1) Does our govt have a good record at keeping illegal contraband out the country (drugs, etc). - why would this be different for guns were they made illegal?
2) Is the Dem open border policy (or at least more open with no barriers and access to all with villification of border enforcement officers consistent with a pro gun control position?
3) What has happened in the areas where gun control in the US has been instituted? Are killings or crime down?
((I am not sure what results have been found in other countries, but no other country has open borders like we do, so the results are not comparable regardless). Chicago is “gun free” with open borders. How have they done?
4) Do criminals follow the law? (This is really just a definition question)
5) Do law abiding citizens follow the law? (same).
6) Which group will be armed if gun access can only be achieved illegally?
7) Will there be less hate filled people motivated to harm others one way or the other?
8) How does one calculate the number of people saved by a killer not having a gun vs an intended killer’s crime being thwarted by people having a gun or more likely by far being dissuaded from the crime by the knowledge that someone else likely has a gun and will hurt them with it?
I do not speak of strict definition assault weapons, and if the slippery slope to further restrictions wouldn’t be actively pursued, I believe that we would already have a ban on these.
I do very much understand the pro gun control argument. I think that they have some good points. But I also understand to 2nd Amendment Right’s advocates position. It is simply the fact here that both sides have good points. It is also the fact that politics weighs in heavily on the debate.
My impression is that gun control would simply exchange one set of casualties for another which would be a wash, but in the meantime would eliminate a Constitutional freedom. Thus I am presently against gun control, but I am willing to listen to arguments that could show me that perhaps I am wrong. We all hope for the same thing here.
1. Perhaps they do. I honestly wouldn't know where to find illegal drugs. I'd be limited to going to Colorado and I suppose now Illinois (where they are legal anyway). That said, drugs and guns are different problems and have different (albeit sometimes overlapping) audiences.
2. Definitional problems with "open border" policy. Don't know which brand you are talking about. Can't really say how it affects gun control.
3. As always. the question is whether they've done better than they would have without gun control laws. Chicago will always have more murders than French Lick Indiana. But they might have had even more without gun control laws.
4., 5. Requires a definition. I would assume every poster that was driving a car today broke some laws. I would assume that even convicted murderers go days at a time without committing a crime.
6. Is that the proposal that is being put forth here? Making all guns illegal? Perhaps I am not the right person for this questionnaire.
7. No. They'll just be less empowered to kill.
8 You could benchmark by other countries. But here is my gut instinct. The number of crimes thwarted by use of a gun by a would-be victim is negligible.
(no message)
protection so long as it’s secured safely.
However, I just don’t see how gun control would work when we can’t even get our own parties to agree on tightly controlling our border. There is access to drugs at every college and virtually every high school in this country despite it being illegal....and I’m not talking about just pot. Guns would likely have different venues, but they would be copious for those who are willing to lurk beneath the law.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
So the only question is what should the limits be?
I'd stop short of an outright ban of "assault weapons" but would put restrictions on who can own them and a permitting system.
I also am not a fan of "shall issue" for concealed carry permits. I think there needs to be training and qualification.
Also, perhaps the change that could make the biggest impact, requiring trigger locks or some physical access control device on stored firearms.
Also, regarding the supposed "gun show loophole". All private transfers should happen through an FFL with a possible exemption for direct family members.
Since there is no accepted definition, it is an honest question as to how you would define it. I would say rifles with detachable magazines is the only principled way to define it.
Often, people pushing a ban on "assault weapons" are seeking to ban automatic rifles, and are then shocked to find out that they are already effectively banned. Yes, there are some out there, but they are owned by people with special licenses, who get inspected, etc. It's a big deal to own one, and they are not involved in crimes as a general rule. There may have been one or two in the past 60 years.
And you and I know what that is.
But legislatively you have to define it, I'd define it as:
A rifle
Semi-auto action
Magazine capacity greater than 5
(no message)
(no message)
Maybe causal, maybe not. But if we band the manufacture of these weapons - and of their ammunition - it would bring the body bag count down over time.
Which I favor.
This isn't a criticism, but the '94 ban failed because it was written by people like you that don't understand guns. It was a silly and stupid way to try to attack the problem.
Your ammunition proposal, just as an example, here are all of the cartridges available in an AR-15 or AR-10:. (see link)
Included are many, many very popular sporting rounds. This is how your side loses this issue. "I can't buy ammo for my deer rifle? The one my Grandpa gave me?"
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_calibers
(no message)
I was assuming you wanted to actually stop more than just some cosmetic features. My suggestion was far more restrictive. I like yours better.
Together a few would probably bring down the casualties over time. Magazines. Assault-weapons. Muzzle velocities. Etc.
Reasoned debate. Thanks. I know who you are, but I was calling for reasoned intelligent debate so you were never the target to whom this was intended.
The downvote happened within 5 sec of my posting - they never even read it. This is sadly where we are. These people are our biggest problem.