We Need A Compromise When It Comes To Gun Control.

Hello. I was thinking about gun control the other day and what I thought of it and after being a supporter of both anti gun folk and pro gun nutcases I've come to a rather odd middle ground.

A mistake that both sides make is assuming an extreme. Anti gun people tend to assume that any gun is a bad gun and pro gunners tend to assume that any gun is a good gun and if its my gun then its a great one.

So let me tell you my stance on gun control. All of this polar opposite philosphy regarding guns is not going to work. The best solution is obviousilly a middle ground.

Both anti gun people and pro gunners need to come toghether and not just comprimise but come up with a better solution. I don't see this happening anytime soon as both sides are WAY to dogmatic and emotional using red herrings false statistics and emotional appeals. My ideal gun control would go like this.

1.Creation Of a National Firearms Database "NFD"

2.In order to own a gun you have to take safety training and undergo a mental evaluation every three years. You must also be interviewed by a clinical psychologist and have a background check. You have to pay for this.

3.Gun owners must be granted a licence that they must present whenever purchasing ammo going to a range or buying a gun. This licence would have different classes. For example Class A would allow pistols Class B would allow hunting weapons or class AS would allow millitary weaponry. If you wanted to buy ammunition you would slide your card and the store would keep track of the bullets. It would NOT charge the money though. That would be done with your credit card or cash.

So if someone wanted to misuse the card they would have to get their own money or steal your credit card as their credit card would show the charge and they would be arrested. Besides your card would have your picture and fingerprint on it so they couldn't misuse it. Everybody can only posses 2 guns at a time in their home. However they can "check" their guns in with the government and exchange their guns everytime they want to get new ones. Like lets say I want to exchange my pistol for my shotgun. I turn my pistol in and get my shotgun that they were holding for me. A person could also opt to have their guns stored at a range and therefore own as many as they wanted.

4.Felons and those considered to be mentally unstable would have their gun ownership rights indefinantley suspended but may proove that they are worthy. Those regranted their rights who went on to commit a violent crime with said firearm would be subject to harsher sentancing and would permanantly lose their right.

5.Those who want a self defense firearm may have one in the house whist all others must be safely stored. However if they violate this they lose that right.

6.A person may own a firearm for public carry yet this is subject to extreme scrutiny. ANY violent crimes no matter if they were misdomeners like a simple fist fight would void a persons right to publicilly carry a gun for the rest of their life. In addition those who agree to carry their guns in public face harsher penalties if they misuse their fireram in a violent manner. However municipal districts can decide wither or not to allow public carry. Its public property not private so i think it should be subject to a majority rule.

7.The government must invest in "Smart Gun" technology and once said technology is proven to work well with a more than 98% succes rate must become standard in all guns and retroactivly installed in prexisting guns. Smart Gun technology would be user identification and such to prevent misuse. I know it doesn't work very well now but we can work out the kinks and introduce it when it is satosfactory.

8.Anyone under "immediate danger" can be granted a firearm by the local police department for up to 78 hours. One Magazine of ammunition though. Every 78 hours it can be renewed until the person is caught or no longer a threat.

Thoughts? We need to find a middle ground that allows people to own guns without alienating the gun fans while still keeping people safe. Anti gun people need to admit that guns are kinda cool and can save lives and Pro Gun people need to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be regulated instead of freely given about. Its not as simple as more guns/less guns = more/less crime Its a HUGE grey issue and one that is determened by MANY factors not just more or less guns.

Thoughts?

There's nothing cool about guns. If you want to shoot guns you should play videogames or paintball. Why do people need the destructive force of a bullet fired at hundereds of miles per hour? Gun fanatics can find a new hobby. Guns need to be eliminated from anyone except officers and military, and even with officers it should be more of a last resort thing.cgi15

And what of self-defense? And what of criminals getting weapons?

There's nothing cool about guns. If you want to shoot guns you should play videogames or paintball. Why do people need the destructive force of a bullet fired at hundereds of miles per hour? Gun fanatics can find a new hobby. Guns need to be eliminated from anyone except officers and military, and even with officers it should be more of a last resort thing.cgi15

How often is a gun really needed for self defense? If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out, and even if you do, how would you feel if one of your stray bullets hurt someone who wasn't even involved? And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just a turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead.cgi15

I'd rather rely on a gun for self-defense instead of attempting to overpower the enemy.

"If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out."

Not if someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night.

"And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead."

That is ridiculous. If you are in any sort of confrontation against someone that you do not know, you don't know their mental stability, therefor you are in a fight for survival. That is the way I look at it and IMO everyone else should as well.

people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storymontieman

From the way you just described how you would incapacitate someone, you seem to have some rage problems. "i'm going to blow his frikken head off, end of story" Get the videogame mentality "headshot" out of your mind and realize you don't need to fire shells into someones face to incapacitate them.

[QUOTE="montieman"]people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storycgi15

From the way you just described how you would incapacitate someone, you seem to have some rage problems. "i'm going to blow his frikken head off, end of story" Get the videogame mentality "headshot" out of your mind and realize you don't need to fire shells into someones face to incapacitate them.

So you're saying to bring a knife to a gun fight?

There's nothing cool about guns. If you want to shoot guns you should play videogames or paintball. Why do people need the destructive force of a bullet fired at hundereds of miles per hour? Gun fanatics can find a new hobby. Guns need to be eliminated from anyone except officers and military, and even with officers it should be more of a last resort thing.cgi15

people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storymontieman

Self-defence is a poor argument, for if the intruder also has guns he has a much better chance of killing you or a family member.

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

[QUOTE="montieman"]people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storyLikeHaterade

From the way you just described how you would incapacitate someone, you seem to have some rage problems. "i'm going to blow his frikken head off, end of story" Get the videogame mentality "headshot" out of your mind and realize you don't need to fire shells into someones face to incapacitate them.

So you're saying to bring a knife to a gun fight?

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="cgi15"]

From the way you just described how you would incapacitate someone, you seem to have some rage problems. "i'm going to blow his frikken head off, end of story" Get the videogame mentality "headshot" out of your mind and realize you don't need to fire shells into someones face to incapacitate them.

cgi15

So you're saying to bring a knife to a gun fight?

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

That is completely foolish. The odds are against you all because of some idea that gun control is a good thing. All you would be doing is taking guns away from all of the sane individuals and letting only the criminals and psychos have them. I'd rather have a gun and kill the intruder before he kills me while I'm running or hiding.

I disagree with "guns are cool". That simply shouldn't be a reason for owning one. You think guns are cool and it sucks that people are taking them away? Tough. Get over it. Find a new hobby. I'm fine with owning a gun for personal protection, and agree with the TC's suggestions. But as far as assault rifles, semi-automatics or shotguns go - no. Just no. You dont need a weapon like that. There's just no excuse. Ninja-Hippo

One flaw with that is that Pistols, Shotguns, Assualt Rifles, and Submachine Guns all have a general level of similar danger.

Pistols=dangerous because of concealibility

Shotguns=lethal at close range

Assualt Rifles=lots of ammo capacity and power

Submachine Guns=same as assault rifle

Magnums=Too powerfull

Hunting Rifles=Basicilly sniper rifles.

Gun control activists spend too much time on what kinds of guns people own and less on what kind of people own guns.

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

cgi15

[QUOTE="montieman"]people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storyunholymight

Self-defence is a poor argument, for if the intruder also has guns he has a much better chance of killing you or a family member.

So a intruder who doesn't know the layout of my house at night in the dark has a better chance of killing me who lives in said house and is well trained with a firearm? How is this burglar somehow a ninja?

Hello. I was thinking about gun control the other day and what I thought of it and after being a supporter of both anti gun folk and pro gun nutcases I've come to a rather odd middle ground.

A mistake that both sides make is assuming an extreme. Anti gun people tend to assume that any gun is a bad gun and pro gunners tend to assume that any gun is a good gun and if its my gun then its a great one.

So let me tell you my stance on gun control. All of this polar opposite philosphy regarding guns is not going to work. The best solution is obviousilly a middle ground.

Both anti gun people and pro gunners need to come toghether and not just comprimise but come up with a better solution. I don't see this happening anytime soon as both sides are WAY to dogmatic and emotional using red herrings false statistics and emotional appeals. My ideal gun control would go like this.

1.Creation Of a National Firearms Database "NFD"

2.In order to own a gun you have to take safety training and undergo a mental evaluation every three years. You must also be interviewed by a clinical psychologist and have a background check. You have to pay for this.

3.Gun owners must be granted a licence that they must present whenever purchasing ammo going to a range or buying a gun. This licence would have different classes. For example Class A would allow pistols Class B would allow hunting weapons or class AS would allow millitary weaponry. If you wanted to buy ammunition you would slide your card and the store would keep track of the bullets. It would NOT charge the money though. That would be done with your credit card or cash.

So if someone wanted to misuse the card they would have to get their own money or steal your credit card as their credit card would show the charge and they would be arrested. Besides your card would have your picture and fingerprint on it so they couldn't misuse it. Everybody can only posses 2 guns at a time in their home. However they can "check" their guns in with the government and exchange their guns everytime they want to get new ones. Like lets say I want to exchange my pistol for my shotgun. I turn my pistol in and get my shotgun that they were holding for me. A person could also opt to have their guns stored at a range and therefore own as many as they wanted.

4.Felons and those considered to be mentally unstable would have their gun ownership rights indefinantley suspended but may proove that they are worthy. Those regranted their rights who went on to commit a violent crime with said firearm would be subject to harsher sentancing and would permanantly lose their right.

5.Those who want a self defense firearm may have one in the house whist all others must be safely stored. However if they violate this they lose that right.

6.A person may own a firearm for public carry yet this is subject to extreme scrutiny. ANY violent crimes no matter if they were misdomeners like a simple fist fight would void a persons right to publicilly carry a gun for the rest of their life. In addition those who agree to carry their guns in public face harsher penalties if they misuse their fireram in a violent manner. However municipal districts can decide wither or not to allow public carry. Its public property not private so i think it should be subject to a majority rule.

7.The government must invest in "Smart Gun" technology and once said technology is proven to work well with a more than 98% succes rate must become standard in all guns and retroactivly installed in prexisting guns. Smart Gun technology would be user identification and such to prevent misuse. I know it doesn't work very well now but we can work out the kinks and introduce it when it is satosfactory.

8.Anyone under "immediate danger" can be granted a firearm by the local police department for up to 78 hours. One Magazine of ammunition though. Every 78 hours it can be renewed until the person is caught or no longer a threat.

Thoughts? We need to find a middle ground that allows people to own guns without alienating the gun fans while still keeping people safe. Anti gun people need to admit that guns are kinda cool and can save lives and Pro Gun people need to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be regulated instead of freely given about. Its not as simple as more guns/less guns = more/less crime Its a HUGE grey issue and one that is determened by MANY factors not just more or less guns.

Thoughts?

peppersfan2

As a firearms enthusiast, collector and gunsmith I see numerous problems with what you are proposing here. I will first address each of your points

1. There are many issues with this idea. There are millions of guns in the country that there are no record of, there is no way to get all of them, or even most of them onto some type of database. Also there is the issue of people such as myself who build their own firearms(legally).

2. Just the scale of doing such a thing would make it impossible. There are millions upon millions of gun owners in this country, and having every single one take an evaluation from a clinical psychologist just wouldn't be possible.

3. A card to track ammo? You may not realize this but its actually very easy and cheap to reload and manufacture your own ammunition. I and many other shooters I know do it. Only able to own two guns at a time? Whats the point of that? I compete in various disciplines of competitive shooting, and am thus required to keep all of the firearms needed for this on hand. I also need my firearms that I carry everyday for protection, and I have a variety I carry depending on what I'll be doing/wearing that day. Then there are the firearms that I collect for their historic value. Not to mention ones that I own just for fun. And storing vast amounts of firearms at a range? Most ranges are not very secure, they would be easy targets for criminals.

4. Felons should never be allowed to own a firearm.

5. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. All I'll say is that I keep several firearms around the house for self defense, as well as ones in my vehicle and on my person.

6. You seem to be describing something similar to the process of getting a CHL here. To get a CHL you must pass a backround check, pass a safety test, and pass a proficiency test. I think it must also be noted that CHL holders are one of the least likely groups to commit a crime in the country. For example, in Florida in the past 20 years, out of over 1.5 million CHL holders, only 166 have been convicted of a crime. Due to this, I feel the CHL process is fine as it is.

7. You think we can retroactively fit that kind of technology to hundreds of millions of firearms? Where will the money for it come from? Even if it were possible, I have numerous rare, historically valuable firearms that are 60, 70, 80, 90, and even over 100 years old, and there is no chance I'll allow them to be hacked up and fitted with a bunch of electronics.

8. Immediate danger? I assume you mean that there is someone out to kill you. In that case you should really be under police protection. A gun is not a magical tool that will protect you from danger. It takes a huge amount of training to learn to use a firearm effectively to defend yourself. Handing a gun to somebody without that training is pointless.

What we should be thinking about is why it is that we have such a violent culture here in the U.S, not just blaming guns for everything. Thats like blaming forks for making people fat. Why is it that many other countries are able to have high levels of gun ownership but low crime rates? What we need to do is focus on changing our violent culture, instead of wasting our time trying to ban guns thinking that it will solve all of our problems.

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="montieman"]people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storypeppersfan2

Self-defence is a poor argument, for if the intruder also has guns he has a much better chance of killing you or a family member.

So a intruder who doesn't know the layout of my house at night in the dark has a better chance of killing me who lives in said house and is well trained with a firearm? How is this burglar somehow a ninja?

How often is a gun really needed for self defense? If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out, and even if you do, how would you feel if one of your stray bullets hurt someone who wasn't even involved? And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just a turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead.cgi15

I'm sorry but why is a criminal ALWAYS able to kill a person defending themselves with a gun 100% of the time while a person DEFENDING themselves is always 100% unable to defend themselves? It should be a 50-50 thing at best. your logic fails.

Besides if he didn't have a weapon its called not pulling the trigger. You make the mistake of assuming the only poeple that can use a gun succesfully are criminals and police.

What we should be thinking about is why it is that we have such a violent culture here in the U.S, not just blaming guns for everything. Thats like blaming forks for making people fat. Why is it that many other countries are able to have high levels of gun ownership but low crime rates? What we need to do is focus on changing our violent culture, instead of wasting our time trying to ban guns thinking that it will solve all of our problems.

Loporadaso

Well said. I'm off to bed people. Sweet dreams.

Who said it has to be at night?unholymight

A sensible burglar would learn the layout of the place before a break-in anyway.

[QUOTE="unholymight"] Who said it has to be at night?Theokhoth

A sensible burglar would learn the layout of the place before a break-in anyway.

Here's a compromise: Either everyone gets rid of their guns or they get their ****ing heads blown off. :xTheokhoth

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

DivergeUnify

You have the right to call police, protect yourself in nonlethal ways, and run away from the situation. Most people who come into a house with a gun don't even plan on using it.

[QUOTE="peppersfan2"][QUOTE="unholymight"]

Self-defence is a poor argument, for if the intruder also has guns he has a much better chance of killing you or a family member.

unholymight

So a intruder who doesn't know the layout of my house at night in the dark has a better chance of killing me who lives in said house and is well trained with a firearm? How is this burglar somehow a ninja?

Why does the burglar who is a regular person just like me have some advantage over me in my OWN house that I live in. Its called home turf advantage.

Why do you all deal in absolutes!!!???? Its not black and white. Sometimes guns help and sometimes they don't thats why we need a COMPRIMISE! not one way or the other no guns vs. all the guns in the world.

Do you people even listen or do you just settle into the old cliche Guns are only good for murder/civilians can't defend themseves vs. we need guns for the government uprising/home invasions arguements?!

[QUOTE="peppersfan2"]

Hello. I was thinking about gun control the other day and what I thought of it and after being a supporter of both anti gun folk and pro gun nutcases I've come to a rather odd middle ground.

A mistake that both sides make is assuming an extreme. Anti gun people tend to assume that any gun is a bad gun and pro gunners tend to assume that any gun is a good gun and if its my gun then its a great one.

So let me tell you my stance on gun control. All of this polar opposite philosphy regarding guns is not going to work. The best solution is obviousilly a middle ground.

Both anti gun people and pro gunners need to come toghether and not just comprimise but come up with a better solution. I don't see this happening anytime soon as both sides are WAY to dogmatic and emotional using red herrings false statistics and emotional appeals. My ideal gun control would go like this.

1.Creation Of a National Firearms Database "NFD"

2.In order to own a gun you have to take safety training and undergo a mental evaluation every three years. You must also be interviewed by a clinical psychologist and have a background check. You have to pay for this.

3.Gun owners must be granted a licence that they must present whenever purchasing ammo going to a range or buying a gun. This licence would have different classes. For example Class A would allow pistols Class B would allow hunting weapons or class AS would allow millitary weaponry. If you wanted to buy ammunition you would slide your card and the store would keep track of the bullets. It would NOT charge the money though. That would be done with your credit card or cash.

So if someone wanted to misuse the card they would have to get their own money or steal your credit card as their credit card would show the charge and they would be arrested. Besides your card would have your picture and fingerprint on it so they couldn't misuse it. Everybody can only posses 2 guns at a time in their home. However they can "check" their guns in with the government and exchange their guns everytime they want to get new ones. Like lets say I want to exchange my pistol for my shotgun. I turn my pistol in and get my shotgun that they were holding for me. A person could also opt to have their guns stored at a range and therefore own as many as they wanted.

4.Felons and those considered to be mentally unstable would have their gun ownership rights indefinantley suspended but may proove that they are worthy. Those regranted their rights who went on to commit a violent crime with said firearm would be subject to harsher sentancing and would permanantly lose their right.

5.Those who want a self defense firearm may have one in the house whist all others must be safely stored. However if they violate this they lose that right.

6.A person may own a firearm for public carry yet this is subject to extreme scrutiny. ANY violent crimes no matter if they were misdomeners like a simple fist fight would void a persons right to publicilly carry a gun for the rest of their life. In addition those who agree to carry their guns in public face harsher penalties if they misuse their fireram in a violent manner. However municipal districts can decide wither or not to allow public carry. Its public property not private so i think it should be subject to a majority rule.

7.The government must invest in "Smart Gun" technology and once said technology is proven to work well with a more than 98% succes rate must become standard in all guns and retroactivly installed in prexisting guns. Smart Gun technology would be user identification and such to prevent misuse. I know it doesn't work very well now but we can work out the kinks and introduce it when it is satosfactory.

8.Anyone under "immediate danger" can be granted a firearm by the local police department for up to 78 hours. One Magazine of ammunition though. Every 78 hours it can be renewed until the person is caught or no longer a threat.

Thoughts? We need to find a middle ground that allows people to own guns without alienating the gun fans while still keeping people safe. Anti gun people need to admit that guns are kinda cool and can save lives and Pro Gun people need to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be regulated instead of freely given about. Its not as simple as more guns/less guns = more/less crime Its a HUGE grey issue and one that is determened by MANY factors not just more or less guns.

Thoughts?

Loporadaso

As a firearms enthusiast, collector and gunsmith I see numerous problems with what you are proposing here. I will first address each of your points

1. There are many issues with this idea. There are millions of guns in the country that there are no record of, there is no way to get all of them, or even most of them onto some type of database. Also there is the issue of people such as myself who build their own firearms(legally).

2. Just the scale of doing such a thing would make it impossible. There are millions upon millions of gun owners in this country, and having every single one take an evaluation from a clinical psychologist just wouldn't be possible.

3. A card to track ammo? You may not realize this but its actually very easy and cheap to reload and manufacture your own ammunition. I and many other shooters I know do it. Only able to own two guns at a time? Whats the point of that? I compete in various disciplines of competitive shooting, and am thus required to keep all of the firearms needed for this on hand. I also need my firearms that I carry everyday for protection, and I have a variety I carry depending on what I'll be doing/wearing that day. Then there are the firearms that I collect for their historic value. Not to mention ones that I own just for fun. And storing vast amounts of firearms at a range? Most ranges are not very secure, they would be easy targets for criminals.

4. Felons should never be allowed to own a firearm.

5. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. All I'll say is that I keep several firearms around the house for self defense, as well as ones in my vehicle and on my person.

6. You seem to be describing something similar to the process of getting a CHL here. To get a CHL you must pass a backround check, pass a safety test, and pass a proficiency test. I think it must also be noted that CHL holders are one of the least likely groups to commit a crime in the country. For example, in Florida in the past 20 years, out of over 1.5 million CHL holders, only 166 have been convicted of a crime. Due to this, I feel the CHL process is fine as it is.

