Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 6. (Read 450491 times)

Not even close to true:  https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536

Probably worth getting a few basic 'facts' straight then maybe you would be able to get non-issues out of your mind a little better.

I CAN get the idea that every driver on the road can maim or kill me and any of my family by a brief move of the steering wheel out of my head.  Probably it is because there is no intense propaganda campaign against driving.  (We'll have to wait for self-driving cars to be perfected before that one is rolled out.)

^^^ In Arizona, not only is it legal to open carry, but it is legal to conceal carry without a license... whenever you want. And that is for the law-abiding. How many crooks conceal carry in license states, without a license.

Train your kid to respect guns and how to use them. Then let him open carry.

In AZ, people use guns wisely, because they know what will happen to them if they don't. Same anywhere.

The gun owning matter is very sensible. There are a lot of factors to consider, but I can't get this out of my mind: I wouldn't be able to let my kid out alone if I knew most people carry a gun on the street. What if someone has a really bad day and decides to shoot somebody in plain street? A bullet shot is usually lethal, you can't redo things after that. I'd definitely be against this, I hope you guys understand my reason. Not even talking about terrorists, it would be so easy to get guns and go in public..

Oh really? You're saying that if people had easy access to weapons they would push the society into chaos? Before WWII in Europe it was very easy to buy a weapon. Even now 30% of Germans own a firearm. Does it make the country more dangerous than South Africa, where there's only 10 guns per 100 citizens?
Did USA in the 19th century, where even kids were carrying guns and learning how to shoot somehow turn into chaos?
Do you know that in some EU countries you are not even allowed to shoot an air rifle or a bb gun in your backyard? The laws don't make us safer, they're there to create a society of retards who in case of danger will lie down and beg for mercy and given a gun shoot their own leg instead of the enemy.

Different country has different rules. Buying a gun with a license is so expensive in our country so only 5% of people buy a gun in a legit way. Maximum people buy a gun in an illegal way. We all know that every government is corrupted , Even if they are caught by the law, they get released after several days and start using again.

The sale of weapons to a particular age should be increased, Imagine if everyone in this world are able to posses different weapons, victims of fire arm will be so escalated,there will be lots of people being afraid of the fact that shooting could occur any where,  especially kids might be scared of shooting could happen in their schools, everyone should have the right of live without fear of being shot

I cannot find the study now.  Lots of stuff is being memory-holed off the internet.  Earlier in this thread I have at least once put a link to it, but the search functions on this site are dismal.

The policy is to reduce the amount of gun crimes by criminals against non-criminals by making the penelty very high for comiting a crime using a firearm.  Much higher than doing the same crime without using a firearm.

The policy is pretty common sense, and it worked will since it was implemented.  As a consequence gun related crimes have dropped for 20 or 30 years.

Again, the main findings of the study were that guns are a MUST HAVE for criminals to protect themselves against other criminals.  As a consequence of this, outlawing guns is utterly futile for removing guns from the hands of criminals.

Of course if your goal is to remove guns from the hands of NON-criminals, which I strongly believe is the driving force behind the political push for gun control, then the above study should be minimized and the policies which fell out of it should be deprecated.

As I see it the main reason to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is NOT for fear of revolution or whatever.  What it would do is make it less possible for communities to police themselves from within.  That would make people dependant on the state for security.


When the study was done it was clearly done by serious professionals at the FBI who wanted to understand the problem and come up with workable policy input.

Now, 30 or 40 years later the FBI is a very different organization.  Highly corrupt and beholden to their political sponsors.


My point is that laws generally did change.  And thus so did policy.  And thus so did behavior.

We now live in a time when most laws, policies, and behaviors are specifically engineered to make more problems.  The driving force behind it are people who have some ideas which they might be able to sell as 'solutions'.  Classic Hegelian dialectic.

An alternate but related hypothesis is that the controllers simply wish to destroy the society and don't really care so much about the minor details.  More and more I am leaning toward that one.

Ya but... but. The American military has cannon fired mini-nukes.

 

the sale of weapons must be free everyone must be able to possess a weapon in order to be able to spread from various dangers, is a right written in the american constitution

Sorry, but this made no sense to me.  What study? What policy?
FBI less corrupt than now? I highly doubt that.
The only thing changing over that time frame was local laws. Not federal gun control acts.  Some sates have implemented stronger sentencing if a crime was committed with a deadly weapon.... not just guns, knives too. Bombs, grenades, nerve gas. Etc...  And thats on a state prosecution level, nothing to do with federal gun regulation

^^^ Didn't you say they needed their guns to protect themselves from other criminals?

Not exactly.  Back in the 1980's when the FBI was less corrupt and people sometimes did real science, they did a study to try to come up with an effective way to address the 'gun problem' since shootings were getting more common.

The study basically showed that criminals NEED guns in order to protect themselves against other criminals who they come in contact with frequently in their line of work.  For this reason they will never be dis-armed, and if their weapon of choice was somehow rendered unavailable they would 'upgrade' to a more deadly one.

The common sense solution was to make it very much more costly for criminals to use guns against non-criminals in the course of committing a crime.  The idea is that innocent bystanders will be at less risk and they getting shot will be more rare.

This policy went into effect and gun related crimes have been declining ever since (with some minor blips corresponding to general economic conditions.)

In my area, breaking into a house and stealing an ATV won't probably even land you in the country jail for more than a few hours.  Breaking into a house at stealing a gun will get the entire law enforcement spectra to go after you and if they catch you you'll do years in the pen.  This because the criminal touched a gun in the course of committing  the theft.

Most criminals in my area are smart enough to leave their guns behind when they go out to burglarize.  And, since probably 90% of homeowners are armed and ready, they are also super careful to only break into houses when the owner is not home.

Take a look at a crime rate chart for the last 30 years. The gun laws we have now have been the same since 1968 iirc. Look at that chart and tell me if the crime rate is really the problem.....or is it that EVERY shooting goes viral in minutes with the advent of the internet.

The news/internet/social media makes you believe its Armageddon.  But a review of actual statistics tells otherwise 

When the government would not control illegal purchasing of guns how then do they expect to reduce the crime rate?

I will assert again.... the private sale of a firearm between two residents of the same state, is NOT a "gun show loophole".  It's the same legal private sale allowed on any other piece of property in the state.
   If it happens at a gun show, or in the parking lot of a Walmart, it's the same exact thing. It's been incorrectly named and makes people think it's a gun show thing.
https://www3.nssf.org/share/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole.pdf

And my first response, with the different rules for long gun vs handgun, that's specific to my state.      


But I think we are getting to splitting hairs.

My point of argument to almost any gun control hot air is...... what new law will stop gun murders?   The ONLY thing that's accomplished with any new gun restrictions, is the creation of more steps for people following the legal process. Those who follow the legal process, also follow the 'don't kill people law.'
    Those who don't follow the law, don't care what new laws are enacted, they won't follow any new gun law, and they don't follow that other one (killing people is illegal)

Then, to take it one step further...... to conduct a legal private sale, the seller may not sell to someone he knows is prohibited. And the buyer can not buy or possess a gun if they are a prohibited person. If either party violates those rules, they've committed a crime.     Now say we require a background check for this same sale.  If they knowingly sold to, or bought as, a prohibited person.....(committed a crime), why in the heck would they stare at each other and say "gee, I can't commit this crime, there's a background check law now".  They're still gonna trade cash for gun

You're right.  Trying to buy a gun from a FFL without a BC is a waste of time.

You're wrong about this rule having nothing to do with gun shows:


Ever notice a bunch of nice RVs parked outside of gun shows?  It's so that any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides.  Totally legal and I've saved money both times I've walked out to one (Sig Sauer P320 and a Glock 19 5), although that's probably because they knew I could pass the BC and would just buy the same gun in the show if they couldn't beat it.
Getting rid of this exception is what most people mean when they say "stricter background checks".  Some mean that the actual checks should be more strict, but most mean that you shouldn't be able to buy a gun without a background check.  And I agree.

It's got nothing to do with gun shows.  The person to person sales of long guns is permitted (some states) without using an FFL, unless they live in different states. If buyer and seller live in different states, an FFL transaction is required.

And please tell me what kind of gun you can buy from an FFL without a background check

You're correct (sort of) for selling a gun to someone from a different state. But not if they live in your state.

From atf.gov:



https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download










Yeah they do.

Long gun.... in a few states you can buy person to person.  But laws require the seller to not knowingly sell to a prohibited person

Handgun..... nope, never gets sold without a background check.

Gun show.... nope (unless it's a person to person long gun sale, in one of the few states that allow it, and the     meeting just happens to take place in the area of a gun show)

And nothing is sold from a licensed dealer, ever, without a background check, even if the dealer is at a gun show.

If anyone uses the term "gun show loophole" , that's a clear sign they don't know guns laws and are just regurgitating bull crap buzzwords

You can buy a gun without a background check from a gun show or another individual.