• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is "common sense" gun control?

What is "common sense" gun control?


  • Total voters
    28

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama on guns:

"I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets"

"...what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. "

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws"

"There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation..."
et al.

So...
What IS "common sense" gun control?
Please explain how your choices are indeed "common sense".

Please feel free to add any items I may not have included, as I am limited to 10 options.

<Poll pending>
<options>
Federal registration of guns
Federal licensing of gun owners
Instant background checks for dealer transfers
Instant background checks for private transfers
5-day waiting periods for handgun purchases
5-day waiting period for all gun purchases
Ban guns from felons and those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm’
Ban handguns
Ban ‘assault weapons’
Other (specify)
 
Will someone plase add the poll?
Please make it public
 
To me common sense gun control is bankground checks on all gun transfers and to ban guns from felons and those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm. I may also add a short waiting period but only about 3 days. I'm not to hot myself on assualt weapons but just because I don't like them I wouldn't want them to be banned.

Another kind of common sense gun control I like is locking up your gun(s) if you have kids in the house and teach them at a young age gun safety. But that's just plain common sense there.
 
I do not think that it is problem of common sense laws but rather a lack of common sense among certain gun owners.

For instance somebody buys a small calibre handgun and puts it loaded in the nightstand by the bed. Little 8 year old Johnny sneaks it out of the house to show his friends and accidently shoots one of them. How do you legislate against something like that with out actually banning hand guns all together?

The family are not bad people. But due to a lack of ownership common sense somebody gets hurt or killed.

For the record I am not anti gun. But more and more laws are not going to solve the problem of owner stupidity. Perhaps a mandatory gun safety class. And not some two hour this is a bullet this is a gun type class either. I mean something involved and pass or fail testable before the purchaser can own a gun.

Proper gun storage in a house with kids. Gun safes to help keep guns out of criminals hands should your home be burglarized. A day at the range actually shooting and learning how to handle the gun etc.


Moe.
 
I would argue that any gun control that infringes on the rights of the law abiding and does not stop criminals from getting guns cannot possibly be "common sense".
 
I'll gladly vote in the poll when it gets up (not up at the time of this post).

I would add that some severe punishments for gun crimes would be a huge boon ot the issue. I'm in favor of any person commiting a crime, such as robbery, receiving a life sentence with no parole. This is the real problem as I see it. Not the guns, but the use of guns for nefarious activities.

This would include the sale of guns illegally.

I would also like to see regulations similar to that for tobacco and alcohol sales with full background checks for gun dealers.

Personal sale of weapons should be legal, especially antique weapons and collector guns, but their should also be some sort of tiered licensing dictating the type of weapons that people should be able to sell. This license should be relatively inexpensive, covering just the costs of the background checks etc and should be tiered. I think the personal sale of automatic weapons and handgun should be handled through a licensed intermediary gun dealership and should be subject to the same rules as commecial sales of these weapons. The dealership should charge a small commision for these transactions.
 
I would argue that any gun control that infringes on the rights of the law abiding and does not stop criminals from getting guns cannot possibly be "common sense".

But don't you agree with some restrictions such as background checks and bans for felons? Do you believe in any kind of control or just a free for all market?
 
But don't you agree with some restrictions such as background checks and bans for felons? Do you believe in any kind of control or just a free for all market?
Bans for felons fall outside the "law abiding" requirement.
Background checks infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

I fully support any gun control law that means criminals will not have guns and that does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Let me know when you find one of those.
 
I would argue that any gun control that infringes on the rights of the law abiding and does not stop criminals from getting guns cannot possibly be "common sense".

You can never stop a criminal from getting a gun. Laws are for lawabiding people. Make a law that does away with gun ownership and the only people who will not have guns are the law abiding.

Old cliche' but simple truth. That is one of the reasons I actually support private gun ownership.

For instance where I live in the Philippines. For many years private gun ownership was banned. But the local crime syndicates, anti Marco's terrorists etc were armed to the teeth.

Moe
 
I'll gladly vote in the poll when it gets up (not up at the time of this post).

I would add that some severe punishments for gun crimes would be a huge boon ot the issue. I'm in favor of any person commiting a crime, such as robbery, receiving a life sentence with no parole. This is the real problem as I see it. Not the guns, but the use of guns for nefarious activities.

This would include the sale of guns illegally.

I would also like to see regulations similar to that for tobacco and alcohol sales with full background checks for gun dealers.

Very good Points. But we already have such a problem with prison overcrowding and the costs of maintaining that system are very high.

That is the reason for many early releases and reduced sentences for crimes committed. To make space for the new convicted criminals that are coming into the system. The revolving door syndrome.

Moe
 
Last edited:
Very good Points. But we already have such a problem with prison overcrowding and the costs of maintaining that system are very high.

That is the reason for many early releases and reduced sentences for crimes committed. To make space for the new convicted criminals that are coming into the system. The revolving door syndrome.

Moe

I would be in favor of at least decriminalizing drugs to alleviate the some of the strain on the prison system.

But also a major part of the problem is that the early release prisoners get arrested again for the exact same crimes. With violent crimes, we wouldn't need to arrest them over and over and over again, thus lowering costs.

Non-violent crimes can get early release etc since they are far less fo a threat to scoiety as a whiole.

The problem is that a guy who robs a liquor store with a gun will doit again and again Raising Arizona style and we have to pay over and over again to try and convict the goofball.
 
I would be in favor of at least decriminalizing drugs to alleviate the some of the strain on the prison system.

I can actually agree with that. To use or not use should be a personal choice. Plus you pull the teeth of some of the most violent offenders. The drug gangs and their victims commiting crimes trying to pay the high cost of the illicit drugs reducing the use of guns involved in violent crimes. sounds like a win win.

But then all those out of work criminal lawyers would have to apply for a government bail out so it will probably never happen. :2razz:

Moe
 
Common sense ones...maybe background checks and denial to current felons. Anyone who has served the full of their punishment should be able to obtain guns. You can't keep infringing upon the rights of someone once their punishment is over.
 
Common sense ones...maybe background checks and denial to current felons. Anyone who has served the full of their punishment should be able to obtain guns. You can't keep infringing upon the rights of someone once their punishment is over.


But what if they are repeat offenders of gun violations? Or repeated domestic violence offenders? Those are the people who are at a higher risk of commiting gun related crimes in the future. Yes, they may obtain them illegaly still but is it not a better precaution to ban their right to a gun because of their repeated violations?
 
You can't keep infringing upon the rights of someone once their punishment is over.

I would have a period of time that convicted felons would need to show that they have truly rehabilitated and are not a risk for recidivism not that the sentence has been completed.

They made th echoice to lose their privelidges, and if they used a gun in their crime, they should never be allowed to do so again. If the felony was tax evasion or some other non-violent crime, no waiting period or infingement on gun ownership seems necessary to me.

Violent crimes on the other hand, would indicate that they are necessary to some degree. I think a case by case analysis would be necessary, not a blanket reinstatement of gun ownership rights.
 
--

<Poll pending>
<options>
Federal registration of guns
Federal licensing of gun owners
Instant background checks for dealer transfers
Instant background checks for private transfers
5-day waiting periods for handgun purchases
5-day waiting period for all gun purchases
Ban guns from felons and those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm’
Ban handguns
Ban ‘assault weapons’
Other (specify)

Gun ownership is severely restricted in Great Britain and I would like to see that thought out again.

Anything we did to allow public gun ownership again would (I think) be work best if Britain studied and took an an adopted Swiss model. I would personally hate to see an American model over here. It may work for the US but it's not suited to most anywhere else in the world.
 
But what if they are repeat offenders of gun violations? Or repeated domestic violence offenders? Those are the people who are at a higher risk of commiting gun related crimes in the future. Yes, they may obtain them illegaly still but is it not a better precaution to ban their right to a gun because of their repeated violations?

Then make their punishment longer. But once their time for their prosecuted crime is complete, that's that. They have the full of their rights restored.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Poll Added per member request. Also, I have made it multiple choice as well as public.
 
Common sense ones...maybe background checks and denial to current felons. Anyone who has served the full of their punishment should be able to obtain guns. You can't keep infringing upon the rights of someone once their punishment is over.

I would say in the case of felonies commited sans firearms, I agree. However for felonies commited with the use of a firearm, part of their punishment should include either a lifetime ban from firearms, or at least an extended ban outside of their incarcerated period. Just because they have served the incarceration period of a sentence, does not mean they should have full rights restored to them, in all cases. Sexual predators being a prime example.
 
I voted for banning them from felons and mentally infirm(although I would make the point to restrict it, rather than ban, as not all felonies involve "gun" crime), and instant background checks for dealer transfers. I don't mind if states require a registration or liscence, but its not something I feel the federal government should step into.

The 5 day waiting period is ludicrous with todays technology on background checks. It can be done instantly at the POS.

As far as dealer transfers I am unclear as to whether this is a transfer between dealers, or a sale ala retail from dealer to consumer. I treated it as a deal between the retail to the consumer, and voted for an instant background check.

And as far as private transactions go, I treated this answer as though it were the sale between two private citizens, which I think would be impossible to track or enforce this, so I did not vote for background checks on private sales.
 
I would say in the case of felonies commited sans firearms, I agree. However for felonies commited with the use of a firearm, part of their punishment should include either a lifetime ban from firearms, or at least an extended ban outside of their incarcerated period. Just because they have served the incarceration period of a sentence, does not mean they should have full rights restored to them, in all cases. Sexual predators being a prime example.

I don't think it's right for the government to be able to infinitely punish someone for a crime. But that's just my take on the situation. Also, mandatory sexual predator laws should be stricken from the books. Mandatory sentencing is always a bad idea. We have judges for a reason.
 
I don't think it's right for the government to be able to infinitely punish someone for a crime. But that's just my take on the situation. Also, mandatory sexual predator laws should be stricken from the books. Mandatory sentencing is always a bad idea. We have judges for a reason.

I agree with you in regards to mandatory sentences. But I think that the judge should have the capability to extend punishment outside of an incarceration period if he deems it necessary, and for as long as he/she would deem appropriate. Case by case basis, if you will.
 
Things definitely have to be taken care of on an individual basis. I know that both sides get their panties in a bunch over stuff like that depending on the crime. But things have to be individual, there is a range of punishment and the system can choose from that range. However, I also strongly believe there has to be a hard limit as well. Something for which the government may not go beyond when punishing an individual.
 
My vote is for "NONE of the above." Since that option was not listed, I voted "Other."


But don't you agree with some restrictions such as background checks and bans for felons? Do you believe in any kind of control or just a free for all market?

First question--NO. Second question--Free Market.


Bans for felons fall outside the "law abiding" requirement.
Background checks infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

I fully support any gun control law that means criminals will not have guns and that does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Let me know when you find one of those.

You are absolutely right. In addition to the fact that felons will not obey the law and will get guns regardless, even felons have a right to defend themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom