This is a sensible and logical idea.

Getting a gun is too easy. I can walk in to a wal mart in Missouri and purchase a weapon with which I can end numerous individuals lives. I could also carry that gun in my vehicle.  :o Scary.

In the United Kingdom there are sensible laws regarding gun control. Handguns are illegal, big time illegal as in 'If you have a handgun, you're going to jail'. If you're a member of a gun club or can prove you need a rifle or a shotgun for the defense of your land (this generally applies to farmers killing pests) then you can apply for a license.
I think hunters should be allowed rifles, but they should be a member of a gun club (even if they don't go there more than once a year) and ammunition should be sold at specific times of the year (i.e hunting season).


My friend Paul did that.  Except it was a shotgun that we used to blow up (sorta) propane canisters in the Nevada desert.  He had to buy his ammunition the next day though.  That's one quirk of the California law..."Well, son, you can have your gun today, but you're gonna have to wait till tomorrow before you can go kill someone with it."

I'm cool with people having the right to bear arms, but I don't necessarily think that they should be allowed to own assault weapons and stuff :P

My friend Paul did that.  Except it was a shotgun that we used to blow up (sorta) propane canisters in the Nevada desert.  He had to buy his ammunition the next day though.  That's one quirk of the California law..."Well, son, you can have your gun today, but you're gonna have to wait till tomorrow before you can go kill someone with it."

I'm cool with people having the right to bear arms, but I don't necessarily think that they should be allowed to own assault weapons and stuff :P


Handguns are the thing that bugs me.
You do not need handguns. A shotgun will protect you and your property if somebody breaks in. The whole concept of a handgun is that it can be concealed.... I don't want folks walkin around with guns.

Well, the only time I've ever fired a handgun is at inanimate objects.  Guns don't really belong outside of the shooting range, unless you're a cop.  And even with anti-gun laws the bad guys are going to find a way to get the guns anyway.  You can't always stop the bad apples from being bad :(  Doesn't hurt to try though.

I think hunters should be allowed rifles, but they should be a member of a gun club (even if they don't go there more than once a year) and ammunition should be sold at specific times of the year (i.e hunting season).

Gun clubs exist because a group of individuals enjoy their firearms and routinely practice accuracy. Why should anyone be required to be a member of anything? If ammo was only available during hunting season there would be a lot more casualties, because hunters would not have the opportunity to practice with their gun.

As for the UK- Citizens aren't allowed guns, but the criminals still have them.
Look at the stats!

Handguns are very hard to possess legally, but if someone passes all of the necessary screening what's the problem? Again- Criminals have them. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen?

I don't view it as much that "Democrats are anti-gun", as much as "the Democratic Platform is anti-gun".

As in so many issues, people tend to confuse the difference between the "Platform" of a party, and what people who associate themselves with the party believe.  Like so many issues (abortion, capitol punishment, health care, etc), most polls show that the majority of people are split on the issue.  Just the same way that the nation is pretty evenly split as to which party they belong to.

The "Democratic Platform" tends to be whatever the "Big City Big GOvernment" says it is.  And if you move to more rural areas, you will tend to find that support of this kind of issue moves the other way, no matter what party the person belongs to.  This is because people there tend to be more locally oriented, and pay more attention to what they personally believe, not what others tell them to believe.

Idaho, Oregon, and Utah all tend to be heavily Democrat.  Yet all 3 are also very anti-gun control.  And in California where things are almost exclusively Democrat, if you move away from the big cities you will find that support of Gun Control falls off drastically.  You find the same thing in New York, when you compare the views of people in cities like New York, when compared to people who live "upstate".

And as in many cases, there are a lot of people who will support or oppose an issue, simply because that is what their party tells them to do.  A good example is Ronald Reagan.  A strong "Right to choose" suporter, he signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation when he was Governor of California.  But when he was running for President, he was basically informed that he would have lost a lot of voters unless he opposed abortion.

And don't forget the flap a few years ago when pictures were released of John Kerry hunting.  He had to step fast to say how he supported stricter gun control, while at the same time not making them illegal.

And Sheriff Neil Warren of Cobb County Georgia is a life long Democrat.  He has been one of the strongest supporters of the law in Kennesaw Georgia, which requires all citizens who can legally own a gun to have one in their house.

I am not a Dem (don't be so surprise people), I am a liberal Independent. As a few have said, I am not anti-gun but I am pro-gun CONTROL!!! I think there are some people who can own guns and be very responsible about it. Others should NOT be able to. I think if you wanted to buy a gun, you should have to jump through this hoop, then that hoop and have a LONG waiting period for background checks, etc.


Going off topic just a bit (well maybe not too far off), I am entitle to a free fishing/hunting licence in Vermont because of 2 reasons: 1. I am a 100% disable vet. 2. I am legally blind. So, I put in the paper work for my free/permenant fishing licence. They sent me a permenant fishing AND hunting licence. Can you imagine giving a hunting licence to someone who is legally blind?  :o :o :o



Cat

I don't view it as much that "Democrats are anti-gun", as much as "the Democratic Platform is anti-gun".

As in so many issues, people tend to confuse the difference between the "Platform" of a party, and what people who associate themselves with the party believe.  Like so many issues (abortion, capitol punishment, health care, etc), most polls show that the majority of people are split on the issue.  Just the same way that the nation is pretty evenly split as to which party they belong to.

The "Democratic Platform" tends to be whatever the "Big City Big GOvernment" says it is.  And if you move to more rural areas, you will tend to find that support of this kind of issue moves the other way, no matter what party the person belongs to.  This is because people there tend to be more locally oriented, and pay more attention to what they personally believe, not what others tell them to believe.

Idaho, Oregon, and Utah all tend to be heavily Democrat.  Yet all 3 are also very anti-gun control.  And in California where things are almost exclusively Democrat, if you move away from the big cities you will find that support of Gun Control falls off drastically.  You find the same thing in New York, when you compare the views of people in cities like New York, when compared to people who live "upstate".

And as in many cases, there are a lot of people who will support or oppose an issue, simply because that is what their party tells them to do.  A good example is Ronald Reagan.  A strong "Right to choose" suporter, he signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation when he was Governor of California.  But when he was running for President, he was basically informed that he would have lost a lot of voters unless he opposed abortion.

And don't forget the flap a few years ago when pictures were released of John Kerry hunting.  He had to step fast to say how he supported stricter gun control, while at the same time not making them illegal.

And Sheriff Neil Warren of Cobb County Georgia is a life long Democrat.  He has been one of the strongest supporters of the law in Kennesaw Georgia, which requires all citizens who can legally own a gun to have one in their house.


If I am reading you right, you are telling us that the Dems that are pushing for these bills are doing so only because they are being told to? And since so-and-so says to do it, they might as well? They don't have any thoughts, views or opinions themselves? If I am interpreting your post wrong, please break it down for me in laymans terms.

As for the UK- Citizens aren't allowed guns, but the criminals still have them.
Look at the stats!

Yep - far fewer people are killed with guns: recently three teenagers have been killed (current thinking seems to be that it's drug/territory related), and this is enough to make front page news in nearly every paper, and give rise to statements in the House and speeches from both Blair and Cameron.  Gun crime here *is* that rare, and we'd like it to stay that way.

If I were living over there, then I'd be closer to the Dems than the Republicans, but have to say that the Democrat party is still way too right-wing...

A point that I've argued many times over, though, is that gun control on that side of the pond is a pipe-dream: there's simply too many of the things around, and too many guys (and maybe just one or two gals) love their guns too much.  Either gun control measures will be too weak to have any noticeable effect, or a sizeable otherwise law-abiding section of the population suddently becomes criminal (with a large arsenal, too).  There ain't no way the genie is going back into that bottle.  Having said that, I'm very glad things aren't like that over here.

One statistic I seem to remember reading is that in those places where carrying guns is legal, having a gun on your person made you more likely to get shot than otherwise.  I'll have to have a look for the stats, but I believe the survey was big enough for it to be significant.

I am not a Dem (don't be so surprise people), I am a liberal Independent. As a few have said, I am not anti-gun but I am pro-gun CONTROL!!! I think there are some people who can own guns and be very responsible about it. Others should NOT be able to. I think if you wanted to buy a gun, you should have to jump through this hoop, then that hoop and have a LONG waiting period for background checks, etc.


Going off topic just a bit (well maybe not too far off), I am entitle to a free fishing/hunting licence in Vermont because of 2 reasons: 1. I am a 100% disable vet. 2. I am legally blind. So, I put in the paper work for my free/permenant fishing licence. They sent me a permenant fishing AND hunting licence. Can you imagine giving a hunting licence to someone who is legally blind?  :o :o :o



Cat

I'd rather go hunting with you than with Dick Cheney!
::)

It is odd they would give a hunting license to a person who is legall blind.  I don't know anything about it because I've never tried to get a hunting license.  Do you have to pass a vision test to get one?  Probably depends on the state.  I've never heard of a vision test.  

The bigger problem is still people who go hunting and don't know how to use the weapon...or go hunting with a six pack!

Guns are here to stay in the U.S.
An end to drug prohibition would take the power away from drug traffickers/dealers, and this might cut back on the number of gun-wielding thugs.




If I were living over there, then I'd be closer to the Dems than the Republicans, but have to say that the Democrat party is still way too right-wing...



Indeed it is, my friend!
What about Canada?  A heck of a lot of Canadians own guns and yet the number of gun-related crimes per capita in Canada is a fraction of what it is in the U.S.  I still believe problems originating with the rampant poverty and economic injustice in the U.S. has a lot to do with the high rate of violence.  The central message of the American Right is money uber alles and all that glitters is gold!  Is it any surprise dealing cocaine has more allure than working at Wendy's?  With criminal enterprise comes violence.  It's just the way it goes.



Idaho, Oregon, and Utah all tend to be heavily Democrat. 
Maybe I'm missing something here.  When I looked at Idaho and Utah county-by-county in the last three elections, they tended to go heavily Republican, sometimes overwhelmingly.  Oregon seemed to lean Republican outside of the Portland--Eugene axis.  Not arguing here, just asking, as you have actually lived in that region (or am I thinking of somebody else?).
???

I'd rather go hunting with you than with Dick Cheney!
::)




ROTFLMAO!!!! (plus karma)


It is odd they would give a hunting license to a person who is legall blind.  I don't know anything about it because I've never tried to get a hunting license.  Do you have to pass a vision test to get one?  Probably depends on the state.  I've never heard of a vision test. 

The bigger problem is still people who go hunting and don't know how to use the weapon...or go hunting with a six pack!

Guns are here to stay in the U.S.
An end to drug prohibition would take the power away from drug traffickers/dealers, and this might cut back on the number of gun-wielding thugs.


The thing was I DIDN'T apply for a hunting licence-just a fishing licence. I thought that I had to pass a hunting safety course-which I never took, but they just gave me the licence. It is possible that the guy made a mistake because he sent me one licence-and a few days later he sent me a new one saying he made a mistake and asked me to send him back the first one he sent me. So, maybe he made a booboo the second time around, too.



Cat

Gun clubs exist because a group of individuals enjoy their firearms and routinely practice accuracy. Why should anyone be required to be a member of anything? If ammo was only available during hunting season there would be a lot more casualties, because hunters would not have the opportunity to practice with their gun.

As for the UK- Citizens aren't allowed guns, but the criminals still have them.
Look at the stats!

Handguns are very hard to possess legally, but if someone passes all of the necessary screening what's the problem? Again- Criminals have them. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen?


Criminals have them because they exist in such large quantities. And in the UK, very..very few criminals have them. Although I'll be the first to admit that the number of gun related crimes is rising, the numbers are still exceptionaly low. Something like 300 a year or thereabouts.. in a country with a population of 65,000,000.

I think you may be thinking I'm anti-gun here. I'm not. I enjoy shooting.. I enjoy hunting. But I think it would be wise for hunters to belong to a gun club and attend at least once a year, simply to ensure that people are aware of specific safety precautions.

A vast percentage of gun related injurys and deaths are caused by idiocy. People with weapons who shouldn't be allowed to own them because they don't know how to use them and don't have any respect for them.

Criminals have them because they exist in such large quantities. And in the UK, very..very few criminals have them. Although I'll be the first to admit that the number of gun related crimes is rising, the numbers are still exceptionaly low. Something like 300 a year or thereabouts.. in a country with a population of 65,000,000.

I think you may be thinking I'm anti-gun here. I'm not. I enjoy shooting.. I enjoy hunting. But I think it would be wise for hunters to belong to a gun club and attend at least once a year, simply to ensure that people are aware of specific safety precautions.

A vast percentage of gun related injurys and deaths are caused by idiocy. People with weapons who shouldn't be allowed to own them because they don't know how to use them and don't have any respect for them.

As much as I hate the NRA's right-wing rhetoric, they are the first to emphasize safety precautions and the need to know how to use a weapon before wielding it for any purpose.  The NRA also supports severe punishment for gun crimes.  After all, it is in their best interest to do so.  It is not the NRA-types who are the ones doing drive-by shootings or knocking over liquor stores. 

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I wouldn't over-emphasize dumb accidents versus deliberate crime.  Sometimes they go hand-in-hand.  I remember the Jonesboro school shootings about ten years ago.  The kids, ages 11 and 13, got the guns from one of their grandfather's gun cabinet. 
Maybe that's a bad example.  The 13-year-old in that case hot-wired a van and drove it to the school.  I couldn't have done that when I was 13.  I still don't know how to hotwire a car!  If a kid like that wants in to your gun cabinet, he's probably going to find a way. 

Tough issue, no easy answers.

ROTFLMAO!!!! (plus karma)

The thing was I DIDN'T apply for a hunting licence-just a fishing licence. I thought that I had to pass a hunting safety course-which I never took, but they just gave me the licence. It is possible that the guy made a mistake because he sent me one licence-and a few days later he sent me a new one saying he made a mistake and asked me to send him back the first one he sent me. So, maybe he made a booboo the second time around, too.



Cat

What was the mistake the guy made?  Were you supposed to take the safety course, or was it just a clerical error?
???

As much as I hate the NRA's right-wing rhetoric, they are the first to emphasize safety precautions and the need to know how to use a weapon before wielding it for any purpose.  The NRA also supports severe punishment for gun crimes.  After all, it is in their best interest to do so.  It is not the NRA-types who are the ones doing drive-by shootings or knocking over liquor stores. 

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I wouldn't over-emphasize dumb accidents versus deliberate crime.  Sometimes they go hand-in-hand.  I remember the Jonesboro school shootings about ten years ago.  The kids, ages 11 and 13, got the guns from one of their grandfather's gun cabinet. 
Maybe that's a bad example.  The 13-year-old in that case hot-wired a van and drove it to the school.  I couldn't have done that when I was 13.  I still don't know how to hotwire a car!  If a kid like that wants in to your gun cabinet, he's probably going to find a way. 

Tough issue, no easy answers.


You're right about the NRA.
I think all in all the NRA has good ideas and a good structure for it's members.

Of course you're always gonna whackos who want to kill. They're gonna find guns.. and if they can't find guns, they'll make bombs. Let's face it, between you and me, I'll bet we could probably make something that could take out half a city block. It's not that difficult, it's just being clever about it. If you go in and buy 12 tonnes of peroxide, they'll work out fast that you're up to something.  ;D

What was the mistake the guy made?  Were you supposed to take the safety course, or was it just a clerical error?
???



I'm not too sure. Like I said, he sent me the wrong licence at first (a yearly one) and then he sent me the permenant one-which included the hunting on it. So, he could have made a mistake sending me the second one or it could be that they only have permenant hunting/fishing licences instead of just a permenant fishing licence.



Cat

If I am reading you right, you are telling us that the Dems that are pushing for these bills are doing so only because they are being told to?


Not at all.  I am sure that a lot of Democrats really want gun control.  As well as a lot of Republicans.

A lot of this falls under "Groupthink", "following the demographics", and who the "spokesmen" are.

I am sure that the vast majority of people give it no thought.  You only hear about it from those who are passionate about the topic, and they are obviously biased to one side or the other.

I am a Republican, and I also support Gun Control.  However, I want it reasonable.  I want strong penalties to those who commit crimes with guns.  I want control on who buys guns, and reasonable waiting periods.  But when it gets to the extreme like in some areas (certain guns made illegal for arbitrary reasons, 31 day waiting periods, waiting periods and registration for ammunition) are just stupid.

