I don't buy the "they will eventually take our guns" argument.

Buy it or not, a ban heads more that direction than not, wouldn't you agree?

You can buy them, for $215,000...- GE M134 Mini Gun – Fully Transferable

 

:jump:

 

 

If its good enough for the President....

 

You can buy them, for $215,000...- GE M134 Mini Gun – Fully Transferable

 

:jump:

Oh, is that all. I'll take two. Hope they'll take a check.

Would that mean that in order to keep my AR-15 that I've had for 2 years I'd now have to pay a couple hundred dollars to go take a class similar to the one I took for my concealed carry permit? Or do I get a pass? IMO what you're talking about, it's all about the money, guns are expensive enough as is, start adding this and it's a form of discouraging gun ownership. Just not right in my mind. Unless said classes are free.

 

I'm certainly not objected to the idea of offering the classes for free...

Labels notwithstanding...PepRock, RTS, Jumper_Dad...would you guys be opposed to laws requiring background checks and classes similar to those for concealed carry permits in order to own the types of guns listed above?

 

My perspective on this is one of a hunter, recreational shooter, and gun enthusiast (I'm pretty sure you guys all know that) who sees a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

 

So I'd have to have a background check if my AR 15 had a flash suppressor and a bayonet mount but I wouldn't have to have one if it didn't have those to cosmetic features? That is simply and totally illogical when the functionality and lethality of both are exactly the same.

So I'd have to have a background check if my AR 15 had a flash suppressor and a bayonet mount but I wouldn't have to have one if it didn't have those to cosmetic features? That is simply and totally illogical when the functionality and lethality of both are exactly the same.

 

In all honesty, I was just using the parameters of "assault rifle" as they had been previously been laid out by others rather than taking the time to lay out my own. For the record, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts shouldn't play any role in the definition of an assault rifle, in my opinion.

 

I still think, however, that there are certain types of guns that give the owner the potential to use them with more lethality and effectiveness for murder than others, and I can't help but feel that trying to use some kind of discernment in training someone to use or more importantly own one of those types of guns is prudent.

 

Right now there is very little more than age and not having a criminal record that makes you eligable to own one of those guns without even being asked "do you know how to shoot this?" It takes more process than that to drive a car. I realize that automobiles weren't written into the constitution, and rightfully so, but why does driving a car require so much more process (training, testing, and proper paperwork) than owning an AR-15?

Only 10 bills on the first day of Congress......

 

Ten gun bills on Congress's first day - The Hill's Floor Action

Labels notwithstanding...PepRock, RTS, Jumper_Dad...would you guys be opposed to laws requiring background checks and classes similar to those for concealed carry permits in order to own the types of guns listed above?

 

My perspective on this is one of a hunter, recreational shooter, and gun enthusiast (I'm pretty sure you guys all know that) who sees a problem that needs to be addressed.

I believe removing the possibility of one individual harming another (or many) is unobtainable if there is a sufficient degree of intent. There are ways around all laws. One would think that making drugs illegal would make it really hard to buy drugs, however, we know that's simply not the case. Banning "assault weapons", limiting round capacity, background checks or classes will not address the root of the true problem. You cannot regulate a sick mind. If we seriously want to come up with a how to stop these things from happening, we MUST find out the WHY they're happening.

 

I still think, however, that there are certain types of guns that give the owner the potential to use them with more lethality and effectiveness for murder than others, and I can't help but feel that trying to use some kind of discernment in training someone to use or more importantly own one of those types of guns is prudent.

The Sandy Hook shooter wouldn't have been affected by this. He stole his mother's rifle. I wouldn't really have a problem with classes or training, but I really don't think it's going to stop the next incident. Again, we need to concentrate on finding out why these things are happening.

Have you seen the picture of the door he shoot through?

 

No. Can you post a link?

 

 

Here it is....

 

http://www.morningjournal.com/content/articles/2012/12/30/news/doc50dfc93c3e5e5912824514.jpg

 

Look over top of the green and white vans.

 

Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

I often find Jon Stewart obnoxious...but I really agree with him on this one.

oops...

 

Thank Goodness for Obamacare: Hidden Amendment Prevents Gun and Ammo Registry Independent Journal Review

 

"It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

 

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”

 

CNN is calling it “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”

 

So much for the national gun registry...

As long as they do not take our right to a helicopter gunship......

 

HUEY HELICOPTER UH-1E MARINE CORP. GUNSHIP

As long as they do not take our right to a helicopter gunship......

 

HUEY HELICOPTER UH-1E MARINE CORP. GUNSHIP

 

 

Awesome! And for those that didn't open the link, while it is a "gunship", there are no operating guns on it. In other words, it's just an old, historical helo. Don't want the anti gun types thinking a helo with operating guns can legally be purchased.

I believe removing the possibility of one individual harming another (or many) is unobtainable if there is a sufficient degree of intent. There are ways around all laws. One would think that making drugs illegal would make it really hard to buy drugs, however, we know that's simply not the case. Banning "assault weapons", limiting round capacity, background checks or classes will not address the root of the true problem. You cannot regulate a sick mind. If we seriously want to come up with a how to stop these things from happening, we MUST find out the WHY they're happening.

 

 

Bingo! We have a winner. Gun violence is the symptom or result of other problems present in America.

 

No surprise that the stats mentioned in the video Bluegrasscard posted stated that gun violence is much greater in larger cities. Why is that, when there are a whole lot of guns present in rural areas and my guess is that on a per capita basis the percentage of people owning guns in rural areas is much higher than in the big cities? I'd guess that the bigger cities have more prevalent drug problems; more unemployment; higher rates of single parents/teenage pregnancies and a higher high school drop out rate than are found in most rural areas. Those problems have to be solved if gun violence in the bigger cities is going to come down.

 

Also our mental health system is grossly underfunded and inadequate. Unless we start putting a lot more money into it (hello Tea Party anti tax extremists), banning assault weapons and large capacity mags is not going to prevent some mentally unstable person from killing a lot of people if he or she has the intent of doing so.