I keep seeing requests here on the forum for proposed new laws that would help solve the violence problem, but nothing is stated other than to ban "assault" weapons, or ban ownership of FAs outright. The first didn't work when it was tried before, the next will cause civil war, so is there some other approach or piece of legislation to propose that might help solve the problem? There is.
The problem is one of violence in our civil society. I strongly believe that the popular culture is largely to blame, the Hollywood media elites, etc. I understand the Constitutional 1st Amendment backlash when proposals are put forth to rein them in. But oh the incredible irony that that is exactly what was was done in the case of tobacco. Removed from advertisement, removed from TV shows, removed from movies. The villians in the movie Waterworld were even called "smokers". So adolescent. So apparently there was enough concurrence that exposure to images of smoking in the popular culture lead to smoking behavior that the 1st Amendment was completely trashed to eliminate these images and try to control the behavior. Well clearly the same issue exists with violence in general. I just saw a trailer on Christmas Eve on the telly for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D". Repulsive. I just can't believe that there is not greater realization of the damage being done in our society by our media and entertainment elites. It is prima fascia obvious.
A voluntary restructuring of the disgusting content that they spew forth every day would be really nice.
Last edited by RRoller123 on Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
'80 FI Spider 2000
'74 and '79 X1/9 (past)
'75 BMW R75/6
2011 Chevy Malibu (daily driver)
2010 Chevy Silverado 2500HD Ext Cab 4WD/STD BED
2002 Edgewater 175CC 80HP 4-Stroke Yamaha
2003 Jaguar XK8
2003 Jaguar XKR
2021 Jayco 22RB
2019 Bianchi Torino Bicycle
Banning firearms period will not solve the problem, this would cause too much civil unrest.
An assault weapon makes for a lousy hunting tool so why have it?
Individuals locking up their firearms and ammo both at home and during transportation is a must.
Resposibility needs to fall back onto the owner to ensure that the firearm cannot be so easily accessed.
Fi8spider wrote:An assault weapon makes for a lousy hunting tool so why have it?
According to who?
Again I really dislike the argument of "I really don't see why people need them" that is a poor argument in my opinion. Should we all have to start justifing everything we use or own then?
Why? How many shots do you need to make on game to perform a clean and humane kill?
Lets not forget Gunsmith, I owned an assualt weapon before they were banned here in Oz, to say I was pissed when they took it away from me would be an understatement. Time has moved on and we all got over it.
I agree to a great extent, and the law already controls storage and transport. These laws are very strict! They do need to be enforced.
The quiet little untold truth behind some of the 2nd Amendment sentiment in the US is that, way back in the minds of many millions of American's, is the realization that our society may need to be armed to resist the government in a second American Revolution. The large magazines will be needed then. It doesn't get talked about much, but the soft tyranny of the current shift of Federal power away from the Soveriegn States, the soft tyranny of the developing welfare state, are anathema to many millions of Americans. I do hear this whispered quietly at times... No one wants to acknowledge it but it is out there. The general concensus is that the great American Experiment will only fail from within. There are no external forces that could do it. The Communists tried for 7 decades, the Chinese are trying it now economically. Our present leaders are trying it again from within, attempting a complete transformation of our society into a welfare state with soft tyranny domination from a top down federal bureaucracy, creating utter dependence upon the welfare state. There are millions upon millions of armed Americans that realize this and pray it doesn't happen. I think this is where the fundamental resistance to being disarmed comes from.
I myself just want to be able to defend my home and family and go to the range, and as stated earlier, just put little holes in pieces of paper farther and farther downrange, and maybe shoot some skeet or trap. I don't personally hunt, unless fishing can be called hunting?
'80 FI Spider 2000
'74 and '79 X1/9 (past)
'75 BMW R75/6
2011 Chevy Malibu (daily driver)
2010 Chevy Silverado 2500HD Ext Cab 4WD/STD BED
2002 Edgewater 175CC 80HP 4-Stroke Yamaha
2003 Jaguar XK8
2003 Jaguar XKR
2021 Jayco 22RB
2019 Bianchi Torino Bicycle
Why? How many shots do you need to make on game to perform a clean and humane kill?
Lets not forget Gunsmith, I owned an assualt weapon before they were banned here in Oz, to say I was pissed when they took it away from me would be an understatement. Time has moved on and we all got over it.
Well I'm glad you got over it as I am sure a fraction of semiautomatic gun owners will here too but millions more will not.
As far as hunting goes when we hunt Snow Geese here in the US because of over popolation you are allowed to use electronic callers and have no plugs in your gun. Benelli now has the Xrail shotgun (Thank God) and it holds just under 30 rounds of 12 gauge. We took 87 Snow Geese in about 3-1/2 minutes and the Wild Life Management officers could nothave been happier and wanted to know where they could get some. If you have watched any of our wildlife shows you can understand we have a huge wild pig problem here and are encouraged to cull as many of them as we can. We hunt a lot of different animals in different ways here not just a one shot taking of a deer. Additionally even if you are just planning on a one shot harvest a semi automatic is just more comfortable to shoot. Just beacuse it is semiautomatic does not mean you have to spew bullets all over the place which seems to be the common thought of what goes on.
Gunsmith wrote:OK well am I asking what this starting point is. Saying our law makers need to do something is like saying a group of monkeys need to fix my Fiat? What have our lawmakers done correctly in recent memory? So please tell me what your gun control solution would be because I feel there is far more intelligence here on this forum than in Washington.
What would the law be? Too broad a question though looking at other countries that have tighter firearm controls would be a start
What would the penalties be? Once again, too broad a question and at this point in time it should really be the least of the concern
I do not understnad how the question is too broad it is up to the auther of the hypothetical law to define what he feels is needed to solve the problem in his mind and how it will all work and come together to implimant. So saying it is too broad of a question is just a cop out in my opinion not to address the many aspects of the idea.
How would it be enforced? By employing a new national policing standard
How do you think it will help? It will reduce the risk.
What would the down side of the law be? Given that you Gunsmith are like me that we both enjoy time with our firearms I would say the downside of the law would be none.
How do you think the 150 million or so current gun owners will react to this new law? If you guys have 150 million gun owners that all have to become members of an approved gun club as part of the new law and those gun clubs band together I don't think you'll have much to worry about. We have one main National club over here, the SSAA, look it up. Heck 150 million is a loud voice
I am very interested to see the answers to these questions.
Out of interest, what is the current law in the U.S regarding storage at home and transporting firearms ?
Could one just have it leaning up behind the front door of ones house or laying loose in the trunk of their car?
I do not see how the question is too broad? It is up to the author to define what he or she thinks is the solution I am only asking what that would be and the affects of it. I am asking for ideas not the cop out that someone (Law Makers) need to do something.
I persoally think the "Employing a new policing standard" is too broad of an answer, what does that even mean? Please explain it to me?
The answer "It will reduce risk" is another cop out answer. I am asking what will and how? This is the problem, the we must do something cry with no thoughtful plan can not be a good thing.
Too broad a question? Ok, maybe I should have asked what will the law be on what aspect of Firearm ownership. I don't know if I or anybody here has the time to sit and write an answer covering all points. Probably your question can be broken down and discussed.
How do you think it will help?
Reduce the risk?
Cop out answer? Um...if you say so but I don't think so.
The fact is Gunsmith is that there might be a change a coming in the U.S. Guy's like yourself might need to to negotiate for your rights the same way we did.
Initially the Government over here was going to ban firearms completely but we had the smarts to negotiate.
It's highly obvious that we have much cultural, historical and wildlife differences so a complete blueprint on what firearm owners, clubs and states did over here might not work in the U.S.
"9.) would consider a national licensing and background check policy, although I have reservations about this. But I would listen to a plan open mindedly….
This would serve no other purpose other than to make it easier for either the criminals or others with bad intentions to find you and your guns. Remember any government list or document is public record so the crooks will be able to buy a shopping list to see who has what they want. That is just TV hype. Additionally criminals don’t register their guns so what good will come from this?"
I just saw a news story where a newspaper just published the names of everyone in the area with a firearms permit. So now all of the criminals know where to steal one don't they? You know I think this exact situation was brought up earlier in this post by someone, hmm who said that? So why would the newspaper need to publish this data? There goes that need thing again right, Well it is their 1st amendment right isn't it? But what was their real purpose for it? To embarrass gun owners, show there are too many, they wanted criminals to commit more gun crimes or who knows? So now a criminal just needs to tuck that list and map away so he can pick up a gun for free when he needs it. He can just go from house to house until he finds a lock he can cut or a safe that is easy to break into or one left accidentally unlocked. Of course some people will move so when the new occupants get robbed or home invaded by the criminals that want their guns and they do not have any to give them will the criminals just say I'm sorry my mistake I was just going down the list?
