HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What laws will stop gun c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:28 PM

 

What laws will stop gun crimes such as

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by HappyMe (a host of the General Discussion forum).

1. A football player murdering his girlfriend and killing himself?
2. A guy killing two people and wounding another in a mall before killing himself?
3. A former police officer from being a serial killer?

Specifically, what laws would do it? Are your laws politically feasible; can they be implemented without giving up Second Amendment rights as understood by the Supreme Court and the majority of the American people? (Never mind if the Court and most Americans are wrong and you are right, let's leave that debate for another time.)

45 replies, 1883 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply What laws will stop gun crimes such as (Original post)
TPaine7 Dec 2012 OP
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #1
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #3
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #2
sadbear Dec 2012 #4
spin Dec 2012 #29
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #5
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #6
justanidea Dec 2012 #9
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #12
justanidea Dec 2012 #18
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #11
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #16
spin Dec 2012 #31
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #13
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #20
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #26
justanidea Dec 2012 #24
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #28
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #33
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #34
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #8
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #14
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #22
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #25
Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #37
justanidea Dec 2012 #27
hobbit709 Dec 2012 #36
flvegan Dec 2012 #7
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #10
dsc Dec 2012 #15
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #17
tiny elvis Dec 2012 #23
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43
0rganism Dec 2012 #19
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #21
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #32
Skittles Dec 2012 #30
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #39
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #35
joeybee12 Dec 2012 #38
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #44
dmallind Dec 2012 #40
marions ghost Dec 2012 #41
rustydog Dec 2012 #42
HappyMe Dec 2012 #45

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:29 PM

1. Going back in time and preventing guns from being invented. Then again we probably wouldn't be here.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:54 PM

3. That would do it.

 

Other than that, I can't think of many practical and effective ways.

Of course, pulling one's hair and screaming for something to be done is emotionally satisfying for some. It's also how we get wonderful things like the Patriot Act, universal spying on e-mail and phone conversations, Japanese internment camps, "special rendition" and "enhanced interrogation."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:50 PM

2. How about the same sort of laws that surround the use of motor vehicles?

1. Licenses that require knowledge of how to operate the fire arm safely complete with periodic retesting and renewals. Medical issues such as vision, epilepsy, mental health could be covered here. As with vehicles, the different types of weapons could require different levels of training and certification.

2. Obligation to keep current liability insurance to compensate for harm.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:54 PM

4. #2^^^

Make corporations and other rich folk prosper when gun crime is low and take a hit when it's high. Seriously, in this country, things only get done when it affects corporations and the rich.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:25 AM

29. Great idea but absolutely politically impossible.

If for no other reason you are right when you suggest that the rich run this nation and would never allow such a law to pass.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:58 PM

5. You think that would stop the crimes listed above?

 

Hopefully the cop passed a mental health screening and was at least marginally proficient with a firearm. IIRC, some mass murderers were proficient with arms. And vehicle licensing doesn't seem to stop vehicular murder or manslaughter.

Liability insurance doesn't seem relevant; I don't see how it affects murder-suicide, public shootings or serial killing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:30 AM

6. Yes I absolutely do

First of all, it would elevate the level of responsibility for gun owners and thus anyone caught without the license would be arrested- or fined/something. And the liability insurance would give injured people a place to seek compensation for damages.

I think that it would reduce all gun crimes.

We should try it out and see. Better than completely outlawing them, imo. Which is where we will be going very soon if all this keeps up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:43 AM

9. Requiring insurance to exercise a Constitutional right would never be upheld by any court.

 

Not to mention it would basically take away gun rights from the poor who cant afford a big insurance plan.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:49 AM

12. That is ridiculous

we all have a right to expect anyone operating something lethal to have proper safety training and liability insurance.

Plenty of poor people drive cars, too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:01 AM

18. Yes, but for many, one more expense such as that may be too much.

 

It's one thing to save up $250 for a used handgun.

It's another to save the $250 for a used handgun and then have to pay $50-100 a month in insurance on it.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:45 AM

11. I can see where that might help with accidental shootings

like all those stories where Uncle Dipshit's gun falls out of his pants at a restaurant and someone gets shot. But I just can't imagine someone in a murderous haze stopping to consider the insurance ramifications of his actions. Especially if, like TPaine was saying, they are also planning on killing themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:56 AM

16. It's kind of like the guy who goes to the bridge to jump off but wears a nice coat so he won't catch

 

a cold.

I just can't imagine someone in a murderous haze stopping to consider the insurance ramifications of his actions. Especially if, like TPaine was saying, they are also planning on killing themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:41 AM

31. 800,000 Florida residents have concealed weapons permits ...

and in our nation several million people legally carry. Rarely does a handgun fall out the owner's pants and discharge. Most modern firearms have safety features that prevent this from happening. When it does happen it is usually because the owner does not have it in a good holster, attempts to grab the weapon when it falls and pulls the trigger by accident.

Whenever one of these extremely rate situations occur the media is happy to publish the story at the national level which may lead some to believe that such accidents are common.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:50 AM

13. People who drive without licenses get in trouble/arrested.

 

They still drive without licenses. And the licensed, insured ones still drive drunk. And we already deny gun rights after a gun owner's first murder conviction, just like people lose driving privileges after driving drunk.

I appreciate your motives, but I don't have high hopes for your plan's success.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:06 AM

20. These laws have made a huge difference

Look at how seriously drunk driving is treated now vs 30 yrs ago, there is no comparison. Driving is much safer now that it was even 20 years ago.

The choice that I see is regulate in some rational way or guns will be taken away from the general public. Not nxt week, but the next generation.

I live in the rural west and we need firearms around here and I know of no one who would object to any of these provisions. In fact people practice regularly and take matters of safety very seriously. Why not elevate the whole issue by requiring some civilizing structure?

Why so gloomy about the power of thugs and criminals?

With guns they have been given a free for all, while responsible people bear the lion's share of the shame.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:21 AM

26. You make some good points, but I don't think well-intentioned responsible people

 

committed any of these crimes.

The closest murderer to being well intentioned (in general, not as he killed of course) would be the football player, but he could have killed his girlfriend very easily without a gun. The idea that the gun facilitated it to the extent that she would have survived without it is debatable. So to me, the focus on "gun murder" as opposed to "murder" is misplaced in this case.

I agree that there is no right to unsafely use a gun. Therefore I think gun safety should be taught in schools and concealed or open carriers could constitutionally be required to show basic competence. My concern is that the Chicagos and New Yorks and LAs will do everything in their power to make the process as expensive, time consuming, difficult and obnoxious as possible. Look up DC's process to merely buy a gun to keep in one's home.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:12 AM

24. In my state (PA) you can lose your carry license if you have had 3 or more DUIs in the past 5 years

 

I think there is a similar law regarding gun ownership in general in PA but I can't remember (Never had a DUI so it never concerned me much )

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:22 AM

28. Well, since you don't like my ideas what are your proposals?

You asked for us to share and I did and so what are your ideas?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:05 AM

33. Provide a system for ordinary folks to transfer weapons without fear of passing them to convicts

 

that doesn't involve licensing or registration (registration has been used for confiscation in America).

Minimum standards for secure gun storage when people aren't home (to prevent theft).

Mandatory periodic inventories and reporting of lost or stolen weapons (to put a kink in straw purchases).

Making a straw purchaser an automatic accomplice to any crime committed with the gun (a guy who routinely purchased guns for sale on the black market could easily get life as an accomplice to multiple crimes).

Strict enforcement of domestic violence disqualification for weapons possession.

Laws designed to

1) stop the flow of guns to criminals
2) stop the flow of guns to children
3) stop the flow of guns to the insane
4) ensure basic competency by those who carry in public

should have maximal effect.

As for stopping most planned mass shootings, ex cop serial killers and domestic slayings of women by men who outweigh them by 100 lbs (without plenty of warning abuse leading up), no reasonable gun laws will stop them.

The media thrives on hysteria. You are less likely to be killed by a gun today than you would have been 40 years ago. You are less likely to be killed by someone with a concealed carry permit than to be killed by lightening.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:51 PM

34. Those sound good to me

Currently what can law enforcement do with folks who have guns who should not have them? Isn't this the real issue in urban areas? Don't we want some way to treat folks who should not have guns like we treat drunk drivers? Seriously and with consequences that make a difference? Or do we already have this?

What kind of laws do you propose. I think that we all share the same goal, the question is how do we get there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:40 AM

8. I don't think most criminals and little gangstas put much stock in gun safety, and I haven't seen

many wear glasses.

Frankly, I'd rather keep it that way. I really wouldn't fancy seeing five gangstas with MS13 tatooed on their necks sharing a lane at the gun range thank you very much.

What you're talking about is subjecting lawful gun owners to those conditions, because no self-respecting criminal or little gangsta got their gun through legal means, and I dare say NONE of them even have car insurance much less gun liability insurance.

On the surface, your idea sounds like a good one, but upon reflection, nah.

I'd rather criminals and little gangstas NOT be proficient with the firearms they obtain illegally, and if they have bad eyesight, that's all the better. I'd also like to see them continue to hold their pistols with their palm facing the ground because it makes it nearly impossible to hit a vertical target that way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:52 AM

14. It would change the gun culture in general

towards being more responsible and actually legitimate.

