Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[SgtSpiderMan]

So you think private citizens should have access to the FBI computers.

Why would they need it?

 

[about_average]

Well, I’m not sure I would call it the best way, but I think improving education and technology is a good approach to the abortion issue. I have nothing against self-defense classes or physical fitness training, and I think it goes without saying that anyone who owns a firearm should be properly trained. However, I have difficulty accepting any form of civilian gun training as adequate preparation for a volatile situation involving guns. Police officers are trained, supervised, restricted by rules and regulations, and subjected to mental and physical evaluations. Yet, they have been shot, wounded, and disarmed in the line of duty. They have also abused their authority, committed crimes, and accidentally injured and killed innocent bystanders, as well as other officers. My point is that guns are cheap, efficient lethal weapons, which indiscriminately turn accidents, hostile acts, and good intentions into deadly encounters with minimal effort on the part of all involved.

Actually there is good civilian training available, including performing well in stressful situations.
This should appeal to you, there is technology available that will prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than the owner. However this has some bad points also.

I tell her, “At least your assailants did not steal your gun when they grabbed your purse and attacked you from behind. At least you are still alive, along with everyone else who crossed paths with the rapists you would have unwittingly armed. At least you do not have any deaths, intended or otherwise, on your conscience.”

A well trained gun owner is very unlikely to be taken by surprise. As for her gun being taken from her and her being shot, see above. In any case, if they are willing to kill her with her gun, do you think they really aren't clever enough to kill her some other way?

I am not willing to sacrifice anyone’s life and that’s my problem. Guns kill more readily than they protect. The defender is always at a disadvantage, because he/she does not really want to hurt anyone. The attacker has no such compunction.

Again, to Loganville, she seems to have handled herself quite well. Her's and her kids would very likely have been sacrificed since there was no reason for him to be going after them other than to do harm.
Where's your data on how many times guns protect people? Certainly not from the news, they rarely report when a life has been saved (or crime prevented) with a gun, even though it happens quite often.
The media is much more interested in reporting when someone uses one in a crime.
I huge reduction in gun related deaths would occur by the elimination of the war on drugs and legalizing drug use. But it's our country's position to actually encourage killing rather than trying to stop it.

Who’s taking away her ability to defend herself? I’m simply asking her to be a little more creative.

What creativity would you suggest when unable to escape your house and hiding with your kids in a crawl space, which was as much distance and difficulty as she could get between them and their attacker who was armed with a wrecking bar?

Further on the media, and sensational killings, the media needs to make those killers nobodies. No reporting of name or publishing of the killer's photos.

 

[koalabear]

Why would they need it?

Why wouldn't they need that?

 

[about_average]

We need registration to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Huh? And how, exactly, is registration going to prevent a criminal from getting a gun. They are criminals remember, they don't care about the law.

 

[about_average]

I'm guessing your changing the topic means there is no law that prohibits one private citizen from selling to another.

I don't know about all states, but I'm pretty sure in Georgia if an individual sells a gun to another who is not legally allowed to own a gun, there are rather stiff penalties.

 

[about_average]

I'm not morally/politically/ethically against gun registration, I just think it's making shit harder and more complicated than it needs to be.

Pretty much only privately sold guns are the only ones that aren't registered. Any gun sold via FFL has the gun and owner information linked and so is "registered".

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Why wouldn't they need that?

It's your claim. You tell me.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't know about all states, but I'm pretty sure in Georgia if an individual sells a gun to another who is not legally allowed to own a gun, there are rather stiff penalties.

I haven't checked each individual state but I would wager heavily that no such law exists.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Huh? And how, exactly, is registration going to prevent a criminal from getting a gun. They are criminals remember, they don't care about the law.

You're right, but the law abiding follow the law.

 

[koalabear]

I haven't checked each individual state but I would wager heavily that no such law exists.

You would lose, but then you are most likely used to losing in your life.

 

[koalabear]

It's your claim. You tell me.

You tell me, it's your idea.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You would lose, but then you are most likely used to losing in your life.

I'll wait on you to prove such a law exists.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You tell me, it's your idea.

No it's not. I've never advocated for private citizens to have access to FBI files.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

We need registration to prevent criminals from getting guns.

The only thing registration does is let our government know who legally owns a gun and the $5 permit fee probably gets pocketed. Guns can be bought on the black market a lot quicker.

 

[koalabear]

Private citizens also need to do background checks.

No it's not. I've never advocated for private citizens to have access to FBI files.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That doesn't mean they would have access to the files. Not even close. Keep trying.

 

[koalabear]

That doesn't mean they would have access to the files. Not even close. Keep trying.

It just shows how stupid you are. Without access how can they do a proper background check? Keep trying.

 

[koalabear]

Government should have nothing to do with how I dispose of my private property, only in it's mis-use. Who's property is it, mine or theirs?

Did a private face to face trade the other day. Of course I was wearing a disguise. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn233/koalabear_photo/MSN-Emoticon-supersmiley-201.gif

 

[cjh]

Government should have nothing to do with how I dispose of my private property, only in it's mis-use. Who's property is it, mine or theirs?

Assuming your premise is true, it still has an interest in ensuring that your firearms are sold to people other than violent felons, terrorists, and the mentally ill. There's nothing wrong with requiring purchaser background checks to promote that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It just shows how stupid you are. Without access how can they do a proper background check? Keep trying.

Lob all the personal attacks you can in an effort to divert attention from the fact that you're wrong.

Pay the FBI or a 3rd party to do the legwork. The private citizen would never see the file just know if the sale could continue.

 

[koalabear]

I think I saw you but I didn't want to blow your cover:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7062/6932990728_090cefb223_z.jpg

I saw you! I just thought you were a palm tree in the wrong State.

 

[koalabear]

Lob all the personal attacks you can in an effort to divert attention from the fact that you're wrong.

Pay the FBI or a 3rd party to do the legwork. The private citizen would never see the file just know if the sale could continue.

No personal attack, you know you are stupid, so does everyone on Lit. What you want is already in place.

 

[unregistered]