Survey: America wants stronger gun laws by huge margin

[Lursa]

And that comforts you?

Nope...however it should provide some perspective.

I dont see people suggesting further restrictions on pools, lakes, and boats. Do you?

 

[Casper]

It is. Your freedom to swing your arms around freely stops where my nose starts.

According to justice Scalia, your freedom to carry arms is not unlimited. It's OK to put some sane limits on it.

Sorry I do not swing my arms around freely and I always respect other peoples rights and expect them to respect mine.

They are limited just fine as they are today, a few places they are too limited. Enforce the laws we have now, deal with the mental health issue plaguing the US, and deal with the gangs and criminal element, and we would not need to even have this conversation.

 

[Goshin]

The dangers of bending to the temporary whims of the mob are why we have a Bill of Rights....

 

[Lursa]

The Govt. can look at your presence on social media and ask what your intentions are for the weapon BEFORE granting you the right to buy. It also can make you REGISTER like we do for voting. Selling guns like candy is not a right. It is a recipe for disaster.

Thanks, I can work with that.

Homicides are committed, generally except for what...crimes of passion?...by criminals with intent.

Looking at that number in the US, why would I be in favor of further gun restrictions on ME that put me at a disadvantage against those crimes? Why would I be in favor of something that puts me MORE in danger, more at risk?

Because while I would be forced to comply with the laws...the criminals, with their intent to harm and commit crimes...would not.

So I am open to new laws that would actually affect criminals while not putting myself and family at greater risk.

What have you got in mind?

 

[Ikari]

The Govt. can look at your presence on social media and ask what your intentions are for the weapon BEFORE granting you the right to buy. It also can make you REGISTER like we do for voting. Selling guns like candy is not a right. It is a recipe for disaster.

They may be able to do that, and certainly if there is enough evidence they can present that as proof. Certainly if such behavior is brought to their attention, it can be used in the least to justify contact and questioning. But that, again, has to be something almost pre-existing in the context of purchasing a weapon. A general big-brother monitoring system wouldn't be a good solution.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope...however it should provide some perspective.

I dont see people suggesting further restrictions on pools, lakes, and boats. Do you?

Actually we have extensive laws and restrictions on swimming pools aimed at reducing the danger of drowning. Why not do the same with guns? When is the last time you heard about the "weighty responsibility" that comes with gun ownership? Certainly not at any gun store.

For all its charms, pool ownership comes with some weighty responsibilities. To help pool owners and operators meet the challenging task of making sure that their pools are safe, we have put together a description of pool sign and fencing laws in all 50 U.S. states, as well as information about general pool issues such as insurance, liability, and safety measures. Before we tell you what you need to know about pool regulations and safety issues, let’s begin with a brief story that shows why pool signs and other safety measures are so crucial.

https://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-state-guide-to-pool-signage-and-fencing-requirements/

 

[iguanaman]

Thanks, I can work with that.

Homicides are committed, generally except for what...crimes of passion?...by criminals with intent.

Looking at that number in the US, why would I be in favor of further gun restrictions on ME that put me at a disadvantage against those crimes? Why would I be in favor of something that puts me MORE in danger, more at risk?

Because while I would be forced to comply with the laws...the criminals, with their intent to harm and commit crimes...would not.

So I am open to new laws that would actually affect criminals while not putting myself and family at greater risk.

What have you got in mind?

The first thing you need to know is that most guns used by criminals originated as legal purchases. So if you want to keep guns out of their hands you must start there. Until we have laws that prevent people from filling their trunks up with guns legally there is no way to keep criminals from easily obtaining them.

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/

 

[iguanaman]

Sorry I do not swing my arms around freely and I always respect other peoples rights and expect them to respect mine.

They are limited just fine as they are today, a few places they are too limited. Enforce the laws we have now, deal with the mental health issue plaguing the US, and deal with the gangs and criminal element, and we would not need to even have this conversation.

How is that going to stop people from filing their trunks up with guns legally and selling them on the street to criminals and mental patients? It is impossible to enforce any gun laws as long as people can buy as many guns as they want.

 

[Casper]

How is that going to stop people from filing their trunks up with guns legally and selling them on the street to criminals and mental patients? It is impossible to enforce any gun laws as long as people can buy as many guns as they want.

Because for one there are laws against that. Sorry, but it is not your business how many guns a person owns, by the way they can only use one at a time.

 

[iguanaman]

They may be able to do that, and certainly if there is enough evidence they can present that as proof. Certainly if such behavior is brought to their attention, it can be used in the least to justify contact and questioning. But that, again, has to be something almost pre-existing in the context of purchasing a weapon. A general big-brother monitoring system wouldn't be a good solution.

Well now we are getting somewhere but I am not asking for everyone to be monitored only those that wish to purchase a gun. Asking them to show evidence that they are responsible and their intentions for the weapon are not criminal is not too much ask. Too many criminals obtain guns that were 1st purchased legally. If someone want to buy 50 guns at a time don't you think that it is reasonable to think they may be intending to resell them illegally?

 

[iguanaman]

Because for one there are laws against that. Sorry, but it is not your business how many guns a person owns, by the way they can only use one at a time.

There are no laws to prevent someone from buying 50 guns at one time legally. That makes it impossible to prevent their resale to criminals. In fact it encourages it. It's an easy way to make a buck.

 

[Thoreau72]

A large portion of the gun crimes in Chicago come from guns purchased in Indiana. Many come from other states like Minnesota. That's why Chicago gun laws don't work. Hawaii, where it's harder to bring in the guns from surrounding jurisdictions, doesn't have that problem. State and local level regulations have no meaning when you can just drive 30 minutes across the state border and get whatever you want. It's a joke.



Government makes mistakes with bureaucratic procedures. But licensing and registration for drivers is still a good idea. Guns are an even more dangerous object. They should have more, not less, regulation and oversight.

I have no objection to reasonable and effective regulations, but I am unable to buy into or support the idea that the government can craft some sort of regulation that will stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

I suspect that if the truth could be known, far more people are killed or maimed from auto accidents caused by texting drivers. Though some states have laws criminalizing the action as a primary traffic offense, I hear nobody suggesting that cell phones should be banned because some people use them irresponsibly.

 

[Ikari]

Well now we are getting somewhere but I am not asking for everyone to be monitored only those that wish to purchase a gun. Asking them to show evidence that they are responsible and their intentions for the weapon are not criminal is not too much ask. Too many criminals obtain guns that were 1st purchased legally. If someone want to buy 50 guns at a time don't you think that it is reasonable to think they may be intending to resell them illegally?

What's this "evidence"? If I want to go buy a gun, and they tell me I need to provide evidence that I am responsible and have good intentions, what form does that evidence take? Other than not having ever been convicted of a crime, or declared mentally ill, or any of the standard stuff searched for in background checks? Do I need to just sign a piece of paper saying that I intend to be a good little boy or is there something else going along with this?

And does this sort of investigation and monitoring pertain only to those wanting to exercise their right to keep and bear arms? If a group wants to protest, do they have to show evidence that they are responsible and their intentions good? Can ANTIFA be denied permits for protest because previous protests have turned violent? Is my right against unlawful search and seizures dependent upon me providing evidence that I am responsible and well intentioned with my property and papers?

 

[Casper]

There are no laws to prevent someone from buying 50 guns at one time legally. That makes it impossible to prevent their resale to criminals. In fact it encourages it. It's an easy way to make a buck.

It is against the law for them to sell large numbers without a license and straw sales are also illegal. You should read the laws and learn what one can and cannot do. Oh and if it were not against the law and so lucrative then people would be doing in large numbers, they do not.

 

[Thoreau72]

In this case of the survey it means stronger back ground checks, a ban on assault weapons and making it harder to obtain a gun.

All those were supported by those in the survey in the majority.

Aren't those the same results of every survey after such an event?

Aren't those the same "benefits" claimed by the politicians after passing "gun control legislation" over the decades?

