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.
Whey someone declares a "gun free zone", that area often becomes a haven for people who want to rob, assault, or kill others. It's a place they can go to do their deeds while being sure no innocent man can shoot back.
Do you have a link or evidence to back up this ^^^^ assertion?
A "gun free zone" is often used to increase the penalty for using a firearm in a crime. It is like those signs on the highway that say "work zone" - traffic fines double in a work zone.
I do.
I am a veteran, a gun owner, and a Republican Trump supporter.
But I feel that there are many types of guns out there that simply should not be available to anyone but law enforcement.
If it ever comes up for a vote I will inform my Republican congressman and senator that I prefer to limit the types of firearms that are made available to the general public.
Then you should be happy that a three Judge panel of the 4th Circuit ruled that people, in response to a Maryland law essentially banning a certain class of firearms, have no right to possess "weapons of war". Which almost all firearms are or have been used as such at one time or another, including flintlock muskets.
Which "class" of firearms do you think will be next? Semiautomatic shotguns? Pump guns? Handguns? Which one?
I have always had guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Those are made to do one thing, inflict a large number of injuries in a short period of time.
I know the NRA guys will say it is their right, but I can not own an operational cannon, so why should I be able to buy one of these ?
If you don't want to own a semi-auto weapon or a cannon, it's up to you.
The definition of an Assault Weapon: A fully automatic firearm that is capable of firing ammunition fast with one trigger pull. We already have regulations for such weapons and you cannot walk into any Bass Pro Shops and buy a fully automatic weapon.
Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are used in competitions, besides, if you were faced with a situation where you have to use a weapon to self-defense, having a .40 S&W or a .45 ACP with more than 10 rounds readily available might be a much better choice than a muzzle loader, a .22 bolt action rifle or a revolver with 6 rounds.
In Kennesaw, GA, if you are a property owner, you are REQUIRED to own a hand gun.
Mind you, nobody checks to ensure you're a hand gun owner, but it is a law on the books.
So what do you think the violent crime rate is like in Kennesaw, GA?
How many houses do you think get broken into?
The problem of guns in criminal hands isn't the second amendment. If every single gun owner in the US gave up their weapons, and every single gun store was closed down, criminals would still have an endless source of guns and whatever else they want.
I agree with ^^^^. I think the horse is out of the barn on the 2nd Amendment and trying to keep gun violence down in the US. We are awash with them and there is no un-doing that.
The reasoning behind using gun control to reduce criminal use of guns is a pure percentage game: If say, 5% of all guns end up in the hands of people who should not have them (mostly through theft), then we have two ways to reduce that: (1) Reduce the total number of guns which correspondingly reduces the number that get diverted, or (2) somehow reduce the percentage of diversion from 5% to say 1%.
The ironic thing is that if we do not want to affect the rights of legal gun owners, the best option we have of the two I listed is (2). But the NRA fights that tooth and nail. It makes no sense as it is the best option to not affect lawful gun owners yet try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.
I'll comment on each bolded item you listed above.
1- The problem is not with decent folks like us who are gun owners and know the rules of gun safety. It doesn't take rocket science to know that pointing a loaded gun at somebody and pulling the trigger will not produce a good outcome. A lot of agencies and organizations do offer training courses for those who want to familiarize themselves with firearms. The problem with your idea of training and "certification" is, those with criminal history are not going to go through any such means to be able to own a gun.
2- Study history and see what happens when gun owners are forced to register their firearms in countries like Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, Australia and England in the 1990s. Also try to force gang members and drug dealers to register their weapons.
3- You're focusing on something that will not reduce violent crime, guns and ammo are not the cause, it's violent criminals. Try to enforce those such tracing rules on gang members and drug dealers and let's see if they'll comply with such rules. Accountability is already in place, you abuse your freedom to own and bear arms, that freedom will be taken away from you.
Thousands of laws that pertain to guns are already in place but they don't seem to be working in places like Chicago. If people were to follow the basic law [commandment] that says "Thou Shall Not Murder", we would not need all of the other laws that are useless.
Where do you think criminals get their guns from? Do you think there's an illegal producer of guns somewhere? Are they farming guns secretly in the fields? Do they have an illicit gun mine where they mine out guns?
No, it's from lax purchase laws which allow people to buy those guns in volumes that they should never be allowed to have had in the first place. Your logic doesn't hold--the criminals are getting guns from stores. The guns aren't traced very well, so people can purchase guns for criminal entities and for sale on the black market easily. These guns have their origins in what are currently legal sales. I want that to stop and I want the feds to be able to put a boot up the ass of anyone who is trying to purchase guns from legal gun stores for the black market--but I'd like that they are able to track the ass the boot goes up in.
The accountability is in place to some extent--it's not like there are absolutely no laws or regulations. I think they are insufficient. Of course, Chicago's laws by themselves aren't going to work--there are other municipalities with far laxer laws as well as other states around it and a surprisingly large number from Mississippi (though not that surprising since the gun laws there get really loose there). It's why I think it needs to be a federal issue, because going municipality by municipality or state by state only does so much. It takes just one card cheat to ruin a game of poker.
