Do You Agree With ANY Gun Control Laws?

[IJ1981]

To CirizenComm....This group is extremely violent. The loss off the mom dad relationship certainly must come into play.

 

[Sistema1927]

No.

If the criminal justice system actually dished out justice, then those who have chosen to act in a criminally violent manner would be dealt with in an appropriate manner. If that was the case, then I would have a hard time seeing any prohibitions made against any person who is free to mingle in society.

 

[IJ1981]

To answer some Questions: in the crime precincts of America the gun is the Number One Tool easily stolen bought or traded.

Everyday life revolves around drug turf women turf and Our Turf.

Life is very cheap among these young black men. There are almost no future aspirations.

Its just one more day and gun battle at a time.

 

[Pudge]

I would support laws that are effective at reducing violent crime. Unfortunately gun control laws are not intended to have that kind of societal impact.

 

[John_R]

One gun law I love says The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That, and ten laws carved in stone, cover it all.

 

[cc-hangfire]

Had to vote no…

Because - observing American politics where - by their very definitions:
Conservatism seeks stability.
Progressivism seeks to always change.

Gun control is a progressive mindset; there will always need to be “one more law”. Therefore, do not yield one more inch.

in addition to being conservative, I believe in individual accountability; law & order should hold criminals accountable. Criminal law needs vigorous enforcement, not defunding (another progressive mindset).

 

[Insignificant bill]

Criminals using guns seldom get time added on for using a gun.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

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.

This post really should end the thread.

 

[IJ1981]

This post really should end the thread.

Thankfully, you are not the Arbitrator!

 

[IJ1981]

Some thoughts: I appreciate all the responses. We went into some deep issues and had a thoughtful discussion .

I appreciate THR letting us speak our minds, something not always available on the Internet!

Thank you, Gentlemen!

 

[Lo-Profile]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't y'all understand.

All gun laws are a infringement

 

[Old Dog]

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.

Bah.

Many of those that walk freely among society today are not trusted, nor should they be trusted; it's solely a matter of convenience that so many miscreants -- who absolutely should not be able to legally buy firearms --roam free. We cannot incarcerate all the evil among us; from a purely fiscal standpoint, our governments can't afford it. Nor, with the inconsistency among the various states' sentencing acts and the poor performance of many major cities' prosecutors (strangely, mostly in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions). Thus, there are those that are released due to either liberal sentencing guidelines, bad bail policy ("reform"), erroneous releases, plea bargains and judges that cannot perform their jobs up to standards.

 

[Insignificant bill]

The 2nd Amendment is our most important right. The reason it's the only one that specifically states no infringements. We have allowed two huge ones. The NFA and the GCA.

 

[P5 Guy]

If you can vote you can own and carry firearms.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

James D. Wright and Peter Rossi were hired by the Carter Administration to study guns, crime and violence in America in 1977. They were liberal sociologists who admitted they accepted the conventional wisdom supporting gun control. Their empirical research however caused them to doubt their apriori assumptions. Their first study was published by the US Govt and mostly was ignored.

They revised and expanded their study into a commercial book Under The Gun, Aldine, 1983. (I helped typeset the book at Kingsport Press and read it in proofs off the Videocomp.)

They also did the writeup for the first large scale survey of state and federal firearms using offenders, inmates who carried or used a gun in the offense for which they were serving time. The DoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics repeat the survey every six or seven years.

As Wright and Rossi discovered, most firearms using felons acquire weapons from non-commercial sources in impossible to regulate ways. Wright and Rossi also found that the inmates said they feared being shot by a victim more than they feared being caught, tried, or jailed.

Gary Kleck and John Lott also said they had accepted the conventional political wisdom on gun control, until their independent research revealed to them the weakness of the arguments gun control was based on.

I will not forget the parade of Obama Democrats who claimed 40% of American gun criminals acquired guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows, the gun show loophole. The surveys of firearms using offenders consistently have shown less than 1% acquired guns at gun shows. 60% FFL dealers versus 40% non-FFL acquisitions was the gun sources for the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms NSPOF 1994, 251 noninstitutionalized adults living in homes with phones who acquired guns 1991-1993. Not even a survey of criminals.

To quote what Penn and Teller said gun control was would probably get me moderated.

 

[bersaguy]

It's so hard to say. Do we need gun laws? Yeah I think we do. The problem is trying to craft laws designed to enforce common sense. The need in a functional society is to keep dangerous weapons away from unstable people. Preferably, to help unstable people get help so they are not a threat to society. So, in this most recent tragedy, in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws, why anyone would sponsor a 21 year old kid with a history of violent behavior to get a FOID card is unfathomable. Look, I don't know this knucklehead, but I'm sorry, but if you have tattoos on your face, you've demonstrated some pretty poor decision making. If you can't manage to hold a job at Panera during a labor shortage, you've demonstrated some pretty poor decision making. I wouldn't have let this kid near a 22 cricket let alone an AR15. But the question is, how do you legislate that? What blanket law can be applied that keeps an idiot like that from having a gun but doesn't infringe on the rights of the majority? There is a common misconception in this country that the rights enshrined in our constitution give us the right to do whatever we want. I was taught the bill of rights preserves the freedom to as we ought. Personally, I think putting tattoos on your face, indulging in anti-social behavior, being unable to hold a job....all those things would be a disqualification for owning a firearm. Would you have the right to own a gun, sure, but you ought not to. Have absolutely no information about candidates in an election? Do you have the right to vote?, Sure, but you ought not to. Have access to a global social media platform and want to spout hate/lies/misinformation? Do you have a right to? For the most part yes, but you ought not to. Yet, a responsible, informed society ought to have the means to protect itself from tyrannical leadership and/or foreign threats, ought to choose its own leaders, ought to speak openly and freely about its own governance. So, how do you put legislation in place that can balance those two ideas?

 

[Hal]

No.
Any laws that are applied to inanimate objects are bad. I can't think of a single one that does any good.

 

[DeepSouth]

No.
Any laws that are applied to inanimate objects are bad. I can't think of a single one that does any good.

I just have to ask, do you think you should be able to drive your inanimate car on either side of the inanimate road, or should their be a law against that?

 

[Plan2Live]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't y'all understand.

All gun laws are a infringement

Would that include minimum age restrictions? If yes, are you good with a 6 year old walking around with a firearm?

 

[buck460XVR]

Do You Agree With ANY Gun Control Laws?

Yes. Like minimum age requirements, safe storage, no guns in Schools by unauthorized personnel, brandishing in public, etc. These are common sense laws that are not solely intended to stop intentional crime, but to avoid unintentional consequences.

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

In some cases maybe, but for the most part, regardless of the type of law, only law abiding citizens follow them. Using your mindset, why do we need any laws? Do rapists follow anti-rape laws? No, but the law make for punishment if broken. How about theft? You talk about gun theft, but what if your neighbor could come over and take anything he wanted....anytime, without fear of some form of punishment? Why should thee be any kind of restrictions against driving drunk? If a man is free to walk down the street without any qualifiers, why isn't he free to get in his car and drive after downing a dozen shots?

To me if a man is free to walk the streets without any qualifiers ( felon, mentality) he should be free to carry a firearm openly or concealed in America.

These kind of posts are just preaching to the choir on forums like this. Go to a sport bike forum and I bet there are threads against speed limits. Folks on these types of forums continuously whine about the accuracy of polls, that go against their thinking, yet establish polls to get verification of their mindset, knowing all to well, that the majority of folks here support it, even if in a small way. If every man(what no women or kids?) that walks down the street is perfect in everyway, maybe this mindset might work. But we know better, don't we?

As much as folks here whine about existing gun control laws, how many of us have actually been seriously affected by any? At 68 years of age I have all the guns and ammo I want(or can find) and other than a short period of having to wait three days to pick up a new handgun, I have never felt restricted to the point of feeling my 2nd rights were seriously "infringed".

 

[Remington1911]

I have not read all the replies, but the word ANY does mean something.

I read it as do you thing felons should not be permitted to having access to firearms.....well they should not, and in my mind it is gun control, so I had to vote yes I agree with some laws.

I have said it before, there is a real easy to reduce gun violence.

When was the last time you saw anywhere where someone used a "machine gun" in a crime. For me that goes back to the bank job in CA years ago, after that I can't think of one.

For me make the sentence the same for ANY gun crime as it is for anything with a "machine gun". The judge and PA hands are tied, it must go to trial, and if guilty it is the same sentence, no room for any kind of wiggle. End of story. Any crime where a gun is used, this is what happens, a free trip to club fed pen.

Is it perfect, no, will it reduce crime with guns, sure.

It will not stop the unhinged, and I think I have shared my views on that.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yes.

If a person shoots someone in an act of murder, manslaughter, or committing some criminal act, or if you use a firearm to commit a criminal act, then the hammer should be dropped on the individual.

Criminal acts such as these should be pretty much the ONLY reasons why the government should have any business at all infringing on the RKBA of the citizens.

 

[stillquietvoice]

I do agree that dome laws are nessasary. Those that restrict criminals, violent felons. Adjudicated mentally unstable individuals. Those types of laws help society, but there are over 22 000 on the books mostly aimed at those whom will not commit a crime with a firearm. The laws should severely punish those that use guns in criminal activities, and be mandatory even if all other charges are reduced to prevent the criminal from being out in society to commit more crimes.

 

[FL-NC]

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.

In that case, should the age of majority also be raised to 22? That would give parents another 4 years to be responsible for their "children" in every way. It would also make things like voting demographics, enlistment/conscription into the military, and things like getting married, purchasing a vehicle, financial credit, and so on much more interesting.

 

[FL-NC]

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.

Only if the age of adulthood is raised to 21. 3 more years with the parents being responsible for every aspect of the "child's" life. The "child" would not be able to enter any contract.