Gun control by firearms enthusiasts. Your thoughts.

[JohnL2]

I've been meaning to ask this question on the boards for a while now. So here goes.
Gun crimes are a complex issue. The media and certain legislators have their views on what should pass to curtail gun violence. I do believe there obviously must be some laws in purchasing a firearm. The question is, how much? Is the current system adequate? Is there parity among the states and is it robust and relevant? How much of it boondoggle legislation?
Or should the laws be more strict and punitive on the sentencing side in gun crimes?
A lot of the gun control legislation just strike me as rather gimmicky. I would like to know the firearm communities opinions on this. Please no wisecracks.

 

[springmom]

I do believe there obviously must be some laws in purchasing a firearm. The question is, how much?

No wisecrack: but why? What does legislative oversight accomplish, except to restrict what law abiding citizens can buy? And if I am a law abiding citizen, why should I be regulated anyway?

The answer? Zero. No more than if I go buy a 3" Benchmade or a can of Coke Zero. It's none of the govermnent's concern.

Springmom

 

[K3]

What makes 'gun crimes' complicated?

Murder is still murder, regardless of the tool used to do it. Is it complicated because of people's feelings on the matter? If so, that's not a very good reason.

Deal with violent crime harshly and don't worry about guns.

Gun laws only affect the law abiding. They are not hurting their target audience, assuming criminals are in fact the target audience, and that is something I'm not sure of given the rhetoric of some in Washington and the Brady bunch types.

 

[SWMAN]

Gun control? People control is the answer.

 

[El Tejon]

Gun crime is no more complicated that check fraud or forgery.

With both matters, prior restraint is unconstitutional. We punish the crime, we do not prohibit writing or pens or paper.

Government can no more regulate gun sales than it can regulate book sales.

 

[ky_man]

The state laws we have in place are fine (KY). Enforce them. It has cost a lot of taxpayer dollars and time to get these laws on the books, and they seem to work. The validity of this statement depends on who you talk to, however.

Personally, I'd like to see a few of KY's laws repealed.

I do not believe the Federal Gov't has the right to pass ANY gun control laws. Therefore, the following should be repealed:

* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986)
* Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)

 

[ZeSpectre]

John,
I can tell that you are asking a serious question in a serious tone so I'm going to reply and hopefully you will take it in the same tone. I'm intending a debate not any sort of personal attack.

Having said that,

Gun crimes are a complex issue

I disagree. Not that the issue of crime isn't complex, but it is a complete red-herring to focus on the tools used and not the criminals that use them. Try to take away the tools and a criminal will find others. Now enforce the laws that take the CRIMINAL out of the equation and the problem ends.

I do believe there obviously must be some laws in purchasing a firearm.

It's not "obvious" at all. There is an almost unimaginable list of tools out there from gasoline to automobiles. ANY of these items could be used by the deranged or criminal to harm others yet most of these are unregulated and freely obtainable. Why this inconsistency? The simple answer is the same as above. The tools aren't the important part, it's the person and their choices that matter. Put simply, good people don't do bad things. Bad people will do bad things and then you must address them (the bad people).

Sadly when bad people do bad things there are a lot of people who want a neat, quick, and easy solution handed to them on a platter. Dealing with criminals is seldom neat, quick, or easy (in fact it's usually quite tricky and usually messy). Inanimate objects are FAR easier to target even if doing so is a completely useless act.

Should the laws be more strict and punitive on the sentencing side in gun crimes?

If someone commits a horrible act such as rape or murder do we really need additional laws to make it "double illegal" because of the tool they used during the commission of the crime? Aren't those kinds of crimes bad enough on their own?

A lot of the gun control legislation just strike me as rather gimmicky.

It is. I would be afraid to hazard a percentage type guess but a LOT of the legislation is created/passed by politicians who have to make the general public feel like they are being taken care of, otherwise said politicians are going to be out of office. To misquote Shakespeare "Sound and fury, signifying...nothing"

I'd love a world where we stopped getting sidetracked by tools and focused on the criminals!

 

[glummer]

JohnL2

Gun crimes are a complex issue.

The “Jewish Problem” in Germany was complex, too. For the same reasons – when bigots pass irrational laws, things get complex.

The media and certain legislators have their views on what should pass to curtail gun violence.

But they have no such views on “non-gun” violence? Why not?

I do believe there obviously must be some laws in purchasing a firearm.

Why? I do believe you are wrong.

The question is, how much?

I would say, none.

Is the current system adequate?

It serves well to stigmatize the target group; you, yourself, appear to accept that we are “different” and must be dealt with differently; so I suppose that is adequate, from the legislators’ viewpoint.

Or should the laws be more strict and punitive on the sentencing side in gun crimes?

Again, why? A crime is a crime; robbed is robbed; threatened is threatened; dead is dead. What difference does the weapon make, except in the mind of a bigot?

 

[Robert Hairless]

I became an adult in the dark ages when there were relatively few laws regulating the purchase of firearms. It was easy to buy handguns, rifles, or shotguns through the mails, in hardware stores, auto parts stores, and department stores like Sears. You sent the payment and the postman delivered the gun. Criminals were prosecuted and tried for the crimes they committed.

I remember buying my first gun in the early 1960s and going to the local sheriff's office to ask if he would record it in case it was stolen. He told me he was not my mother and I needed to grow up, then he literally threw me out of his office. It was humiliating.

But that was a simpler time and we were much stupider then. I don't know how anyone managed to survive without The Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Michael Bloomberg, and all the other wonderful people who want to be my mother. Their concern is touching but now that I am grown up I'd prefer that they left me alone and go do something else.

 

[jungleroy]

Punish the criminal and not the tool.
Pre 1934 laws would be preferable.
I was gifted my first firearm, and my second I bought with my hay bucking money, when 3 dollars an hour was good pay, from a little old lady selling in the nickel ads.
I believe that gun control is not about protecting us or the rest of America.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The only legitimate "gun law" in America is the Second Amendment. Curiously, it's the only firearms-related law we've never actually tried in the past 150 years or so.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

<Thread noise removed>

As far as the topic goes, you can repeal the gun laws when the criminals are still in prison and actually get puished. To do that, the extreme left which has many lobbyists and many soccer moms are going to have to get ousted or become educated on crime. Only after they are convinced bad people cannot be rehabilitated will they feel that guns will not need regulation. I don't see this happening in my life time.

 

[ctdonath]

I do believe there obviously must be some laws in purchasing a firearm.

I do believe there obviously must not be laws in purchasing a firearm.

The 2nd Amendment lays out the right to own arms of all kinds, and that the right "shall not be infringed".

Gun control laws are largely created by those who do/can not differentiate between the law-abiding and the criminal, ultimately treating the former as the latter and generally ignoring the latter. The alleged target of gun control laws by definition don't care about controlling laws - that's why they're criminals. Having a goal of criminal activity in mind, criminals are little hindered by laws that stop the law-abiding outright.

To one with an illegal/immoral purpose in mind, weapons are easily obtained. Guns? black market, easy. Knives? your kitchen is full of sharp stuff designed to slice flesh. Clubs? sticks, baseball bats, etc.

I've studied weapons: if you're trying to control crime by regulating inanimate objects, you're incompetent to write laws.

If a criminal wants a weapon, he can get one. Just as crack is illegal everywhere yet available everywhere, ditto guns.
If an upstanding citizen wants a weapon, why should the law stand in the way?

Upshot: anyone hindering the law-abiding from obtaining weapons on short notice ("here's the cash, I'll take the Glock") facilitates the criminal.
If you act to hinder me from arming myself to defend self, family & country, you are my enemy.

 

[1911 guy]

You've fallen for the lie.

Why are you in favor of restricting the law abiding from something that will have no effect on the law breakers?

Most assaults with firearms are committed by previously convicted felons. It's already illegal for them to have a gun. Do we need another law, or do we need to demand enforcement of the existing laws?

There is already a law stating murder is illegal. Why do you need to further impede the law abiding any further?

It would be illegal for me to steal your car. Do you want to outlaw towtrucks? DUI is illegal. Should we ban cars? You get the idea. Guns are not the problem. People refusing to take responsibility for their own actions is the problem. Blame it on the idiot who robbed the liquor store, not the weapon he used.

 

[chieftain]

How does a Law, any Law prevent violent crime?

It doesn't and can't. The only way to prevent crime is to have a system of justice for sure, swift and appropriate punishment for that crime.

That's how complicated it is.

If a Law is to protect the people it must not oppress those it is meant to protect. Otherwise who is being punished? The criminal or the law abiding.

Which folks to you wish your laws to effect? The criminals who break that law or those who choose not to break that law?

Like most things it is really pretty simple. The devil is in the details.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[woodybrighton]

do us gun laws work not really they annoy lawful gun owners while doing little to stop bad guys getting guns

do uk gun laws work to a point we've had one mass killing with a semi auto rifle
none since they were banned (bizarrely o'ryans spree was committed mostly with pistol they weren't banned).
after dunblane all hand guns were banned except black powder no more mass killings with legally held weapons. (fact that the two characters should not have been able to retain there guns under the laws as they stood. oryan had lied on his application and f the police had poked around a bit more at his house. which there entiled to in the uk would have found all manner of illegal weaponary).
hamilton was a well known local oddballwho'd broken gun law by threating people with his handguns and showing them off in public big big no non in the UK

there has been a dramatic increase in gun crime but thats more to do with drugs and the collapse of the eastern bloc not criminals gaining access to legal guns.

 

[gaudio5]

gun control should be this. if your not allowed to own a firearm and are cought with one you go to jil for life i think thats the only wat to get it to criminals

 

[orionengnr]

Or should the laws be more strict and punitive on the sentencing side in gun crimes?

Ding Ding Ding.

It is a tool. The Constitution says you may own one, or many. You have a God-given right to protect yourself--the means by which you do so are immaterial.

Use the tool improperly, and there are consequences. There are plenty of laws existant today (too many, IMHO). The fact that we fail to uniformly and routinely enforce them sends mixed messages. The fact that certain people try to blame an inanimate object for crime is beyond me.

Maddening.

 

[jay43]

I believe that there should be laws about who is able to purchase a gun. IE ex cons who have commited violent crimes before should definitly not be allowed to legally purchase a gun, that said a large percentage of gun crimes i'd like to say 80 to 90 percent are commited by illigally owned/purchased guns. It makes no sense to limit what kind of guns can be purchased by law abiding citizens I can kill you just as dead with my Walther p22 as I could with my AR-15, or say a butter knife. it makes no sense. gun laws are like putting tape around that leak in your garden hose, eventually it will leak out. Law makers could restrict the Heck out of us law abiding citizens, take all our "assault" rifles and HI-Cap mags away and allow us to only buy 10 rnds of ammo at a time and guess what? There will still be crimes commited with guns at the same rate that they are commited now:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[glummer]

woodybrighton

do uk gun laws work to a point we've had one mass killing with a semi auto rifle
none since they were banned (bizarrely o'ryans spree was committed mostly with pistol they weren't banned).
after dunblane all hand guns were banned except black powder no more mass killings with legally held weapons.

The logic of this is puzzling – are you saying that the distinction between categories of guns is what matters?
Murder with semi-auto rifle = bad.
Murder without semi-auto rifle = not so bad?
Murder with legal gun = bad.
Murder with illegal gun = not so bad?

You also seem to be implying that the number of mass killings is a measure of success – are they so common in the UK that you can make valid statistical measures of whether they are declining?

there has been a dramatic increase in gun crime but … not criminals gaining access to legal guns.

Are you saying that is something to be pleased with? More dead bodies, but, hey, they weren’t legal bullets? All rejoice!?

 

[highfive]

Gun control are only hurting us the law abiding citizens that love our families so much that we will defend them... We chose not to be a victim... Any more laws even though they think it will control criminals it hardly does not to say at all..

They don't follow any law, we do and we are the ones getting hurt...naah no more just my 2

 

[eliphalet]

From you and I to the NRA, gun owners are a house divided. A house divided will fall. We lose a bit more with every new firearm law and argue among ourselves as to whether new laws are Good or not.

 

[Zundfolge]

In the last year I've seen more and more members of this community supporting many forms of gun control (licensing, registration, bans on certain types of guns, etc and all the God Awful NRA bashing).

Either two things are happening ... either the RKBA movement is starting to fall apart, OR this forum has been infiltrated by anti gun monkeywrenchers. I suspect the latter ... its part of the reason I don't post here as prolifically as I did in the past.

 

[Jack A. Sol]

seems like the NRA has been advocating more gun control for years with thier "enforce the laws on the books" crap they keep spouting

 

[ctdonath]

there has been a dramatic increase in gun crime

Kinda negates your point, eh?

I suspect the latter

Ditto. The influx of newbies spouting such things - and only such things - has risen dramatically.