7. You think we can retroactively fit that kind of technology to hundreds of millions of firearms? Where will the money for it come from? Even if it were possible, I have numerous rare, historically valuable firearms that are 60, 70, 80, 90, and even over 100 years old, and there is no chance I'll allow them to be hacked up and fitted with a bunch of electronics.

8. Immediate danger? I assume you mean that there is someone out to kill you. In that case you should really be under police protection. A gun is not a magical tool that will protect you from danger. It takes a huge amount of training to learn to use a firearm effectively to defend yourself. Handing a gun to somebody without that training is pointless.

What we should be thinking about is why it is that we have such a violent culture here in the U.S, not just blaming guns for everything. Thats like blaming forks for making people fat. Why is it that many other countries are able to have high levels of gun ownership but low crime rates? What we need to do is focus on changing our violent culture, instead of wasting our time trying to ban guns thinking that it will solve all of our problems.

The only compromise I could go with is if handguns were completely banned in the US. It would be illegal to buy or own one.

Besides that I'm probably against any type of compromise.

How often is a gun really needed for self defense? If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out, and even if you do, how would you feel if one of your stray bullets hurt someone who wasn't even involved? And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just a turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead.cgi15

It is currently estimated that roughly 2 million crimes are prevented each year by guns. Not just by their use, often just by their presence in a situation. If you don't believe me then look it up.

You really think that the best thing you can do if theres some criminal pointing a gun at you is just to do nothing and have faith that this criminal who has already commited a very serious crime won't decide to shoot you? Good luck with that:roll:

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="cgi15"]

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

cgi15

You have the right to call police, protect yourself in nonlethal ways, and run away from the situation. Most people who come into a house with a gun don't even plan on using it.

I'm sure the criminal just wanted that glock as a fashion accesory. :roll:

I'm also sure that the cops will show up in time to stop me from getting killed. :roll:

I'm also sure that pepper spray or hand to hand combat and other non leathel defense works against a gun 100% of the time. :roll:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Here's a compromise: Either everyone gets rid of their guns or they get their ****ing heads blown off. :xremmbermytitans

So your justification for murder is that a 200 year old document says you can? Protect yourself without taking life please

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="peppersfan2"]

So a intruder who doesn't know the layout of my house at night in the dark has a better chance of killing me who lives in said house and is well trained with a firearm? How is this burglar somehow a ninja?

peppersfan2

Why does the burglar who is a regular person just like me have some advantage over me in my OWN house that I live in. Its called home turf advantage.

Why do you all deal in absolutes!!!???? Its not black and white. Sometimes guns help and sometimes they don't thats why we need a COMPRIMISE! not one way or the other no guns vs. all the guns in the world.

Do you people even listen or do you just settle into the old cliche Guns are only good for murder/civilians can't defend themseves vs. we need guns for the government uprising/home invasions arguements?!

But it's not just him vs you. It's him vs you and several defenceless family members scattered around the house. Who has more to lose?

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="cgi15"]

If you're in your house you are more than likely at close range, so yeah a knife probably would be a better option. If you are at a long enough range that his gun is usable, you should be running or hiding.

cgi15

You have the right to call police, protect yourself in nonlethal ways, and run away from the situation. Most people who come into a house with a gun don't even plan on using it.

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Here's a compromise: Either everyone gets rid of their guns or they get their ****ing heads blown off. :xcgi15

So your justification for murder is that a 200 year old document says you can? Protect yourself without taking life please

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Here's a compromise: Either everyone gets rid of their guns or they get their ****ing heads blown off. :xcgi15

So your justification for murder is that a 200 year old document says you can? Protect yourself without taking life please

[QUOTE="peppersfan2"]

Hello. I was thinking about gun control the other day and what I thought of it and after being a supporter of both anti gun folk and pro gun nutcases I've come to a rather odd middle ground.

A mistake that both sides make is assuming an extreme. Anti gun people tend to assume that any gun is a bad gun and pro gunners tend to assume that any gun is a good gun and if its my gun then its a great one.

So let me tell you my stance on gun control. All of this polar opposite philosphy regarding guns is not going to work. The best solution is obviousilly a middle ground.

Both anti gun people and pro gunners need to come toghether and not just comprimise but come up with a better solution. I don't see this happening anytime soon as both sides are WAY to dogmatic and emotional using red herrings false statistics and emotional appeals. My ideal gun control would go like this.

1.Creation Of a National Firearms Database "NFD"

2.In order to own a gun you have to take safety training and undergo a mental evaluation every three years. You must also be interviewed by a clinical psychologist and have a background check. You have to pay for this.

3.Gun owners must be granted a licence that they must present whenever purchasing ammo going to a range or buying a gun. This licence would have different classes. For example Class A would allow pistols Class B would allow hunting weapons or class AS would allow millitary weaponry. If you wanted to buy ammunition you would slide your card and the store would keep track of the bullets. It would NOT charge the money though. That would be done with your credit card or cash.

So if someone wanted to misuse the card they would have to get their own money or steal your credit card as their credit card would show the charge and they would be arrested. Besides your card would have your picture and fingerprint on it so they couldn't misuse it. Everybody can only posses 2 guns at a time in their home. However they can "check" their guns in with the government and exchange their guns everytime they want to get new ones. Like lets say I want to exchange my pistol for my shotgun. I turn my pistol in and get my shotgun that they were holding for me. A person could also opt to have their guns stored at a range and therefore own as many as they wanted.

4.Felons and those considered to be mentally unstable would have their gun ownership rights indefinantley suspended but may proove that they are worthy. Those regranted their rights who went on to commit a violent crime with said firearm would be subject to harsher sentancing and would permanantly lose their right.

5.Those who want a self defense firearm may have one in the house whist all others must be safely stored. However if they violate this they lose that right.

6.A person may own a firearm for public carry yet this is subject to extreme scrutiny. ANY violent crimes no matter if they were misdomeners like a simple fist fight would void a persons right to publicilly carry a gun for the rest of their life. In addition those who agree to carry their guns in public face harsher penalties if they misuse their fireram in a violent manner. However municipal districts can decide wither or not to allow public carry. Its public property not private so i think it should be subject to a majority rule.

7.The government must invest in "Smart Gun" technology and once said technology is proven to work well with a more than 98% succes rate must become standard in all guns and retroactivly installed in prexisting guns. Smart Gun technology would be user identification and such to prevent misuse. I know it doesn't work very well now but we can work out the kinks and introduce it when it is satosfactory.

8.Anyone under "immediate danger" can be granted a firearm by the local police department for up to 78 hours. One Magazine of ammunition though. Every 78 hours it can be renewed until the person is caught or no longer a threat.

Thoughts? We need to find a middle ground that allows people to own guns without alienating the gun fans while still keeping people safe. Anti gun people need to admit that guns are kinda cool and can save lives and Pro Gun people need to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be regulated instead of freely given about. Its not as simple as more guns/less guns = more/less crime Its a HUGE grey issue and one that is determened by MANY factors not just more or less guns.

Thoughts?

Loporadaso

As a firearms enthusiast, collector and gunsmith I see numerous problems with what you are proposing here. I will first address each of your points

1. There are many issues with this idea. There are millions of guns in the country that there are no record of, there is no way to get all of them, or even most of them onto some type of database. Also there is the issue of people such as myself who build their own firearms(legally).

2. Just the scale of doing such a thing would make it impossible. There are millions upon millions of gun owners in this country, and having every single one take an evaluation from a clinical psychologist just wouldn't be possible.

3. A card to track ammo? You may not realize this but its actually very easy and cheap to reload and manufacture your own ammunition. I and many other shooters I know do it. Only able to own two guns at a time? Whats the point of that? I compete in various disciplines of competitive shooting, and am thus required to keep all of the firearms needed for this on hand. I also need my firearms that I carry everyday for protection, and I have a variety I carry depending on what I'll be doing/wearing that day. Then there are the firearms that I collect for their historic value. Not to mention ones that I own just for fun. And storing vast amounts of firearms at a range? Most ranges are not very secure, they would be easy targets for criminals.

4. Felons should never be allowed to own a firearm.

5. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. All I'll say is that I keep several firearms around the house for self defense, as well as ones in my vehicle and on my person.

6. You seem to be describing something similar to the process of getting a CHL here. To get a CHL you must pass a backround check, pass a safety test, and pass a proficiency test. I think it must also be noted that CHL holders are one of the least likely groups to commit a crime in the country. For example, in Florida in the past 20 years, out of over 1.5 million CHL holders, only 166 have been convicted of a crime. Due to this, I feel the CHL process is fine as it is.

