Law introduced that bans GUN ownership to under 18 and adds gun registry

[CptStern]

hahaha the shit's about to hit the proverbial fan:

SEC. 305. CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, 303, and 304 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(gg) Child Access Prevention-

`(1) DEFINITION OF CHILD- In this subsection, the term `child' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--


(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age

I cant wait for our pro-gun [strike]nuts[/strike] to come of the woodwork, oh joy for members with an agenda


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

 

[OmegaX]

Sounds fair to me. Not sure why you would want little kids running around with guns anyways. Or teenagers for that matter.

 

[Leto]

HAHA I'm already 18!



but I'm Canadian

 

[Top Secret]

Sounds good to me.

 

[CptStern]

Sounds good to me.

^^^ has an agenda

 

[<RJMC>]

cant somebody think of the childrens??!!1

 

[mastag]

I was going to gloat, but I was mugged on my way into this thread.

If only I had a gun.

 

[Leto]

then you would be charged for assault or murder

 

[Vegeta897]

Wait... I thought people under 18 already couldn't buy guns. Was this even a problem? Am I missing something? I mean obviously there have been kids with guns but I don't think a law like this is going to stop them. I thought they usually just steal the guns from their parents or something.

 

[Top Secret]

^^^ has an agenda

I do?

 

[Calhoun]

I am pro gun and under 18 and I don't see anything wrong with this being put in place.

 

[xcellerate]

So basically before I buy another gun I have to sign something saying I will keep this gun out of the hands of people younger than 18?

They aren't going to come to my house and make sure I have a gun-safe....how does that change anything? When I was 16 I told websites all the time I was over 18, how is this going to be any different?

 

[lePobz]

The only people that have guns in the UK are under the age of 18.

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

Wait... I thought people under 18 already couldn't buy guns. Was this even a problem? Am I missing something? I mean obviously there have been kids with guns but I don't think a law like this is going to stop them. I thought they usually just steal the guns from their parents or something.

Not buy, own.

 

[nurizeko]

hahaha the shit's about to hit the proverbial fan:







I cant wait for our pro-gun [strike]nuts[/strike] to come of the woodwork, oh joy for members with an agenda


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

Children and guns.....seems like a rather exciting fun mix.




Exciting the gunpowder that is, and fun being a proxy word for bloody carnage.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

This isn't banning under 18 from buying guns (As far as I know you couldnt anyway)

its banning under 18 from even being in possession (eg: going hunting/shooting with parents)

read the details. This is terrible legislation.

 

[Krynn72]

This is fantastic legislation.

 

[Solaris]

This isn't banning under 18 from buying guns (As far as I know you couldnt anyway)

its banning under 18 from even being in possession (eg: going hunting/shooting with parents)

read the details. This is terrible legislation.

Sounds sensible to me. Kids should not have access to guns.

Some kids I wouldn't trust with BBguns...

 

[Vegeta897]

Not buy, own.

Doesn't really make much of a difference in what I was saying.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Sounds sensible to me. Kids should not have access to guns.

Some kids I wouldn't trust with BBguns...

Kids not being raised with guns will cause far, far more accidental gun fatalities. This is just a step to remove firearms from US households because by the time people reach adulthood they will legally have no experience with weapons. This is wrong.


Apart from basic civil liberties being violated, hunting and related industries also would be decimated by this.

 

[Eejit]

Civil liberties violated? Right so what, would this law prevent 'the militia' when it finally forms from having child soldiers? [insert darth vader NOOOO]

 

[CptStern]

Kids not being raised with guns will cause far, far more accidental gun fatalities.

this makes little sense. Ideally if they have no access to guns their chances of having an accident involving a firearm decreases dramatically. For example my kids have zero training in firearms, their chances of being injured by a firearm are next to nil in comparison to children who have trained with firearms. Exposure alone ups their chances of an accident. not being exposed to it decreases the chance to next to nil. This is pretty obvious rakurai I'm surprised you're taking this path

This is just a step to remove firearms from US households because by the time people reach adulthood they will legally have no experience with weapons. This is wrong.

this is paranoid bordering on the delusional:

a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age

they're not removing anything from US households

Apart from basic civil liberties being violated,

how? you're going to have to prove minors are enitled to own firearms when that isnt the case in the majority of US states

hunting and related industries also would be decimated by this.

omg wont someone please think of the children ..hunters. Without child hunters moose, deer, rabbits, quail, and squrrels would run rampant through our streets if left to breed like animals. Oh thhe inhumaity of it all

 

[Eejit]

Don't be facetious Stern, the kids could still lay snares and poison or hunt with other weapons such as crossbows or grenade launchers.

