numbers.

 

Assessing and ultimately implementing public health strategies to deal with societal problems requires a comprehensive research agenda with contributions from the many scientific disciplines relevant to understanding the complex etiology and prevention of firearm violence (Hemenway and Miller, 2013). For example, public health outcomes research may include an investigation of product safety options combined with strategies to change the “prevalence, social norms, and cultures of harmful behaviors” (Mozaffarian et al., 2013, p. 551; see also Hemenway, 2001; Mozaffarian et al., 2012).

 

Beginning in the late 1960s, a comprehensive approach was adopted based largely on the work of William Haddon, who developed a model for the systematic exploration of causation and countermeasures based on the epidemiological triangle of host, agent, and environment in the pre-event, event, and post-event phases (Haddon, 1967, 1968, 1980). Such strategies are designed to interrupt the connection among three essential elements:

(1) the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]),

(2) the “host” (the injured person), and

(3) the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred).

 

This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities. These successes suggest the following strategies for reducing firearm-related injuries... (goes to breakdown of how)

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=18>

[Mohammed Bin Lyin 28]

The only Australian laws worth copying would be to deny mentally ill and criminals from owning guns,safe storage is probably a good idea as well.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

blah blah blah

 

 

A Gun SHOOTER is an agent in a gunshot, which is a public health incident of measurably epidemic numbers.

 

 

Beginning in the late 1960s, a comprehensive approach was adopted based largely on the work of William Haddon, who developed a model for the systematic exploration of causation and countermeasures based on the epidemiological triangle of host, agent, and environment in the pre-event, event, and post-event phases (Haddon, 1967, 1968, 1980). Such strategies are designed to interrupt the connection among three essential elements:

(1) the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]),

(2) the “host” (the injured person), and

(3) the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred).

 

 

 

 

(see red above - why the "or"???) The problem, jo jo, is that ALL of your fucking studies focus on the gun as the agent and not the perpetrator as the agent. The problem with the epidemiology approach in thinking of the gun as a disease agent is that other diseases are not typically "good". Ebola doesn't have a self-defense or recreational aspect to it along with the ability to kill. So epidemiologists used to working with disease mechanisms seem to treat guns the same way - that that they are used only for the mechanism under review in the study. i.e. death. A bit of a flawed mindset, IMHO.

 

I actually agree with the public health approach to the issue of crime and violence prevention. AS LONG AS they include and primarily focus on the perpetrator as the agent and not the implement. Look at the implement if you want as well.... but you know damn well the answer is going to be ordinary handguns and you are not going to like it one bit. But if they focus on the gun only and not the shooter - then this is a non-starter for me.

[Repastinate Tom 1,033]

 

Neighbor boy and hog he killed. He's not 21. His older brother isn't even 21. They're welcome on my property with rifles or shotguns. Especially if they kill pigs.

 

 

 

I guessing he is 14. So you think any 14 year old should be able to what? Buy, a gun stick it in his waistband and pack it wherever he wants?

 

Well I guess that's one view.

 

 

Btw ownership is not the same thing as supervised use. Each of my kids was give their first rifle at 12. BUt technically I owned them and they stay under my lock and key but they shoot them and my other guns.

 

 

He used a rifle owned by his dad and my post said nothing about purchasing guns, nor about handguns that would go in a waistband.

 

As for supervision, I don't believe any adults were home at the time. That's the part I have no problem with. Not in every case, but in this particular case, because I helped teach this kid about guns and I trust him.

 

Your post calling for banning possession by kids like him seems to me to go too far. And until the age of 21? Ridiculous to me, since I'm used to quite a few hunters younger than 21. Also since I don't believe these kids contribute to the crime problem your proposal is supposed to address.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

Agree. I lived on a large farm from about 11 until through college. At the time, I owned (myself) before I was 18 the Rem 1100, a .22 Marlin Bolt action rifle and a Lee Enfield .303 scoped rifle. I addition my dad had several other guns I could pretty much use unsupervised as long as I asked first. He had a .220 Swift (winchester IIRC), a 16 ga pump Ithaca featherweight (it kicked like a fucking mule), and a .45 M1911A1 surplus handgun among others. The .220 Swift is where I found my love of long range shooting. That thing was a laser inside of about 600 yds. But I digress....

