What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Why is owning a non-registered firearm considered responsible? And exactly how much more difficult would it be to buy a gun in a private sale if you need to register? Seriously? Guess how long it took to sign over the title of the last car I sold.

so let's excise tax guns (like cars are in MA). registration and title. you have to have with you whenever you drive your gun.

i'd be ok with that. be a different pita for those gun drivers now, but after a bit it would become 2nd nature.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Why is owning a non-registered firearm considered responsible? How much more difficult would it be to buy a gun in a private sale if you need to register? Guess how long it took to sign over the title of the last car I sold. ;)
I don't see why it would be considered not responsible to have a non-registered firearm. It is legal to do so now, so I see no responsibility problems there. The only way a required registration system would work is if you would be required to use a registered firearm if you are hunting, or to use a range. If you have an unregistered gun and it sits in a safe for 50 years, there's no way to enforce that law.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I don't see why it would be considered not responsible to have a non-registered firearm.

Because a non-registered firearm cannot be traced in cases in which it's used in a crime? Believe it or not, but every criminal on the face of the planet was at one point a law-abiding citizen. And I couldn't care less that not every gun is going to find it's way onto said registry that's not a legitimate argument against having one.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Because a non-registered firearm cannot be traced in cases in which it's used in a crime? Believe it or not, but every criminal on the face of the planet was at one point a law-abiding citizen.

So all law-abiding gun owners are officially potential criminals? Thanks. :p
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Because a non-registered firearm cannot be traced in cases in which it's used in a crime? Believe it or not, but every criminal on the face of the planet was at one point a law-abiding citizen.
Not a problem in my case. I know that I won't be using them in a crime, and in the case that they are stolen, I have serial numbers recorded to hand over to the sheriff.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Does it not also make it much more difficult for those who will use firearms irresponsibly to buy them? And should options not be discussed that may identify those irresponsible ones and deter them from obtaining guns even if it creates a little more inconvenience for the responsible ones?
"More difficult" is irrelevant in the face of the determination of a criminally insane person. If you can't get all the way to making it impossible for them to obtain guns, I just don't see why you'd bother. "Well, he gunned down 30 kids, but by golly we made it really darn inconvenient for him to get the gun, so we got that going for us."
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

"More difficult" is irrelevant in the face of the determination of a criminally insane person. If you can't get all the way to making it impossible for them to obtain guns, I just don't see why you'd bother. "Well, he gunned down 30 kids, but by golly we made it really darn inconvenient for him to get the gun, so we got that going for us."

There are a lot more impulse crimes than planned ones. My wife's a public defender, I hear the stories. While you're correct that a determined criminal will merely be slowed by the inconvience, a significent number would actually be stopped, either out of laziness, lack of opportunity, because they get caught trying to get around the "inconvienence," or something else.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

And? There are a number of in patient psychiatric hospitals. I just quickly googled and found plenty here.

So what are these parents waiting for with junior?

This question will open up a health care debate. Plenty of in patient psychiatric hospitals sure, but I imagine the bills for these type of places can go through the roof... will the average health insurance policy cover these costs? My guess is no. After that, how do the bills get paid assuming the family is not ultra wealthy?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

There are a lot more impulse crimes than planned ones. My wife's a public defender, I hear the stories. While you're correct that a determined criminal will merely be slowed by the inconvience, a significent number would actually be stopped, either out of laziness, lack of opportunity, because they get caught trying to get around the "inconvienence," or something else.

Exactly, or in some cases, perhaps the impulse crimes will be carried out with a standard hunting rifle rather than a 30 round assault weapon. Still horrible yes, but it at least gives the janitor an opportunity to hit the attacker over the head with a chair while he tries to re-load.
 
This question will open up a health care debate. Plenty of in patient psychiatric hospitals sure, but I imagine the bills for these type of places can go through the roof... will the average health insurance policy cover these costs? My guess is no. After that, how do the bills get paid assuming the family is not ultra wealthy?

Then the Everglades are close, take junior hunting and Chaney him.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

There are a lot more impulse crimes than planned ones. My wife's a public defender, I hear the stories. While you're correct that a determined criminal will merely be slowed by the inconvience, a significent number would actually be stopped, either out of laziness, lack of opportunity, because they get caught trying to get around the "inconvienence," or something else.
Right - but impulse crimes are usually "crimes of passion" against someone known to the perpetrator. I don't recall ever hearing of a school or theater shooting that would be considered an impulse crime. I don't share your opinion that a significant number would actually be stopped - there aren't even a significant number to begin with, thank goodness! It comes down to how much you're willing to spend per human life saved - if we stop one shooting of 20 people every 10 years, but it costs us $100B in enforcement and bureaucracy, is it worth it? I say no - that $100B could easily save hundreds or thousands of lives if it were diverted for other purposes (cancer treatment/research, traffic safety, DWI enforcement, etc).

Which brings me back to my original position: there are plenty of good reasons for increased gun control, but stopping mass shootings of random strangers is not one of them.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Does it not also make it much more difficult for those who will use firearms irresponsibly to buy them? And should options not be discussed that may identify those irresponsible ones and deter them from obtaining guns even if it creates a little more inconvenience for the responsible ones?
I guess my only response is anecdotal.

I grew up in North Dakota where it was pretty standard for people to hunt, and my family was no different. The first gun I purchased was a .12 gauge shotgun for hunting ducks and geese. To make that purchase I literally rode my bike downtown with $300 cash in my pocket that I had saved mowing lawns and doing odd jobs, walked into the local Gambles Hardware store and bought the gun. I wasn't even 18 years old. I rode home with the gun, in the box, perched on the handlebars of my bicycle. The whole thing took me about 1/2 hour.

Now, I think it's fair to say that could not be repeated today. It's simply something, that due to my advance age, I had a chance to experience.

Since that day we have seen in this country a variety of legislative efforts on both the state and federal level to assemble some "roadblocks" to purchasing weapons that might be used by people who shouldn't be using them. Notwithstanding rules and regulations regarding who can purchase guns, how much time you have to wait, background checks, forms to fill out, registration, etc..., by the accounts of many people we have an ever-increasing gun problem.

While I don't fault, at all, those people who want to at least try to prevent the next Newtown event, all I can tell you from decades of observation is the way you're going about it really isn't too successful. That, coupled with my personal distaste for grandstanding politicians who pass a law as a kneejerk reaction that they know, from the same experience I've had, will have little or no impact, just gets under my skin a bit.
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I guess my only response is anecdotal.

I grew up in North Dakota where it was pretty standard for people to hunt, and my family was no different. The first gun I purchased was a .12 gauge shotgun for hunting ducks and geese. To make that purchase I literally rode my bike downtown with $300 cash in my pocket that I had saved mowing lawns and doing odd jobs, walked into the local Gambles Hardware store and bought the gun. I wasn't even 18 years old. I rode home with the gun, in the box, perched on the handlebars of my bicycle. The whole thing took me about 1/2 hour.

Now, I think it's fair to say that could not be repeated today. It's simply something, that due to my advance age, I had a chance to experience.

Since that day we have seen in this country a variety of legislative efforts on both the state and federal level to assemble some "roadblocks" to purchasing weapons that might be used by people who shouldn't be using them. Notwithstanding rules and regulations regarding who can purchase guns, how much time you have to wait, background checks, forms to fill out, registration, etc..., by the accounts of many people we have an ever-increasing gun problem.

While I don't fault, at all, those people who want to at least try to prevent the next Newtown event, all I can tell you from decades of observation is the way you're going about it really isn't too successful. That, coupled with my personal distaste for grandstanding politicians who pass a law as a kneejerk reaction that they know, from the same experience I've had, will have little or no impact, just gets under my skin a bit.

Understood... When I grew up, my grandparents were in Maine. I spent much of the summer up there and my grandfather taught me how to shoot a .12 guage. I don't think that hunting rifles of this nature are the target to any changes in gun laws. Should the rules be the same for a .12 guage as for an assault weapon?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Understood... When I grew up, my grandparents were in Maine. I spent much of the summer up there and my grandfather taught me how to shoot a .12 guage. I don't think that hunting rifles of this nature are the target to any changes in gun laws. Should the rules be the same for a .12 guage as for an assault weapon?
What bothers me is, people that I see commenting on it don't make that distiction. There is a difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, but when people who don't actually know what the **** they're talking about start shooting off their mouths it is obvious that they have no clue what that distinction is. People say ban all semi-automatic weapons....um no, absolutely not. First, it does nothing, you can get off just as many shots with a pump action as a semi auto. Many, many hunting rifles/shotguns are semi-automatics, they should not go away.

Personally, I don't have any assault weapons, and I don't think I ever will. I wouldn't be hurt by banning assault weapons, but my worry is, if we ban assault weapons, what is next? After that do the politicians think we should ban certain caliber rifles? Are people stupid enough to think that semi-automatic hunting shotguns are the problem?
 
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

What bothers me is, people that I see commenting on it don't make that distiction. There is a difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, but when people who don't actually know what the **** they're talking about start shooting off their mouths it is obvious that they have no clue what that distinction is. People say ban all semi-automatic weapons....um no, absolutely not. First, it does nothing, you can get off just as many shots with a pump action as a semi auto. Many, many hunting rifles/shotguns are semi-automatics, they should not go away.

Personally, I don't have any assault weapons, and I don't think I ever will. I wouldn't be hurt by banning assault weapons, but my worry is, if we ban assault weapons, what is next? After that do the politicians think we should ban certain caliber rifles? Are people stupid enough to think that semi-automatic hunting shotguns are the problem?
See I think this is a very important point. People say "assault rifle" but they don't really know what that is.

Again, I haven't bought any guns for many years, but here is what I understand. You can still purchase semi-automatic rifles, but you cannot purchase fully automatic rifles. A fully automatic rifle is one where you simply hold the trigger and bullets fly out like in the movies. A semi-automatic rifle requires a trigger pull for each bullet, just like every single semi-automatic deer hunting rifle or shotgun.

What people call "assault rifles" are these semi-automatic rifles that look like the classic old machinge guns. There are only two differences between that and the gun some guy in Wisconsin hauls out into the woods to hunt deer -- its appearance (doesn't look like a standard hunting gun) and it's ammo clip. Most hunting rifles will have an ammo clip that will hold 4-6 cartridges. The gun like Lanza had appears to have had a larger clip.

But that said, you can buy larger clips for standard hunting rifles (most people don't because they are kind of unwieldy and just get in the way when you're carrying the gun). But other than those two differences, the gun Lanza had was virtually no different than the millions of standard issue deer hunting rifles used around this country every year.
 
Understood... When I grew up, my grandparents were in Maine. I spent much of the summer up there and my grandfather taught me how to shoot a .12 guage. I don't think that hunting rifles of this nature are the target to any changes in gun laws. Should the rules be the same for a .12 guage as for an assault weapon?

As NPR put it, the definition of "assault weapon" is fairly nebulous. But regulating large capacity clips/magazines is fairly straightforward, just pick a number as the cutoff point. I'd be ok starting out by simply targetting those.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

without reading the last umpteen pages of "spirited" debate, let me make a few points.
1. You cannot legally deer hunt in MI with more than 5 or 6 bullets in your gun (which has nothing to do with anything, I know)

2. We need to figure out a way to fully publicly fund care for the mentally disabled. If we can't collectively take care of these people, what good is our society? Taking care of mentally disabled people ought to be one of the baselines by which our society judges itself. It should come before schools, roads, wars, food stamps, SS, or anything else. (Yes, my views are a result of personal experience in my family). I just think it's an absolute shame that our most vulnerable citizens are homeless and hungry because we don't have the balls to care for them. Not only that, but it's a good investment in the long run with the costs of crimes and prison etc. that result from a lack of treatment so we'll save money eventually by building and staffing homes.

3. President Obama campaigned on the "starter" that tax rates need to go up on everyone making over $250K. This is not new information. He has only mentioned it 7 trillion times in the last year. UPDATE: He won the election. Why is it a surprise that tax rates need to go up on everyone making over $250K? Everyone but the House Republicans saw this coming a year away. Get it done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top