• 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!

An honest question for information...

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
 
MaggieD said:
So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

That's a point a make time and again. "Gun control" as a term means everything, so it means nothing without details. People say "we need gun control" without understanding that we have "gun control".

When we talk details then we can get around to discussing Constitutionality, efficacy, enforceability and would the laws actually be enforced. Or even passed by Congress.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's a point a make time and again. "Gun control" as a term means everything, so it means nothing without details. People say "we need gun control" without understanding that we have "gun control".

When we talk details then we can get around to discussing Constitutionality, efficacy, enforceability and would the laws actually be enforced. Or even passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point. You should have opened this thread! My TLDR says in a thousand words what you’ve said in this post. ;)
 
There's only one gun control law I would support: Mandatory death sentence if you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm...with limited opportunity for appeal.

All the rest is infringement...against the Constitution.
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

"Gun Control" seems to mean "Take legislative action to prevent certain, specific types of shootings". Basically, the gun control lobby wants to prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns in public. They don't particularly care if criminals have guns because they know they can't stop that but there is half a chance that they can stop someone who chooses to obey the law from carrying a gun.

To the gun control group it's all a numbers game. They believe that if we have less guns we'll have less homicides.
 
MaggieD said:
So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” .
Click to expand...

The above is the problem......when you make a list, and provide definitions...real definitions that can be quantified, weighed, measured, etc....those pushing gun control are faced with a very real problem; their lists and "definitions" can be taken apart with logic and rational thought in very short order..

Words like assault weapons, military grade, weapons of war, are used, but when you sit down and point out the differences between an actual automatic weapon and an AR-15, it quickly turns to "why do you need one", rather than address their failed logic.

So, no....you wont find many willing to offer you a list of what gun control really is. Its a nebulous cloud that those that are trying to restrict guns are trying to keep from having the light of reason shined upon.
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

I like your list. It might even be a little too much in some areas but I agree with the idea. And the gun show loophole should really be called the private sale loophole. It means in some states no background check is required for a private sale (which can happen at some gun shows). Some states have closed the loophole....most have not. Its a huge problem
 
MaggieD said:
EXACTLY my point. You should have opened this thread! My TLDR says in a thousand words what you’ve said in this post. ;)
Click to expand...

The rabbit hole goes even deeper than that. Some feel that throwing "Common sense" in front of the term "gun control" clears up all the confusion, when in reality, the 30-40% of the population with something resembling common sense wouldn't be able to agree on what the new expanded term meant either.
 
vegas giants said:
I like your list. It might even be a little too much in some areas but I agree with the idea. And the gun show loophole should really be called the private sale loophole. It means in some states no background check is required for a private sale (which can happen at some gun shows). Some states have closed the loophole....most have not. Its a huge problem
Click to expand...

Thank you for that definition! My state let’s you sell a gun to anyone with a permit. Special paperwork. Keep ten years. The gun permit is good for five years. The CC, which supersedes it, is good for ten. The two times I’ve done it, I filled out the paperwork and photoed the guy’s license and permit. Done.
 
MaggieD said:
Thank you for that definition! My state let’s you sell a gun to anyone with a permit. Special paperwork. Keep ten years. The gun permit is good for five years. The CC, which supersedes it, is good for ten. The two times I’ve done it, I filled out the paperwork and photoed the guy’s license and permit. Done.
Click to expand...

And somehow you did not die by completing this process. Some on here act like you are being asked to cut off your right arm
 
vegas giants said:
And somehow you did not die by completing this process. Some on here act like you are being asked to cut off your right arm
Click to expand...

but we know that gun restrictionists-especially those who have jobs promoting gun control never stop at that "next" sensible law

and your pathetic argument is based not on those laws doing any good but on your fraudulent and dishonest claim they don't really hurt honest gun owners

You complain about not having enough jails to put criminals in while at the same time you want to pass laws making millions of gun owners who won't comply with a stupid registration law-criminals

Gun control is a facade the Left has concocted to pretend they are doing something about crime without upsetting their constituents who get upset over crack downs on criminals. Gun control is also a tool liberals use to try to punish the NRA and pro gun voters.

ITs founded on the idea that people who disobey laws against murder will obey gun restrictions and that those who traffic narcotics will be unable to traffic firearms

and it also assumes that people who don't cause crime with guns need their rights further restricted so they won't, in the future, commit crimes they have never done in the past
 
TurtleDude said:
but we know that gun restrictionists-especially those who have jobs promoting gun control never stop at that "next" sensible law

and your pathetic argument is based not on those laws doing any good but on your fraudulent and dishonest claim they don't really hurt honest gun owners

You complain about not having enough jails to put criminals in while at the same time you want to pass laws making millions of gun owners who won't comply with a stupid registration law-criminals

Gun control is a facade the Left has concocted to pretend they are doing something about crime without upsetting their constituents who get upset over crack downs on criminals. Gun control is also a tool liberals use to try to punish the NRA and pro gun voters.

ITs founded on the idea that people who disobey laws against murder will obey gun restrictions and that those who traffic narcotics will be unable to traffic firearms

and it also assumes that people who don't cause crime with guns need their rights further restricted so they won't, in the future, commit crimes they have never done in the past
Click to expand...

We are going to put millions of you in jail turtle. Its all part of our left wing Marxist conspiracy. We secretly meet with our comrades and plot the overthrow and plan our socialist paradise. Viva la revolution!!!

And the sad part is folks....He REALLY believes this
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

I still find all this to be absolutely ridiculous. You want to put all these restrictions upon the gun itself and then create laws such as "stand your ground'. A law tht allows a person to shoot and kill someone even on nothing more than a slight suspicion that they need to self defend.
How does it matter what restrictions you put on a gun if you allow the owner to kill without concern?
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

Gun control just means gun policy. Ironically, a policy that outlines nearly unfettered access to guns would still be "gun control", it would just be less controlled.

It's like someone who wants to cut taxes being against tax reform; it's incoherent. But that's the corner that absurd, ridiculous, anti-policy gun obsessed people have backed themselves into, where it's impossible to have a conversation with them about policy because they view any policy as bad.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's a point a make time and again. "Gun control" as a term means everything, so it means nothing without details. People say "we need gun control" without understanding that we have "gun control".

When we talk details then we can get around to discussing Constitutionality, efficacy, enforceability and would the laws actually be enforced. Or even passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

That's a really terrible excuse for a platform of blanket prejudice against gun laws.
 
Lutherf said:
"Gun Control" seems to mean "Take legislative action to prevent certain, specific types of shootings".
Click to expand...

Not half bad. More like "Do not simply permit society to be wildly negligent by providing firearms to those who are likely to take away the rights of others with them."

Lutherf said:
Basically, the gun control lobby wants to prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns in public.
Click to expand...

Not at all. We want the public to not get shot.

Lutherf said:
They don't particularly care if criminals have guns because they know they can't stop that but there is half a chance that they can stop someone who chooses to obey the law from carrying a gun.
Click to expand...

More bull****. Actually, background checks are intended to block gun sales to criminals.

You seem to be suggesting that we should arm criminals because it's too much of a burden to pass a background check.

Lutherf said:
To the gun control group it's all a numbers game. They believe that if we have less guns we'll have less homicides.
Click to expand...

Less guns -> less gun related homicides. It turns out that there's a pretty straightforward relationship between having a gun and having the ability to shoot someone.
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

Gun Control, like Pro Life, or Pro Choice, MAGA, etc. are political slogans. They are not policies. People who think the describe policies are people you should be afraid of, because they are almost always absolutists who want to restrict individual freedom in ways that extend far beyond what they actually want to accomplish. They are reducto-absurdisms (is that a word???).

I actually have a more nuanced response to your post, but it be td/lr as well, so, maybe later...
 
TurtleDude said:
but we know that gun restrictionists-especially those who have jobs promoting gun control never stop at that "next" sensible law
Click to expand...

This lie has no basis in reality.

TurtleDude said:
and your pathetic argument is based not on those laws doing any good but on your fraudulent and dishonest claim they don't really hurt honest gun owners

You complain about not having enough jails to put criminals in while at the same time you want to pass laws making millions of gun owners who won't comply with a stupid registration law-criminals
Click to expand...

Now you seem to be admitting that your goal is to arm criminals even though it will harm the public.

TurtleDude said:
Gun control is a facade the Left has concocted to pretend they are doing something about crime without upsetting their constituents who get upset over crack downs on criminals. Gun control is also a tool liberals use to try to punish the NRA and pro gun voters.

ITs founded on the idea that people who disobey laws against murder will obey gun restrictions and that those who traffic narcotics will be unable to traffic firearms

and it also assumes that people who don't cause crime with guns need their rights further restricted so they won't, in the future, commit crimes they have never done in the past
Click to expand...

More lies. You shouldn't have to project such malicious intent on your opponent, you should have actual merits to your argument.
 
Absentglare said:
That's a really terrible excuse for a platform of blanket prejudice against gun laws.
Click to expand...

I don't have a blanket prejudice against gun laws. I do require that they be Constitutional, effective, enforceable and enforced. I fully support 18 USC 922g.
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

....snips...d probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...



Ok. Background: I live in a state with very loose gun laws. About the only major gun control we have is rather strict limits on open carry in public places. No licenses. Shall-issue CCW. No regulation of private sales, other than (of course) you're not supposed to knowingly sell to a disqualified person.

I'd oppose most of your list. Especially having to have a license to just OWN a gun... once you require a license with an expiration date, it is no longer a right but a privilege granted by gov and revoked at gov's whim.

I'm not crazy about having to have a CCW permit, but I can live with it. I'm not entirely opposed to UBC (background checks required for private sales) if the means are not overly burdensome or expensive, but frankly I don't see it doing a lot of good. It is unenforceable, and call me crazy but I'm not fond of unenforceable laws that won't accomplish anything.

