Gun Control Debate #3

[bobcat]

As a gun owner myself, would you accept bringing the age of purchase up to 21?........I wholeheartedly believe this is "common sense" and "reasonable".

All guns or just the so called assault weapons? Handguns are already that way, I would be fine with semi-automatic rifles being age 21 as well, although I'm not sure 22 rimfire rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 should be included.

Or if it's all guns being age 21 to purchase, I suppose that would be okay, as long as they could still possess firearms. Otherwise we'd have a new minimum age to hunt of 21 years old. Ridiculous.

 

[bobcat]

Please don’t take this as anything other than an honest question.

Do you actually believe most of us here at WS are saying to take away ALL guns? If so, I respectfully suggest you read back through the threads when you are in a calm state of mind. I believe you will find most who may have suggested ALL were replying to something that was anger-provoking, perhaps even meant to rile things up here. [not that you are ... I really don’t always understand some of your posts at times, and that is how they may come through. Apology if I misread your intentions]

When you make statements like these I quoted here, it only increases the likelihood of a retort, possibly with a sarcastic remark such as “take them ALL away”. That just gets us nowhere. Does that make sense to you?

I think, and may be mistaken, the majority here know there is never going to be a ban on all guns, every shape, size, strength or color. But do we really need any that rip apart your entire body so there is no chance of repair and saving your life? Does anyone under 21 need to own or buy a gun or a rifle or any other shooting weapon? Do we really need to own bump stocks? And can we add some way to determine a mental health status (without requiring a doctor’s signed note) that says we are a safe buyer/owner? I don’t know what that could be, however. But those would be my first steps toward improving the statistics on gun deaths. And I am still open to reasonable logic as to why they should not be acceptable steps to take, in every state.

And out of curiosity, if there were no bumpstocks could someone invent their own? I really don’t know, but if it is possible, it will get done by some curious or dangerous person.

thanks, if you are able to give me any considerate feedback.

First of all, and I think I said this before, but I couldn't care less about bumpstocks. I have no use for them and nobody I know would ever have a need for one. I never even heard of them until the Las Vegas massacre. Make them illegal, nobody really cares. Although I'll say it won't make any difference whatsoever in the gun violence problem. I've recently read that there are ways to make a semi-automatic fire faster in just the same way that a bump stock does, and that also someone with a lot of practice can shoot one just about as fast even without any modifications. However with that rate of faster fire comes inaccuracy, so it's really a matter of do you want to shoot faster and not hit anything your aiming at or do you want to shoot just a little bit slower and be much more accurate?

But do we really need any that rip apart your entire body so there is no chance of repair and saving your life?

When you make the above statement, if that's truly the way you think, then to me you're a person who would want ALL guns banned, because just about ALL guns will do just that, with the exception of perhaps small caliber handguns up to 22 rimfire rifles. So if that's the criteria to be used for which guns to be banned, we'll be left with only guns that can be used to shoot holes in paper targets. Nothing else. Nothing for self defense, nothing for hunting. If you don't care about those things, then I understand why you wouldn't care about a ban on MOST guns.

And yes, people under 21 DO need to own rifles and shotguns, at the very least so they can hunt. So take away their ability to purchase them, fine. I'm not exactly sure how they would need to write the law so that possession of those firearms would remain legal for the 18-20 year olds, but you can't simply make possession illegal. I imagine that would be unconstitutional anyway.

Now, if you were talking only "assault riflles," I think people would be much more willing to listen.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

BlackRock says it's time to take action on guns, may use voting power to influence

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/bla...n-guns-may-use-voting-power-to-influence.html

The world's largest asset manager details its approach to the gun industry in a three-page letter in response to overwhelming customer interest.

BlackRock says it is showing customers options for changing their investments to exclude stocks of gun makers and is considering new funds that don't invest in the industry.

BlackRock and other large passive fund managers haven't been vocal activists in the past.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Well, maybe I'll have to go back and read through the thread again, or the older ones. The ones that stick in my mind are the ones that say take away all guns, and tax ammunition so that nobody can afford it.

Those just aren't reasonable and go 100% against the 2nd amendment.

I’m with ya on that one especially, bobcat

 

[rsd1200]

Where does Kentucky rank for number of school shootings compared to population of the state?

We've had five school shootings in 45 years. I guess you could rank that by each span of time/population/deaths.

If my ciphering is correct, and it's entirely possible that it's not, this is what I came up with for Kentucky. (It's super easy to find about every other pe capita rate of death though, but I've not found school shootings per state).

(11 deaths total from 1970 - 2018 / avg of 4,000,000 people statewide) * 100,000 = .275

Here is a link that gives a visual of each state. It only goes back to the 90s. I went back to the 70s.

Ballotpedia School Shootings By Region
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_school_shootings,_1990-present#South


Link that compares overall firearm deaths. Kentucky is ranked 13th in overall firearm deaths, 772, with 495 of those being suicides. We are, however, ranked as the 7th lowest state regarding violent crime. Fourth highest rank in poverty 18.5%.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

 

[rsd1200]

The Prohibition Act of 1920 was actually enacted via a Constitutional Amendment. Hard to believe, what with the stringent voting requirements to amend that document. I guess it just goes to show that if enough voters want something.....

It only lasted three years, too.

 

[kimlynn]

Right here on the Websleuths forum!

I've seen only a few on here say ban all weapons but surely they are allowed an opinion as much as anyone else.
I see no need for a weapon and think the world would be a better place without them,but allow that some think they need a weapon so I accept that.
Maybe you're buying into the NRA and conservative claims that gun reform means grab all guns?

 

[Bernina]

All guns or just the so called assault weapons? Handguns are already that way, I would be fine with semi-automatic rifles being age 21 as well, although I'm not sure 22 rimfire rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 should be included.

Or if it's all guns being age 21 to purchase, I suppose that would be okay, as long as they could still possess firearms. Otherwise we'd have a new minimum age to hunt of 21 years old. Ridiculous.

ALL guns, 21 to purchase. (BB and pellet "guns" exempt)

Minors could still poses for hunting, target shooting whatever.

But it would give one heck of an incentive for the actual "purchaser" to know who, what, and where the weapon is with.

When I was a youngster, the drinking age was 19 in Arizona, and let's face it, there's a lot of 19 year olds that are dumber than a box of rocks. If you were female, you could get into bars at 16 *wink, wink*, and driver's licenses were real easy to alter. But........there were a lot of DWI (that's what a DUI was called back then) fatalities. The age was increased and DWI/DUIs went down considerably.

People who enlist in the military will always get waivers, my ex DH was signed in to the Marines ('Nam) by his parents at 17 and he was drinking, smoking, and getting tattooed with the rest of his jarhead buds. (and was at the top for sharp shooter)

 

[bobcat]

I've seen only a few on here say ban all weapons but surely they are allowed an opinion as much as anyone else.
I see no need for a weapon and think the world would be a better place without them,but allow that some think they need a weapon so I accept that.
Maybe you're buying into the NRA and conservative claims that gun reform means grab all guns?

Nope, mostly just going by what I read on here. Tell me, how am I supposed to hunt deer and elk without a rifle? Even if it's only a bolt action rifle with a magazine that only holds three cartridges? You really see no need for a "weapon" such as that? And by the way, I don't normally refer to my guns as weapons, as they're not used to shoot people.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I made sure that part was visible to readers. I had to chuckle when reading some earlier posts that seem to claim that gun ownership is unrestricted in the United States.

That sentiment is obviously not true. JMO

I hate using this as a source, but............
http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/best-states-for-gun-owners-2017/



That being said, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States , numbers indicate deaths and casualties, respectively (SCHOOL SHOOTINGS!):

February 12, 2016 Glendale, Arizona 2/0 Two 15-year-old girls died in an apparent Murder-Suicide at Independence High School.

October 9, 2015 Flagstaff, Arizona 1/3 One student died and three others were wounded in a shooting at Northern Arizona University. It is unclear what sparked the shooting, which took place near Mountain View Hall, a dormitory that houses most of the campus' students involved in Greek organizations. An 18-year-old student was arrested and charged with murder and aggravated assault.

January 31, 2013 Phoenix, Arizona 0/0 An argument between two rival gangs escalated to what police described as a "gun battle" at Cesar Chavez High School. Approximately fifteen shots were fired in the vicinity of people waiting to get into a scheduled boys' basketball game. No one was injured.

October 28, 2002 Tucson, Arizona 4/0 Failing nursing college student and Gulf War veteran, 40-year-old Robert Stewart Flores Jr., killed three assistant professors of nursing at the University of Arizona, 50-year-old Robin Rogers, 44-year-old Cheryl McGaffic, and 45-year-old Barbara Monroe, before turning the gun on himself.

Before 2002, there isn't any (just skimming so I might have made a mistake). None were non target mass shootings which one would assume would be the obvious with such lax gun laws in this State. The Flagstaff incident happened on the street and the suspect has claimed self defense, re-trial/conviction TBD.

So.........with Arizona basically being the easiest gun access State, why are we not seeing lots of school shootings, seeing the arguments on what gun laws are contributing factors in other States?

Don't get me wrong:
I'm a Native Arizonan.
I own guns. (and have a gun safe)
I carry. (S & W .367 mag revolver)
I support the 2nd amendment.
I do NOT support, nor am I a member of the NRA.
I DO believe the age of purchasing a weapon should be 21.
I DON'T believe mags should hold more than 6 bullets.
I can't justify ownership of semi automatics in the private sector, I don't think they're any better or efficient for hunting, or for personal/home protection. (and many people who own them don't have the knowledge or experience to use them for such)

JMO.

I agree with everything you wrote, Berlina.

But I would add there needs to be a central reporting agency that denotes those that are mentally ill that make threatening and violent acts so they can never purchase a gun.

Additionally, there needs to be a crack down on known criminals and felons who get caught committing a crime with a gun. Much stiffer penalties for them....no plea bargains or slaps on the wrists. The same goes for those that are caught committing a crime with an illegal weapon too. Stiffer sentences need to be imposed.

 

[Bernina]

I agree with everything you wrote, Berlina.

But I would add there needs to be a central reporting agency that denotes those that are mentally ill that make threatening and violent acts so they can never purchase a gun.

Additionally, there needs to be a crack down on known criminals and felons who get caught committing a crime with a gun. Much stiffer penalties for them....no plea bargains or slaps on the wrists. The same goes for those that are caught committing a crime with an illegal weapon too. Stiffer sentences need to be imposed.

Exactly!:happydance:

 

[kimlynn]

Nope, mostly just going by what I read on here. Tell me, how am I supposed to hunt deer and elk without a rifle? Even if it's only a bolt action rifle with a magazine that only holds three cartridges? You really see no need for a "weapon" such as that? And by the way, I don't normally refer to my guns as weapons, as they're not used to shoot people.

No other gun can be used for hunting except a rifle? And no I see no need for anything used for hunting as I don't hunt animals.
Of course that has nothing to do with your need or desire to hunt animals. IMO

 

[bobcat]

ALL guns, 21 to purchase. (BB and pellet "guns" exempt)

Minors could still poses for hunting, target shooting whatever.

But it would give one heck of an incentive for the actual "purchaser" to know who, what, and where the weapon is with.

I'd actually be fine with that. Purchasing age of a firearm wouldn't really have much affect on legal shooting and hunting. However there would be an issue for those young adults who didn't grow up shooting and hunting with their family, as I'm not sure how they would get a gun if they wanted to take up hunting. In my state, a person cannot buy a firearm for someone else, unless it's a family member. So tell me how that would work?

 

[Spellbound]

First of all, and I think I said this before, but I couldn't care less about bumpstocks. I have no use for them and nobody I know would ever have a need for one. I never even heard of them until the Las Vegas massacre. Make them illegal, nobody really cares. Although I'll say it won't make any difference whatsoever in the gun violence problem. I've recently read that there are ways to make a semi-automatic fire faster in just the same way that a bump stock does, and that also someone with a lot of practice can shoot one just about as fast even without any modifications. However with that rate of faster fire comes inaccuracy, so it's really a matter of do you want to shoot faster and not hit anything your aiming at or do you want to shoot just a little bit slower and be much more accurate?


When you make the above statement, if that's truly the way you think, then to me you're a person who would want ALL guns banned, because just about ALL guns will do just that, with the exception of perhaps small caliber handguns up to 22 rimfire rifles. So if that's the criteria to be used for which guns to be banned, we'll be left with only guns that can be used to shoot holes in paper targets. Nothing else. Nothing for self defense, nothing for hunting. If you don't care about those things, then I understand why you wouldn't care about a ban on MOST guns.

And yes, people under 21 DO need to own rifles and shotguns, at the very least so they can hunt. So take away their ability to purchase them, fine. I'm not exactly sure how they would need to write the law so that possession of those firearms would remain legal for the 18-20 year olds, but you can't simply make possession illegal. I imagine that would be unconstitutional anyway.

Now, if you were talking only "assault riflles," I think people would be much more willing to listen.

What I said about the internal damage, I was referring to the description from the doctors who treated the Stoneman victims, and he described these as much more difficult to treat than any other types of gunshots. The link is way back in the thread somewhere. But I think I understand sort of where you are coming from.

Maybe we shouldn't just assume someone’s opinion without asking for clarification? I don’t believe in a ban on all shooting devices. Do you believe a ban on the type of weapon used at the school would also include rifles such as 30-30 or [FONT=&amp].30/06, etc, that we used for deer hunting, am I correct? I am not asking for those to be taken away. So, if I am not mistaken, you find fault with the terminology used, not necessarily with the type of weapon limitation? I find myself afraid to call any guns/rifles/assault-weapons, etc by any name because someone always gets upset if the wrong term gets used. But by your standards, I think we agree that "assault-rifles’ need a bigger discussion and possible ban. [/FONT]

Is this definition from Wikipedia at least close to yours?
Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.
If it is, should we be discussing changes to all semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Guns that shoot multiple shots on one pull, perhaps? I personally am only familiar with my 30-30 and shotguns, that I no longer have here, so I can't be more specific; hope you understand what I am asking. [please, I am so trying to understand the discussions here and would like to better understand your side, and others who share your views. We may not be as far apart as we think]

I know nothing about bump stocks, either, but I was just curious and figured you could answer. Thanks for that ... it was what I expected to hear, but did not find any info anywhere else.

ETA ... I don’t believe under 21 needs to own a gun to hunt. can;t they use dad’s or an uncles, etc.? I didn’t own the guns I hunted with at the time, but it was legal. I’m not asking for that to change, just the age to purchase.


Appreciate your time and helpful reply! :tyou:

 

[bobcat]

No other gun can be used for hunting except a rifle? And no I see no need for anything used for hunting as I don't hunt animals.
Of course that has nothing to do with your need or desire to hunt animals. IMO

No. What other kind of gun would you suggest? Shotgun? No, they're for birds. Handgun? Not very effective. Muzzleloader? Maybe, but I prefer a modern bolt action rifle.

 

[rsd1200]

I agree with everything you wrote, Berlina.

But I would add there needs to be a central reporting agency that denotes those that are mentally ill that make threatening and violent acts so they can never purchase a gun.

Additionally, there needs to be a crack down on known criminals and felons who get caught committing a crime with a gun. Much stiffer penalties for them....no plea bargains or slaps on the wrists. The same goes for those that are caught committing a crime with an illegal weapon too. Stiffer sentences need to be imposed.

We've got lots of firearms that are not registered. They've been passed down from family member to family member, friends of the family have given my husband their husband's firearms b/c they had no children, or b/c their children never showed an intrest in them. I've got a beauty of a little revolver that was my mil's. Lord only knows where she got it from. Probably handed down, hand to hand, to her too. That little woman conceal carried before there was ever a class.

 

[kimlynn]

No. What other kind of gun would you suggest? Shotgun? No, they're for birds. Handgun? Not very effective. Muzzleloader? Maybe, but I prefer a modern bolt action rifle.

As I posted above I don't hunt so have zero idea what could be used which is why I asked if anything else could be used.

 

[Spellbound]

ALL guns, 21 to purchase. (BB and pellet "guns" exempt)

Minors could still poses for hunting, target shooting whatever.

But it would give one heck of an incentive for the actual "purchaser" to know who, what, and where the weapon is with.

When I was a youngster, the drinking age was 19 in Arizona, and let's face it, there's a lot of 19 year olds that are dumber than a box of rocks. If you were female, you could get into bars at 16 *wink, wink*, and driver's licenses were real easy to alter. But........there were a lot of DWI (that's what a DUI was called back then) fatalities. The age was increased and DWI/DUIs went down considerably.

People who enlist in the military will always get waivers, my ex DH was signed in to the Marines ('Nam) by his parents at 17 and he was drinking, smoking, and getting tattooed with the rest of his jarhead buds. (and was at the top for sharp shooter)

Maybe add to that that anyone who owns the gun is at least partially responsible for who uses it and how? Sort of like owning a car, we have to carry insurance and anyone not covered under it cannot be driving our car ... or we are held responsible for allowing it, unless they stole it.

 

[bobcat]

We've got lots of firearms that are not registered. They've been passed down from family member to family member, friends of the family have given my husband their husband's firearms b/c they had no children, or b/c their children never showed an intrest in them. I've got a beauty of a little revolver that was my mil's. Lord only knows where she got it from. Probably handed down, hand to hand, to her too. That little woman conceal carried before there was ever a class.

There's no such thing as registration in the United States, that I'm aware of. Maybe there a couple of cities that require registration of handguns? I'm not sure. But there really is no registration of firearms like a lot of people seem to think. When you buy a gun and there's a background check done, that's all it is, a background check. The firearm doesn't go into any kind of registry.

 

[bobcat]

As I posted above I don't hunt so have zero idea what could be used which is why I asked if anything else could be used.

Okay, well I hope I answered the question. :seeya:

I'll add- an "assault rifle" is not necessary.