Is there any gun control that "works?"
- Thread starter drstrangelove57
- Start date
Curtis(USAF)
New member
The main system of gun control I prefer are laws that specifically punish those who use fire arms in the commission of a crime, even if they don't use the weapon in question. If the system would help criminals realize that pulling a gun can add significantly to their jail sentence, not to mention the amount of energy the police will be willing track them down, it may encourage more criminals not to use weapons in commission of a crime. IE, less people shot over stupid stuff like holdups and carjackings.
Punishing law abiding citizens for purchasing weapons for legal purposes is stupid. We need to specifically target those individuals who endanger the public via the misuse of fire arms.
I personally believe the laws are already on the books, we're just not properly enforcing them to max effect. IE, people aren't being charged with "Brandishing" or "Wreckless endangerment" in addition to the other charges they are facing in the courtroom. I'm not an LEO, I don't honestly know if this is all true. Its just my opinion.
Punishing law abiding citizens for purchasing weapons for legal purposes is stupid. We need to specifically target those individuals who endanger the public via the misuse of fire arms.
I personally believe the laws are already on the books, we're just not properly enforcing them to max effect. IE, people aren't being charged with "Brandishing" or "Wreckless endangerment" in addition to the other charges they are facing in the courtroom. I'm not an LEO, I don't honestly know if this is all true. Its just my opinion.
yes the anti's do want to tell you where and where you cant have your gun, but more and more dems are seein through the lies of gun control saves lifes and seeing that in places where there is less gun control that there is less crime. And, as for the post about gunlocks that would only help wit accdental shootings involving kids, as well as make it harder to defind your self. I think if you have a gun you should teach your kids the proper way to handle a gun and teach them respect for the guns. i was trained since i can reamber and they had no problumes with me "miss handleing" a gun. One of the big things is these kids are thinking that guns arent loaded no matter what i assume that a gun is loaded and chambered and i treat it as such as well you should. so i dont think its control we need its just in forceing whats there and people takeing the responceability that comes with owning a gun.
I disagree.
Murder with a knife or baseball bat is just as deadly and just as evil as murder with a firearm.
Robbery with a knife or robbery with a firearm is still robbery.
Rape with a box cutter, or rape with a firearm is still rape.
Please explain why any given crime is more evil when committed with a firearm?
The punishment should NOT be increased because a firearm was involved.
well i can see both sides to your argument mabar. But, I dissagree there is a diffrence. If you ask me it is much easyer for some one to use a gun that the other wepions used. Because the firearm can give them that distance or edge. Besides most people are less likely to stab someone to death than shoot them because they dont have the "guts" to get up close and psrsonal if you know what i mean.
Only makes it harder to defend yourself if you're forced or choose to use it on your home defense firearm.
Point is that particular measure within the constraints (provided with taxpayer money but not mandatory) does no harm (aside from wasting more taxpayer money) and can occasionally do some good. The liberals like it and it's no skin off our noses.
Another one: Gun buybacks. Colossal waste of money and completely ineffective, but doesn't infringe anybody's rights.
ok I miss phrised what i ment to say. is the use of them shouldnt be nessary, and when useing them it does make it harder they take too much time to take off in a pinch. also its not that effective if someone really wants it off a screwdriver and hammer normaly does the trick lol (i have lost the key to the one that came with my mosin m91/30)
. And, you use the word liberal like its bad and its not really. Im a liberal but i have conservitive vews as well. you cant think that every liberal is an anti cause we arent most i know arent anti. just thought i would put that out there. lol
. And, you use the word liberal like its bad and its not really. Im a liberal but i have conservitive vews as well. you cant think that every liberal is an anti cause we arent most i know arent anti. just thought i would put that out there. lolSo according to the argument that the punishment should be greater if a firearm is used.......
If you murder a person by dragging him to death on a chain tied to a vehicle, or if you murder him with a firearm.....the punishment should be greater for the firearm murder????
Murder is murder! Firearm or not, the punishment should be the same. The punishment SHOULD NEVER BE GREATER because a firearm was involved!
ok making that you can get a slightly greater punishment. Is to make people that wouldn’t have it in them to use a more brutal manner as you said like dragging someone with a truck think twice about doing it. And, for things like dragging someone with a truck there are harsher punishments as well because of the intent and cruelty of the crime.
copenhagen
New member
Take firearms away from the police state and give them back to the masses. I figure that might be an effective form of gun control. Hillary said a couple of days ago that she wants to re-instate the assault weapons ban! Good Lord! So she thinks that the only people who can have pistol gripped rifles are the Government? What is next? Is it not already too much that we have a tyrannical BATFE with MGs and SMGs which we are not allowed to own, even though the right is protected by the Constitution? I myself do not desire one, a semi-auto is plenty for me, just annoyed the the laws and believe we the people should open our mouths a bit more often.