Case in point: Chicago's strict gun laws, and Chicago's high murder rate. Some people like to blame lax gun laws in surrounding states, but consider: the nation already has about 300 million guns, most of them never registered. No law you can pass is going to change that without unconstitutional draconian enforcement like house-to-house random searches. The entire nation could have gun laws as strict as Chicago and there would still be tens of millions of guns in circulation, and guns smuggled in, and guns made in hidden machine shops (it isn't hard btw). It would no more cure our "murder problem" than Chicago's gun control cures theirs. It might make things worse, as fewer criminals fear to encounter an armed citizen.

The main reasons many of us on the pro-2A oppose any new gun laws on principle, is because we've seen in the past that compromise on THIS gun law just leads to calls for the NEXT gun law with no end in sight; that, and how the CURRENT gun laws are not remotely enforced in an effective manner. How about we enforce what we've got before we push for new laws?

That, and how few proposals on the table show any real promise of having any significant effect on violent crime, or preventing things like Vegas. The Vegas shooter had enough money to get anything he wanted from the black market, if it wasn't available to him legally.
 
Absentglare said:
Not half bad. More like "Do not simply permit society to be wildly negligent by providing firearms to those who are likely to take away the rights of others with them."



Not at all. We want the public to not get shot.



More bull****. Actually, background checks are intended to block gun sales to criminals.

You seem to be suggesting that we should arm criminals because it's too much of a burden to pass a background check.



Less guns -> less gun related homicides. It turns out that there's a pretty straightforward relationship between having a gun and having the ability to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

If you want the public to not get shot then why do you want laws passed that only impact law abiding gun owners? Why not go after criminals?

As far as your "correlation" theory goes, do you believe that an individual with 10 firearms in the home is more likely to shoot someone than an individual with 2 firearms is? What if the individual has 100 guns? Does that make then 50x more likely to commit homicide than the guy with 2 guns?
 
Mycroft said:
There's only one gun control law I would support: Mandatory death sentence if you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm...with limited opportunity for appeal.

All the rest is infringement...against the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I am pretty darn libertarian when it comes to guns, but I do think some regulation is advisable. I really don't want my neighbor having access to a machine gun or a Bradley Tank when he gets crazy drunk on Saturday night. He might not have murder or mayhem in mind but he could do some significant damage to a lot of people just playing around. And I would not consider it inappropriate to make it illegal to discharge a weapon just for fun or for target practice in my neighborhood.

I don't think children should be carrying firearms except in the company of an adult who has responsibility for the child. If businesses or groups want gun free zones, it should be their right to have them however foolish those of us who support concealed carry think they are to have such a prohibition.

And it should be illegal for some people who are not mentally competent or who have committed crimes with guns to have them. We should not have to wait until they commit that crime to take measures to prevent the crime.

In short I think specific gun laws that make sense and protect everybody's rights who have not forfeited their rights are appropriate just as the regulation of operation of vehicles on public roads protects all our rights.
 
Lutherf said:
If you want the public to not get shot then why do you want laws passed that only impact law abiding gun owners? Why not go after criminals?

As far as your "correlation" theory goes, do you believe that an individual with 10 firearms in the home is more likely to shoot someone than an individual with 2 firearms is? What if the individual has 100 guns? Does that make then 50x more likely to commit homicide than the guy with 2 guns?
Click to expand...



The vast majority of people with 100 guns are well-to-do collectors, who are certainly not going to rob the Lil Cricket, and typically less likely to risk losing their cushy lifestyle for the sake of committing crime than the general population.

There's the risk that some criminal will rob them, steal the guns and put them in black market circulation, but then again guns have disappeared from police stations and military armories too, so the risk exists even if gov is the only gun-owner. Not to mention most well-to-do collectors use serious gun-safes that the avg burglar is going to have a hell of a time opening.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am pretty darn libertarian when it comes to guns, but I do think some regulation is advisable. I really don't want my neighbor having access to a machine gun or a Bradley Tank when he gets crazy drunk on Saturday night. He might not have murder or mayhem in mind but he could do some significant damage to a lot of people just playing around. And I would not consider it inappropriate to make it illegal to discharge a weapon just for fun or for target practice in my neighborhood.

I don't think children should be carrying firearms except in the company of an adult who has responsibility for the child. If businesses or groups want gun free zones, it should be their right to have them however foolish those of us who support concealed carry think they are to have such a prohibition.

And it should be illegal for some people who are not mentally competent or who have committed crimes with guns to have them. We should not have to wait until they commit that crime to take measures to prevent the crime.

In short I think specific gun laws that make sense and protect everybody's rights who have not forfeited their rights are appropriate just as the regulation of operation of vehicles on public roads protects all our rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with your comment about businesses or groups. The rest...not so much.
 
There are a lot of different definitions of gun control. It's like any buzz word. I'm not sure anyone can really condense all views on gun control down into one thing. In my opinion it is essentially like the term extreme vetting. Nobody tells us what it actually means, and a bunch of people have different ideas on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom