NY paper publishes the names and addresses of weapons owners

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

My initial point was what would gun owners be willing to change based on a dangerous weapon getting into the wrong hands and killing children? Or Firemen?

I'd accept the same changes that will be made to the 1st Amendment that would prevent the widespread violence and death created by Twitter and YouTube in the Middle East--none. Almost anything can be used be used for evil purposes, and I'm not into tossing the baby out with the bathwater (because that would be violence against a child, too--maybe we should outlaw baths.).

Most astonishing, to me, is the solution offered is make guns more available and in an incredibly intrusive way, in schools. And then obviously, in churches (the Troy, IL shooting -- I see that church from my sons school)' in malls (OR). Everywhere, I guess.

Because responsible gun owners in those places have prevented/mitigated violence--New Life Church, CO and Clackamas Town Center, OR to name two recent examples.

...because guns are for killing. Period. We want the killing to stop.

Wow, the short-sightedness of that statement astounds me. Never heard of IPSC, IDPA, 3-gun, trap & skeet, modern pentathalon, National Match, etc.? Both my boys are pretty proficient in using both a rifle and pistol to accurately punch holes in paper, and we all really enjoy those experiences; neither has ever killed anything with a firearm. I've personally taught dozens of Boy Scouts to shoot a .22 rifle, and except for a few whose dads have taken them hunting, most haven't ever killed anything with a firearm. There are plenty of sporting and recreational applications for firearms, although once again the Constitution doesn't require a sporting use to guarantee the individual the right to own a firearm (so says SCOTUS in Miller and Heller).

There are certain cases where one is not allowed to say everything they want
There are cases where religious practices are illegal.

The federal limits on the 1st Amendment are very, very tightly scoped, much like requiring background checks on all retail gun purchases and age restrictions on ownership. States can and do add restrictions on both the 1A and 2A as they see fit, although 2A restrictions tend to be far more numerous.

I believe (but could very well be wrong) that the only restrictions on religious practices are those that, in their regular practice, violate other, existing federal laws (use of controlled substances, directly kill or harm others) . Last I checked, using a gun to kill or harm someone other than in specific self-defense situations is already illegal.

[Knight]

Is it a possibility that this infighting and debate among the public was created to make the "Gun Control" thing easier to justify by the gov. in the future?

The media is a huge tool, as we all know.

[AngelsSix]

Originally Posted by Knight

Is it a possibility that this infighting and debate among the public was created to make the "Gun Control" thing easier to justify by the gov. in the future?

The media is a bunch of huge tools, as we all know.

Fixed it for ya!

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Razor

Wow, the short-sightedness of that statement astounds me. Never heard of IPSC, IDPA, 3-gun, trap & skeet, modern pentathalon, National Match, etc.? Both my boys are pretty proficient in using both a rifle and pistol to accurately punch holes in paper, and we all really enjoy those experiences; neither has ever killed anything with a firearm. I've personally taught dozens of Boy Scouts to shoot a .22 rifle, and except for a few whose dads have taken them hunting, most haven't ever killed anything with a firearm. There are plenty of sporting and recreational applications for firearms, although once again the Constitution doesn't require a sporting use to guarantee the individual the right to own a firearm (so says SCOTUS in Miller and Heller)..

Why, yes. I have heard of those sport application for guns. Participated in skeet. I've never competed in a marksmanship competition but enjoy practicing marksmanship for fun and military proficiency. As a skier, I really admire biathlon,too. That is awesome about your sons. BTW thanks we have succeeded at Pinewood Derby based on your advice and your sons' experience. I earned the shooting merit badge and Little Dude probably will too after he moves up.
There are plenty of sporting applications to driving too, demolishion derby for example. But there is where I part company from your model. Demolishion derby came after cars were developed for the primary purpose of transportation.
Guns were developed for the primary purpose of putting holes in other people. Other Soldiers specifically. Then it was noted that guns did a good job of putting holes in good things to eat. And as with guns designed to kill (not just put holes in) soldiers hunting guns got more and more advanced. Look up a "punt gun" now that is a level of unsportsmanlike-like efficiency!
You are absolutely right that the Second Amendment does not distinguish a sporting right. And your reading it here under my signature -- I do not believe the Founders were concerned about putting food of the table or bragging rights. They were concerned about defense. I believe the defense of the big frontier in the absence of a big standing force. I also believed they were very comfortable with the home and personal defense idea. (How about a little credit here? I'm agreeing with two out of three to the gun lobby arguments -- I'm not sold that they intended guns to be used against the new government . . . Themselves)

My point has never been guns should be banned.
My point is this: Gun possession argument seems to fall into four categories. The pry my gun from my cold dead fingers vs the ban all guns gang. Neither are the majority. Together they do not form a majority. In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.

My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people. Initially, I thought maybe purchase of a gun requires purchase of an effective security system. This assumes that law abiding legal purchasers would use these security devices. Just as it is assumed that law abiding legal car drivers adhere to driving regulations. I know not all do but a significant number do that we all feel relatively safe on the road.

( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and the car fell over on it's side. Not a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. It is more then required but As a licensed owner i feel some obligation to the general public to go a little beyond the minimum requirements.

*** my very well maintained, paid off SUV with 256,500 miles making it practically book value worthless, that I was planning on driving for at least another 2 years. He managedd to bang up everyside but the front including sheering off BOTH rear view mirrors (even the Sherriff was impressed). From walking the "accident" i mean "negligence" scene, it must have been one hell of a ride . . .He admits to 55 mph that was before I pointed out it was a 25 mph zone rural road. There was a long sideways slide into a mailbox, then a counter clockwise 180 spin that included about 15 feet of airtime as it went into the culvert backwards wrapped up by the tipping over on its side and the driver door window exploding. (No Airbags deployed) At each point of contact outside the car he seemed to be in exactly the best orientation. 45 days since his licensing.

[Dusty]

[QUOTE=Dozer523;480650] ( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and fell over. without a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. /QUOTE]

We'll need a threat analysis along with that, please.

Thank God he didn't get hurt.

[Dozer523]

[QUOTE=Dusty;480651]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and fell over. without a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. /QUOTE]

We'll need a threat analysis along with that, please.

Thank God he didn't get hurt.

thank you bro, I appreciate that.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and the car fell over on it's side. Not a scratch on him.

Glad to hear he was able to walk away from that scene.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I'm not sold that they [the founders] intended guns to be used against the new government . . . Themselves

I respectfully disagree. Guns were already being used against, and by, the colonists well before the Constitution was ratified. The founders knew full well what was involved in throwing off the shackles of an oppressive government, having just done that, when it fails to accede to the source of its power (the governed). I think to assume otherwise would be selling the founders short.

The despot wants the monopoly of force.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' anything, it merely codifies a natural right, that of self-defense, whether it be in defense of one's home, or against an oppressor.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

My point is this: Gun possession argument seems to fall into four categories. The pry my gun from my cold dead fingers vs the ban all guns gang. Neither are the majority. Together they do not form a majority. In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.

My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people. Initially, I thought maybe purchase of a gun requires purchase of an effective security system. This assumes that law abiding legal purchasers would use these security devices. Just as it is assumed that law abiding legal car drivers adhere to driving regulations. I know not all do but a significant number do that we all feel relatively safe on the road.

What does "the majority" have to do with an individual right?
Rights are not granted by majorities.

That being said, I do recognize that order is necessary in society.
It is doubtful that anyone possesses the wisdom to apply a good one-size-fits-all solution.

The needs of a metropolitan area with a particular culture are not the same as those of a rural area with a different culture.

Here in Arizona I've bought both a concealable handgun and a shotgun with a high-capacity magazine in a matter of minutes, at a gas station, with no background check.
It would be perfectly legal here to conceal that shotgun under a trenchcoat, with no permit necessary.

Compare the problems in Arizona to those of Chicago.


Growing up in western Colorado, guns were no big deal.
On my 16th birthday, finally having a driver's license, my friend and I could finally go shooting on our own.

My father wasn't the least bit concerned about our handling the guns safely.
He was worried about me handling the truck safely.

