Do you support more gun control?

[WackyDan]

Wacky, I listed a half dozen regulations.

That, at a federal level, would replace 27,000.

How is reducing the varying laws a bad thing? I am not calling for forbiddance, just a bit more order to the chaos.

I want a reduction in the laws as well, but I do not want it strictly controlled at the federal level. It never strictly will be. State's rights you know. You'd never get california to agree to a short list of gun laws that are ENFORCED and have severe penalties... So one federal code that supersedes individual laws at the state level would never be passed or couldn't constitutionally work

As for the cataloging, it would be a way to keep track of who has (basically) what. You get a license for certain weapon types. Pistol, assault rifle, whatever. You have a bit more lattitide, but you are qualified only in certain licensure and we have record of that... say for the National Guard or militia during a time of national emergency...

BUT, there would be no record of number of guns. This is tricky though. Would you be comfortable if you found out your neighbor had a cellar full of modded M16's?

Why do you need to keep track of who has what? Answer the question. I asked before and you still didn't answer. What need does the gov't have to know what firearm I own? Does it prevent me from committing a crime? Does it allow them to access a yearly tax on every firearm I own? What is the real purpose other than future unwarranted seizure of said firearms if the political environment changes?

Now, for the bracelets? How did they not work? All I heard was that people did not WANT them, and THAT made them "not work". This is not something that would guarantee compliance, but it would make it more difficult to circumvent than simply going into someone's drawer and pulling out their pistol.

There would have to be some thought put into how it would work. How it could be checked in-situ by a cop (it would not only be your "receipt" for the gun, it would have your licenses/permits on it as well). But you would have to find a way to keep your info private (remember EZ-Pass and the state wanting to use it to track and automatically give speeding tickets?).

The problem is, this issue is too emotionally charged and those that have the most to prove in it are the ones yelling the loudest and making the least sense.

The firearms that were tested with biometrics, proximity RF, etc were all deemed to be unreliable by the various law enforcement agencies that tested them. From failure to fire, to delaying the time to fire... a second or two delay was unacceptable to a law enforcement agency and is just as unacceptable to a home owner. Do you get that?

In ten years the technology might exist to enable a level of device locking that is reliable both for securing the firearm but also enabling it's use in an emergency, but now it does not.

This fresh debate on firearms spawned out of the debate on Stand Your Ground laws... Which is bullshit... because SYG laws have absolutely NOTHING specifically to do with firearms.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm afraid Obama will take anti-gun measures in some form or other. He's already appointed two very anti-2nd justices to the supreme court. If it's a fear, it's a pretty rational one. I just see it as a potential political reality.

Will any serious anti-gun legislation make it through in Obama's 2nd term? Probably not.

But what does that have to do with buying more guns now? Are you saying the fear is "now or never", because the opportunity is going to vanish?

Also, let's say that legislation does pass and, heck, let's say the 2nd is repealed completely or just countered with another. Isn't that how a legislative republic is supposed to work?

 

[irishScott]

But what does that have to do with buying more guns now? Are you saying the fear is "now or never", because the opportunity is going to vanish?

Also, let's say that legislation does pass and, heck, let's say the 2nd is repealed completely or just countered with another. Isn't that how a legislative republic is supposed to work?

Lol. If that happens then the government is refusing to represent about 40% of the populace and shit will fly, politically and otherwise. A legislative republic is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Thankfully the "silent majority" favors the right to shoot bad guys in self defense. If that wasn't the case, this wouldn't be America and we'd be talking what I would do in an alternate reality.

The fear is "now or never" for some. I don't think the "never" is likely to happen but I still see Obama as a potential threat. If you're going through a bad part of town, you don't stop for burgers. This preempts most potential threats. Buying guns before an anti-gun President no longer faces reelection preempts that potential threat.

 

[irishScott]

Wacky, I listed a half dozen regulations.

That, at a federal level, would replace 27,000.

How is reducing the varying laws a bad thing? I am not calling for forbiddance, just a bit more order to the chaos.

As for the cataloging, it would be a way to keep track of who has (basically) what. You get a license for certain weapon types. Pistol, assault rifle, whatever. You have a bit more lattitide, but you are qualified only in certain licensure and we have record of that... say for the National Guard or militia during a time of national emergency...

BUT, there would be no record of number of guns. This is tricky though. Would you be comfortable if you found out your neighbor had a cellar full of modded M16's?


Now, for the bracelets? How did they not work? All I heard was that people did not WANT them, and THAT made them "not work". This is not something that would guarantee compliance, but it would make it more difficult to circumvent than simply going into someone's drawer and pulling out their pistol.

There would have to be some thought put into how it would work. How it could be checked in-situ by a cop (it would not only be your "receipt" for the gun, it would have your licenses/permits on it as well). But you would have to find a way to keep your info private (remember EZ-Pass and the state wanting to use it to track and automatically give speeding tickets?).

The problem is, this issue is too emotionally charged and those that have the most to prove in it are the ones yelling the loudest and making the least sense.

Just chiming in about the stupidity of the bracelet idea, that goes to reliability and function. The complex electronics governing such a system would have to withstand repeated extreme shock and be absolutely reliable for a lifetime. To date no such electronics exist that can be practically mass-produced at low enough cost. Plus having to put a bracelet on is an extra, time consuming step that could get you killed.

Same reason there's some opposition to guns like the Magpul PDR, that runs in part on a battery. And that's a much simpler system than what you're proposing.

 

[jackstar7]

Lol. If that happens then the government is refusing to represent about 40% of the populace and shit will fly, politically and otherwise. A legislative republic is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Thankfully the "silent majority" favors the right to shoot bad guys in self defense. If that wasn't the case, this wouldn't be America and we'd be talking what I would do in an alternate reality.

The fear is "now or never" for some. I don't think the "never" is likely to happen but I still see Obama as a potential threat. If you're going through a bad part of town, you don't stop for burgers. This preempts most potential threats. Buying guns before an anti-gun President no longer faces reelection preempts that potential threat.

Hardly be the first time 40% of the population's wishes weren't represented by the prevailing laws... and I'm not sure how you label it a silent majority, as it's plenty vocal, particularly via the speech of campaign financing...

But I'm certain there would be incredible protests against much stricter gun control or some kind of ban. I would find it dangerously ironic that the people who champion the sacred nature of the law when it's on their side will lose their collective shit if the law disagrees with their views.

 

[woodie1]

And in other news:

New Commemorative Pistol

Ruger is coming out with a new pistol in honor of members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. It will be named the "Congressman ".

It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

 

[monovillage]

I've been convinced. Gun-owners are very brave.

Isn't that a big tough angry guy with a bandoleer of cartridges around his chest you use as an avatar, saying "cry some moar" or some such? You use the results, but deny the means?

 

[irishScott]

Hardly be the first time 40% of the population's wishes weren't represented by the prevailing laws... and I'm not sure how you label it a silent majority, as it's plenty vocal, particularly via the speech of campaign financing...

But I'm certain there would be incredible protests against much stricter gun control or some kind of ban. I would find it dangerously ironic that the people who champion the sacred nature of the law when it's on their side will lose their collective shit if the law disagrees with their views.

The NRA and NRA-like groups represent a minority of gun owners. The "majority" I refer to is the large number of people who don't even own guns, yet don't support increased gun control. This is largely known as common sense.

And most of us wouldn't lose our shit. But a significant number would. Just as I imagine a significant number of blacks, women, asians, and hispanics would lose their shit if we reverted to a "white males only" voting policy.

 

[jackstar7]

Isn't that a big tough angry guy with a bandoleer of cartridges around his chest you use as an avatar, saying "cry some moar" or some such? You use the results, but deny the means?

Angry? What?

Get off my internet.

 

[jackstar7]

The NRA and NRA-like groups represent a minority of gun owners. The "majority" I refer to is the large number of people who don't even own guns, yet don't support increased gun control. This is largely known as common sense.

And most of us wouldn't lose our shit. But a significant number would. Just as I imagine a significant number of blacks, women, asians, and hispanics would lose their shit if we reverted to a "white males only" voting policy.

Common sense. I like how people's POV's are frequently labeled as such around here.

And I'm not going to equate what you're equating there (I know it's a frequent equivalency made, but I find it false)... but that aside, I'm not convinced that the few don't ruin it for the many when it comes to guns.

 

[irishScott]

Common sense. I like how people's POV's are frequently labeled as such around here.

And I'm not going to equate what you're equating there (I know it's a frequent equivalency made, but I find it false)... but that aside, I'm not convinced that the few don't ruin it for the many when it comes to guns.

It's perfectly equivalent, and there's no logical way for you to find it false in general terms. Take away someone's rights, and they get pissed. Some get so pissed they lose their shit. Guns are no different in this regard. Oh, and owning a gun is considered a right because it's mentioned in this small document call the Bill of Rights. You're entitled to your opinion on whether it should be a right, but that doesn't change the fact that under the United States Constitution and in the minds of many it is considered a right.

And honestly I've lost track of what your point is. That gun owners are scared? Or that the few ruin it for the many? Or none of the above?

 

[PrinceofWands]

I personally do, look at how easy it is for people to get a gun. The school shooting in California was done with a legally obtained gun. Same with the Arizona shooting, same with the VT shooting.

You'd have to define 'gun control' for me to answer your poll.

I find nothing wrong with how easy it is for law abiding citizens to get a gun. While it's unfortunate that criminals can also obtain them, there is absolutely NO WAY to prevent it, without far worse unintended consequences than you'd solve for. With 300,000,000 guns in America, everyone having them is an absolute given. Time we accept that, and move on to more important things, like what to do about things that matter - like crime.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'd be more comfortable with gun-owners if they'd just admit the fears that drive them to want to own a gun.

Right back at you. Admit you want them restricted because you're ignorant and afraid (all without statistical justification).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Most countries don't even have guns. I'd give up that right for universal health care. I'm OK with not having any guns for when the British invade and retake the colonies.

Many many do, without significant problems. It's not an either/or between guns and health care. We can have both.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Bad logic.

Only if you're inferring causation. So long as you're merely looking at facts as deniers of opposition claims, or correlations, it's perfectly logical and applicable.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well we can keep making gun crimes more illegal to make people feel better or we can actually start taking illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

You're offering a false dichotomy. What we can do is address the CAUSES of crime instead of the methods and tools. Make changes to REDUCE crime, and the rest will no longer matter.

As for the rest, how would you suggest doing that. There are 300,000,000 guns in America. How will you get them away from some, but not others, and do it without extreme violations and the evisceration of everything which is/was America?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Looks a lot like some parts of Arizona where it is not uncommon to see people open carrying with holstered handguns or over the shoulder rifles.

And yet Arizona has one of the lowest firearm ownership rates in America.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I, like most liberals, support intelligent gun control. That does not mean more necessarily, that does not mean less necessarily. That means better. Gun control that doesn't do anything to stop gun violence isn't anything but useless. Laws like Florida's stand your ground law hurt gun advocates as much as gun control they dislike because they basically allow vigilantism.

Can't say I know what gun control laws I think should be enacted, removed, updated, fixed whatever. I think better studies need be done to determine the most effective forms of action to fix this. Even if those forms of action don't even touch gun laws but instead touch education, community action, whatever.

Read the big NAS study (CDC also did a similar, but smaller one). There were unable to find a single positive causal relation from any gun control measure, nor a single negative causal relation from any forms of gun ownership. If they couldn't find SOMETHING, in the largest, best funded study ever attempted, with a group of all but one anti-gun proponent, then it simply is NOT there.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Gun crontrol is too helter-skelter now.

As was being voiced by the Legals, it makes it a PITA to get a gun if you apply, but criminals can get one as easily as shopping at Wal Mart.

Both are full of shizznit, of course, but still, there is a point.

I believe there should be a process for gun ownership. They are much less vital than, say, a car and are much more DIRECTLY deadly (balance out deaths by each with hours of active use and you will get a realistic death ratio), so they should have a process that is fair, swift, but thorough when it comes to licensing and purchase.

Example (none of the times are set in stone):

-10 hours training

-Licensing exam, including firing range test (you can't parallel park, you may not get your license. How can you get your gun if you have difficulty hitting the broad side of a barn?)

-Waiting period/background check. Lets face it, there are VERY FEW situations where you would legitimately need a handgun overnight. If you truly want one, you can wait 2 weeks util you are green lighted. Hell, it takes longer for kitchen cabinetry.

-Registration. People should be registered for each type of weapon they own and can own. The number is up for debate.

-Permit tagging or electronic key. This is the hard one. We have it now where they can make wrist bands or other means to make sure YOU are the only one that can fire your gun. There can be provisions applied making your gun registered to yourself, your wife, and your 22 year old kid, but nobody can sneak in, find the gun in the sock drawer, and hold you up with it. Also, this would NOT BE REGISTERED. This is not a government tally sheet. YOU will be able to set and reset your key-bands. They will be issued to you by the licensing division depending on what you are licensed in, but then you can sync it with your own weapons.

That last one, is like I said, difficult.

But we have to find a way to limit guns getting into the hands of:
Kids
Criminals
The mentally unstable

If all it takes to have a gun is patience and some training, a lot less unstable individuals would have them.

If we had those lock bands, it would be much more difficult for someone to use what does not belong to them (hell, these should be standard issue for cops already!)

The key is not banning weapons, but stop changing the subject every time someone says anything about regulating them. Then need regulation and we need to come up with something a bit more universally applied even if it has local provisions.

And yet there is no evidence showing that training requirements have any impact on later incidents. Same is true of waiting periods. If it has no effect, why implement it?

Sorry, but I only believe in laws that address a definite problem, and have a verifiable chance of making things better without making things worse.

I won't even touch the lunacy of your last idea.

 

[theeedude]

I would say I am fine with the amount of gun control we have in California, I wouldn't support more or less.

 

[davmat787]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if those on the left/democrats favor stricter gun control strictly because they perceive it would hurt the right/republicans, and not based on any rationale or statistics.

Gallup: Self-reported gun ownership rises, especially among women, Dems

It looks like over the past couple of years, gun buying has increased among Democrats more than Republicans.

This article has a lot of good statistics on who is buying and own guns, with a lot of perty graphs and stuff for those of us who prefer pictures over words.

My point is that gun ownership crosses party lines more than I think a lot of folks realize. This is not strictly a right vs. left issue by any means.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

 

[irishScott]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if those on the left/democrats favor stricter gun control strictly because they perceive it would hurt the right/republicans, and not based on any rationale or statistics.

Gallup: Self-reported gun ownership rises, especially among women, Dems

It looks like over the past couple of years, gun buying has increased among Democrats more than Republicans.

This article has a lot of good statistics on who is buying and own guns, with a lot of perty graphs and stuff for those of us who prefer pictures over words.

My point is that gun ownership crosses party lines more than I think a lot of folks realize. This is not strictly a right vs. left issue by any means.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

I blame Clinton for the appearance of a schism. The creation of the ATF and the FAWB cemented gun control as a piece of the liberal political platform.

 

[alkemyst]

I think the motives are interesting. I'm not trying to ban anything. I just enjoy the psychology of gun owners. It's fascinating. The gun sales spike during this administration seemingly based on fears of new legislation suggest fear as a motivator.

And I'm not stereotyping all of them as paranoid or fearful or anything like that. But many do have fear as a priciple motivator for ownership.

It's the ones who have the motivation and deny it that are suspect to me. Mature people have no problem admitting fears.

But by all means, attack me based on the age you imagine me to be. I'm sure that's not coming from a vantage of hilarious arrogance.

Well most are afraid to be mugged/robbed...it's not some irrational fear that anti-gun people have (and almost all anti-gun people do have irrational fear of stray bullets, them being accidentally thought to be a 'perp' and shot, etc).

It's funny how that is now a disqualifier in your eyes to own a gun. However, irrationally you more than likely think because someone purchased a gun because of fear, they lie paranoid clutching their firearm each night, staring into the darkness.

Many put it in a safe place and don't think much about it anymore. This is why many of the pro-gun crowd encourage gun owners to practice more.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I'd be more comfortable with gun-owners if they'd just admit the fears that drive them to want to own a gun.

We admit to them, but are then labeled racists.

Anti-gun people are anti-freedom. It's as simple as that. If you want freedom, you have to take risks.
I find the poll results here very telling of the true view on the subject. This forum is pretty heavy left leaning and has quite a few very out spoken "raging liberals" but the poll as of this posting has NO as the overwhelming answer.
I think more and more people are starting to wake up and see that guns aren't the problem. Banning guns isn't going to solve anything. People intent on killing will find some way to do it. Be it, knives, baseball bats, clubs, bombs, ect.

 

[Fern]

With more states than ever allowing concealed carry more people are carrying guns now. Handguns sales skyrocketed when Obama became President, crime is down.

Mexico has tough gun control laws, crime is high. All the drug cartels are well armed.

Bad logic.

His posts is a mere list of facts.

Any logic is to be applied by the reader of said post.

Fern