0
Hooknswoop

Minimum Age To Buy Firearms?

Recommended Posts

Glitch

I'm not in favor of any further laws or restrictions regarding firearms. It won't accomplish anything constructive (with respect to Liberty and saving lives) and it's all just 'creep'.... Here's a 'not so novel' idea; Why not address the REAL problems and enforce the laws already on the books.



OK, genius, explain how to enforce laws against transferring guns to felons when the process for checking on gun transfers is full of deliberately added loopholes.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the back handed insult and PA of calling me an idiot. Don't worry, I won't drop down to your level...

As far addressing your question.... It's already against the law to transfer a gun to a felon. These laws are already enforced... usually. Lack of enforcment of existing laws needs addressing but making more laws simply doesn't work.

Drunk driving is already against the law. Should folks be required to go thru a federally licensed car dealer before they sell their car because the buyer "might" be an alcoholic? Theres a whole lot more kids killed by drunk driving than by firearms.

As far as your so called loopholes go... I counter that those are simply safegards to our Liberty. Beyond that, you'll have to enlighten us as to what loopholes your talking about. Specifically.
Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitch

Thanks for the back handed insult and PA of calling me an idiot. Don't worry, I won't drop down to your level...

As far addressing your question.... It's already against the law to transfer a gun to a felon. These laws are already enforced... usually. Lack of enforcment of existing laws needs addressing but making more laws simply doesn't work.

Drunk driving is already against the law. Should folks be required to go thru a federally licensed car dealer before they sell their car because the buyer "might" be an alcoholic? Theres a whole lot more kids killed by drunk driving than by firearms.

As far as your so called loopholes go... I counter that those are simply safegards to our Liberty. Beyond that, you'll have to enlighten us as to what loopholes your talking about. Specifically.



In other words, your innovative proposal is to continue on with the status quo with our heads buried in the sand. Got it.

Liberty implies the ability to go to school without worrying about being shot. That's what the adults in the discussion are trying to safeguard.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***Me, I blame the spring break shows on MTV. I was able to drink legally at 18, and I don't remember news stories about kids all over OD'ing on alcohol. Sometimes, but drunken bashes were'nt all de rigeur and all.

We could ban MTV, and maybe Duck Dynasty to go along with it. Let's go back to Andy and Opie... :)

Wendy P.



How about TV in general. Hundreds of shows that celebrate dysfunctional behavior and make it something to aspire to.

If they had nothing but plain old family shows depicting everyday life in a normal family, it would be boring as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235


Liberty implies the ability to go to school without worrying about being shot. That's what the adults in the discussion are trying to safeguard.



Or going to a concert or the movies or a political event.

Despite a few very high profile shootings, these events are still safe to do.

As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.'

Which ones of these shootings would this have prevented?

Same question applies to the "on topic" thread. I asked this question over there and got zero response.

The proposals over there (at least the marginally realistic ones) include background checks, mandatory registration, storage requirements, training requirements, ect.

Which one of those would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

Which one of those would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings?



Easy access to guns makes it much less likely that potential mass shooters' plans are foiled before they are implemented. Some form factors, particularly those known as assault weapons, are optimized specifically for inter-personal combat, increasing the potential killing rate, particularly in close quarters.

You are correct that the guns are not the root cause of the problem. But they are a major component of the symptoms, and sometimes symptoms must also be treated, not just a disease's root cause.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitch



As far addressing your question.... It's already against the law to transfer a gun to a felon. These laws are already enforced... usually. Lack of enforcment of existing laws needs addressing but making more laws simply doesn't work.



Let's get you up to speed:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/crime-guns/trafficking-straw-purchasing/
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they had nothing but plain old family shows depicting everyday life in a normal family, it would be boring as hell.



Pretty much describes 50s and 60s TV. We watched it anyway. In B&W, with rabbit ears, and adjusting the horizontal hold often. I never watch TV anymore.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.'



Wonder why there are still laws against drinking and driving? Clearly it still happens and clearly these laws only hurt law abiding citizens who can safely drive after a couple of drinks, or at least don't kill anybody doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.'



Wonder why there are still laws against drinking and driving? Clearly it still happens and clearly these laws only hurt law abiding citizens who can safely drive after a couple of drinks, or at least don't kill anybody doing it.



Classic.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitch

As far as I know... Dicks hasn't sold assault style weapons in years. This is all a publicity stunt and marketing gimmick




It's not about assault weapons. It's about a hunting rifle. Try to keep up.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.'



Wonder why there are still laws against drinking and driving? Clearly it still happens and clearly these laws only hurt law abiding citizens who can safely drive after a couple of drinks, or at least don't kill anybody doing it.



Actually, there was a guy who tried that. He claimed that the BAC levels didn't take into account that as an alcoholic, he had a much higher tolerance for alcohol and could safely drive with a higher BAC. Didn't work.

There are currently laws against shooting people. There are laws against OWI. Most people obey them.
In the case of the guns, we seem to want to go after the object, not the user.
In the case of OWI, why shouldn't the same mentality apply?
We could drastically reduce OWI and the resultant deaths by requiring breath analyzers in all cars.

Currently, they are usually only required for drivers who have been convicted of OWI.

I don't think this is a good idea, the intrusion is well beyond it's benefit.

But so many people who wish to ban the 'bad' guns say:
"If it saves one child's life it would be worth it".

Why does this mentality apply only to lives taken by firearms?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why does this mentality apply only to lives taken by firearms?




Because firearms are tools designed to kill people. All those other objects are not.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Actually, there was a guy who tried that. He claimed that the BAC levels didn't take into account
>that as an alcoholic, he had a much higher tolerance for alcohol and could safely drive with a
>higher BAC. Didn't work.

Agreed. And there are plenty of people who claim that some weapons are safe in the hands of responsible users, and they can use them safely. That's a similar argument.

>In the case of the guns, we seem to want to go after the object, not the user.
>In the case of OWI, why shouldn't the same mentality apply?

?? It does. We do BAC tests and then claim that alcohol (a simple substance) makes someone a criminal even if they don't injure anyone. Why do they think the substance is evil, and blame it rather than the person?

There are laws against hitting someone with your car; why not just enforce the law and not go after alcohol? Why remove someone's rights to have a beer or four and drive home if they don't hurt anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

As was noted, far more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by these 'school shooters.'



Wonder why there are still laws against drinking and driving? Clearly it still happens and clearly these laws only hurt law abiding citizens who can safely drive after a couple of drinks, or at least don't kill anybody doing it.



Actually, there was a guy who tried that. He claimed that the BAC levels didn't take into account that as an alcoholic, he had a much higher tolerance for alcohol and could safely drive with a higher BAC. Didn't work.

There are currently laws against shooting people. There are laws against OWI. Most people obey them.
In the case of the guns, we seem to want to go after the object, not the user.
In the case of OWI, why shouldn't the same mentality apply?
We could drastically reduce OWI and the resultant deaths by requiring breath analyzers in all cars.

Currently, they are usually only required for drivers who have been convicted of OWI.

I don't think this is a good idea, the intrusion is well beyond it's benefit.

But so many people who wish to ban the 'bad' guns say:
"If it saves one child's life it would be worth it".

Why does this mentality apply only to lives taken by firearms?

Doesn't. Alcohol is highly regulated. Where in the US can an 18 y/o legally buy a bottle of vodka?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Quote

Why does this mentality apply only to lives taken by firearms?


Because firearms are tools designed to kill people. All those other objects are not.



So it isn't about saving lives, it is about guns.

Derek V




Are you not able to see that it's about both?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Actually, there was a guy who tried that. He claimed that the BAC levels didn't take into account
>that as an alcoholic, he had a much higher tolerance for alcohol and could safely drive with a
>higher BAC. Didn't work.

Agreed. And there are plenty of people who claim that some weapons are safe in the hands of responsible users, and they can use them safely. That's a similar argument.

>In the case of the guns, we seem to want to go after the object, not the user.
>In the case of OWI, why shouldn't the same mentality apply?

?? It does. We do BAC tests and then claim that alcohol (a simple substance) makes someone a criminal even if they don't injure anyone. Why do they think the substance is evil, and blame it rather than the person?

There are laws against hitting someone with your car; why not just enforce the law and not go after alcohol? Why remove someone's rights to have a beer or four and drive home if they don't hurt anyone?



I think you miss my point. And it's a far from perfect analogy (few analogies are perfect).

I'm not calling alcohol "evil", just acknowledging that it impairs ability and judgement.
So driving a car while impaired is a crime, as it should be.

Yet it is a very common crime, and costs lots and lots of lives.

While it is impossible to 'ban' cars, we can take a rather intrusive and expensive step of requiring "Intoxalocks" in all cars.
Not unlike banning certain types of guns.

This would greatly reduce drink driving deaths. Not eliminate, there was an incident where a convicted drunk driver was arrested with one of these installed in his car. He had gotten his 12 year old son to blow into it to get the car started.

But we, as a society, have decided that this is too intrusive. That 'saving one life' isn't worth it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I'm not calling alcohol "evil", just acknowledging that it impairs ability and judgement.

Agreed. Nor is anyone here calling guns "evil" - they simply enable evil people to kill rapidly and in large numbers. Thus keeping them away from evil people has value.

>While it is impossible to 'ban' cars, we can take a rather intrusive and expensive step of
>requiring "Intoxalocks" in all cars.
>Not unlike banning certain types of guns.

Well, no. "Intoxalocks" would be akin to requiring biometric ID on all guns before they can be fired; a complex technological solution to prevent _misuse_ of a device.

Banning certain types of guns would be akin to banning certain types of vehicles on public roads. Which we do, because they are either too dangerous to operate with other traffic or they damage roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>I'm not calling alcohol "evil", just acknowledging that it impairs ability and judgement.

Agreed. Nor is anyone here calling guns "evil" - they simply enable evil people to kill rapidly and in large numbers. Thus keeping them away from evil people has value.

>While it is impossible to 'ban' cars, we can take a rather intrusive and expensive step of
>requiring "Intoxalocks" in all cars.
>Not unlike banning certain types of guns.

Well, no. "Intoxalocks" would be akin to requiring biometric ID on all guns before they can be fired; a complex technological solution to prevent _misuse_ of a device.

Banning certain types of guns would be akin to banning certain types of vehicles on public roads. Which we do, because they are either too dangerous to operate with other traffic or they damage roads.



Or if it's a car that's specifically made to mow down the largest quantity of people in the shortest amount of time.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0