7. You think we can retroactively fit that kind of technology to hundreds of millions of firearms? Where will the money for it come from? Even if it were possible, I have numerous rare, historically valuable firearms that are 60, 70, 80, 90, and even over 100 years old, and there is no chance I'll allow them to be hacked up and fitted with a bunch of electronics.

8. Immediate danger? I assume you mean that there is someone out to kill you. In that case you should really be under police protection. A gun is not a magical tool that will protect you from danger. It takes a huge amount of training to learn to use a firearm effectively to defend yourself. Handing a gun to somebody without that training is pointless.

What we should be thinking about is why it is that we have such a violent culture here in the U.S, not just blaming guns for everything. Thats like blaming forks for making people fat. Why is it that many other countries are able to have high levels of gun ownership but low crime rates? What we need to do is focus on changing our violent culture, instead of wasting our time trying to ban guns thinking that it will solve all of our problems.

I am aware of all of those things as I used to think just like you. Your not going to like this but we would make reloading illegal. Inconvienant yes? But its not about making you happy 100%

I'm not pretending to be morally right. Gun Control is a necessary evil.

As for hacking smart guns are you sayiing we should't even try? Why do you think in absolutes? Gun Control does have a effect and so do guns themselves for good and bad. Both sides just want to cover their goddamn ears and pretend like the other side has no valid points.

[QUOTE="montieman"]people have the misconception that if guns go away so does crime. if there are no guns, people can still kill you. and on the topic of self defence, why couldnt you have a shotgun for that? if somebody breaks into my house looking to hurt me or my family im going to blow his frikken head off, end of storycgi15

From the way you just described how you would incapacitate someone, you seem to have some rage problems. "i'm going to blow his frikken head off, end of story" Get the videogame mentality "headshot" out of your mind and realize you don't need to fire shells into someones face to incapacitate them.

+1

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Here's a compromise: Either everyone gets rid of their guns or they get their ****ing heads blown off. :xcgi15

So your justification for murder is that a 200 year old document says you can? Protect yourself without taking life please

The justification is that some scumbag has broken into MY HOME to steal MY PROPERTY and threaten MY LIFE as well as MY WIFE. If I find an intruder in my home all bets are off, I will not just sit around like a sheep and hope you decide not to hurt my wife and I, I will do whatever it takes to stop the threat.

Imagine you were in the situation this guy was in this video of a recent home invasion attempt. If he didn't have a gun he and his family would surely be dead. What would you have done in his position? Tried to hide? Begged them not to kill you? :roll:

http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?S=9816830

[QUOTE="cgi15"]How often is a gun really needed for self defense? If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out, and even if you do, how would you feel if one of your stray bullets hurt someone who wasn't even involved? And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just a turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead.Loporadaso

It is currently estimated that roughly 2 million crimes are prevented each year by guns. Not just by their use, often just by their presence in a situation. If you don't believe me then look it up.

You really think that the best thing you can do if theres some criminal pointing a gun at you is just to do nothing and have faith that this criminal who has already commited a very serious crime won't decide to shoot you? Good luck with that:roll:

I thank you for the link to the first statistic you posted, and also if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, what do you think he is gonna do if he sees you reaching for your gun. If you don't pull a gun out, you may have a chance, but if he sees you reaching for something you are dead for sure.

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]

[QUOTE="cgi15"]How often is a gun really needed for self defense? If the other person has a gun, they are gonna be able to shoot you before you pull your gun out, and even if you do, how would you feel if one of your stray bullets hurt someone who wasn't even involved? And if the person doesn't have a gun and you pull yours out, then you just a turned what was probably a nonlethal engagement into someone being dead.cgi15

It is currently estimated that roughly 2 million crimes are prevented each year by guns. Not just by their use, often just by their presence in a situation. If you don't believe me then look it up.

You really think that the best thing you can do if theres some criminal pointing a gun at you is just to do nothing and have faith that this criminal who has already commited a very serious crime won't decide to shoot you? Good luck with that:roll:

I thank you for the link to the first statistic you posted, and also if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, what do you think he is gonna do if he sees you reaching for your gun. If you don't pull a gun out, you may have a chance, but if he sees you reaching for something you are dead for sure.