This rant has been on my mind for awhile...

[Vincent Vash]

I come from a fairly liberal family, who although dislike guns, support me and my interests (which include guns)... I get into arguments with my folks more then I would like about pro-gun/anti-gun and gun control and what not... I have read through several threads bringing up various points and sides of the gun control debate (here and on other websites) and I want to ask why so far (and I am sure it has been said and I missed it) nobody has brought up the fact that although technology has advanced tremendously and society (at least in first world countries) seems to be a little more civil (heh)... that human kind has been killing one another for thousands and thousands of years and if a magic anti-gun fairy waved a wand and made every single firearm and all technology/knowledge of such devices vanish, people would A) Still kill each-other and B) the crazies would still be crazy... Before guns, Swords and Bows, before that, stick's and stone's... This may seem like a bit of a tangential rant but I don't think the issue is guns, it is people....

It's not even about law abiding citizens or criminals and that one would still find a way to gain access to guns if the other does not... People will still be people.

Also, it seems strange to me that gun safety isn't taught in a more public forum. In a world that is getting increasingly crazy you might think it be prudent to have a class or two in schools that explain how to be responsible about things like firearms and alcohol and sex. I mean, take the UK and how they view sex ed, or how Germany treats drinking. The kid's learn at a younger age how to be responsible about such things and so they tend to turn out better (in those areas). Since America is so keen on the second amendment, and many parents are unwilling/unable to teach their offspring about proper firearm responsibility, it seem prudent that it should be integrated into public education (along with other topics...)

I know this post is all over the place, and I apologize. To sum it up (TLDR): Humanity has a violent streak without guns even being there, and if we lack the ability as a society to teach responsibility on an individual level, why isn't it taught in schools (since we pay taxes for public education)?

 

[12131]

What is "reasonable waiting period"? 1 day? 3 days? 1 week? Hey, how about 1 month? Even better, 6 months, to make sure we exhaust all possibilities that the purchaser will not commit a crime. Oh, wait, that just won't work now, will it?
As far as I'm concerned, if the NICS check clears you, you get to take your gun home right then. That's how it's supposed to work, not the BS "reasonable" waiting period.

 

[12131]

I honestly think having to wait a week or two is not unreasonable (as far as handguns go).

And, may I ask, as for long guns, how long of a wait do you think is "reasonable"?

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I think any wait is unreasonable.

 

[Vincent Vash]

And, may I ask, as for long guns, how long of a wait do you think is "reasonable"?

In my view, and this may just be me, a heat of the moment decision to by a handgun seems far more likely then buying a rifle or shotgun. I could be wrong. Personally I think 1-3 days is enough for handguns and long guns don't need a wait. When I said one-two weeks in the original post I was more making a statement on peoples inability to wait. I am sorry if it came off more literal than I meant it to. As stated in the post, although I am a pro-firearms individual my family are not and I was raised with the "liberal view" and all that goes with it, though luckily my parents also taught me to think for myself and hence even if they don't support guns, I do.

 

[tarosean]

I honestly think having to wait a week or two is not unreasonable (as far as handguns go).

You could move to CA the already have that 10 day waiting period. Orrrrrrr just check out their crime stats to see how well that deters anything..

 

[Vincent Vash]

I removed the bit about the waiting period, I am realizing I shouldn't have even put it in my post, for some reason it just slipped in, and it seems to be all anyone has noticed.

The main point I was *trying* to make was why do people who are against firearms think humans will be less violent if guns are restricted and why isn't firearm safety taught in schools at least the same way anti-drug classes are... and I don't mean a guy in a animal costume saying "Gun's are dangerous"

 

[Shadow 7D]

The problem ISN'T guns
it two fold

1. - the ISSUE isn't guns, it's violence, and well we all know how well laws work to stop criminals (law breakers - hint, they don't)
Which leads to two
2. - what is the point of these 'controls' that 'reasonable' statists are trying to put in, and where do they go historically?

They don't stop violence, they pander to idiots and willfully ignorant (if there is a difference) and do what?

Answer those two points, cause see they are the main hang up in this arguments, Antis refuse to see past the end of the barrel or blow stuff like the disarmament of a population as 'inconsequential' (funny Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so many other dictators sure didn't think so)

So then you argue that you should
"give in a little, it's reasonable BUT where is the compromise on the anti's side, cause they don't, it's the gun owner giving in, or fighting hard to maintain, no where is there an anti saying
'Eh, this doesn't effect me, sure keep your guns'

 

[easyg]

Also, it seems strange to me that gun safety isn't taught in a more public forum. In a world that is getting increasingly crazy you might think it be prudent to have a class or two in schools that explain how to be responsible about things like firearms and alcohol and sex.

And who, exactly, would get to determine specifically what "gun safety" is?
And who, exactly, would get to determine what is taught concerning alcohol and sex?

"Sex education" has been taught in public schools for the majority of my life, and unwanted pregnancies have only increased every year.
"Sex education" does not reduce pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either an idiot or a liar.

 

[robert garner]

easyg nailed it
I was on the high school rifle team, though I had firearms safety drilled into me at home before grade school even.
Has the dummification of the US progressed to such a level that Parenting is so compleatly discounted as to even wonder why the schools don't address every thing?
These are our children they are our responsibility.
robert

 

[Walkalong]

why isn't it taught in schools

The left mainly controls education now. In general, they don't want guns around, so they are not going to support educating children on guns.

Waiting period? If you clear the nics, you take your gun home.

If we want to have gun safety taught in schools, which is a good idea, along with how to handle money, which they do not teach either, we need to start getting teaching degrees, go into the schools, and get gun safety back the education system.

 

[JustinJ]

that human kind has been killing one another for thousands and thousands of years and if a magic anti-gun fairy waved a wand and made every single firearm and all technology/knowledge of such devices vanish, people would A) Still kill each-other and B) the crazies would still be crazy... Before guns, Swords and Bows, before that, stick's and stone's... This may seem like a bit of a tangential rant but I don't think the issue is guns, it is people....

The problem with your argument is that it seems you are saying "since all violence/murders can't be stopped why bother trying to reduce it?". It's sort of like saying since LE can't stop all crimes why have them at all? I'm not saying gun control would or would not reduce violence or that it would or would not be worth the cost to liberty, but the argument you are making is "all or nothing"

 

[rule303]

I use the same argument often when dealing with antis. If firearms were never invented, there would still be just as much violence, there would still be wars, and there would still be fatal accidents. These things happened before guns, and would still happen if guns disappeared.

 

[keithbayne]

i agree with you on every point. Cain killed Able thousands of years before guns. it is human nature for some to kill some.i agree that we should have better communication in schools pertaining to fire arms.very good points all the way around

 

[keithbayne]

you are so right. i live in south Carolina,i go to the store,pick out my gun,
wait five minutes for the back ground check then take my guns home. and i have NEVER killed any one LOL

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

Ask your anti relatives to offer up objective, peer reviewed studies that prove gun control measure are effective. Don't let them get away with unprovable, feelgood statements.

 

[HoosierQ]

Bull cookies. In all the recent events that have spawned all this talk about gun control...all the way back to Tuscon and VT...the crazies planned their actions way in advance and thus a waiting period would have had no effect whatsoever.

While I am sure there must be an example of somebody flipping out, running straight to a gun shop, passing the NICS, and then immediatly proceeding to shoot somebody...there probably is an example somewhere that somebody can cite...but I'd be willing to bet that it'd really take some digging.

The whole premis of the waiting period is "cooling off". Somebody get's mad they need some time to think over their actions. I think the flaw is that in this sort of situation, the "cooling off period" is considerably shorter than any waiting period. I suggest that simply jumping in one's car and driving to someplace will probably be enough time to accomplish the sort of "cooling off" that these types of laws are trying to deal with. Of course it would be impossible to cite an example where a waiting period worked...and somebody didn't get shot.

So no, waiting periods, once again, and as with all "gun control" laws, only effect law abiding people and to extend that further, to those with legal intent. Everybody involved in the perpetration of an unlawful shooting is already committing a host of crimes. Laws exist outlawing all of these things. In the two most recent crimes, the perpetrator will have committed probably 100 crimes each...or more.

 

[481]

I think any wait is unreasonable.

I agree.

Firearms legislation has already become too oppresive and waiting periods serve only to inconvenience the law-abiding.

Regardless of the law, the criminal element still does as they please and skirt the laws at will. That's why they are called criminals.

 

[Godsgunman]

You hit the nail on the head when saying that it is a human issue and not a weapon or tool issue. It all started when Adam and Eve sinned, direct result Cain murdered Abel. Take away guns, we'll use bows and swords and knives. Take away those and we'll use hammers and nails. Take those away and we'll use ropes, cars, anything we can use. Take away everything and we'll use our hands. Its an issue of mans inate evil nature, there is no good in man less he be born of a new nature only accomplished through Jesus Christ.

As far as gun safety classes in schools, good luck. Whenever we let other people teach our kids what we as parents SHOULD be teaching them ourselves, bad things happen. Case in point, sex ed. Thats a parents job and duty when they feel its right for their child. We as a society of lazy self serving parents have given others to much power and influence over our children. God intended mom and dad to be the instructors of children, no one else. Its time to wake up, the government cant help, legislation cant help. Its time to take responsibility for our own actions.

Rant done

 

[InkEd]

A waiting period does NOTHING to benefit lawful citizens. Restricting it to only handguns is really an example of the backward and uneducated policies pushed by anti-defense groups. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of firearms would be aware the long-arms can have alot more lethal potential than a handgun.

Handguns are the least effective and hardest to use of firearms. They
are popular because of size and cost. A rifle or shotgun is a much more effective weapon. That is a simple fact supported by data collected by hospitals, law enforcement, military and independent lab tests. Review the ballastic tests and note the HUGE difference in lethal ability. Since, it's proven handguns are not nearly as dangerous as long-guns, there must be another reason people want to control them.

The real reason is simple. People who want to control firearms (especially handguns) are elitist and want to ensure the stay in power. You'll notice they never say take them away from the police or military. The reason is simple. Those groups follow orders from the people in political power. An unarmed populus is at the mercy of their armed rulers.

If you take away people's means of resistance, full authority for those in power is ensured. This is demonstrated throughout history by several policies used to disarm and later oppress various populations of people. Moreover, it can be used to eliminate people deemed inferior by the ruling class for whatever reason.

The first gun control laws in the United States were passed in the south after the civil war. The kept former slaves from owning firearms. Which left them powerless to do anything about the other injustice and bad laws (like not being able to vote or segregation laws) passed against them. More recently, other European countries (not even requiring the obvious Nazi Germany) have passed laws taking away the people's rights to own firearms. Thus resulting in little resistance to later policies that oppress other aspects of their lives.

 

[Skribs]

The problem with your argument is that it seems you are saying "since all violence/murders can't be stopped why bother trying to reduce it?". It's sort of like saying since LE can't stop all crimes why have them at all? I'm not saying gun control would or would not reduce violence or that it would or would not be worth the cost to liberty, but the argument you are making is "all or nothing".

I'm thinking he's saying that if you take away all guns, there will still be violence, and the goal of the antis will not be truly resolved. The issue is that they want to stop "gun violence" and that stopping such will not really damper violence in general. Which is basically "treat the disease, not the symptom." If you figure vehicular homocide, knife violence, unarmed assault, gun violence, etc. to all be symptoms of the root issue: violence, then you realize that preventing one symptom doesn't save society. And the day they outlaw feet and hands is the day I saddle up my pig and fly to China.

 

[X-Rap]

Reasonable controls have got us waiting periods, background checks, gun a month type laws in some states, 1 handgun limits without reporting on 4473's. It's all bs and extra costs put upon the gun owners and tax payers.
Crimes of passion, suicide are the reasons given for waiting periods but there are many alternatives available.
Some states allow a carry permit to preclude background checks and waiting periods and while I disagree with the premise of the states permission to exercise a right it does make sense since those who have a permit probably already have a gun so crime of passion or suicide are doubtful motives.
As far as guns and schools I have two points, first is education and who/what should be taught. The NRA is the standard in gun safety and basic training in America and have curriculum that school boards can review and accept at pretty much any level so long as the power to approve remains at the local level.
Regarding the second point of guns actually in school, Grossman (a controversial author/speaker) has some interesting things to say about school safety here http://www.killology.com/art_mass_slaughter.htm
No matter if you agree with all he says or not he does make points worth noting and his comparison of fire safety in schools vs. school shootings is important and worth pointing out to those who would say such preparation has no place in our schools.

 

[JustinJ]

I'm thinking he's saying that if you take away all guns, there will still be violence, and the goal of the antis will not be truly resolved. The issue is that they want to stop "gun violence" and that stopping such will not really damper violence in general.

The goal of groups to feed hungry people may ultimately be to ensure nobody starves but i think they also recognize such a feat is not pragmatic so they see reducing hunger as a viable secondary goal. Ideally it would be great to stop auto traffic fatalities but again, steps that will only reduce them are still made. People who support gun control i'm sure have the same reasoning.

The question then becomes at what cost is one willing to accept in the effort reduce gun related crimes. For example, outlawing guns may ultimately reduce homicide rates but at the same time it would limit individual's ability to defend themselves.

 

[Skribs]

The goal of groups to feed hungry people may ultimately be to ensure nobody starves but i think they also recognize such a feat is not pragmatic so they see reducing hunger as a viable secondary goal. Ideally it would be great to stop auto traffic fatalities but again, steps that will only reduce them are still made. People who support gun control i'm sure have the same reasoning.

The difference is that if you reduce traffic fatalities, the bikes aren't sitting there going "our time is NOW!" If you reduce gun violence, there is a strong likelihood that violence with other weapons will increase. The problem with traffic fatalities is with reckless or negligent attitudes towards driving. The problem with "gun violence" is that someone wants to commit violence.

 

[hso]

People still kill each other with clubs and knives so it isn't the means, but the motivation that is the real issue.