 

Anyway, after school when the bus dropped me off at the top of the dirt lane I used to grab one of the rifles or a shotty and either go shoot groundhogs or just tin cans for an hour or so before doing homework. Those were some of the best times of my life. Now I'm not in anyway suggesting that a similar 12 yr old kid in downtown chicago should be able to do the same. But having a federal law that stops that everywhere is the issue. There is no one size fits all solution to this. That's the point. That's why we have states and not a single unified gov't.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

Neighbor boy and hog he killed. He's not 21. His older brother isn't even 21. They're welcome on my property with rifles or shotguns. Especially if they kill pigs.

 

 

 

I guessing he is 14. So you think any 14 year old should be able to what? Buy, a gun stick it in his waistband and pack it wherever he wants?

 

Well I guess that's one view.

 

 

Btw ownership is not the same thing as supervised use. Each of my kids was give their first rifle at 12. BUt technically I owned them and they stay under my lock and key but they shoot them and my other guns.

 

 

He used a rifle owned by his dad and my post said nothing about purchasing guns, nor about handguns that would go in a waistband.

 

As for supervision, I don't believe any adults were home at the time. That's the part I have no problem with. Not in every case, but in this particular case, because I helped teach this kid about guns and I trust him.

 

Your post calling for banning possession by kids like him seems to me to go too far. And until the age of 21? Ridiculous to me, since I'm used to quite a few hunters younger than 21. Also since I don't believe these kids contribute to the crime problem your proposal is supposed to address.

 

 

I'm not exactly crafting the law's text in my posts. The age restriction, whatever it is, would be to purchase or own; not to use under adult supervision and on your own property that supervision would boil down to permision not necessarily presence of the adult although the exact way that would work out is a longer debate than there is time for here.

 

When I was nine I spent Christmas at my cousin's home in Idaho. They owed a fair sized farm and his dad drove us to farm each morning on his way to work. He left us with a brick of 22 long rifle and a scoped repeater. We climbed the enormous hay stack and rearranged the bales on top into our sniper nest, starlings beware. He told us where and what we could shoot and asked the staff to keep a loose eye on us. Best Christmas ever at least until my kids were born.

 

This is my daughter and niece from Brasil about to enjoy a similar Christmas on my ranch/farm shooting the B-day cake my wife made for her 16th the month before.

 

Despite my youth experience I still supervise from a distance but always present when they are shooting. Partly because that is the law in florida and partly because I think it is prudent. I don't know the age of the kids in your photo but they look younger than 16 which would technically make what you described criminal.

 

I take to heart the "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" attitude in the DOI so I'm not at the point where I flaunt the law when it comes to my weapons.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Happy Jack 2,722]

 

 

Happy, the adults are having a conversation - would you mind keeping quiet for awhile?

 

Hey no problem my work in this thread is done anyway and I have date with my Valentine to get ready for. I wasn't disappointed either. You see I'm an engineer and I live to solve problems. I get it that you all find bitching and slinging insults is a lot less mental strain than contributing solutions that solve problems.

 

Oh and when you refer to yourselves as the adults in SA I interpret it the same way I would if congress were to refer to themselves as the adults in government.

 

 

Just curious - if you're interested in solving the violence problem, then why did we constrain the conversation to topics having to do with enacting more laws about firearms?

 

 

Not more. Better.

[Shootist Jeff 1,003]

 

 

 

Happy, the adults are having a conversation - would you mind keeping quiet for awhile?

 

Hey no problem my work in this thread is done anyway and I have date with my Valentine to get ready for. I wasn't disappointed either. You see I'm an engineer and I live to solve problems. I get it that you all find bitching and slinging insults is a lot less mental strain than contributing solutions that solve problems.

 

Oh and when you refer to yourselves as the adults in SA I interpret it the same way I would if congress were to refer to themselves as the adults in government.

 

 

Just curious - if you're interested in solving the violence problem, then why did we constrain the conversation to topics having to do with enacting more laws about firearms?

 

 

Not more. Better.

 

 

Still is more. What laws are you going to remove to make room for them?