Registration does nothing to prevent crime now it will be used to increase it. These are the unintendeconsequenceses that happen when you make laws without thinking of the different aspects of it.
Last edited by Gunsmith on Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Here is my personal issue:
I have 3 bolt action rifles, 2 of which are ex-military; I have an assault rifle with large capacity magazines, a bayonet attachment and a folding stock. The assault rifle never leaves my property, but I do enjoy shooting it, I have enough property where I can shoot responsibly and safely. I have many handguns, most are semi auto, a few revolvers, and a barely legal shotgun for home defense. I am a registered gun owner and have a concealed carry permit. Mainly I only carry a revolver. A smith air weight 38+p.
1. I do not need to be part of a club to shoot or enjoy my weapons.
2. I do not let my children even have toy guns; I teach that no gun is a toy not even plastic. Not even bee bee guns.
3. If I ever pull my weapon, I will use it. (This was a very tough mental decision I had to make, but it will be an instinctive reaction only to the most extreme situations) I realize it is a decision I will have to live with for the rest of my life. And I hope and pray that this situation never happens.
4. I will never commit a crime with a gun.
5. I am not a vigilante, I do not go around looking for people to save, and that’s not my job or place in life. I do not drink, and if I did I would never carry a weapon at that time.
6. My weapons are stored in a gun safe, except for the one I carry. My children will never touch any guns. They have both been properly trained to handle them, and use them safely and properly. As I believe proper education is better than letting them try and figure it out for themselves.
7. I do not hunt; I have never shot a living thing except a bird and a squirrel when I was a child with a bee bee gun. My take on hunting is: if I shoot something I will eat it, otherwise there is no purpose in killing it. As of right now, I do not have to shoot cows or chickens as the grocery store provides me with everything I need. If the world takes a turn for the worse and I can no longer provide for my family, I would hunt to put food on the table. But I would not commit a crime with my gun (or without) to put food on my table.
8. I shoot targets. Many years ago I was a rifle range instructor at a Boy Scout camp in Georgia, I was NRA certified and thought hunter safety too.
9. I would defend my home, state or country with my life.
10. If I could change anything, I would make it mandatory that all citizens of this country serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years following high school. There they would be thought discipline and respect, something I feel many have forgotten how to teach. Following this servitude you will be given a few options. Spend another 2 years and the government will assist you in your higher education. Or go out into society, obtain your own education or enter the work force. and like the Swiss, when you are discharged from the military training you will be issued a weapon that you keep at your house, locked in a safe and ready to defend your self or country if ever called upon. And now after this tragedy, we will have to have a psych test ever year or so to make sure you are mentally stable enough to continue to protect your self and country.
so am i a horrible citizen? am i a danger to society? unfortunatly i could not live where i could not own or possess a weapon. mainly because criminals will possess weapons, no matter how many laws you make, no matter how stiff the penalty.
Automotive Service Technology Instructor (34 year Fiat mechanic)
75 spider , 6 Lancia Scorpions, 2018 Abarth Spider, 500X wifes, 500L 3 82 Zagatos. 82 spider 34k original miles, 83 pininfarina, 8 fiat spider parts cars
son has 78 spider
There' are lot of comments regarding how so many people will resist change to gun laws and consequently will act out in many ways.
While I'm sure that is true and indeed very unfortunate, but perfectly understandable. However, severe changes limiting gun ownership and stricter laws are necessary. I believe we all agree that something has to change.
What we need to think about is the next generation. And I think that more and more now kids are asking why do we need guns. Hopefully eventually (many years from now) this will result in guns being something you just see in a museum.
So adolescent. So apparently there was enough concurrence that exposure to images of smoking in the popular culture lead to smoking behavior that the 1st Amendment was completely trashed to eliminate these images and try to control the behavior. Well clearly the same issue exists with violence in general. I just saw a trailer on Christmas Eve on the telly for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D". Repulsive. I just can't believe that there is not greater realization of the damage being done in our society by our media and entertainment elites. It is prima fascia obvious.
