Please tell us what gun control measures you want to see.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
That's an easy answer. We already have enough local gun restrictions. But what we need is a president that we can trust and who unites rather than divides the country into racial, religious and ethnic groups. We need a "uniter" so we don't have so many angry people who want to tear down the fabric of our civilization. Obviously the occupant in the WH doesn't give us that.
BTW why didn't the one security guard on that campus have a gun? That's just ignorance and political correctness gone crazy. BTW I assume TU's campus police have easy access to a weapon. Right?
BTW why didn't the one security guard on that campus have a gun? That's just ignorance and political correctness gone crazy. BTW I assume TU's campus police have easy access to a weapon. Right?
Well, yeeeees. Its Obama's fault! When these shootings occur where the most restrictive gun control is in force, you get this. Obama contributes to "this" because he's fostered discontent in the country with his professorial rants like the one yesterday. It's his fault.
Obama has advocated the kind of gun control they have in Chicago, and every liberal city where its unsafe for people to walk the streets at night. He knows the bad guys will never be unarmed and gun control is only aimed at those of us who abide by the law but protect ourselves and our families with those guns Obama wants confiscated.
Obama was a community "instigator" in Chicago, one of the most dangerous cities in the country in spite of the strictest gun laws. He wants to make the country like Chicago. So yes, he's at fault when this occurs and he comes on TV and gives an opinion about this.
BTW Hillary just said that this incident is "a consequence of the dis-function in Washington". So I assume she agrees with me.
Obama has advocated the kind of gun control they have in Chicago, and every liberal city where its unsafe for people to walk the streets at night. He knows the bad guys will never be unarmed and gun control is only aimed at those of us who abide by the law but protect ourselves and our families with those guns Obama wants confiscated.
Obama was a community "instigator" in Chicago, one of the most dangerous cities in the country in spite of the strictest gun laws. He wants to make the country like Chicago. So yes, he's at fault when this occurs and he comes on TV and gives an opinion about this.
BTW Hillary just said that this incident is "a consequence of the dis-function in Washington". So I assume she agrees with me.
Last edited:
Stop. RESET. Please read the original post. We have plenty of political posts.
Someone who favors gun control, tell me what gun control changes you would favor and if that would stop mass shooting. Please no lectures from either side. What can be done?
Someone who favors gun control, tell me what gun control changes you would favor and if that would stop mass shooting. Please no lectures from either side. What can be done?
How about some sort of license to own a class of weapon but then nothing on an item by item basis. Probably 10 classes or so (revolver, semi auto pistol, bolt, semi auto, mag fed rifle, etc.). License would be required before you could purchase any weapon within a class but the weapon itself would not be registered (thus alleviating fears of government confiscation since nobody would know what weapons you actually owned). Strict mandatory sentencing for use of a firearm in a crime sans appropriate license. This moves the responsibility to the owner/user of the weapon and away from the point of sale. You could even go as far as having mandatory liability insurance to go along with the license (the NRA would love that since they could package the insurance and make money off of same).
Licensing process would come with safety, use and marksmanship training for the weapon type and a mandatory recertification (every 5 years??) to ensure the holder remained competent. Licensing would require similar marksmanship qualifications as law enforcement (if you can't hit your target you should not have a weapon).
Concealed carry license would still be an additional qualification. I would add another level of marksmanship to the CCW license process. Shooting at people in public should require some serious skills.
Aside from outright bans and confiscation, there are no laws that would stop the bulk of "gun crime". Read any study and you will find that most "gun crimes" are committed with weapons obtained outside of legal channels. So, changing the laws regarding sales or transfer of individual weapons won't fix anything (again, outside of bans and confiscation on a national level).
Thanks.
Licensing process would come with safety, use and marksmanship training for the weapon type and a mandatory recertification (every 5 years??) to ensure the holder remained competent. Licensing would require similar marksmanship qualifications as law enforcement (if you can't hit your target you should not have a weapon).
Concealed carry license would still be an additional qualification. I would add another level of marksmanship to the CCW license process. Shooting at people in public should require some serious skills.
Aside from outright bans and confiscation, there are no laws that would stop the bulk of "gun crime". Read any study and you will find that most "gun crimes" are committed with weapons obtained outside of legal channels. So, changing the laws regarding sales or transfer of individual weapons won't fix anything (again, outside of bans and confiscation on a national level).
Thanks.
Literally anything. I'd love an outright ban but seeing as how that is a pipe dream, I'll take anything more than the status quo. I fiercely disagree with the Libertarian stance on this issue and the interpretation of the second amendment.
