Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

[Dashunde]

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?

[doofus47]

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.

[Waspinator]

restrictions = YES...........No firearms to crack heads, wackos, gangbangers, humans with a history of violence, repeat felons...........

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/a...nied-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.

[Gaerek]

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.

[Coyote Blue]

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.

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

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.

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

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!

[manta49]

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.

[YankeeSpirit76]

"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.

[Old Grump]

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.

[manta49]

Weapon type doesn't matter, a knife or a lug wrench is just as deadly as a gun

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.

[Coyote Blue]

Old Grump,Colin and you are not coming across to everyone, as we see from such as the esteemed manta49! You guys just make too much sense!

That is your fatal flaw!

[dakota.potts]

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.

[SIGSHR]

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.

[Tucker 1371]

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.

[Jim Rau]

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!

[elDiabloLoco]

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

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.

[redrick]

I think we should have some gun control.

Commit a felony loss of right.
Mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
Illegal alien shoundn't be able to buy a gun.

Do I think it would keep guns out of their hands? Not most, but it might have keep them out of the hands of the VA Tech Killer.

We need to make the laws tougher on the criminals that use a gun in the commission of a crime. Give them 20 years mandatory for use of a gun plus the offense, with no plea bargain.

Have a CC permit, no background check for buying a firearm. You have already had a extensive background check done.

If you have a CC permit you should be able to carry anywhere except court.

Hire retired or ex military and police for the schools. I think our country was come to this.

[Old Grump]

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.

You are wrong, a man with a knife in a school yard or crowded shopping mall can stab slash and move to the next victim without anybody being aware until they have been cut or actually see the attack. An aluminum baseball bat up alongside the head will kill you as dead as a .357 magnum with 180 gr XTP bullets. A fire bomb in a crowded theater can kill more people than the man with the AK 47 because he is making noise, is obvious and people can run and hide from him. You cannot run and hide from a panicked mob fleeing a fire in a crowded room full of smoke, fire, screams of pain and or panic.

Think about it, the weapon is not the culprit, the intent of the user is the problem and those people need to be taken out and locked up forever instead of getting plea bargained down or released on early parole or released to a crowded mental facility where a shewed insane person can game the doctors and win release.

[Dashunde]

While I love 2A and benefit from it every minute of every day it couldn't be more poorly written or ambiguous... or perhaps it was written perfectly for America, the weapons available, the existing crime laws, and how felons were dealt with in that era.
I highly doubt it would be written the same way if they had a crystal ball.

Felons should not have guns. Period.
We've heard it time and time again... felon gets out of prison, gets a gun, and kills someone the same day or within a few weeks.
A reasonably smart parolee could get on one of the many forums, seek out a pistol for sale in their area and buy it from one of us the very same day.

As responsible gun owners we should want a sensible system in place to help us keep our own guns out of the hands of those who have already proven themselves untrustworthy, the violent ones in particular.
In doing so I believe we are actually protecting 2A. Fewer gun crimes = Fewer attacks on 2A.

FWIW...I don't endorse any restrictions whatsoever on the kind, capacity, length or operational details of any of our firearms.
(I would thoroughly enjoy a fully auto 50cal BMG. )
For me, what the owner intends to do with the weapon is far more important than the weapon itself.

[carguychris]

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.

While this is a seemingly tempting idea, there are several serious problems with it, primarily:

• There are serious privacy concerns- namely, people may abuse the system to do a "background check on the cheap" on potential employees, ex-boyfriends, obnoxious neighbors, etc.
• The NICS system is set up to work in a very specific way, with the prospective transferee's personal data entered in a particular format and order. It is NOT set up to be user-friendly to callers who have never used it before and don't have the first clue what they're doing. It takes long enough to get a NICS check right now; if the system is opened up to Joe Public, the call volume will go WAY up, it will become much more inefficient, and it will require far more operators (and funding) to run it... and who do you think will pay for it?

[manta49]

Think about it, the weapon is not the culprit, the intent of the user is the problem and those people need to be taken out and locked up forever instead of getting plea bargained down or released on early parole or released to a crowded mental facility where a shewed insane person can game the doctors and win release.

I agree with the above, but i am not going to buy that a knife is more capable of causing multiple casualties than Ak47 in the hands of someone intent on killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

If i had to make a choice i know what i would rather come up against.

[redrick]

I don't think many felonys are buying guns legally, they are buying stolen guns or they are stealing them. But i think there should be a law against them buying a gun or having one.

[MLeake]

Dashunde, if I sell to people I do not know, I already conduct transfers via FFL. However, that is my choice, just as it is my choice not to use an FFL for same state transfers to people I know.

I am not ok with the government mandating how I conduct a private transaction.

I see greater harm (loss of freedom, growth of governmental power and intrusion) from allowing the feds to require UBCs than currently exists in potential, inadvertent sales to felons by others.

[Coyote Blue]

Redrick,Alaska,Arizona,Vermont and Wyoming( for WY residents ) are doing just fine without ANY permits. Vermont since about 1777. Rethink!

Come from Berlin,Tokyo,Moscow,Sao Paulo,got a clean record and of age? You're good in Fairbanks,Tucson and Montpelier.

The way it should be. 47 States to go. One day at a time,one State at a time.

[gaseousclay]

I think the way in which we frame the wording needs to change. For example, I prefer calling it 'expanded background checks' rather than referring current gun proposals as restrictions. I don't understand why a lot of you are seemingly ok with an NCIS check when buying a gun from a LGS but somehow buying a gun at a gunshow without a background check is somehow infringing on your 2A rights. Sounds to me like you're turning a blind eye to the potential for criminals to buy guns via gunshows, and I'm sure criminals are buying guns this way.

I do like Tucker 1371's idea though

[Joe_Pike]

The older I get, the more I realize that gun laws do nothing to prevent crime. They do nothing but hinder law abiding gun owners and try to make them feel as if they are a pariah. I've had enough. Be tough on crime and leave me alone. I voted for the first choice.