Not really, I can only comment in the context of what I know and being from the UK where guns are restricted, how would I know what it is like to live in a "armed" population.
The opening post doesn't say "from the outlook of an armed population...". You've made an error, nothing more/less
If pushed I would say no one except those who need it for their job (police, army etc) or members of shooting clubs.
anyone who would beat or shoot their wife is clearly mentally ill...therfore they would not be able to get guns in the first place under my rule
Sorry Shiva but as you know I really respect your opinion but this time you are talking rubbish! Even if the 25% statistic WERE true (and I suspect it has originated from that infamous case where the security firm put out some hugely inflated statistics to sell security) it does not automatically equate with a "home invasion". You can have some work tools "half inched" (pinched) from your garage and it is a burglary while you are at home - but NO real threat to you
How about child abuse? Elder abuse? Pet abuse? Landscape abuse? Although I agree that a record of physical assault on a member of the family is usually grounds (it is here) for revocation of gun ownership this can, itself be abused. For example a friend was in a relationship with a woman - her husband had basically left her years ago while tying her to an impoverished situation. He was/is a security guard and that requires him to carry a gun - ergo he has a gun licence (don't faint Australia did not as some claim, ban all guns). He had to tread very carefully while dating this woman as all it required was for the soon to be Ex-husband to file a complaint or to instigate a fight and he would lose his gun licence and ergo his job. Similarly all a woman has to do is simply file a domestic violence order and the same thing happens
you cant take our right to defend ourself and our homes away because of a few mentally insane people who go crazy when they get their hands on a gun.
Then you have to accept that your death rate for children and adolescents will remain 5 times higher than 26 other countries combined http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
yeah... and how many of those deaths are from legal guns? or law abiding citizens? absolutely 0 <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>
Just because someone got in a bar fight? Or just because a man's girlfriend made a one-time overexaggerated allegation of domestic abuse and the man served a 6-month prison sentence? Just because someone has a "felony conviction" does not mean the right to own a gun should be taken away from them the rest of their life. Felonies are handed out for all sorts of reasons.
Man this is extremist. If you don't have a nearly spotless criminal record than you are not deemed trustworthy by society to own firearms. That is completely sensible. If you're convicted of a felony after facing a fair trial and a jury of your peers, and lost. Then that means society can do whatever the hell it wants to you within limits of the law.
Normally, I wouldn't even mention it here, but you do realize there are things that were legal yersterday that are illegal today. There is hardly anyone left in this country {US} that is not guilty of some crime, not due the the nature of the crime, but because legalities change everyday. Then there are those who become accidently involved with LEO, wrongfully accuse and illegally prosecuted. Happens all the time. A corrupt prosector can wreak havoc on anyone's life and record. Abad judge can do the same. Spotless record? That'll be tough to find in this country, especially when cops can issue tickets to 5 year olds for stomping their feet in class or not eating all of their lunch in school. So, who's got a clean record? http://www.texastribune.org/2010/06/02/school-district-cops-ticket-thousands-of-students/ "...researchers and others view as a dangerous melding of education and criminal justice that too often and too early introduces children to the law enforcement arena, often a precursor to prison as an adult."
Well I did say non-violent felons should have a path to having their rights restored. I will admit it removes the rights of some people. If you have been shown to be unable to control yourself and commit a violent crime you have violated other peoples rights, then having yours removed seems fair.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>> And how can children obtain gun s legally? It should be up to the parents to try and ensure child safety however this problem is so big in America that the College of Paediatricians has issued a statement saying the safest house for a child is one without a gun
I replied "other" because there is no category that shows " all of the above" except, of course not "everyone"
I think the pattern of responses has been VERY interesting - most would exclude mentally ill - even though most mental illnesses are harmless to others but would let demented elderly HAVE a gun. I think this shows how ignorant most are about mental illness and dementia.
Most people are very ignorant about mental illness. Most people think that sociopaths and psychopaths (unfortunately soon to become the same thing) are all torturers and killers and should be excluded from society. Most people think that mental illness makes people unable to show good judgement. Heck, most people believe that schizophrenics all have multiple personalities. It is unfortunate that people misunderstand such things so much.
I voted people with early dementia and people with serious mental illness. If a person who has serious mental illness probably wont be going out to buy a firearm they have more important things to spend their money on and have usually been diagnosed with an illness. however their car provider (family member) could always own one just not in reach (same as you would do with a child, show them its dangerous for them to play with it and always keep it locked away in a safe somewhere) A elderly person with dementia would be more of so they dont hurt themselves and usually you would take them to a doctors and the same would be done for their protection and yours. The felon part, I am kind of on the fence about (Which is why i did not vote on it) My father i beleive is a felon and he is remarried (reborn christian o.0) and has two daughters of his own now. I take the time to go and visit him when I am able to and he has talked to me about finding out if he can purchase a shotgun for home defense since he is worried about the safety of his wife (who has had pins put into her side due to a motorcycle accident) and the safety of my two younger sisters. I think in a situation as this as long as a x number of time has elapsed a shotgun should be allowed to be purchased for home safety. But this is also just my opinion.
Tell him there are ways OTHER than guns to defend yourself and get him to start thinking of them. My favourite story was from a friend, young woman living in a flat - a guy broke in and her first response was to start throwing crockery at him - every time he poked his head up over the back of the sofa she threw something else - meanwhile the flatmate was on the phone to the cops - by the time THEY arrived he was begging to be arrested!! Of course that happened in Australia where even before the gun buy back it is far more unlikely that the person breaking into your house would be armed
that is all fine in Australia, but this is a totally different culture here. Based on the outcome of gun bans in Oz, can you imagine the impact that uncontrolled knife crime would have here?
I think non-violent felons should have a legal path to have their rights returned. I doubt it will never happen though, the NRA and most republicans have no interest in that. The ACLU and most Democrats have no interest in expanding 2nd amendment rights. If your fathers wife has no criminal record she should be able to purchase something to protect the family with. She does not forfeit rights by being married to a felon. It would be the only option if the family desired a weapon.
The only problem with this is that if the felon can reach or grab the weapon they can possibly be re locked up. Since he rides bikes as well he usually carries a 5.2 inch blade (5.5 legal in Tx) and has a 3-4 battery mag light. So we make due. I however finally purchased my first handgun (Regent R100 1911 .45 and a Browning A500 R)
