Gun Control Opinons (The real one)

[knowltok2]

Pick the gun control opinion that most closely aligns with your beliefs. I am not providing an 'other' option. If you feel that your opinion is not at all represented: 1. Don't vote. 2. Why didn't you send me an opinion? (see other gun control thread)

These are the opinions of some of the posters on this board. Only slight gramatical changes have been made (one capitalization, two spelling, and one comma). Names will be revealed later.

Feel free to discuss these opinions, but do vote for the one that is closest to yours.

To those whose opinions these are, lets hold off a bit before revealing which one is whose. We can get around to that later.

#1

Gun Control at this time is insufficient. Anyone can get these horrible weapons very easily. We must prohibit use of guns. As both forms of protection and as a form of hunting. Current gun laws and ideologies were written at a different time, and are no longer needed for protection, or to repel a corrupt government. No...These rules were written for a different time....it's time to move into the 21st century, and make this country a safer place!

#2

No semiautomatics, automatics or more powerful weapons legal for citizens to buy.
As for legal firearms (handguns, shotguns and rifles), require the buyer to register it + a waiting period of about one week.
Gun sellers must first purchase a permit to sell; all guns sales are heavily taxed.
Minimum buying age of 21; those convicted of a felony w/ a firearm cannot buy a gun.

#3

I think that the ultimate goal of gun control should the removal of guns from everyone bar the military. There is no situation that I could see that I would allow guns to remain in society. I accept that this aim cannot be achieved in America now or any time soon but it should be the ultimate goal. I suggest a gradual legislation movement beginning with tighter controls and leading to complete removal.

#4

Tough gun control legislation needs to be in place and enforced. A waiting period and background check are not unreasonable and should be in place. Gun ownership should be forbidden to all felons, even non-violent ones. Gun ownership age should be 21 unless and until a universal age of majority and responsibility is set. Automatic and assault weapons should be illegal, but regular semi-automatic pistols should not. A gun safety class should be required for gun ownership. A stiff tax should be placed on all firearms. Despite these restrictions and limitations, firearms should not be outlawed completely. None of the above measures are steps towards that direction.

#5

"Somewhere along this nation's development, the right to bear arms has become synonymous with what it means to be American. These rights were granted in very different time, and if the founding fathers could foresee the devastating violence inflicted upon Americans by other Americans that harms our Union today, they would be foolish not to reconsider.
Guns are for protection? From what? Other Americans with guns? It is a saddening, bitter circle, and it must end."

#6

"Firearms ownership should be unrestricted to all except felons who have been convicted of prior firearms violence (and a part of their sentence would be to deny them future firearms ownership). I define crime as actual CRIME, and not POTENTIAL to commit crime--so there is no harm in a person having a gun if he never commits a crime with it. Self-defense is an inalienable right."

 

[Pellaken]

ok. think about this:

if we have gun controal, we will NEVER be able to get rid of it toally. there will ALWAYS be guns... but the police will have the power to take guns away. therefore, there WILL be situations where an armed crook will face an unarmed innocent victim

then
on the other hand

if we have no gun controal, then everyone will have a gun. there will be many more crimes, but people will be able to defend themselvs with guns. the police will not have the power to take guns away.

option 1 will cause a few trajic deaths, while 2 will cause many "fair" deaths...

which do you prefer?


BTW, I voted for option3

 

[hothead2]

I prefer option 2 Pekkan

ands whats with these laws felons cant own guns?!?! My dad was convicted of a crime 25 years ago and to this day he cant vote or own a gun. As a matter a fact he cant even work in the state he lives in, as a Drug Abuse Counciler bcuz some prick made a law that he isnt alowed to!!! It was freaking 25 years ago! he has never raised even a hand to me or my mother!!!


:die!:

 

[VoodooAce]

Personally, I fully understand the fear that, were all of the guns collected, the only ones left with them would be bad guys.

But, I don't believe that this is the issue the NRA would have you believe.

For one thing, most guns (I heard 95%) that are used in crimes were bought, originally, in a legal fashion.

To me, while this may seem a bit hight at first glance, think about it and it makes total sense to me.

Seems obvious to me that we just need to shut off their supply.

May just take some time, is all.

Out of you cold, dead fingers, eh? Whatever floats your boat. :finger:

 

[Pellaken]

cant VOTE! isent that illigal?

 

[hothead2]

Not for convicted crimnals. Some crimes still punish you even after you have served your time.

 

[Daaraa]

I voted #4 as it seemed to be the only one that mentioned "enforced". I feel that most laws (not just gun control) are not enforced to the extent they should be.

Nor are some laws enforced with the meaning intended. (#5 alluded to this but not in a way I fully agree with)

However, I do feel that hothead2 has a very valid point in that limitations imposed on a middle-aged or senior citizen for a crime they commited while they were barely an adult are sometimes unjustified.

I feel that anyone who has an illegal intent in mind will get a gun regardless of any gun control.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Daaraa
I feel that anyone who has an illegal intent in mind will get a gun regardless of any gun control.

This argument is just bunk.

If I wanted a freakin' Claymore mine bad enough, I could get one. If I wanted a LAW anti-tank weapon bad enough, I could get one. Just because I could get these things would be a stupid reason to legalize them

Hhhmm....Claymore mine, eh? Yup. Right there in the foyer, when I get one....always wanted a foyer. Anyway, I could set up two or three with overlapping fields of fire. Sweet.

Obviously, people could still get them. People still get them and use them in places like England and Japan. But at least it doesn't rain lead in those places on such a morbidly regular basis.

How long would it take before the guns are truly cleaned up? Heck, I don't know, but wouldn't it be nice if your kids or your grandkids didn't have to worry about it the way Americans now do?

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by hothead2
I prefer option 2 Pekkan

ands whats with these laws felons cant own guns?!?! My dad was convicted of a crime 25 years ago and to this day he cant vote or own a gun. As a matter a fact he cant even work in the state he lives in, as a Drug Abuse Counciler bcuz some prick made a law that he isnt alowed to!!! It was freaking 25 years ago! he has never raised even a hand to me or my mother!!!


:die!:

I agree with your comments regarding the laws against felons voting. That is ridiculous. Also barring him from working doesnt help anything because he is already at a disadvantage to find a job because of his record; making it illegal for him to get a job does much more harm than good.

However in recent years some states (I know Mass has) have passed legislation allowing convicted felons to work again n a full capacity.

But I think those convicted of a violent felony w/ a gun should not be allowed to own guns anymore. Otherwise convicted criminals should be allowed to.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Daaraa
I voted #4 as it seemed to be the only one that mentioned "enforced". I feel that most laws (not just gun control) are not enforced to the extent they should be.

Nor are some laws enforced with the meaning intended. (#5 alluded to this but not in a way I fully agree with)

However, I do feel that hothead2 has a very valid point in that limitations imposed on a middle-aged or senior citizen for a crime they commited while they were barely an adult are sometimes unjustified.

I feel that anyone who has an illegal intent in mind will get a gun regardless of any gun control.

There are problems with enforcing laws whose punishments are far too harsh to the illegal act. For example, in Mass in the early 1990s legislation was passed which made the possession of ANY unregistered firearm an automatic 1 year mandatory sentence. In the years following the passage of this legislation, the arrests for unlawful gun possesion went way down while convictions for lesser violations such as "disturbing the peace," which carries a penalty of probation, went way up. What happened was police officers knew of these laws and chose to downgrade many arrests for gun possession to lesser offenses because the sentence was far too high.

The way it works is if severity of penalty increases, certainty of being convicted will go down and vice versa. This has been proven.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz


There are problems with enforcing laws whose punishments are far too harsh to the illegal act. For example, in Mass in the early 1990s legislation was passed which made the possession of ANY unregistered firearm an automatic 1 year mandatory sentence. In the years following the passage of this legislation, the arrests for unlawful gun possesion went way down while convictions for lesser violations such as "disturbing the peace," which carries a penalty of probation, went way up. What happened was police officers knew of these laws and chose to downgrade many arrests for gun possession to lesser offenses because the sentence was far too high.

The way it works is if severity of penalty increases, certainty of being convicted will go down and vice versa. This has been proven.

I can see this as a problem, but in no way can we set policy based upon unfair laws, or arbitrary enforcement. As bad as the harse sentence is, I find the arbitrary enforcement worse. It should not be up to the police to be the judge of a case. True in this case, by and large the police were being merciful, but who is to say that in some cases against people they didn't like, they didn't charge those people with the stiffer crime? Our society has ways of dealing with unjust laws, and they do not include police arbitration. It is an example of the executive overriding the legislative, even if it is understandable.

 

[Richard III]

I voted for #4, but I only wanted to write to say "good poll, Knowltok." Well thought out.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Richard III
I voted for #4, but I only wanted to write to say "good poll, Knowltok." Well thought out.

Thank you. I do hope it works out to an extent. I just saw the gun control debate going nowhere and wanted to try something new. Everyone was focusing on small issues and hypothetical circumstances, and I wanted to get down to people's stances independent of the need to argue against another post.

If this continues to work out, I may need to do this on another topic.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

I voted for #6.

This is very true:

#6

"Firearms ownership should be unrestricted to all except felons who have been convicted of prior firearms violence (and a part of their sentence would be to deny them future firearms ownership). I define crime as actual CRIME, and not POTENTIAL to commit crime--so there is no harm in a person having a gun if he never commits a crime with it. Self-defense is an inalienable right."

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I endorse #6. It is a proper and accurate statement.
I love guns.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I endorse #6. It is a proper and accurate statement.
I love guns.

Please note that this opinion will change once Dr. Darkshade rules the earth. He will still love guns, but he won't want anyone but him to have them.

 

[Daaraa]

If I wanted a freakin' Claymore mine bad enough, I could get one. If I wanted a LAW anti-tank weapon bad enough, I could get one. Just because I could get these things would be a stupid reason to legalize them

I wasn't thinking of legalising guns at all. I just feel that no matter how much gun control there is, there will always be people who want to commit a crime using a gun will get there hands on one. I feel that if guns are 100% legalised in the sense you illustrated the whole world would fall apart. I just feel that there needs to be a medium between the exteme of the NRA (Guns don't kill people, people kill people) and the other extreme of no guns period.

There are problems with enforcing laws whose punishments are far too harsh to the illegal act. For example, in Mass in the early 1990s legislation was passed which made the possession of ANY unregistered firearm an automatic 1 year mandatory sentence. In the years following the passage of this legislation, the arrests for unlawful gun possesion went way down while convictions for lesser violations such as "disturbing the peace," which carries a penalty of probation, went way up. What happened was police officers knew of these laws and chose to downgrade many arrests for gun possession to lesser offenses because the sentence was far too high.

I was not aware of statistics on this. I know first hand how "authorites" can at times, if you get a weirdo, abuse the power they have into becoming enforcer and judge at the same time.
I feel that it was not the policemen's right to "change" the law as he saw fit. I could take the extreme and say that the policeman, in question, could be guilty of any gun-offenses the person he "let off" commits. But I am not an extremist. This is a very complex issue with hundreds of scenarios that could be played out. It is almost like religion with people condemning each other using the same book.
I think some of the enforcement comes down to what we have in Canada come to call "Club Fed." I know it is quite similar in the USA with criminals eating, sleeping and recreating better than most citizens. Also paroling people to commit the same crime. Up here a convicted bank robber got 5 years on 4 counts of armed robbery. He was out on parole in 9 months. Again, this is not a simple problem with a simple solution as every one does have some basic rights.

 

[sonorakitch]

Voodoo,

Claymore mines have only one purpose: to kill people. Firearms actually have all sorts of purposes, and the vast, vast majority of them are used by good people in a legal manner. Plus, there aren't 200 million claymore mines in private hands now anyways, so your arugment doesn't click.

"How long would it take before the guns are truly cleaned up? Heck, I don't know, but wouldn't it be nice if your kids or your grandkids didn't have to worry about it the way Americans now do?"

Actually, I don't really worry about it. Maybe it is because I know if I am to be violated, I have a parting shot with my own firearm. Plus, most homicides committed by firearms in this country is gang-related; us normal folk don't have to worry. Maybe in SF, but not most other places.

~Chris

 

[MrPresident]

I will give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson which I think explains the gun control situation extremely well. Just to give Mr Jefferson's quote more power I think it is wise to tell you he adovcated the right to bear arms. For example,

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

And

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

So the quote I would like you to read is as follows,

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

This shows that the founding fathers whatever their beliefs realised that the need for change over time. That is partly why the constitution can be amended. The right to bear arms was once a necessary right however today it does more harm than good. A Democracy must have very good reasons for banning anything from their citizens and I think firearms have provided plenty of these reasons.

 

[CrazyScientist]

I personally think that guns are dangerous. I would never allow one in my home, and I think they cause far more problems than they solve. However, I cannot advocate their being banned.

It may seem to us now that there is no more need for an armed civilian population, but I still believe that voting away our right to own guns is a dangerous thing. Sure, right now the need to defend ourselves against the government may seem unnecessary, an obsolete idea. But can you say for sure that it will always be so?
Heck even now we have a president who took power against the will of the people and is now busily stripping away our civil liberties one by one. I'm not saying dubbya is going to turn the US into a military dictatorship or anything, but I think it is naive to assume that we are so enlightened as a people that nobody could ever ever even attempt it in the future.
If something like that ever did happen, i bet our descendants would thank us to leave them with some legal means of preserving the ideals of democracy. Just a thought.