Sure, there is gun control that works,.....
They have total gun control in PRISON! But I don't think it is a very safe place to be, despite the fact that there is total control of guns there.
It is people that cause the problems, not the tools they choose to do it with. Wonder if there were ever any problems with murder, rape, and robbery when we used swords, knives, and clubs? I think there were.
Gun control laws are prior restraint. They assume you are guilty (of something), and need you to prove your innocence to the state, before they will grant you the privilege of being able to legally purchase a firearm, or to carry one in public.
Some have mentioned that gun locks are "gun control that works", but even they are usually against the mandatory use of locks. Personally, I find the whole idea of gun locks (trigger locks especially) worse than useless, and potentially dangerous. What kind of an idiot (and I know there are many kinds) would put a trigger lock on a loaded gun? The whole argument about how long it takes to disengage the lock when your life is threatened is needless, and should never take place. Because no loaded gun should be locked! Ever!!! If a gun is loaded, it should be under your direct personal control, period! And when not under your direct personal control, it should not be loaded!!! How much simpler could it be? Take away the ammo, and the gun is harmless (except as an impact weapon, and a baseball bat, golf club, or hockey stick are more efficient and effective for that).
Control the ammo, certainly. Lockable storage to ensure no one can get it but you, quite fine. Lock up loaded guns? Idiocy!
Gun control laws are not about controlling crime, or even about controlling guns, they are about controlling people, in what they might possess, because of the fear of what they might do. And one of the things politicians fear most about what people might do with their own guns is fight back. Possibly even to the point of threatening the power, or even the physical safety of the politicians.
The difference between a Holocaust and a guerrilla war is the will of those involved, and the tools used. No other nation in the history of the world but ours has had a law like the Second Amendment. One that operates at the highest levels of government, and prohibits government from legally disarming the public as a body, or as individuals. The Second Amendment gives us the legal limit to say, "This far, and no further!", and it ensures the physical tools necessary to enforce that action, when we deem it necessary.
And, yes, if strictly interpreted and enforced, there would be no "gun control" laws on the books. That it hasn't been in the past century or so is the fault of the people, not the government. That's right, us. WE. As in WE the people. Our nation was founded on, and our government set up to operate as an entity that was responsible to the people. That it is no longer that, is no one's fault but ours. The principle is that the voting citizens of this country ARE the government, and the people in government are merely managers hired (elected) by us to manage the day to day operation. They serve are our pleasure and convenience. Trouble is, too many of them who do get hired (elected) think the opposite is correct. They know better than we do. It doesn't matter what the subject, their ideas are more important than ours (unless, they happen to agree). We have been electing "leaders" for too long, and that has gotten us where we are today. Instead of electing managers, representatives, and "servants" (people serve in government), we have been convinced/led/taught/duped/etc.,etc. into electing leaders. And as much as anything, that is where we have gone wrong. Instead of the people making the decisions and having them carried out, the only decision we make anymore is which liars (sorry, meant to say politicians) get to promote their agendas, until the next election. Sure, they listen to the polls, somewhat, and they have to listen to the polls in November, but most of it is smoke and mirrors, like a magician's stage trick, so that we wind up "choosing" what they intended for us all along, and believing that we have done so of our own free will.
That is what gun control is, a "reasonable" measure. The political equivalent of a serial killer telling you that the handcuffs are only a precaution, to keep you from hurting yourself. It doesn't work. It doesn't stop anyone willing to break the law. No law does. And people willing to obey the laws don't need gun control, other than using both hands and a steady trigger squeeze!
They have total gun control in PRISON! But I don't think it is a very safe place to be, despite the fact that there is total control of guns there.
It is people that cause the problems, not the tools they choose to do it with. Wonder if there were ever any problems with murder, rape, and robbery when we used swords, knives, and clubs? I think there were.
Gun control laws are prior restraint. They assume you are guilty (of something), and need you to prove your innocence to the state, before they will grant you the privilege of being able to legally purchase a firearm, or to carry one in public.
Some have mentioned that gun locks are "gun control that works", but even they are usually against the mandatory use of locks. Personally, I find the whole idea of gun locks (trigger locks especially) worse than useless, and potentially dangerous. What kind of an idiot (and I know there are many kinds) would put a trigger lock on a loaded gun? The whole argument about how long it takes to disengage the lock when your life is threatened is needless, and should never take place. Because no loaded gun should be locked! Ever!!! If a gun is loaded, it should be under your direct personal control, period! And when not under your direct personal control, it should not be loaded!!! How much simpler could it be? Take away the ammo, and the gun is harmless (except as an impact weapon, and a baseball bat, golf club, or hockey stick are more efficient and effective for that).
Control the ammo, certainly. Lockable storage to ensure no one can get it but you, quite fine. Lock up loaded guns? Idiocy!
Gun control laws are not about controlling crime, or even about controlling guns, they are about controlling people, in what they might possess, because of the fear of what they might do. And one of the things politicians fear most about what people might do with their own guns is fight back. Possibly even to the point of threatening the power, or even the physical safety of the politicians.
The difference between a Holocaust and a guerrilla war is the will of those involved, and the tools used. No other nation in the history of the world but ours has had a law like the Second Amendment. One that operates at the highest levels of government, and prohibits government from legally disarming the public as a body, or as individuals. The Second Amendment gives us the legal limit to say, "This far, and no further!", and it ensures the physical tools necessary to enforce that action, when we deem it necessary.
And, yes, if strictly interpreted and enforced, there would be no "gun control" laws on the books. That it hasn't been in the past century or so is the fault of the people, not the government. That's right, us. WE. As in WE the people. Our nation was founded on, and our government set up to operate as an entity that was responsible to the people. That it is no longer that, is no one's fault but ours. The principle is that the voting citizens of this country ARE the government, and the people in government are merely managers hired (elected) by us to manage the day to day operation. They serve are our pleasure and convenience. Trouble is, too many of them who do get hired (elected) think the opposite is correct. They know better than we do. It doesn't matter what the subject, their ideas are more important than ours (unless, they happen to agree). We have been electing "leaders" for too long, and that has gotten us where we are today. Instead of electing managers, representatives, and "servants" (people serve in government), we have been convinced/led/taught/duped/etc.,etc. into electing leaders. And as much as anything, that is where we have gone wrong. Instead of the people making the decisions and having them carried out, the only decision we make anymore is which liars (sorry, meant to say politicians) get to promote their agendas, until the next election. Sure, they listen to the polls, somewhat, and they have to listen to the polls in November, but most of it is smoke and mirrors, like a magician's stage trick, so that we wind up "choosing" what they intended for us all along, and believing that we have done so of our own free will.
That is what gun control is, a "reasonable" measure. The political equivalent of a serial killer telling you that the handcuffs are only a precaution, to keep you from hurting yourself. It doesn't work. It doesn't stop anyone willing to break the law. No law does. And people willing to obey the laws don't need gun control, other than using both hands and a steady trigger squeeze!
JuanCarlos
New member
For murder specifically, I'd agree. For other crimes, not so much. Things like robbery or even drug dealing (we'll presume that should be illegal for the sake of this conversation) the introduction of a firearm increases the likelihood of a murder occurring. Sure, you can stab somebody to death or beat them to death with a bat; however, I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of non-firearm robberies that lead to a victim fatality is lower than that for those committed with firearms.
I think the punishment should reflect that increased disregard for life.
bushidomosquito
New member
I'd like to see mandatory life inprisonment for use of a firearm during commision of a crime. Premeditated robbery, murder, attempted murder, stuff like that. No tossing folks away for good because of questions about the justification of your sd shooting or other iffy matters. Just the open and shut cases, of which there are many. That combined with better ccw laws would make crime MUCH more dangerous than it is now. If the prisons don't get you the citizens probably will. I'm sure a lot of thugs would think twice when they noticed a lot of their homies were gone for good for being a badass with a gun. We all spout off about responsible gun ownership. Why don't we push harder for stricter punishment for those who refuse to play nicely? I wonder what would happen if the NRA and other gun groups went after politicians for going so easy on crime instead of playing defense all the time.
theinvisibleheart
New member
drstrangelove57, re
ost#1
Yes it would if the state has absolute power (totalitarian regime with absolute power) and draconian anti-gun laws are enforced.
However, in US, which is not a totalitarian state, gun laws affect only the law abiding and have an adverse effect on crime rate.
Probably, the best single book on the subject (which covers UK gun laws and crime rate) is "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcolm. Basically, the book explains how increasingly restrictive gun laws resulted in higher crime rate in UK. Note that in US, before 1930s (before NFA was passed), sawed off barrel shotgun and machine guns were advertised for private ownership, including home defense.
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208190459&sr=8-1
ost#1drstrangelove57 said:
Yes it would if the state has absolute power (totalitarian regime with absolute power) and draconian anti-gun laws are enforced.
However, in US, which is not a totalitarian state, gun laws affect only the law abiding and have an adverse effect on crime rate.
Probably, the best single book on the subject (which covers UK gun laws and crime rate) is "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcolm. Basically, the book explains how increasingly restrictive gun laws resulted in higher crime rate in UK. Note that in US, before 1930s (before NFA was passed), sawed off barrel shotgun and machine guns were advertised for private ownership, including home defense.
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208190459&sr=8-1