Strict Gun Laws-Positive or Negative?

[littlea53]

I am a proud resident of the State of Florida (one of the few states that allow suppressors and automatic firearms to be legally bought and owned) and my father is an avid weapons collector. Recently a close friend of his got arrested by moving to California while attempting to transfer his Russian PPSh-41 (His grandfather served with the Red Army in WWII) and had most of his other weapons including my favorite Fully-Functional Nambu Type 100 which was his personal gift to him.

On that note, do you think strict Gun safety is unfair? In my opinion, I believe SOME states are to strict with gun safety thinking that a mass murder will occur if they allow residents to own guns and certain accessories. Debate!

Here is a side note: He is a Class 3 Firearm Collector so he has a FFL.

[Armed Floatzel]

If no one could purchase or use a gun, then that would most likely create an Al Capone for weapons. What's stopping a criminal or psychopath from obtaining a gun and using them on people who do obey the law? We have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves against such people.

And it's not just criminals that people should worry about. Unions these days are getting bolder. Some use violence to discourage protestors who have every right to be there.

[Rainbow Dash]

I've got to agree with what AF said. A criminal that would kill people with guns is a criminal because he doesn't obey the law, so what would banning guns from the law abiding citizens do? It would take away the right for people to own guns so that the criminals would have no worries about being shot while he's committing a crime. Also, to obtain a gun (at least where I am) you can not have a criminal record, so criminals obviously aren't getting their guns legally. Gun laws would only work if the law breakers start following the law and that won't happen.

[PokeMaster]

[Edited, I worded this badly the first time] I both agree and disagree. I am more neutral but pro ownership because, really, you cannot trust the police or government to protect you. The more you watch the news, the more you'd probably say that. I disagree because there is always the possibility some drugged up kid [Columbine anyone?] will get a hold of some guns and go on a spree, or someone unstable will do so. It may be against the law to buy guns for someone, but really, people still do it, ergo we need to make laws stronger, like making high-powered guns' ammo only available to the military and special forces, while citizens and police forces only have guns with not as powerful ammo [not too sure if I am correct on if there are guns that aren't as strong]. Also, silencers? What is Florida thinking? That's good and all for hunting, maybe, but that could lead to some bad stuff, on the other hand, it's not too hard to make a silencer at home, ergo, it doesn't really matter, does it? Bah, all in all, I am very neutral. If only we could trust the people we're supposed to trust to protect us. Sorry if it sounds like I'm going in circles.

[Modest Mouse]

Originally Posted by Armed Floatzel

If no one could purchase or use a gun, then that would most likely create an Al Capone for weapons. What's stopping a criminal or psychopath from obtaining a gun and using them on people who do obey the law? We have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves against such people.

And it's not just criminals that people should worry about. Unions these days are getting bolder. Some use violence to discourage protestors who have every right to be there.

agreed. I used to be for gun laws then I thought about this. Criminals break the law, sot there not going to follow gun laws anyway, leaving only criminals with guns. Besides is is a statistical fact that countries with lower gun control have lower gun violence rates.

[Technomancer]

No.

I like my gun. I plan on owning more. And I plan on owning some biggies. I like the idea of leaving anyone that walks into my house with the intention of harming me and mine to become little more than flakes of bone and a fine red mist sprayed on my wall.

I voted for Obama, and I want the president I voted for to be lenient on my guns. I keep baddies away, they have less and less reason to rob me, and crime drops. Assume everyone's packing, and nobody will want to **** with anyone. Only hippies and commie liberals will be robbed and carjacked at gunpoint. :I

[pokemoneinstein]

I just think licenses should be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, the way it is now, any random person can walk into a gun store and buy one. Sure, some criminals would go farther to obtain guns, but those are the people who would have them as long as they exist. The license laws would keep out people like those teenagers you hear about with those on-campus shootings, and presumably people like your average bank robber. The only problem is that they may be able to get a license. They would end up losing it for sure, but they could certainly get it the first time.

I think the thing with licenses is that it's not very strict, but it at least does enough to weed out a good number of firearm abusers.

[Technomancer]

Not having a license won't stop Donald Derpy Dipship from buying a gun from some Mexican out of a truck and robbing your mother. Jus' sayin'.

Firearm availability and licensing restrictions will keep plenty of crims from getting their hands on firearms. But not all of them. Concealed Carry and Open Carry will make them think twice, and alert signs in front of houses warning intruders of armed residents will quickly diminish the massive crime rate we're facing, thanks to this horrible deficit America is in.

[pokemoneinstein]

True, license laws won't deter everyone, but as I said, it will deter some people, and that's good enough for me.

Well, no it isn't, but it's one part of the solution. I completely agree with you and with everything you just said, but you shouldn't just be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun without some sort of proof that you're responsible and will only use it for defense. So this is why licenses would be good. Maybe require gun shop owner to go over brief regulations, such as "even in self defense, never shoot at the head or torso. Aim for the legs or feet." Something like that. I mean, I'm sure that they can work out a much better way to actually implement something like that than a fifteen-year-old kid who thought about it for just a minute or two.

[7dewott8]

Liecense sounds more fair

[fouronefour414]

My dad is in the military so he obviosly has an entire closet full of stuff that is illegal for non-military people and a license, but when nobody is home....there is nobody to stop someone from robbing my house and taking EVERY gun in that closet....(along with some frags and smoke grenades too......) not having a license isn't gonna stop ANYONE from taking all those guns!

[pokemoneinstein]

That's true, but going off of what Technomancer said about signs warning people of an armed citizen, that's certainly going to make people think twice about trying to rob it in the first place. Besides, licenses or no licenses, they can steal the guns. I hardly see why that's an argument against implementing licenses. Unless, of course, it was just a comment, but you do make a very valid point.

[littlea53]

Heres a bit of info I found

Before we go all anti-American and "GUNS ARE EVIL," I think we should take a look at Switzerland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

Switzerland, a country in Europe, has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Yet, one of the lowest crime rates. Hmmm.

"Police statistics for the year 2006[13] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."




And furthermore, the American constitution permits people to own guns. AKA, the second amendment.

[fouronefour414]

true.......but.....well......nothing.....if EVERYONE had a gun we wouldn't have as high of a crime rate...