Scoutsout2645
Member
"I am not worried a whole lot about basically law abiding citizens owning firearms of whatever type. There is no evidence that law abiding citizens suddenly become criminals just because they see or touch some kind of firearm" (ilbob)
I agree. I believe that equipment restrictions are foolish. If I want to build a full auto, 1200 round-per-minute, .78cal handgun with a silencer that's belt-fed from a 2000 round hopper on my back, I should be allowed to. Do I need one? No. I don't need a motorcycle that does 0-60 in 2/10ths of a second and tops out at 250 MPH either, but I can get or build one if I want it and can spend the money on it.
Who I am or how I use eguipment is the ONLY thing that should be legislated. If I am an inherent danger to others (I'm blind or subject to random unpredicted blackouts) I can't get a Driver's License. If I prove that I use my equipment in a reckless or criminal fashion which threatens the lives of others (DWI, Eluding police in a MV) I'll get my License to drive taken. And yes, dirtbags WILL violate restrictions. Drunks continue to drive suspended and convicted felons continue to illegally get guns, but these acts are illegal and carry serious penalties as deterrence. Won't work all the time, but it at least gives society a way to punish those who thumb their nose at the laws.
"I am unconvinced that people convicted of non-violent offenses should be prohibited from owning firearms, whether it is a felony or not. I also think that for those convicted of violent offenses, felony or not, there is good reason to look closely at whether they should be in possession of firearms." (ilbob)
Can I simply repeat your statement as a response? I don't think I can improve on it.
"I'd support mandatory gun safety training to graduate high school or middle school" (LongRider)
I like this plan. Part of the anti-gun movement is fear. Fear of guns and fear of the use of guns. As a gun owner, I do not fear my gun...I respect it. As a tool that can kill or maim if carelessly used I am safe and responsible with how I handle and use it, but I do not fear it because I understand what it can and cannot do. It cannot "just go off" by handling it and it will not inherently kill your family just by being loaded and in your home. By learning how to react if they find a gun or--when older--how to safely handle and clear a gun they find, children (and the adults they turn into) can learn respect and understanding for a weapon that is only dangerous if it used dangerously.
Then again, we can't get half our HS grads to read at grade level, do basic math skills without a calculator and cheat sheet, or find the US on a world map...but that's a rant for a different forum.
"what in Hell are all those obvious candidates to harm others doing out of prison or an institution, or not under guardianship?...What disturbs me is that these people are not executed, or in prison or an institution, or not under guardianship. It's what we have police forces and a judiciary for...keep them (criminals) locked up until they can be trusted and you'll see such crime diminish significantly" (ConstitutionCowboy)
"The state cannot protect us from all harm any where near as well as we can protect ourselves." (ConstitutionCowboy)
I hear your frustration and, after working for 13 yrs in LE, I know all too well that bad guys rarely get the jail time they deserve...if they get it at all. The average armed robber on a 1st conviction usually serves no more than 3-5 years (he may be sentenced longer, but w/ good time, parole requirements, etc. you rarely serve the full term). On a homicide, you may be out in 10. An armed robbery pled down to assault or that burglar you caught in your living room may be out in 15 months. This is reality. I wish it wasn't like this, I wish it was some videogame where you make contact with a bad guy and he instantly vanishes never to re-appear. The reality is that after arrest they will be on the street...some for years... until trial. After they get out of jail they are released back into the neighborhood that they came from--often the same neighborhood they victimized in the first place--just months or years after the crime, with better criminal skills, fewer prospects of legal employment and more physical muscle. This is reality.
In the theoretical "perfect world" you (and I) want to live in, your ideas work...in the one I have to inhabit, trying to make it more difficult for this soon-to-be-repeat-offender to get a gun of any kind is the obligation I have to the innocent people that have to live around him. That is the protection that the state is obligated to provide. Nothing, however, should prevent the good citizens around him from getting guns of their own (of ANY type) for their immediate physical protection--that is the venue where the individual is far better at protection than the state is.
Then again, I may come at this from a different perspective than you. I have talked with the 10-15 year old kids with gunshot wounds or dead friends from illegally owned and used guns. Kids who say "my friend got shot today" like you or I would say "my friend went fishing today". I have seen violent gangs dominate neighborhoods with their illegal weapons because prosecutors plea out convictions or because searches of the gang's cars for the drugs and guns they carry there "violate their rights". Who cares about the rights of the person they will rob or the witness they will kill to send a message to the rest of the community "co-operate with the police and die". I have faced the gun, bought by that straw purchase, and then followed out the investigation to id the out-of-state FFL seller and the person who bought the gun/s for the bad guy only to be told that we didn't have jurisdiction, the local agency wouldn't cooperate (hell, the guns ain't killin OUR cops or folks!) and the feds didn't have the manpower. This is why I oppose guns in the hands of those who have proven they cannot act like civilized humans. Every theoretical arguement has practical impact and these are the ones I have faced.
I agree. I believe that equipment restrictions are foolish. If I want to build a full auto, 1200 round-per-minute, .78cal handgun with a silencer that's belt-fed from a 2000 round hopper on my back, I should be allowed to. Do I need one? No. I don't need a motorcycle that does 0-60 in 2/10ths of a second and tops out at 250 MPH either, but I can get or build one if I want it and can spend the money on it.
Who I am or how I use eguipment is the ONLY thing that should be legislated. If I am an inherent danger to others (I'm blind or subject to random unpredicted blackouts) I can't get a Driver's License. If I prove that I use my equipment in a reckless or criminal fashion which threatens the lives of others (DWI, Eluding police in a MV) I'll get my License to drive taken. And yes, dirtbags WILL violate restrictions. Drunks continue to drive suspended and convicted felons continue to illegally get guns, but these acts are illegal and carry serious penalties as deterrence. Won't work all the time, but it at least gives society a way to punish those who thumb their nose at the laws.
"I am unconvinced that people convicted of non-violent offenses should be prohibited from owning firearms, whether it is a felony or not. I also think that for those convicted of violent offenses, felony or not, there is good reason to look closely at whether they should be in possession of firearms." (ilbob)
Can I simply repeat your statement as a response? I don't think I can improve on it.
"I'd support mandatory gun safety training to graduate high school or middle school" (LongRider)
I like this plan. Part of the anti-gun movement is fear. Fear of guns and fear of the use of guns. As a gun owner, I do not fear my gun...I respect it. As a tool that can kill or maim if carelessly used I am safe and responsible with how I handle and use it, but I do not fear it because I understand what it can and cannot do. It cannot "just go off" by handling it and it will not inherently kill your family just by being loaded and in your home. By learning how to react if they find a gun or--when older--how to safely handle and clear a gun they find, children (and the adults they turn into) can learn respect and understanding for a weapon that is only dangerous if it used dangerously.
Then again, we can't get half our HS grads to read at grade level, do basic math skills without a calculator and cheat sheet, or find the US on a world map...but that's a rant for a different forum.
"what in Hell are all those obvious candidates to harm others doing out of prison or an institution, or not under guardianship?...What disturbs me is that these people are not executed, or in prison or an institution, or not under guardianship. It's what we have police forces and a judiciary for...keep them (criminals) locked up until they can be trusted and you'll see such crime diminish significantly" (ConstitutionCowboy)
"The state cannot protect us from all harm any where near as well as we can protect ourselves." (ConstitutionCowboy)
I hear your frustration and, after working for 13 yrs in LE, I know all too well that bad guys rarely get the jail time they deserve...if they get it at all. The average armed robber on a 1st conviction usually serves no more than 3-5 years (he may be sentenced longer, but w/ good time, parole requirements, etc. you rarely serve the full term). On a homicide, you may be out in 10. An armed robbery pled down to assault or that burglar you caught in your living room may be out in 15 months. This is reality. I wish it wasn't like this, I wish it was some videogame where you make contact with a bad guy and he instantly vanishes never to re-appear. The reality is that after arrest they will be on the street...some for years... until trial. After they get out of jail they are released back into the neighborhood that they came from--often the same neighborhood they victimized in the first place--just months or years after the crime, with better criminal skills, fewer prospects of legal employment and more physical muscle. This is reality.
In the theoretical "perfect world" you (and I) want to live in, your ideas work...in the one I have to inhabit, trying to make it more difficult for this soon-to-be-repeat-offender to get a gun of any kind is the obligation I have to the innocent people that have to live around him. That is the protection that the state is obligated to provide. Nothing, however, should prevent the good citizens around him from getting guns of their own (of ANY type) for their immediate physical protection--that is the venue where the individual is far better at protection than the state is.
Then again, I may come at this from a different perspective than you. I have talked with the 10-15 year old kids with gunshot wounds or dead friends from illegally owned and used guns. Kids who say "my friend got shot today" like you or I would say "my friend went fishing today". I have seen violent gangs dominate neighborhoods with their illegal weapons because prosecutors plea out convictions or because searches of the gang's cars for the drugs and guns they carry there "violate their rights". Who cares about the rights of the person they will rob or the witness they will kill to send a message to the rest of the community "co-operate with the police and die". I have faced the gun, bought by that straw purchase, and then followed out the investigation to id the out-of-state FFL seller and the person who bought the gun/s for the bad guy only to be told that we didn't have jurisdiction, the local agency wouldn't cooperate (hell, the guns ain't killin OUR cops or folks!) and the feds didn't have the manpower. This is why I oppose guns in the hands of those who have proven they cannot act like civilized humans. Every theoretical arguement has practical impact and these are the ones I have faced.
