Bossy, on Jun 3 2003, 01:53 PM, said:
I have no problems with waiting periods and registering guns. Responsible gun owners have nothing to hide. I think these things simply make it a bit harder for criminals to obtain guns. They also prevent people from obtaining one in a moment of rage.
A question to ponder... If owning guns is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, in the same manner as freedom of speech and religion, why aren't there waiting periods and registration to go to church or give a speech?
I'm against totally banning private ownership of guns however. People, such as this man, who wish to use them for protection, hunters, and sportsmen, would be denied a Constitutional right, but criminals would still be able to obtain firearms. You know very well they aren't getting most of them legally.
Indeed. Most of the illegal guns out there are obtained illegally, either from smugglers or thieves or by other means.
I think that the answer to concerns about the safety of having guns in the home, preventing children from getting them and things like that, it education. People who own guns need to learn to respect them and handle them safely. We always had guns in our home when we were growing up. My father, however, was adamant about us learning proper safety and being properly supervised anytime we handled them.
Agreed 100%. I was 5 or 6 when I first learned how to shoot. My dad and several of my buddy's dads took us to a Boy Scout range while we were on a youth group retreat. Taught us handling and safety, then we each put 50 or so rounds downrange. And later, when I was old enough, I took a formal class on proper handling. Personally, I think basic firearms safety should be taught in schools to everyone. But that's just me.
CJ: The problem here Rov is the laws in many areas that are strongly anti-gun will go after you if you shoot to wound. They have the laws written so that a firearm may only be discharged in self-defense if you feel that there is imminent threat to your life. Then these areas argue that if you are shooting to wound the threat wasn’t severe enough to your life to even warrant the use of the firearm. So then they’ll have you up on charges looking for a conviction.
The key phrase is California is "shoot to stop the attack". If that means the attacker dies, then so be it. But you're right. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound". Most of the issues with varying degrees of force are left with peace officers, but due to the legal environment today, a "civilian" doesn't have that option.
Also, I think the exact phrase in California law is "immediate danger of life or limb", and it's worded in such a way as to be ambiguous as to whether you can discharge a firearm in defense of your family as opposed to only yourself. In this case, though, "I'm going to get you" would be enough, IMO, to warrant deadly force.
Glock!?!?! *TWITCH* Good thing it didn't explode on him....
Nah, it was a 9mm. Most of the problems come from the .40S&W.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to preserve our freedom."
--General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF