"Sensible Gun Laws"


PDA






svtruth
December 22, 2012, 08:29 PM
One often hears this phrase, but it is clear that the Brady bunch (among others) has no idea what they are. If the things that get a state a high grade really worked then the states with high grades would have low levels of gun violence, and vice versa. In fact, I once regressed gun violence rates on Brady grades and got a weak, non-significant positive correlation, that is higher graded states had higher levels of gun violence. On a less quantitative basis compare Vermont, minimal laws, minimal violence with Chicago and/or DC.
Interestingly when I post that info on general discussion forums that have threads on gun control, I don't get responses.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Sensible Gun Laws"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
somerandomguy
December 22, 2012, 08:38 PM
"sensible" and "gun laws" don't even belong in the same sentence imo. It's a fallacy to think there is such a thing as sensible gun control.

rbernie
December 22, 2012, 08:39 PM
Word.

beeb173
December 22, 2012, 08:46 PM
I find it ironic that a self defense fire arm usually would hold 5-7 rounds but in order to stop a mass shooter you would want a higher capacity given that you are going against superior firepower. So in response to a mass shooting congress is considering reducing the legal capacity of firearms.

Irony at its finest.

BobTheTomato
December 22, 2012, 08:49 PM
They say "sensible" because they dont want to actually want to tell want they want. Who wouldnt want to support sensible laws? Its the same reason they called it the Patroit act.....I mean you dont hate america do you. The devil will be in the details.

taliv
December 22, 2012, 09:11 PM
preaching to the choir here

Trent
December 22, 2012, 09:12 PM
"Sensible gun laws?"

Needs to go no further than "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Rocketmedic
December 22, 2012, 09:48 PM
I think that the existing laws are fairly sensible. I really don't want felons, the mentally unstable/ill, or those who beat their spouses to have access to firearms.

The Second Amendment is a right, but it is not an unrestricted right.

rbernie
December 22, 2012, 09:53 PM
I think that the existing laws are fairly sensible. I really don't want felons, the mentally unstable/ill, or those who beat their spouses to have access to firearmsFunny thing is, that's the way that it was prior to 1968 and we seemed to get by just fine with little-to-no issue greater than we experience today. The fact is that there has been careful study given to the topic, and there is no actual statistical evidence that gun laws (even the shackles that you so willingly accept) have any observable effect on public safety.

Common sense also once presumed that the world was flat, and other such notions. Sometimes the truth doesn't conform to expectations.

The real question is - what you one with the knowledge that you've just been given? Do you verify it, or dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your desired worldview?

somerandomguy
December 22, 2012, 09:56 PM
I disagree Rocket. I think that once you've been released from prison, you've served your time and paid your debt to society. I can't in good conscience say that I want to rehabillitate people who have been released from prison while stripping them of their rights as citizens.

morcey2
December 22, 2012, 10:00 PM
It all depends on who's defining "sensible." Most of the people talking about "sensible" gun laws believe that the only people that should have them are the police and military. Oh, and their own personal armed bodyguards.

Rocketmedic
December 22, 2012, 10:05 PM
I think that you and I would disagree on the effectiveness of prison, sir.

I run into convicts literally every day. Some are decent, upstanding people. Most are trying to be that way but failing.

Actions have consequences. I firmly believe that one such consequence should be a loss of firearms rights.

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
December 22, 2012, 10:08 PM
there are about 40,000 "Sensible Gunlaws" already on the books, and are not b being enforced. How will 40,001 Laws change anything?

somerandomguy
December 22, 2012, 10:08 PM
I think that you and I would disagree on the effectiveness of prison, sir.

I run into convicts literally every day. Some are decent, upstanding people. Most are trying to be that way but failing.

Actions have consequences. I firmly believe that one such consequence should be a loss of firearms rights.
Right, just like not letting them vote and treating them like they aren't humans isn't going to make them go back and commit crimes at all. *sarcasm*

They've served their time, leave them alone.

C5rider
December 22, 2012, 10:12 PM
It's a fallacy to think there is such a thing as sensible gun control.
No, there is. It's called personal responsibility and the four laws of handling a firearm.:D

igousigloo
December 22, 2012, 10:17 PM
I disagree Rocket. I think that once you've been released from prison, you've served your time and paid your debt to society.
I don't agree with this, in years past we hung our murderers but now they are released in two or three years.

