Do you support common sense gun control laws?

Question

And note, I'm not asking if we have any already. I'm asking if they should be there.

Should we make it harder for criminals, the mentally insane, and children to get guns or should we have a wild west mentality where any person can buy an automatic assault rifle, grenade, rocket launcher, land mine, or machine gun?

ladysable,

Hitler did not disarm the population. The first gun control law was designed to keep guns away from people like him.

Hitler did not get into power by blasting his way through power. His party was elected democratically. The Enabling Act then gave him dictator like powers.

Answer 1

This problem will only get truly resolved when both Democrats and Republicans up in Congress can reach a sensible compromise. Right now compromise is futile, because Bush is still president and the Democrats are more focused on trying to get out of Iraq. Hopefully,this latest CIA destruction of tapes is gonna break the camel's back with George Bush representing the camel. It appears Dana Perino is starting to get flustered now. Too bad that last spokesperson for Bush didn't decide to stick it out.

Answer 2

How are you going to define "mentally insane?" I have severe mental illness (bipolar) and in at least some states (e.g. Texas, Hawaii), it is illegal for me to own a gun (not in my state). I have never ever hit anyone let alone threatened them with a gun. Am I "mentally insane" because I have a bonafide mental illness? In fact, I have better control of my temper than most people I know, especially younger men. Maybe there should be absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS on women owning weapons because they almost never commit crimes or hurt anyone? It is angry people who commit violence, not generally people with a serious mental health diagnosis.

And the way the Brady Bill is, anyone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital can't have a gun. Well, I know a guy who had catatonia (couldn't move much, couldn't talk, kind of a vegetable) and so he couldn't be voluntarily admitted even though he would have agreed to it if he could have. A lot of people get put in the hospital because they aren't feeding themselves and keeping house well enough so they are a hazard ("danger") to themselves. Of course they fight the commitment because these hospitals are really jails, then they lose because it is a racket in some states some of the time. In my state, to get any kind of mental care if you were poor, you had to lie and say you didn't want care so they would involuntarily commit you, then the state would pay. I'm sure nobody told folks what the consequences were.

I think some limits are ok. Like, I don't see why we need automatic weapons or rocket launchers. And when someone is threatening violence and the like, I think it is OK to lock up their guns for a couple years, then re-evaluate them later, something like that. An age limit is a good idea. And making sure people aren't packing when they are intoxicated, I agree with that one. I think non-violent felons should get their rights back regarding guns after a few years. They did their time. Violent felons - that depends a lot on the details of the case.

Answer 3

Think about it this way. A 'law abiding citizen' is what? A person who has never broken the law, or someone who has never been caught and convicted? So, 50% of all guns in the hands of convicted criminals come from, yeah you guessed it 'legal' sources, friends and families or from gun shops and shows. So obviously 'law abiding citizens' aren't following the laws, which is a bit of a problem. But get this. Murder is against the law, a criminal commits murder, therefore they are locked up. Now the theory that there is not point in having more laws because only the law abiding follow this, is totally stupid, because you make murder a crime, someone murders, then they are locked up or executed and not on the streets able to kill again. But it also prevents people who might murder if it were legal, but wouldn't if it was illegal. Criminals DO care about the law, a criminal is not someone who goes and breaks all the laws all the time, they don't all drive around at 66mph all the time, and kill people all the time, most of the time a criminal is within the law. The whole point to your question is lost on me because just like most things to do with this topic, it is ruled, not by knowledge, but by ignorance. The second amendment is not understood by either side. Both of which claim things that are obviously not true and seem to be trying to out do each other, and everyone follows their 'side' and act like sheep without actually thinking about it. People don't understand what it would mean to ban all guns, nor do they understand what is going to happen if guns are not better controlled when the recession hits, murder is at 17,000 a year, this recession could see it go up to 23,000 or higher. What is needed, is a group of people to make sensible gun control, that prevents 50% of all guns in the hands of criminals coming from legal sources, that tries to prevent criminals from getting guns in the first place. But also other laws that mean better and fairer education and opportunities for all people, not just middle class people. Also, look at the stats, in the UK without a gun i am less likely to have to defend myself, in the US with a gun, you are more likely to die. What does that say? Those states with big cities and not much gun control like Texas have higher crime, esepcially rape and murder than states with more gun control. So a person could defend themselves, but are much more likely to get attacked because the attacker is much more likely to have a gun. This is not a black and white topic and if you see it in a black and white manner, you will be lost.

Answer 4

Oh Matt, I'm an NRA member, and I don't have a dick. I would be worried if I did.

Responsibility matters. I had a friend killed at Virginia Tech by a gunman who had a mental record, but was able to legally purchase firearms. There should be laws governing firearm ownership and usage, but there's no need to ban them.

It should be harder for criminals to obtain firearms. They will always find loopholes though. If you look at cities with strict gun control laws, like Washington DC, you'll see they also have a higher crime rate.

Answer 5

Once again, I am shocked to find myself agreeing with Ret Roch Cop. Laws will not turn a dishonest person to honesty: Those responsible SHOULD be held accountable.

But your basic premise shows a falsity: Children cannot walk into a gun or pawn shop and legally purchase a weapon, neither can a person who is obviously mentally deranged. Children almost invariably have access to their FAMILYS' weapons, usually stored with inadequate safeguards.

But make no mistake, there are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men and women. If they don't use guns, they will use knives, when knives are outlawed, they will take to beating each other to death with clubs.

We have to treat the CAUSES, not the symptoms.

Answer 6

In today's political times,I would have to say no.Look back at cigarette smoking:
First they wanted to ban smoking on airline flights of less than 6 hours.Look what happened next.
One of the anti-smoking lobbyists was interviewed a couple of years ago(don't ask for a link,just trust me if you choose to).
When asked specifically if he thought the anti-smoking movement would have succeeded as well as it had he responded in the affirmative and explained that their plan was to prohibit smoking anywhere they could(flights just happened to be the first success) and then BUILD UPON THAT SUCCESS to further prohibit what was a legal activity.

I think that the gun-control lobby has the same agenda in mind:achieve some success in gun-control and then build upon that to a total banishment of lawful gun ownership.

Answer 7

The problem when someone poses a question like this is that people immediately get defensive, and amateur Constitutional law interpreters become abundant.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not state that there shouldn't be some sort of regulations attached to the sale of guns.

If you don't have a criminal record, then you can get a gun in three days. If you buy at a gun show... you can walk away with it that day.

For some reason, these rules are too strict for a lot of people. Apparently there are a lot of emergency situations happening in people's lives where they need to get their hands on a gun NOW!RIGHTNOW! Personally, I've never been in that kind of situation, and I would question whether someone who is living the kind of life where a gun is an immediate need is really the kind of person who should OWN a gun.

You have to have a license to drive a car. You have to pass a test to get that license. You have to have a license to get married. You have to pass blood tests to get THAT license.

But any idiot can (and does) own a gun.

Own one if you want one... but play by the rules.

And for those who claim they need a gun for their own protection... I don't own one and no one has ever broken into my home in the middle of the night and assaulted me.

A gun is not crime prevention.

Answer 8

Ya but, how do you stop people from buying a non-licensed weapon from the local neighborhood drug dealer? The only people that gun control punishes are the law abiding. I agree that mentally insane people, criminals, and children should not be primary owners of firearms though.

Answer 9

The only guns available to Americans should be hunting rifles. These should never cross state lines. All should be registered. It should take at least three months to obtain a hunting rifle and license. I really believe that hunting licenses should be given only to rural individuals who absolutely need to augment their food budget with hunting and should require a means test as well as a very thorough background check.

Answer 10

I support the current gun control laws. You have to remember that criminals, the mentally insane, and children procure firearms illegally. No law is going to stop that.