chatillion 71M
3062 posts
7/2/2016 3:49 pm
Gun control...

Yeah, that's a topic I stay clear of.

You find people always passionate about discussing control. Either for or against and very little in the middle.

I once worked a woman who lived in fear that Obama was coming to take her guns away!
Yes... not sure if he was aboard a helicopter or traveling in a big SUV with tinted windows, but she was sure he was coming soon!

Sure, I've heard nearly all the reasons for or against and there is no real solution... however I did read one comment to a blog (on another site) that actually had a good idea. Let's all agree we need to keep the government out of this... right?

Here's the background to the comment...
if you want to drive a car, you are required to have insurance.
If you want to have pitbulls as pets, you are required to have insurance.
(I know that's true in the county I live in and could be different elsewhere)
if you want to keep leopards on your 50 acre reserve, you are required to have insurance.

If you want a gun, you would then be required to have insurance. Take the government out of the equation and make the insurance company do the necessary background investigations. Because, if they allow the wrong person to have a gun used in a crime, it falls back on the responsibility of the insurance company. Make them accountable and... make them pay for the damage caused.

Yes, I know it's just a rough idea...
Not a perfect solution, but there isn't a perfect solution available...


beyondfantasy3 112M
4740 posts
7/2/2016 5:24 pm

People are more crazy than ever, and people will take another life in this day and age over the simplest of things. RESPONSIBILITY!!!! the key to gun ownership.
It is not a toy, people who take them out to toy around with them or show them off can be a problem and many people have died as a result of such.
I don't show mine off to people, its not their business to need to see it.

I'm not interested to be "a casualty of some nut case" for the lack of having one when its needed.

chatillion 71M
1563 posts
7/2/2016 9:43 pm

Wis, you failed to understand my blog...

beyondfantasy3 112M
4740 posts
7/3/2016 12:33 pm

I will go further and say, "No Person" needs an assault weapon!!!! UNLESS they are issued one by the Military for use while in the Military in a Military Assigned Position to need such, or as a Officer of the Law.

(We would not have so much Assault Weapon Driven Terrorism, if these things were the norm across the globe). Many of those terrorist killers are not so brave to band together when they have no weapons of assault design or materials to make mass killing an option.

The people who are fanatical about guns may need to re-consider their focused investment in such. There is no need to fawn over any gun, it is simply a tool when needed for the protection of self, or those who hunt for wild game as food. I am not a supporter of "sport hunting".

As to insurance, it can be a useful benefit to require, but the above should be adhered to as first principle.

chatillion 71M
1563 posts
7/3/2016 1:30 pm

So this blog doesn't go astray, keep it simple. Less government intervention and responsible agents to deal with background check.

woaini1947 60M
3973 posts
7/5/2016 9:54 am

I do have firearms locked in a heavy duty steel case with the only key on my person at all times. None of my grandchildren have ever seen any of my guns. I agree that assault weapons have no place in the household as they serve no purpose in non-military situations. Most gun owners who have guns such as the AR-15, do not own an assault rifle. If you are unable to switch the rifle from semi-automatic to fully automatic operation, it is not an assault rifle. What causes the problem is the high capacity magazines, sometimes holding thirty or more rounds. One of the reasons no foreign government has givens serious consideration to mounting a ground attack against us is that, on average, every household in America has at least one gun. In California we have very strict laws that mandate the proper procedure for purchasing a firearm which includes a criminal background check, etc. I believe that any person who uses a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime should be executed. The reason I say this is that if the perpetrator of a crime has no intention of harming a victim, why does he load the gun? Most victims will give up their property to someone pointing a 9mm at them without asking the criminal if there are any bullets in the clip. The other problem as I see it, is that no human being should have the right to have the power of life or death over another person. If you decide to use deadly force to defend yourself, a family member or your property, will the perpetrator hand over his weapon or will he fire it? If a person wants to kill you, he/she will find a way other than using a firearm if necessary.

Look at these facts:
An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before his or her first arrest.
One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetime.
50 to 75% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.
Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens and one out of three of those is alcohol related

Why don't we ban alcohol or make it a criminal offense for anyone with a DUI on their record, to buy alcohol? In the U.S.,a drunk driver kills one person 53 minutes. I am not concerned about some stranger shooting me even though I realize it does happen. What does concern me is all of the traffic accidents that are caused by some drunk. Besides, if you can't get the guns back from the criminals and you refuse to execute that trash, why disarm a law-abiding citizen? The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms but alcohol consumption is not mentioned. I'll give up my guns when I can be assured that the criminals will no longer have them as well.