U S: 92% Vote For Stricter Gun Control

[F430murci]

Haha, more reason why the sane think the gun people are insane. Ramble on . . .

[DocN]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

[Scott]

Please address your comments to the issue, not toward other posters, especially if the comment is inflammatory.

[F430murci]

Uhm, maybe the dumbass should have turned his butt in and stood trial if he was so innocent before they shot and killed family members. Numbnutts acquitted by gun nuts in where Blah. Not reality . . .

Glad you think so much of whack jobs like the aryan nation, Montana Freemen and Timothy McVeigh. It is people like you that don't need guns, but are too whacked to get it.

Happy the FAKE LAWYER demonstrates that he is a FAKE LAWYER by supporting the extrajudicial killing of unarmed people by the Federal government. Unlike you I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which people posing as FAKE LAWYERS do not have to do.

While I do not support the aryan nation, or Montana Freeman, I do support their Constitutionally supported rights to freedom of speech and to maintain an opinion. Too bad, as a FAKE LAWYER, you don't understand that.

Did I mention you are a FAKE LAWYER?

Zzzz, wake me when something intelligent is said. Dude, I really hope your not a lawyer. Civil RICO not having anything to do with interstate commerce, Florida not requiring release mental health records, and I quoted US Supreme Court language from Westlaw to show you were wrong about Heller. I guess you cannot afford Westlaw or something. . .

Edited February 9, 2013 by F430murci

[Mosha]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

So the kids are just collateral damage?

[F430murci]

You never know when a citizen will need to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Yep, every man woman and child should be armed to the teeth as they are coming one day to take our freedoms away.....I have a buddy that has an aresanal including class IIIs. He tells me he could hold them off for six months when the shit hits the fan so maybe I will just go over there. I am just not so sure who "them" is though.

"Incident at Ruby Ridge":

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Long story short: Randy Weaver was a Vietnam veteran. The Federal government entrapped him into selling a sawed off shot gun to a Federal agent so that they could force him to testify against Randy Weaver's friend. Weaver refused. The Federal government then attempted to arrest him. During the arrest the U.S. government shot and killed Weaver's 14 year old son, and shot and killed his unarmed wife while she was holding Weaver's 1 year old daughter in her arms.

One man with a rifle held off 400 armed Federal agents in a siege for 10 days.

Weaver was subsequently acquitted by the jury who found that he was acting in self defense. The Federal government ultimately settled the lawsuits filed by him and his family for multi-millions of dollars.

Yes, sometimes people do need firearms to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Apologies for the several typos in my previous post.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are examples of what I wrote. They won't play with you, they'll just wipe you out, man, woman and child.

The US government law enforcement agencies as as besotted with the off the wall gun culture as some of the ordinary citizens. It's no wonder that they too commit massacres. However, I don't see any possibility that the government will, wholesale, take away citizens' rights at gunpoint. They are doing it by legislation and the more horrors citizens perpetrate, the more the freedom to kill your neighbour will be taken away by legislation.

Yeah, I can only hope and pray the cooler heads will prevail and peace and love for mankind will rule the day. Peace can never be accomplished through fear and force.

[chuckd]

Well, this has certainly morphed into a nonsense thread.

[submaniac]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

So the kids are just collateral damage?

If we take the argument further....

850 children in one year killed by firearms. 1210 traffic deaths of children age 0-14 caused by alcohol in 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Over 10,228 traffic deaths caused by alcohol.

More people per year are killed by Alcohol traffic accidents than by firearms. Are these people "collateral damage"?

Why not ban alcohol too? No alcohol, means that no one can drive drunk. We'll save 1210 children a year, and over 10,000 lives a year. All we have to do is ban alcohol.

Let's do it. If we're thinking about saving lives, and safety, there is no other choice than to ban alcohol.

Sure, you may be one of the people that can drink alcohol and not drive. But not everyone in the world is like you. So the people who can handle alcohol responsibly, should also be prevented from drinking due to the smaller percentage of people that cannot handle alcohol responsibly.

[F430murci]

Well, this has certainly morphed into a nonsense thread.

What did you expect?

[submaniac]

Yeah, I can only hope and pray the cooler heads will prevail and peace and love for mankind will rule the day. Peace can never be accomplished through fear and force.

Says the guy who thought it was funny that an unarmed woman holding a one year old baby was shot through the head. Peace and love to you too.

[Morden]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

Let me explain that aspect of gun safety.

If you don't expect to need to use your gun or you aren't at home, you lock it in a safe, unloaded. If you think you might need to use it, during the night for example, you keep it by you. You might keep it loaded at that time or you may have a clip or quick loader for a revolver handy.

[Morden]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

So the kids are just collateral damage?

If we take the argument further....

850 children in one year killed by firearms. 1210 traffic deaths of children age 0-14 caused by alcohol in 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/m..._factsheet.html

Over 10,228 traffic deaths caused by alcohol.

More people per year are killed by Alcohol traffic accidents than by firearms. Are these people "collateral damage"?

Why not ban alcohol too? No alcohol, means that no one can drive drunk. We'll save 1210 children a year, and over 10,000 lives a year. All we have to do is ban alcohol.

Let's do it. If we're thinking about saving lives, and safety, there is no other choice than to ban alcohol.

Sure, you may be one of the people that can drink alcohol and not drive. But not everyone in the world is like you. So the people who can handle alcohol responsibly, should also be prevented from drinking due to the smaller percentage of people that cannot handle alcohol responsibly.

Start a thread about those topics, why don't you?

If you are suggesting that one problem should be ignored because there your logic eludes me.

[F430murci]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

Let me explain that aspect of gun safety.

If you don't expect to need to use your gun or you aren't at home, you lock it in a safe, unloaded. If you think you might need to use it, during the night for example, you keep it by you. You might keep it loaded at that time or you may have a clip or quick loader for a revolver handy.

On a serious note, you are correct. Its all of those oh I am safe people that suddenly has their toddler pick up a weapon and discharge it.

[Morden]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

Let me explain that aspect of gun safety.

If you don't expect to need to use your gun or you aren't at home, you lock it in a safe, unloaded. If you think you might need to use it, during the night for example, you keep it by you. You might keep it loaded at that time or you may have a clip or quick loader for a revolver handy.

On a serious note, you are correct. Its all of those oh I am safe people that suddenly has their toddler pick up a weapon and discharge it.

Gun safety, whether at home or elsewhere, is vitally important and it's no more than applied common sense. The rules for use and storage are very clear. It seems obvious that many people who claim the right to own a gun have no intention of following the rules. Some of the rhetoric from the any-gun-no-rules brigade suggests to me that they may not be suitable as gun owners. I hope that they write only from lack of knowledge and don't own guns.

[submaniac]

^^Seriously, just admit that you hate guns and hate the idea of people owning guns.

You still haven't answered my question, smart guy. HOW MUCH DOES A GUN SAFE THAT IS BIG ENOUGH TO STORE A HUNTING RIFLE WITH A 24" BARREL WEIGH?

How does one move it by themselves? How do you take it upstairs?

Since according to you, every gun owner who doesn't have a gun safe is irresponsible and all...I would like to know what the "EXPERT" says.

Edited February 9, 2013 by submaniac

[Morden]

^^Seriously, just admit that you hate guns and hate the idea of people owning guns.

You still haven't answered my question, smart guy. HOW MUCH DOES A GUN SAFE THAT IS BIG ENOUGH TO STORE A HUNTING RIFLE WITH A 24" BARREL WEIGH?

How does one move it by themselves? How do you take it upstairs?

Since according to you, every gun owner who doesn't have a gun safe is irresponsible and all...I would like to know what the "EXPERT" says.

I think that you are failing to read properly what I write. Or, perhaps, you enjoy sarcasm more than discussion.

We own a gun. I don't object to others owning guns within the law and subject to them following the safety rules. Events in the US suggest that some changes are needed to the relevant laws and how they are enforced.

I can't help you with your questions about gun safes for rifles any more than I have already done. We own a handgun and it's locked in a suitable safe when the house is unoccupied or when visitors are around. It's nowhere near as big as the one you need. If you can't be bothered to keep your rifle safe, you shouldn't have one. If it's stolen and used in a crime, whose name is on the books as owner?

[DocN]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

So the kids are just collateral damage?

i was being cynical!

[Mosha]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Of course!

If you keep them (in a ) safe, how would you get to them quickly, if a maroding, looting and raping gang is entering your house or the potentially fascist (fill in communist, socalist, marxist, maoist, if you prefer and don't know what you are on about anyways) Obama- government snaps and takes away all your freedom!

No rocket science really...isn't it!?

So the kids are just collateral damage?

i was being cynical!

My apologies

Edited February 9, 2013 by Mosha

[Chicog]

My thoughts are, if you drink alcohol and also want to ban guns, you are a hippocrite. You want to ban guns to save lives. Alcohol kills more people than do guns. If you are interested in saving lives, then before you start trying to outlaw you should first outlaw alcohol...since it's all about saving lives and all. And I don't care that you think you can handle your drinking or drink and not drive...not everybody is like you. Because a small portion of drinkers insist on driving...then ALL drinking should be banned.

I don't want to drift too far off topic, but alcohol abuse is a health issue, and so is smoking. Note the number of smoking bans being enacted across the world. As a smoker, I don't much have a problem with them.

I live in the muslim world. Much of it is alcohol free. As a drinker, I don't have much problem with that. Since it's a major health issue, enacting measures to reduce alcohol abuse might be forthcoming, and I don't much have a problem with them.

Drink Driving is not a heath issue, it's a criminal offence. Measures are enacted to prevent it, like random breath tests. As a driver who has the occasional beer, I don't have much problem with that.

Having guns with the intent to kill innocent people is a criminal offence. I don't have a gun, but I don't object to people having them; I grew up in the English countryside where most farmers had them and had licenses issued and approved by the local police and authorities. They didn't have much problem with that.

If they want to enact measures to reduce the chance of someone going off on one and killing dozens of people, I don't think too many people should have a problem with that.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Chicog

[Morden]

We own a gun. I don't object to others owning guns within the law and subject to them following the safety rules. Events in the US suggest that some changes are needed to the relevant laws and how they are enforced.

I can't help you with your questions about gun safes for rifles any more than I have already done. We own a handgun and it's locked in a suitable safe when the house is unoccupied or when visitors are around. It's nowhere near as big as the one you need. If you can't be bothered to keep your rifle safe, you shouldn't have one. If it's stolen and used in a crime, whose name is on the books as owner?

Great. "We own a gun". One gun. Singular.

"We" translates into "my wife bought a gun, and now I say I am a gun owner".

So because you have ONE gun, that does not actually belong to you, you are now "one of us gun owners" and are now an expert on firearms such that you can sit high atop a mountaintop and preach to the rest of us gun owners how the rest of us are irresponsible because we don't have gun safes, while you (and the singular gun that you have) are one of the responsible one's because you have a gun safe.

When the rest of us who actually grew up around guns realize that gun safes are not necessarily feasible because (1) they are very big and heavy to move (2) they are expensive, and (3) a trigger lock usually suffices.

And according to you, I can't have a hunting rifle because I don't have a gun safe big enough to fit a hunting rifle. "If it's stolen and used in a crime, whose name is on the books as owner?" Really?!?! Are you aware that in most states in the United States, long guns (such as hunting rifles or shotguns) do not even need to be registered?

I'm glad that I have an expert such as yourself around that I can ask questions to. Now, can you tell me what grain bullet you would recommend for shooting a .308 winchester (7.62x51mm) for hunting deer?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I bought a gun. It is owned by my wife because it's easier to get a licence that way. I am allowed by law to use it at home in self defence of my wife, myself and our property. I make sure that we both handle and store the gun in a responsible way.

Yes, one gun. That's all we need. The degree of responsible gun ownership is not a factor of the number owned.

My view of responsible gun ownership was acquired in the UK where, after two massacres, one at a school, the laws were tightened appropriately. As far back as I can remember, guns in the UK have had to be kept in a safe. Lax gun safety leads to the kind of killings the US is now experiencing. I find it incomprehensible that there is still a faction in the US that think it's OK to leave guns lying around.

[Morden]

My thoughts are, if you drink alcohol and also want to ban guns, you are a hippocrite. You want to ban guns to save lives. Alcohol kills more people than do guns. If you are interested in saving lives, then before you start trying to outlaw you should first outlaw alcohol...since it's all about saving lives and all. And I don't care that you think you can handle your drinking or drink and not drive...not everybody is like you. Because a small portion of drinkers insist on driving...then ALL drinking should be banned.

I don't want to drift too far off topic, but alcohol abuse is a health issue, and so is smoking. Note the number of smoking bans being enacted across the world. As a smoker, I don't much have a problem with them.

I live in the muslim world. Much of it is alcohol free. As a drinker, I don't have much problem with that. Since it's a major health issue, enacting measures to reduce alcohol abuse might be forthcoming, and I don't much have a problem with them.

Drink Driving is not a heath issue, it's a criminal offence. Measures are enacted to prevent it, like random breath tests. As a driver who has the occasional beer, I don't have much problem with that.

Having guns with the intent to kill innocent people is a criminal offence. I don't have a gun, but I don't object to people having them; I grew up in the English countryside where most farmers had them and had licenses issued and approved by the local police and authorities. They didn't have much problem with that.

If they want to enact measures to reduce the chance of someone going off on one and killing dozens of people, I don't think too many people should have a problem with that.

I echo your comment that people in the UK, gun owners or not, have no problem with gun laws and safety requirements.

[Scott]

A lot of off-topic posts and many replies to them, have been deleted. Please stay on-topic and be civil toward other posters.

[submaniac]

I echo your comment that people in the UK, gun owners or not, have no problem with gun laws and safety requirements.

It's not an issue of gun laws or safety...It's an issue of someone accusing other people of being irresponsible for not having a gun safe when the person making the comment apparently isn't that familiar with the fact that hunting rifles and shotguns are very large, and any gun safe big enough to fit hunting rifles and shotguns would be very big, very heavy, and very expensive that it would be hard to use. That's why alot of people use trigger locks (a lock that goes over the trigger) instead.

As to the issue of your gun safety measures...

If I had a child, yes, I would either have a gun safe, or I would store guns out of the house (storage unit, someone else's house).

If it's just adults in the house...I would rather just hide a handgun than put it in a safe. The only safes I want to deal with would be small and moveable. Any big guns require big safes...and those are a pain to move. If you have a handgun and are using a small safe...what makes you think someone breaking into your house wouldn't steal the entire safe? Any burglar would think that if something needs to be put in a safe...it is valuable. Without kids in the house...I would feel better with hiding.

P.S. Scott, apologies for any inconvenience in deleting posts.

Edited February 9, 2013 by submaniac

[coma]

Very watery indeed. Nothing short of a complete ban on all assault rifle will safice.

[Chicog]

It's not an issue of gun laws or safety...

Er... it's precisely that. Look at the topic again.

[submaniac]

No it's not about safety. If it's about safety then let's talk about how alcohol and tobacco killing more people. If people want to talk about saving more lives a year the. Lets talk about banning tobacco and alcohol. But no I shouldn't talk about that... I should start a new topic (hey mordem figure out you can't start new topics on a news story) and instead I get lectures from people on proper gun safety who's only experience with guns is that their wife just bought a gun so now they're an expert.

And apparently unless you own a gun safe you are too irresponsible to own a gun.

[fasteddie]

Title rather misleading. Yeah of course background checks...even diehard gun owners do not want criminals or the mentally ill to purchase handguns...

And really, do we really need "news of Russia" to accurately report US news?

And do you seriously think the American press can be trusted to report anything accurately?

[chooka]

Very watery indeed. Nothing short of a complete ban on all assault rifle will safice.

Why doe's a person need an assault rifle or any semi automatice firearm anyway.

[chooka]

No it's not about safety. If it's about safety then let's talk about how alcohol and tobacco killing more people. If people want to talk about saving more lives a year the. Lets talk about banning tobacco and alcohol. But no I shouldn't talk about that... I should start a new topic (hey mordem figure out you can't start new topics on a news story) and instead I get lectures from people on proper gun safety who's only experience with guns is that their wife just bought a gun so now they're an expert.

And apparently unless you own a gun safe you are too irresponsible to own a gun.

In Australia you are committing a criminal offence if you do not have a gun safe and you face 2 years imprisonment (yes I know that is Aust and not the U.S) The U.S requirements are very soft.

You also must store your ammunition separately from the firearm or if it is stored in the safe with the firearm it must be stored in a separate locked container. The gunsafe must also be fixed to the structure/premises where the firearms are licenced to be stored.

You are considered irresponsible in Aust if you do not meet these basic requirements and that is why you are charged with a criminal offence, have you guns siezed, licence cancelled, get a heavy fine and look at a prison sentence.

[Morden]

No it's not about safety. If it's about safety then let's talk about how alcohol and tobacco killing more people. If people want to talk about saving more lives a year the. Lets talk about banning tobacco and alcohol. But no I shouldn't talk about that... I should start a new topic (hey mordem figure out you can't start new topics on a news story) and instead I get lectures from people on proper gun safety who's only experience with guns is that their wife just bought a gun so now they're an expert.

And apparently unless you own a gun safe you are too irresponsible to own a gun.

In Australia you are committing a criminal offence if you do not have a gun safe and you face 2 years imprisonment (yes I know that is Aust and not the U.S) The U.S requirements are very soft.

You also must store your ammunition separately from the firearm or if it is stored in the safe with the firearm it must be stored in a separate locked container. The gunsafe must also be fixed to the structure/premises where the firearms are licenced to be stored.

You are considered irresponsible in Aust if you do not meet these basic requirements and that is why you are charged with a criminal offence, have you guns siezed, licence cancelled, get a heavy fine and look at a prison sentence.

Much the same as in the UK and very sensible.

The argument that a gun safe is too heavy, bulky or expensive to buy and so a gun can be left lying around suggests a dangerous and cavalier attitude.