American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?

[duraaraa 203]

In fact there are plenty of things that we come across in our daily life that can inflict damage or can even kill, you are not intimidated by them.

Any John Doe does not go killing, I had posted the link and an article in one of these threads pretty much all of these mass killings were done by ppl with mental problem and unfortunately that is not the focus at all.

Of course. I'm sure that most people who carry guns are not likely to kill me. The problem is that some do go on shooting sprees and kill people, so it's impossible to rule out. People also have various tempers. I don't want to say anything that could potentially upset someone with a gun because I don't know how they take disappointment, I don't know if they're unstable and likely to lash out with violence, etc.

That's why anyone with a gun freaks me out, and makes me want to end my conversation or whatever dealings with them and get the hell out of there as quick as possible.

I think that to some extent someone carrying a gun is kind of looking for trouble, or looking for an excuse to use it, in some cases.

Edited September 23, 2013 by duraaraa

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

Do they prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun? I don't see how. If they do, please show me.

Or are you talking about the types of guns one can legally own?

yes to both. if you don't think bureaucrats will use any of that to deny someone, you're wrong.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It’s not banning the ownership outright but that’s the end goal.

That's exactly what I said. No one is trying to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own a gun. It's nice that we can agree on that.

The end of your sentence is just NRA silliness.

[Harsh_77 718]

Of course. I'm sure that most people who carry guns are not likely to kill me. The problem is that some do go on shooting sprees and kill people, so it's impossible to rule out. People also have various tempers. I don't want to say anything that could potentially upset someone with a gun because I don't know how they take disappointment, I don't know if they're unstable and likely to lash out with violence, etc.

That's why anyone with a gun freaks me out, and makes me want to end my conversation or whatever dealings with them and get the hell out of there as quick as possible.

I think that to some extent someone carrying a gun is kind of looking for trouble, or looking for an excuse to use it, in some cases.

That’s watching too many Hollywood movies.

From what you been saying it seems you have phobia of guns, unfortunately that should not be the reason to strip the right for other people to own one nor it should be the reason for additional checks or registry.

Look at the numbers in UK there the guns are banned yet the murder rate is much higher. Guns are not the only thing that can kill.

[Teddy B 17,252]

yes to both. if you don't think bureaucrats will use any of that to deny someone, you're wrong.

So no law abiding citizen has been prevented from owning a gun. Thanks that's what I thought.

And if they were, I would disagree with it, because I do believe in a persons right to bear arms.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Teddy B

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

The gun laws of California are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases. Handguns sold by dealers must be “California legal” by being listed on the state’s roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California’s restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state’s constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union, and many of California’s gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

Handgun purchases, except for private party transfers and Certificate of Eligibility (COE) holders, are limited to one per 30 day period. To purchase a handgun, a buyer must have a Handgun Safety Certificate. This is obtained by passing a written test, given by a Department of Justice certified instructor, on the safe and legal use of handguns. The certificate is valid for five years. A buyer must also perform a Safe Handling Demonstration when taking possession of a handgun.

http://www.usconcealandcarry.com/california

The fee for taking the Handgun Safety Certificate Test and obtaining a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) is twenty five dollars ($25). The $25 fee entitles you to take the test twice if necessary.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscfaqs#a4

[duraaraa 203]

That’s watching too many Hollywood movies.

From what you been saying it seems you have phobia of guns, unfortunately that should not be the reason to strip the right for other people to own one nor it should be the reason for additional checks or registry.

Look at the numbers in UK there the guns are banned yet the murder rate is much higher. Guns are not the only thing that can kill.

Reread my posts. I didn't say they should be stripped of their guns. I simply said that I am intimidated by someone who is carrying a gun, and don't want to get into an argument or anything with them, and will avoid it in case they're crazy, which they might be because they're carrying one in the first place.

Why not be afraid of other weapons? Because I can generally defend myself against other weapons. The only thing I can do if someone is determined to shoot me with a gun is hope for mercy. I'm afraid of nuclear weapons in the same way, if it matters...

[Harsh_77 718]

That's exactly what I said. No one is trying to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own a gun. It's nice that we can agree on that.

The end of your sentence is just NRA silliness.

They want to make owning a rifle with detachable magazine illegal.

As I said Dems cannot outright ban the gun ownership but they are trying to do it one step at a time.

Question is would Fienstein give up her CCW?

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

So no law abiding citizen has been prevented from owning a gun. Thanks that's what I thought.

And if they were, I would disagree with it, because I do believe in a persons right to bear arms.

you're still wrong....a brief search will educate you.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?59785-Denied-the-ability-to-buy-gun-in-MD

http://theveteransblog.org/blog/2009/12/veterans-are-being-denied-the-right-of-gun-ownership/

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88427

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-254844.html

(in one case on this page, it was mistaken identity)

i'm sure there's more than just the above, just i'm too lazy to post more stories to further refute your claim.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think Teddy is operating under the rational that if all you can have is a bolt action centerfire rifle then technically a citizen can legally own a gun...which while certainly true, isn't very useful unless your a WW1 British infantryman trained to pull off a mad minute with your SMLE. Of course during a break in, having the old guy next door throwing FMJ .303 rounds around doesn't sound very fun when the only thing between you and him is a few pieces of drywall and some siding.

Teddy - Here are a few links which are in no way biased:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB169

http://californiainnocenceproject.org/blog/2013/05/24/new-ca-law-requires-microstamping-for-semi-auto-handguns/

The background. CA made a handgun roster under the guise that they want to personally test handguns for safety. What its done is limit the number of handguns that can be sold which is the real purpose. For instance a model must be retested every so many years even if it past the first time. Well a manufacturer isn't going to retest old models they aren't selling any more so the handgun falls off the roster and becomes banned. Likewise, microstamping is not actually done by any manufacturer so there will be a period where no handguns will be sellable in CA.

After Heller / McDonald it set in stone that citizens have a right to a handgun, so what CA has slowly been doing is skirting those judgements by building up a roster that will make handguns illegal because they are "unsafe". Will CA lose in court? I'm sure...but the attempt has made none thus less.

[Harsh_77 718]

Reread my posts. I didn't say they should be stripped of their guns. I simply said that I am intimidated by someone who is carrying a gun, and don't want to get into an argument or anything with them, and will avoid it in case they're crazy, which they might be because they're carrying one in the first place.

Why not be afraid of other weapons? Because I can generally defend myself against other weapons. The only thing I can do if someone is determined to shoot me with a gun is hope for mercy. I'm afraid of nuclear weapons in the same way, if it matters...

Would you be able to defend yourself if someone came at you with baton?

Would you be able to defend yourself if someone came at you with Knife?

Forget the contact weapon, do you think you can defend yourself if you were attacked by taser or pepper spray?

The problem is you are not against the ownership of the guns but Dem taking advantage of ppl like you who in general have phobia of gun to push their agenda of removing the weapons from civilian hands.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The gun laws of California are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases. Handguns sold by dealers must be “California legal” by being listed on the state’s roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California’s restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state’s constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union, and many of California’s gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

Handgun purchases, except for private party transfers and Certificate of Eligibility (COE) holders, are limited to one per 30 day period. To purchase a handgun, a buyer must have a Handgun Safety Certificate. This is obtained by passing a written test, given by a Department of Justice certified instructor, on the safe and legal use of handguns. The certificate is valid for five years. A buyer must also perform a Safe Handling Demonstration when taking possession of a handgun.

What point are you trying to make Charles? The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution, no state laws are necessary for that.

Thankfully, the right to bear arms does not give every citizen the right to arm themselves to the teeth with whatever weapon they deem necessary. I think a lot more weapons should be on the "cannot buy" list, but that's my personal preference.

What's wrong with limiting the purchase of firearms and having gun owners pass a certification test?

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

What point are you trying to make Charles? The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution, no state laws are necessary for that.

did you forget your own question already? did you forget about the dc ban on owning pistols that was recently overturned?

What's wrong with limiting the purchase of firearms and having gun owners pass a certification test?

that one has to pay to exercise a constitutionally stated right.

[Teddy B 17,252]

you're still wrong....a brief search will educate you.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?59785-Denied-the-ability-to-buy-gun-in-MD

http://theveteransblog.org/blog/2009/12/veterans-are-being-denied-the-right-of-gun-ownership/

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88427

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-254844.html

(in one case on this page, it was mistaken identity)

i'm sure there's more than just the above, just i'm too lazy to post more stories to further refute your claim.

Really Charles, that's what you want to go with? People with criminal records and veterans who have been deemed mentally unfit? And one guy who couldn't get a gun in his new state because he hadn't lived there a year yet? That's your go to here? How does any of that equate to law a biding citizens being prevented from owning a gun?

I never took you for a "fringe" guy, but I may have to rethink that.

[Sousuke 1,214]

that one has to pay to exercise a constitutionally stated right.

AKA similar to a poll tax (which caused Thatcher's fall from power ironically)