Gun Control

[rawhide]

For the purpose of reducing crime, the ban did not work. I think the current bill by feinstien isn't going to pass muster just by the Heller or MacDonald decision. Universal background checks have been in place for a number of years "here" doesn't really count So Cal. Legally we have to go through a FFL to finalize any gun purchase/transfer between private parties. I follow the law here. And I only have 10rd magazine clips in my possession. All of my handguns are also Kali friendly. No 13-18 rd. magazines. 8 rd 1911 mags and 8 rd moon clips for the Smith. Unless prompted by a LEO friend to try this here thing out while we're shooting.

 

Lotus leaf eaters here are attempting to take things further and maybe succeed. I may have to move like many others are. But that will be after the court battles have been fought.

 

What I think is truly ABSURD is thinking that there aren't any meaningful regulations in the States.

 

The only other absurd thing is thinking that by passing laws criminals will be affected. Yeah, right. Talk to some felons and see what they say. I have.

[Junior]

No one is arguing that people won't continue to violate law. Why you continue to stick to that "evidence" as to why we can't enact newer, tougher law is just plain silly. People violate law all of the time... but do you know what we do about it? We make it more difficult to do so, by changing or adding to existing law. Or we increase the penalties to the point where the risk/reward balance tips unfavorably. We don't just say "Ah well, F- it. Might as well make it a free-for-all anarchist society."

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There are always going to be criminals, there is no getting around that. You could make a law so the risks are so high and the reward is so low, but there would still be people who violate that law. So let's stop using that argument as a claim to why we shouldn't try stricter gun control laws.

___________________________

 

I seriously want some responses to this, and this isn't a trick question:

 

When is the most optimal time to identify a potential problem?

[rawhide]

We still have murder why?????

 

Isn't the death penalty enough or life in prison without parole?

[carlfense]

We still have murder why?????

 

Isn't the death penalty enough or life in prison without parole?

So we shouldn't have laws against murder? Obviously people do it anyways . . . so it's only stopping law abiding people from killing others . . .

[Junior]

We still have murder why?????

 

Isn't the death penalty enough or life in prison without parole?

 

So based on your previous statement on gun laws, the point you are making is that we shouldn't have any laws at all? The only way to stop criminals is to have no action be a criminal act.

[rawhide]

I believe you just assaulted me by putting words in my mouth. j/k

 

Didn't I just ask if the death penalty was enough. You are the one that said more laws; to wit "newer, tougher" ones would help alleviate the situations. DUH

 

Never once said a thing about getting rid of laws. I worry about you if you interpreted it that way or just want to see it that way.

[zoogs]

This is what you said:

 

The only other absurd thing is thinking that by passing laws criminals will be affected. Yeah, right. Talk to some felons and see what they say. I have.

 

If that's the standard, why have any laws at all? Criminals won't follow them.

 

Also, I'm interested in how you might back up the statement that the ban 'didn't work' for stopping crime. I just want to see some support for the statement, that's all, before accepting it at face value.

[sd'sker]

i think if you want to own a gun, here are a few beneficial stipulations:

1. the gun has to be registered

2. universal background checks

3. you have to be licensed to own a gun (i.e. some sort of class or training, i did it as a young hunter)

4. you have to own liability insurance for your guns

5. if anything bad happens with a gun, regardless of whoever was in control of the gun, the gun owner is liable.

now, i do not think this is a list of 'punishments' for gun owners. it is simply what should be required to possess an inherently dangerous weapon.

 

i also think guns should have capacity limits and assault rifles should be banned. when i think of gun control, i am thinking about how to prevent the mass shootings.

 

i also think that guns should be locked when in the home, but that is just common sense, not really something that should be legislated.

 

i, like most americans, do not have a problem with people owning guns, especially handguns and hunting guns. but that does not mean that whoever should be able to own whatever.

i have not seen many people address this post, so i thought i would repost it.

[rawhide]

This is what you said:

 

The only other absurd thing is thinking that by passing laws criminals will be affected. Yeah, right. Talk to some felons and see what they say. I have.

 

If that's the standard, why have any laws at all? Criminals won't follow them.

 

Also, I'm interested in how you might back up the statement that the ban 'didn't work' for stopping crime. I just want to see some support for the statement, that's all, before accepting it at face value.

http://publicintelligence.net/nij-assault-weapons-ban-study/

[carlfense]

i think if you want to own a gun, here are a few beneficial stipulations:

1. the gun has to be registered

2. universal background checks

3. you have to be licensed to own a gun (i.e. some sort of class or training, i did it as a young hunter)

4. you have to own liability insurance for your guns

5. if anything bad happens with a gun, regardless of whoever was in control of the gun, the gun owner is liable.

now, i do not think this is a list of 'punishments' for gun owners. it is simply what should be required to possess an inherently dangerous weapon.

 

i also think guns should have capacity limits and assault rifles should be banned. when i think of gun control, i am thinking about how to prevent the mass shootings.

 

i also think that guns should be locked when in the home, but that is just common sense, not really something that should be legislated.

 

i, like most americans, do not have a problem with people owning guns, especially handguns and hunting guns. but that does not mean that whoever should be able to own whatever.

i have not seen many people address this post, so i thought i would repost it.

I agree with 1 and 2.

 

I somewhat agree with the premise of number 3 but I'm not sure that a licensing requirement would be permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

 

I agree with 4.

 

I disagree with 5. I think that your proposed standard is too broad. I agree that gun owners should be liable in certain situations but I'd probably suggest the negligence route.

[Junior]

I believe you just assaulted me by putting words in my mouth. j/k

 

Didn't I just ask if the death penalty was enough. You are the one that said more laws; to wit "newer, tougher" ones would help alleviate the situations. DUH

 

Never once said a thing about getting rid of laws. I worry about you if you interpreted it that way or just want to see it that way.

 

I'm just taking your posts at face value. If you say "The only other absurd thing is thinking that by passing laws criminals will be affected. Yeah, right. Talk to some felons and see what they say." I take it to mean you think if criminals break a law, the law is not effective and it is pointless to have the law at all. Otherwise, why make the point in a debate about gun control laws? I'm curious as to what you meant by that statement, if not what myself (and pretty much everyone else) interpreted it as.

 

By your logic (if it can be called logic), there would be no point to lowering the legal BAC and increasing drunk driving penalties to deter people from driving drunk, because, as you say passing laws won't effect criminals. Only, they did do these things and drunk driving decreased by 40% since 1980.

 

http://academicdepar...runkDriving.pdf

 

And if we want to do a direct comparison to guns, passing new gun laws will never work because the criminals won't be effected, right? Only, look at Australia and see that new laws DID work to completely stop mass shootings and to lower the overall homicide rates.

 

Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

http://www.csmonitor...un-control-laws

 

Sorry, but your stance flies in the face of actual data.

[rawhide]

Answer the last post of mine you copied junior

[Junior]

Answer the last post of mine you copied junior

 

I guess you are talking about the capital punishment point? 1) not every state has capital punishment and 2) murder is often a crime of anger/passion. Yes, people will still murder with or without guns. No one is suggesting that gun control is about curbing the urge to kill. That's human nature, sadly. BUT the rates will lower without firearms present to make it so easy to do. A domestic dispute doesn't turn into a homicide, a guy can't walk into a movie theater and mow down 30 people. When I talk about tipping the risk/reward scale for violating gun law, I'm talking about the dealer who looks the other way during a shady sale. The individual who sells his gun on the side, because there is no need for a background check. If you make the penalty for those acts so great that the monetary reward isn't worth it, then you might make progress.

 

Still, I have to ask... What is your point? Because you sure seem to be taking the stance of "well, there are still murders, so might as well not try to regulate guns at all". Which is absurd. I'll grant you one thing, you do a damn fine job of deflecting the topic. Now, I'd like to you answer my points about murder rates in Australia and drunk driving statistics. And do so without talking about murders by hammers. Also, try using data supporting your argument.

[sd'sker]

i think if you want to own a gun, here are a few beneficial stipulations:

1. the gun has to be registered

2. universal background checks

3. you have to be licensed to own a gun (i.e. some sort of class or training, i did it as a young hunter)

4. you have to own liability insurance for your guns

5. if anything bad happens with a gun, regardless of whoever was in control of the gun, the gun owner is liable.

now, i do not think this is a list of 'punishments' for gun owners. it is simply what should be required to possess an inherently dangerous weapon.

 

i also think guns should have capacity limits and assault rifles should be banned. when i think of gun control, i am thinking about how to prevent the mass shootings.

 

i also think that guns should be locked when in the home, but that is just common sense, not really something that should be legislated.

 

i, like most americans, do not have a problem with people owning guns, especially handguns and hunting guns. but that does not mean that whoever should be able to own whatever.

i have not seen many people address this post, so i thought i would repost it.

I agree with 1 and 2.

 

I somewhat agree with the premise of number 3 but I'm not sure that a licensing requirement would be permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

 

I agree with 4.

 

I disagree with 5. I think that your proposed standard is too broad. I agree that gun owners should be liable in certain situations but I'd probably suggest the negligence route.

i proposed no. 3 because i do think more education on guns and gun care would be nice, it is just another step to make sure that only individuals who are serious about owning a gun can own a gun. also, you need a license to drive, you need a gd license to fish, so why not to own a gun?

 

i think you are right about no. 5. i think it is a good idea because a gun is inherently dangerous and it would encourage people to keep their weapons locked and safe. however, it is pretty broad and probably unfair to most responsible gun owners. like if your gun is stolen and you report them stolen, there is nothing more you could do. but on the other hand, people need to be urged to use due diligence in not letting their weapons get into the wrong hands.