I understand what your getting at. However it's not as simple as adding more gun laws. What about the guns that are already out there? Also, does anyone really believe that terrorists are going to obey the gun laws? They don't even obey the laws we have now.

 

As far as suicides go, I imagine most of those that are committed with a firearm are done by handgun. So that would mean banning all handguns, which is what most people use to protect themselves. I also imagine most accidental shootings involve hunters. So then we would have to take away shotguns and hunting rifles. So essentially the only thing we would be able to own would be "assault" riffles, which is what everyone is so concerned about. Thats my whole problem with the whole suicide and accidental shootings part of it.

 

Should have posted this after your question and closed the thread.

 

Not one poster asked for banning anything.

Should have posted this after your question and closed the thread.

 

Not one poster asked for banning anything.

 

So if you don't ban certain types of guns how do you control them any more than they already are?

 

States have different gun laws. Criminals are not going to obey the gun laws. So essentially what solution would there be other than banning particular types of guns? Also, does anyone really think that would help? I know it wouldn't, even if they banned all manufacturing and sales of guns today.

I understand what your getting at. However it's not as simple as adding more gun laws. What about the guns that are already out there? Also, does anyone really believe that terrorists are going to obey the gun laws? They don't even obey the laws we have now.

 

As far as suicides go, I imagine most of those that are committed with a firearm are done by handgun. So that would mean banning all handguns, which is what most people use to protect themselves. I also imagine most accidental shootings involve hunters. So then we would have to take away shotguns and hunting rifles. So essentially the only thing we would be able to own would be "assault" riffles, which is what everyone is so concerned about. Thats my whole problem with the whole suicide and accidental shootings part of it.

 

Although I stated it previously, I'll ask it now as a question: Who is pushing for a ban? One can ask questions and critique current policies and state of affairs without pushing for a ban. And would you care to address the idea of approaching a solution with the other mitigating issues?

 

The extremes on both sides need to stop trying to make their cases on single points. The issue is intertwined with several other issues.

Although I stated it previously, I'll ask it now as a question: Who is pushing for a ban? One can ask questions and critique current policies and state of affairs without pushing for a ban. And would you care to address the idea of approaching a solution with the other mitigating issues?

 

The extremes on both sides need to stop trying to make their cases on single points. The issue is intertwined with several other issues.

 

So what would your gun control solution be? That's what I'm really getting at. There simply is no way to control guns without taking them away. Criminals, terrorists, cartels, etc, will not abide by any enhanced gun laws, just like they do not abide by the current ones.

So what would your gun control solution be? That's what I'm really getting at. There simply is no way to control guns without taking them away. Criminals, terrorists, cartels, etc, will not abide by any enhanced gun laws, just like they do not abide by the current ones.

 

Again...I propose we stop looking at gun rights and looking at the issues that cause the viloence.

 

And for the eleventh billionth time, my concerns about gun laws are directed at holding people accountable for the responsible and safe use and storage of their weapons. I could recount the list over, but I've outlined my ideas in depth in many other threads. 2 reasons not to do it again: 1) I'm tired tonight and 2) it's not like they'd be discussed, just discounted. I'm sort of in the "why bother" stage at this point.

Again...I propose we stop looking at gun rights and looking at the issues that cause the viloence.

 

And for the eleventh billionth time, my concerns about gun laws are directed at holding people accountable for the responsible and safe use and storage of their weapons. I could recount the list over, but I've outlined my ideas in depth in many other threads. 2 reasons not to do it again: 1) I'm tired tonight and 2) it's not like they'd be discussed, just discounted. I'm sort of in the "why bother" stage at this point.

 

Looking at the issues that cause the violence would be a good start, I agree. However more gun laws won't solve anything. IMO.

Looking at the issues that cause the violence would be a good start, I agree. However more gun laws won't solve anything. IMO.

 

If a gun owner knew he or she had to face criminal storage if their child found and played with a gun improperly stored and killed or injured themselves or someone else, it may reduce the careless way people treat that aspect of their responsibility. One change I want is a mandatory charge of something like reckless homicide or negligent homicide for such occurances.

There are negligence gun laws, but like tons of laws on gun crime, they are rarely or laxly enforced..

If a gun owner knew he or she had to face criminal storage if their child found and played with a gun improperly stored and killed or injured themselves or someone else, it may reduce the careless way people treat that aspect of their responsibility. One change I want is a mandatory charge of something like reckless homicide or negligent homicide for such occurances.

 

I would completely agree with that. People should keep their guns away from kids that are not old enough to use them. I have a soon to be 4 year old, she turns 4 on the 27th. I would voluntarily put myself in prison of she was injured by one of my guns. I'm confident she never would be though, I have purchased safes that would prevent her ever touching one. I have a rebutal for other instances of more kids dying due to inept parents from something other than guns. But I'll leave it alone, because I do agree with you that parents should be held accountable if their child kills or injures themself with one of their parents guns.

There are negligence gun laws, but like tons of laws on gun crime, they are rarely or laxly enforced..

 

Good they need to be enforced. Pro-gun and gun control crowd should compromise on what they should.

 

Does everybody agree with those on terrorist watch lists are prohibited from buying guns? If so that's number 2.

 

I would wager there are 10 such changes both sides could agree on if they would get out of their corners.

I've got no problem with those on the watch list not being able to buy guns. But there was a guy on CNN a day or do ago that the reason those names aren't denied guns is so that they don't find out they are on the list and currently being watched. So to that end I can understand not wanting to tip off people that are currently being watch that the FBI may be on to them.

 

I've got no problem with those on the no fly list not being able to buy either...problem is a lot of innocent people end up on that list...Ted Kennedy was even on that list at one time.

That is not what I said. Whether you have 50 guns or not you are more likely to be shot the more guns there are. Just common sense.

 

This will throw your common sense out the window. You are trying to say that banning guns would decrease the number of people shot. This is obviously true. However, the point is that the attempt is to stop gun violence. Meaning harm done to others via a gun. These numbers show drastically different statistics. The areas where gun violence is more abundant are areas with stricter gun laws (typically). Would banning sewing machines keep people from getting stabbed by a needle while sewing, sure it would. Your reasoning is absurd.

Even gangsters live in fear of Japan's gun laws | The Japan Times

 

The retired cop then noted that even the yakuza don’t like to use guns these days — because the penalties are too high.

 

A turning point was the Dec. 26, 1997, arrest of Kaneyoshi Kuwata, a boss of the powerful Yamaguchi-gumi gang, for illegal possession of firearms along with one of his henchmen. Acting on a tip, police blocked off all the roads in Tokyo’s glitzy Roppongi district and cornered Kuwata’s convoy of Mercedes. They then searched all the cars and, when they found a pistol in one of them, Kuwata was — in a precedent-setting legal move — arrested as an accomplice on gun-possession charges. After a long court battle, he was sentenced to seven years in prison.

 

"Under current laws, if a low-level yakuza is caught with a gun and bullets that match, he’ll be charged with aggravated possession of firearms and will then face an average seven-year prison term. Simply firing a gun carries a penalty of three years to life. And for the “accomplice” reasons above, a yakuza boss may decide a death sentence is more appropriate if his thug miraculously gets released on bail before going to jail.

 

One mid-level yakuza boss told me, “Having a gun now is like having a time bomb. Do you think any sane person wants to keep one around the house?”"

 

 

I saw this article the other, and even I felt the restriction on law abiding citizens were too strict, but the fact criminals are basically scared to carry guns was impressive.

I've got no problem with those on the watch list not being able to buy guns. But there was a guy on CNN a day or do ago that the reason those names aren't denied guns is so that they don't find out they are on the list and currently being watched. So to that end I can understand not wanting to tip off people that are currently being watch that the FBI may be on to them.

 

I've got no problem with those on the no fly list not being able to buy either...problem is a lot of innocent people end up on that list...Ted Kennedy was even on that list at one time.

 

Are you saying we allow them to buy a gun to trap them? :no:

Can't say I like that.

 

I understand that may be inconvenient, but a couple of hitches is worth some lives.

That is why the no-fly list gun law failed.. Too many innocent people on that list. Some simply because of their name, etc.. No trial, no jury, just you can't(legally)buy a gun.

Edited December 10, 201510 yr by cammando