 

My issue with having an age restriction is that it really accomplishes nothing. If the intent is to keep criminals in that 18-34 range from getting guns, having an age restriction isn't going to change things one bit. Notice the word "criminal". There are already laws against committing crimes with guns.

 

And the alcohol and smoking analogy is poor. There are age limits because there is no real defensible reason for a 13 yr old to drink or smoke. Neither of those products are really beneficial. But guns are beneficial if used correctly. So broad brush age restricting is silly. Grabblers kid probably was hunting on his own well before that. Are you now going to tell him he can't just so some inner-city little punk in Shitcago supposedly can't get his hands on a glock? Seriously, think about how silly that is. Do you think an age restriction is going to deter some 15 yr old gangbanger from picking up a gun and capping his friend (That's an acquaintance for jocunt)?

[jocal505 86]

GUNS AND CHILDREN: A TRAGIC COMBINATION

--In the developed world, 87 percent of children younger than 14 killed by firearms live in the United States.

--More American children and teenagers died from gunfire in 2010—a single year—than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan since 2001.

-- Among the 23 countries compared, 87% of all firearm deaths of children under the age of 15 occurred in America.

--In 1995, 5285 U.S. children were killed by a firearm, compared with 57 in Germany and 0 in Japan. Is this truly the culture we want for our children? http://www.armedwithreason.com/guns-and-children-a-tragic-combination/>

Gun violence research keeps kids safe. Recently, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation (S. 2373 and H.R. 4707) that would expand funding for gun violence prevention research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research at the federal level is key to understanding the most effective public health interventions that will save lives and keep our communities safe.

Firearm injuries are one of the top three causes of death among youth. To provide a clearer comparison, gun injuries to children and young adults cause twice as many deaths as cancer, five times as many as heart disease and 15 times as many as infections. In Rhode Island, firearms caused 9 percent of the 234 deaths of children under the age of 20 between 2007 and 2011. In a 2011 survey, 18 percent of Rhode Island middle-school students reported that they had carried a weapon. Beyond the startling statistics, there is an enormous emotional toll on families, the community and state.

...The new (RI)legislation introduced by Representative Maloney and Senator Markey is an opportunity to invest federal resources in preventing gun violence by understanding its causes and the most effective intervention strategies through research. <http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140620-nan-du-gun-violence-research-keeps-kids-safe.ece>

 

 

CDC report on youth factors

Certain behaviors and characteristics associated with adolescence are also positively correlated with increased risk for firearm violence. Youth firearm ownership is associated with antisocial behavior (such as bullying, theft, vandalism, violence, substance abuse, and school misbehavior) (Cunningham et al., 2000).

 

Studies have shown that weapon carrying among youth is closely related to having been victimized or having witnessed violence and having high levels of aggression (Fitzpatrick, 1997; Webster et al., 1993).

 

There is also evidence that youth who carry guns may do so because they feel vulnerable to victimization (Simon et al., 1997), although other studies have found gun carrying to be a component of highly aggressive delinquency (Webster et al., 1993).

 

 

Epidemic: Guns kill twice as many kids as cancer does
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

 

 

Childood Deaths and Injuries increasing

Source: NBC News, published October 26th 2013

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/nancy-writebol-second-american-ebola-patient-arrives-atlanta-hospital-n173146>

Conclusion of VPC CA Youth study:

Homicide, and particularly gun homicide, continues to be one of the most pressing public health

concerns in California among youth and young adults ages 10 to 24.

Effective violence prevention strategies must include measure s that prioritize preventing youth and

Young adults from accessing firearms, especially handguns. With firearms accounting for 87 percent

of homicides in the 10 to 24 age range in California (compared to 68 percent among all age groups

nationally) and handguns accounting for 76 percent of all gun homicides, the importance of

prevention strategies to limit exposure to firearms in this age range are of the utmost importance.

 

Important components of such a strategy would be the identification of the make, model, and caliber

of weapons most preferred by this age group as well as analyses identifying the sources of the

weapons. It should be kept in mind that a large percentage of this age group—those under the age

of 21—cannot legally purchase a handgun. It is also generally illegal for anyone under the age of

18 to possess a handgun.15

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cayouth2012.pdf