Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

  • Total voters
    219
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Laws exist to accomplish objectives.

To the extent that laws fail to accomplish their objectives, they are ineffective.

To the extent that they cause unintended consequences they may be dangerous.

The fundamental failure of your argument is that such legislation would both be ineffective and dangerous.

If Crip A wants to obtain a weapon from Crip B, B will exchange said weapon for cash or narcotics from A. No record of this transaction will exist. it cannot be proven that such transaction ever actually occurred.

Therefore, universal background checks impose a burden on those inclined to obey laws while doing nothing to prevent those disinclined to obey laws from procuring firearms...which is what the law was intended to accomplish.


The fallacy is in believing that because the law exists, it will be obeyed.
 
Dashunde, that sounds great as long as it becomes a pathway for background checks and not a gun control law. If I could be 100% sure that this system would ONLY check the person's history, would not so much as ask to what firearm is being sold, and would remove private sellers from liability, I think I would be for it.

But I cannot be so sure.
 
The fallacy is in believing that because the law exists, it will be obeyed.
Click to expand...
That applies to any and all laws. If a cop (or camera :rolleyes: ) didnt see you run the red light it didnt happen...right??

Doc, laws exist to maintain the fabric of a society, normally based on the collective values of that society as set fourth by our elected officials.
Our society has already said "no felons" or others who have done things in their lives to prevent them from passing a background check. I have no problem with that being applied to all sales Without registration.
 
Dashunde, the problem is the proposed system is unenforceable without registration, so you can't have it both ways.
 
Dashunde, the problem is the proposed system is unenforceable without registration, so you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Trying to reason with him is quite obviously a loser. He wants gun control which cannot be controlled. What does that tell you about his mindset?

There are more pleasant opportunities than trying to persuade the un persuadable who cannot see those forests for the trees. A lost cause. Give it up.
 
I'm not convinced its unenforceable, its just like anything else that relies on respect for the law and fear of punishment to dissuade normal folks from participating in illegal sales.

The criminals will continue on, but it would slow the transfer of our legally purchased firearms into the criminals hands because we are law abiding and simply wouldnt do shady improper transfers, right?
 
Well, it's not completely unenforceable; it would have to be enforce in a post-incident manner, like receiving a ticket for following too closely after a rear-end traffic accient (don't ask how I know this).
Guns don't magically appear in the Christmas stockings of bad guys. They are either stolen from honest owners or sold by honest owners or straw sellers. Let's say a gun is recovered from a crime scene. The police call the manufacturer who tells them they sold it to bibboxoutdoors.com. The police call bigboxoutdoors who say, yes we shipped that in 2012 to an ffl in bubbatown,oh. You ask the ffl in bubbatown to whom it was sold. Dave smith. You call dave smith. He says that that gun was stolen from his unlocked car a week later. Mr. Smith never filed a report nor insurance claim.
-You would need laws about reporting lost/stolen firearms to clear you of possible legal liability.
-you would need a law that says something like: if you have more than one firearm and/or minors/mental health patients in your house you would need to secure the majority (or the other) of your weapons when they are not in use or you are away from home in a secured locked stoarage location.
Is this an onerous responsibility? I don't think so, b/c I don't want anyone to steal my firearms and if they did, I would want my stolen guns back. Like the above poster, I too have friends who keep multiple firearms lying about their house unlocked. They don't have kids, but neither do they have secured weapons. It astounds me, but I see how criminals have access to so many weapons. Guns that are harder to steal are less likely to get into the criminal underworld. The secondary beauty of a law such as these is that they dissuades career straw sellers b/c they either have to keep calling the police each week and put their name on the radar or take a chance that they would get sued and lose their houses. Since criminals, even straw sellers, are doing what they do to make money, that would dissuade them a tad. That cuts down on the other major source of guns to the crime community.
If mr smith says "I sold it to my brother in law", then the police go talk to the brother in law. Sooner or later the trail will fall apart as two people have conflicting stories. Perhaps that would be resolved by a quick facebook search or the interview of a neighbor. The results of every investigation wouldn't be perfect b/c of no registration/univ bckgrnd check system. I'm okay with that b/c I think that most citizens are trustworthy. Do police have the resources to do this type of work? Only if we want them to.

No system is perfect; criminals will always have guns, but to throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do as firearms owners will help is patently false. Unfortunately, the current crop of legislation would rather demonize the lawful abiders than find solutions to holes in the existing system.
 
restrictions = YES...........No firearms to crack heads, wackos, gangbangers, humans with a history of violence, repeat felons...........
Click to expand...

This.

Reminds me of the story, from two months ago , of a woman who was arrested for pulling a gun in a Chuckie Cheese's on another mother during an argument. She had a permit to carry.

Turns out she was an ex-crack head , was arrested multiple times, convicted a few times, commited a couple of times for mental evaluations and even had a restraining order put on her at one time from her own family members.

The police department originally denied her permit (rightfully so), but she appealed the decision to the CT apeals board, and those jokers allowed her permit ??!!!

Those laws would have worked, should have worked, to keep a firearm out of the hands of a wacko... to bad our system is so screwy that somehow, someone like this can still get a permit.

Link to the story (don't think the video is correct anymore, but the text is there).
http://www.wfsb.com/story/21200453/arrested-middletown-mother-had-her-pistol-permit-denied-by-police

So, I do think there should be some kind of common-sense laws in place to keep firearms out of the hands of those that have shown they should not have them. That is why I voted "Yes: there should be some restrictions" in this pole.

Now.. some of the other gun laws out there.. that is another story.
 
I understand Dashunde's point in principal. If the liability for ensuring a firearm is not owned by a felon is on the seller, I sure as hell want a way to ensure the person is not a felon. Do I want it required? No. But I think the option should be available.

On the other hand, we have already have laws against felons owning firearm, laws against murder, robbery, etc. By adding more gun laws, you're not really providing more deterrent to a criminal. You might be making it a bit harder, or more expensive for a felon to possess a gun, but if they want a gun, they can get one...without a background check, and without registration.

As long as the liability for ensuring a felon doesn't possess a firearm is on the felon, and not me (as in, they get an added charge if caught with a gun), I think background checks are absolutely un-needed. We haven't seen a significant decrease in violent crime since NICS was implemented; that decrease in crime has been moving steadily since the late 80's. All background checks do is, at the very least, inconvenience a law abiding citizen, and at worst, prevent a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun.
 
As long as the liability for ensuring a felon doesn't possess a firearm is on the felon, and not me (as in, they get an added charge if caught with a gun), I think background checks are absolutely un-needed. We haven't seen a significant decrease in violent crime since NICS was implemented; that decrease in crime has been moving steadily since the late 80's. All background checks do is, at the very least, inconvenience a law abiding citizen, and at worst, prevent a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun.
Click to expand...

We had our lowest crime rates in American history before the GCA of 1968,the 4473.no mail order sales and all the other accompanying baggage. Every added layer of gun control added to the upward spiral of the crime rate. By 1980 we had about doubled the crime rate of 1960. We are now back down to close to 1960 levels.

Britain experienced the same bitter unlearned lesson. Until their first real gun controls were instituted in 1920,mainly as a response to Bolshevism fears, their violent crime rate was miniscule. Again every added layer led to more violence, and today, the Brits have outstripped us in violent crime per capita.

It simply doesn't work.

Britains Colin Greenwood on crime quoted in 1976:

criminologist, author, former Chief Inspector and Superintendent of West Yorkshire Constabulary
Click to expand...

Colin Greenwood quotes:
No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.... Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before.
Click to expand...

Now,Colin is my kind of guy. My gosh,he makes sense! :cool:

Will his observations lower the fears of those who feel some gun control is essential? We have 16 on this poll so far. The answer is maybe. ;)

They are quite in the minority though ,as we see. 1 out of 4. TFL does rock! :D
 
Last edited:
I think obviously there have to be some gun controls. Should murders that get out of jail ( like it or not) be legally allowed firearms obviously no. There already are lots of gun controls in America like it or not. They have back ground checks here it doesn't bother me. Would it make any difference to firearms deaths in America using legally owned firearms i doubt it.
 
"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."

Coyote Blue, I agree with this but, I have no problem with background checks.
Also, I have no problem with giving safety classes before someone can take possession of a deadly weapon.
Everyone should know exactly how a gun functions whether it be semi auto, or wheel gun. That makes as much sense to me as making sure a 16 year old kid knows how an automobile works before letting him tear off down the street a 70 miles an hour without ever having had a single lesson in driving.

Remember, my rights stop when they step on your rights.
When the founding fathers added the words "shall not be infringed" I think they were counting on us to have a little common sense. Do you think they just handed their kids a flintlock and said,"go figure it out for yourself?
No they took years of teaching their boys from a young age how to safely use weapons. I can't believe the people I have argued with about this.
 
1934 – National Firearms Act
1968 – The Gun Control Act
1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act
1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act
1994 – Assault Weapons Ban
1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act

No more compromise

2nd amendment is the only gun control law we need. If somebody uses a weapon in the commission of a crime lock therm up, weld their cell door shut and don't open it until they achieve room temperature or a level of infirmity that they will never again be a threat to society. Weapon type doesn't matter, a knife or a lug wrench is just as deadly as a gun.
 
Weapon type doesn't matter, a knife or a lug wrench is just as deadly as a gun
Click to expand...

Not really a man on the rampage with a AK 47 is going to do more damage than one with a knife. You can outrun someone with a knife you will have trouble outrunning a bullet. If knifes were that effective the police and army would have them issued instead of firearms.
 
Old Grump,Colin and you are not coming across to everyone, as we see from such as the esteemed manta49! :D You guys just make too much sense! :rolleyes:

That is your fatal flaw! ;)
 
If we're considering what's really the most dangerous as far as mass killings, a can of gasoline, a lighter, and some chains for bolting the doors shut has proven much more effective than any gun, including automatic weapons.
 
Again, the problem I have with forefeiture of 2A rights by felong and those with "mental health issues" is that the Constitution does NOT provide for loss of rights and I will not stand for a 2A exception.
 
Universal background checks sound like a good idea in theory but only if they can find a way to effect it without creating gun registration. My idea for running checks for person to person sales would be to open the NICS system to all citizens via a toll free number. Just download and print the 4473 and do whatever has to be done with it after the sale (I admit I have absolutely no idea what FFLs do with 4473s after the sale is final).

I don't mind the extra work just so long as they're not keeping people on the phone at gunshows til they close the doors.

Pretty much every other form of gun control, however, is BS to me. Especially the 1986 Huges amendment and the 1994 AWB.
 
98+% of ALL the anti-guns laws on the books from city through federal are unconstitutional! I have spent over 40 years in LE and it really upsets me to see all of those legislators, cops, prosecutors, and judges who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution violate that oath when it comes the RTKABA's! Any law which simply restricts or limits a 'citizen' from obtaining, owning, carrying, or using a firearm violates the Constitution!
When it comes to the other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS the courts and attorneys are all over us seeing they are not violated, but not the 2nd Amendment!
Well I for one an fed up and 'refuse to go to the back of the bus' any more!:mad:
 
Love. It.

The bottom line - I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust over half of our legislators with a pen.
Click to expand...

Skans, I like this so much I'll start saying it as if I had thought of it myself. ;)

You only went 50% there though, so its more like to be:


"I trust a schizophrenic with a gun more than I trust our legislators with a pen."

After all, the pen is mightier than the sword......We need "demagogue control", and a 180 day waiting period on asinine legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top