He was correct.
We shot up the countryside without incident but I nearly rolled the truck while goofing off on an icy road.

************

Glad to hear that your boy is safe.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I respectfully disagree.

Thats what keep Vegas in business. Still i can't seethe Founder pointing a gun at their own heads. but . . .

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Glad to hear he was able to walk away from that scene.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Glad to hear that your boy is safe.

Thank you.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Thats what keep Vegas in business. Still i can't seethe Founder pointing a gun at their own heads. but . . .
Thank you. Thank you.

I don't think they were pointing it at their own head. Perhaps they were thinking long term, of those who would come later. Its like an insurance policy. They knew that power corrupts.

[MR2]

Too much seethe-ing going on around here. Take a chill pill folks.

[Knight]

Originally Posted by AngelsSix

Fixed it for ya!

Thanks for that-so sad but so true.

[Razor]

Dozer, very glad to hear your boy is ok. Sad to hear about the SUV, but hopefully this becomes a "freebie" scared-straight moment for your son (I know if I were in your shoes, I'd have the scared part well covered, at least at the first report of the accident). I learned a similar lesson as a young, invincible LT in Germany, running nearly bald tires too fast through a rain-slicked turn. Other than a totaled MB190 and a severely sprained ego, I got REALLY lucky, and have never been a cheapskate on tires or pushed the limits on a rain or ice slick corner since.

I get your point on the original intent of guns, but there are plenty of things out there that are now being used for something far beyond their original design intent, even if its primarily entertainment (take the Internet, for example).

The problem with mandating "common sense, responsible" actions is that for every one of you, there is a crowd of gun-haters that will jump at the possibility of perverting "common sense" into an opportunity to make the scary guns go away. Then, to use a worn but worthy phrase, only those that will break the law anyhow will break the law and have a gun. Skeptical? What about Breivik in Norway? Bird in England? Xiang in Australia? Kretschmer in Germany? Gill in Canada? Think hi-cap mags are the issue? IIRC, Whitman used a shotgun and a Remington 700 in a hunting caliber to kill or injure most of his 40-some odd victims. Final reports are forthcoming, but I've read that Lanza freely reloaded his pistols multiple times, as there was no effective resistance against him, as did Cho at VA Tech. No need for a true hi-cap mag when you can slap in a fresh mag whenever you want.

Despite the angst and turmoil nuclear MAD policy caused from the 40s to the 80s, it's tough to argue that it didn't work--I don't recall any nukes detonated outside of tests or accidents during those 40 years (I stand by for a well-written and properly footnoted rebuke from Sig) . Maybe small arms MAD, despite the tension it can create, isn't such a bad solution.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.

QP Dozer - I appreciate your stance and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to type out your reasoning behind it. I, coming from the "more people should have guns so that bad guys would be afraid of getting blown to smithereens" camp, have to wonder what your proposal for a general solution to incidents such as the recent CT event and the previous theater in CO shooting would be, if not for an armed populace. Maybe its due to my lack of ability to think outside the box, but I cannot imagine a solution involving any more social regulation or increased police presence, as neither of these have worked in their current form.

Originally Posted by Dozer523

My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people.

You highlight an interesting point here. One I have yet to see mentioned anywhere. While I'm not privy to exactly what happens during a background check pursuant to purchasing a firearm, the CT shooting involved firearms purchase by the boys mother. I have yet to see if she kept them secured in any fashion, regardless, the boy got them. This is not the fault of society, or due to the lack of enough laws, nor due to a failure in the mental health system, as it were. In my mind, it is a failure of a legal gun owner to properly secure her firearms from her mentally deranged child. It is the mothers responsibility, and the boys responsibility. It seems that since they are both dead, we (in general) have turned our thirst for vengeance and quest for answers on the NRA and gun owners.

I would imagine that more people get killed by motorist every year, more people killed by drunk drivers every year than those killed by guns. Why are we not up in arms about alcohol or cars? I think this is why us gun believers are so up in arms over the attempt to take them away, because we know that they are not the cause, nor is eliminating them the solution for random acts of violence.

P.S. Glad to hear your son is ok. Is a 10 speed his next vehicle?