"common Sense Gun Laws"

[2aguy]

Then why in the hell are you gun lovers so fucking OBSESSED with the idea that someone is gonna take your guns?

Because it has happened in other countries and gun grabbers, some on this very thread, have said that is what they would do if they could....so we will prevent the "if they could" part....

Limits on number and types of gunz one can own, and extremely tough restrictions on carrying in public, particularly in populated areas. All gun transfers must go through an FFL.

Again...how would any of those things stop violent criminals or mass shootings....it wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, the Colorado theater shooter, Santa Barbara, Columbine, pearl mississipi, the Navy Yard, both Fort Hoods....and on and on...

AGain, sounds nice, sounds smart...absolutely useless when it comes to stoping the killing...

How many 15 year old, gang banger felons would be limited in the guns they could own, on wether they carried their gun in public and how would it prevent them from handing their gun to their 13 year old fellow gang member to kill a rival they are driving by...

Again, sounds nice, sounds smart...absoutely useless for the stated purpose...

 

[2aguy]

Your 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries cost the economy 174 BILLION a year in lost productivity and medical costs. So you yeah, even if you took your ridiculous scenario, it would still be a savings.

Well, take 110,000 = 174 billion a year...now take that 110,000 and divide that into the lowest number of lives saved and crimes stopped with guns...760,000 so that = 6.9...multiply that by 174 and we have 1,202 billion saved....a lot more than 174 billion....

 

[2aguy]

The polls and studies that provide these numbers are the result of a great deal of work by researchers and pollsters. I am not going to try and duplicate that here.

But here is some info gathered by the above mentioned methods.

"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

From: Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).

The definitive study of the quality of prisoner self-report data is Marquis (1981), a data quality analysis of the RAND "Criminal Careers" survey. In this study, data quality was assessed by comparing prisoners' self reports with information contained in official criminal justice records. Since the format and procedures of the RAND survey were very similar to those followed in our survey, it is reasonable to assume that Marquis' findings generalize. Summarizing briefly, Marquis found:

1. There is no evidence that prisoners attempt to deny salient aspects of their criminal past. ...
2. Comparisons of self-reported conviction-offense data with official records showed that "on a general level, the data are close to unbiased" (Marquis, 1981: 32). Moderate biases were found on some items , but in general, reliability of the self-report data was "moderately high."

Same as above. Page 155:

2. Have you ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No: 66%, Yes: 34%, (N) = (1673)
3. Was there ever a time in your life when you decided not to do a crime because you knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun? No, never: 61%, Yes, just once: 10%, Yes, a few times: 22%, Yes, many times: 8%, (N) = (1627)
4. [H]ave any of the criminals you have known personally ever been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No, none: 31%, Yes, but only one: 10%, Yes, a few: 48%, Yes, many: 11%, (N) = (1627)



"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."
As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:

t = c × g × p / [n × r × [[s × d / f] + [(1-s) × (1- d) / (1- f)]]]

Where:
t = Total defensive gun uses in a nationally representative population
c = Defensive gun uses in this survey, civilian against offender, clear = 48
g = Minimum proportion of households with a gun = 0.34*
p = Population, ages 25-70 = 158,799,375†
n = Survey sample size = 3006
r = Proportion of survey respondents with a gun in their home = .83
s = Proportion of survey respondents who are female = .25
d = Proportion of defensive gun uses by females = .46‡
f = Proportion of population (ages 25-70) who are females = .51†




"A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year."

from: Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals... Violence Vict. 1997 - PubMed - NCBI

Thanks Winterborn...I have seen some of that info. and it is great that you posted it...

 

[2aguy]

"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."
As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:

Thanks for this...I'll add it to my survey collection...the number is well over 760,000...take that Brain357...and you other guys too...

 

[2aguy]

Folks call them tags.

Yeah... that's registration.

Except that 1) won't stop criminals or mass shooters and 2) it won't help catch criminals or mass shooters and 3) we know that much like New York, California, and Britain, and Australia, and Weimar Republic Germany....it will be used to ban guns...maybe not when it is started, but it will be there waiting for the right time...just like in Germany...

 

[2aguy]

I live in a country where all guns are registered and the government has not taken them away. You have no idea what you are talking about, or you just make things up.

Yet...Weimar Germany registered guns...20 years later the nazis used that paperwork to get guns out of the hands of their enemies...monsters tend to be patient...

 

[2aguy]

I think the feds are off when it comes to select fire m16, as that gun is the standard. We should be able to have an aK or an m16.. sry but that's the way it should be based on the constitution.

Citizens in this country...at a minimum...should have the ability to own any weapon carried by the infantry soldier in the U.S. military...this wouldn't necessarily include crew served weapons, but the standard infantry arms...as a minimum....

 

[2aguy]

There is a question. A sawed off shotgun is man portable. Why are they restricted?

Because they had gun grabbers back then too, and they used gang violence to...oh...what is that word..."Ban" that type of gun favored by gang members...see how that works...I have a gun....the sticker on the side of the case says..."Not Legal In California" it is a simple, semi auto pistol...see how that works...

• 
  
• 
  
• 

 

[2aguy]

Here, this might get through the barriers some people have here on the gun issue...

How about we make all people wear identity bracelets...so that when they go to any establishment that serves any alcohol at all, they would have to have their i.d. bracelet swiped to see if they have any DUIs...if they don't, they can order alcohol...if they do, they can't be served...this would stop DUI driving, wouldn't it...which kills many more people a year than gun murder...right...? So every citizen would be required to go through this check when the eat out...and you know what...we could require it at private gatherings as well...you could be forced to check the DUI status of all of your guests at barbecues and private dinners...again...to make sure the bad people didn't have access to alcohol...

Wouldn't that just be "common sense" to have all people carded for alcohol at any place where they serve alcohol...and if you did serve someone, who wasn't allowed....you go to jail...

Does that work for you anti gunners?

 

[The Rabbi]

Folks call them tags.

Yeah... that's registration.

Except that 1) won't stop criminals or mass shooters and 2) it won't help catch criminals or mass shooters and 3) we know that much like New York, California, and Britain, and Australia, and Weimar Republic Germany....it will be used to ban guns...maybe not when it is started, but it will be there waiting for the right time...just like in Germany...

It's insane. What do you about the 300M guns already in circulation?
What do you about a gun that gets stolen?
The analogy to cars is absurd. You can't conceal a car on your person. You can't hide a car in your underwear drawer.
And of course how many thefts has car registration prevented?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here, this might get through the barriers some people have here on the gun issue...

How about we make all people wear identity bracelets...so that when they go to any establishment that serves any alcohol at all, they would have to have their i.d. bracelet swiped to see if they have any DUIs...if they don't, they can order alcohol...if they do, they can't be served...this would stop DUI driving, wouldn't it...which kills many more people a year than gun murder...right...? So every citizen would be required to go through this check when the eat out...and you know what...we could require it at private gatherings as well...you could be forced to check the DUI status of all of your guests at barbecues and private dinners...again...to make sure the bad people didn't have access to alcohol...

Wouldn't that just be "common sense" to have all people carded for alcohol at any place where they serve alcohol...and if you did serve someone, who wasn't allowed....you go to jail...

Does that work for you anti gunners?

Dont give them any ideas. The libs are all a bunch of goose steppers who would gladly elevate Obama to Presdent for Life if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[turtledude]

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

2nd Amendment need only apply.

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

In all other countries that have banned guns it has always been the first step. So in regards to the Moron statement you can Kiss this and I don't mean my lips.........A country song BTW.

I stand by my assessment of you. Keep your red herring, we are not those countries.

If those who want registration could be forced to post a bond that would be forfeited if registration leads to confiscation, then maybe I'd not worry. Like a life bond-guns are confiscated and those who support registration get offed. Since that cannot happen, we should all oppose registration

 

[Harry Dresden]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

a guy with one gun could snap and shoot 10 people in your neighborhood before he is stopped....

One guy with a M60 could take out 100 people in less time before he is stopped. See the difference?

no i dont....you said the guy could blow up everything.....then i said a guy with 1 gun....and then so did you....1 gun.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

True -- people with an irrational fear of guns may very well think that.

People that have that many guns usually are irrational and fearfully paranoid. I have several weapons in my home. I am not under the illusion that its for anything else other than home defense in the fear someone may one day attempt to come into my home and do me or my family harm. I could pretend its for target practice but I'm real with myself.

so you are irrational and fearful?.....

 

[jon_berzerk]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

Tell me if the guy with the so called arsenal never breaks the law what's your issue with him?

The most sensible thing that can be done is to enforce draconian punishments on anyone breaking the law. THAT will be the best deterrent

My issue would be that he could snap and blow up my neighborhood. His first foray into lawbreaking could result in many lives lost. No one needs an arsenal unless they are in the military.

a guy with one gun could snap and shoot 10 people in your neighborhood before he is stopped....

One guy with a M60 could take out 100 people in less time before he is stopped. See the difference?

is generally used as a crew served weapon

 

[birddog]

Before you can own a gun, you must undergo a THOROUGH background check, not this bullshit weak system the NRA has in place.

If you sell a gun to a person who commits a crime with it, you are held liable.

You can't own a gun without being licensed, trained and insured.

Or fuck it, just ban private gun ownership. THere's no good reason for any civilian to own a gun.

Wow, what a dumbass, anti-Constitution liberal you are! Geeez!

 

[Noomi]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

Make people register their guns. One gun per household, there is no need for dozens of guns. No semi automatics either. Lock them away so kids can't reach. Just simple stuff that conservatives hate.

 

[WinterBorn]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

No such thing as common sense gun laws. Your common sense may be different from your neighbors. Your neighbor may think its just common sense to have an arsenal complete with automatic assault rifles, LAWs, and hand grenades. Others would view that as a paranoid madman.

True -- people with an irrational fear of guns may very well think that.

People that have that many guns usually are irrational and fearfully paranoid. I have several weapons in my home. I am not under the illusion that its for anything else other than home defense in the fear someone may one day attempt to come into my home and do me or my family harm. I could pretend its for target practice but I'm real with myself.

I currently own 21 firearms. Some are for home defense. Some are for plinking. Some are for target shooting & varmint removal. Some are for hunting. I'm real with myself. I have different tools for different jobs.

 

[WinterBorn]

Throughout these forums I see people calling for the need for "common sense" gun laws. Some have claimed we need to prosecute gun dealers whether they follow the rules or not.

I am curious, what "common sense" gun laws do you think we need to pass and why?

I can see where requiring a safe storage of loaded firearms, in houses where children live or can be reasonably expected to be, might be a good idea. That would cut down on the number of accidental deaths.

What else?

Make people register their guns. One gun per household, there is no need for dozens of guns. No semi automatics either. Lock them away so kids can't reach. Just simple stuff that conservatives hate.

So I will be forced to use the same gun for coyote, home defense, deer hunting, feral hog hunting, quail/pheasant hunting, self defense away from home, target shooting and varmint removal? That would be quite a remarkable gun.

 

[ChrisL]

According to the paranoid idiots in this thread you are going to kill a bunch of people because you own more guns than you need.

I can see how some folks get scared when they see weapons... esp. when weapons were not common at their home as their were growing up.

It's natural.

But... fear is the mind killer... better to get over your fears than let fear rule.

I didn't really grow up around guns. My dad had a 22 rifle and a collectors rifle from one of the wars, but that wasn't until I was old enough to shoot, and I was fascinated by them and thought they were cool. We went target shooting together a few times, and I thought it was a lot of fun. So I don't think I was ever "afraid" of guns. I have a healthy respect for them, though.