Insurance is an interesting concept and potential deterrent.
Insurance is an interesting concept and potential deterrent.
Only the law abiding will buy insurance. The criminals arent going to, because frankly, they just dont care.
Just a few points. First a well maintained gun will last virtually forever outside of military uses and still a long time even then. Second many guns were bought back in the day when it was like buying a hammer or shovel. When I was a teenager you gave them the money and that was it. No record. I bought a couple of guns since the new laws came in and the background check just made it slower bun not harder. [They were bought for good reason.]
Let me say that in this country I have fired a gun only at an approved gun range or in an extremely rural area with proper back stop. In this country I have never considered even pointing a gun at a human being. What happen in SE Asia stays in SE Asia.
Let me say that in this country I have fired a gun only at an approved gun range or in an extremely rural area with proper back stop. In this country I have never considered even pointing a gun at a human being. What happen in SE Asia stays in SE Asia.
Just curious, I'm in no way trying to argue. I just honestly want to know your opinion on what would happen if a flat out ban was imposed on all firearms and what it would accomplish?
Again I'm not bashing or arguing, just curious on the thought process.
Hilary purposes that we go back to the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
good idea; and while we are at it lest do it to the 14th amendment also.
good idea; and while we are at it lest do it to the 14th amendment also.
Couple of thoughts:
It's probably not a good idea to politicize and make policy over incidents which make up less than 3/10ths of 1% of gun homicides in the U.S.
If we want to tackle the issue of gun violence the first step needs to be addressing inner city violence and gun related deaths.
I'm not a gun guy. In fact I have never owned a gun. I do think we can look at prohibition as a likely result of banning guns. The criminal element will step in and take over sales and distribution creating a new lucrative business for what will likely be a growing underground economy. Criminals will still have access to firearms while law abiding citizens will not.
It's probably not a good idea to politicize and make policy over incidents which make up less than 3/10ths of 1% of gun homicides in the U.S.
If we want to tackle the issue of gun violence the first step needs to be addressing inner city violence and gun related deaths.
I'm not a gun guy. In fact I have never owned a gun. I do think we can look at prohibition as a likely result of banning guns. The criminal element will step in and take over sales and distribution creating a new lucrative business for what will likely be a growing underground economy. Criminals will still have access to firearms while law abiding citizens will not.
BTW, when I legally bought the two guns under the records check system, my son was majoring in Criminal Justice--Law Enforcement and I thought it might not hurt for him to have some exposure to guns. Bought a 40 cal. for him and a 9mm for me since I wouldn't be shooting trough doors. We practiced together at ranges and I taught him about safety, field stripping and cleaning. I had fired expert with a 45 in the Army. So when he first got out of school he took a two week CLEET class for armed security. He worked that as a second job even did some high school basketball games. One where there had been a shooting the year before.
There was a hiring freeze at TPD which when it was lifted I am glad to say that they hired 6 officers all women. Glad for them, glad for him. By the next time that came around he was making more money at a business type job.
I don't know if he still has the 40 cal. or not and I haven't fired the 9mm in years. Not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut. I have fired enough things like grenade launchers, 50 cal. machine guns and light anti-tank weapons that there is no thrill to it. In fact, I think being around guns in the past makes me very hesitant to use one except to save a life.
There was a hiring freeze at TPD which when it was lifted I am glad to say that they hired 6 officers all women. Glad for them, glad for him. By the next time that came around he was making more money at a business type job.
I don't know if he still has the 40 cal. or not and I haven't fired the 9mm in years. Not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut. I have fired enough things like grenade launchers, 50 cal. machine guns and light anti-tank weapons that there is no thrill to it. In fact, I think being around guns in the past makes me very hesitant to use one except to save a life.
Is that why AR-15s cost 34K or so on the black market in Australia? Most mentally insane people and young punks trying to make a name for themselves are not going to be able to fork over that kind of cash.
Australia has a secure border and is able to keep those type of weapons out of the country. Hell...we can't keep people from illegally crossing our borders. Do you think we can stop the flow of guns when there's a market for the same. We would be giving organized crime, Mexican drug gangs, and gangs within this country an entire new business opportunity imo.
Like I stated above, murders by the mentally insane account for less then 3/10ths of 1% of the total firearm related murders in the U.S. The powers that be simply politicize them while ignoring the real violence problem associated with firearms. Yet, we want to shape policy on the exemptions rather than the norm.
Hopefully, not renewed each year with money to the state like a car registration.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
🏀 Recruiting TU signee Tyler Behrend discusses his long road to D-1 basketball
- Latest: chito_and_leon
-