Gun ban in my state

Post Reply New Topic

where is the NRA on this?

I'm glad I don't live in Oregon. I feel for you.

I've lived without a gun for 57 years. I know I could live for 57 more years without a gun.

I am a pacifist Quaker. My husband is red-neck ex-military and hunter. For some reason, we get along and have had a variety of discussions on this topic (over many years) and what is interesting (to me) is that we have both come to appreciate some aspects of the other side's arguments. He has come to see that probably the dearth of research on gun safety (caused by the laws restricting funding and CDC research) is preventing movement toward a sensible solution to gun violence. It is nuts to make this change or that change (like the banning sly is talking out) when we don't know the benefit or lack thereof. I have come to realize two things: I am safe in this country because other people with guns have fought and died for our nation, and that when a people have no access to firearms, but the military does, the people are not free (think Iran.) Not to be too Quakerly about it, but probably mindful listening and exchange of underlying interests (rather than fight about the position papers) might be more useful. Not likely, I realize.

I agree with the "Quaker" approach myself. And listening to different viewpoints.

I am not for taking guns away from people. I feel similar to BlazingStar---objective research into gun safety should be undertaken.

I tend to feel that this Oregon thing will not be passed---or might be passed with less stringent aspects.

It bothers me that people feel they must have guns to feel safe.

Obviously in a combat situation, having a weapon is advantageous. I'm talking about someone living in America. Statistically you're more likely to get hit by a car on the way to the gun range than you are to be killed by a home invader where your gun would protect you. Also, having one if you live in a bad neighborhood or out in the country is a different story too.

Magazine limits aren't going to do anything other than make it so only criminals have them.

And you're trained in the use of firearms. Most people who get guns don't know what they're doing because they don't bother to learn proper safety. Ask anyone who works at a gun range to tell you stories about the dangerous things people do on a daily basis and you'll realize why the statistics show that you're more likely to get killed if you own a gun.

In California, you have to take a safety quiz to buy a gun. The questions are things like, should you let a toddler play with a handgun and should you point a loaded gun at yourself. You'd think no one could get those wrong but they're actually questions that were deemed necessary.

Not sure if you are a troll or not to be honest. But you don't live in Afghanistan. "I've got a bunch of ARs" is typically what you hear from people who shoot up schools.

Over 5 million min people own ar15. So why aren’t their millions of mass shootings?
I’ve never seen any evidence that the mass shooters bragged about owning many ars most were loners who kept to themselves, and before yiu say anything there’s millions anon millions of loners who never hurt anyone.

All I’m pointing out is anti gun people are nearly word for word saying the same thing nazis said, they share the same position on guns as nazis.

How many times have I heard “if you want guns just join the military, no civilian needs guns”

You're making it seem like you think you have to turn in your guns but don't you just have to turn in the magazines and replace them with 10 round versions? Also, couldn't you permanently modify your current ones to only accept 10 rounds?

They basically anti gun and greedy, even then they don’t have the funds to combat it. It’s being funded by billionaire New York elite Bloomberg. Bloomberg outspends the nra 5 Times. Funny how no one goes after him for buying politicians.

They didn’t cut funding they said the cdc can not do gun control biased studies with federal funding, they didn’t want to do non biased studies. Even still obama spent 10 million on a cdc gun study in 2013, why don’t you hear about it? Cause it didn’t support gun control so they brushed it under the rug.

No it’s a ban on the guns and magazines.

0.o guns can’t be modified to only take 10 rounds mags.0.o
You’d have to completely reduce the gun to take a different magazine and then eventually someone will make a bigger magazine.
1911 designed around 7 round mags in 1911. Later 8 rounds, then aftermarket 10,15,30,50,100 round mags have been made. The 1911 is an assault weapon.
A 11 shot tube fed 22lr rifle is an assault weapon under this bill.

This is an evil assault weapon according to them


Also they a registration possibility but it requires to you t be a home owner and own a safe.And they haven discussed prices yet but their 2013 registration fees were $200 per gun every year. So guns alone would cost me 1,400 a year, and if it’s same per mag then it cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars,

I can’t afford a safe, nor am I a home owner, I rent. I also don’t make enough to pay 1,400 Plus a year so they make me a felon and come to take them and lock me up.

Guess we going back to only rich land owners having rights.

--

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 22 Mar 2018, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think they should necessarily ban all 'assault weapons' but I don't think just anyone should be able to go buy one. I do not think teenagers need assault weapons in their possession or really any gun....If they use a weapon under-supervision of an adult that is one thing but no teen needs a gun in their bedroom for instance. I think there should be mandatory gun classes or a test before you can own a gun, and if its an assault rifle maybe a more extensive test.

Also I know there are supposed to be background checks, but that Flordia shooter slipped through even with records of violent behavior and mental health issues...so how many other people who shouldn't have guns slip through? So either the background checks aren't good enough or they are not enforced well enough.

Sly, sounds like you are a more responsible gun owner and have taken a lot of time learning about them and doing the work to be a responsible gun owner. So in my opinion I don't think they should confiscate your guns...trouble is there are people who don't bother to learn all the safety and such who can still just easily go purchase those higher caliber sort of guns(I don't know all the terminology you probably know more). An outright ban could likely hurt people that are responsible...So I do think we need better gun laws, but not sure outright bans of 'assault weapons' if it really is as vague at term as some people are saying is the solution.

Sly, I agree with you that gun restrictions should not be used unless there is solid evidence that a particular type of restriction results in lower mass casualties. That is why the studies are needed.

You are also correct that there was not a complete ban on the research by the CDC and other government agencies. but the restrictions that were put in place had a chilling effect on research by the CDC, NIH and even other agencies. No one wanted to get into the fray, so to speak.

As the number of children dead due to the school violence rises, yes, the politicians are going to get involved. I would have to see some actual hard numbers in regards to money spent by the NRA vs money spent by Bloomberg. But that again is not the point.

I don't think you want children dying. You also don't want your weapons and ammo taken away. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, if one can get past the "talking points" and move on toward research and mutually agreeable solutions.

To sweetleaf

He was never committed or arrested from what I understand so he wouldn’t be put in nics and that is how it should be. Why wasn’t he arrested or committed? It’d look bad for their crime rates and decrease their federal funding. They purposely didn’t arrest or punish young people to keep their stats down. Got them more funding then they needed to keep the stats going down so etc.
that’s how he didn’t get caught earlier. Government corruption on the local level and laziness on the federal level with the fbi.

New laws won’t fix that they just ignore future laws too.

I’m not for any changes as it’ll trample on peoples rights especially aspies. I’m sure you don’t want to be committed without due process or locked up without due process or have your rights taken away without due process cause your an aspie?
We are a country of rights we are a republic not a democracy. They could have committed him but chose not to, they could have arrested him but chose not to. I hear he even called saying the was planning to do a school shooting but they did nothing. They’ll do nothing under new laws too. Maybe government funding shouldn’t be given out based on low crime stats. Same issue you have with schools who bus kids to other schools to keep their test scores high. It just creates a system that rewards corruption.