Do You Agree With ANY Gun Control Laws?

I really think they should raise the age to purchase a gun to perhaps 22 years old.

Although I have been shooting a gun since I was 10 years old (now 75), I believe I am more levelheaded than most people. My wife would probably disagree.

My answer is a resounding no. I feel that anyone who can be trusted to walk freely among society should be allowed to do so armed with anything they can afford to buy.

I have no ideal when the United State's outlawed murder, but that should have been enough gun laws right there.

As for the age of buying a gun; the number means very little in maturity.

Most of the laws are to make you feel like the government is doing something.

Yes when it comes to violent offenders.

Perhaps - if they actually enforced those laws evenhandedly.
Since that is extremely unlikely, I lean hard against the vast majority of the existing and proposed gun laws and regulations.

In an ideal world Gun Control Laws would keep the mentally ill and those with criminal records (plural as in more then one conviction or possibly a single heinous act) from legally purchasing firearms. Gun Control Laws would go no further and by this I mean no regulation outside of ensuring manufacturers didn't produce firearms that go boom in the wrong way.

Sadly we live in the real world where Gun Control Laws go further then I'd like and often have more impact on law abiding citizens than they do criminals, a world where criminals will acquire firearms or other tools to aid in their criminal activity with little to no regard to the law.

Yes.

zdc1775 said:

. . . anyone who can be trusted to walk freely. . .

Click to expand...

Sounds like a law to me.

I think it's reasonable to stipulate that Citizens in Good Standing (no felons, no foreign nationals, no children, etc) are entitled to their full Constitutional Rights, voting and bearing arms among them.

We can talk about what a felon should be, or if we want to extend some rights to foreign visitors, but the rough outline is that we should treat Citizens as such.

ETA: I have previously suggested that proof of Citizenship in Good Standing could serve very nicely as a universal permit to purchase and carry, and as a Voter ID.

edwardware said:

Sounds like a law to me.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that a gun law. More like prisons are allowed to set their own rules to not let inmates keep their guns, kind of like how they can do the same with prisoners not being allowed to keep their own clothes.

I do think that anyone arrested with a firearm that they own, ie not one that they were literally arrested for stealing, should have it returned to them with the rest of their personal belongings upon release.

I think we should consider raising the age of purchase to 21. I have worked in the mental health field for several years, specifically dealing with folks with suicidal ideation and other "crisis" situations. I am also a 16 year military veteran. I just think that the age of onset for many personality disorders is so high that problematic individuals don't have the opportunity to become flagged before they are legally allowed to purchase firearms. Schizophrenia is a good example, the age of onset is anywhere from late teens, to early 20's. This or other disorders involving psychosis seem like they may have been contributing factors in recent shootings.

I voted yes, because I do not think anyone should be able to walk into a hardware store with a roll of hundreds, and walk out with a belt fed machine gun.

No.
Calling any type of legislation gun control is a misnomer. They should call it what it is - citizen control.

Sort of.
Only in that such laws like not allowing a convicted (unpardoned), violent felon to own or possess arms should be allowed. I would prefer those not 'trusted' to own personal weapons not be allowed to run free. If a certain person cannot be allowed free access to arms, why allow them freedom at all? Certainly not to vote or hold public office.

By and large, no. The idea of preventing crimes by blaming an artifact rather than human conduct is illogical and futile. In many cases, prohibiting an object results in the possession of the prohibited item by those who shouldn't have 'it' in the first place: fast cars, booze, credit cards, tight swim suits (fat people only), aircraft and - oh yes, firearms. Presuming people had the sense God gave a goose, none of these items would be involved in 'problems'.

Some political stances complain too many people are in prison. I do not agree with the rest of the argument, but I really do believe some of the wrong people are in prison and far too many people who are not in prison should be.

tarosean said:

Yes when it comes to violent offenders.

Click to expand...

I get the notion you are supporting.
But, in all fairness, in the last 50 years, have the laws barring "violent offenders" from possessing actually prevented any violence?
And, yes, I am making something of an esoteric argument here.
But, what point are the laws for "criminal possession" good for when they are so rarely applied?
What thing has so unified prosecutors, over half a century to reflexively plea bargain "away" firearms charges?
I don't know the answer, and it vexes me.

I have a reflex which suggests piling ever more laws atop futile or pointless laws is not a process conducive to success. And, it's demonstrable that creating new laws only makes "innocent" people guilty.

Having not read, an understood all 22,000(ish) laws I can’t really take a stand. I suspect nearly all I would disagree with.

IJ1981 said:

Knowing that criminals obey no laws is this a fools game against the law abiding?

Click to expand...

That’s an argument for anarchy, it really gets nowhere. Laws are passed for punishment, murders don’t care about laws against murder…. Surely we all agree murder should be illegal.

Think of it like this, several years ago AL made you have to have a boating license, I thought it was stupid, they grandfathered everyone in for a few years and the test was notoriously easy.
I told a local game warden what I thought and he informed me the point wasn’t to make sure people knew how to operate a boat, the point was was create a method to punish people that didn’t obey the laws of the river, lake, etc.

zdc1775 said:

I feel that anyone who can be trusted to walk freely among society should be allowed to do so armed with anything they can afford to buy.

Click to expand...

I agree, however a major problem is we are letting people walk among us who obviously can’t be be trusted. I don’t really see where anyone, politically speaking, is trying to fix that. So while I agree with the statement, it really doesn’t matter as that’s not the world we live in, not now and doubtfully ever.

I believe the age to drink alcohol, buy a handgun, and vote should all be the same. I’d say 21 but again, same for all three.

Long guns…I’d link to driving age (16 year olds) if they attend hunter safety.

Felons who commit act of violence lose their firearms rights for incarceration plus probation period. If fully restored to a citizen, they get 2A rights back.

Just my opinion which you got for free…so basically worthless…LOL

CapnMac said:

I get the notion you are supporting.

Click to expand...

You got that from what I posted?
My baby brother was murdered by a guy that was on probation for shooting up an occupied house. He should have never been on the streets. Yet, lets pass more laws!!!!

BTW in DFW!

CapnMac said:

But, what point are the laws for "criminal possession" good for when they are so rarely applied?

Click to expand...

I agree 1000% as our current catch and release is pathetic.. Felons in possession should look at serious prison time not the <2yrs that is average.

Yes. They should get rid of the inter-state friend to friend sales with no background check. No one talks about this in the media. I believe it would help keep guns out of SOME who shouldn't have them whom intend to commit crimes.

Maver1ck said:

Yes. They should get rid of the inter-state friend to friend sales with no background check. No one talks about this in the media. I believe it would help keep guns out of SOME who shouldn't have them whom intend to commit crimes.

Click to expand...

So in Texas, we don’t need a background check to buy/sell to another Texas resident…just a drivers license.

So you think that in states that require the background check, that is stopping folks from buying and selling who plan on using the gun for a crime?

I’m thinking not…

If zero laws pertaining to firearms is one extreme and total prohibition of privately owned firearms is the opposite extreme, I feel like where we are right now, in most states, is right in the center and I think that's a good place to be.

Yes, I think we need very minimal gun laws, but it depends on the proposed law. Most are useless.

One law I would propose is that Americans have a mandatory introduction to firearms class in a positive environment by high school level. The class, or series of classes would cover gun handling, gun safety, ethics and conflict resolution. I learned that kind of stuff from my dad and other mentors. But most kids don't have dads like that these day

It's funny that we never hear people who are tying to tackle "The gun problem" talking about firearms education. Seems to me something as important as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution deserves some classroom time.

dannyd said:

Most of the laws are to make you feel like the government is doing something.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Criminals don't flip through the lawbooks to see if what they're about to do is illegal. They simply do it, laws be damned. It's all illusionary.

Hell no. You give these a holes an inch, and take a mile.

Scout21 said:

laws be damned. It's all illusionary.

Click to expand...

All laws? All building codes? All zoning laws? All voting laws? I can't sign on to that.