Reasonable Gun Control Laws

[Heavy Metal]

Saying you don't want a violence prone nutjob to have a gun is like saying you don't want an arsonist to have gasoline and matches. In theory , it sounds reasonable till you realize how absurd a proposition it is.

The only way in both instances it to lock the nut and the arsonist up someplace where they cannot easily access either technology. Anything else is idiocy.

[Abraxas]

the threat imposed by a single violent individual possessing even a semi-automatic weapon on his neighbors has varied a degree or two since the days of the flintlock rifle. Have you ever considered the concept of sensible adaptation in accordance with current circumstances?

Every time I hear this I am amazed that so many lack the context. For its time flint lock rifles were cutting edge weapons that were used in battle. So yes a semi-automatic is far more advanced but then so are the threats, so you have to keep up. It is all relative. You also argued about how you are tired of the overly restrictive laws but are OK with others, could that be because since you are used to so many, a few sounds more OK, but those of us who dont have the restrictions you have see it differently because our climate is more hospitable to begin with? Just a thought.

[Safetyhit]

You are really off base here.

First, I'm personally in favor of strong firearms laws. I don't want just anyone to be able to get their hands on a weapon, but I realize that regulating firearms doesn't work, as the criminals are going to get whatever they want anyway.

No brother, unfortunately it is you who, like several others, are way off base here. An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway". Again, more radical idealism mirroring that from the left.

They would have to make due with whatever piece of shit they are fortunate enough to obtain through their illegal contact. So with that they would be by far more likely to procure a single Kel-Tec, High Point or antique firearm than they would any of the multitude of variations of reputable weapons available to them as a legal purchaser. Factor in the ability to make multiple such legal purchases at will and we go to another level all together. Is this scenario guaranteed, no. But if I had to bet the odds based upon established fact...

Add in the complications of obtaining any significant quantity of reputable ammunition and you are really reaching. These desperate and usually destitute individuals will be forced to buy whatever crap is available to them specifically. Add it all up and you have someone with a single, crappy or overused weapon that is likely to fail at a critical moment.

Common sense people. Utilize it, think it and prosper.

[Safetyhit]

Saying you don't want a violence prone nutjob to have a gun is like saying you don't want an arsonist to have gasoline and matches. In theory , it sounds reasonable till you realize how absurd a proposition it is.

The only way in both instances it to lock the nut and the arsonist up someplace where they cannot easily access either technology. Anything else is idiocy.

I know you are a good guy and we are all on the same side, so conflict with fellow members such as yourself is not what I seek here tonight. But unfortunately this comment is extremely vulnerable to legit criticism. Rather than elaborate myself (and since I'm a little tired), I'll quote this very well spoken gentleman who joined the discussion earlier...

As for this pipe dream that we just lock up anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun and throw away the key, we have a constitution an decades of supreme court ruling that prevent this. I believe in the three strikes law but on a first offense for say aggravated battery, I don't think life without parole is gonna make the cut.

Rather than take on established supreme court rulings regarding cruel and unusual punishment, we legislate to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them. Fight unfair laws, it's a lot easier than taking on the constitution and well established law. Push for a more fair process to reinstate the rights of those few good folks who have gotten screwed.

These are doable things. Some of you folks need to come back to reality. If you want to rant about nearly impossible things on the web for kicks, have at it. But if you want to make actual change, take off the tinfoil and try to realize that in the real world, it isn't all or nothing.

If this doesn't spell it out for you then nothing will. Have a great evening all.

[polydeuces]

You speak as though sensible gun law advocates have no clue whatsoever about what has transpired overseas, not to mention Washington DC or Chicago. Let's step out of that narrow first dimension and try to offer relevant suggestions, shall we?

I sincerely hope the joke is on me, but I have this dark-brown suspicion it is not.
"Sensible Gun Law Advocate....." Isn't that like......Compassionate Conservative? Another treasure.

Is my observation correct in that you are in New Jersey?

"New Jersey issues Permits to Carry to both residents and non-residents, who must submit applications to the chief law enforcement officers of their municipalities, or the State Police, respectively. By statute, New Jersey is a may-issue permit system, in which authorities are allowed discretion in the approval and denial of applications. It has seemed to be the policy of many permit-issuing authorities that the carrying of a handgun on one's person ought to be limited to armed professionals (private security officers, law enforcement officers, etc.). Many applicants have reported difficulty in obtaining New Jersey Permits to Carry, especially non-residents."

Reference Wikipedia.

It appears NJ has plenty of experience with "sensible" gun-laws and broad minded well informed gun-law advocates. As does DC and Chicago (Illinois).

Kind of wondering where my observation was one dimensional - and totally agree that those politicians wanting to do away with anything reeking of 2nd amendment are learning every lesson they can from overseas....LOTS of sensible gun laws there......as was my point.

We can have a very in-depth multi-dimensional discussions about this anytime, as I have dialogue, hear and read the woes from people getting screwed by "reasonable gun-laws" in Holland, Germany, Belgium etc. which I'd happily share with you.

The only Relevant Suggestion I have is this: The Right To Bear Arms. Not negotiable. Ever.

Because that is what painful experience, bad examples and very narrow victories have taught us.
Are we forgetting how close the votes were, only very recent? Let's not be too confident.
Sensible Gun Advocates.....

[DeltaSierra]

An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway".

Hahahahahahahahaha....


Whatever...

I can already see that trying to have a logical discussion with you is going to be impossible, so I guess I'll just kick back and enjoy the dog and pony show...

[chadbag]

Unfortunately, there are no "sensible" gun laws. They do nothing but disarm the law abiding.

Those are the facts, jack.



----

[MegademiC]

Listen buddy, you don't understand who you are talking to and what my background is regarding these issues. You are also continuing with the ideology. I'll go a little further with this and then you can believe what you will.

Your first mistake is to assume that all individuals known or otherwise likely to commit an act of violence are incarcerated. This is so far from accurate I won't touch it beyond that assessment.

Second, when I was 18 I was convicted of a felony involving a firearm and had my rights taken away for years. I served no jail time, but it was hell on earth regardless. All because I fired warning shots into the air at 3 thugs armed with various weapons who were on my property as a result of their road rage. I defended myself, my friend and my sister and paid a very high price for it because of the laws here and because one of the punks had a father in the State Police.

However my record was expunged over a decade ago and I own several firearms once again. The detective at my local police station who processes firearm ID's and pistol permits is a personal friend, so much so that he endorsed me for a position sitting on a board with the Burlington County Superior Court that I currently still hold. I have discussed this here before and really don't want to go any further with it at this time.

My point is that along the way I learned a lot about how the system works and who can slip through the cracks. Many are incarcerated for a time but are still damn mean and angry when they are paroled or otherwise released. Many have serious anger and physiological issues which (believe it or not) their time in prison did not correct.

There is a time and a place for everything, including laws. You may say "Well **** it, I don't care who is armed because I have all I need and am ready for them at any time". But that isn't the case for most citizens and as a father I don't want to have to be worried about winning the shoot-out with my crazy neighbor or whether one of his errant shots will kill an innocent to satisfy someone's ideology. Just like I don't like being unable to carry for the exact same reason.

I had some large post written, but deleted it since you are not even providing a discussion. You've answered none of the questions I've asked repeatedly, nor can you provide support FOR gun laws. I do "understand who [I'm] talking to." Fact is you are not supporting your own "ideology." In fact, you supported mine(see bold?) We all understand shit happens. There is always a chance your gonna die. There will always be crime/violence. It boils down to schools of thought.

A. regulate things, violate peoples rights as defined by the consitution, and see how far it goes.

B. Let people live their lives, stay out of it, and keep people who violate other's rights out of society.


Or maybe, its stupid to even discuss this. There is so much involved with it. Im against any MORE laws, but at the same time, we cant abolish the ones we have without FIRST overhauling our legal system, and our country in general.

I think we are pretty much ****ED!

Im outta this one, as its not going anywhere. On second thought, where could it go? Its not like we are actually accomplishing anything.

[Sensei]

Laws do not prevent criminals, convicts or anyone else who's determined to get a gun from doing so.

Very true - it is the enforcement of laws that does the trick. That is why you will rarely hear about a shooting on a plane or in the White House. Gun regulations at such sensitive areas are enforced with an iron fist at great cost to personal liberty. So, it really boils down to how much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice to limit gun violence?

Now, I'm not in favor of draconian laws, forced searches, or gun seizure - far from it. I am pointing out that enforcement of regulation has some negative effect on the absolute prevalence of firearms in a criminal population (other factors including demand, ease of production, etc.). The magnitude of that effect, and its worth in actually limiting violence, is an entirely different debate.

[Sensei]

Absolutely. I think you should have the right to say whatever you want, as long as you don't use any technology that did not exist in 1787 to disseminate it.

You say that as if technology hasn't resulted in the explosion of regulations in the dissemination of speech. Does the FCC ring a bell?

Whenever technology has magnified the potential for widespread destruction from abuse of one's rights, be it mass murder with a machine gun or mass slander on the airwaves, society has responded with regulations that attempt to limit those rights.