CB900F
December 22, 2012, 10:28 PM
Fella's;

There is a sensible gun law. The problem with it is, is that it's no longer enforced. It's called "the second amendment".

Would that the citizens of New York State held a straw poll on the eve of the passage of the infamous "Sulllivan Act", and effectively negated the passage of same in the name of the second. I wonder if I could get Harry Turtledove to start a series of alternative history fiction using that as the base line divergent point.

900F

DanTheFarmer
December 23, 2012, 12:24 AM
I'm all for sensible gun laws. My definition of sensible includes "likely to be effective".

I don't think a magazine capacity limit or a new AWB would be effective, therefore I don't think either of those two ideas qualify as "sensible".

Dan

Sharps-shooter
December 23, 2012, 12:43 AM
The last set of 'sensible gun laws' that they tried, the 1994 awb, did nothing.
I think the next round might focus on things like tacky pink rifles, sideways shooting pistols, and guns with more than 1 scope, two lasers, or four picatinny rails. Also leverguns with telescoping buttstocks.

Highland Ranger
December 23, 2012, 12:45 AM
The Second Amendment is a right, but it is not an unrestricted right.

That's the modern definition put forth by the folks who want to take all guns away, usually muttered in the same breath as the yelling fire in a movie theatre thing with regard to the first.

The actual text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where do you see anything about restrictions there?

And even with all the restrictions somehow we still have tragedy.

Bottom line - can't escape personal accountability.

bushmaster1313
December 23, 2012, 12:56 AM
New Jersey's strict laws have eliminated all crime in the Garden State

Alaska444
December 23, 2012, 01:08 AM
Right, just like not letting them vote and treating them like they aren't humans isn't going to make them go back and commit crimes at all. *sarcasm*

They've served their time, leave them alone.
If they are truly rehabilitated, then let them petition for their rights to be restored. There are consequences for serious crimes. Sorry, but they are also at high risk of repeat crimes. It is only prudent to restrict their access to guns. I have no problems with that policy.

Rocketmedic
December 23, 2012, 01:09 AM
That's the modern definition put forth by the folks who want to take all guns away, usually muttered in the same breath as the yelling fire in a movie theatre thing with regard to the first.

The actual text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where do you see anything about restrictions there?

And even with all the restrictions somehow we still have tragedy.

Bottom line - can't escape personal accountability.
Can you own a Stinger? What about an IED? Why not a field of Claymore mines?

The Second Amendment is already restricted, for good reason. A private citizen has no business owning some military-grade weaponry.

BryanDavis
December 23, 2012, 01:18 AM
Can you own a Stinger? What about an IED? Why not a field of Claymore mines?

The Second Amendment is already restricted, for good reason. A private citizen has no business owning some military-grade weaponry.
Actually Rocketmedic, in many states you can own things like IEDs. They just have to be registered as destructive devices per the 1934 NFA.

(I am not a lawyer.)

Paladin38-40
December 23, 2012, 01:26 AM
Having conducted hundreds of searches of felon's homes and vehicles over a 38 year career, let me assure you their access to firearms is not limited.

Fast Frank
December 23, 2012, 01:34 AM
I'm all about sensible gun laws.

But Where can we find some?

Like, I can have a rifle with a long barrel, or a pistol with a short barrel...

But if I make my rifle short (But still longer than a pistol) I'm a felon.

Or if I put a rifle stock on my pistol and make it longer (But still shorter than a rifle) I'm a felon.

Or if I put a muffler on my target pistol (A safety device required in other places) I have to pay a ridiculous tax or I become a felon.

Let's face it- Our gun laws are Looney Tunes and need a serious overhaul.

I would LOVE to see some common sense gun laws.

Highland Ranger
December 23, 2012, 01:35 AM
Can you own a Stinger? What about an IED? Why not a field of Claymore mines?

The Second Amendment is already restricted, for good reason. A private citizen has no business owning some military-grade weaponry.

Red herring. Military controls those - except the IED of course, those you can make at home by definition - the "I" = improvised right?

So no need for more laws. For the rest, if you could get them I'd also imagine that there'd be some serious cost there as well, out of the reach of most people and other than criminals who can have them anyway, people with money have too much stake in society to be doing something stupid.

See? Accountability.

Learned early in my career writing complex technical contract docs (the tech side, not the legal side) that it is very hard to write something that covers every circumstance and if you try you usually don't wind up with the desired outcome.