 

[CptStern]

but they might take out an eye!!!



I'm actually training my son with knives. so that he can become a pit fighter in the streets of calcutta


Two men enter. One man leaves. That is the law in [strike]Bartertown's[/strike] Calcutta's Thunderdome arena

 

[xcellerate]

this makes little sense. Ideally if they have no access to guns their chances of having an accident involving a firearm decreases dramatically. For example my kids have zero training in firearms, their chances of being injured by a firearm are next to nil in comparison to children who have trained with firearms. Exposure alone ups their chances of an accident. not being exposed to it decreases the chance to next to nil. This is pretty obvious rakurai I'm surprised you're taking this path

Actually I believe there's another side to that as well...

I was raised with guns, I've been shooting since I was eight, and there are still multiple weapons in my house. Never, ever, have my dad or I had anything even close to an accident with any firearm because, from a young age I was taught responsibility and firearm safety. I have a half dozen gun-owning friends, whose first experience with a firearm was either with mine before they bought one, or at the gun store as they were selecting one. As a result they have no basic training, and no knowledge of firearm etiquette/safety. (which has given me many horror stories and 1 close brush with death)

The best analogy I can think of is somebody who just got his driver's license. They are going to drive a lot more recklessly than somebody who has been driving for 10 years already. And not because they're inexperienced (although that is part of it) but because the car is NEW and EXCITING and they want to PLAY with it! You also rarely hear these people ask how they can drive better, what are they doing wrong, etc. As if because they've seen their mom drive for the past 16 years they know how it works and don't need her help.

Of course, just like with driving, there are gun owners who will always be bad/dangerous no matter how much experience they have. And there is no way to test responsibility or owner-intelligence, otherwise we'd do doing it on driving tests already.

 

[CptStern]

Actually I believe there's another side to that as well...

I was raised with guns, I've been shooting since I was eight, and there are still multiple weapons in my house. Never, ever, have my dad or I had anything even close to an accident with any firearm because, from a young age I was taught responsibility and firearm safety. I have a half dozen gun-owning friends, whose first experience with a firearm was either with mine before they bought one, or at the gun store as they were selecting one. As a result they have no basic training, and no knowledge of firearm etiquette/safety. (which has given me many horror stories and 1 close brush with death)

this is not representative of all gun owners in every single situation. I can point out dozens of incidents where people with legal permits to own guns still have accidents. Just because you havent doest mean it doesnt happen. hell it even happens WHILE training. There is no 100% guarentee except the most obvious one: no exposure to it means no firearm related injuries

The best analogy I can think of is somebody who just got his driver's license. They are going to drive a lot more recklessly than somebody who has been driving for 10 years already. And not because they're inexperienced (although that is part of it) but because the car is NEW and EXCITING and they want to PLAY with it!

? my first car was a piece of shit, I wanted to drive recklessly because I had just learned to drive. My inexperience permitted me to drive recklessly because my inexperience hadnt taught me what can happen if you drive recklessly

You also rarely hear these people ask how they can drive better, what are they doing wrong, etc. As if because they've seen their mom drive for the past 16 years they know how it works and don't need her help.

anyone who's ever driven for the very first time could tell you that you cant learn solely from watching it being done. Also you are sort of suggesting that all I need to do is watch someone fire a gun to become competant in it's use which would then make gun training needless

what you seem to be saying is that gun training WONT make you less reckless it'll make you a better shot

Of course, just like with driving, there are gun owners who will always be bad/dangerous no matter how much experience they have. And there is no way to test responsibility or owner-intelligence, otherwise we'd do doing it on driving tests already.

ok but you still havent raised a compelling argument as to why children should be allowed to use guns. they're children, their judgement is as developed as an adult. would you want 6 year olds driving a car? why not? they'd be better drivers when they finally do get their license? this is what you are basically saying except with guns. extend that to booze: they'll be sipping 200 year old cognac by age 18. or to the military; they'll be in special forces before they hit puberty

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Wait a ****ing minute, you mean to tell me that under 18s could buy guns before now?

What the ****?

WHAT!?

 

[Seppo]

Guns were invented by Satan and they are only used to kill innocent people.

 

[xcellerate]

Cpt. I'm trying to tell you that experience makes a difference and you're trying to tell me that "no exposure to it means no firearm related injuries"..uh yea. But we're making two different arguments. You can't be killed driving a car if you never drive a car. You can't drown if you never swim. Guns are apart of the culture, people are going to be exposed to them, and knowing that if you start them out easy and early on they will gain experience so that when they can finally own them they will be smarter.


People mess up, michael schumacher still crashes, michael phelps still chokes on water, and cops still shoot themselves in the foot while cleaning their gun. GUNS. ARE. DANGEROUS. but they're also a part of our culture and decreasing the experience somebody has with them will NEVER make them any better at handling them.

...sloth edit

 

[CptStern]

Cpt. I'm trying to tell you that experience makes a difference and you're trying to tell me that "no exposure to it means no firearm related injuries"..uh yea. But we're making two different arguments.

you replied to my post saying there was another side to it. I replied to your reply, on topic

You can't be killed driving a car if you never drive a car. You can't drown if you never swim. Guns are apart of the culture, people are going to be exposed to them, and knowing that if you start them out easy and early on they will gain experience so that when they can finally own them they will be smarter.

is it worth the needless accidents involving children? really, creating kids with better gun skills is really the answer here? these accidents happen despite training. Barring children from handling firearms/forcing people to be responsible with their firearms isnt such a bad thing here. I'd say it's far more important than teaching children how to shoot properly. how about not teaching them at all? or better still lets train them for all of life's possible contingencies

my children will be able to handle 435 different kinds of weapons, speak 17 languages, have licenses to drive everything from a scooter to a mech, know 12 different martial arts, and be able to recite the magna carta backwards during a snowstorm in the month of july

ok so that was over exaggerated/meant to get a laugh howver some of it rings true; as a parent I dont think it's the best idea to teach my children to use firearms because at some point in their lives they may want to own a gun. It's the argument my parents say when they ask (not any more) why my kids arent baptised

"but if there is a god it's best to have your children hell-bound free ...just in case"

paraphrased of course

People mess up, michael schumacher still crashes, michael phelps still chokes on water, and cops still shoot themselves in the foot while cleaning their gun.

yes these people are professionals. unforetunately proffessionals are not the only people allowed to purchase guns (NWS, NOT EYE SAFE funny though)

I'd have less of a problem with gun ownership if only professionals were allowed to have them ..and even then I bet there'd be accidents ...michael phelps, the dude who shot himself in the foot etc

GUNS. ARE. DANGEROUS.

yes they are, so are flame throwers, we dont allow our kids to own flame throwers. shame, they made need flame thrower skills during the coming zombie uprising

but they're also a part of our culture and decreasing the experience somebody has with them will NEVER make them any better at handling them.

wont someone please think of the children? no really. preventing deaths is more important I'd say

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/children.pdf

And I'm fine letting a random 10,100 people die each year from gun related violence if it means me, my dad, and my friend's can go out on saturday and have a good time.

you know as well as I do how selfish and nearsighted this is framing it by comparing it to an automobile does nothing to wash your hands of guilt. Your "hobby" facilitates the deaths of 10's of thousands of people each year

Ya know, kinda like how you don't feel bad about 42,600 people dying each year from automobile accidents if it means you don't have to walk 15 minutes to the grocery store each week. God we're both such terrible, terrible people...

except vehicles are a neccesity. without them we would have no fresh food in the grocery, we wouldnt have products in store shelves. cities would be wall to wall high rise apartments as people would have to live near work snce they couldnt commute because I selfishly believe no one should own a car because some people dont know how to drive/their luck runs out. What benefit do guns in the hands of civilians bring? a trail of little paper targets full of holes? nourishment for a very small minority who could be easier served at their corner grocer? apples and oranges

 

[xcellerate]

I guess I just really don't understand. There's this thing that can kill you, and you don't want your kids to know how to properly handle it?

Maybe you live in new york city or chicago or some place where guns aren't exactly something people just have. But in alabama, guns are a bit more common, and if I make my girlfriend learn how to handle mine then I am certainly going to teach any kids I potentially have how to handle them as well. Nobody is going to get curious and accidentally shoot me in my house...they'll just have to shoot me on purpose.

 

[CptStern]

I guess I just really don't understand. There's this thing that can kill you, and you don't want your kids to know how to properly handle it?

yes it's much the same reason why I dont went them to handle rocket launchers, harpoons, aligators, and radioactive isotopes

Maybe you live in new york city or chicago or some place where guns aren't exactly something people just have.

serious? chicago and new york I'd have thought it was mandatory. I'm canadian

But in alabama, guns are a bit more common, and if I make my girlfriend learn how to handle mine then I am certainly going to teach any kids I potentially have how to handle them as well. Nobody is going to get curious and accidentally shoot me in my house...they'll just have to shoot me on purpose.

you're far more likely to be killed by a firearm by someone you know than a stranger. you're just upping the odds

 

[xcellerate]

yes it's much the same reason why I dont went them to handle rocket launchers, harpoons, aligators, and radioactive isotopes

yea, i dont want my kids doing drugs....but that doesn't mean they wont ever have somebody ask them to smoke this, inject that, or swallow this. That's why we put our kids in drug avoidance classes when they're in 5th grade.

serious? chicago and new york I'd have thought it was mandatory. I'm canadian

There's not a lot of gun ranges or woods to go to in new york city...plus I spent 3 years in new york and definitely saw less guns there than I do here. But I wasn't hanging out with gangs either...

you're far more likely to be killed by a firearm by someone you know than a stranger. you're just upping the odds

'far more likely' is also a relative term. 10,100 people die each year from guns...and there are 303,824,640 people in the united states. So basically it's like a .003324%? I'm not exactly worried about that...I'm probably more likely to win the lotto.

 

[jet_porkins]

is it worth the needless accidents involving children? really, creating kids with better gun skills is really the answer here? these accidents happen despite training. Barring children from handling firearms/forcing people to be responsible with their firearms isnt such a bad thing here. I'd say it's far more important than teaching children how to shoot properly.

I'm with Stern on this.

 

[CptStern]

yea, i dont want my kids doing drugs....but that doesn't mean they wont ever have somebody ask them to smoke this, inject that, or swallow this. That's why we put our kids in drug avoidance classes when they're in 5th grade.

lol at "drug avoidance" classes ..this is the height iof lunacy behind the war on drugs. Perhaps they should have "how to handle a firearm" in grade 5 as well. Whatever happened to parenting?

There's not a lot of gun ranges or woods to go to in new york city...plus I spent 3 years in new york and definitely saw less guns there than I do here.

I'm really trying not to make a smartass remark about alabama

But I wasn't hanging out with gangs either...

my cousin is a technologist at the university of florida, he carries a gun in his car

'far more likely' is also a relative term. 10,100 people die each year from guns...and there are 303,824,640 people in the united states. So basically it's like a .003324%? I'm not exactly worried about that...I'm probably more likely to win the lotto.

far more than that are injured, far more than that are affected directly by a loved one's death. Besides that distinction doesnt wash well with the victems, they "won" the lottery it seems

if you are murdered, it's >80% it'll be with a gun

 

[xcellerate]

lol at "drug avoidance" classes ..this is the height iof lunacy behind the war on drugs. Perhaps they should have "how to handle a firearm" in grade 5 as well. Whatever happened to parenting?

Or you could send your kid to summer camp where they get to shoot little .22 rifles...that's a lot more reasonable.

I'm really trying not to make a smartass remark about alabama

you can make whatever remarks you want, I like birmingham.

my cousin is a technologist at the university of florida, he carries a gun in his car

My dad has carried a .357 under his seat for 30 years.

far more than that are injured, far more than that are affected directly by a loved one's death. Besides that distinction doesnt wash well with the victems, they "won" the lottery it seems

if you are murdered, it's >80% it'll be with a gun

Only if you're 17, then the percentages start to fall off pretty well.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gunpctage.png

total number of homocides in 2005: 16,692, so basically we're still talking about a .00549% chance of being killed? Again, nothing to get worked up about. Especially when I'm about 3x as likely to die in my car.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

 

[Jintor]

A .22 to the head still... goes through the first layer and rattles around the brain iirc. Good for zombie killing, but kids still probably shouldn't be using them.

Honestly while teaching guns firearms safety and letting them use rifles would decrease gun fatalities NOT LETTING KIDS HAVE GUNS would probably decrease it more.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Oh well, this isn't going anywhere. This legislation won't pass. And on the off-chance it does I know I will blatantly disregard it and the rest of my family will as well. My kids will be familiar and trained with firearms regardless of what the law says.

This is one more step. When most of the population becomes criminal you have an oppressive regime that merits disobediance and resistance.

Wait a ****ing minute, you mean to tell me that under 18s could buy guns before now?

What the ****?

WHAT!?

No, this is regarding kids being able to use guns. Couldn't buy in the first place.

 

[nurizeko]

If were talking about rights, you don't really have any rights until 18 in most civilized societies, hell, you yanks cant even drink some harmless alcohol until your 21, so bitching about rights is dumb.



Kids should not be handling lethal weaponry. Ever. Unless your trying to train child soldiers in which case move to Africa where you and your kids can do Khat and run drugs and shoot up villagers at your leisure.






Also you don't need M16's and Barrets to go hunting.

Oh and the US government would crush a rag tag militia within a week.





Also if you own a gun your just upset because of your small un-inspiring penis.

Mine is huge, hence my pacifist loving nature.

 

[Pesmerga]

Well, there's the gun control argument in a nutshell.

No rights until 18.

People don't need something, so take it away.

All guns are for hunting.

Militias are impractical, therefor should be disarmed.

Gun owners have small penises.