Gun control laws

I have no position on gun ownership in the US... perhaps I lean more towards gun control though. I live in a country which practices gun control, we are firearms owners with permits. I like that you are required to prove you know how to care for it, you store it safely and you practice shooting it regularly at a club. I guess I feel better knowing that the mentally ill who decide to live on the streets and ramble and scream at passers by for no reason cannot buy one.

But in this same country, there is the terrorist events of yesterday, and I am quite aware this will be held up by the pro-gun people as an example of why there should be a free and open market of firearms.

Okay, it sounds valid if you don't think about it. The bad guys get firearms of all sort no matter what, so why not allow the citizens to?

But my objection is- since it is illegal to own firearms without a permit, and some assault weapons are illegal altogether, that gives a legal way to arrest those same "bad guys" (I can't help but smile when using that term, I feel like I am back in elementary school ).

Being able to raid someones apartment, who has been having contact with terrorist groups, they can be arrested for having Kalashnikovs, for example, before they use them. -Or keep them from getting a permit, and therefore able to be arrested for having any firearm.

Of course, in this particular country, we have the added problems which keep the police force from even attempting such a raid... but the US does not have the same problem.

Does this not seem a rational reason for gun control laws?
Maybe there is a response to that that I haven't thought of, that is why I throw it out here to hear what others might say.

But my objection is- since it is illegal to own firearms without a permit, and some assault weapons are illegal altogether, that gives a legal way to arrest those same "bad guys" (I can't help but smile when using that term, I feel like I am back in elementary school ).

How do you know they even have them? How do police figure out who has one and who doesn't? It's not like there's a data base for criminals with illegal weapons and they're certainly not going to walk down the street with an assault rifle in their hands.

But in this same country, there is the terrorist events of yesterday, and I am quite aware this will be held up by the pro-gun people as an example of why there should be a free and open market of firearms.

It's your country, do what you want with it. I just wish everyone else had the same opinion of us.

Chicago is a perfect example of why gun control doesn't work.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and one of the highest crime rates because of it.

I am all for solid background checks and instruction in how to use/store/carry firearms. I think that should be mandatory in order to own one. And I also think periodic checks to prove you haven't forgotten how to handle the weapon safely is a good idea. You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

But I am opposed to anything that prevents legal ownership of firearms. I don't like the term 'assault rifle'. It is just a rifle. Assault is an act, not an instrument. It makes rifles with higher capacity magazines sound evil and is a great sound byte for someone on a soap box but in reality it is just a rifle.

What we really need to solve is the problem of people wanting to kill each other. I am not concerned with the method they choose but rather that they choose to in the first place. If we can get to the people and the underlying desire to kill we wont have to address the tools and implements used. On the other hand, if we address the tools used we are destined to fail. The bad guys will always have the tools of destruction. Always. We have to target the people committing the crimes or we will never be free of this threat.

originally posted by: Bluesma

Being able to raid someones apartment, who has been having contact with terrorist groups, they can be arrested for having Kalashnikovs, for example, before they use them. -Or keep them from getting a permit, and therefore able to be arrested for having any firearm.

And this requires a good deal of profiling, which God forbid we actually do, since it would actually help locate more terrorists.

a reply to: Bluesma

One has nothing to do with the other.

If surveillance shows there's been contact with terror groups, they don't need to use "oh they have AKs, thank god now we can raid them" as an excuse.

a reply to: Bluesma
The old saying is... "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

I am most certainly for a free and open market on guns. The reason I am however, is because I have lived in two different worlds in my own country. I was born and raised in a city of more than 2 million people where gun crime is rampant, even though gun ownership is relatively low.

Contrast that with the small town I live in now where almost everyone owns one or more guns, and yet gun crime is next to nil here. I can't remember the last time a crime was committed with a gun here, and I've been here more than 20 years.

The thing is, you can assume the average person in the city I grew up in does not have a gun, and likely be right. In the town I am in now, the likelihood is they do have a gun, and so do the people around them. So pulling a gun in a coffee shop here will more likely than not earn you a trip to local funeral home.

We already have gun control laws.
We also have laws against drugs.
laws against drunk driving.
Laws against theft.
immigration laws.

From my perspective laws don't always work like they should.

a reply to: Bluesma

Murder is already illegal. there are laws that are already existing that say that murder is illegal.

Has that stopped people from killing each other?

All gun control is, is a way to control HOW people murder each other. And to control gun ownership.

You can't carry a gun in Paris, France can you?

originally posted by: DAVID64




How do you know they even have them? How do police figure out who has one and who doesn't? It's not like there's a data base for criminals with illegal weapons and they're certainly not going to walk down the street with an assault rifle in their hands.

Maybe I didn't word myself clear enough. I meant that the law gives an excuse to arrest if found.
If you suspect someone of being a terrorist, then that can give you the opening to stop them, search them....if they are found with a firearm, and have no permit (or it is a type that is illegal) you have a reason for arresting them.

If all firearms are totally legal, and you find them with an assult rifle or something, you have to let them go.
You have no legal excuse to stop them from doing something they have not yet done.

It's your country, do what you want with it. I just wish everyone else had the same opinion of us.

Well, I'm a bit in the middle there - I am an american living in France. Though I won't take any hard stands on what is going in my own country, being that I am not there presently, I still have my parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends etc. who are there and effected by what happens.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Chicago is a perfect example of why gun control doesn't work.


I am all for solid background checks and instruction in how to use/store/carry firearms. I think that should be mandatory in order to own one. And I also think periodic checks to prove you haven't forgotten how to handle the weapon safely is a good idea. You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

But... isn't that gun control? Have I been using the wrong term?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bluesma

One has nothing to do with the other.

If surveillance shows there's been contact with terror groups, they don't need to use "oh they have AKs, thank god now we can raid them" as an excuse.

They can raid them, but if it is legal for them to have a bunch of weapons, they have to say goodbye and leave them when they're done raiding. They can go about their terrorist business.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
You can't carry a gun in Paris, France can you?

Yes you can, but you have to have a reason - hunting, sport (target shooting) personal protection or security.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluesma

Murder is already illegal. there are laws that are already existing that say that murder is illegal.

Has that stopped people from killing each other?

All gun control is, is a way to control HOW people murder each other. And to control gun ownership.

I'm a little confused, I guess I don't see the relevance to what I said?

I make no suggestion that people would no longer kill with guns if there is gun control laws?

Laws are for those who will follow them, written by those who wish to make themselves necessary by making the followers of those laws helpless to deal with some things themselves simply because they follow them.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Chicago is a perfect example of why gun control doesn't work.


I am all for solid background checks and instruction in how to use/store/carry firearms. I think that should be mandatory in order to own one. And I also think periodic checks to prove you haven't forgotten how to handle the weapon safely is a good idea. You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

But... isn't that gun control? Have I been using the wrong term?

the problem with that is that the reason our founders wanted an absolute right for citizens to have guns wasn't just for self defense or hunting. their voluminous letters, articles, speeches and debates are a matter of record. Incontrovertibly so. They felt that gun ownership was more than that. They felt that a well armed and well trained citizenry would insure both a deterrence from foreign invasions and from the government becoming dictatorial.

It is this latter bit that causes any form of governmental knowledge of whom is armed and with what problematic. registration is what makes confiscation possible. this is not theoretical. this has happened in the U.S. several times. each time it was not criminal's guns that were taken. this is because the criminals do not register their guns. it was lawful registered gun owners who merely wanted to protect life and property from looters who had that ability stripped from them by state, county and municipal LEOs and the national guardsmen under orders. most gun owners in louisiana's katrina zones have not gotten their weapons back despite court orders in their favor. and that is not the only place and time that the government has wrongfully confiscated registered legally owned firearms.

There is no registry of unlawfully owned weapons. There never will be.

a reply to: Klassified

I share that type of experience with you - I am from LA, and was used to hearing (illegal) guns firing outside when I went to bed at night.

Now I am in rural community, where everyone has guns, and there is definately less crime.

Yet....
I am not so sure that could all be racked up to the fact that we are armed.
Because there are also other factors - more criminal types (poorer people) are not in this area. They stick to cities.
People here have their family farm, or are affluent people who bought one to retreat to the country.

Second, we all live far from each other and are surrounded by our pastures and fields - it isn't easy to get out here, and getting away is difficult without being caught. No street corners and alleyways to duck into!

Plus the people stick together more. They don't have to make effort to give each other privacy - if a car enters into our general area at night, all the dogs bark, everyone goes to the window and tries to figure out who it is.
Most of them are related in someway or another and everyone knows everyones business.

We did have three men from another city come here one night intending to steal, but the neighbor heard them, and jumped out in his underwear with a rifle, and chased them with his car, shooting out the window as they raced down the twisty mountain road.

They took a wrong turn and ended up trapped, and a bunch of neighbors had joined the chase and they had the guys surrounded- all pointing their rifles at them.

It was actually pretty funny, the cops were laughing when they got there, with all the locals out in their underwear!

Never had another incident again.

But anyway, they were not armed, and I think he would have been just as successful with a baseball bat. But I am not for prohibiting guns entirely - all these people had permits. I just think there are other variables that influence the difference in criminal activity in rural areas, which shouldn't be eliminated.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Chicago is a perfect example of why gun control doesn't work.


I am all for solid background checks and instruction in how to use/store/carry firearms. I think that should be mandatory in order to own one. And I also think periodic checks to prove you haven't forgotten how to handle the weapon safely is a good idea. You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

But... isn't that gun control? Have I been using the wrong term?

Gun control spoken by a conservative is proper background checks and safety classes. Gun control spoken by a liberal means taking guns away trying to create "gun free zones" like the one supposedly in Chicago, which is a glaring failure.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You have to get a new drivers license every once in a while by taking a written or driving test. Why not do the same with firearms?

Driving Is a privilege in America, gun ownership is a right. Big difference when it comes to who you say can and cannot own firearms.

I am all for background checks and waiting periods. But to say that a person must pay money out of their own pocket to take a class and get a piece of paper from the government to exercise their rights then no way.

If the person wants to seek higher education on firearms that is their own business. But is shouldn't be required by law.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
You can't carry a gun in Paris, France can you?

Yes you can, but you have to have a reason - hunting, sport (target shooting) personal protection or security.

Really? Wow. I guess no one was hunting, sport(target shooting) personal protection of security that night, huh?