And that's with good intentions. If the intention is to say one thing " we need reasonable gun laws" but really mean - we'd like you to be completely defenseless, only government can own weapons - - - then all bets are off.

Same holds true for laws. Even with good intentions you can't protect people from stupid, crazy or roll of the dice. That's life. Crawl in a bubble or live it, your choice (at least for now.)

Best approach is to make people personally accountable. Not a country of amateur lawyers.

There are way too many laws already and more coming every day - what happens when we all become lawbreakers because you can't go through the day without some infraction?

Corruption.

Heck that's probably the case now. (Wasn't that a science fiction novel?)

And on what planet, is your Grandpa's squirrel gun or your BB gun (yes - considered a fire arm in NJ even though no fire in the arm) an assault weapon?

How about this - if you are caught in NJ peeing in public, you are booked as a felon I believe (no guns) and to boot get to spend the rest of your life on the sex offender registry. Better go in your pants in NJ boys!

Hollow points are also a felony, not the cartridge, just the bullet - years ago they were busting folks in Newark airport for having those keychains.

I can go on.

Does any rational adult really think we don't have too many laws already and that more laws isn't the issue?

gbw
December 23, 2012, 01:55 AM
I've watched this debate(?) with interest. Lots of heat, little light.

Individual state laws are useless, it's silly citing them to show gun laws are ineffective. It's too easy to buy in the next state. All of us who go to gun shows have seen parking lot deals.

Politicians are going after guns because guns are nearly always the tools used in these slaughters. Usually now it's hi-cap semi-autos.

The pols know this. They know ARs and Glocks are used because they are the most effective way, easily available to the unskilled, to kill lots of people quickly. Guns are also the easiest and highest publicity target for them.

If the anti-politicians are really serious they will go for minimum of 2 things on Federal level:

Ban outright all semi-auto detachable magazine fed rifles and make it retroactive. Max internal capacity of 8 (Garand). Perhaps exempt existing .22RF tubular fed guns.

No detachable mags of any kind for any weapon over 10 rounds or 8 or whatever, also retroactive (not really a a reasonable way to make a fixed-mag pistol except for the old broomhandle mausers).

Strict penalties, no expections, no waivers and a deadline to comply. Police officers included except on duty with issued weapons.

Eventually these would have some hope of lowering the body count though they wouldn't eliminate it.

Over time nearly everyone would comply because it just would not be worth the risk - other types of guns would still be available. And, over time semi-auto hi-cap rifles and pistols would become rare.

Anything short of these and I think they are just blowing smoke like the old AWB / hi-cap "bans" which banned nothing and had no effect. Except Clinton et al. got to claim credit for an AWB, which they do to this day.

Now everybody's gonna yell and scream about about the constitution and 'confiscation without just cause and compensation'. Bull. That will be easy for them to finesse. Especially if any of the Heller 5 on the SC retire or die in the next 4 years.

How close they come to this and how hard they push for it will be a measure of their sincerity, I think

The NRA was sad - I've never been embarrassed to be a member before. I don't accept armed teachers will keep the kids safe - I know too many teachers. And this ain't Isreal. If LaPierre (and Boehner) are truly the best we have or can come up with for leadership then we deserve to continue to lose, and we will.

I hear lots about 'personal accountablity', which sound good and means nothing. Lots of these people blow their own heads off - that's about as accountable as it gets, and ALL the rest are arrested. Accountability works for the law abiding and they aren't the problem. For the others it only works after the fact when its too late and people are dead.

The stinger / IED point is valid - these are never used because they are effectively banned. Same for dynamite, same for machine guns. So some bans do work, especially in the long run.

Everybody is saying forcing smaller mags will just result in more reloads, and how fast they are at it. Nope. Maybe so on the range to prove a point. But I'd like a dollar for every match I've seen blown by botched reloads, and this is by experienced shooters under mild match pressure. Wasn't the Giffords shooter taken while trying to reload?

Also lots of yakking about no restrictions on the 2A. Get real. There is no unrestricted right. None. There are no rights at except those society chooses to recognize.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

BryanDavis
December 23, 2012, 02:18 AM
I've watched this debate(?) with interest. Lots of heat, little light.

The stinger / IED point is valid - these are never used because they are effectively banned. Same for dynamite, same for machine guns. So some bans do work, especially in the long run.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

Ummm, what? The stinger / IED point is valid? What about Timothy McVeigh? Richard Reid? 9/11? Hell at Columbine they attempted to use propane explosives, it didn't work but the thought was there.

I also don't get how you can say "some bans do work" when crime rates don't seem to be influenced by them in the least. Columbine happened in the middle of the first AWB. The 1934 NFA didn't end the massive mob violence at the time. The 1968 GCA wasn't a panacea to any sort of crime.

Hell the only thing I can think of that did have a miniscule effect on crime was the new trend of concealed carry. An impossibility 50 years ago, now most states issue carry permits, and blood hasn't run red through the streets. It didn't devolve society into the "Wild West" as some predicted.

Gun control is a social experiment that has failed time and time again. Much like socialism (another social experiment) it has some very strong proponents but that doesn't change what it is, trying to shape society through policy instead of through leadership.

gbw
December 23, 2012, 02:44 AM
Hiding behind the fact that nothing's perfect, as an excuse to do nothing, isn't too helpful. But I see a lot of it here.

McVeigh did find a way, with dedication and a big truck, no one since. The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives. Some bans work. Stingers are banned and never used, nor RPGs, nor is dynamite, nor are machine guns - NFA did end them -eventually. 9/11 was a planned coordinated attack which isn't the issue here. Some bans don't - drugs are banned and widely available.

The first AWB/hi-cap mag didn't ban anything at all. Nothing. it was a political sham and everyone knows it. It did raise prices a little and made for som odd looking guns.

No one I know of thinks crime rate will go down, A lot here do keep trying to shift the talk to the crime rate so we can point to it. But thats blowing smoke. The crimes will be committed by the criminals.

The argument is that fewer will die if they have to use an 870 instead of an M4. That's probably true, but it's only possible, perhaps, in a nationwide retroactive ban - so that's what I'm using to judge how serious they are.

Had my say. Carry on.

Onmilo
December 23, 2012, 02:45 AM
"Sensible Gun Laws" is an oxymoron

Highland Ranger
December 23, 2012, 02:46 AM
Individual state laws are useless, it's silly citing them to show gun laws are ineffective.

Not silly - thread is about "sensible" gun laws and the point in that context is that there are too many laws already and in many places we've gone way past sensible. Nothing says that can't happen at the federal level.

Police officers included except on duty with issued weapons.

Hah - that's a laugh. Just like they are included in the ban on commercial flights right?

The NRA was sad - I've never been embarrassed to be a member before.
You haven't been a member long eh?

I don't accept armed teachers will keep the kids safe - I know too many teachers.
How often do police stations get shot up? And if you watched the video, I believe the primary suggestion is armed security, voluteers, etc. so the Bank Guard vs the Teller.

Accountability works for the law abiding and they aren't the problem.

Which is why more laws, aren't intended to solve anything other than to separate you from any form of weapon.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

Who's doing that?

BryanDavis
December 23, 2012, 02:55 AM
Hiding behind the fact that nothing's perfect as an excuse to do nothing isn't too helpful. But I see a lot of it here.

McVeigh did find a way, no one since. The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives. Some bans work. Stingers are banned and never used, nor RPGs, nor is dynamite, nor are machine guns - NFA did end them -eventually. 9/11 was a planned coordinated attack which isn't the issue here. Some bans don't - drugs are banned and widely available.

The first AWB didn't ban anything at all. Nothing. It did raise prices a little and made for som odd looking guns.

No one I know of thinks crime rate will go down, although too many of us keep trying to shift the talk to the crime rate so we can point to it. The crimes will be committed by the criminals.

The argument is that fewer will die if they have to use an 870 instead of an M4. That's probably true, but it's only possible, perhaps, in a nationwide retroactive ban - so that's what I'm using to judge how serious they are.

Had my say. Carry on.

Using singular events and then claiming a pattern when there is none (as evidenced By the crime rate) is deceitful.

McVeigh found a way? What about Richard Reid? What about the underwear bomber? What about zip guns in general? They're a "serious problem" in the UK.

You do think the crime rate will go down. Rest assured you do, as evidenced by you saying "fewer will die" thereby dropping the homicide rate by however many. Now as to whether or not that'll actually happen? We can look at the same crime rate you claim won't be affected and see that it won't. We can use examples like the less mathematically inclined among us can do and we can see that that's a no-go too, seeing as the Columbine kids used a shotgun.

(As long as we're commenting on the nature of various sides of this...) On the anti-gun side I see lots of emotional rhetoric, Piers Morgan screaming at his guests, etc. I do not see Reason. I do not see Reasonable people. I see fear, and I see Hate. I do not see good.

gbw
December 23, 2012, 03:17 AM
Really didn't get the singluar event comment - I didn't bring up McVeigh if that what was meant.

The focus for the time being is on gun violence, so all the 'what about this or that' really isn't the issue, just more smokescreen. But it's a fact nothing will lead to nirvana. On the other hand, none of the guys cited were able to get any quantities of high explosives.

I said what I meant. The crime rate doesn't change. The same number of people will likely commit the same number of crimes. The idea is to reduce the death rate. For most of us, for example, the recent slaughter is a single crime with a high death toll. Perhaps the statisticians will argue otherwise but that's how most of us think.

But think what they could have done with ARs.

The argument from the antis with any sense (few for sure) is that less available firepower means a lower death toll. That simple.

We can agree on the character of most of the most vocal of the liberals. They are vile.

Now I really am done.

wacki
December 23, 2012, 04:33 AM
Look up Joseph Goebbels argumentum ad nauseum.

i.e. If you don't have a leg to stand on, just tell everyone it's "sensible" or "common sense". If 1,000 people say it millions will follow.

hershmeister
December 23, 2012, 06:37 AM
How is that drug ban working out?

Onmilo
December 23, 2012, 09:33 AM
Tim Mcveigh didn't use a gun and committed his murderous deeds AFTER the 1994 AWB.
Josef Goebbles was a Master of Propaganda.
Extreme Gun Control is working so well in Mexico the country has become the Murder Capital of the Americas.
There.
I said it.

CZ223
December 23, 2012, 09:36 AM
and that didn't seem to work. I don't see it, or anything like it working any better this time. So why don't we try something a little different for the next ten years. Lets get rid of gun free zones alltogether. After all, isn't it there where most of these mass shootings happen. Let every law abiding citizen who wants to carry a gun, carry a gun. Lets face it, if the goverment were to do what GBW suggest they should do, and it had the effect of lowering the death count by a small percentage wouldn't the next "reasonable" step be to ban revolvers and lever actions. Heck those guys can put a lot of lead down range in a short amount of time. The fact of the matter is that the government can't protect you. Why then take away the means to protect yourself. Also, if you are a violent fellon, drug dealer etc. your rights to legally own a weapon should be forfeited.

Onmilo
December 23, 2012, 09:52 AM
Felons do not have rights to own a firearm now.
I see them in the local paper over and over being arrested in possession of a firearm yet the local Attorney General rarely pursues charges because the state cannot afford to lock them up.

Pilot
December 23, 2012, 09:54 AM
"Sensible Gun Laws" is an oxymoron


Look up Joseph Goebbels argumentum ad nauseum.

i.e. If you don't have a leg to stand on, just tell everyone it's "sensible" or "common sense". If 1,000 people say it millions will follow.

Very true statements "Sensible" is code speak. Unknowing people hear that word, then tend to tune the rest out because "what can be wrong with sensible?". However, like the word "reasonable" it means different things to different people. To Goebbels and Nazi Germany, extermination of the Jews, and disarming the populace was "sensible". :fire:

Sensible and/or reasonable are just other words for destroying legal, law abiding citiznes abiltiy to own firearms. How about we make it really sensible and reasonable and prosecute criminals that use guns illegally to the fullest extent of the law?

BogBabe
December 23, 2012, 10:17 AM
I'm all about sensible gun laws.

But Where can we find some?<snip>

I would LOVE to see some common sense gun laws.

Believe it or not, there are some common-sense gun laws. Kennesaw, Georgia, has two. One says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." That's sensible, IMO.

The other exempts from that requirement people with physical or mental disabilities, those too poor to own a firearm, convicted felons, and religious & conscientious objectors. That's also sensible, IMO.

And Kennesaw has an extraordinarily low crime rate.

So there we have two sensible gun laws in one place. I'd like to see more like that.

I most definitely do not want to see new "common sense gun control" laws based on some gun-grabber's idea of "common sense." Those are typically not based on anything but emotion and fear.

Onmilo
December 23, 2012, 10:41 AM
"Those too poor to own a firearm"
One of the first purchases freed slaves made was a gun.
If a person is truely that poor, they are a ward of the state and don't need a gun
The state will protect them,,, right? :rolleyes:

BogBabe
December 23, 2012, 10:50 AM
"Those too poor to own a firearm"
that is about as unsensible as unsensible gets.
One of the first purchases freed slaves made was a gun.
If a person is truely that poor, they are a ward of the state and don't need a gun
The state will protect them,,, right?

