Eliminate all gun free zones.

You're absolutely right. I don't understand the bolded. Not even remotely. Doesn't mean I don't think he should be allowed to. Just wanted to point out that just because some people don't understand it doesn't mean they're against it or opposed to it.

 

It's funny, because I can't understand why you or most anyone else wouldn't understand it.

 

Most people are passionate about something. Guys who fish might have 20 different poles and hundreds of lures, yet hardly anyone would question that. Some guys are into Bourbon and might have 20 different bottles in their house at one time. Hardly anyone would bat an eye. Lots of ladies are into scrapbooking and have dozens of supplies associated with that. Not one weird look. Now, with all that said, I'm not into fishing, find bourbon disgusting, and I won't be starting a scrapbook anytime soon. But I definitely understand the passion for it and owning all that stuff at one time. Those aren't my passions, but I understand the passion.

 

But yet when it comes to guns there seems to be a lot of people who question it and "can't understand" why someone would want to own multiple guns and ammo. It's no different than any other passion/hobby, but yet it's looked upon differently. That's what I can't understand.

 

The examples I used UKMF...would you feel the same way about the people in those examples as you would "Johnny Lovestoshoot"? Just wondering and trying to put multiple gun ownership in a different light with my comparisons.

It's funny, because I can't understand why you or most anyone else wouldn't understand it.

 

Most people are passionate about something. Guys who fish might have 20 different poles and hundreds of lures, yet hardly anyone would question that. Some guys are into Bourbon and might have 20 different bottles in their house at one time. Hardly anyone would bat an eye. Lots of ladies are into scrapbooking and have dozens of supplies associated with that. Not one weird look. Now, with all that said, I'm not into fishing, find bourbon disgusting, and I won't be starting a scrapbook anytime soon. But I definitely understand the passion for it and owning all that stuff at one time. Those aren't my passions, but I understand the passion.

 

But yet when it comes to guns there seems to be a lot of people who question it and "can't understand" why someone would want to own multiple guns and ammo. It's no different than any other passion/hobby, but yet it's looked upon differently. That's what I can't understand.

 

The examples I used UKMF...would you feel the same way about the people in those examples as you would "Johnny Lovestoshoot"?

 

Me personally, yes I don't understand those things either. I would imagine the reason a lot of people feel differently is that scrapbooks, fishing poles, and bourbon bottles can't kill people.

 

Like I said, I don't understand the need to own a gun. Doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the right.

I have no answers, but I'm going to think out loud like UKMustangFan. It seems to me, that there are three related areas involved in some sort of catch-22 purgatory.

 

1) Enact more legislation, run afoul of constitutionally protected rights. Sit back with the status quo, and ignore a problem that seems to be getting worse.

 

2) Attempt to legislate locally, and to say nothing of the guns already there, it's not hard to go outside a city or cross state lines. Look at Chicago. I'm sure many if not most of the guns used in crimes there were purchased illegally on the black market, but even if they aren't the city is right next to Indiana. I don't know their laws, but they have to be less strict than Chicago's. Similarly, do anything nationwide and we have the federalism problem, not to mention any constitutional concerns.

 

3) People on both sides of the debate need to recognize the difference between urban vs. rural gun ownership, and everything along that spectrum. Whether I understand Johnny Lovestoshoot's fascination with having a personal arsenal, he's generally not hurting anyone, and is probably hunting or shooting on open property. At the same time, I'm a little uneasy with someone having a gun safe in his apartment unit. Unfortunately, any sort of legislation along these lines run into the problems stated above, similar to buying drugs, in that if I can't get it at home, I could probably drive 20 minutes and have no problem, not to mention any possible racial or constitutional issues.

 

I don't know what to do. I've always been fairly ambivalent towards this issue because I don't own a gun and I know some whackos who love their guns that leaves me a little uneasy at times, but the constitution is fairly explicit, and I love that document. I'm just tired of innocent people needlessly losing their lives.

Eliminate all gun free zones.

 

What do you mean? You would have insanity and shoot outs break out in those places if just anyone could bring a gun. Don't you recall how in the 90's when the majority of states passed concealed carry laws how gun fights brought out in the streets and how road rage turned into shootings???? Oh wait, they didn't, never mind.

 

I hope you and others noted the sarcasm of my post.

What do you mean? You would have insanity and shoot outs break out in those places if just anyone could bring a gun. Don't you recall how in the 90's when the majority of states passed concealed carry laws how gun fights brought out in the streets and how road rage turned into shootings???? Oh wait, they didn't, never mind.

 

I hope you and others noted the sarcasm of my post.

 

I did note the sarcasm, but to clarify, there was none in my initial post.

Me personally, yes I don't understand those things either. I would imagine the reason a lot of people feel differently is that scrapbooks, fishing poles, and bourbon bottles can't kill people.

 

Like I said, I don't understand the need to own a gun. Doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the right.

 

Actually, they can. Although granted it may take a little work to do it with a scrapbook.:lol2: But, just like a gun, they can't kill anyone without someone doing something with it. A bourbon bottle sitting on a shelf won't kill anyone, but let me swing it at someone's head and that just might be it for them. Same for a gun...it's not going to kill someone just sitting there, takes an action by someone.

 

With that said tongue in check with a little humor, I get your point, no one is going into a liquor store and robbing it at bourbon point, but then again that takes us back to the original question which is how do we keep guns out of the hands of that guy who robs the liquor store in the first place.

Someone explain something to me.

 

If localities are allowed to place their own restrictions on gun ownership, so much so that they are not required to recognize gun licenses issued by other states or localities why are all states required to recognize drivers licenses and marriage licenses issued by other states?

 

If I drive through New York City with my KY drivers license that perfectly legal. If I drive through NYC with my legally licensed and obtained hand gun from KY that's illegal. If my marriage license was issued in KY I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. I don't understand why there's reciprocity for some but not all state issues licenses.

Someone explain something to me.

 

If localities are allowed to place their own restrictions on gun ownership, so much so that they are not required to recognize gun licenses issued by other states or localities why are all states required to recognize drivers licenses and marriage licenses issued by other states?

 

If I drive through New York City with my KY drivers license that perfectly legal. If I drive through NYC with my legally licensed and obtained hand gun from KY that's illegal. If my marriage license was issued in KY I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. I don't understand why there's reciprocity for some but not all state issues licenses.

 

Yep, that's been brought up in other debates/threads, and it's a darn good question.

I hesitate to post in this thread, but here goes.

 

I don't think there's any policy that will stop or reduce gun violence over night. In fact, any serious and sensible policy might take years or even decades to affect gun violence, for reasons I will outline below.

 

I won't relitigate the Second Amendment in here, and I will accept the Heller and McDonald decisions for the purposes of this thread, which is, essentially, that Americans have a fundamental right to own a gun, which precludes the government from banning them, but otherwise allows the government to regulate them.

 

My simple summary is that I think there are far too many people who have access to firearms that should not have access to them. There's no disputing the United States has an outrageous amount of gun violence compared to its peer countries and there's no disputing the United States has an extremely high rate of guns and access to guns compared to its peer countries. More guns is not an approach that leads to less gun violence. It defies all reason to argue the contrary.

 

I think access to firearms is a function of guns being extremely easy to purchase and our society's love for them, which reinforces one another. There are so many guns that exist in circulation now any sort of policy to regulate the manufacture or sale of new guns will have limited impact. And, as many pro-gun acolytes point out, criminals acquire guns illegally anyway. Regulating the manufacture and sale of guns won't stop illegal guns sales. I agree.

 

So, the only serious proposal to reduce gun violence must somehow reduce the number of people who have access to firearms to only people who will be accountable with them.

 

I don’t think there’s one law or set of laws that would “cure” this country’s issue with gun violence. Many on the right are quick to point out that Adam Lanza and Dylan Roof didn’t buy their guns, and thus more restrictive gun laws wouldn’t have stopped them. However, it’s relatively obvious that making it more difficult to buy a gun reduces the amount of guns purchased and circulated. More onerous regulation on purchasing a firearm (expanded background checks, waiting periods, licensing, etc.) would lead to fewer sales, I'm sure, but, again, wouldn't have a substantial impact for decades due to the amount already in existence. It also wouldn't instill accountability into the system. Once purchased, the guns would still be in society and free to fall into the wrong hands.

 

This brings me to my point: While it's true criminals and the ill-willed could still acquire guns illegally no matter what the law, the guns were almost by definition sold legally at one point. There's an in-between process that allows guns to go from legal to illegal with no implications for anyone except the eventual victim.

 

What I'm about to say is heresy, but what I think would be the best possible solution between balancing people’s right to own firearms with our society’s need for safety is to require all guns to be registered, tracked from manufacturer to dealer to owners, and for people in this chain of custody to be held accountable when one of these firearms goes missing and/or is used in a crime. Being caught with an unregistered gun after such a policy is placed into effect will be considered a felony and the gun will be melted down.

 

It might take years for that to take hold and show effectiveness, but it would end most firearms trafficking (like what’s done up the I95 corridor between states with lax gun laws and states with stricter gun laws), it would close the private sale "loophole" in a sense, and it would place some accountability (and thus more responsibility) on the industry and owners to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Perhaps this would encourage mental health assessments before selling or purchasing a firearm. In a sense, the people who want guns for responsible purposes and who will be responsible with them will see little change in that ability, but people who want them for destructive reasons or who lack the responsibility to keep them out of the wrong hands will find them tougher to come by.

 

Like I said, this is heresy and thus all a pipe dream. The discussion is moot. But, there it is.

Someone explain something to me. If localities are allowed to place their own restrictions on gun ownership' date=' so much so that they are not required to recognize gun licenses issued by other states or localities why are all states required to recognize drivers licenses and marriage licenses issued by other states? If I drive through New York City with my KY drivers license that perfectly legal. If I drive through NYC with my legally licensed and obtained hand gun from KY that's illegal. If my marriage license was issued in KY I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. I don't understand why there's reciprocity for some but not all state issues licenses.[/quote']

 

The hardcore socialist states make their own rules. The peasants in those states don't challenge them, they are "content" with being protected by the state.

Like I said, this is heresy and thus all a pipe dream. The discussion is moot. But, there it is.

 

Well, if nothing else, you definitely got that point right.:lol2:

I hesitate to post in this thread, but here goes.

 

I don't think there's any policy that will stop or reduce gun violence over night. In fact, any serious and sensible policy might take years or even decades to affect gun violence, for reasons I will outline below.

 

I won't relitigate the Second Amendment in here, and I will accept the Heller and McDonald decisions for the purposes of this thread, which is, essentially, that Americans have a fundamental right to own a gun, which precludes the government from banning them, but otherwise allows the government to regulate them.

 

My simple summary is that I think there are far too many people who have access to firearms that should not have access to them. There's no disputing the United States has an outrageous amount of gun violence compared to its peer countries and there's no disputing the United States has an extremely high rate of guns and access to guns compared to its peer countries. More guns is not an approach that leads to less gun violence. It defies all reason to argue the contrary.

 

I think access to firearms is a function of guns being extremely easy to purchase and our society's love for them, which reinforces one another. There are so many guns that exist in circulation now any sort of policy to regulate the manufacture or sale of new guns will have limited impact. And, as many pro-gun acolytes point out, criminals acquire guns illegally anyway. Regulating the manufacture and sale of guns won't stop illegal guns sales. I agree.

 

So, the only serious proposal to reduce gun violence must somehow reduce the number of people who have access to firearms to only people who will be accountable with them.

 

I don’t think there’s one law or set of laws that would “cure” this country’s issue with gun violence. Many on the right are quick to point out that Adam Lanza and Dylan Roof didn’t buy their guns, and thus more restrictive gun laws wouldn’t have stopped them. However, it’s relatively obvious that making it more difficult to buy a gun reduces the amount of guns purchased and circulated. More onerous regulation on purchasing a firearm (expanded background checks, waiting periods, licensing, etc.) would lead to fewer sales, I'm sure, but, again, wouldn't have a substantial impact for decades due to the amount already in existence. It also wouldn't instill accountability into the system. Once purchased, the guns would still be in society and free to fall into the wrong hands.

 

This brings me to my point: While it's true criminals and the ill-willed could still acquire guns illegally no matter what the law, the guns were almost by definition sold legally at one point. There's an in-between process that allows guns to go from legal to illegal with no implications for anyone except the eventual victim.

 

What I'm about to say is heresy, but what I think would be the best possible solution between balancing people’s right to own firearms with our society’s need for safety is to require all guns to be registered, tracked from manufacturer to dealer to owners, and for people in this chain of custody to be held accountable when one of these firearms goes missing and/or is used in a crime. Being caught with an unregistered gun after such a policy is placed into effect will be considered a felony and the gun will be melted down.

 

It might take years for that to take hold and show effectiveness, but it would end most firearms trafficking (like what’s done up the I95 corridor between states with lax gun laws and states with stricter gun laws), it would close the private sale "loophole" in a sense, and it would place some accountability (and thus more responsibility) on the industry and owners to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Perhaps this would encourage mental health assessments before selling or purchasing a firearm. In a sense, the people who want guns for responsible purposes and who will be responsible with them will see little change in that ability, but people who want them for destructive reasons or who lack the responsibility to keep them out of the wrong hands will find them tougher to come by.

 

Like I said, this is heresy and thus all a pipe dream. The discussion is moot. But, there it is.

 

Your premise fails with me because I don't think we should make it harder to take advantage of a constitutional right.

Would that include gun shows?

 

At Gun shows the dealers complete background checks on all gun sales.

 

If you are a gun dealer you complete a check on every sale, even at gun shows.

 

Having been audited by ATF several times they would find very quickly any gun you sold without the completed paperwork ( a 4473)

Someone explain something to me.

 

If localities are allowed to place their own restrictions on gun ownership, so much so that they are not required to recognize gun licenses issued by other states or localities why are all states required to recognize drivers licenses and marriage licenses issued by other states?

 

If I drive through New York City with my KY drivers license that perfectly legal. If I drive through NYC with my legally licensed and obtained hand gun from KY that's illegal. If my marriage license was issued in KY I don't have to re-marry if I move to another state. I don't understand why there's reciprocity for some but not all state issues licenses.

 

Some speculation is that if that is challenged now, the SCOTUS ruling that made gay marriage recognized from state to state (thus legalizing gay marriage) would work the same on gun carry permit holders.