"Sensible Gun Laws"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

svtruth

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,701
Location
Bradford, VT
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"Sensible gun laws?"

Needs to go no further than "Thou shalt not commit murder."
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
Funny 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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
there are about 40,000 "Sensible Gunlaws" already on the books, and are not b being enforced. How will 40,001 Laws change anything?
 
Rocketmedic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
The Second Amendment is a right, but it is not an unrestricted right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
somerandomguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Highland Ranger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rocketmedic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top