If we just use guns for hunting (which I disagree with) and all that malarky, why should people be allowed to take them home? At home, a gun owner has freedom to do what he likes with it. You wouldn't see an F1 car hurtling down a B road. The same idea applies to this.
Because where else are we going to keep them? My family's guns never see the light of day(or of the house for that matter) until we go out to the range. And the vast majority of gun owners do the exact same, we shouldn't punish everyone for the acts of a few. Gun control should honestly be as up to the state a it is currently. Gun control doesn't work to preventing a mass murderer, Conneticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and look what happened.
Why is Sparky posting off-topic? Laws do not exist to punish. They (most of the time) exist to help protect citizens from danger. As for where to keep guns, the range at which you practise should keep them, as Pötic said we do here. That way, idiotic citizens won't be able to put their grubby mitts around them when not under supervision. State/Federal levels have nothing to do with this debate. Why should I give a damn if Tenejesusee decides to let people wave around miniguns while Florida bans them outright. This debate is about whether or not any government should regulate firearms.
Um, Testyal, you kinda just contradicted yourself, you said that state/federal levels have nothing to do with it, then turned right around and said its wether government should regulate it.
Um, Testyal, you aren't making any sense, you're just either contradicting yourself or just making flat out strange posts...so, I'm gonna take a step out and let ya get yourself sorted out.
I am completely sorted out, everything I have said makes perfect sense and nothing contradicts. Try reading it again.
Please go back and watch the video I posted back on the main page. Fully automatic rifles are not legal. The main things I see discussed in other places are this: 1. Enforce the rules we already have. So much this. We don't need to overreact in fits of passion. Stop and think about the ramifications in the future of any decisions made in haste now. 2. Ban some of the high caliber rounds. I also agree with this. This stuff is made for killing people. You do not go hunting with it and you do not use it on the range (at least sane people who know how much it costs don't). 3. Limit the magazine (clip) size on semi-auto rifles and handguns. I am also okay with this. If you are hunting or at the range or even in home defense, you do not need 30-50 rounds in one magazine. I have a few small caliber handguns I inherited from my Grandfather - a .32 a .22 and a .25. We also have shotguns - 12 and 16 gauge, we use for hunting or shooting skeet. These are also the best weapons for home defense. The noise one makes when loading a shell will scare any intruder. Also, in the dark and scared, I don't have to worry about aiming and being as steady as with a handgun. They all stay unloaded and locked up when not in use. This is true for 99% (or more) of all gun owners in the USA. Most gun owners are responsible. So, I am for gun control as stated above, but removing guns completely is an overreaction and would be a bad decision made while emotions are high.
Funny how if a British person comments on such a thing and says more powerful guns and high caliber rounds should be limited that they're interpreted as saying all guns should be banned in the USA. For the sake of repeating myself, I'm heavily against automatic weapons being in public use, if they're illegal, fine, whatever, I've done a bit of researching which was evidently wrong. Handguns/guns that can be used wound people I have no issues with either, I just wouldn't be able to bring myself to kill someone for the sake of a piece of property you see. Semi-automatics I have no issue with being used for hunting/skeet shooting either, shotguns I'm questionable over but I can see the point as to why people would use them to protect their homes, but again, I would not be able to kill someone over something I can get my money back for. If there was danger of life being lost, then yes, an eye for an eye most likely. My main issue is the amount of ammo the shooters are able to obtain, and how powerful their weaponry is, always has been, limiting high caliber rounds and clip sizes would be the best thing to do to uphold the constitution as well as improving the situation. But you know, whatever, I'll go back to my anti-Christ corner for having the wrong opinion now.
Look, nothing personal, but I've just had this thing a lot recently where I say something, then because of some reason i.e. my history, the country I'm from, how old I am etc, that it's construed in a way I never meant to portray, then someone says a similar if not the same thing, and everyone's like "THIS" So lately it's been feeling as if I'm some opinion anti-Christ.
Nobody's callin' ya the Anti-Christ here. I understand where you're comin' from and I agree with 90% of it. The point I try to make is the futility of gun control itself. People will have guns, legally, or illegally. People will have ammo, legally, or illegally. The fact that there is even a debate about this is sort of redundant. You won't get rid of guns even if you ban them. I see the point on limiting ammo magazines for civilian populations, but anything beyond that is kind of overkill.* *Hollow point rounds and other severely damaging rounds should be an automatic no-no.
That actually sounds like a good start, but i would also suggest some other things. If im not mistaken you can buy a gun, when you get 18 right? You can buy alcohol with 21... Why is it okay to buy something, that can so easily from a range kill people, but you arent even allowed to drink a glass of beer? Why dont make all kinds of guns only available to people over 21? Also as mentioned before there should be some license like a drivers license for all kinds of firearms. It doesnt hurt to listen to some instructor for at least some hours, but helps you to know how to safely keep them in your house. (i dont want to insult anyone in this forum and am pretty sure that you all are responsible with you weapons, but there are people out there who are not) Well, people also have all kind of drugs illegaly, still wouldnt want them to be legal. (except for weed, but thats another topic)
From reading all of this, I've taken away that Americans use guns for two main reasons: - Sport - Defense For both these purposes, you don't need anything more powerful than a semi-automatic rifle and you definitely don't need any grenades or other explosives. I also think that you should need a license to use any gun. At least this way, the responsible citizens can use their guns. Another thing is the age limit. I assume that many of these gun-related crimes are linked to gang warfare. The majority of these people will be under 21 (because they are all edgy teenagers). If the limit for alcohol is 21, why is the limit for buying (most) guns under that? Hopefully, once they are 21, they'll be a lot more mature. The legal age for using a gun for sport could be lower, but owning one for home use should be higher.
The age thing is kind of a moot point. You have to be 18 to buy a gun, not use a gun. Or are parents now not allowed to take their kids out on hunting trips? Or teach them how to use and respect the guns they may have locked up in their house? Sent from my EVO 4G Shift using Tapatalk 2
That's why I said that the age for using a gun for sport could be lower (12-16 maybe?). Like in Britain, you must be 18 to buy a paintball/airsoft gun, but you're allowed to do paintballing at a much younger age. On the range, they're not harming anyone. I know that increasing the age limit won't do much (considering alcohol is illegal for teens and they're constantly getting drunk) but if these laws were enforced properly, then things might be better for everyone.
