A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

In one of the two F-9/11 threads we seemed to be wandering off into the subject of gun control. Instead of letting that continue OT, I thought it might be better to bring the Gun Control issue over into a new thread.I personally believe that Gun Control is both pointless and counter productive. I realize that others disagree. I would like to open this to discussion of either point of view but with the hope that it can be kept civil. I would also like to suggest that the number of claims in any one post be limited to a single point and that we try to stick with that one point until it is resolved before moving to other allegations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, in the spirit laid out in the Op, can we address as the first issue?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

was the California study. Basically it determined that it would be unlikely to help much. California StudyIf it were implemented though, would the people most likely to commit crimes simply change the balistics?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We are using the term Balistic as it is applied to the actual studies and databases. It is what the producers of the concept chose, not a term we chose.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course.Language is dynamic. Words take on new meaning and old meanings drop by the wayside. That is how language evolves.In the link I posted and in the Legislation being discussed the term that is being used is Ballistics and so we need to use the same terms for clarity.It's similar to folk that jumped on me about my using clips for my 45acps. In my case, it was necessary to use the term clips for clarity and understanding. So, in this case, the term Ballistics is the appropriate term.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe we can get to the 2nd next but for the moment can we stick to the idea of whether a National Ballistic Database would be of value?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's stay on the database issue for a little bit longer since we have yet to hear from any supporters of the idea. Then we can move on to the next issue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In the US, the frame is the gun when it comes to handguns. In rifles, the reciever is the gun, IIRC.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, one of the big points for the Second Amendment was to assure that the people WOULD have the capability to become a rebel army if needed. This was and remained a major point at least until very recently. For example, consider this quotation from Mr. Liberal and one time US Vice-President and Presidential candidate, Hubert Humphrey... And to show that this was also the intent when the Bill of Rights was written, please consider this quotation from Thomas Jefferson...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes I believe we can agree that the Framers were not idiots. I am not certain that the Rebel Army would protect us. But I also believe that it must be available as an option of last resort. That is your interpretation. What was written by the founding fathers, and by others from both the liberal and conservative wings show that is not the only reasonable interpretation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't have a problem with training and would support a mandatory firearms training for 100% of the population. I'd even include and exemption from part of the training (for example from live fire) for those who object on religious, philosphical or moral grounds.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When I was growing up, guns in the US were pervasive. Almost every livingroom had its gun rack and almost every household had guns.I remember my first experience with guns. Dad came home from WWII and a 1911, a couple P-38s and a rifle followed him home. As a kid, I was of course fascinated by them. Dad would get them out and clean them regularly and would let me watch. He told me that once I learned how to take care of them, learned gun safety and could demonstrate what I had learned, he would take me shooting.When I was in the second or third grade (still during the Show and Tell part of education) I remember taking my Dad's 1911 to school. I stood in front of the class with that big old slab-side and explained the rules of gun safety to the other kids. Then the teacher passed the gun around and each kid got to feel how heavy it was, point out the safety features and answer a question on gun safety.The teacher was so impressed that she had me give the same show and tell to several other classes.I carted that heavy old 1911 around most of the morning until it got so heavy I asked the teacher to put it in her drawer until time to go home.The point is that at that period, guns, although pervasive, were not much of a risk. There was a body of great teachers, parents returning from the war, hunting was a normal pastime, and gun safety and respect were taught as part of growing up. They were the norm.Everyone knew that you did not touch a gun without first getting permission, and that as a child, you did not use a gun without adult supervision. Even though there were unlocked, in many cases loaded guns, freely available in most any house, I cannot remember a single case of a kid using a real gun in play.Real guns were not toys. They were respected. Toy guns were toys. Two different things.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, I would feel confident that there were a bunch of households with guns when I was growing up. It is apoint that certainly can be challenged and one I will admit that I cannot defend.But it was certainly nor unusual.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, as I said, I cannot defend that. It is, as I said, a belief. But I can say that few of the many hundreds of homes I visited were without guns.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's try to deal with your issues.First what is an assault weapon?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion