specdecible wrote:
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
You can accept that people and kids will die. They are the costs of current politics and "ill" libertarianism (why owning a gun is so important?).
Will banning responsible people from owning guns stop that?
Will banning legal guns in the states take all the illegal ones of the streets?
I don't think so.
Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a shit?
Quote:
Do you honestly think that all laws that irresponsible people flaunt should be dropped?
who said anything about dropping laws?
If you are a responsible gun owner then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. A lot of people throw around the term of banning guns very loosely, but what it really means is banning or restricting the use of certain types of guns from the market. These guns include fully automatic weapons and variants of semi automatic weapons, however these weapons can still be obtained but only with special licenses and thorough background searches.
A very rough outline of the gun laws where I live state that all firearms that are owned must be stored in a secure room inside a locked cabinet, ammunition for the weapon must be stored in a separate locked cabinet in a separate room. To obtain a license to own a firearm you must complete a firearm training and safety course and be approved as capable of handling and operating a firearm safely.
Does that really sound too hard if you are a responsible gun owner?
Question: The semi automatic assault rifle & pistols used to gun down these children & teachers.Were these legally owned? AFAIK they were.
The kids mother owned them & from what I've read, took pride in showing her young son how to use them.
Question: If his mother didn't have the guns, & gun control was tight, could the kid have found these guns elsewhere? Maybe but maybe not.
He had easy access to these weapons. He knew where to find them & how to get them.
Question: Could those children & teachers be alive & happy today if his mother did not have those guns?
Maybe no but probably yes.
These guns were legally owned by a responsible gun owner. You can easily screen a gun owner for their responsibility, criminal, mental background, but how does any know about other family members who may gain access to those legally owned weapons.
After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia around 1996, the government introduced very tight gun laws. They outlawed many automatic & semi automatic weapons, introduced an amnesty & gun buy back scheme. Even slug guns (air rifles) were banned.
Thousands of guns were handed in and destroyed. These were formerly legal guns owned by responsible gun owners.
Unless you can jump through hoops proving why you need a gun at your house (farmers are pretty much the only ones who can) it must be stored at a registered gun club under tight lock & key.
You cannot walk into a Kmart and buy anything other than a bloody water pistol.
Yes, people still die in Australia at the end of a gun but a vast majority of those are underworld figures and are only really interested in killing others of their ilk.
If you can do anything to make it harder to gain possession of these pointless weapons in the face of this terrible event then bloody well do it.
In the face of this how can you just throw your arms in the air & say its too hard & too late.
Does that really sound too hard? You have to start somewhere.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
minus Vettel
Truthfully, that's what its all about. Lazy in personal responsibility, lazy in legislating. Most gun owners don't want the right to keep their gun for sport, they want to be able to protect their home with it. A gun is just about the laziest way possible to protect one's home. Proper security, common sense safety practices and responsibility, fostering a sense of community with your neighbors, etc are all ways to avoid ever NEEDING a gun to stop a home intruder...but they require more time and work.