Gun Control Laws (US citizens only please)

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

<post removed>

[bob345]

I think a psychological evaluation should be done along with what is already being done. A person could have a perfectly clean record but still have some serious mental issues. I am all for gun ownership, i just think it should be regulated a little better. And by that i dont mean limit mag capacity ant things like that. I mean things like annual checkups on gun owners.

[thewafflemaster]

Why did you start this???

[xox]

I'm here for the prolonged argument with @Trik'Stari whenever I disagree with his opinion

 

I don't care whether Americans carry things that kill Americans... Less of them to walk around asking where the London eye is when I'm in London I guess (I mean, come on, it's a massive fucking wheel in the sky)

I do think there should be some kind of checks though, some people should not be allowed guns. These people may have mental disorders or be murderers or whatever, they really should not be trusted under any circumstances with guns. These people can come back to Britain with their firearms and give them to gangs, which gives us an even bigger problem.

As for in Britain, I'm against guns, probably going to go on about some civilised country stuff but really, it's down to the fact that British people prefer knives and airsoft instead

[KingKeith55]

No more, no less.

 

Honestly there are so many illegal guns floating around it wont matter if they ban guns altogether or not. They are already easilly obtainable, just walk to the guy on the street in the hood, give him several hundred for a handgun or something.

[xox]

To use a japanese proverb, "the nail that sticks out gets hammered"

And yet Japan is known for it's tighter gun laws

[cae]

In the US I'd start with banning high-capacity magazines and full auto handguns, SMGs, rifles, beltfeds etc. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to own those things. No private property needs that kind of defense. If you can't kill a couple of burglars with a semi-automatic handgun, you shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm.

 

So if the goal is to lower violent crime, you'd start by banning items that are statistically not used in violent crime?

[Ne1lcul]

I'm very happy with what they are right now.  I am a pretty big gun enthusiast myself.  One thing that can be improved in my opinion is, when conducting the background check, the broker should be able to see the entire criminal/mental history of the customer even down to traffic violations.  The salesman should then be able to refuse the transaction if they don't necessarily like what they see, like if the customer has a history of mental illness.  This might not help all that much with violence, but it could potentially save the gun shop from any liability if anything were to happen involving the firearm they sold.

 

The only real complaint I have is the price of ammo.  It could be cheaper.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

<post removed>

[cae]

Start by taking out the stuff that is known for being instrumental in highshool shootings (SMGs and high-capacity magazines) and the stuff that's just plain ridiculous.

A crazy person with a normal capacity handgun is going to do a lot less damage in the same amount of time than one with a full auto assault rifle.

 

Again, full auto stuff isn't a player in this. It's prohibitively expensive and heavily regulated already.

[typographie]

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.

 

No, I agree that law-abiding citizens do not become criminals because they have access to guns, but my understanding is that the majority of guns used in violent crimes are obtained from law-abiding gun owners. And before you ask for a citation on that, why wouldn't they be? Most American criminals are not linked to al-Qaeda or the Mexican cartels, they have to purchase their guns legally or take them from someone who purchased them legally.

 

That guns are weapons of impulse is a matter of simple logic, not figures. Any other weapon requires more planning and preparation than a gun does. When you have a gun, you don't have to think, and that alone may make violent crime more likely and frequent. Its like having a remote control versus having to get up to change the channel. Point and click.

 

Suicide is an important point linked to that as well. If you don't have a gun, what other fast, instant method do you have? Anything else requires you to take extra time that will be spent thinking it through.

[cae]

No, I agree that law-abiding citizens do not become criminals because they have access to guns, but my understanding is that the majority of guns used in violent crimes are obtained from law-abiding gun owners. And before you ask for a citation on that, why wouldn't they be? Most American criminals are not linked to al-Qaeda or the Mexican cartels, they have to purchase their guns legally or take them from someone who purchased them legally.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

[Tocsin_786]

i live in NY where guns are basically scarce unless your a gov. security/ army/ or a cop and i have been okay with it.