This American father is redefining what it means to be a 'responsible gun owner'

[JohnR! 5,495]

It is an impossibility in the restricted world some of these individuals live, where the mantra is 'more guns equals more safety'... You have to consider the individual limitations when trying to make a cogent argument involving deadly weapons.

technically, the noise level shouldn't change. considering no one was talking about it in the first place.

god forbid someone actually use their brains and make the obvious connection 'less guns = less gun violence'.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Thank you for making my point for me. Again, Lost is spot-on with his thoughts. I don't see where he said anything wrong.

Now, I am not accusing YOU of being one of those who think that banning all guns is the answer, but there are those out there who think that. It's in the media, it's on other forums. And it's a foolish notion at best. Look at Chicago. Look at DC. Those are places where guns are banned completely, yet their crime rates are out of sight as compared to the rest of the world. Your partner Trumplestiltskin is often saying how the US is so messed up as a nation because we have guns. But even without gun problems, go look at the crime stats of the UK. Far from a peaceful nation, are they? Compared to say Korea, where guns are not allowed, yet crime is very low. It's the nature of the people who keep it so, not the weapons.

I think I read in an old post that your family lives near Ferguson, is that correct? Or perhaps you used to. I wonder if they, or you, own any guns for self protection? I have only been thru East St. Louis one time in my life, driving to pick up a friends dad at night, and we both had guns near to our hands, and I was thankful to have had them. That was about THE scariest place I had been thru in my life.

Now please don't misunderstand me, because I am all for gun control. However, I do NOT feel that taking guns away from folks who own them now will work. Making it harder via background checks or waiting periods, sure. Making a person take a gun safety course, and pass a test? I am ok with that, too. It should not be harder to obtain a drivers license than a gun. (Then again, I think marriage licenses should require a written test of at least 200 questions, but that's another topic altogether).

The trouble is, with as many guns in private hands already, there is no simple way to get a handle on the situation, at least in our lifetimes. As was stated above, when a child abuser is caught, you don't do anything except punish the abuser. Drunk drivers don't create a panic for taking cars off the streets. Punish the perps, not the vehicle which they used to cause mayhem, eh?

My move.

First, the crime rate in the places you mentioned are astronomical not because of the banning of guns. But because of the insane poverty and crime rate. If you allowed everyone in those places to carry, it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because they're too poor to obtain guns and ammo. Think about it. If those places are crawling with guns from crime, what's stopping people from getting guns? I'll give you a hint, it's not the law. People who live in those places that deal with that don't want more guns, they want the guns taken off the street, they want the cops to do their jobs and give a damn about the community. It's funny that the folks who live in the safest places are armed to the teeth, while the folks who live in a literal war zone, just wants less guns all around. Chicago has about 50 people shot every weekend. And yet, why aren't they asking for more guns?

Second. While Venkman isn't my partner, I agree that this country has a gun problem. It's no secret and it shouldn't be shot down when pointed out. But it seems to me that for some gun owners, it's an acceptable loss when mass shootings happen. There's no sympathy and the only thing we hear is more guns. That's troubling for me.

I grew up in St. Louis, and spent the last 4 years of my career there. I'm about 5 minutes away from Ferguson. And the answer is no, I don't own in any guns. For me, it's like I said above, I want the criminals off the streets, not everyone to be armed. I entertained the notion of getting a gun for my house if I lived in St. Louis once I retired, but was talked out of it by a good friend. I know the more sinister neighborhoods and tend to stay away from them since nothing of interest is there for me anywhere. But oddly enough, I'm not afraid when I go home. I know where to go, what time, and how to conduct myself. And most of my family that lives there, doesn't carry guns either. Like I said different mentality.

I'm not for taking guns away from folks who are obeying the law, no one is saying that. And I do agree there's too many guns on the street as it is. But something needs to be done, because mass shootings shouldn't be a routine thing here in a first world country.

[Boiler 46,770]

I'm not for taking guns away from folks who are obeying the law, no one is saying that. And I do agree there's too many guns on the street as it is. But something needs to be done, because mass shootings shouldn't be a routine thing here in a first world country.

OK, well you could concentrate on the criminal element, but what are your otherwise proposing?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

OK, well you could concentrate on the criminal element, but what are your otherwise proposing?

The places that are the most affected by crime should be targeted. Police the area, work with the people who live there, build an actual rapport with the community you're trying to protect.

The reason crime and shootings are skyrocketing in those areas is because the police aren't there. I've lived it, so I know what it's like.

[Boiler 46,770]

The places that are the most affected by crime should be targeted. Police the area, work with the people who live there, build an actual rapport with the community you're trying to protect.

The reason crime and shootings are skyrocketing in those areas is because the police aren't there. I've lived it, so I know what it's like.

That sounds good.

[JohnR! 5,495]

My move.

First, the crime rate in the places you mentioned are astronomical not because of the banning of guns. But because of the insane poverty and crime rate. If you allowed everyone in those places to carry, it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because they're too poor to obtain guns and ammo. Think about it. If those places are crawling with guns from crime, what's stopping people from getting guns? I'll give you a hint, it's not the law. People who live in those places that deal with that don't want more guns, they want the guns taken off the street, they want the cops to do their jobs and give a damn about the community. It's funny that the folks who live in the safest places are armed to the teeth, while the folks who live in a literal war zone, just wants less guns all around. Chicago has about 50 people shot every weekend. And yet, why aren't they asking for more guns?

Second. While Venkman isn't my partner, I agree that this country has a gun problem. It's no secret and it shouldn't be shot down when pointed out. But it seems to me that for some gun owners, it's an acceptable loss when mass shootings happen. There's no sympathy and the only thing we hear is more guns. That's troubling for me.

I grew up in St. Louis, and spent the last 4 years of my career there. I'm about 5 minutes away from Ferguson. And the answer is no, I don't own in any guns. For me, it's like I said above, I want the criminals off the streets, not everyone to be armed. I entertained the notion of getting a gun for my house if I lived in St. Louis once I retired, but was talked out of it by a good friend. I know the more sinister neighborhoods and tend to stay away from them since nothing of interest is there for me anywhere. But oddly enough, I'm not afraid when I go home. I know where to go, what time, and how to conduct myself. And most of my family that lives there, doesn't carry guns either. Like I said different mentality.

I'm not for taking guns away from folks who are obeying the law, no one is saying that. And I do agree there's too many guns on the street as it is. But something needs to be done, because mass shootings shouldn't be a routine thing here in a first world country.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I haven't seen any specific discussion within this thread about gun bans, but it is unfair to say that gun owners are being unreasonable to reference bans and confiscation during the current political climate. There has been references to such actions by activists and lawmakers.

The primary reference (made by the President in one of his early speeches a week ago) is that the US should follow Australia's common sense gun laws that were enacted in 1996. Perhaps most people don't know the full details of that law change. Here is a summary:

All semiautomatic rifles and shotguns were made illegal and ban.

Owners were required to turn all firearms in to the government for destruction

So next time you hear about Australian commonsense laws realize, it was actually a gun ban and current gun owners who discuss bans are not the ignorant ones here....

[Sousuke 1,214]

My move.

First, the crime rate in the places you mentioned are astronomical not because of the banning of guns. But because of the insane poverty and crime rate. If you allowed everyone in those places to carry, it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because they're too poor to obtain guns and ammo. Think about it. If those places are crawling with guns from crime, what's stopping people from getting guns? I'll give you a hint, it's not the law. People who live in those places that deal with that don't want more guns, they want the guns taken off the street, they want the cops to do their jobs and give a damn about the community. It's funny that the folks who live in the safest places are armed to the teeth, while the folks who live in a literal war zone, just wants less guns all around. Chicago has about 50 people shot every weekend. And yet, why aren't they asking for more guns?

Thats actually an issue people should have with gun control. The more barriers you have towards ownership the more it keeps the poor from being able to exercise the right. In fact, the very first gun control laws in this country operated on the premise of keeping arms from the poor.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Thats actually an issue people should have with gun control. The more barriers you have towards ownership the more it keeps the poor from being able to exercise the right. In fact, the very first gun control laws in this country operated on the premise of keeping arms from the poor.

Even if you made places like Chicago CC available, you still have to contend with the price of buying a gun and ammo. The poverty levels in the places with the most gun crime is staggering. They can't afford it. Unless you're suggesting free guns for those areas.

You're from STL. Maybe not from where I'm from, but you've no doubt seen places like ESL or even the Peabodies or Wellston(if they still exist). Those people can barely keep the lights on, let alone buy a weapon.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Not bad, as red herrings go; nonetheless.....

Edited October 13, 2015 by JohnR!

[lostinblue 1,989]

I did not say anything about limiting the number of guns an individual can own. I'll gladly answer your question anyway, however, before that happens, I'm still waiting for an answer to mine.

To refresh your memory, that question was what is your issue, personally, with having a system of background checks? Lets assume a working system could be designed without the current loopholes. What is your problem with that?

There are too many guns in the hands of criminals because there are too many guns period ...Too many guns in America. Who do you limit that cannot legally own one already ?We can agree that a person that cannot legally possess a firearm should not. . I have posted here before that if a person is in possession of a stolen gun that mandatory 20 yeas in prison would sound about right. .

When a person buys a gun online it is shipped to a FFL where a background check is done before a person gets to walk out with the firearm . You do have a system of background checks in place.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I haven't seen any specific discussion within this thread about gun bans, but it is unfair to say that gun owners are being unreasonable to reference bans and confiscation during the current political climate. There has been references to such actions by activists and lawmakers.

The primary reference (made by the President in one of his early speeches a week ago) is that the US should follow Australia's common sense gun laws that were enacted in 1996. Perhaps most people don't know the full details of that law change. Here is a summary:

All semiautomatic rifles and shotguns were made illegal and ban.

Owners were required to turn all firearms in to the government for destruction

So next time you hear about Australian commonsense laws realize, it was actually a gun ban and current gun owners who discuss bans are not the ignorant ones here....

No one suggested we duplicate Australian law. Obviously much of that law would not work here.

However people should also not ignore firearms statistics from Australia because there several years worth now. Mass shootings have decreased. Firearms related homicides have decreased. Firearms related suicides have decreased. Homicides by other means have not increased. Home invasions have not increased. Armed criminals have not taken over Australia.

Many of the statistics from countries like Australia contradict the oft repeated rhetoric we hear in America.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Even if you made places like Chicago CC available, you still have to contend with the price of buying a gun and ammo. The poverty levels in the places with the most gun crime is staggering. They can't afford it. Unless you're suggesting free guns for those areas.

You're from STL. Maybe not from where I'm from, but you've no doubt seen places like ESL or even the Peabodies or Wellston(if they still exist). Those people can barely keep the lights on, let alone buy a weapon.

When the gun buy back movement really heated up there were a couple of organizations that actually bought firearms to give to people who couldn't afford them (with background checks of course).

Honestly, I do agree with you from a practical standpoint. They won't have the money to practice and be comfortable with them which means they are probably more of a liability than anything else.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Sousuke

[Dakine10 5,452]

There are too many guns in the hands of criminals because there are too many guns period ...Too many guns in America. Who do you limit that cannot legally own one already ?We can agree that a person that cannot legally possess a firearm should not. . I have posted here before that if a person is in possession of a stolen gun that mandatory 20 yeas in prison would sound about right. .

When a person buys a gun online it is shipped to a FFL where a background check is done before a person gets to walk out with the firearm . You do have a system of background checks in place.

Saying there are too many guns, obviously a subjective statement, is not the same as saying we should ban, limit or take away someone's guns. You still have to accept there will always be a correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun related crime. There is no way around that.

Obviously a criminal is not going to buy a gun through legitimate methods. Right now the loopholes make that meaningless. If there are steps that can be taken to make it harder for criminals to get firearms, we should take them. If that makes it more inconvenient for private citizens, so be it. Inconvenient does not mean infringement.

[Boiler 46,770]

You seem to be in Colorado, as I am.

What loopholes?