Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 64 of 64
  1. #61
    House Broken
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    133
    Thanked: 72
    Quote Originally Posted by Paws n Jaws View Post
    This is either a sad misunderstanding of gun laws or a bold faced deception.

    Buying an assault rifle requires an application, $200 tax stamp and an FBI background check. It also takes 6-12 months.
    I'll cop to the fact that I used the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. That was my bad in being careless with language.

    That said, the Orlando shooter legally purchased his gun a week before walking into a nightclub and killing 49 people. The nutjob that shot up the movie theater in Colorado legally purchased 4 guns of varying form over 2 months as well as a few thousand rounds of ammo over the Internet. So it's really not all that hard to get some kind of weaponry that does serious damage in a very short period of time.

    There is a serious disconnect between the intent of the 2nd Amendment as it was written, the technological improvements made in guns over the last 200+ years (we've come along way from muskets) and the mental health resources in this country. Something has to change to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands.

    I'll also say this - several people have mentioned the idea that if some of the patrons of the nightclub were armed, the damage would have been less. This argument really boggles my mind for so many reasons. First of all, additional shooters in a packed, dark, loud nightclub would only add to the chaos. How on earth is one to know who the "good guy with a gun" is versus the "bad guy with a gun?" How is law enforcement, who is walking into a hot box with limited information to know? What about situations where it's not practical? Or should we start teaching our children to carry and fire weapons in school to avoid another Sandy Hook? Secondly, shooting a gun in a tense, high stress environment isn't exactly a guaranteed situation. Our law enforcement, who are well trained, don't shoot with 100% accuracy. So we're supposed to believe that civilians that don't fire weapons for a living are supposed to get it right? Lastly, owning a gun is (should be) a major responsibility. A gun needs to be maintained / cleaned, people should keep up on their skills and licensing, etc. We here have all seen how the average dog owner deals with the responsibility of pet ownership - generally not well. And you want to give these people guns? Arming civilians to "save the day" is not a practical answer.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jacksonsmommy For This Useful Post:

    Berna (06-17-2016), Bob Pr. (06-16-2016), Tanya (06-27-2016), zd262 (06-16-2016)

  3. #62
    Senior Dog Mr Kleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    here
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanked: 2001
    I think we can all agree that ' . . . crazy people [should be] banned from owning guns.' Let's move on to specifics and I'd particularly like to hear from people who believe differently than I do.

    Define 'crazy person.'

    In the context of seeking permission to own a firearm, who does the defining?

    How will the definition be arrived at?

    Who decides the 'crazy person' should not be allowed to have a gun?

    How is that enforced?

    Small events that rarely make more than local media seem to make up the majority of deaths by firearm. What about a non-'crazy person' who may have trouble managing anger and is in a relationship? A person with a history of depression?

    Little if any of this could happen for free. Where does the money come from?

    What do you propose?
    -----------
    I share jacksonsmommys' concerns about arming everyone. A person may have the technical skill to properly care for a firearm, shoot targets, etc. I want to know: Does that person also have the mental, emotional, and psychological makeup to not only pull their weapon in a chaotic situation, but to use it safely and sanely? In other words that person may qualify to possess at home, a target range, their hunting ground and be unqualified to carry elsewhere. Paraphrasing something I read years ago: 'too frozen in fear to pull their weapon, or through fright and fear pull and spray lead everywhere.'
    Andrew, Faye, Fitzi, and Lucy

    Not gone, only gone on ahead - Bruno, Rex, BoJo, Kendal, Kingsley, Moonpie, Avis, Corndog, Stella, and now Achilles

    I invite you to visit my blog, Hidden Content .

  4. #63
    House Broken Paws n Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    99
    Thanked: 55
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsmommy View Post
    I'll cop to the fact that I used the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. That was my bad in being careless with language. That said, the Orlando shooter legally purchased his gun a week before walking into a nightclub and killing 49 people. The nutjob that shot up the movie theater in Colorado legally purchased 4 guns of varying form over 2 months as well as a few thousand rounds of ammo over the Internet. So it's really not all that hard to get some kind of weaponry that does serious damage in a very short period of time. There is a serious disconnect between the intent of the 2nd Amendment as it was written, the technological improvements made in guns over the last 200+ years (we've come along way from muskets) and the mental health resources in this country. Something has to change to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. I'll also say this - several people have mentioned the idea that if some of the patrons of the nightclub were armed, the damage would have been less. This argument really boggles my mind for so many reasons. First of all, additional shooters in a packed, dark, loud nightclub would only add to the chaos. How on earth is one to know who the "good guy with a gun" is versus the "bad guy with a gun?" How is law enforcement, who is walking into a hot box with limited information to know? What about situations where it's not practical? Or should we start teaching our children to carry and fire weapons in school to avoid another Sandy Hook? Secondly, shooting a gun in a tense, high stress environment isn't exactly a guaranteed situation. Our law enforcement, who are well trained, don't shoot with 100% accuracy. So we're supposed to believe that civilians that don't fire weapons for a living are supposed to get it right? Lastly, owning a gun is (should be) a major responsibility. A gun needs to be maintained / cleaned, people should keep up on their skills and licensing, etc. We here have all seen how the average dog owner deals with the responsibility of pet ownership - generally not well. And you want to give these people guns? Arming civilians to "save the day" is not a practical answer.
    Respectfully, I would disagree that there is a disconnect between the intent of the second amendment and the modern evolution of firearms. Quite the contrary.

    We took our county by force from a nation that was trying hard to keep us from becoming independent. The framers wrote the second so that we would always be able to repel a tyrannical government's attempts to steal away our democratic process of governance.

    Truth be told, the framers would likely be very concerned over the disparity between the arms available to the people versus those available to the government. Muskets and cannons were the prevailing weapons of the times. But private citizens have zero access to the advanced weaponry of the military. The framers would be very upset over a citizen's ability to protect our republic from a large federal government.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Paws n Jaws For This Useful Post:

    JackK (06-17-2016)

  6. #64
    House Broken Paws n Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    99
    Thanked: 55
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Kleb View Post
    I think we can all agree that ' . . . crazy people [should be] banned from owning guns.' Let's move on to specifics and I'd particularly like to hear from people who believe differently than I do. Define 'crazy person.' In the context of seeking permission to own a firearm, who does the defining? How will the definition be arrived at? Who decides the 'crazy person' should not be allowed to have a gun? How is that enforced? Small events that rarely make more than local media seem to make up the majority of deaths by firearm. What about a non-'crazy person' who may have trouble managing anger and is in a relationship? A person with a history of depression? Little if any of this could happen for free. Where does the money come from? What do you propose? ----------- I share jacksonsmommys' concerns about arming everyone. A person may have the technical skill to properly care for a firearm, shoot targets, etc. I want to know: Does that person also have the mental, emotional, and psychological makeup to not only pull their weapon in a chaotic situation, but to use it safely and sanely? In other words that person may qualify to possess at home, a target range, their hunting ground and be unqualified to carry elsewhere. Paraphrasing something I read years ago: 'too frozen in fear to pull their weapon, or through fright and fear pull and spray lead everywhere.'
    A citizen should not ever have to ask permission to exercise a civil right. The government should carry the burden of demonstrating why a citizen should be denied that right.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paws n Jaws For This Useful Post:

    arentspowell (06-16-2016), JackK (06-17-2016)

 



Not a Member of the Labrador Retriever Chat Forums Yet?
Register for Free and Share Your Labrador Retriever Photos

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •