Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are Sensible Gun Laws?  
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21085 posts, RR: 56
Posted (7 years 11 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

In an effort to keep the other threads about the VT shooting free of lobbying for stricter or more lenient gun control, I figured starting a thread for that purpose would be a good idea.

So, what restrictions (if any) on firearms would you consider appropriate? Remember that the goal is not to get rid of guns, but to get rid of gun crimes. Getting rid of guns entirely would be a way to do that, but would be a huge undertaking, and it is naive to think that one could get rid of every single gun in the US, both legally and illegally acquired. Conversely, I don't think that giving everyone in the US over 18 a handgun would be a good idea either. So the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm of the mind that the process of buying a gun should be designed at making sure that only those responsible enough to own a gun are able to buy one, and that those who do buy them are not mentally unstable. They should be able to operate a gun safely, and be able to shoot to a certain standard of accuracy. In the two threads about VT there were various comments on how a trained civilian might have been able to do some good in the situation. I don't doubt that, but I also noticed that those making those comments had training that seemed to go above and beyond the norm (please correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm not convinced that your average gun owner would be of any use in such a situation, and might even be a danger to others and themselves.

So what say you? And please try to keep things civil.

-Mir


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Between the pro and the anti you are never going to resolve this issue! It rates up there with trying to get old people to give up there drivers license when they can no longer drive safely.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineNKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

This is what I say:

Enforce the myriad of existing gun laws already in existence before attempting yet another "feel good" restriction. Resist temptation to grandstand by not thinking "....we've gotta do SOMEthing....."


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

I'll save everyone the speculation right off the bat. I am a life member of the NRA. I am a law enforcement officer and a licensed PPO as well as a CHL holder. I am also an avid hunter and sport shooter. I carry a weapon both professionally and personally. So there you go, you know my bias up front.

That out of the way, I support the right for any person who is legally an adult to purchase and carry a firearm as long as:


  • They have not been convicted of any felony, sexually oriented crimes involving minors, DUI/DWI or domestic violence
  • They have not been found to be mentally disturbed
  • They can prove themselves to be competent with the use, maintenance and storage of the type of weapon they are choosing to purchase. There should be separate proficiencies for:

    • Auto loading rifles/shotguns
    • Mechanically operated rifles/shotguns
    • Revolvers
    • Self loading pistols



Firearms should not be allowed to be carried in any location whose designated purpose is the sale of alcohol, or pending future changes in law... any location designated for the sale of mind altering substances.

Firearms should be registered in a federal level database. But, that database should only be accessible for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting a crime in which that firearm was used. (possession alone should never be considered, unless that possession is illegal under the previous list of qualifications.)

There should be very stiff felony level penalties for people who make firearms available or accessible to minors or to persons not qualified to own a firearm.

The 14th amendment should be applied to the 2nd amendment, and firearms laws should be nationalized so that they are uniform throughout the country.

The 1934 National Firearms Act should be left intact limiting the ownership of automatic weapons, silencers and short barreled rifles/firearms to those persons willing to submit to additional government oversight and expenses.

*edit* spelling

[Edited 2007-04-19 03:55:03]

User currently offlineAAce24 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 849 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Most of the people who do unlawful things with guns, get them illegally.

The problem isn't that our gun laws are flawed, they just need to be more closely followed and enforced.

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
And please try to keep things civil.

This thread has about a 2% chance of staying civil.


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting AAce24 (Reply 4):
Most of the people who do unlawful things with guns, get them illegally.

The shooter at VT got his legally!



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineAAce24 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 849 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 5):
The shooter at VT got his legally!

Notice I said most people.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 5):
The shooter at VT got his legally!

Because of a flaw in the system. People who have judgements of being mentally disturbed are not supposed to be able to buy guns. How this person did needs to be investigated.


User currently offlineAAce24 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 849 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

The problem in the VT case is that mental health records are kept completely private.

Which is stupid, IMO.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 5):
The shooter at VT got his legally!

No law is fool proof. No provisions to prevent pychos from getting guns is 100%. The best we can do is to put meaningful laws in place (they already exist and are on the books) and enforce them. Will some lunatic get through? Yes. Butthe majority of folks who can legally purchase a firearm are law abiding citizens that want the firearm for hunting, sport, collection, self defense or some combination of the above.

This lunatic fooled more than one person. Though now everyone is coming out of the woodwork saying something was wrong with him.

[Edited 2007-04-19 04:00:48]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
People who have judgements of being mentally disturbed are not supposed to be able to buy guns.

Can you name one law that supports this statment?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
They have not been found to be mentally disturbed

I agree with the sentiment on this. The problem (as I mentioned in another thread) is not only comming up with the provisions for this, but working around Hippa and Dr./patient privacy rights. MAYBE being baker acted could be public flag that could be incorporated into the currently required background check, but that would take an act of a very corrupt congress.

Otherwise I think most states and the current federal regulations are fine as they are. Eveyone has to wait for the background check for a hand gun, and the laws of most states I know work fine save the psychological loophole.


User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3076 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
That out of the way, I support the right for any person who is legally an adult to purchase and carry a firearm as long as:




They have not been convicted of any felony, sexually oriented crimes involving minors, DUI/DWI or domestic violence

They have not been found to be mentally disturbed

They can prove themselves to be competent with the use, maintenance and storage of the type of weapon they are choosing to purchase. There should be separate proficiencies for:



Auto loading rifles/shotguns

Mechanically operated rifles/shotguns

Revolvers

Self loading pistols





Firearms should not be allowed to be carried in any location whose designated purpose is the sale of alcohol, or pending future changes in law... any location designated for the sale of mind altering substances.

Firearms should be registered in a federal level database. But, that database should only be accessible for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting a crime in which that firearm was used. (possession alone should never be considered, unless that possession is illegal under the previous list of qualifications.)

There should be very stiff felony level penalties for people who make firearms available or assessable to minors or to persons not qualified to own a firearm.

The 14th amendment should be applied to the 2nd amendment, and firearms laws should be nationalized so that they are uniform throughout the country.

The 1934 National Firearms Act should be left intact limiting the ownership of automatic weapons, silencers and short barreled rifles/firearms to those persons willing to submit to additional government oversight and expenses.

Being Canadian I agree...Perhaps i might add a couple extra..

Safe storage laws...Plus i would drop the ability to own a silencer and automatic weapons...Plus i think that in most cases a waiting period between purchase and pick-up(that can be flexiable but perhaps a cooling off period for Domestics might be a good idea...May stop the "in the heat of the moment"

As a newly minted PO my views have changed somewhat...


GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
think most states and the current federal regulations are fine as they are.

Agreed, but there is a big habit of basing laws on the looks of the weapon.

Although I would prefer to see the gun laws implemented after the Kennedy Assasination rolled back even farther.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
Can you name one law that supports this statment?

I don't have a firearms purchase form in front of me so I'll just have to wing it from memory. One of the majic questions that must be answered concerns judgements of mental conditions. Any wrong answers and no gun. Perhaps someone who has a yellow form can provide the proper text.

I believe the language originated in the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
Eveyone has to wait for the background check for a hand gun,

Not since the creation of the NCIS. Background checks are done by a phone call to the proper authorities while the customer waits. Certain results of the NCIS check may require a longer check which do then enact the full waiting period.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
The problem (as I mentioned in another thread) is not only comming up with the provisions for this, but working around Hippa and Dr./patient privacy rights.

Aren't there already provisions in place for the violation of Dr./Patient privacy in situations that require notification of authorities?

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 12):
Plus i would drop the ability to own a silencer and automatic weapons...

In some places, using a silencer is considered courteous.


User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):
In some places, using a silencer is considered courteous.

Oddly enough in some of the countries with the most reprehensible gun control laws like Sweden. As you state if you are lucky enough to get the government to allow to own a firearm you are expected to have a silencer on it to keep the noise pollution down.

I have a Cech built CZ in .22LR that had the Euro-spec threaded barrel on it to take a silencer.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):
Aren't there already provisions in place for the violation of Dr./Patient privacy in situations that require notification of authorities?

 no  if you think about it when someone is usually baker acted it is a concerned 3rd party requesting that the police have the subject evaluated this is all public knowledge that is not protected by HIPPA. The second that person hits the door at the facility THEN it's Dr. Patient unless there is never a reason to release the subject. I know you came up with some points about mental stability (un credited), but if it's on a form to be filled out before the gun is purchased do you honestly think anyone is going to say 'yes I'm a whack job'?


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 15):
...but if it's on a form to be filled out before the gun is purchased do you honestly think anyone is going to say 'yes I'm a whack job'?

I've gone to gun stores to arrest people that have answered "yes" to the question: "Are you a felon?"

Good times.

I'll have to ask me sig O when I get home about disclosure to law enforcement. She does that Counseling thing.

1968 Gun Control Act

Prohibited Persons

  • Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
  • Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
  • Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
  • Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
  • Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa.
  • Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
  • Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship.
  • Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
  • Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
  • Anyone who is under the age of 18 for a shotgun or rifle, or under age 21 for a handgun. (See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(1).)


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):

I'll save myself the trouble of retyping and simply echo MDorBusts thoughts here.


Furthermore, I concur with Greasespot. Weapon storage laws. Particularly whe there are children in the vicinity.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

To MDorBust's list up in Reply 3, which I think is highly sensible (although I wouldn't necessarily make gun laws uniform nationwide, as localities may be better able to assess what laws would go the furthest toward reducing gun crime in their own community), I would add a couple more.
1) Gun owners should be required by law to secure their guns with trigger locks, to prevent their being fired by unauthorized people (especially children). Rifles should be required to be stored in a gun safe.
2) Gun manufacturers should work towards developing fingerprint readers that could be installed in guns, further ensuring that they are only fired by qualified people. Of course, the technology to do this isn't developed/cheap enough at this point, so this is more of a long term goal.
3) A waiting period.
4) Allow businesses and universities, if they so choose, to prohibit the carrying of guns while on the premises. It's their private property, so they can set conditions on who can enter.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 15):
I know you came up with some points about mental stability (un credited), but if it's on a form to be filled out before the gun is purchased do you honestly think anyone is going to say 'yes I'm a whack job'?

Well thats how a Mental Status Examination works (a psychiatric evaluation). Do you feel sad a lot, etc. It's easy to answer the questions correctly if you want to deceive the person doing the exam. Now, if your psychotic, it'll be obvious to the clerk and you probably won't be able to fill out the form anyway.

I think that you should have to be 18 years old, have passed a background check, have attended a gun safety course and have firearms sold only in the proper places with staff trained know gun laws thoroughly and notice obvious signs of mental instability. A mandatory one day waiting period for guns isn't a bad idea. There should be a huge crackdown on illegal firearms.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 18):

Some thoughts on why I didn't include some of your points.

Trigger locks. - They're useless. Almost beyond useless. An improperly installed trigger lock actually makes it easier to discharge a firearm. I was in a class once where the instructor, as a demonstration, fired the full load of a Remmington 870 shotgun with a trigger lock installed. We currently have legislation that mandates locking devices be sold with every new firearm. Use them at your discretion. This also ties in with discharge prevention devices. You mentioned fingerprint readers. Problems: What if you are wearing gloves? Or if the weapon needs to be used in a muddy or rainy situation? There was a company that developed rings that would interface with a weapon to let it know the person was authorized. Problem: What if the shooter needs to use their other hand because of injury? The best answer, and easiest answer is in proper training for the person owning the weapon and their family, and yes, proper storage.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 18):
4) Allow businesses and universities, if they so choose, to prohibit the carrying of guns while on the premises. It's their private property, so they can set conditions on who can enter.

Yes, the rights of the property owner should be respected.


User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

I'd say a waiting period and a registration requirement sounds pretty sensible to me.

Virginia, by the way, has neither.


User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29693 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 21):
Virginia, by the way, has neither

The VT perp bought his weapons a month and a half ago. Lot of good a waiting period would have done.

They are in fact worthless.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 11):
Plus i would drop the ability to own a silencer and automatic weapons.

I think this is not really a problem in the US. Legally obtainable automatic weapons are extremely expensive in the US (due to the 1986 gun control act which forbids the import or manufacture of automatic weapons for non-government and law enforcement institutions). As a example: a legal STEN submachine gun will cost you at least $5000 and you can get it only if you have a FFL plus you satisfy additional conditions, e.g. the BATF can check on the guns at any time without notice. A BREN light machine gun costs at least $10.000. This means that the legal automatic weapons are more seen as a investment and collectible by serious collectors, who keep them safely locked away in a safe and take them out from time to time to shoot them at the target range.
AFAIK, since decades there has no crime been comitted in the whole US using a legaly registered automatic weapons.

They are definitely out of the range of wannabe gangsters.

Illegaly imported, stolen from government armouries or illegaly manufactured automatic weapons are another matter. But in this case just the possession is a felony punished with 10 years in a federal prison plus a hefty (bancrupting) fine.

Jan


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 hour ago) and read 1710 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 10):
Can you name one law that supports this statment?

Ted, see 12.f

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

I am now hearing that the shooter had been diganosed/declared? mentally defective in 2005. Therefore if that was the case, it would have been illegal for him to purchase the firearms. But that is easy to get around, all you have to do is write "NO" in box 12.f. When you call for a background check, it won't appear because of patient confidentiality. This is what I have a problem with. It is easier to take my rights away in this case, than to take away (privacy rights) of a person that is mentally defective due to privacy issues. It should not be a gun law, but a coomon sense law as a person that is screwed in the head be listed in some sort of database so that this person would not have access to firearms, security clearances etc. The ACLU will most definetly get their knickers in a bunch over this, but it will become necessary. If a program would have had him listed, and he went to purchase a firearm, it would be noted and an entry made stating the person tried to purchase a firearm, and the authorities notified, as there is cause to suspect the person is up to no good. The shooter then would have had to buy the gun from an illegal source and we get down to the crux of the problem; enforce the gun laws that are on the books already, no need for more of them.

Reduce magazine capacity? Instead of having 3 15 round, miscreants will have 9 five round magazines.

Make guns illegal for civilians? People that don't care about the law will have them.

Make some calibers illegal? This shooter also had a .22 cal pistol, that up close is just as deadly.

Make rational decisions based on common sense, not emotional knee-jerk reactions to recent events. Elected officials such as Feinstein, Schumer and Pelosi must be drooling at the mouth over how best to use the fallout from this incident.

[Edited 2007-04-19 13:07:56]

[Edited 2007-04-19 13:08:56]

25 Post contains images TedTAce : I think Florida has them already. Unfortunately when children die, parents aren't usually charged b/c 'loosing their kid was punnishment enough'. I t
26 Baroque : Wonder what W Earp would have posted.
27 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : What made you think I was referring to the VA Tech incident at all? And "worthless" is a huge exaggeration. Everyone knows the waiting period is to t
28 TedTAce : I am sorry I didn't see this before now. An IMPROPERLY installed trigger lock is about as good as an imporperly installed child seat in a car. I gues
29 Yellowstone : Is the problem that some designs work and some don't, or are all of them easily defeatable? If the first situation is the case, the government ought
30 JGPH1A : Call me crazy, but some might argue that wish to own a deadly offensive weapon could be interpreted as a sign of mental illness, since no normal heal
31 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Sorry. You're wrong. Dead wrong. This is opinion and not fact. I am also quite sane, not mentally disturbed (except my the membership here on occasio
32 Delta767300ER : "Guns dont kill people, People kill people". I dont think stricter gun laws will work. As several users have stated, most gun crimes are by persons no
33 Post contains images Greasespot : I might also add that if a person is harged with any kind of violent offense or subject to a mental heal evaluation the person's guns are taken and t
34 Banco : Thing is, it's a utopian dream to think that there is a way (even if desired) of disarming the entire population in the US. All you'll have a is a si
35 RwSEA : I would agree to an extent. There are inrefutable statistics which say that owners of a gun are many times more likely to be injured by that gun, tha
36 StealthZ : I am kind of on the fence here, Do I beleive I need to own a gun of any type? not really. Do I think all weapon ownership should be outlawed? well no.
37 ANCFlyer : Against a human or a Grizzly. The score is 0/1. I was pretty damn glad to have that Ruger Redhawk along that day. But - BUT - like any good, sensible
38 Post contains links Queso : You are wrong. Check out some of these news articles as a small example: http://www.tsra.com/?p=news&cat=6
39 Post contains images TedTAce : You are crazy, but that has been established through several other threads
40 N174UA : Yeah, probably. But ultimately, if you own a gun, you're responsible for it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Period. If it's not on you, then it needs
41 L-188 : Depends, Are you also going to bad 3/8ths inch drill bits and bolt cutters? That won't work, who is to define what is a threat. That is one of the re
42 Yellowstone : Of course, no measure is foolproof, but that trigger lock might keep the gun owner's kids from accidentally putting a bullet through their head if th
43 L-188 : It might, but I would point out those two kids that shot up their middle school in Arkansas about 10 years ago actually got their grandpa's welding t
44 Mrniji : One sensible law only: Ban 'em
45 Post contains images WestJetYQQ : That's exactly what I would have said, though Canada's gun laws are pretty reasonable as is. I find the US to be absolutly outrageous.
46 L-188 : Funny that is the way that I feel about the Canadian laws. In particular that national registry that even your PM finally had to admit was a waste of
47 Kay : /flame suit on Those making those comments "had training that seemed to go above and beyond the norm"? Thank you very much, but "trés peu pour moi m
48 Sulman : Firearm licensing here in the UK requires a medical letter before you're even issued a license. You need that license to purchase any firearms, and am
49 MD11Engineer : Here the rules are that felonies are usually removed from the record ten years after the person has finished his sentence and the person has obeyed t
50 Raffik : Sensible gun laws means gun ownership to be limited to qualified police officers only. The reason America is over run by mass shootings is because of
51 N174UA : Remember the days after Katrina? The police can't be everywhere at all times. Police usually arrive AFTER the crime has been committed. We have a dif
52 RwSEA : But the problem is, people aren't responsible. That's why we have 1/2 the laws we have today. Speed limits for instance - the vast majority of us can
53 Jwenting : The best thing is to require everyone over a certain age (say 16) to be trained in firearms safety and have a weapon at their disposal. If the chances
54 Kay : The responsibility level of people can't be thaught, checked, tested, or trained, easily or quickly, not in weeks, or months. Therefore people at larg
55 N174UA : That's a very big generalization of the entire population you're making. How sure of that are you? By that logic, you'd need about 300 million police
56 Post contains images Kay : I'm as sure as the fact that most people can drive fast, but have to drive slow, to meet the limitation of the lesser bit that isn't responsible enou
57 MDorBust : I don't know, do you think twenty one years might be a long enough time to determine how responsible a person is? That's the amount of time Americans
58 Kay : MDorBust, my question, as a total outsider, is: what about the persons who aren't gun-carrying material? Regardless of age, there are people out ther
59 KaiGywer : What would work, without compromising privacy is a generic "no". No reason, just a denied application, and to contact the BATF for more information.
60 MDorBust : Yes, there are without question people who should never be allowed to own a firearm. Most of these people demonstrate that in some way or another bef
61 Post contains images Banco : Oh, don't spoil it, meany. We loved the spaghetti westerns!
62 RwSEA : They don't. But guns are created and designed to KILL or HURT people. Footballs are designed to be used in a game. Nice try, but your logic doesn't m
63 Yellowstone : Note the word accidentally in my post. If you are determined enough (and those kids apparently were, which is indeed surprising given their age), you
64 Boeing757/767 : I'd like to see the following: -- 30-day waiting period -- Criminal background check -- Psychological exam -- Firearms training -- Licensing and regis
65 STLGph : Even with all of that, incidents still do happen. Because of the experienced *user* simply making a stupid mistake. I've got a story here of a 5 year
66 MDorBust : The person must have seen the episode of MythBusters where they concluded that this sort of thing really isn't dangerous.
67 Miamiair : Busted by MythBusters
68 KaiGywer : No, it's created and designed to fire a projectile at a high rate of speed. If you aim at people, that is your choice, not the gun's. Actually it mak
69 StealthZ : Not busted at all, if he fired it straight up which was the test on Mythbusters it would have A/ landed at it's terminal velocity and B/ NOT landed e
70 MDorBust : I do hope you realize the absurdity of the MythBusters test as: A) It's impossible for a bullet to actually be fired so that it travels straight up a
71 Aa757first : But its not like anyone is proposing putting a gun in the university's welcome packet. Actually, I would probably agree that most universities should
72 StealthZ : They went to some lengths to fire as exactly straight up and measured the impact distances(into a muddy salt lake bed I beleive) a rifled round will
73 Blackbird : Obviously a criminal background check is important. But there has to be a distinction between violent offenses, and non-violent ones. A non-violent of
74 Falcon84 : Senisble gun laws would make it so a young man who was seen as a danger to himself and to others cannot easily purchase a gun as Cho did. Sensible gun
75 L-188 : Lets look at your list. Already done Hell no Good Idea, but my dad was my best instructior-my DI second. And gun classes where removed from high scho
76 MDorBust : You wouldn't like it because you are dead. **Here follows psuedo-technical firearms stuff** MythBusters screwed up, here's how and why. 1) To determi
77 Post contains images StealthZ : A few thoughts, some will be seized on by the pro-gun people and some by the gun-control folk.(I did say earlier I am kind of on the fence on this one
78 N174UA : Here's the answer....we have 15 times more people than you do! 1.) Back out the 54% from the 30,000 total firearm deaths in the U.S. 100% - 54%, or 4
79 Yellowstone : Umm, you did the math wrong. The 4500 figure is already adjusted to the size of the US. They have 300 firearm deaths a year, not 4500, so you introdu
80 StealthZ : I think you missed a couple of my points the Total Firearm death rate in Australia is 300 that is 1/100 of the US total from 1/15 the population.(The
81 Post contains images DC10extender : Oh yeah, America is totally overrun by mass shootings. That would only lead to people obtaining guns illegally. It would be alot like prohibition. Pe
82 BCAInfoSys : So while I may be biased on this particular issue, I thought some of you might find this interesting. I recently e-mailed my Congressman (R-UT) regard
83 Queso : You should send him a box of specialized playing cards or some other little "thank you" gift. They remember it when their constituents do little thin
84 Miamiair : I can see it now, they are all scratching their heads trying to figure that one out... I would like to see the replies to that question. Great questi
85 MD11Engineer : This is how it works with airport security pass applications here. The application is handed in at the local airport security office. They forward th
86 Post contains images N174UA : Pretty old data, there.... Nothing newer available? Ok, let's assume both nations have the same population...300 million. Based on that, and adjustin
87 Post contains images KaiGywer : I remember watching an episode of Forensic Science where a man was killed by somebody shooting into the air. So it happens Which is the way it should
88 Baroque : Either way, I am less than 10% as likely to end up shot to death in Aus than I would be in the US. I think that StealthZ thought that this difference
89 MD11Engineer : Back in 1936 in Spain the illegal armouries kept by the Anarchist trade unions were the only thing which stopped the Fascist coup from winning on the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are Sensible Gun Laws? posted Thu Apr 19 2007 03:23:28 by Mir
What Are You Hiding Now, Mr. President? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 14:50:59 by Itsjustme
Tax Refund: What Are You Going To Spend It On? posted Mon Mar 12 2007 19:33:26 by IFEMaster
Unions...What Are They Good For? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 18:30:30 by IFEMaster
What Are Your 2007 Spring Break Plans? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 07:14:17 by FlyDeltaJets87
I'm Bored: What Are You Doing Tonight? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 02:33:08 by Texan
Great Opera: What Are Your Thoughts? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 06:01:29 by AerospaceFan
What Are Your Goals, And Have You Reached Them? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 00:29:59 by Speedbird747BA
What Are You Paying For Heating Oil? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 02:44:35 by Alfa75
What Are You Listening To? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 12:40:51 by Thom@s