If a city puts in tight gun laws but people bring in guns either legally or illegally from outside the city is the city wrong for putting in the tight gun laws?

 

Is there really a way to analyze how effective ONE city's gun laws are?

Won't get into another gun debate here, other than to say that I am definitely pro 2nd amendment and am a multiple gun owner. With that said, I have a little insight to Australians and guns.

 

We (our basketball team/church) have played traveling teams from Australia on 3 different occasions, hosting them with families from the church twice.

 

One of those visits, during the overnight stay, almost ALL the kids asked the host families about guns and if they owned them. Well, almost all did. The kids then inquired about possibly shooting the guns because, as it turned out, it's just something they didn't get to do over there and they were completely fascinated with the idea of gun ownership and being able to go shoot. Well all our families who had guns obliged the kids and they went out in the country to shoot guns. Kids had a blast and were still talking about it as they were getting on their tour bus to leave.

 

It's darn near impossible (according to them) to get and own a gun in Australia. it's also near impossible to get gun-like products...bb guns, even airsoft guns. It's very very different than it is here.

 

I'm not debating gun control either. Dead end conversation. I was just wondering what gun control is like in Australia.

If a city puts in tight gun laws but people bring in guns either legally or illegally from outside the city is the city wrong for putting in the tight gun laws?

 

Is there really a way to analyze how effective ONE city's gun laws are?

 

What good are laws if they are not going to be enforced ? Are criminals or murderers going to stop at a state or city limit sign because its against the law ?

The problem we are faced with today is that 20+ years ago when somebody was picked on, they found a way to get thru it. Today, if somebody is picked on, they can become social outcast who hate the world and want to go out leaving their mark. Factor that in with a society that has lost respect and values and you have present day America.

My axe is with the gun grabbers who continue to masquerade mental health with guns. An inanimate object does not work without someone pressing the trigger.

 

And a crazy person can't shoot someone without a firearm.

If a city puts in tight gun laws but people bring in guns either legally or illegally from outside the city is the city wrong for putting in the tight gun laws?

 

Is there really a way to analyze how effective ONE city's gun laws are?

 

You are only looking at one angle and the common misconception.

 

The reason those city bans don't work is because law abiding citizens aren't armed and are targets.

 

Criminals always get guns no one disputes that. That's why the stricter laws don't work criminals will get guns. When we bam or put ridiculous restrictions on guns the general population can't defend themselves. Which leads to more deaths.

And a crazy person can't shoot someone without a firearm.

 

And a drunk can't kill someone in a crash without a car....Horrible logic.

It was over a long time before that, I'm afraid. Firearms have achieved a quasi-religious sanctity in this country.

 

Just like abortion and gay rights.

Mayfield , Do you personally believe tighter and more restrictive gun control laws will lessen mass shootings ? Do you personally want more gun control laws regardless of your answer to the previous question ?

 

I don't know the answer to the first question, the answer, or my answer at least, would depend upon the law proposed, and then whatever evidence there is about the efficacy of the law as proposed. With that important qualification, I would support a law that ends the "gun show loophole" with regard to background checks. I think all transfers of firearms should be subject to a background check, because we have laws preventing certain people from owning or possessing firearms, and the checks go to enforcing those existing laws. The only area that I would except from that would be personal transfers among relatives. A father should not have to do a background check to give his son a firearm, though the father should still be prohibited from giving a firearm to his son if he knows the law prohibits it.

 

The answer to the second question is "no." I have no interest in gun control laws other than their relation to enforcing existing laws or their possible, and in my mind likely, benefit in curbing mass shootings.

 

I don't really like firearms, I own a shotgun and that's it. I don't want anymore for self-defense, I use my dogs, locks, alarm system, and my son's aluminum baseball bat for that. However, that is my personal preference, and others have differing views, and the have the Constitution on their side for that.

 

In the event that a study of policies determined a clear way to curb mass shooting and gun violence, and that the policy infringed on the 2nd amendment more than what I described above, I would be likely to support efforts to change the amendment as opposed to passing laws that infringed upon it. I doubt that would ever come to pass, but I would at least prefer to make the attempt directly. Put the issue squarely before the people rather than dance around it.

And a drunk can't kill someone in a crash without a car....Horrible logic.

 

Not really horrible logic. We regulate the use of cars, we regulate the use of alcohol, and we regulate the use of alcohol in cars. My logic is spot on, but it does suffer in the light of your poor attempt of an analogy.

 

If my logic is poor, then show me a proof invalidating the statement "A crazy person can't shoot someone without a firearm."

And a crazy person can't shoot someone without a firearm.

 

So maybe we should fix the crazy people?

The problem we are faced with today is that 20+ years ago when somebody was picked on, they found a way to get thru it. Today, if somebody is picked on, they can become social outcast who hate the world and want to go out leaving their mark. Factor that in with a society that has lost respect and values and you have present day America.

 

I don't see that as the problem. I think the problem is that children are being slaughtered in schools, college students are being slaughtered on campuses, and people are being slaughtered at prayer meetings in their churches. I see that as the problem, and a fairly important one.

So maybe we should fix the crazy people?

 

And during the process of fixing them, let's prohibit them from possessing firearms so they don't walk into a church and kill people while they pray.

And during the process of fixing them' date=' let's prohibit them from possessing firearms so they don't walk into a church and kill people while they pray.[/quote']

 

Well you are partially catching on, I think you're acknowledging to an extent it's not all the guns fault.

How would it be possible to ask gun shop owners to do medical background checks ? Hippa laws prevent that sort of thing , IF , IF all we are going to offer up as an improvement in gun control laws is asking at the time of purchase " are you suffering from mental illness or depression" then we might as well wave the white flag . If a sick evil individual wants to buy a gun to kill multiple people he isnt going to mind lying to purchase the gun .