Gun Control Laws (US citizens only please)

[Tr3vor]

So revoking the 13th amendment wouldn't offend you? What about the first? Or are we to be selective? Remember that sentiment changes like underwear, and with that train of thought, its feasible a majority of people could support shit like that... the majority isn't always right.

 

I'm not saying that they should be able to throw them out willy nilly, only if it really causes a problem in society. 

 

Also, what's right isn't always what's right. before the 13th amendment, having slaves "Was right". Peoples' opinions on what's right and wrong changes over time.

[pit5000]

I believe in the right to bear arms but I think limited gun control is reasonable.

 

So long as laws do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens from own guns I have no problem for the most part. I think regulating distribution and manufacturing would be the way to go.

 

With the question about can the federal government regulate this area, I think it can as the constitution allows for the government to regulate interstate commerce and this industry is a national industry with buyers, sellers and manufacturers across all state lines.

[Guest]

I have a fundamental problem with asking for approval to exercise my rights.

 

Ask yourself this, do you approve of requiring a permit to vote? A permit to not have your house randomly searched by the authorities? To speak in public?

yes

[typographie]

Looking at the rates of gun crime globally, I find it very hard to cast a vote for anything less than 'much more strict.'

[Mooshi]

American here, Texan for bonus points. My stance is people should take a mental examination before owning a firearm. it's not a "god given right", it's a privilege. Guns don't kill people, stupid gun owners do. Whether it's lack of training or being incredible dense such as leaving a loaded firearm around children. There are permits and stuff, but sometimes it feels like you can get a gun as easy as getting candy and to some, that's unsettling. Regardless of the laws, criminals don't obey them. If someone wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one. No reason to punish reasonable people because of idiots.

[cae]

Looking at the rates of gun crime globally, I find it very hard to cast a vote for anything less than 'much more strict.'

 

It's hard to argue against that, because we're the only ones on the globe owning half a billion firearms. We're also constitutionally guaranteed the right to do so. We're special snowflakes. "Gun crime" is a loaded stat because of that, of course we're going to have more crimes involving guns than places that don't have guns. Regardless, crime is committed by criminals who, by definition, disregard laws or regulation. Do you think people become criminals because of the access to firearms that law-abiding people enjoy?

 

American here, Texan for bonus points. My stance is people should take a mental examination before owning a firearm. it's not a "god given right", it's a privilege. Guns don't kill people, stupid gun owners do. Whether it's lack of training or being incredible dense such as leaving a loaded firearm around children. There are permits and stuff, but sometimes it feels like you can get a gun as easy as getting candy and to some, that's unsettling. Regardless of the laws, criminals don't obey them. If someone wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one. No reason to punish reasonable people because of idiots.

 

What does that mental examination entail? Who conducts it? Where is the line determining whether someone can or cannot own a firearm? Would this examination prevent negligence? I think not. I agree and disagree regarding right vs. privilege. Obviously it's not an inalienable right; felons are stripped of some rights like firearm ownership. It's in areas like self defense where I think it's higher than privilege, though. I do agree that more people should engage in firearms safety and training courses, though I think it should be incentivized rather than regulated. Perhaps if these rights weren't constantly coming under attack, the NRA could stop selling fear, and start getting back to their roots - firearms safety and training.

[IdortMasterRace]

UK citizen here - they should be much less strict in both the US and UK.

 

Hopefully Farage gets in power and actually gives us back our right to defend ourselves.

[Yoinkerman]

Slightly more strict, with emphasis on responsible storage and handling. Perhaps firearms licensing like a driver's license. If people treat guns like the weapons of death they are, maybe they'll be slower to reach for them to commit crimes or solve problems.

Tldr; raise the barrier of entry and there will be fewer problems

[cae]

Slightly more strict, with emphasis on responsible storage and handling. Perhaps firearms licensing like a driver's license. If people treat guns like the weapons of death they are, maybe they'll be slower to reach for them to commit crimes or solve problems.

Tldr; raise the barrier of entry and there will be fewer problems

 

It's because guns are treated as weapons that criminals use them in crimes. There are very few problems solved with the use of a firearm that don't also involve a crime being committed, but those few problems are important. Someone is being assaulted, if reaching for that firearm can aid in stopping the assault, why should they think twice about defending themselves? In both examples a weapon is used to aid its user in taking action.

 

So who is served implementing a license system? "Sir, we caught you committing assault without a firearms license!" or "Sir, we caught you practicing self defense without a firearms license!"

 

I agree that more emphasis should be placed on responsible storage and handling of firearms. There are already consequences for negligence, yet it still occurs. This is why I think incentivizing is a better route than further regulation.

[STRMfrmXMN]

You can keep your guns. I don't care - just don't use the second amendment as your battle ax cuz that sh*t lets you own things like turrets and unmanned drones too, not just your pistol/rifle/whatever else people own cuz I don't know sh*t about guns.

 

Though - unlike most hardcore liberals - I don't oppose gun ownership, it can be better. Simple background check to make sure the person doesn't molest children and it's a break.

[STRMfrmXMN]

UK citizen here - they should be much less strict in both the US and UK.

 

Hopefully Farage gets in power and actually gives us back our right to defend ourselves.

Honest opinion - would you feel it necessary to own a gun if violence in both countries were immensely suppressed (less common basically) or would you still want it for home protection/recreational use?

[Yoinkerman]

Uh, are you trying to infer that once you perform a criminal act you throw caution to the wind and there's no difference between the decision to use a gun in in and using no weapon or something else like a knife or tire iron?

Because that's not how it works. The line of "well they're criminals they'll just use guns anyway" really baffles me. There are gradients of crime as well as gradients of criminals. It's precisely because guns are so ubiquitous in America that the thought of using one in a crime isn't really a thought at all. If we raise the bar, through changing gun culture (of which there are many ways to make such a change) to where people, even criminals, because they're people too, think twice before using guns to commit crimes and maybe use a knife instead, then measure that encourage this should be enacted. Committing a crime doesn't mean a universal disregard for every law ever made nor does it mean because people break the law we should do nothing.

[cae]

 

Simple background check to make sure the person doesn't molest children and it's a break.

 

This system is already in place - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

[STRMfrmXMN]

 

 

 

This system is already in place - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

 

Then I'm OK with it.

[cae]

Uh, are you trying to infer that once you perform a criminal act you throw caution to the wind and there's no difference between the decision to use a gun in in and using no weapon or something else like a knife or tire iron?

Because that's not how it works. The line of "well they're criminals they'll just use guns anyway" really baffles me. There are gradients of crime as well as gradients of criminals. It's precisely because guns are so ubiquitous in America that the thought of using one in a crime isn't really a thought at all. If we raise the bar, through changing gun culture (of which there are many ways to make such a change) to where people, even criminals, because they're people too, think twice before using guns to commit crimes and maybe use a knife instead, then measure that encourage this should be enacted. Committing a crime doesn't mean a universal disregard for every law ever made nor does it mean because people break the law we should do nothing.

 

I'm saying using a weapon in a crime can help the criminals accomplish their goals, especially when those crimes involve the controlling of others. I don't differentiate between implements - someone isn't less raped by an unarmed assailant than they are by an armed assailant. Have to say, I wouldn't consider an assailant choosing to rape someone with a knife to their victim's throat instead of a gun to be strong victory in the victim's favor. I would instead rather have the would-be assailant choose to not rape, and barring that, I would rather have the would-be victim be given the opportunity and tools necessary to defend themselves from that assault.

[Trik'Stari]

Gun control should be stricter in that people need to be highly trained in the safe handling and use of firearms, we already do background checks, not really much more that can be done about that. You could require background checks to close the so called "gun show loophole", except for that's just the black market and people will still buy and sell guns to other people, outside of a store, via cash, whether or not it's legal.

 

What we really need, is better psychiatric care for the insane, and to stop creating a culture of fear around inanimate objects, I can't count the number of "alerts" I get on my phone each month about "someone with a gun" being sighted near my former community college, in a state where open carry is the law. And yet to date, no one has been caught, and nothing has happened at that college, I wonder how many rapes/murders/thefts/muggings/etc happened while the police were busy looking for someone who just happened to own a gun, that wasn't actually violating the law.

 

I for one, do open carry, which is legal. I train weekly in handling my firearms, as should all firearms owners to cut down on accidents. People need to be educated about firearms handling, instead of just being made to be afraid of everything.

[Guest Philosophy]

 stay the same, they are perfect as is. 

[shiftberry]

Arms should be handed to sane people with expertise. In case of robbery and aggression, fire might be authorized as self-defense. 

 

Sorry, but as a North African, I have to be armed in any sudden circumstances.

[Trik'Stari]

Arms should be handed to sane people with expertise. In case of robbery and aggression, fire might be authorized as self-defense. 

How do you determine sanity for a lifetime, and who gets to determine "expertise" I can tell you right now, I get more practice in with my guns than the average cop does with his guns.

 

In a lot of cities, they allow people to apply for conceal carry permits, good luck getting one though, they've done it as a way to circumvent the constitution.

[cae]

Come to Arizona. Don't need a permit to carry concealed, or open. But they do indeed try to demonize open carriers. Even pro 2A people do that, and while I don't think it's the best way to carry tactically speaking, not everyone can get a concealed carry permit like you say.

[Trik'Stari]

I still think the best solution to crime is to empower the citizenry. Here in Virginia the law is "constitutional carry" which states that any person legally able to own a gun, is allow to carry it openly in public, in a holster (in your hand is called brandishing, unless you have reason to have it in your hand, like stopping a robbery or something), I carry everywhere I go, I won't shop at stores that violate my personal right to protect myself and those around me. I think people need to be more proactive about their own safety, people need to have the mentality of a cop when it comes to violent crime. Don't just be afraid and let yourself be a victim, fight back, be ready to take down a mugger or a person holding up a store.

 

The only real solution to violent crime is to make the criminals afraid to commit crimes. Make them think everyone, or at least more than half, of the general public will respond to their behavior in the same way a cop would. Sure, there will be those crimes of passion that aren't really preventable (like the guy recently that beheaded some older woman and then stepped in front of a train), but general muggings, and even to an extent mass shootings, can be prevented by encouraging people to be proactive about their safety, rather than reacting by running away, complying, and calling the police. Sure, there are those who won't be able to defend themselves, but there are going to be a hell of a lot more people who can. And I think if people would react selflessly, and place the safety of their fellow citizen above their own safety, the world would be a hell of a lot better place.

 

To use a japanese proverb, "the nail that sticks out gets hammered" we need to have a lot more people walking around ready to hammer those nails, rather than just the undermanned police force that can't stop every nail from sticking out.

 

And don't tell me it can't work, watch this shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2PlcyteQi0

 

That old woman, has more balls than most people these days, we should be ashamed of that fact.

[AlexStriz]

I still think the best solution to crime is to empower the citizenry. Here in Virginia the law is "constitutional carry" which states that any person legally able to own a gun, is allow to carry it openly in public, in a holster (in your hand is called brandishing, unless you have reason to have it in your hand, like stopping a robbery or something), I carry everywhere I go, I won't shop at stores that violate my personal right to protect myself and those around me. I think people need to be more proactive about their own safety, people need to have the mentality of a cop when it comes to violent crime. Don't just be afraid and let yourself be a victim, fight back, be ready to take down a mugger or a person holding up a store.

 

The only real solution to violent crime is to make the criminals afraid to commit crimes. Make them think everyone, or at least more than half, of the general public will respond to their behavior in the same way a cop would. Sure, there will be those crimes of passion that aren't really preventable (like the guy recently that beheaded some older woman and then stepped in front of a train), but general muggings, and even to an extent mass shootings, can be prevented by encouraging people to be proactive about their safety, rather than reacting by running away, complying, and calling the police. Sure, there are those who won't be able to defend themselves, but there are going to be a hell of a lot more people who can. And I think if people would react selflessly, and place the safety of their fellow citizen above their own safety, the world would be a hell of a lot better place.

Agreed.

 

I don't own or use guns, but I have many friends who go shooting/hunting very often. Where I live, it's a huge part of life. Everyone looks at me like I'm from a different planet when I say I've shot a .22 once. They take their guns very seriously. Like you, they carry their guns with them everywhere they go. One of the kids I go to school with drives a truck that his parents keep a handgun and ammo in at all times, in case something happens.

 

Edit: what part of VA are you from? I grew up in Great Falls/Fairfax

[typographie]

Do you think people become criminals because of the access to firearms that law-abiding people enjoy?

I think giving criminals easy access to guns allow them to cause vastly more damage, and make them much harder to stop. If they had to resort to, say, knives instead, injuries would be less severe and deaths would absolutely be fewer. Additionally, guns are weapons of impulse that facilitate crimes of passion. When you don't have a gun, you have to think things through. So in a sense, having fewer guns may indeed mean fewer crimes.

 

Additionally, If this is the "criminals are going to ignore gun laws anyway" argument, I would respond by saying criminals are going to ignore whatever laws they are going to ignore—they are criminals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

That said, I think the issue of what we should be allowed to do is a distraction. The NRA wants us to be arguing about whether or not the government is going to try to take our gun rights away, instead of arguing over what the NRA's place in our political system should be. Many things that would be common sense reforms anywhere else are met with irrational hostility because the NRA gets the final say on what politicians can win their elections. They have made this argument so incendiary and so costly for the politicians that it is an absolute non-starter and gun enthusiasts likely have nothing to worry about for a very, very long time.

[Trik'Stari]

Agreed.

 

I don't own or use guns, but I have many friends who go shooting/hunting very often. Where I live, it's a huge part of life. Everyone looks at me like I'm from a different planet when I say I've shot a .22 once. They take their guns very seriously. Like you, they carry their guns with them everywhere they go. One of the kids I go to school with drives a truck that his parents keep a handgun and ammo in at all times, in case something happens.

 

Edit: what part of VA are you from? I grew up in Great Falls/Fairfax

Originally Richmond (Henrico). I grew up in the Northern Neck area, and currently live in Hanover, but I've lived in other states as well.

 

People just need to stop being sheep, even if you can't own a gun, take a self defense class, do some reading about self awareness and what to look for in a possible criminal and how they will act right before commiting a crime, carry a baton or pepper spray or a tazer.

 

We need to reverse the situation in this world where people are afraid of criminals, they need to fear us more than we fear them.

 

 

I think criminals get easy access to weapons that can cause vastly more damage, and are much harder to stop, than the weapons they would be limited to if guns were not as abundant. If this is the "criminals are going to ignore gun laws anyway" argument, I would respond by saying criminals are going to ignore whatever laws they are going to ignore—they are criminals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

That said, I think the issue of what we should be allowed to do is a distraction. The NRA wants us to be arguing about whether or not the government is going to try to take our gun rights away, instead of arguing over what the NRA's place in our political system should be. Many things that would be common sense reforms anywhere else are met with irrational hostility because the NRA gets the final say on what politicians can win their elections. They have made this argument so incendiary and so costly for the politicians that it is an absolute non-starter and gun enthusiasts have nothing to worry about for a very, very long time.

 

Could not disagree more considering the NRA was started by the government, and there is a rationale behind their arguments against taking guns out of the hands of civillians, when you consider the following.

 

a. The criminals don't give up their guns, only the innocent do

b. We have a government that refuses to police the borders, and that's a hell of a lot of places for guns to come in from

c. Most gun wielding criminals will immediately surrender when confronted with a gun (if not kill themselves in the case of mass shooters). This isn't just me saying it, it's a statistical fact. Most criminals will surrender or run away when presented with the possibility of bodily harm, it's a very few that will stand and fight back when confronted. This has been stated by a number of police sources and FBI profilers. It's something like 70% will surrender immediately, 20% will surrender after some form of bodily harm, and 10% will have to be physically incapacitated. (might be slightly more or less, but it is a huge margin).

 

You can't just rely on the police and paper laws for protection, because the simple fact is they do not work for prevention, they can't be everywhere at once, and criminals ignore the law, it's plain and simple, look at every single state with extremely strict gun laws, they have higher rates of gun crime, and violent crime in general, because most people aren't allowed to possess the ability to defend themselves (not just guns, but mace/pepperspray, tazers, etc)

[cae]

I think giving criminals easy access to guns allow them to cause vastly more damage, and make them much harder to stop. If they had to resort to, say, knives instead, injuries would be less severe and deaths would absolutely be fewer. Additionally, guns are weapons of impulse that facilitate crimes of passion. When you don't have a gun, you have to think things through. So in a sense, having fewer guns may indeed mean fewer crimes.

 

Giving criminals access to guns is not something that's done. That's why I asked about law-abiding citizens becoming criminals because of gun availability. How do we explain the violence that occurs using guns otherwise? In turn, with more regulation, how can you say injuries would be less severe or deaths would be fewer with any certainty? Citation needed on that "weapons of impulse" bit, too.

 

Additionally, If this is the "criminals are going to ignore gun laws anyway" argument, I would respond by saying criminals are going to ignore whatever laws they are going to ignore—they are criminals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

Agreed. I would want those laws to be valid and useful, though!

 

That said, I think the issue of what we should be allowed to do is a distraction. The NRA wants us to be arguing about whether or not the government is going to try to take our gun rights away, instead of arguing over what the NRA's place in our political system should be. Many things that would be common sense reforms anywhere else are met with irrational hostility because the NRA gets the final say on what politicians can win their elections. They have made this argument so incendiary and so costly for the politicians that it is an absolute non-starter and gun enthusiasts likely have nothing to worry about for a very, very long time.

 

Agreed again, I think the NRA is fear mongering in its current state and I'm not supportive of that. Still, I have my own eyes, I can see what's been done in attempts to erode gun rights. Many others can as well, and they look to the NRA to lobby to maintain and expand those rights. Agreement ends where you accuse the opposition of "irrational hostility" for putting those "common sense reforms" under a microscope. Both sides are certainly guilty of incendiary argument tactics, I think a good goal would be to not confuse passion with aggression.