Your stance on gun control

[MVPosey]

Had to do this one over since i botched the other poll

[Shaq-Man]

looks like you botched this one, too.

 

four choices for guns being legal.

 

one choice for guns being outlawed.

[Guest Juanky]

Yeah, not very generally done, but the only option for illegal guns is just timeframe not how many restrictions.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I think when he says guns should be legal, but with strict, some, and few restrictions, he is putting some guns should be legal, some illegal. I think that is fine.

 

Generally the debate over gun control is whether guns should be completely legal, completely, illegal, or with regulations/restrictions and a range of how many regulations/restrictions.

[MVPosey]

looks like you botched this one, too.

 

four choices for guns being legal.

 

one choice for guns being outlawed.

if they're outlawed, they're outlawed, no shades of gray

if they're legal, they can be legal at different levels

[Dan Marino Forever 13]

Some restricitions. The second amendment is the only part of the Constitution that has the word "regulate" in it.

[DaGreatOne]

I think certain guns should be banned but such guns for hunting and such so be made available.

[Fishfan79]

Regulating is fine.

 

No need for automatics and semi-automatics

 

15 day waiting periods, background checks, no guns for anyone with a felony arrest ever, no sale of armorpiecing bullets, etc etc.

standard stuff

 

I am all for the ownership of hunting rifles though. Never been a big handgun fan.

[Jimmy42Jack0]

Regulating is fine.

 

No need for automatics and semi-automatics

 

15 day waiting periods, background checks, no guns for anyone with a felony arrest ever, no sale of armorpiecing bullets, etc etc.

standard stuff

 

I am all for the ownership of hunting rifles though. Never been a big handgun fan.

i can agree with that...but these background checks should be like a check to get a job with the secret service...im talking about the whole nine yards here...mental background check, criminal history, and etc. i also feel that catalogs and gun shows should also have to abide by these laws too as it stands now, they are basically unregulated and my unborn child could order a gun from the womb if he so chooses to do so...i believe having to take a required class in proper usage of a gun should also be considered in some shape or form

[EricWiener]

The single most important function of firearms is for the populous to have the capacity to overthrow the government. Arms should be not only freely available, but expected to be owned. Every American should be taught the proper care and respect for firearms and be expected to maintain such a weapon in their home. Guns should not be "cool" at least not in any way in which a tool couldn't be "cool", and from a young age the danger of firearms should be demonstrated in emphasized to all children.

 

i also feel that catalogs and gun shows should also have to abide by these laws too as it stands now, they are basically unregulated and my unborn child could order a gun from the womb if he so chooses to do so.

 

You can feel it all you want, but it's bulls***.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

The single most important function of firearms is for the populous to have the capacity to overthrow the government. Arms should be not only freely available, but expected to be owned. Every American should be taught the proper care and respect for firearms and be expected to maintain such a weapon in their home. Guns should not be "cool" at least not in any way in which a tool couldn't be "cool", and from a young age the danger of firearms should be demonstrated in emphasized to all children.

 

I am generally inclined to be anti-gun in that I do feel that no guns is safer than more guns. And while I don't have any stats to back me up, I'm pretty sure that countries where guns are basically illegal, like the UK, have much lower homicide rates than the US. But I'm sure the pro gun lobby has plenty of stats to tell me how wrong I am, and I haven't the capactity to actually fact check those stats, so I don't really want to get hung up on numbers.

 

But anyway...the reason posted above by EricWiener is the primary reason we have guns in our homes in the first place, dating back near 250 years. Few people can really envision a scenario where the people are spurred to draw up arms against the US governemnt, but as we've learned over the last however many years, people in power can get a little crazy. They can start to make irrational decisions, and start to draw back personal freedoms, and so on. As bad as some may feel things have gotten, they can get a lot worse. You just never know. Gun ownership is really that final check on government power, and it may be that it is a messy and unfortunate necessity.

[PhxPhin]

it's really difficult to compare crime rates amongst countries when there is a lot more factors than just the weapon available

 

I do not own a gun - I grew up around them though - was tought about how to safely use them, respect them, etc - I lived i the country so we spent a lot of time shooting in our backyard

 

I still enjoy the skill of shooting (even went to the range last weekend) - i feel these types of places are good as it gives legal, responsible people a place to safely shoot and learn about their weapons

 

I think a lot of the problem has to do with illegal guns - they are a commodity in the wrong circles - making them illegal wouldn't get rid of them - imo, it would be like drugs - more expensive, but still readily available

 

I think some guns should be taken off the market - sure it's fun to shoot an automatic, but really no point to it - there should also be more restrictions on who can buy guns (my mother works for the county providing pistol permits and some of these people are scary, iliterate or both)

 

I don't think full scale licensing, etc really accomlishes much for the expense though

[Jimmy42Jack0]

The single most important function of firearms is for the populous to have the capacity to overthrow the government. Arms should be not only freely available, but expected to be owned. Every American should be taught the proper care and respect for firearms and be expected to maintain such a weapon in their home. Guns should not be "cool" at least not in any way in which a tool couldn't be "cool", and from a young age the danger of firearms should be demonstrated in emphasized to all children.

 

i also feel that catalogs and gun shows should also have to abide by these laws too as it stands now, they are basically unregulated and my unborn child could order a gun from the womb if he so chooses to do so.

 

You can feel it all you want, but it's bulls***.

that is rediculous...and when the day comes that everyone has a handgun, then the criminals get automatics...and so on, and so forth...it will never stop...that is a problem...and the beginning of your argument is insane...the single most important function a gun of a firearm is put a f**king bullet in someone or something, not to protect ourselves from government...i do however agree, every american should be taught the proper care and respect for a firearm...and you do realize that unregulated gun shows and catalogues, anyone can buy a gun, john wilkes booth could buy a gun, lee harvey oswald could buy a gun, sirhan sirhan could buy a gun...doesnt that seem the slight bit rediculous to anyone else? that convicted fellons, mental patients and so forth can legally buy guns? i dont know...call me crazy...but im in favor of taking actions that are more likely to keep someone from putting a bullet in me

[EricWiener]

that is rediculous...and when the day comes that everyone has a handgun, then the criminals get automatics...and so on, and so forth...it will never stop...that is a problem...and the beginning of your argument is insane...the single most important function a gun of a firearm is put a f**king bullet in someone or something, not to protect ourselves from government...i do however agree, every american should be taught the proper care and respect for a firearm...and you do realize that unregulated gun shows and catalogues, anyone can buy a gun, john wilkes booth could buy a gun, lee harvey oswald could buy a gun, sirhan sirhan could buy a gun...doesnt that seem the slight bit rediculous to anyone else? that convicted fellons, mental patients and so forth can legally buy guns? i dont know...call me crazy...but im in favor of taking actions that are more likely to keep someone from putting a bullet in me

 

Yes, to put a f***ing bullet into tyrants.

 

There are nations where every single household has multiple assault rifles, and they have low murder rates. Not because of the assault rifle, but because of the nature of the society. The United States does not have a higher violent crime rate that nations with strict gun control laws, in many cases we have a lower rate. Also, the murder rate isn't significantly different. The biggest issue is that the DOJ has a Homicide rate and that includes Suicides, and most other nations have distinct classifications. 6 per 100K is the current rate, lower than 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

 

If you mail order a weapon you have to go to a FFL holder who holds the weapon for the appropriate waiting period and performs a background check as if you purchased the firearm in their store.

 

Licensed gun dealers that sell at gun shows must, by federal law, strictly adhere to background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Persons selling firearms are required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its background check. As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States -- the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

 

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale. The so-called gun show loophole means that I can sell my legally possessed gun to you as long as I don't know you are a felon.

 

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not "engaged in the business." And if the widow doesn't want to sell her deceased husband's guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.

 

Given that 79% of guns used in crimes are not sold legally, and that only 2% are acquired at gun shows, gun show sales are a false worry.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

This is from a Slate.com article...

 

Brady mandates a federal background check before the sale of a gun by any seller who holds a federal firearms license. It applies to Internet gun deals, gun-shop purchases, and sales by FFL sellers at gun shows. It does not apply, however, to the estimated 40 percent of gun transfers that take place between individuals: non-FFL sellers at those same gun shows, and person-to-person sales made through personal contacts or Internet and print classified ads.

 

I don't know where the 40% number comes from, so I can't personally vouch for it. But putting aside whether these sales are happening specifically at gun shows, 40% is a pretty big number to not have background checks.

 

Here's the article.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/

[EricWiener]

This is from a Slate.com article...

 

Brady mandates a federal background check before the sale of a gun by any seller who holds a federal firearms license. It applies to Internet gun deals, gun-shop purchases, and sales by FFL sellers at gun shows. It does not apply, however, to the estimated 40 percent of gun transfers that take place between individuals: non-FFL sellers at those same gun shows, and person-to-person sales made through personal contacts or Internet and print classified ads.

 

I don't know where the 40% number comes from, so I can't personally vouch for it. But putting aside whether these sales are happening specifically at gun shows, 40% is a pretty big number to not have background checks.

 

Here's the article.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/

 

Considering that 40% of those transfers (if that is remotely accurate, since such transfers would be inherently untracked) are of gun show sales, it is not a large number. 2% of weapons used in crimes are acquired at gun shows, so 0.8% of crimes would be commited with that 'large numer.' It is a non-issue used to attempt to tighten all gun laws. I

 

If they are claiming that 40% of all gun acquisitons are through personal transfers, then they are including taking it from family, inheriting it, receiving the weapon as a gift from friends and family, etc, then there is no expectation that could ever be stopped without wholesale bans on gun ownership or mandatory gun registration.

[prinmemito]

This is from a Slate.com article...

 

Brady mandates a federal background check before the sale of a gun by any seller who holds a federal firearms license. It applies to Internet gun deals, gun-shop purchases, and sales by FFL sellers at gun shows. It does not apply, however, to the estimated 40 percent of gun transfers that take place between individuals: non-FFL sellers at those same gun shows, and person-to-person sales made through personal contacts or Internet and print classified ads.

 

I don't know where the 40% number comes from, so I can't personally vouch for it. But putting aside whether these sales are happening specifically at gun shows, 40% is a pretty big number to not have background checks.

 

Here's the article.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/

 

Considering that 40% of those transfers (if that is remotely accurate, since such transfers would be inherently untracked) are of gun show sales, it is not a large number. 2% of weapons used in crimes are acquired at gun shows, so 0.8% of crimes would be commited with that 'large numer.' It is a non-issue used to attempt to tighten all gun laws. I

 

If they are claiming that 40% of all gun acquisitons are through personal transfers, then they are including taking it from family, inheriting it, receiving the weapon as a gift from friends and family, etc, then there is no expectation that could ever be stopped without wholesale bans on gun ownership or mandatory gun registration.

 

Your numbers are wrong, even accepting your assertion that 2% of weapons used in crimes are acquired at gun shows and the guns used in crime are proportional to how they are purchased or received. If those numbers are right, then it's not 0.8% "with that large number", it's actually 1.333%.

 

Furthermore, you have no idea whether the rate of use in crimes for the guns purchased "gun shows" or through "personal transfers" are the same. You are making a huge leap in logic there; big assumption that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

In fact, the opposite is true: it's far more likely that a gun used in a crime was received via personal transfers or unregulated transfers than through gun shows.

 

And it's very interesting that you use the percentage of weapons used in crimes. Clearly you're biased, because any kind neutral observer would instead use "crimes involving lethal force" or "crimes causing serious physical injuries". You're setting up a straw man just to prove your point. Very disingenuous.

 

If this were a college course you would get an F on analysis.

[Jimmy42Jack0]

This is from a Slate.com article...

 

Brady mandates a federal background check before the sale of a gun by any seller who holds a federal firearms license. It applies to Internet gun deals, gun-shop purchases, and sales by FFL sellers at gun shows. It does not apply, however, to the estimated 40 percent of gun transfers that take place between individuals: non-FFL sellers at those same gun shows, and person-to-person sales made through personal contacts or Internet and print classified ads.

 

I don't know where the 40% number comes from, so I can't personally vouch for it. But putting aside whether these sales are happening specifically at gun shows, 40% is a pretty big number to not have background checks.

 

Here's the article.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/

 

Considering that 40% of those transfers (if that is remotely accurate, since such transfers would be inherently untracked) are of gun show sales, it is not a large number. 2% of weapons used in crimes are acquired at gun shows, so 0.8% of crimes would be commited with that 'large numer.' It is a non-issue used to attempt to tighten all gun laws. I

 

If they are claiming that 40% of all gun acquisitons are through personal transfers, then they are including taking it from family, inheriting it, receiving the weapon as a gift from friends and family, etc, then there is no expectation that could ever be stopped without wholesale bans on gun ownership or mandatory gun registration.

 

Your numbers are wrong, even accepting your assertion that 2% of weapons used in crimes are acquired at gun shows and the guns used in crime are proportional to how they are purchased or received. If those numbers are right, then it's not 0.8% "with that large number", it's actually 1.333%.

 

Furthermore, you have no idea whether the rate of use in crimes for the guns purchased "gun shows" or through "personal transfers" are the same. You are making a huge leap in logic there; big assumption that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

In fact, the opposite is true: it's far more likely that a gun used in a crime was received via personal transfers or unregulated transfers than through gun shows.

 

And it's very interesting that you use the percentage of weapons used in crimes. Clearly you're biased, because any kind neutral observer would instead use "crimes involving lethal force" or "crimes causing serious physical injuries". You're setting up a straw man just to prove your point. Very disingenuous.

 

If this were a college course you would get an F on analysis.

im glad i wasnt the only other person thinking this...and as for the last sentence...lol...yeah... :thumbup

[TheDon]

LOL @ whoever voted guns should be completely outlawed.

 

 

 

 

 

Right, so only scumbag criminals have em. Thats smart.

[Dodge]

Should be legal, but with extensive background checks.

[MarlinsFan253]

Restrict who can legally carry them not where they can carry them. I love how people think banning guns from certain areas will make that area safer. Mass killings would be imposible if good people could carry guns anywhere. 33 people were killed at Virginia Tech and the best defense they had was hiding under a desk. That is ridiculous. In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 %. Luckily, the federal courts repealed that law and many states are moving in the right direction as well.

[prinmemito]

There's no causality with your DC example. If anything, tougher gun restrictions means crime and murder are already out of control and, hence, the city enacted tougher restrictions. In other words, you could argue that the restrictions came out too late to keep the murder rate about the same. In addition, how do you know the murder rate wouldn't have gone up quicker if they had not enacted tougher restrictions? You don't.

[MarlinsFan253]

There's no causality with your DC example. If anything, tougher gun restrictions means crime and murder are already out of control and, hence, the city enacted tougher restrictions. In other words, you could argue that the restrictions came out too late to keep the murder rate about the same. In addition, how do you know the murder rate wouldn't have gone up quicker if they had not enacted tougher restrictions? You don't.

Gun control laws don't do anything. How many violent criminals will not feel guilty about murdering someone, but will feel guilty for obtaining a gun illegally? Most likely, zero. Citizens need a means to defend themselves from those criminals. Knowing that citizens can carry guns acts as a deterrent. It works in Texas and murder rates tend to be pretty low in places with fewer restrictions on where people can legally carry guns. I'm not saying gun control in general because then that would include places where it is easy for anyone to get a gun legally. Sorry if my thoughts seem choppy, I am distracted by the game right now. hehe.

[Guest Juanky]

If anything, tougher gun restrictions means crime and murder are already out of control and, hence, the city enacted tougher restrictions. In other words, you could argue that the restrictions came out too late to keep the murder rate about the same. In addition, how do you know the murder rate wouldn't have gone up quicker if they had not enacted tougher restrictions? You don't.

By that logic, how do you know that it wasn't the gun laws that helped violence go up?

[prinmemito]

If anything, tougher gun restrictions means crime and murder are already out of control and, hence, the city enacted tougher restrictions. In other words, you could argue that the restrictions came out too late to keep the murder rate about the same. In addition, how do you know the murder rate wouldn't have gone up quicker if they had not enacted tougher restrictions? You don't.

By that logic, how do you know that it wasn't the gun laws that helped violence go up?

 

I don't. That was my point. I wasn't arguing either way.

 

Also, I doubt that the gun laws impact violence one way or the other. More than anything, it probably impacts how many violent crimes lead to serious injury or death. Same level of violence, except that people use things other than guns, which probably results in less deaths.