Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What would be your choice?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by jsalcedo, Mar 13, 2003.

?

Would you support living in a country with absolutely no gun control.

  1. Yes. We would be better off with no gun control whatsoever.

    93 vote(s)
    66.0%
  2. No. Some controls need to be in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

    48 vote(s)
    34.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,683
    How many here would support elimination of all gun control in
    America up to and including crew served weapons.

    Remember this would remove all restrictions on who could legally carry, own, buy, transport, and use weapons in our society period.


    Of course societal restrictions, harassment, disorderly conduct,
    assault and other results from using a gun improperly would still be in effect.

    I'm curious to see who would or would not have reservations
    about living in a country with no gun control laws whatsoever.
     
  2. Esky

    Esky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    137
    Location:
    Carlsbad, PRK
    too much "control"-

    Right now I'm living in a country (Australia) where there's lots of gun control, and control of just about anything that can be used as a weapon- and it's pretty scary at times. Theoretically you can defend yourself, but the force used has to be proportional to that used by the BG; so unless you're a mindreader it's hard to know how much force can be used.

    If you have a weapon ready to use, you won't get far in court pleading self-defence; I've been in the courthouse when a magistrate found a man guilty of having a weapon "contrary to the WA Weapons Act."

    This guy had a baseball bat on the back seat of his car when he was stopped by the police for a "random breath check" (for booze.) The police asked him what the bat was for, and he truthfully replied that it was to defend himself "in case the 'hoons' down the road get rough".

    The magistrate found him guilty of having a weapon contrary to the Weapons Act, fined him A$150, and told him that "this wasn't the Wild West in America." He went on to say that violence wouldn't be tolerated in West Australia, and that if anyone threatened the man he should call the police to deal with it.

    So you can imagine what would have happened if this man had had a gun to defend himself!

    On my way home I thought that it would have been really ironic if the guy got beat up by the 'hoons when he got home- but he wouldn't have been able to sue the magistrate if he had been.

    So maybe I'm overreacting- but I think it would be great to live in a place where everyone that wanted to could be armed, and I agree with R.A. Heinlein: an armed society is a polite society (and a tip o' th' hat to the member using that as a sig)

    Esky
     
  3. David Park

    David Park Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    So far, 5 yes and 5 no? Could the "no" voters please explain their answers?

    (I voted yes.)
     
  4. Rally Vincent

    Rally Vincent Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Some place you will never find me.
    That one was a no-brainer. ^_^
     
  5. Scooter .45

    Scooter .45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    We dont need gun control, we need criminal control. Keep 'em locked up and abolish the endless appeal and parole process that turns repeat offenders back to the streets. That could also eliminate background check before gun purchase, because felons would be in jail where they belong.
     
  6. rick458

    rick458 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    La Porte, Texas
    I voted for some control
    there are some people who are severely mentally challenged
    that i would not be comfortable with them being armed
    but the controls would be VERY minimal
     
  7. Aahzz

    Aahzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    216
    I had to vote "No", for one reason alone - age limits. I don't want teenagers and younger to have unrestricted access to guns. By all means, they should be taught to shoot, and taught firearm safety from the time they're able to pick up a gun. However, I'd say 18 to purchase/posess without supervision is a good age.

    Other than that, get rid of all the gun control laws.
     
  8. Mastrogiacomo

    Mastrogiacomo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,376
    Location:
    Boston
    I voted no. I think as with everything there needs to be balance. I feel there does need to be gun control to prevent abusers or career criminals from getting access to guns. However, I agree 100% that there needs to be reform in the gun laws. Law abiding citizens shouldn't need to jump through hoops to exercise our rights. I don't want to be compared with a criminal and should have more freedom with what I buy and be allowed to carry.:cool:
     
  9. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    I voted yes. If you look back on our history, up until the NFA, there were virtually no restrictions on gun ownership. And until the 68 GCA you could mail order guns sight unseen. Yet during the time prior to these laws being enacted there was little violent crime in proportion to the availability and number of firearms the public had access to.
    Two things happened to cause us to slide into the pit we now find ourselves in. The first has to be the changes in the way we dealt with criminals. There was a time that we did not tolerate criminal behavior and treated criminals harshly for their acts. Murder was still murder no matter how you looked it. The tool the murderer employed was but a minor detail and was only used to describe how the unacceptable act was carried out. It was the act itself in it's totality that was condemned.
    Then the socialists lawyers gained control, high-jacked the criminal justice system, (which has since been rendered nothing more than a legal system w/o justice) and rather than holding criminals accountable for deploreable acts, started making excuses for criminal behavior. Unfortunately a majority of Americans failed to see through this non-substance smoke screen and started questioning whether their traditional values and thoughts on the matter were correct. Somewhere a feel good socialist decided that maybe if we take their tools away from them, they won't be so inclined to misbehave. That may work for children in a household, but it does not work in a free society, and especially does not work to deter the criminal deviant who like a predator, is always looking to gain an advantage over others. So that is where we find ourselve now.
    The second event or evolution was the loss of our overall values as a society. No longer can we take a stand on anti-social behavior without offending someone. We are finding ourselves accepting things that 25-30 yrs ago were unacceptable. From what would seems like relatively minor things like the level of profanity and inuendo on network television and radio to the lack of decorum and decency we allow and accept in public. Our standards of behavior in general have declined.
    Does this mean we have to return to Victorian times or beat everyone over the head with the religious handbook of your choice? Not at all. But we do need to get back to teaching the Golden Rule, responsibility, self-reliance, and some traditional values. And learn from our earlier history then apply it to todays world.
    The bottom line is we have to set a standard of acceptable behavior. Not a sliding rule dependent on irelevant factors. Then deal harshly with those who violate those standards.
    In no way should the laws iterfere with the freedoms and liberties of law abiding citizens.
    The entire burden should be placed on the criminal's back.
     
  10. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    I said yes. As for age restrictions, I would ask people to remember how many of the edler members here spent part of their childhood with a .22 rifle in hand and no parents in sight. As I recall from some threads on TFL, that sort of thing was pretty common.
     
  11. Fair 'n Square

    Fair 'n Square Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    West Valley, Utah
    I also had to vote no. Completely unrestricted as to age, criminal history? No.

    Of course there are too many restrictions right now, even in my gun-friendly state of Utah I think. And some states are down-right ridiculous in their laws. I think even persons convicted of a felony should have a way to regain their right to own and carry, based on what their crime was and subsequent behavior.

    But the absense of ALL restrictions? Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
     
  12. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Well, Sarah Brady and her Bunch would say that you must be mentally challenged for simply wanting to own a gun, and she doesn't "feel comfortable" with you being armed. :neener:



    Didn't they used to call that "prison" ...?

    :D
     
  13. DeltaElite

    DeltaElite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    Next to my Delta Gold Cup
    No gun laws would be fine with me.
    This does not apply to munitions, explosives, chemical or biological weapons. We don't need those for personal defense.
     
  14. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Obviously the laws that prevent juveniles and criminals from having guns are very important!

    One can easily see how important by the fact that no one under the age of 21 with a criminal record is ever caught with a gun... :rolleyes:

    (BTW: I voted "Dump 'em all". The Constitution does not say "...shall not be infringed, except kinda in a reasonable low-key way that most people agree on.")
     
  15. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    I voted "no" for one reason---the NICS check.

    Now, while I don't believe it should be mandatory for all gun purchases, I do believe that it's a good resource for dealers. It gives them a way to see if the person they're selling to is not prohibited for some reason (felon, dishonorable discharge, illegal alien). It also protects the dealer from the idiotic lawsuits against them for selling to the wrong person.

    Other than that, we can dump the rest of those :cuss: laws...
     
  16. 10-Ring

    10-Ring Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    California
    I don't like extremes in anything and having absolutely no restrictions just has so many unacceptable possibilities. What we really need is better enforcement of existing laws! :banghead:
     
  17. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Here's a sensible restriction: "Don't go shootin' folks unless they need shootin'." Can we all get behind that one? That should be the only gun law necessary.

    Coming from a Californian, that's downright chilling. You keep your "existing laws" out there, don't bring 'em near me.

    I'm absolutely fed up with "post-ban", "pre-ban", "dealer sample", "hi-cap", "fake flash hider", "post-'86" and all the other inanity infesting every gun law since 1933. A 16" rifle barrel is okey-dokey, but a 15.5" barrel is a ten year prison sentence? This strikes no one else as completely frigging insane?
     
  18. MoNsTeR

    MoNsTeR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    790
    Location:
    Lakewood, CO
    Only if there were also no drug prohibition. So much of our perceived need for gun control comes from the disaster of prohibition, that having the latter without the former would likely turn out very poorly.
     
  19. 10-Ring

    10-Ring Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    California
    Tamara, I'll whole heartedly agree that many of the gun laws in the Golden State are insane. But I'm not ready to give up on the state.
     
  20. Soap

    Soap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,735
    Tamara said it. What part of "...shall not be infringed." do you people not understand?
     
  21. cratz2

    cratz2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,233
    Location:
    Central IN
    I understand that we, as a group, like to throw around the quote, 'What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you people not understand?' and I have used it myself but I've seen people literally not intelligent enough to fill out the checklist when buying a gun. Call me an elitist but I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable knowing there are hordes of new gun owners not intelligent enough to answer if they are the actual buyer or not or why that makes a difference. You can ask any honest gun dealer and he will tell you that people fail the list all the time because of how they answer the questions. Answering a 'Yes' to an obvious 'No' question.

    Not being able to read, I don't think should stop ownership, but when the person reads the question just fine then asks why that makes a difference and seems completely bewildered at the answer, I have an issue with. I don't think that person is capable of deciding whether to use lethal force or not.

    Call me an elitist... :rolleyes:
     
  22. Mute

    Mute Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    962
    Location:
    Behind occupied territories. CA.
    I agree that I'd be more comfortable if certain people didn't have guns, but the history of this country (as well as any other) has shown to me that laws will not stop these people from getting guns anyway so what's the point.

    A yes vote for me. No more gun laws. Period.
     
  23. Soap

    Soap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,735
    cratz2- The problem is, when you start restricting guns due to matters of intelligence, or more accurately, matters of competence, you are setting yourself up. One day, the politicians are going to point a finger at you and you're going to be deemed too incompetent to own a gun. Ask Josh Sugarman, Diane Feinstein, Sarah Brady, Henry Waxman, et al, ad infinitum what they think about the competence of Joe Citizen.

    The entire gun control myth is founded on deeming certain segments of society incompetent to own guns. Just look at the statistics the antis bring up, many of them are structured to show how incompetent gun owners "really" are.

    Besides, stupid people buy cars, which in today's car-centered world are far more dangerous to my life.
     
  24. Chris Rhines

    Chris Rhines Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Potomac, Maryland - Behind enemy lines!!
    This is the most depressing thread I've ever read. :(

    - Chris
     
  25. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    For you guys who want to control things, wouldn't it be better to have a law against "mentally incompetent" people having children? :D

    That would solve a lot more problems than regulating guns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page