It would also make it more clear when people are not following the laws. I would imagine that it could be helpful to law enforcement.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:08 AM

22. I fail to see how it would change the behavior of a single criminal or little gangsta.

More than a hundred million American Citizens own guns legally and never EVER break a law with them. Criminals and little gangstas ARE NOT going to be part of your proposed system. Get that? They're not going to buy their guns at a store, then register them, then sign up for gun safety classes designed to separate law abiding citizens from criminals and little gangstas. That separation is already in place.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:17 AM

25. Then why aren't they all in jail then?

What does law enforcement need to be able to arrest them for this?

Having a system would make a difference.

A drunk driver destroyed about 8K worth of irrigation equipment on my farm- crashed into it. He did not have insurance or a license. They had been taken away from him before. He was jailed for a few years and was put on probation and he had to pay restitution to be released from probation.

This did not prevent him from destroying my equipment, but I bet he won't do that again. The system did at least allow me to replace the equipment eventually.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:08 PM

37. Eh?

If his drivers license had already been suspended and he DUIed anyways, what would make you think he won't do it ... again?

He already did it again. If he did time for a DUI, it was not his first offense, so the chances are that he will, in fact, do it again.

Sometimes people are who they are, and outside of incarceration for life there is little that can be done to stop them from doing it "again".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:22 AM

27. Interesting fact: There's a Supreme Court decision saying criminals are exempt from registering guns

 

Haynes v. United States. (1968)

Haynes was a convicted felon who was arrested for having an unregistered NFA firearm.

The Supreme Court ruled that forcing Haynes to register it would violate his 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination since he would be admitting to possessing the gun illegally (due to the fact hes a convicted felon and not allowed to own a gun).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:58 PM

36. And how many people currently drive without either a license or insurance?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:34 AM

7. So you're ultimately asking what laws will stop murder, right?

Or at least alleged murder.

If laws stopped murder, there wouldn't be murder.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:44 AM

10. "If laws stopped murder, there wouldn't be murder." Exactly.

 

A lot of people have a "we've got to do something, now" attitude. Of course, pulling one's hair and screaming for something to be done is emotionally satisfying. It's also how we get wonderful things like the Patriot Act, universal spying on e-mail and phone conversations, Japanese internment camps, "special rendition" and "enhanced interrogation."

I'm trying to stimulate thought. Is the proposed legal regime likely to actually pass and to actually meet the goals, or will it just make folks feel momentarily better after venting?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:55 AM

15. then fine why have laws against murder?

after all you just said they don't work since we have murder.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:01 AM

17. Well the first thing is having rational goals.

 

Crime and murders have already decreased dramatically. If our goal is to eliminate them, the most draconian laws won't work. Secondly, whether or not the laws can get passed is an issue.

I certainly don't expect 100% effectiveness from any human law (or any human anything). I'm trying to get people to think beyond the "we must do something now" hair on fire stage. "What are we trying to accomplish?" and "what is our likelihood of success?" are good questions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:12 AM

23. do laws not stop murder?

tautology only sounds like a reasonable argument; it is not

1. A football player murdering his girlfriend and killing himself?

with a gun

2. A guy killing two people and wounding another in a mall before killing himself?

with a gun

3. A former police officer from being a serial killer?

with a gun?

alcoholics blame everything but the alcohol


Specifically, what laws would do it?

contraband laws equal to drug laws, beginning with confiscation

Are your laws politically feasible; can they be implemented without giving up Second Amendment rights as understood by the Supreme Court and the majority of the American people?

no
one side must lose this fight

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:48 PM

43. 2. A guy killing two people and wounding another in a mall before killing himself?

 

Take the mall part out and it isn't a gun but is a knife and a bow/arrow

Oh and many think the Long Island killer (who didn't use a gun to kill) was a previous cop.

And there are quite a few cases of football players who killed their girlfriends with knives or strangled them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:04 AM

19. I think universal health care would help

Looking back on "Bowling for Columbine", one of the things Moore showed as very different in Canada is their single-payer health care system. Canadians can freely own guns, much as Americans do, but there's a much lower rate of gun violence. Probably some of that has to do with other social factors, but clearly the notion that one major sickness can economically destroy a family is a stresser they live without. Nor do they live with the fear that losing a job will lead to loss of health care.

I believe, if we had a single-payer health care system, we'd also have a less fearful society, and some portion of these incidents would simply not occur. Parents would be less stressed out and abusive, people could get the medical treatment they need regardless of employment and accumulated wealth, children would grow up knowing they lived in a country that gave half a shit about their personal well-being. That would make a difference -- not saying total elimination of violence, but it would help.

As far as feasibility, I'm afraid we've seen just how feasible it is over the last 4 years. And props to President Obama -- I think he and the 2008 congress did the best they possibly could have under the circumstances, even if the results are suboptimal.

The up-side is, there'd be no need to infringe on the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS would probably uphold it as constitutional.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:07 AM

21. Good point!

It would make a difference, I think.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:48 AM

32. "children would grow up knowing they lived in a country that gave half a shit about their personal

 

well-being."

I think that's more important than we as a society imagine. I think that is why black kids who dodge bullets on the way to unsafe schools don't grow up respecting the society that couldn't care less about them. I think that's why kids at Native American reservations are so lost. Rage, withdrawal, crime, abuse--these are just different ways of coping in a society that doesn't care about you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:36 AM

30. YOU WON; STOP WHINING!!!!!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:12 PM

39. It's not whining, it's an end zone victory dance n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:55 PM

35. Laws will never be 100% effective against any behavior.

However, to the extent they lessen the chance of an incident occurring by deterrance or by additional safety checks, those laws should continue to remain in full force and effect.

Most people, including myself, drive over the posted speed limit from time to time. That doesn't mean I think we should do away with speed limit laws.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:11 PM

38. Unrec...GD means just that...discussion...not simply insulting people...

You don't want facts...you want your own narrow beliefs parroted back at you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:41 PM

44. You must be talking to yourself... carry on. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:21 PM

40. Stop them? Bugger all. Reduce? Well let's see..

Your own ideas are a good start. I personally am not opposed to shall-issue national registration, while realizing the constitutional hurdle, although I am not sure that a free registration process infringes the right to bear arms myself.

Possession of an unregistered firearm would be a minimum 10 year sentence. The presence of one, even unused, in any violent crime would be a minimum 50. Would it stop armed criminals? Obviously not but it would make being one a once-in-a-lifetime experience if caught. Plenty of drug users we can let out to make jail space available.

The suicide/suicide by cop types are a harder nut to crack although despite the publicity they are a tiny fraction of homicides compared to the above. Mental health screens administered pre-registration by non-activists would perhaps help but be likely unworkable given the number of psych screens necessary, and also raise issues of subjectively-assessed thought crime given psychology's abysmal predictive abilities. Anonymous tip lines where a report of inappropriate behavior on the part of a registered owner would trigger a review might be a better option.

The thing is though screening out a Cho just risks a Kehoe. A nutcase willing to spree-kill then suicide uses guns only because they are an efficient and simple tool. However fire and simple explosives can be far deadlier, as mass killing body counts demonstrate. Such means are not beyond the wit of very many people. The US's terrible mental health stigma and lack of access is a major culprit here, as is multigenerational poverty and pathetic education system for the most at risk. Fix those and you'll have far fewer Cho's and Kehoes to begin with, albeit never zero.

Needless to say, silly restrictions on legal owners only like magazine caps and scary-black-rifle bans are a waste of time. The idea of banning guns is on a par with issuing everybody a pet unicorn given the number already in existence, the many thousands of gunsmiths, and the ease of making a very fine gun from scratch in a basic machine shop from off-the-shelf steels. In fact the best gun by far I ever owned was one such - an Ed Brown 1911.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 PM

41. America is a gun culture

--which keeps many people hostage. I have personally known people who were killed by random gun violence. I have been at the wrong end of a gun 5 times--completely by accident --twice the gun was held by cops and I just happened to be there. (In one case the guy was under the influence of prescription drugs)....My grandfather was killed by a hunting rifle. America is a gun culture.

Guns do more damage to America than the harm done in actually killing people. Whatever laws we can get are needed. But we won't get any good laws.

I've given up on this. Gun owners of America have won already. They have the power. They are the only ones who can change any laws. Maybe if enough of their own families get shot --that's about the only way I can imagine gun owners wanting stricter laws.

The rest of us are hostages.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:33 PM

42. A law banning sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons

and automatic weapons in this country. Automatic prison for those i n posession of such weappons.

Unless paper targets and wildlife have begun shooting back at hunters, there is no need for such firepower in our homes.

When the law changes, I'll gladly surrender my 9mm Glock and keep the .357 Magnum, 30-30 and .22

I have not had a CCW in over 10 years and do not see a reason for it. If I have to carry a firearm to the mall to protect myself and my family, I need to change where I live.

but then, this is my opinion and I'm stuck with it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:50 PM

45. Locking

Violates the GD SoP. Please repost in the gun group. Thank you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink