Another good article/opinion piece for all of us to consider:

 

 

 

Bad Day in Blacksburg

 

http://www.townhall.com/content/218e9483-e2d7-4972-b3cf-17463d23592d

 

I hope I did that right.

Good article alot of things hit home there.

Ammunition tracking using micro tracers would make the price of ammunition skyrocket. There are warehouses full of ammunition in this country, much of which has been purchased from the old Soviet block nations or China. There are also a great many firearms from these countries still packet in oil in crates available for sale across the nation. I don't think that the ammunition is as big of a deal as you think. Ammunition is fairly precise per the manufacturer. Beyond that, it will always be available. As for the gun shows, all new weapons sold at the shows do require an immediate background check. However, the used gun trading and selling has no check, nor do I see a way to institute a check. It would be like trying to make me have a background check to buy a used gun from my neighbor. The amount of ammunition sold at these shows in buld is what may surprise you. I often go to these shows to purchase 7.62x39, 5.56, 9mm, and .45 in bulk. I buy it by the case, which means 1,000 rounds. It is very cheap at these shows. Your ammunition tracking system would not have an affect on this type of purchase, since like I have already stated, much of this ammunition is foreign and very accessable.

 

The fact that guns and ammunition sales at the shows are not regulated does not mean that they can't be. You mentioned buying a used gun from your neighbor. Why wouldn't you buy a used car from your neighbor without registering the transaction? The simple reason is because there would be legal consequences. Why not require the same thing for guns and ammunition?

 

Another interesting thing has come up regarding VT. The shooter had been held on a mental inquest a little over a year ago. Should he have been able to pass a background check?

The fact that guns and ammunition sales at the shows are not regulated does not mean that they can't be. You mentioned buying a used gun from your neighbor. Why wouldn't you buy a used car from your neighbor without registering the transaction? The simple reason is because there would be legal consequences. Why not require the same thing for guns and ammunition?

Another interesting thing has come up regarding VT. The shooter had been held on a mental inquest a little over a year ago. Should he have been able to pass a background check?

Because many feel that it would be the beginning of the end of gun ownership.

Because many feel that it would be the beginning of the end of gun ownership.

 

That's silly! It hasn't been the end of auto, boat, and motercycle ownership.

And to expand on that, you have to have a license to operate a motor vehicle, which you have to pass a written and practical test to get. It has to be renewed at intervals, and you can lose it if you misuse your vehicle.

A piece of dialogue from the movie UHF:

 

Pam the reporter: "We're talking with Mr. Earl Ramsey, President of the local chapter of the American Gun Association. Mr. Ramsey, would it be correct to say that your organization is against gun control?

 

Earl Ramsey (with a strong southern accent): "Gun control is for WHIMPS and COMMIES. Listen, let's get one thing straight. GUNS don't kill people... I do." (*points his gun at the camera*)

 

Pam: I see, well... [end scene]

 

In general, as much as I'm sure the world would be safer without guns, it's just no going to happen, so I feel we need to strongly focus on teaching responsibility of using and selling guns.

And to expand on that, you have to have a license to operate a motor vehicle, which you have to pass a written and practical test to get. It has to be renewed at intervals, and you can lose it if you misuse your vehicle.

 

Keep in mind that you only need a driver's license if you are driving on the public highways. If I was only going to drive a vehicle on my private property and I never drove on the public highways, I would not be required to have a driver's license at all.

 

Likewise, if I only was going to use/carry my firearms on my private property, why should I need a license? I agree that if I am going to carry my weapon on public property I should be required to get a license. But the carry concealed license is for that purpose. Its been a few years, but I want to recall that I did have to take a written test and do field work before I got my carry concealed license which permits me to carry it in public. If I don't have the carry concealed license, then (depending on the various states) I must keep the firearm either in the trunk, in a lock glove compartment, etc.

 

And I do think that you may be missing a key point, with all due respect. Lets assume that a test was required. If the assailant really wanted to get a firearm and did not want to take or could not pass the test, don't you agree that he could still easily get one anyway on the black market? People bent on evil will find ways to accomplish evil.

I've seen this politicized on television already, but I 'd like to clearly state, "This is not a conservative or liberal issue."

No one with any sense wants lunatics to have guns, no one wants criminals to have guns. Taking guns away from the vast majority of good and decent law abiding Americans will do nothing at all to get/keep them out of the hands of crooks and crazies.

 

I read somewhere that we have around 20,000 gun control laws in 50 states. Another law or two piled on top is not going to make much difference.

 

When we are faced with individuals willing to take their own lives in the act of killing others, it doesn't matter whether they are equipped with a gun loaded with "tracable" bullets, a rental truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel, a box cutter, a disposable lighter and a can of gasoline or simply a driver's license and a three ton SUV barreling down the road.

 

Our problem is much deeper than who has a gun or not.

GOOD POST!!!!

A piece of dialogue from the movie UHF:

 

Pam the reporter: "We're talking with Mr. Earl Ramsey, President of the local chapter of the American Gun Association. Mr. Ramsey, would it be correct to say that your organization is against gun control?

 

Earl Ramsey (with a strong southern accent): "Gun control is for WHIMPS and COMMIES. Listen, let's get one thing straight. GUNS don't kill people... I do." (*points his gun at the camera*)

 

Pam: I see, well... [end scene]

 

In general, as much as I'm sure the world would be safer without guns, it's just no going to happen, so I feel we need to strongly focus on teaching responsibility of using and selling guns.

 

Oh yeah, and the picture to go along with it:

Keep in mind that you only need a driver's license if you are driving on the public highways. If I was only going to drive a vehicle on my private property and I never drove on the public highways, I would not be required to have a driver's license at all.

 

Likewise, if I only was going to use/carry my firearms on my private property, why should I need a license? I agree that if I am going to carry my weapon on public property I should be required to get a license. But the carry concealed license is for that purpose. Its been a few years, but I want to recall that I did have to take a written test and do field work before I got my carry concealed license which permits me to carry it in public. If I don't have the carry concealed license, then (depending on the various states) I must keep the firearm either in the trunk, in a lock glove compartment, etc.

 

And I do think that you may be missing a key point, with all due respect. Lets assume that a test was required. If the assailant really wanted to get a firearm and did not want to take or could not pass the test, don't you agree that he could still easily get one anyway on the black market? People bent on evil will find ways to accomplish evil.

 

You know, I do understand what you're saying. My issue isn't that I think that we can regulate guns to the point that the bad guys don't get them. My issue is that we don't do enough to make sure that the good guys who have them have the knowledge and training to use them and secure them properly.

 

I don't think any regulations could have prevented what Cho did. However, I do believe that requiring a written safety test and/or some sort of required training and/or the possiblilty that misuse or mishandling of a gun could keep a kid from killing his friend accidentally by holding the parent responsible for the storage of the gun, etc. It's a long drawn out thought process that I have, and unfortunately not enough time to expound. But, in a nutshell....I'm for GUN SAFETY regulation, not necessarily gun control.

That's silly! It hasn't been the end of auto, boat, and motercycle ownership.

Yeah, that's what people thought in Germany in the 30's, next thing they knew their guns were being confiscated.

You know, I do understand what you're saying. My issue isn't that I think that we can regulate guns to the point that the bad guys don't get them. My issue is that we don't do enough to make sure that the good guys who have them have the knowledge and training to use them and secure them properly.

 

I don't think any regulations could have prevented what Cho did. However, I do believe that requiring a written safety test and/or some sort of required training and/or the possiblilty that misuse or mishandling of a gun could keep a kid from killing his friend accidentally by holding the parent responsible for the storage of the gun, etc. It's a long drawn out thought process that I have, and unfortunately not enough time to expound. But, in a nutshell....I'm for GUN SAFETY regulation, not necessarily gun control.

 

 

Gotcha. As for the gun safety aspect, here are my thoughts having been around guns since before I was 10 ( I first got to go hunting at 10, but had been introduced to guns before 10 by my father for safety reasons). The anti gun folks do a great disservice to the safety of children when they prevent schools from allowing the NRA to come into the schools and conduct gun safety courses and unfortunately this occurs. The NRA has a great, and I mean great, child safety program. Parents that allow guns to lie around the house have to be some of the most irresponsible people on the face of this earth and should be sent to jail for a long time if a child is hurt as a result of such irresponsibility. While I'd like to think that if the parents just attended a safety course they would not be so stupid, unfortunately I don't think that would be the case. Only a moron of a parent with zero common sense can't figure that out on their own. Thus, I seriously doubt making those morons take a course would solve anything.

 

I also think responsible parents, even those without guns in their homes, should introduce their children to guns (whether its via the NRA course, through a local hunting club or the state's hunter safety course). I keep my weapons in a gun safe, but way before I allowed my sons to go hunting, I introduced them to the dangers of firearms in the hope that if they went over to their buddy's house and found a weapon lying around, they'd understand the danger involved. It also took some of the "fascination" element away because they had seen, held and been around weapons before.

 

Most adults that I know that are first time gun owners are very aware of the need to get some safety training because most of them are "scared" of guns. The instruction booklets that come with new guns do a very good job of discussing safety (thank the trial lawyers for that... and I sincerely mean it when I say thanks). And every time I have purchased a new gun, the seller/dealer walked me through the operation of the gun and went over safety items at such a basic level I was almost insulted. Also keep in mind that the frequency of mishaps involving guns is very low considering the number of guns out there. Most accidents occur when cleaning and the constant excuse in that situation is " I thought it was unloaded". These people knew to check and make sure the weapon was unloaded, but they failed to do so. Thus, they already knew what they would have been taught in a safety class and that is never to assume it was unloaded, but to make sure it was.

 

To a great degree gun safety is 99.99999% common sense. Most firearms are some of the simplest tools civilization has developed. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn how to load, aim or fire a firearm. Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know not to aim a weapon at something you don't intent to shoot.

 

Do accidents occur? Of course they do, but from my experience it has never been because of the gun owner not already being aware of the safety rules or how to operate the weapon; rather it was because he/she simply failed to do what he/she knew to do.

 

If there were a lot of accidents caused by people not being aware of basic gun safety, trust me, I'd be right there with you sister. Its just my experience that such is not the case. While I am not philosophically opposed to requiring gun safety courses for first time purchasers, I just don't think that such training would result in a decrease in the already low frequency of mishaps and accidents. And as I've posted many times before, the libertarian in me says that before any regulation is adopted, it must be proven that there is a definite societal problem that must be solved AND the regulation was be proven to solve that problem. I really don't think mandatory training would solve the problem of people being careless about guns.

Yeah, that's what people thought in Germany in the 30's, next thing they knew their guns were being confiscated.

 

 

As a gun owner I don't mind the registration of my gun, do I want it? No, but I wouldn't be overly put out over it. The problem I would have would be with the whole tracable ammunition thing. The costs would be astronomical for me considering my rifle fires surplus Soviet ammo. The cost difference is absolutely crazy.

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated.

 

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

 

Great Britain, Ireland, Greece, Jamaica, Russia, Cuba, Bermuda and China are other countries that implemented registration that led to bans and confiscation.

 

Still think it’s “silly”?