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.
Unfortunately. People don’t seem to want to do anything with the aggressive culture out there. That or they go to another extreme and have a meltdown if a guy is anything but gentle
 
SuperLuigi said:
Adam Lanza had a mental disability.
Click to expand...
He stole guns which were supposed to be locked up and he murdered 20 children and six adults.
SuperLuigi said:
Do you really want to use him as your point of reference here?
Click to expand...
Yes, because it shows that even a mentally disabled person can figure out how to steal a gun, which was supposed to be locked up, and massacre 20 schoolchildren. It is just not safe to have guns around where people can steal them.
 
Not too much, but then again, a car doesn’t leave it’s VIN in the tire tracks, so there is nothing to show that a vehicle with a particular VIN used the road.

I suppose that the equivalent this would be to have all new vehicles have their VIN stamped in their tires, so police could track what vehicles were at a crime scene. Of course, you can always just order a new set of tires from Amazon…
 
The idea of a government deciding whether I have a “need” or “legitimate purpose” for my gun (or knife or car etc) is just sick-making. I thought the US fought a revolution to get away from that stuff, especially as propagated by European nanny state governments.
 
To me, there’s no such thing as “common sense gun control”. We’re either going to grant the government the power to control our right to self-defense, or we’re not. It’s a red herring concept. We have a second amendment. If you don’t like it, vote for people who want to change it, or eliminate it. But until then, our social compact requires all of us to follow the Constitution. “The right of the people … shall not be infringed.”

Like the myriad of problems wrought on us by the progressive agenda, this is another example of eliminating Christian values from our culture and instead using the power of the government to control we, the people.

As was stated earlier, I think we have a people problem, not a gun problem.
 
Any weapon can be a rapid fire weapon. It all depends on the user. So should we ban people? The argument is always going to have the two sides: that weapons kill people and that people use the weapons to kill people. Any object can be used to kill someone. Baning a specific weapon(in this arguments case; firearms) WILL of course get rid of the deaths caused by that weapon but if someone wants to kill they will kill. If firearms are banned then the killers will turn to bladed weapons. If those get banned it will get much worse(ignoring the fact that we will be without a plethora of tools that are used in day to day tasks) in the fact that the killers will most likely turn to blunt or spiked weapons. If these get banned we are losing SO much more than we would under any ban. That is because theoretically anything can be used as a blunt weapon so if the government wanted to truly get rid of the threat they would have to ban pretty much everything. Not to mention the fact that after firearms are banned the murders will get much more gruesome. In china firearms are banned. Do you know what one of the most used murder weapons in China is? A screwdriver. Another is a shovel. And a brick. Lets not take our country to that. I’m not even going to start the argument about how firearms are, to many people, tools necessary for survival.
 
Certain stuff is banned or restricted by law, much of it jurisdictional (the restrictions in Chicago, an urban area with high gun crime, may be different from those in Nevada, a largely rural area where people rely on guns on part due to long police response times when people are spread out geographically). But that’s different from government deciding they need to generally decide if I have a need for any gun at all.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Certain stuff is banned or restricted by law, much of it jurisdictional (the restrictions in Chicago, an urban area with high gun crime, may be different from those in Nevada, a largely rural area where people rely on guns on part due to long police response times when people are spread out geographically). But that’s different from government deciding they need to generally decide if I have a need for any gun at all.
Click to expand...
I’ve always wondered why urban areas like Houston with few gun control laws have far less gun-related violence than places like Chicago with a boatload of gun control laws?
 
The only thing banned is machine guns made after I believe 1986. But practically speaking cost and licensing hoops makes owning many weapons difficult. The second amendment means what it says despite the 1986 law signed by traitorous Reagan.
CharlesFulkerson said:
Any weapon can be a rapid fire weapon
Click to expand...
Yep, even a Glock.
 
Yep, sorry. Was a bit late in the evening here when I posted.

Never put the trigger finger inside of the trigger guard until ready to shoot.

Never point a firearm at something you aren’t prepared to kill/destroy.
 
AINg - That’s assuming that somebody is going to successfully steal. Also, I have a decent amount of money in investments; should I be prohibited from that too because somebody might hack into the brokerage and bank and steal it to help finance some criminal enterprise? Further, I have property that I don’t live on; should I be prohibited from that too because somebody might do something illegal with it? Additionally, I have a car; should I be prohibited from that as well because somebody might steal it and go on a crowd flattening rampage?
 
Those gun control laws have neutral impact at best. What primarily keeps people from killing and harming each other is the homogeneity and stability of the culture, NOT government telling them what they can and cannot have and to what extent. Besides, there is now an epidemic in Europe with people using trucks to run over others.
 
Last edited:
One does wonder… in Chicago, there are very strict gun control laws. In North Dakota, the laws are pretty relaxed. Until Chicago, So-Cal, and other big city gang-bangers started showing up, North Dakota was a very safe state to live in. You can guess what happened when they started arriving.

I agree with the comments about who gets to decide whether I “need” a firearm or not. Would one criminal defendant threatening to kill folks involved in a case be enough? Two? Three? What about dealing with mentally ill people who wander around with blunt objects thinking that everybody is a zombie, vampire, etc.?

The problem is, and has always been, a people control problem.
 
Seeksadvice said:
One does wonder… in Chicago, there are very strict gun control laws. In North Dakota, the laws are pretty relaxed. Until Chicago, So-Cal, and other big city gang-bangers started showing up, North Dakota was a very safe state to live in. You can guess what happened when they started arriving.
Click to expand...
Please don’t conflate the two. They are worlds apart in so many ways, including gun-related violence.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Those gun control laws have neutral impact at best. What primarily keeps people from killing and harming each other is the homogeneity and stability of the culture, NOT government telling them what they can and cannot have and to what extent. Besides, there is now an epidemic in Europe with people using trucks to run over others.
Click to expand...
I think armed deterrence – criminals being concerned that potential victims might be armed themselves also plays a large part.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
Certain stuff is banned or restricted by law, much of it jurisdictional (the restrictions in Chicago, an urban area with high gun crime, may be different from those in Nevada, a largely rural area where people rely on guns on part due to long police response times when people are spread out geographically). But that’s different from government deciding they need to generally decide if I have a need for any gun at all.
Click to expand...
I’ve always wondered why urban areas like Houston with few gun control laws have far less gun-related violence than places like Chicago with a boatload of gun control laws?
Click to expand...
Houston isn’t particularly low. They sit right at the national average. Which is roughly 4 times higher than the Brits, as a point of reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top