A Question regarding gun control issue
TV ClubHouse: Archive: A Question regarding gun control issue
Curious1 | Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 09:14 pm     Ok, I was reading an article in a weekly news magazine and to me this proposal sounds like a good idea. I just wondered what you all thought about it. The proposal was basically based on the ability to tell if "used" shells shot from a gun are from the same gun. Apparantely, through distinctive markings on the shells, law enforcement can determine if the same gun has been used. The proposal was to require that after the gun is manufactored, before it is sold to anyone, that a round is fired and the markings are then taken off the shell and filed with a law enforcement agency. This would link the shell markings with a serial number to a gun. It seems reasonable to me, but of course the NRA and gun rights activists are against it because it is a form of "tracking the guns down". My question is that with everything going on, wouldn't it seem worth it to give up a little bit of "freedom" for safety? If the gun owners aren't doing anything illegal with their guns why do they oppose the ability to "track a gun down to the serial number?" What's your opinion? |
Nightcrawler | Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 09:47 pm     ok here what I think it sounds good to me BUT most guns that are used to hurt or kill people are not sold to some one and all the paper work is done right. most of them are stolden and then if the gun was used it hurt or kill some one it would come back to the person it was taken from. if they could figer out how to get around that if would be great!! I do have some guns and would be happy to regester all my guns if this is pasted. I just don't see how it would work with stolden gus? but it sounds great |
Silksmoke | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 05:43 am     If someone has a gun stolen, wouldn't they: a) know their gun has been stolen and b) file a police report to that effect? I would hope people who own guns keep a closer eye on them and know immediately, or within a very short period of time when one has been stolen. |
Nightcrawler | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:58 am     true I would file a report with the police. that still wouldn't help the police get the person that took my gun and used my gun it hurt or kill some one. all it would do is show that my gun was used not who used it. if it was stolen i do keep my guns locked up and they all have triger locks on them. |
Max | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:40 am     Rifling (the term for the marks forensic folks read on bullets) can be altered fairly easily. It also can change slightly over time as the weapon is used. This isn't a bad idea, but it isn't as accurate and useful as fingerprinting, either. On the news this morning, they said that a couple of states already use this system, but not for rifles, only handguns. It's only been useful in a couple of cases. Anyway, it couldn't hurt to have such a system, but it won't always help, either. |
Wiseolowl | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 09:50 am     If there is anything left that distiguishes Canada from the U.S. it is the issue of handguns and assault-type weapons. We just don't have them here except those that filter in from the U.S.and don't want them . We are great hunters here and hunting rifles are fine. Those that use them are responsible for the most part. This whole issue of the Constitutional Right to bear arms goes back to the post-Revolutionary period when a militia was necessary to defend the country in the abscence of an organized army. Same as your separation of Church and state argument to bring God into the debate about prayer etc. That part of the Constitution was brought in to prevent the establishment of an organized, state religion - ie the Anglican/ Episcopal Churh (of which I am a proud member) which had been promoted, epecially in Virginia. If you are bound by the Constitution - written two hundred years ago, it seems to me that looking at the motivation behind those words would be a good exercise. Regarding handguns, it's a no brainer- regulate their manufacture(am sure there is a big lobby against that)and limit their sale. Eventually they will work their way out of the market so at least the street hoods will have a difficulty acquiring them.I just can't conceive the founding fathers contemplating the type of weapons that are now available and the uses to which they are being employed - either by the good guys or the bad guys. Eighteenth century American values are far different than today's. And by the way if you look at today's Drudge Report (and I am generally a fan) Drudge uses the fact that some wacho in Vancouver killed two fellow employees with a gun, to make fun of our gun laws -there is no guarantee in this life -but this event was a very rare occurance which Drudge has used to trivialize the problem. |
Silksmoke | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:16 am     Wiseolowl, I completely agree with you about people using the second amendment as an excuse to carry every kind of gun imaginable. I too have brought up the reasons for the 2nd amendment to provide a well "regulated" militia. I believe each state has it's "regulated militia" in their National Guard units. In my interpretation, this amendment was written so that individual states could prevent the Federal Government from taking over an individual states rights and sovereignty. Although I don't like hunting rifles either, I realize that many people enjoy hunting, and use the game to feed their family's. IMO, if you need an assault rifle, or automatic weapon to hunt, perhaps you need to find a new hobby. I don't understand killing for sport, but that's an entirely different issue. |
|