Avoid rush to gun ban in Ohio

Oh this should be fun......

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Let us vote - I suspect an assault rifle and large magazine ban in Ohio would be approved by voters. We need to protect our children and this type of ban would go a long way in doing it in Ohio. Assault rifles have no place in this country.

1 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You suspect all you want WarrenTard.

Bottom line is polls show you're wrong, but that's something you're used to by now.

"Assault weapons" belong, YOU DON'T.

Move to a communist country if you don't like it.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

This editorial proudly sponsored by the NRA.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

As the article states, "There has been no such proposal made," yet here we are again. People calling each other names.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"We need to protect our children and this type of ban would go a long way in doing it in Ohio."

Statistically, that's incorrect. This type of ban was in place in Connecticut. This type of ban was in place nationwide when the murders at Columbine occurred. And the number of gun murders involving this type of firearm is so low that it doesn't even move the needle.

But letting people vote would result in people being given a vast amount of misinformation on the subject and could likely result in the banning--or rendering unusable--of perfectly safe sporting and hobbyist firearms while resulting in absolutely no change in the rate or nature of murders by firearm in this country.

If our officials are going to take action, we must insist that the action have a statistically provable basis--that is, we must only take action that we KNOW will make a difference; otherwise we're punishing the innocent. Again.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

If you want to eliminate death by gun...eliminate the gun.

Mathematics 101

(-:

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

More like Clueless 101.

Ranking right up there with JosephineDedbeat.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lm.ao

(-:

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Good.

Should cut how much my health care costs go up payin' for your FA.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RESTRICTIONS ON WHO; that is WHO, OWNES GUNS IS EXACTLY, WHAT IS NEEDED...that's the Idea keep guns out of the crazies and evil people's hands..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ok so we make restrictions on who can own guns. Should those be only schizophrenic and delusional people? Should we also include depressed and bipolar people? Should we include those with situational mental health issues? If we include the situational would that mean we never allow them have a gun again because they became depressed because they lost a child or spouse? Who is going to make these rules? It isn't the severely mentally ill that is doing these deeds, it is those that have mild to moderate mental health issues. Most don't own the weapons they are using. They still them or get some other person to get them for them. They make their own weapons like Timothy McVay. Regardless of the means whether gun, knife, bomb, or vehicle these are acts of terror, not acts of independent murder. I don't want my gooberment deciding who can own guns. Sooner or later the list will hit us all. Then nobody will be allowed to have guns. Pretty hard to decide who when those making the list could

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pretty hard to decide who when those making the list could come and tell you that you fit their factors of not capable of gun owner ship based on some loosely put together criteria. I see this list getting longer and including more and more. Make limits and sooner or later you fit with in the limits.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

That's pushing the NRA's thing and it's crapp.. ban guns and they will come for me... pick out who does get a gun and that should be as you listed for a start.. Mentaly ill people should NOT own GUNS.. they could still use them under supervision while hunting with friends.. but not owning and storing them..

would that cure all??? of course not.. could it have saved one of those school shooting from happening.. could have..

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

No Sam, not one of those people involved in school shootings owned the guns used. So explain how banning gun ownership of those individuals would have saved a life.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Waiting?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gun Control is not about guns.....it's about control

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sorry went golfing anyway there are too many instances to bring up but here in palm beach county yesterday a man shot and killed his wife and then himself.. now was he nuts when he bought his gun; probably not.. but allowing a known nut case to own a gun, is not a real smart choice...

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

also you might as well stick up for fellons to have guns if you dont care who has a gun...

WHO has guns needs to be looked at a lot closer..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Sorry went golfing "

You're sorry all right and no one is buying your internet lies, darling.

"but allowing a known nut case to own a gun, is not a real smart choice... "

Hopefully, you're denied when they do the background check.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sam just more rant. You didn't answer my question.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

For the past 45 years every firearm sold new in the United States had to be registered from the manufacturer all the way through the sales chain to the buyer of the firearm. This requirement has not infringed anyones right to buy a gun. This system has worked remarkably well in enabling police to track a gun used in a crime. Today that initial registration is supported by gun owners and gun haters alike. Why then would it not make sense to register any subsequent sale of a firearm to the new owner. If the registration was not a violation of the second amendment for the initial sale it cannot be a violation for subsequent sales. Yes it would add a little additional cost to the sale of a used firearm but it should eliminate the argument about what is and what isn't a sporting weapon, and would help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Very few people are stupid enough to buy a gun new if the intended purpose of that gun is crime oriented.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Think of how many firearms have been sold new in this country in the last 45 years. Now consider how many of those guns have been sold or given to another owner in those 45 years. Millions apon millions. That is how many unregistered guns are out there. This is the major flaw in the 1968 gun control act. There is no need to limit magazine size or define a charactertic of a firearm for an honest firearms owner. Just put in place the system to prevent the criminal from buying a firearm period.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Then the only waya criminal or a mentally unbalanced person could get a firearm would be to steal it. That is where WE the firearm owners of America must do our part. A firearm should not be laying around the house when the owner is not at home, they should be locked up securely to prevent their theft.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thats not true BIlldog, the shooter at Virginia Tech purchased the guns he used there. However in two of the worst school shootings Columbine and Newtown the shooter used guns from their homes that were readily available. The Newtown shooting are particularily onerous because the mother KNEW that her son was disturbed yet she still had firearms on the property that should have been unavailable to him. Her error cost both her and her son their lives. The real tragedy lies with the other 25 people who dies most of them in kindergarten. This one for sure could have been prevented.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »