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.
Bradskii said:
Which is what I would prefer not to do, Theo. Duesenberg believes that it’s not the number of guns but the problems within society that cause the gun deaths in the US. Now if Australia (which is ‘the pit’ where I live) has a much better homicide rate and armed robbery rate than the US, then we can ignore the fact that our rate of gun ownership is a small fraction of America’s. According to Duesenberg.

So if our figures for homicide and armed robbery are one fifth of those in the US, then those problems are effectively five times as bad.

Now I’ve spent some time travelling through the States (and will be heading there for a few months again next year). I’ve also spent not an inconsiderable time in Europe and S E Asia. And almost every country I have ever visited, from the most left wing to the most right wing, from the richest to the poorest, from the least educated to the most, the most irreligious to the most religious, places where a small amount of drugs will get you the death penalty to places where they are freely available…all of these places have less a problem with guns than does the US.

So Druesenberg’s argument is that all these countries, whatever their racial, economic or political make-up is is likely to be are ALL a lot better at solving societal problems that the Land of The Free.

Really?
Click to expand...
I agree, problems within the society are the driver not guns in and of themselves.
That’s why crime varies across the US and why crime levels don’t correlate with gun access.

Many large parts of the US have very low crime rates, and minimal unrest. Other parts are chaotic and in an economic spiral (aka Detroit)
 
The problem is that in political discourse today, things no longer mean what they say. Everything is a spin for some political purpose. “Common sense gun control” has become a rallying cry for gun-grabbers who have no common sense and actually want gun confiscation and gun bans, not gun control. The negative outcome of this is that now we can’t even use the term without polarizing people.

If you take the term out of its “spin” context, sure we can have that. We can have “common sense” anything. Fill in the blank. But when has the government brought us anything that turns out to have a lot of common sense involved? If we are going to have a mature discussion about this, people need to be candid and honest about what their goals are. If you believe all guns should eventually be banned, say so. If you think you should be able to own nuclear weapons, at least be honest about it. Then we need to show respect for each others’ positions and work to come up with solutions we can all work towards.

We also need to respect the facts, or lack of them. I have found NEARLY ALL research on both sides of this argument is suspect. There is too much bias, both in the gathering of primary data, the choosing of secondary data and in analysis. No one is objective about this topic. Nearly everyone just wants to impose their will on others, whether those others are actually endangering them or not. The upside is that if we could learn to have good, honest discussions about this, we could learn to do that with any topic.
 
Last edited:
gun control the san francisco way.

a man killed someone while illegally having a gun but he will walk from the murder charge. why isn’t the gun charge being pushed in the gun control state? he is a felon who used a stolen gun; he should be locked up for good on this alone.

why; because, it is about control of certain people and the perp is the wrong people: illegal immigrant felon.
 
upant said:
gun control the san francisco way.

a man killed someone while illegally having a gun but he will walk from the murder charge. why isn’t the gun charge being pushed in the gun control state? he is a felon who used a stolen gun; he should be locked up for good on this alone.

why; because, it is about control of certain people and the perp is the wrong people: illegal immigrant felon.
Click to expand...
He will go to prison for a gun change. I suspect he won’t do well in prison. However he should be going to the chair…
 
jfz178 said:
We also need to respect the facts, or lack of them. I have found NEARLY ALL research on both sides of this argument is suspect.
Click to expand...
In another thread I did my own analysis, I compared the gun ownership rate by state with it’s homicide rate. It showed a correlation of 0.2, which doesn’t even qualify as a weak correlation by staticians.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Mind you, I agree this also doesn’t show gun ownership reduces homicides, it just doesn’t support removing a constitutional right.
 
So true–I live in Illinois, which seems to have nearly nullified the concealed carry by making so many areas “gun free zones” … I work in one such, and yet annually I have to take active shooter training (which means, what to do if an active shooter is on the premises, i.e. “Run, Hide, Fight”).

My dad has several handguns (one of which once belonged to my late grandfather and was kept by my grandfather in his business) and several long guns. Of course, my parents live on a ridge surrounded by woods and they have seen wolves and coyotes (not at the same time) from the back of the house. Myself, I live in town (small community) and a small house, so a handgun is more useful for protection (although I do wish it were practical to have a pump action shotgun, because if someone were to break into my house when I am home, there are few sounds that more effectively suggest that the intruder might want to reconsider his life choices and leave my house nose-first).

Being female, and petite to boot, a handgun is a much better self-defense option than something that would require me to get close to the bad guy (and let’s just face facts, anyone who breaks into a house known to be occupied can be assumed to have bad intentions). I’m currently the protected party under an order of protection, but we all know that an order of protection has the same bullet-stopping power of any other random piece of paper (and that a DV felony conviction won’t necessarily stop my ex from acquiring a gun). I’ve also put 900 miles between myself and him, and I’d rather never have to shoot outside of a range setting.
 
Where I live (Canada), I believe that a number greater than or equal to 90% of guns used in crimes are “illegal” guns (obtained through criminal activites/not legally obtained). The firearm restrictions, classifications, and laws here are so outrageous. Legal gun owning citizens (individuals who have taken a firearms course and obtained the PAL) are treated like criminals essentially.
 
My only question is why did they have these peoples’ names? The feds are NOT supposed to keep those…
 
Good question.

Found the below on another article
If the background check is not complete within the 72-hour time limit, federal law allows the sale to go forward. ATF agents are asked to take back the guns if the FBI later finds these sales should have been denied.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
If the background check is not complete within the 72-hour time limit, federal law allows the sale to go forward. ATF agents are asked to take back the guns if the FBI later finds these sales should have been denied.
Click to expand...
They shouldn’t have the data to make that determination…
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
Theo520:
If the background check is not complete within the 72-hour time limit, federal law allows the sale to go forward. ATF agents are asked to take back the guns if the FBI later finds these sales should have been denied.
Click to expand...
They shouldn’t have the data to make that determination…
Click to expand...
I am more concerned that the sales were wrongly made than I am that they had the data to realize that. That is a bad law pushed by the NRA that prevents us from knowing who the bad guys are.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I am more concerned that the sales were wrongly made than I am that they had the data to realize that. That is a bad law pushed by the NRA that prevents us from knowing who the bad guys are.
Click to expand...
You don’t make sense, when they couldn’t complete the background check they did have the data to check later. That’s what this article is about. How is that a bad law?

Or are you arguing for registration of all legal owners?
 
Theo: Of course. Registration is what all anti-gunners want, because it enables confiscation later on.
 
How is that relevant to anything? And it depends on what you mean by a “major nation.” You raise the bar pretty high, because some might opine that we are the only “major nation” left.

The Vatican has about 850 residents. The Swiss Guard armory has every single weapon that has ever been issued by them in 500 years, including thousands of firearms, creating a higher ration than the US, perhaps the highest in the world.

In Mexico, Brazil and South Africa there is probably a ratio of guns per capita close to the US, but the guns are all in the hands of the government and criminals and hardly any in the hands of honest citizens. The murder rates of those countries are higher than ours.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I am more concerned that the sales were wrongly made than I am that they had the data to realize that. That is a bad law pushed by the NRA that prevents us from knowing who the bad guys are.
Click to expand...
You don’t make sense, when they couldn’t complete the background check they did have the data to check later. That’s what this article is about. How is that a bad law?

Or are you arguing for registration of all legal owners?
Click to expand...
Yes. Registration is required of all airplane owners. That has never led to wholesale confiscation of private aircraft. I think gun owners are unnecessarily paranoid over the possibility of losing their guns. And don’t point to Nazi Germany because this isn’t Nazi Germany.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes. Registration is required of all airplane owners. That has never led to wholesale confiscation of private aircraft. I think gun owners are unnecessarily paranoid over the possibility of losing their guns.
Click to expand...
That was a very weak analogy.

You’ve also been given many examples were in the past registration was followed by confiscation.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Yes. Registration is required of all airplane owners. That has never led to wholesale confiscation of private aircraft. I think gun owners are unnecessarily paranoid over the possibility of losing their guns.
Click to expand...
That was a very weak analogy.

You’ve also been given many examples were in the past registration was followed by confiscation.
Click to expand...
As I said in my edit, this is not Nazi Germany. And the analogy is apt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top