Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
Just what is this “common sense gun control” that so many politicos and members of the media prattle on about? How about a few concrete examples?

Gun control has proven not to work. There is years of hard data on the subject for a number of reputable sources. All one need do is Google.

Many states in the US already have mountains of “gun control” that doesn’t work. I would like to see some concrete examples of “common sense gun control” that would actually make a difference in reducing gun-related violence.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
Does it not work because the laws are not enforced??
Click to expand...
They are enforced – at least at the state level. That said, can you offer some concrete examples of “common sense gun control” that would actually make a difference in reducing gun-related violence?
 
joeybaggz said:
Does it not work because the laws are not enforced??
Click to expand...
Gun control laws are enforced by reputable dealers, and disreputable dealers aren’t going to pay attention to laws that get passed anyways, so passing any additional laws would not impact them.

It’s a case where well-intentioned laws would only hurt law abiding gun owners, while owners who do not abide by the laws anyways (i.e. the vast majority of those who commit gun violence in the first place) won’t be affected at all.
 
So here’s my suggestion. Lock up everybody but me and Pope Francis, and there will be no more gun violence (and I’m not too sure about Francis!)
 
I have said it a million times.
We do not have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

Violence has been a part of life since the beginning of time, and it always will be because we are sinful human beings.

What has happened, especially in the US, is that we have become a society that says “what’s in it for me” instead of saying “how can I help?” It is a sad commentary and one that will only change when each & every individual decides to change themselves.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
We do not have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

Violence has been a part of life since the beginning of time, and it always will be because we are sinful human beings.

What has happened, especially in the US, is that we have become a society that says “what’s in it for me” instead of saying “how can I help?” It is a sad commentary and one that will only change when each & every individual decides to change themselves.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree to an extent. To reduce gun-related violence (particularly mass shootings) will require facing the extremely difficult and costly issue of mental health. It would require abolishing all the foolish and ineffective gun control laws at the state level, then honestly reviewing those at the federal level and then strictly enforcing them. Make the laws fair, make the penalties draconian and enforce them to the hilt!
 
Last edited:
I don’t speak for any politicians. I know it’s easy for Democrats to score political points following a tragedy by calling for “common sense gun control” (whatever that means), just like it’s easy for Republicans to score political points by saying “Now is not the time to talk about it” or “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

I think both of these miss the mark. I think it is foolish and short-sighted to dismiss out of hand any attempt at gun control. Perhaps guns are just tools, but they are lethal tools. That there are some types of restrictions on obtaining something potentially lethal seems like it shouldn’t be that controversial of an idea.

As for concrete examples, I could posit a few, but I’d be the first to admit they are open for debate as I’m not well read on this subject. I think we need to look at statistics with regards to the regulations we already have in place to see which of those have been effective. I think we need to investigate (and maybe we already have) exactly how criminals get their hands on weapons and take the necessary measures to close the gaps in the supply chain.

One example I’ll throw out there is how about limits on how many guns and/or ammo you can purchase in a certain time period? The shooter in Las Vegas amassed a large arsenal over the past year. Why would it be necessary for a person to stockpile that many weapons?

I’m not sure why people balk so much at background checks and waiting periods. I have to get a background check if I want to chaperone a youth event at my church. Why should I be offended about going through a background check to pick up a deadly weapon? And under what circumstances would I ever need a gun immediately such that waiting a week or so would have grave consequences? These seem like “common sense” measures, though, I’ll admit, I do not know any statistics with regards to how effective they are.

Again, I’ll be the first to admit that my knowledge is lacking in this area. But I think we need to avoid kneejerk responses. I don’t think it’s good for us to reject out of hand any suggestions because we’ve already decided that “gun control never works.” Surely the safety of our nation’s citizens warrants that we can at least have a conversation about these things.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
I think both of these miss the mark. I think it is foolish and short-sighted to dismiss out of hand any attempt at gun control. Perhaps guns are just tools, but they are lethal tools. That there are some types of restrictions on obtaining something potentially lethal seems like it shouldn’t be that controversial of an idea.
Click to expand...
We’ve had gun control in the US for decades. It has been proven not to work. That’s why I’m asking for concrete examples of gun control that would actually reduce gun-related violence.
Joe_5859 said:
One example I’ll throw out there is how about limits on how many guns and/or ammo you can purchase in a certain time period? The shooter in Las Vegas amassed a large arsenal over the past year. Why would it be necessary for a person to stockpile that many weapons?
Click to expand...
OK, what arbitrary “safer” numbers will be chosen, and who will choose them? Politicians pandering for votes? That’s a scary thought. It took 72 minutes for law enforcement to get tot he shooter in LV. In that length of time given his vantage point and the size of the crowd, with some more training and skill he would have been able to kill more than 59 with a WWI bolt action rifle. That’s a very sobering fact. What do you ban then to stop the madness? Finally, I’m a competitive marksman. I shoot well over 1K rounds/month – all of which I reload myself. How many rounds would I be allowed under your plan?
Joe_5859 said:
I’m not sure why people balk so much at background checks and waiting periods. I have to get a background check if I want to chaperone a youth event at my church. Why should I be offended about going through a background check to pick up a deadly weapon? And under what circumstances would I ever need a gun immediately such that waiting a week or so would have grave consequences? These seem like “common sense” measures, though, I’ll admit, I do not know any statistics with regards to how effective they are.
Click to expand...
Well, the waiting periods are absolutely worthless. I already own firearms, yet I’m supposed to wait 10 days to pick up a newly purchased one? Why? What will doing so accomplish other than make some politicos feel as though they are doing something? I really don’t have a problem with background checks, so long as the federal system is actually working and they are real time.

What I have problems with (but can live with) is having a 1908 firearm bequeathed to me which I must then pay a transfer on, including the cost of yet another background check.
 
Last edited:
I think “stop and frisk” and arresting people found with an illegal gun is a good method of gun control and reducing gun violence. It did good things for New York City. Unfortunately, it’s not popular because of concerns about racial profiling.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I think “stop and frisk” and arresting people found with an illegal gun is a good method of gun control and reducing gun violence. It did good things for New York City. Unfortunately, it’s not popular because of concerns about racial profiling.
Click to expand...
More than just racial profiling. I support law enforcement, but giving the general police the right to stop and search without reason is a violation of our fourth-amendment rights.

I may support the desire of these searches, and I may even think they are justified in certain instances, but I cannot support them in light of this violation.
 
Last edited:
I can see the issue and the concern, but they do have the effect of discouraging criminal activity, including illegal guns, from an area.
 
Yeah, but they also have the effect of discouraging legal activities due to a sense of apprehension that comes with not knowing if you’ll be detained for no reason.
 
Jamie5 said:
tonexaminer.com

Newt Gingrich: It is ‘common sense’ for Congress to ban rapid-fire gun…

Gingrich, a former House speaker and staunch Second Amendment advocate, said that the ban would be ‘a practical, common sense thing.’
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the notion of “common sense” doesn’t pass the smell test. I looking for concrete reasons.
 
Perhaps the question can be reversed: Do YOU think it is common sense to have ANY type of gun control?
 
ProdglArchitect said:
More than just racial profiling. I support law enforcement, but giving the general police the right to stop and search without reason is a violation of our fourth-amendment rights.

I may support the desire of these searches, and I may even think they are justified in certain instances, but I cannot support them in light of this violation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Stop and frisk is a powerful crime deterrent, but it also has grave problems. I also wouldn’t characterize it as “gun control.”
 
Jamie5 said:
Perhaps the question can be reversed: Do YOU think it is common sense to have ANY type of gun control?
Click to expand...
Sure.

A prime example would be open carry of long arms. “To make a point”, some truly challenged individuals went to Starbucks with loaded firearms slung over their shoulders which was 100% legal where they were doing it. The US isn’t Israel. People were rightfully horrified which led to the loss of being able to “open carry” anything, including sidearms in that state. A right which had existed for well over 100 years.
 
Presuming that the police do not start acting like the Gestapo, it doesn’t discourage, but rather encourages people who are from demographic groups that don’t fear or distrust police. A lot of people from said groups walk around enjoying Manhattan nowadays who would have avoided the place back in the bad old days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top