One thing many people do not know is that Jack Kennedy was an avid skeet shooter, and a lifetime member of the NRA.  I bet that if he was still alive, he would oppose some of the insane things they want to pass as "Gun Control".

I've appreciated the commentary here thus far. I suppose my question was too vague or worded incorrectly with what my intent was:

Why is the Democratic party anti-gun?

My first two impressions are "because the Republicans are pro-gun" and "no one is responsible enough to handle them, so lets do away with them all".

I'm not sure how much more gun control is needed. Lenghty background checks are unneccesary in this day and age, with everything being computerized. 7 day waits are a decent idea, but I'm not sure they serve any real purpose other than making non-gun owners feel more "secure": if you really wanted to whack someone, a week's wait doesn't really matter, does it?

Special firearms, such as fully automatic and silenced weapons (I believe they are called class 2) require special dealers and a lenghty background check, usually 2-4 months wait time. Owning one of these weapons illegally will get you more prison time than accidentally killing someone.

There are thousands of people who are denied guns every year. Guess what? Falsifying info on the forms one has to fill out to get a gun is a felony. This law is RARELY enforced.

Here in VA you can only buy one handgun every 30 days.

Also in VA, any felon that is caught with a gun gets a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence in federal prison, no parole or time off for good behavior. (Project Exile)

Larger than 10 round magazines are illegal except for LE, though "pre-ban" clips are grandfathered.

Streetsweepers are completely illegal here (12 round drum fed semi auto shotguns).

Hunters are limited to carrying three rounds in a shotgun. Limiter tubes are standard with most every shotgun now. There are numerous other rules regarding hunting, and you can't get a hunting license unless you have been through a hunter safety course or are ex/current military.

Everyone's favorite: concealed carry. Thes permits are rather easy to obtain here, and are good for 5 years. They are kinda lame in that they don't even have a picture of the person to whom they are issued.

I think that it's illegal everywhere in the US to carry a gun into a city or federal building.

I could go on about the huge number of laws already in place regarding guns. I'm not for any new laws, rather enforcement of what is already in place.

I've owned some pretty exotic firearms, including a .50BMG Grizzly Big Boar competition rifle that weighed 30 lbs and could bust an engine block at half a mile. Did I need it? No. It was great fun to shoot, and if anyone can site me a case of where someone used such an unweildy weapon to commit a crime, I'm all eyes.

(I sold it due to there not being enough 1000 yard ranges in the area.  ;))

My first two impressions are "because the Republicans are pro-gun" and "no one is responsible enough to handle them, so lets do away with them all".

Isn't it more like "a small percentage of people irresponsible with guns, so let's do away with them all"?

The options are either "let's try and weed out those who are irresponsible before they kill someone", "do away with them all" or "hell, who cares: there's enough people out there, what's a few more killed?"

But I thought the Republicans were 100% in favour of gun control?




...hold the thing with both hands when firing ;)

PS That's not a rifle, Jack, that's artillery

You're right about the NRA.
I think all in all the NRA has good ideas and a good structure for it's members.

Of course you're always gonna whackos who want to kill. They're gonna find guns.. and if they can't find guns, they'll make bombs. Let's face it, between you and me, I'll bet we could probably make something that could take out half a city block. It's not that difficult, it's just being clever about it. If you go in and buy 12 tonnes of peroxide, they'll work out fast that you're up to something.  ;D

Now that Anna Nicole's gone, there'll be a whole lot more available!
:D




One thing many people do not know is that Jack Kennedy was an avid skeet shooter, and a lifetime member of the NRA.  I bet that if he was still alive, he would oppose some of the insane things they want to pass as "Gun Control".

Moot.  The CIA killing JFK made possible the GOP of today.  He was a skeet shooter, but he wouldn't go for armor-piercing bullets.  He was a tax cutter, but he wouldn't go for Ronnie Reagan's idiotic 28% top marginal rate.  Sheesh!  I wish JFK and MLK could come back to life, if only to      b!tch slap all the right-wingers who perpetually misrepresent them.
J. Edgar had it in for Dr. King and James Earl Ray wasn't where they said he was that April morning...but I digress!

But I thought the Republicans were 100% in favour of gun control?


It all depends on what you mean by "control".

Some groups hide under the name "Control", but in reality want nothing less that total abolition of handgund and the majority of other firearms.  Look at Hand Gun Contol Inc.  Then at the other end, you have the NRA.  They have mostly been in favor of a system like a drivers license, where a potential owner is pre-screened and given a license to buy guns and amunition.

I have been involved with guns for most of my life.  My grandfater and I went out shooting many times in the summer, and of course my experience in the military.  And one of my first jobs when I got out of the military was selling firearms.  In fact, it was my bosses requirement that we "screen" people who wanted to buy guns, and make sure that they were buying them for the right reason.

And this was in California, where the gun laws are really screwed up.  Back in 1990, I moved from North Carolina back to Cali, and brought my rifle with me.  It was nothing special, a Ruger 10-22 with a few modifications.  I added a composite folding stock with a pistol grip, so it would be easier to ajdust for my ex to shoot.  I also added a flash supressor, so if we were shooting prone, dirt would not be kicked up in our faces.

A year and a half later, the rifle was stollen by a former friend.  He was arrested in a rural area of Northern California, with my frifle in his possession.  Now at this time he had been on the run for 4 months, having beat another friend to death.  And when I petitioned to have my rifle returned, they at first refused, stating that it had beeen used in a crime.

Of course, I asked what crime.  He stole it after our friend was killed, and she was beat with nunchucks, not shot with a rifle.  They then told me that I was in possession of an illegal assault rifle, and if I did not pressuring them for it's return, they would prosecute me for entering California with an illegal and unregistered assault rifle.  Needless to say, I was shocked.

I then had a rather nasty DA show me the law which stated what an "Assault Rifle" was.  Here is that list:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php?PHPSESSID=0fe01c9e5a5d3276489987b31aee1afe

Now at the time, the word "Centerfire" was not in the wording, so it included rimfire weapons like mine.  And sure enough, my changes (which were purely cosmetic in nature) had turned my Ruger 10-22 into an "Assault Rifle".  It is like adding a spoiler and air dam to a Buick Station Wagon, and suddenly your insurance company deciding that it is now a "Sports Car".

Sadly, the majority of "Gun Control" laws are just like that.  They avoid the real issue (guns used in crimes), and go after the guns themselves.  And most of them are arbitrary in nature.  Take the "Saturday Night Special" laws.  These simply target low cost guns (the range varies from $250-500).  Ironically, Lorcin, Raven Arms, Bryco Arms, and many other companies that specialize in low cost guns are based in California.  Yet you can't buy their guns in California, since they are all "Saturday Night Specials".  And the law misses the point that most criminals that use guns to comit crimes like Robbery and drug dealers do not legally the guns they have in the first place.  They buy them from the black market illegally.

To me, it is like some state deciding that "Any car that sells new for under $10,000 is unsafe, and therefore illegal".  It is an arbitrary rule, which targets the new cost of the item, not the quality, safety, or the illegal use of the item.  And it is not to likely that you will see your local drug dealer walking into a gun store to buy his guns.  He gets them from a junkie who does burglary in exchange for a hit of crack.  Do you think he wants to give up his thumb print and take a background check (if he can even pass in the first place)?

That is why the NRA and most sportsmen oppose what is commonly passed off as "Gun Control" in this country.  Because the criminals are not going to follow those laws in the first place.  Instead, put some real teeth into crimes commited with guns.

It all depends on what you mean by "control".

Some groups hide under the name "Control", but in reality want nothing less that total abolition of handgund and the majority of other firearms.  Look at Hand Gun Contol Inc.  Then at the other end, you have the NRA.  They have mostly been in favor of a system like a drivers license, where a potential owner is pre-screened and given a license to buy guns and amunition.

I have been involved with guns for most of my life.  My grandfater and I went out shooting many times in the summer, and of course my experience in the military.  And one of my first jobs when I got out of the military was selling firearms.  In fact, it was my bosses requirement that we "screen" people who wanted to buy guns, and make sure that they were buying them for the right reason.

And this was in California, where the gun laws are really screwed up.  Back in 1990, I moved from North Carolina back to Cali, and brought my rifle with me.  It was nothing special, a Ruger 10-22 with a few modifications.  I added a composite folding stock with a pistol grip, so it would be easier to ajdust for my ex to shoot.  I also added a flash supressor, so if we were shooting prone, dirt would not be kicked up in our faces.

A year and a half later, the rifle was stollen by a former friend.  He was arrested in a rural area of Northern California, with my frifle in his possession.  Now at this time he had been on the run for 4 months, having beat another friend to death.  And when I petitioned to have my rifle returned, they at first refused, stating that it had beeen used in a crime.

Of course, I asked what crime.  He stole it after our friend was killed, and she was beat with nunchucks, not shot with a rifle.  They then told me that I was in possession of an illegal assault rifle, and if I did not pressuring them for it's return, they would prosecute me for entering California with an illegal and unregistered assault rifle.  Needless to say, I was shocked.

I then had a rather nasty DA show me the law which stated what an "Assault Rifle" was.  Here is that list:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php?PHPSESSID=0fe01c9e5a5d3276489987b31aee1afe

Now at the time, the word "Centerfire" was not in the wording, so it included rimfire weapons like mine.  And sure enough, my changes (which were purely cosmetic in nature) had turned my Ruger 10-22 into an "Assault Rifle".  It is like adding a spoiler and air dam to a Buick Station Wagon, and suddenly your insurance company deciding that it is now a "Sports Car".

Sadly, the majority of "Gun Control" laws are just like that.  They avoid the real issue (guns used in crimes), and go after the guns themselves.  And most of them are arbitrary in nature.  Take the "Saturday Night Special" laws.  These simply target low cost guns (the range varies from $250-500).  Ironically, Lorcin, Raven Arms, Bryco Arms, and many other companies that specialize in low cost guns are based in California.  Yet you can't buy their guns in California, since they are all "Saturday Night Specials".  And the law misses the point that most criminals that use guns to comit crimes like Robbery and drug dealers do not legally the guns they have in the first place.  They buy them from the black market illegally.

To me, it is like some state deciding that "Any car that sells new for under $10,000 is unsafe, and therefore illegal".  It is an arbitrary rule, which targets the new cost of the item, not the quality, safety, or the illegal use of the item.  And it is not to likely that you will see your local drug dealer walking into a gun store to buy his guns.  He gets them from a junkie who does burglary in exchange for a hit of crack.  Do you think he wants to give up his thumb print and take a background check (if he can even pass in the first place)?

That is why the NRA and most sportsmen oppose what is commonly passed off as "Gun Control" in this country.  Because the criminals are not going to follow those laws in the first place.  Instead, put some real teeth into crimes commited with guns.


Thank you much for your post, Mushroom. It's one of the best I've seen on this board.

Even though I don't think you were trying to be funny with this line, karma for making me laugh with "It is like adding a spoiler and air dam to a Buick Station Wagon, and suddenly your insurance company deciding that it is now a 'Sports Car'."


Isn't it more like "a small percentage of people irresponsible with guns, so let's do away with them all"?



My mistake for using the absolute "no one" when discussing politics. You are correct.


PS That's not a rifle, Jack, that's artillery


It's not. It has uses hunting big game from long distance, as well as competition target shooting. Since it is a single shot gun with the action part integral to the buttstock, it takes roughly a minute to reload and reposition for the next shot. A .22 rifle with a ten shot clip and a cheapy Tasco scope is far more a threat than that is, especially considering the price, weight and size of the Grizzly.

.50 cal is the largest rifle one can buy without going into class 2 weapons. There are numerous other large caliber rifles, such as the .460 Weatherby Magnum and .458 Winchester Magnum which are sold for big game hunting.

You can buy a .50 cal machine gun here if you have a clean record, 10k, can afford to shoot a thousand dollars worth of ammo a minute, and can lug around a 90lb firearm (IOW, not your average criminal). There are machine gun shoots at Knob Creek several times a year.

I find it somewhat amusing that Accuracy International LTD of England makes some of the best rifles in the world, including a .50 cal semi auto that is accurate to 2000+ yards, yet the citizens of England can't own one.

Thank you much for your post, Mushroom. It's one of the best I've seen on this board.

Even though I don't think you were trying to be funny with this line, karma for making me laugh with "It is like adding a spoiler and air dam to a Buick Station Wagon, and suddenly your insurance company deciding that it is now a 'Sports Car'."


It's the truth though, sad as it may sound.  And that is the form the majority of the "Gun Control" laws take.

I am all in favor of gun laws, and feel that people that violate them should be treated harshly.  Do a crime with a gun, life in jail.  Be a parolee with a gun, life in jail.  Buy or sell a gun illegally, go to jail for 10+ years.  Carry an illegal gun (concealed or Automatic Rifle), go to jail for 5+ years.

But that does not happen.  Criminalls still carry illegal guns, and you can still buy them at flea markets and yard sales across the country.  A drug dealer gets 3-5 years for selling drugs, but nothing for the 9mm pistol he has in his jacket pocket.  And the parolee sinply gets a "parole violation", and does an aditional 6 months for having a shotgun in his trunk.

What was the mistake the guy made?  Were you supposed to take the safety course, or was it just a clerical error?
???



Going off topic again. Today, they sent me ANOTHER fishing/hunting licence.  :o :o :o  So, I now have two.  ??? ??? ???  I think the F/W department doesn't quite know what they are doing.



Cat

To me, it is like some state deciding that "Any car that sells new for under $10,000 is unsafe, and therefore illegal".  It is an arbitrary rule, which targets the new cost of the item, not the quality, safety, or the illegal use of the item.  And it is not to likely that you will see your local drug dealer walking into a gun store to buy his guns.  He gets them from a junkie who does burglary in exchange for a hit of crack.  Do you think he wants to give up his thumb print and take a background check (if he can even pass in the first place)?

That is why the NRA and most sportsmen oppose what is commonly passed off as "Gun Control" in this country.  Because the criminals are not going to follow those laws in the first place.  Instead, put some real teeth into crimes commited with guns.


I could not agree more.  You're always hearing "guns don't kill, people kill," and it's true.  We are never going to curb gun violence in this country by taking away the guns.  We've got to get to the root of the problem and tackle poverty, drugs, gangs, and violence.  It's a lot easier to throw up a "gun control" banner than it is to deal with all of the underlying issues.  And like Davey said, if you really want to kill someone, you will find a way to do it.

I have been around guns my entire life.  I learned to shoot as a kid and my dad has a concealed weapons permit.  We were always taught about safety and proper use, and my dad's guns were always kept under lock and key.  It's not like they wander off at night and make themselves shoot people.  Yet some of the extreme gun control advocates would have you believe that they do.


Maybe I'm missing something here.  When I looked at Idaho and Utah county-by-county in the last three elections, they tended to go heavily Republican, sometimes overwhelmingly.  Oregon seemed to lean Republican outside of the Portland--Eugene axis.  Not arguing here, just asking, as you have actually lived in that region (or am I thinking of somebody else?).
???


I live in Utah and it is about as Republican as you can possibly get.  I can't speak for Idaho and Oregon, but I'm pretty sure that Idaho is pretty Republican as well.  Just saying...

^

That's what I said.  Ending drug prohibition would end a great deal of violence in our society.  Yes, legalized drugs would present new problems, but it would kick the legs out from under the drug crime syndicates.

People say, "Well, you can't have people buying heroin in the 7-11!"
Alright, we'll just keep it as it is: People buying heroin outside the 7-11!
:D

but if we eliminate guns to the peoples, it will be like the alchohal reccesion period, the peoples will go crazy and the mafia will benefit (by selling guns).

        that was sarcasm. and yeah, i know, there is no mafia. (pshhh... yeah right!)

Maybe I'm missing something here.  When I looked at Idaho and Utah county-by-county in the last three elections, they tended to go heavily Republican, sometimes overwhelmingly.  Oregon seemed to lean Republican outside of the Portland--Eugene axis.  Not arguing here, just asking, as you have actually lived in that region (or am I thinking of somebody else?).
???


It all depends on which level of "Election" you are talking about.

When it comes to the local and state level, all are heavily Democrat.  Mayors, state legislatures, and Governors are almost always controlled by the Democrats.  On the National Level, it tends to switch back and forth.  When it comes to elections for President or Senator, they tend to vote for "Conservative Democrats" if given a choice.

Most of the time, people tend to watch Presidential Elections when guaging the states, and that is a mistake.  Idaho may well vote for somebody like Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson, but they would not vote for somebody like Al Gore or Bill Clinton.  After all, we are talking about the "simple folk", who are more interested in family and church then they are in Gay Rights parades and Planned Parenthood.  Telling some farmer in Idaho or Utah (who is likely to be Mormon) why he should support abortion is not going to win any votes.  And in most rural areas of the nation, you actually see local candidates state they are opposed to the policies of the "National Democratic Party", because they know they would not be elected otherwise.

And Oregon goes more Democrat every year.  In fact, the last Republican Presidential Candidate to win Oregon was Ronald Reagan!  This area is frequently called the "Northern Bible Belt", and "Conservative Democrats" have a strong appeal.  It is only on a national level that they tend to go Republican, because of issues that are important to them which is diametrically opposed by the national candidates (gun control, drug legalization, smoking laws, abortion, gay marriage, etc).

yeah, i mean, i understand that people love and really want their guns, it's so entrenched there's just no dislodging it. but what's with one guy being able to pack so much firepower he can shoot SIXTY people... each MULTIPLE times! and he got all of this stuff with nothing but an "instant background check" -- he basically showed a driver's license, established he had no immediately traceable criminal record, and filled out a questionaire that basically amounted to, "you're not going to go on a killing spree, are you? circle yes or no."

i mean, with even a 7-day background check i bet the fact this guy was a nut would have come out. from what i'm reading, you really couldn't even deal with him for more than a few minutes without it being obvious there was something seriously off with him. this system is totally, totally not functional.

I spend a lot of time around undergrads.  Today's college seniors are about as mature as I remember my 9th grade classmates being back in the '80s.  A lot of them are functionally illiterate too.  You should hear the way the read the nooz on the college radio station!



I agree. Somehow the credentials to get into college nowadays are frightfully lowered than previous generations.

yeah, i mean, i understand that people love and really want their guns, it's so entrenched there's just no dislodging it. but what's with one guy being able to pack so much firepower he can shoot SIXTY people... each MULTIPLE times! and he got all of this stuff with nothing but an "instant background check" -- he basically showed a driver's license, established he had no immediately traceable criminal record, and filled out a questionaire that basically amounted to, "you're not going to go on a killing spree, are you? circle yes or no."

i mean, with even a 7-day background check i bet the fact this guy was a nut would have come out. from what i'm reading, you really couldn't even deal with him for more than a few minutes without it being obvious there was something seriously off with him. this system is totally, totally not functional.

I heard the NRA is a powerful lobby in Virginia and has successfully pressured the legislature out of adopting several ownership restrictions and background check procedures.  I'd have to go a-fishin' for these citations.  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Definitely.  And a lot of comfort that brings to the families of those 32 murdered individuals.  Given a little more firepower, time, and a bigger crowd, Cho might have killed sixty people and wounded 120!  That's certainly in the realm of possibility.  What about the next Cho?
:o

I heard the NRA is a powerful lobby in Virginia and has successfully pressured the legislature out of adopting several ownership restrictions and background check procedures.  I'd have to go a-fishin' for these citations.  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Definitely.  And a lot of comfort that brings to the families of those 32 murdered individuals.  Given a little more firepower, time, and a bigger crowd, Cho might have killed sixty people and wounded 120!  That's certainly in the realm of possibility.  What about the next Cho?
:o
we've got concealed carry just about everywhere (universities is one of the exceptions, which they had a guy from the council for gun ownership, or whatever that's called, and he really fixated on that, like, the reason this happened is that virginia's gun laws, though, lax, aren't lax enough), instant background check, meaning they have to do whatever background check they can do on you while you're standing there, or else they're violating your second-amendment rights. i dunno, that's my understanding of it.

i think texas's laws are a little more lenient. therefore, they're had slightly more shooting sprees than we have. personally, if people wanna own guns, i don't care. i'm sorta conflicted about it, some days i'd like to own a gun. but, like, a cool revolver. if i ever decided to go on a shooting spree i could only kill six people max with a revolver before i got eaten alive. i'm not trying to be flip. i honestly understand the second amendment on some level, my family on both sides have always owned guns. not my parents but my grandparents and my aunt and her kids, they all had guns. honestly, i like guns. i feel about them the way i feel about fast cars.

but the family has never owned rapidly reloading semiautomatic pistols. if you're gonna be handing out 15-clip fast-reloading glocks to anyone capable of lying on a federal questionnaire, you might as well let street vendors give uzis away free.

we've got concealed carry just about everywhere (universities is one of the exceptions, which they had a guy from the council for gun ownership, or whatever that's called, and he really fixated on that, like, the reason this happened is that virginia's gun laws, though, lax, aren't lax enough), instant background check, meaning they have to do whatever background check they can do on you while you're standing there, or else they're violating your second-amendment rights. i dunno, that's my understanding of it.

i think texas's laws are a little more lenient. therefore, they're had slightly more shooting sprees than we have. personally, if people wanna own guns, i don't care. i'm sorta conflicted about it, some days i'd like to own a gun. but, like, a cool revolver. if i ever decided to go on a shooting spree i could only kill six people max with a revolver before i got eaten alive. i'm not trying to be flip. i honestly understand the second amendment on some level, my family on both sides have always owned guns. not my parents but my grandparents and my aunt and her kids, they all had guns. honestly, i like guns. i feel about them the way i feel about fast cars.

but the family has never owned rapidly reloading semiautomatic pistols. if you're gonna be handing out 15-clip fast-reloading glocks to anyone capable of lying on a federal questionnaire, you might as well let street vendors give uzis away free.

I just don't get these guys who think Hustler is more dangerous to decent society than automatic assault weapons!
::)

okay, so, i don't mean to get all sick on all y'all, but i like...

http://www.korabrno.cz/38-1.jpg

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/images/2005files/Ruger_Redhawk_357Mag01a.jpg

http://www.precisionrifles.com/Full%20Classic%20Rifle.jpg

when i was a kid my grandfather had one of these

http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/grko/exb/OpenRange/OpportunityRisk/grko474_rifle.jpg

and a really really old shotgun, i can't remember the make or anything but it had one of these jobbers...

http://www.fototime.com/E3BF5BD0DE8AA51/standard.jpg

you know the ones i mean, they had it in the movies. my uncle had some pistols too. but here's the difference, here's what that asswipe from virginia tech had...

okay, weirdly, i'm having a hell of a time finding the pictures of the guns he used. but i saw a picture of them and they have these triggers that are really tight to the front of the handle, they're technically "semiautomatics" but if you can fire them as fast as you can pull that trigger you can fire them i figure about as fast as you can fire an automatic weapon, as long as you're capable of wagging your finger. and i believe you can reload the clips on them superfast, particularly if you sit around and practice with em the way travis bickle did.

i mean, these are not guns the way normal people think of guns. whenever they interview NRA guys on the air they say, look, outlaw these kind of guns and then why don't we outlaw cars, since cars kill people too? but outlawing guns like the glock is like outlawing cars that spew oil slicks and have ejector seats. it's ridiculous.

okay, i'm postwhoring on this now. but obviously since the whole virginia tech thing went down i've been brooding on it a tad and i thought this was interesting. the headline is inflammatory because it's from a guy who self-identifies as being liberal in nature, but i think it gets to some interesting points if you read it. one is that the rules that apply to the "heartland" -- where population density can be like, single- or double-digit per square mile -- can't apply to cities where people are packed in like lemmings. and then there's the bit about, what thoughts about guns and gun ownership do you hand down from one generation to the next? is it going to be about the guns i cited above, that my families had? or is it going to be about the rapid-fire, rapid-reload glocks, which until the NRA got their sick little hands all over were the sorts of things you could only get illegally on the streets?

you know what i mean? yes, there's a "gun culture" in america and once upon a time it was far from being all bad, but the NRA, in its fanatical overreaching, is taking the illegal, contraband gun culture and making it something readily available in every corner gun store and pawn shop. in the process it's subverting a genuine, generational culture that once upon a time made a lot more sense.

***

WHY MORE GUN CONTROL WON'T HELP

- Gun prohibition has much the same effect as drug or alcohol
prohibition. It would increase the price but not limit the
availability of guns for those who really want them. One of the
effects, for example, of banning cigarettes in prisons is to create a
booming trade in contraband tobacco.

- Within a few years of DC passing a gun control law so stringent
that it was recently ruled in violation of the Second Amendment, the
war on drugs was launched by Ronald Reagan. In the years that
immediately followed the murder rate doubled despite the gun law.

- The killer was mentally deranged and driven enough to have easily
obtained a gun even if there were gun prohibition.

- Since 1993 the U.S. handgun murder rate has decreased 48 percent
while the number of privately owned handguns in America has increased
by more than 20 million

- Culture is a far more important factor in violence that gun
ownership. There are more guns per-capita in Maine than in any other
state save possibly Alaska. About 50,000 Mainers have permits to
carry concealed weapons. Yet Maine has a crime rate one-third below
the national average. Maine has one or two fatal gun accidents a
year, lower than the death rate for snowmobiling or boating. These
figures -- which reflect those of certain high gun-ownership
countries such as Sweden, Norway and Switzerland -- suggest that the
culture of a society affects the problems caused by guns more than
the guns themselves. Introduce guns to an inherently violent
community and you'll get more violence. Introduce guns to an
inherently lawful society and the crime rate drops. In 2004 the
South, on the other hand, had a murder rate 57% higher than the
Northeast.

- Forty-six percent of all those dying of gunshots in 1997 were
between the ages of 15 and 34. Presumably guns work mechanically the
same way for this age group as they do for others, thus something
other that safety would appear to be involved.

- Treating gun laws as a national issue exacerbates cultural
conflict, such as those between rural and urban, east and west,
wealthy and not so well off. Telling rural Westerners to get rid of
their guns is like telling urban blacks to stop reading
African-American books.

- John R. Lott has pointed out that "less than one out every thousand
times people use guns defensively is the attacker killed.
Ninety-eight percent of the time, simply being able to brandish a gun
is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack and the two
percent of the time when guns are fired, the vast majority of those
are warning shots. It's something like less than one-half-of-one
percent of the time is the gun fired in the direction of the
attacker. Even when they do hit, woundings are much more frequent
than times when the attacker is killed."

- A Justice Department stud, conducted from 1993-1995 tracked 4,000
boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY.
According to the study:

Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes
(0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so
(21%).

Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind
of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house
(24%) and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who
acquire an illegal gun (74%).

Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%)
than children who get illegal guns (41%).

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and
drug use and are even slightly less
delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported.

- The Columbine killers violated at least 17 existing state and
federal weapons control laws.

- In 1997 it was reported that Americans use guns defensively around
2 million times each year, five times more frequently than the
430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes that same year. And 98
percent of the time, simply brandishing the weapon is sufficient to
stop an attack.

MORE ON GUNS
http://prorev.com./guns.htm

|||