|
|
| Author |
Message |
omni
|
|
Guns for rewards?
| 
Apr 4 20:33 UTC 1994 |
Do you support giving people rewards for giving up thier guns?
Is this a cheap and backhanded method to abolishing the 2nd Amendment?
Thoughts, please
|
| 21 responses total. |
jdg
|
|
response 1 of 21:
|
Apr 4 22:16 UTC 1994 |
If you follow the pro-gun "crowd" on talk.politics.guns, Jim, you'll see
many who advocate buying $35.00 zinc handguns, and turning them in for
$100 gift certificates.
It certainly is an avenue for people who have "grandpa's gun" lying around
the house to dispose of something they have no training to own or
operate safely. If that prevents negligent discharge, and all the horrors
NDs can produce, then it's a very good thing.
There are negatives: the "no-questions-asked" return policies may allow
for criminal evidence disposal, some very valuable firearms (pre-'64
Win M70s, for example) may be destroyed.
I don't believe it has any 2nd amendment impact; these are voluntary
firearm disposals.
|
hawkeye
|
|
response 2 of 21:
|
Apr 5 13:09 UTC 1994 |
Exactly.
|
aweiss
|
|
response 3 of 21:
|
Apr 7 07:18 UTC 1994 |
A gun off the street is a gun off the street, period. No one has been
killed,
to my knowledge, by a melted, crushed, gun that has been re-cast into something
useful. A $35 zinc gun may not be worth a $100 gift certificate, but at least
it's not going to kill anyone.
|
tnt
|
|
response 4 of 21:
|
Apr 7 20:02 UTC 1994 |
No one has been killed, to my knowledge, by a gun which fired completely on
its own, free of any direct or indirect, intentional or ignorant contributions
by a human.
So let's melt down or crush all the humans, & let the guns live in
peace, without any fear that a human is going to cause it to fire a bullet.
|
srw
|
|
response 5 of 21:
|
Apr 8 06:21 UTC 1994 |
Boy, an argument like that will cause one to rush to embrace aweiss's POV.
Hmm, looking through the sarcasm, I guess that was tnt's intention.
|
tnt
|
|
response 6 of 21:
|
Apr 9 01:19 UTC 1994 |
How many of you are FOR stricter gun control, due to the abuse/misuse by
the minority of abusers, but are AGAINST the prohibition of liquor?
|
omni
|
|
response 7 of 21:
|
Apr 9 20:58 UTC 1994 |
Things like liquor or cigarettes cannot be banned. Banning an item only
creates a black market for these, because, people, being what they are
cannot live with "forbidden" items. If you doubt me, read the book of
Genisis, about Eve and the apple.
|
klg
|
|
response 8 of 21:
|
Apr 10 03:19 UTC 1994 |
Just so happens I saw a TV news show which claimed that faulty firearms
have in fact discharged on their own, killing their "competent" owners.
NPRR also claims that the NRA has blocked attempts to put guns under the
purview of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, thus allowing
weapons known to be faulty to continue to be sold in this country."-"
|
tnt
|
|
response 9 of 21:
|
Apr 11 03:46 UTC 1994 |
So, the "competent owners" were either pointing their loaded firearm
at a critical part of their body, or perhaps they were properly handling
the firearm, but when they tried to fire it at the intended target, the
round did a 180-degree turn a few feet beyond the barrell.
|
hawkeye
|
|
response 10 of 21:
|
Apr 11 14:18 UTC 1994 |
They discharge "on their own", when dropped. They do *not* discharge
spontaniously...
|
jdg
|
|
response 11 of 21:
|
Apr 11 19:19 UTC 1994 |
Well, you can play handball with my pistol and it won't discharge when
struck. This particular model has been dropped from towers, thrown out
of speeding cars, and not discharged. However, there have been many
"accidental" discharges of this brand by police, mainly from improper
training combined with sloppy habits and serious brain fade.
My rifle and shotgun also have simlar safety systems; they are too big to
play handball with, though.
|
jason242
|
|
response 12 of 21:
|
Apr 14 20:04 UTC 1994 |
I believe the NRA is against any controls being placed on guns because they
know that once one is in place, it tends to expand rapidly. I would be
pleased to see the money going toward gun control to be diverted toward
training. That way the NRA could also spend those lobby dollars on training.
If you look at countries where each citizen is part of the army, and thus
has a gun (Sweden and Switzerland come to mind), you will see a fully armed
country trained in the use of their weapons with very low crime rates. I think
crime has no relation to the number of guns on the streets, but is rather
related to firearm training.
|
jdg
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Apr 14 22:54 UTC 1994 |
Jason, I have to disagree with your last statement. Crime and firearm
training a causal relationship? Nah.
I do think that there are far too many negligent discharges, and wrongful
deaths. The NRA *does* train; right here in Michigan, State Senator
Pollack just introduced several new gun control measures this week, including
one that *requires* an NRA training course for firearms owners.
|
jdg
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Apr 14 22:56 UTC 1994 |
That doesn't mean I agree with the proposed legislation; I've got other
problems with it, but this one item I think is a *good* idea.
|
jason242
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Apr 15 23:37 UTC 1994 |
please explain how you disagree. It seems to me that when a person is
trained to use guns, his respect for them goes up, and he is more likely to
use them in a purely responsible manner. Gun training is good, but forcing
it is very bad. Whenever the gov't steps in and *mandates* something,
they are regulating it, this is bad!!!
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Apr 16 07:14 UTC 1994 |
There is also the fact that it will only apply to people who *legally* obtain
their guns, so those who might be most positively affected will be untouched
by such legislation.
|
jdg
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
Apr 16 19:51 UTC 1994 |
Jason, I just can't see how training someone in safe operation of a
dangerous tool is going to have an impact on their ethics.
It would likely reduce negligent discharges, I doubt it would stop the
number of homicides or armed robberies. Respect for the tool is one thing,
respect for yourself and others is entirely another.
I disagree with Pollack's bill 04188.93: Assault Weapon Ban, because it
creates an "Assault Weapons Board" with no oversight and with the ability to
ban anything at all without restriction. I also disagree with bill 04186.93:
Firearms licensing with full fingerprinting, mandatory training and a 10 day
waiting period. This one requires saftey training, as mentioned above, but
goes beyond the thumbprint now in use. The 10-day waiting period I find
superfluous, as finding a certified instructor and taking a class will
surely take longer. How much does the FBI charge for a full fingerprint
scan? Right now, registration in Michigan is one of the 11 tightest in
the U.S. This bill, if passed unchanged, may place an undue burden on
local PDs, the FBI, and the public, without any impact on crime; similar
legislation had no impact on crime in California, New Jersey, New York,
and Illinois.
Lastly, Bill 04185.93b: Pretrial Release, looks like it might violate
the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, as it is written; it could be
interpreted as seizing property without due process.
Lana Pollack is running for U.S. Senate; if nothing else, these bills
will certainly keep her name in the news for months to come.
|
jason242
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Apr 16 20:14 UTC 1994 |
First of all thanx for actually citing bill nubers, thats very helpful.
re-gun training
I think that by training people in the use of guns invcreases their repect
of the weapon, and then when faced in an extreme situation (anger, fear, etc)
they would be less likely to use the gun, because they KNOW what guns do.
I believe the untrained person cannot equate muder, death, and the gun they
are holding at the moment of truth. It all comes down to instincts, if we
can develop respect for the weapon then in all likelyhood it would not be used
in passion. Ever see someone shoot a large caliber pistol for the first time?
They are always shocked by the noise, recoil, power, etc. I bet a lot of
murderers a also shocked, or at least are not able to realize what they are
doing. The government is intruding on our rights with gun control. They
are telling us that since some people are irresponsible with guns that they
are taking them away from us. Kinda like a few people are spoiling the
whole party. I also wonder how many politicians really have feelings
one way or the other. It seems like they all just draw straws and take
sides.
|
b
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Jun 17 08:45 UTC 1994 |
Jason, I agree about the politicians not really caring one way or the
other on gun control. They would jump ship if the polls showed people
were worried about the Government disarming them in the name of stopping
crime. I don't think the Gov. is worried about crime either, just the
control of gun owners.
|
torped
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Jul 12 10:58 UTC 1994 |
very well said guys,
all the gun control they can come up with is not going to keep guns off of
someone. I the folks on the hill think this is going to go away by trying to
ride the fence. What do they think we were founded on?
|
mcpoz
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Apr 30 12:58 UTC 1995 |
A fellow I work with told me this story about guns. I'll try to get the
details right, but this is all second hand info:
The law says ammo clips of more than a certain number of rounds (9?) are
illegal to sell new except to Law Enforcement. The old large clips are
ok to sell, though. This has resulted in a VERY high price paid for used
large clips.
A gun company (I believe it is spelled GLOCK) is offering Law Enforcement
organizations a NEW Glock with large clip (ie: legal to the law enforcement)
totally free of charge, for a trade in of the old gun and clip (note: there
may be 2 clips per gun, both old and new). The motive for the offer is to
get the large clips which are used and legal to sell to the general public
at a monster price.
Supposedly the law enforcement organizations are going for this "deal" in
a big way, thereby putting more of the large clips on the street. The law
that limited the clip size is (allegedly) driving this trade.
Does anyone know any more details about this? Is it substantially true?
If so, what pro/con comments do you have?
|
