Barack H. Obama and your Second Amendment Rights !

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

We had a 13 year old girl in Baltimore playing with a couple of friends and they accidentaly killed her with a .22 rifle. The boys panicked and drug her body out to the alleyway and covered it with trash.

The interesting part is that the rifle turned up in the back seat of an off duty cop's cruiser. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

Having had a 16 year old cousin shot and killed in a hunting "accident" I am really no fan of the wild distribution of firearms.

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for? We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

[RamblinE]

I'm not reading anything sourced from the NRA as it's probably based more in the realm of propaganda than facts.

I aspire to own a rifle someday, an M1903 Springfield or an 1898 Mauser.

However.

Handguns are made with one purpose in mind, killing other human beings. They should be banned and considered assault weapons.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for? We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

+1
Well stated. Why is it people have to have be so extreme when it comes to firearms!?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for? We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

Because unless all states institute sensible laws the weapons just cross state lines. New York is very upset with Virginia because so many guns used in the commission of crime originated in Virginia.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by barbara

+1
Well stated. Why is it people have to have be so extreme when it comes to firearms!?

What people? How many people have large gun collections? What percentage of firearms are used in crime or are a tool associated with accidental death? The extremists are those that seek to remove guns from individual ownership. We've already seen how effective that's been in reducing crime. What is your goal in restricting firearms? Look at where and why crime occurs and what groups are raising the crime rate. Legalization of illicit drugs would likely do more to reduce muder rates than trying to control access to firearms.

[Bigerik]

It even comes up here. We have pretty serious laws controlling the sale and possession of handguns, but whatever the bad guys need just comes across the border.

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by bhunter

What people? How many people have large gun collections? What percentage of firearms are used in crime or are a tool associated with accidental death? The extremists are those that seek to remove guns from individual ownership. We've already seen how effective that's been in reducing crime. What is your goal in restricting firearms? Look at where and why crime occurs and what groups are raising the crime rate. Legalization of illicit drugs would likely do more to reduce muder rates than trying to control access to firearms.

Which is why America, with hundreds of millions of guns has the worlds lowest crime rate, right?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

You being a computer guy, you would have to admit that computer logic would reject that statement. If no guns were available, there would no accidental gun deaths. Ipso facto, gun deaths are related to the availability of guns.

Actually, I understand your point that there is an element of negligent ownership in most every accidental gun death. And I know that it is absurd to suggest that there be no guns available. By computer logic, a stopped watch is more accurate than a slow watch, because the stopped watch is correct twice a day. Any you can tell me that I know squat about computer logic, and I couldn't rebut it. It was just a fun little foray into sophistry.

Sophistry aside, it appears that the AMA found statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of the Virginia's one gun per month limit. I suppose that there will be an opportunity for some comparative statistics, since the law was just repealed.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Which is why America, with hundreds of millions of guns has the worlds lowest crime rate, right?

It has more to do with culture and the demand for illegal drugs than on the availability of firearms:

Intentional Homicide By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Gun Ownership By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

I'd also suggest that the greater homogeneity of a society the less conflict. Who's killing who sheds a bit of light on the cause.