The poor are exempted from the requirement to own a gun. They're not prohibited from owning guns. Big difference.

Crashbox
December 23, 2012, 11:01 AM
The ONLY "sensible" gun law I can think of is one that would OUTLAW gun-free zones.

2ifbyC
December 23, 2012, 12:01 PM
I just sat down at the computer after having a sensible breakfast and my eyes sensed upon a nonsensical topic: Sensible gun laws.

Sensible is a conclusion reached by an individual after passing through his own reasoning and judgment. Such laws are dangerous since they are subject to interpretation. Such stuff as dreams are made on (for lawyers).

The 2A has been honed with 20K+ “sensible” addendums and in the view of anti-gun advocates, ripe for more. Nonsense!
Just by two sense (malapropism for those with a sense of humor).

BryanDavis
December 23, 2012, 01:59 PM
I said what I meant. The crime rate doesn't change. The same number of people will likely commit the same number of crimes. The idea is to reduce the death rate. For most of us, for example, the recent slaughter is a single crime with a high death toll. Perhaps the statisticians will argue otherwise but that's how most of us think.

But think what they could have done with ARs.

The argument from the antis with any sense (few for sure) is that less available firepower means a lower death toll. That simple.

27 Homicides occurred in Newtown that day, not one large murder with a very high "death rate". To think otherwise belittles the situation. So yes, the crime rate is affected. I'm no statistician but that's how it will be recorded in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Which is generally the go-to resource for this sort of thing.

Many countries have tried the sort of thinking where they limit "firepower". In China and Japan they now have mass knifings. Such as in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, where a single individual killed 8 children and wounded many others.

Their response? A security guard.

To put it simply banning the weapons involved is like NYC's banning of Big Gulps. It leads to a dark road of confiscation, intimidation and a state very similar to China's where the freedoms we enjoy are gone, but the problems they supposedly created remain.

BogBabe
December 23, 2012, 04:21 PM
The ONLY "sensible" gun law I can think of is one that would OUTLAW gun-free zones.

+1 to this. (And is exactly why I like Kennesaw's "sensible" gun laws -- no one can call Kennesaw a gun-free zone.)

I'm more and more in favor of allowing and encouraging teachers to CCW at school. Even if there's only a handful at any given school on any given day, that's more armed defenders than there would be with one armed LEO or private security guard posted at every school. It would either cost nothing extra and require no new bureaucracies or additional funding, or would involve a very minimal cost. And it wouldn't have the feel of turning the schools into police states.

I'm adamantly opposed to any new gun control laws or any further erosion of any of our Constitutionally enumerated rights. That particularly includes the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th, as well as the 2nd. No new gun control laws. No locking people up because of what they might do. No banning of video games or movies.

CB900F
December 23, 2012, 04:31 PM
Fella's;

It would seem that gbw is espousing the Australian model for oncoming firearms restrictions in this county. He appears to be posing as a firearms enthusiast, putting forth what he sees coming.

I've seen this same set of arguments on another forum, with the single difference that the advocate of the Australian system was, and remains virulently anti firearms and anti-American. He was an Australian, and gbw is allowing us to believe that he's an American. And he may very well be, but he's no friend of RKBA in my book.

900F

Bohemus
December 23, 2012, 05:47 PM
Very true statements "Sensible" is code speak. Unknowing people hear that word, then tend to tune the rest out because "what can be wrong with sensible?". However, like the word "reasonable" it means different things to different people. To Goebbels and Nazi Germany, extermination of the Jews, and disarming the populace was "sensible". :fire:

....

I wouldnt argument with nazi Germany, I would use current Germany and lump it together with other states(countries) that both have gunfree zones and shooting sprees at schools. And the show other states/countries that have niether.

Simply: States with gun-free zones are dangerous for kids and states where you can carry guns to school are safe. Regardles whether its in US or in Europe.

Xyr
December 23, 2012, 05:54 PM
There really isn't ANY way to make a criminal scumbag put down his gun. Outside of imprisoning them by force or killing them...ironically....by force.

P5 Guy
December 23, 2012, 06:07 PM
Do not use or carry a firearm with the intent to do harm to another person?
A variation on a couple of the more secular of the Ten Commandments.

beatledog7
December 23, 2012, 06:42 PM
Do not use or carry a firearm with the intent to do harm to another person?

But that is ultimately the reason to carry one. I hope I never have to, but I carry a gun so I can inflict harm on another person if I must do so to stop him from harming me or others.

I would modify it to say: Thou shalt not use or carry a firearm with the intent to do harm to another person who has no intent of inflicting harm on others (and others includes you).

Wolfsbane
January 14, 2013, 03:04 AM
Hiding behind the fact that nothing's perfect, as an excuse to do nothing, isn't too helpful. But I see a lot of it here.

McVeigh did find a way, with dedication and a big truck, no one since. The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives. Some bans work. Stingers are banned and never used, nor RPGs, nor is dynamite, nor are machine guns - NFA did end them -eventually. 9/11 was a planned coordinated attack which isn't the issue here. Some bans don't - drugs are banned and widely available.

The first AWB/hi-cap mag didn't ban anything at all. Nothing. it was a political sham and everyone knows it. It did raise prices a little and made for som odd looking guns.

No one I know of thinks crime rate will go down, A lot here do keep trying to shift the talk to the crime rate so we can point to it. But thats blowing smoke. The crimes will be committed by the criminals.

The argument is that fewer will die if they have to use an 870 instead of an M4. That's probably true, but it's only possible, perhaps, in a nationwide retroactive ban - so that's what I'm using to judge how serious they are.

Had my say. Carry on.
They should have just waited a few years. I just saw a youtube video with instructions for making acetone peroxide explosive. Isn't technology great?

"The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives."

Alaska444
January 14, 2013, 03:26 AM
"Sensible gun laws?"

Needs to go no further than "Thou shalt not commit murder."
Amen, preach it!!

easyg
January 14, 2013, 04:05 AM
We already have thousands of gun laws.
Making more gun laws is a waste of time and money.

beeb173
January 15, 2013, 08:52 AM
make it a misdemeanor to load a rifle magazine while not at a range or in your home or on your property. if the police stop a suspicious vehicle loaded for bear they have probible cause. (not a lawyer but i stayed at a holiday inn last night)

in exchange CPL holders can carry in gun free zones. no more soft targets.

gunsandreligion
January 15, 2013, 12:40 PM
It leads to a dark road of confiscation, intimidation and a state very similar to China's where the freedoms we enjoy are gone, but the problems they supposedly created remain.+1

Westfair
January 15, 2013, 05:07 PM
Emotionally charged buzzwords. It's a propaganda tactic meant to disarm any ability to argue against the term. No matter how rational you are, most people are just going to tune out anything you have to say against "sensible gun laws" and brand you as crazy. "He's arguing against sensible things! He's a gun nut!"

Words are powerful - especially when used against a population that devours as much media as ours without really thinking about it. Just look at how much advertising we are subjected to every day.

I've posted a great video in a couple other threads about this topic but I'll go ahead and post it here as well. War of the Words. (http://youtu.be/q2riOiBaZrg) Short, but quite informative.

DammitBoy
January 15, 2013, 05:22 PM
"Those too poor to own a firearm"
One of the first purchases freed slaves made was a gun.
If a person is truely that poor, they are a ward of the state and don't need a gun
The state will protect them,,, right? :rolleyes:

Actually, Kennesaw offered free firearms from their collection of confiscated criminals firearms to any head of household that could not afford a firearm.

They also had a training/qualification requirement, if I'm not mistaken...

Ehtereon11B
January 15, 2013, 05:34 PM
"Sensible gun laws" is a feel good measure and polarizing term. It is an attempt by antis to make gun owners look stubborn and impossible to negotiate with. Since we rarely agree with "sensible gun control" like what is happening in NY right now. Because they aren't taking away firearms, just making it harder to own them and what they have.

Zeke/PA
January 15, 2013, 06:24 PM
Gun Laws??
Let's try some STRICT and MEANINGFUL enforcement of EXISTING stuff.
The Politicos of course, don't wanna hear THIS kind of Crap as something as sensible will NOT enhance their personal adgendas.
A BIG Lie??
You Bet!

Okiegunner
January 15, 2013, 06:29 PM
Has anyone noticed that it appears to be the deep "Blue" states that are most interested in disarming their law-abiding populace?

Er...I mean, enacting "sensible gun laws".

If you enjoyed reading about ""Sensible Gun Laws"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!