If you're looking for antecedents for fairly sensible gun control laws then look at our homicide rates versus our peer developed countries and then take a look at our gun laws versus theirs.
Also, what is it in Australia and England that's happened that you're trying to hint at?
I'm a law-abiding citizen and I both love guns as a device and treasure its value for self-defense. However, I don't understand how craptastic our gun control laws are and how they vary so much from state to state or even municipality to municipality.
My feeling is that law-abiding and sane citizens should have guns if they choose to do so. I'm veering towards encouraging firearm training for anyone who wants it as part of our education system, but as part of that, there must be some kind of certification program, even at a baseline level, that you know how to keep, use, and maintain a firearm. It makes no sense to me that controls and regulations can be so lax from state to state and it feels to me like it almost defeats the purpose of having a firearm in self-defense because the regulations literally makes it easy for a law-abiding citizen to be outgunned because I am not going to spend that significant amount of my income on guns alone. Not having stricter gun controls to me looks like a baseline arms race for self-defense.
I'm not going to go out and do anything stupid with my firearms. They are for sport and self-defense. I do not care if my firearms and ammunition are registered--I prefer it. I wish it were far more widespread to have such strict regulations. If you have a remotely criminal history, then you need to bend way over backwards to have access. If you can't demonstrate a basic lack of ability of how a gun should be operated and kept, you need to bone up on the basics and make sure you prove it to have a gun. If you are dumb as a brick, I'm sorry, you should not have a gun and there should be something to prevent you from owning one.
There needs to be accountability. The guns and ammunition needs to be traceable. I love my fellow citizens as much as I could, not physically for the most part, but you are not entitled without knowledge and trust to own and operate an elegant machine that can so greatly screw things up for others to such a great extent, and by extension, paint people like me with the same stripe in the same broad stroke for non gun-owners as an idiot or psychopath (that's fine, that's your prerogative)--I am not part of the idiot or psychopathic squad (and if I were, take my firearms away, sure).
There are a lot of developed countries with wonderful legacies of gun ownership and maintenance and sane laws and they have managed to keep things in check by having sensible regulation. What is it that is that prevents us from doing so? It seems so incredibly insane to me that we as gun owners cannot at least greatly lessen the chances of firearms slipping though the cracks when it's obvious the cracks we've set up in our laws are giant, gaping chasms.
Who the hell is profiting from these laxities?
The EXACT SAME laws that people want imposed about guns should be applied to the 1st Amendment.
Apply for a permit, pass a background check, in some sates a phyc review and PAY for the "right" to speak etc.
"The right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
I'm a law-abiding citizen and I both love guns as a device and treasure its value for self-defense. However, I don't understand how craptastic our gun control laws are and how they vary so much from state to state or even municipality to municipality.
My feeling is that law-abiding and sane citizens should have guns if they choose to do so. I'm veering towards encouraging firearm training for anyone who wants it as part of our education system, but as part of that, there must be some kind of certification program, even at a baseline level, that you know how to keep, use, and maintain a firearm. It makes no sense to me that controls and regulations can be so lax from state to state and it feels to me like it almost defeats the purpose of having a firearm in self-defense because the regulations literally makes it easy for a law-abiding citizen to be outgunned because I am not going to spend that significant amount of my income on guns alone. Not having stricter gun controls to me looks like a baseline arms race for self-defense.
I'm not going to go out and do anything stupid with my firearms. They are for sport and self-defense. I do not care if my firearms and ammunition are registered--I prefer it. I wish it were far more widespread to have such strict regulations. If you have a remotely criminal history, then you need to bend way over backwards to have access. If you can't demonstrate a basic lack of ability of how a gun should be operated and kept, you need to bone up on the basics and make sure you prove it to have a gun. If you are dumb as a brick, I'm sorry, you should not have a gun and there should be something to prevent you from owning one.
There needs to be accountability. The guns and ammunition needs to be traceable. I love my fellow citizens as much as I could, not physically for the most part, but you are not entitled without knowledge and trust to own and operate an elegant machine that can so greatly screw things up for others to such a great extent, and by extension, paint people like me with the same stripe in the same broad stroke for non gun-owners as an idiot or psychopath (that's fine, that's your prerogative)--I am not part of the idiot or psychopathic squad (and if I were, take my firearms away, sure).
There are a lot of developed countries with wonderful legacies of gun ownership and maintenance and sane laws and they have managed to keep things in check by having sensible regulation. What is it that is that prevents us from doing so? It seems so incredibly insane to me that we as gun owners cannot at least greatly lessen the chances of firearms slipping though the cracks when it's obvious the cracks we've set up in our laws are giant, gaping chasms.
Who the hell is profiting from these laxities?
Apparently you don't understand the reason for the Second.
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.
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.
