What regultions/controls do you Gun Grabbers want

He can't.

 

I can't vouch for all gun owners but I myself use a Multi-Vault. It is a handgun safe that supports two firearms...It has finger grooves so you do not have to turn on the light to enter your combination, the door is spring loaded...With practice you can get access to your gun in less than 3 seconds. Better than calling the cops and hoping they show up before you are dead.

 

That is an impressive access time

And it still meets the criteria set by the American Academy of Paediatrics - who want all guns in safes

I cannot praise you enough for taking this step - it may never have been necessary but on the other hand it might one day save the life of someone in your house

 

To me it is common sense...What this country needs more of...I keep my guns locked up because they are a valuable asset...My kids know how to handle firearms but are only allowed when my wife and/or I are with them...My grandkids, 2 out of the three, are starting to learn about firearms...I have taken them to the range, shown them how to shoot, taught them respect and that it is not a toy. Most gun owners I know do exactly the same thing. If they don't then there are organizations like FFA and the Boy Scouts that will also teach children about firearms safety and safe handling. Like I said, it is common sense which is something that is lost in most of these noisy, emotional debates...And yes it is both sides that get their knickers in a knot.

 

I think there has been too much straw man building with the more strident declaring "they want to take all our guns awaaaaay!!" every time someone has suggested a common sense approach

This has effectively stalled the debate. They also tried that here but the odd thing that happened here was that we had a right wing (and Old Howard was so right wing he was flying in circles and bloody near flew up his own backside - but that is another story) Prime Minister (which is sort of a President without the gloss) and he just over rode the objections - since the left wing were all in favour of gun control as well the gun nuts were left with no political strength

 

Do they also want all dogs muzzled if there is a child in the house?

 

I can imagine cries of discrimination, leading to the removal of the legal protection the alcohol and tobacco industry now enjoys.

 

Sounds easy! How you gonna register the half-billion guns already at large?

 

Did I say that we would do that?

(Still, we can start with all current and traceable transactions.)

Stop with the BS.

 

If you are intellectually honest, you must admit, though: More guns also, demonstrably, means more collateral gun benefits, as well. A serial rapist shot in the face by a would-be victim commits no more rapes, a home invader bleeding out on the living room floor will burgle no more homes. And the FBI UCR statistics seem to corroborate this, what with gun ownership skyrocketing, and violent crime plummeting and all.

 

I like how you denied the intention, and then had a recommendation for it on tap.

 

Well, sort of, but not really. George Patton did develop the best designed sword, which was issued in 1913. However, two things: 1) machine guns and tanks already destroyed the use of cavalry, so it was never really used in combat, and 2) from what I've read it really wasn't a practical cavalry sword. It was a great fencing sword, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_1913_Cavalry_Saber


Please show us the reference to the tank financed by Patton and Eisenhower. I find no reference to it.

Trump isn't fit to lick Patton's boots. Trump invented nothing, and his only real success is to make his inheritance grow slower than indexed S&P 500 stocks. (he'd be worth $15 billion today, if he had invested his $200 million inheritance into S&P stock indexes (vs the $4 billion he's actually worth). He's not even a conservative.

 

I do it all the time. Each one has a different purpose, and I keep them both with me.

 

l
Yes, one cannot ignore the benefits
Otoh it is a logical trap to assume that increased guns is the reason for falling crime rates
There may be some relationship, but many many factors are at play

New york city made the improbable transition from high to lower crime rates
This did not happen because of a surge in gun ownership
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

 

Yes Ma'am.

 

You cannot enact, nor enforce universal background checks (meaning all private sales) without an accurate and complete registry. And if you do not include all private sales, then the background checks you have implemented are not, indeed, "universal". It's one thing to cavalierly pronounce "Let's start with universal background checks!". It's quite another to try to implement or enforce them. This is not BS... it's reality.

 

So if the majority of the people thought we should get rid of the jury trial, we should do that? How about if the majority of people thought that Christianity should be the state religion?

 

And when guns were outlawed in Australia violent crimes increased. The more prey there are, the more predators there are.

 

Rwanda's massacres were done with machetes, which in Rwanda are garden tools.

 

Are you and your wife legally qualified to own firearms? If so, nothing wrong was done. Also, did you buy from a dealer or from a private seller? If a dealer, he broke federal law. Also, a background check can be done in less than 20 minutes.

 

I did not suggest that increased gun ownership is the reason for falling crime rates, however it is undeniable that increased gun ownership does not INCREASE the violent crime rate. Proven merely because there ARE more guns and gun owners than ever, and the violent crime rate HAS been falling for many years. These data suggest that, amongst myriad other factors, good people might be doing things with their guns to cause OTHER violent crime to subside.

But, if we accept the truth that there ARE more guns and gun owners than ever, and the FBI data that shows violent crime HAS been falling, there can only be two conclusions:

1) more guns has no positive effect on violent crime, or
2) more guns causes violent crime to subside, by some measure.

I think, if we are being completely honest, we must then conclude that more guns and more good gun owners makes OUR society safer, simply because it is undeniable that a) more guns do not make society more dangerous, and b) gun owners regularly thwart violent criminals.

So, its a trade off. Personally, I'm OK if a rapist gets his face blown off, if it prevents him from raping untold future victims. This factor to ballooning gun proliferation is a benefit that cannot possibly be quantified, but must, nevertheless, be recognized and taken into account.

 

I understand what you mean, and the consequences.

That doesn't mean there is no middle ground in this discussion. We can indeed pass a law that requires all sales to have a background checks without registering every single gun. Why can't the transaction take place at an FFL with a background check- private seller to private buyer? No one needs to register the gun in that sale, but criminals can't buy it that way. That won't stop gun sales to criminals 100%, but it will lessen them. Not many people would be willing to sell anonymously, when they don't know if the person they are selling to is a regular citizen, a criminal, or a BATF agent looking to see if the seller was following the law and asking for a background check. We're not ever going to be able to stop bad people from doing bad things, but we can make it harder on them to do so. If a sale like that is made, the seller gets 10 years in jail, just like the penalty for a straw purchase, because the seller is literally allowing someone unqualified to buy a gun. How is that any different than buying a gun and giving it to a felon? Either way, someone helped the criminal buy a gun they are prohibited from having.

As of now, there are no BATF agents checking anything, because it isn't illegal.

 

Well, if you look at children, the numbers are very low.
Using the CDC's WISQARS database, and plugging in, Unintentional, Firearms, age 0-17, and the years 2005-2010, you get 620 kids (.14 per 100,000). Yes, any one is too high, but compared to other childhood accidents, it's pretty rare, and it's getting rarer (total number of accidental child deaths in that time was 43,400 (9.78 per 100,000). If I do the same search from 2008 to 2013 (last available), I get 454. I do believe that all gun owners SHOULD get gun safety certification (I know I am certified in gun safety), but I don't believe that legislating that will cause statistically fewer gun deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

You can START!!!

We cannot go back and correct all the idiotic gun sales of the last 50 years... but we CAN START from every gun manufactured/sold today going forward.

 

Exactly!!

I'm freakin' TIRED of these closed-minded individuals, who think we cannot or should not try to improve things. I'm literally campaigning AGAINST them at this point. The insanity that firearms has led to in this society, is completely untenable.