Those who mourn shall be comforted, we are told, but those who believe the government can stop crazy people from doing crazy things by way of legislation have a tenuous connection with reality. Life can be very cruel.

 

[ataraxia]

Wrong.

There's quite a difference.

The Second Amendment says "Keep and BEAR arms," not drive them around.

That means hand held weapons.

There are already restrictions on full auto weapons. So clearly that can’t be right. Try again.

 

[Lursa]

Actually we have extensive laws and restrictions on swimming pools aimed at reducing the danger of drowning. Why not do the same with guns? When is the last time you heard about the "weighty responsibility" that comes with gun ownership? Certainly not at any gun store.



https://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-state-guide-to-pool-signage-and-fencing-requirements/

And yet...still the same number of drownings. So why arent we doing more?

And we also have restrictions on gun ownership and parents have many options for securing their weapons.

Also, I'm guessing you've never shopped in a gun store if you think that people dont discuss laws and responsibilities.

 

[Lursa]

The first thing you need to know is that most guns used by criminals originated as legal purchases. So if you want to keep guns out of their hands you must start there. Until we have laws that prevent people from filling their trunks up with guns legally there is no way to keep criminals from easily obtaining them.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/

I asked you a couple of specific questions:

Looking at that number in the US, why would I be in favor of further gun restrictions on ME that put me at a disadvantage against those crimes? Why would I be in favor of something that puts me MORE in danger, more at risk?

Because while I would be forced to comply with the laws...the criminals, with their intent to harm and commit crimes...would not.

So I am open to new laws that would actually affect criminals while not putting myself and family at greater risk.

What have you got in mind?

 

[ataraxia]

I have no objection to reasonable and effective regulations, but I am unable to buy into or support the idea that the government can craft some sort of regulation that will stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

Despite all the laws against drunk driving, there still lots of people drive drunk too. So do you want to get rid of all drunk driving laws too?

 

[Thoreau72]

Despite all the laws against drunk driving, there still lots of people drive drunk too. So do you want to get rid of all drunk driving laws too?

Have I advocated for 'getting rid of' gun laws? Please don't ask such stupid questions. eace

 

[ludin]

We need common sense gun laws that make the buyer prove they are responsible and have a valid need for the weapon. Our current method is completely backwards. Guns are not toys or icons to feed a twisted obsession with killing. That boy had no need for 10 rifles and should never have been allowed to buy them.

We need common sense free speech laws that make the person speaking prove they are responsible and have a valid need to talk.
We need common sense search laws that make the person responsible for proving that the police do not need access to their house.
We need common sense laws so that the person is responsible for proving their innocent instead of proving they are guilty.

your logic doesn't fly in the face of a free society.

 

[ludin]

The first thing you need to know is that most guns used by criminals originated as legal purchases. So if you want to keep guns out of their hands you must start there. Until we have laws that prevent people from filling their trunks up with guns legally there is no way to keep criminals from easily obtaining them.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/

No they do not. That is 100% a lie.
as most criminals that want to get guns cannot do so legally. They obtain them illegally and the people selling them do it illegally as well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/
Your own article proves you wrong.

of course the anti-gun nuts tried to prove a point and it 100% backfired in their face.

https://www.iheart.com/content/2018...ally-buying-guns-online-completely-backfires/

the only guns they were able to obtain were on the dark web go figure.

 

[ataraxia]

Have I advocated for 'getting rid of' gun laws? Please don't ask such stupid questions. eace

No. But you are fighting some very reasonable suggestions. What we have currently is clearly not doing the job.

 

[lefty louie]

There are no laws to prevent someone from buying 50 guns at one time legally. That makes it impossible to prevent their resale to criminals. In fact it encourages it. It's an easy way to make a buck.

And that's what happens with certain freedoms, they can be abused. Why do we have cameras to record crimes? So we can catch the bad guy after the fact. Well same rules apply here.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Name me any other right that facilitates killing people. One. Single. Right.

How many people died in the Iraq war because Bush & Co. Lied? IE: Spoke. How many riots where people have died because of angry words incited the riot?