Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should we have stricter gun-ownership laws?
Yes 114 28.08%
No 292 71.92%
Voters: 406. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2007, 10:04 AM
 
Location: NY
2,011 posts, read 3,877,477 times
Reputation: 918

Advertisements

If gun control (Really victim disarmament) worked, Washington DC, Detroit,LA,etc would be safe places. They are consistently the most dangerous cities in the country. Gun control has never worked to reduce crime anywhere in the world!! Look at England. Since they almost totally banned guns, crime with guns has increased 30 fold. Now the famous Bobbies are carrying guns! Same in Australia. Crime has exploded! Meanwhile, every US state that has introduced shall issue concealed carry permits has seen a huge drop in violent crime. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 
Old 09-17-2007, 11:35 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,601 posts, read 21,385,992 times
Reputation: 10100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Fortunately most of America believes in the 2nd amendment and doesn't want this.However just like the resent post here about Kalifornia voting in a law that semi auto's will have micro chips most know this is a foolish idea that won't work,but it's a roundabout way to indeed ban.But that didn't stop the politicians did it?

During the Klinton era they thought they had a hold on gun control and that they could push the agenda as acceptable,the election of 94 showedthem they were wrong.Now you have most politicians hush hush about it yet I don't trust them one bit because again,many times they do what they want even if most American's disagree with.Only now the do it the sneaky way by attaching riders on bills.
man,I spell wrong constantly,what's worse is I know better half the time but do it wrong anyway...guess I'm concentrating on the message and not typing....anyway the K in *alifornia can stay....and I still missed recent,not resent sheesh...
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:23 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,625,985 times
Reputation: 3028
Gun control=people control. Our founding fathers made sure to give us the right to bear arms. Take them away from the law abiding citizens and you have criminals with guns, and not only that, but the underground market for handguns and ammo would simply explode. Remember the war on drugs? Wow, really showed those criminals didn't we?
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
A person needs to be able to defend themselves by themselves. The cops will not be there when you need them. Guns are a very effective way of equalizing the differences between a small woman and a large male thug (extreme example).

I think the liberal anti gun bias is based on the idea that killing a human is always wrong. In my experience that is incorrect. When you are being attacked, killing the attacker is just another form of pest control. Hunting humans is improper. Killing the hunters is not.

Disarming the victims is unacceptable.
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Dubuque Metro, Iowa
209 posts, read 1,089,185 times
Reputation: 134
Red face Guns (Merged Thread)

Should we have stricter laws on guns?

In my opinion, we should. We aren't ever going to get the guns out of the gangster's hands, but we can start a law that requires that you have a very small or no criminal record when you can own a gun...

Now, I know that there are things wrong with this...

I can hear some arguments with my claim above now...

"Well what if someone breaks into a previous criminal's home, and the previous criminal will have no way to defend his self since he does not have a gun... Then my option would be...

After being released from jail, you must not commit any crimes for three or maybe five years, and then you can qualify for gun ownership.

This may sound totally wrong and un-constitutional to some, or most, but with all this gun violence, are we just supposed to let criminals buy guns... with the school and mall shootings, what is America to do?
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,246,649 times
Reputation: 4937
Most states already have laws, on the books, that provide for a convicted felon is unable to legally own a firearm (or certain other weapons).

This prohibition continues until the courts restores the felons civil rights. And, that is not that common an occurance in my experience
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Log home in the Appalachians
10,607 posts, read 11,654,459 times
Reputation: 7012
Why create more laws, just enforce the laws that we already have. I do not believe that the laws governing the commitment of a crime with the use of a handgun should be allowed to be plea-bargained.
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,414,394 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubuqueaskme View Post
Should we have stricter laws on guns?

In my opinion, we should. We aren't ever going to get the guns out of the gangster's hands, but we can start a law that requires that you have a very small or no criminal record when you can own a gun...

Now, I know that there are things wrong with this...

I can hear some arguments with my claim above now...

"Well what if someone breaks into a previous criminal's home, and the previous criminal will have no way to defend his self since he does not have a gun... Then my option would be...

After being released from jail, you must not commit any crimes for three or maybe five years, and then you can qualify for gun ownership.

This may sound totally wrong and un-constitutional to some, or most, but with all this gun violence, are we just supposed to let criminals buy guns... with the school and mall shootings, what is America to do?
you awnered this question yourself.....

If we cant get the guns out of the hands of criminals, why would you take my right to defend myself against such criminals that wish me harm? you are essentially saying that we should rely on the government for protection of our selves. The government can not preempt someone getting killed, they can only respond after the act is committed against us.

Give me a gun, I will protect myself and my family.

they made all schools a "gun free zone" and look where most of these mass shootings are happening?
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:32 AM
 
50 posts, read 44,996 times
Reputation: 16
Stricter gun laws will only do 1 thing, make it easier for thugs and criminals to assault,kill and rob people. i do not think people realize what the 2nd amendment means it means do not infringe on our rights to own guns! that means no laws from letting us own guns. of course what should i expect our own president could care less about the constitution so why would he care for the 2nd amendment along with the rest of the bought off politicians.
 
Old 02-16-2008, 11:35 AM
LM1
 
Location: NEFL/Chi, IL
833 posts, read 997,669 times
Reputation: 344
We already do have those laws.
Not to sound mean, but one thing that always amuses me about proponents for "more gun laws" is their complete and abject ignorance of the laws we are dealing with.

Every state save for Vermont prohibits felons from owning firearms.
Furthermore, the Federal government prohibits felons from owning firearms.

Some states allow for felons to petition for a return of firearm rights after a certain period of time, some have no such mechanism. I think Texas is the only one that automatically grants it in most cases after the passage of a certain period of time.

In almost all cases, gun rights are extremely hard to get back. In Florida for example, clemency is now a procedural matter for all civil rights *except* gun rights which require a great deal more effort. To make things even more complicated, the Federal law applies to everyone regardless of state laws, so there have been cases where felons have had their gun rights restored at the state level, but convicted in Federal court for being a Felon in possession. You'd think it would be a pretty damn good affirmative defense that your rights were restored and you thought you were OK, huh... Not the case.

For people convicted in Federal court, the only option to obtain relief from Federal firearms disabilities is a presidential pardon, which in recent years have become extraordinarily hard to obtain.
For example, Truman issued about 2000 pardons, Nixon issued about 1000, Bush 1 issued 74, even though the time represented between Truman and Bush saw an absolute explosion in Federal prosecutions and a gross increase in the number of cases who might be legitimately deserving of relief. (unlike the state systems where sealing, expungement, etc are available, the ONLY relief available for a Federal conviction is a presidential pardon. This means a murder, rapist or high level drug dealer convicted in State court can eventually move on with their lives while a 19 year old kid who sends a joint to his girlfriend on a college campus via the US mail and is sentenced to probation in Federal court can NEVER move beyond it, save for the 1000-1 shot of a presidential pardon It's a terribly broken system)

There used to be a procedural mechanism for people convicted in Federal court to petition the ATF who would then investigate them and determine if relief from the firearm disability was warranted, however congress explicitly defunded that provision in 1993, so, while it's "technically" possible for people convicted in Federal court to have their rights restored, it's practically impossible since the ATF returns all applications with a form letter saying they're unable to act on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top