|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Is there such a thing as reasonable or common sense gun control?
So, there's a continuum of gun control, right? On the far right, you have unfettered access to guns where anyone can get one anytime without restriction. On the far left, you have a total ban on all guns. Is there somewhere we should be between those two points?
Yes. Just like we have freedom of speech but not unfettered freedom of speech, we can have reasonable and effective gun control.
It's not too much to ask that people who purchase firearms be adults, have no history of violent crime, demonstrate an ability to use firearms (either through a class or some other proof of experience with firearms), and wait for a certain period of time for the purchase to be registered with the necessary authorities.
As a Texan, it's no surprise that I know many people who own multiple firearms. None of them have any problems with the wait periods or registration. Those who have children keep their firearms in a safe.
Conversely, I should never own a firearm. There's a higher chance of an intruder finding the gun and using it against me than me using a gun effectively in such a situation. I don't go hunting, so I don't need a rifle (or a bow and arrow, for that matter).
No system will ever be perfect. People who shouldn't have guns but really want them will find a way. However, we can hedge our bets by having sound gun control policies.
It's not too much to ask that people who read books, write letters to the editors, or attend church be adults, have no history of lying or wrongly-held points of view, demonstrate an ability to use the English language, logic and sound reasoning (either through a class or some other proof of experience with communications), and wait for a certain period of time for any writing they do to be registered and looked over by the necessary authorities.
The pen is much mightier than the sword, eh. And in this age of the internet with some mope able to use a rapid typing keyboard they can have mistruth spread about the world in moments. This is far too dangerous to leave in the hands of ordinary folk. Virtually everyone I know who writes for a living have no problem registering their fingers with the local police and seeking prior approval before publishing. After all, if they are not doing anything wrong then what is the problem?
And just think, if it saves one child it is absolutely worth it.
BTW... saying their is a "continuum" of gun control is like saying there is a continuum for speeding over a cliff. Some people are content to mosey over it at ten miles per hour, some want to rush at 30 mph while others demand we go balls to the wall and head over the cliff at 90 mph. I think I vote on the side that abandons the "continuum" and votes for not moving towards the cliff at all.
Not sure I can tell where you stand on the question. Of course there's a continuum of gun control. There are people on both sides of the issue from one end to the other, so there's a political continuum. That's just objective fact.
Yes, there is a continuum of gun control. It doesn't range from no gun control to lots of gun control, though, It ranges from stupid and bad gun control to evil and malicious gun control. Those who want no gun control are not on that continuum.
illogical argument. Writing doesn't kill people - guns do. You can not kill a person by whipping out your bic pen and writing a poem give me a break.
A political continuum, by definition (and perhaps I should have used the word spectrum), contains all possible opinion, not just the opinions you think it should contain. I'm not arguing the validity of the opinions, just that they exist.
Christin, perhaps you can explain to my guns what an utter failure they are since they've never "killed" anyone in their decades of existence. And niether have the 99.999 guns in America. And if you don't think "words kill" you don't know history.
And crank, you are still misusing the concept of continuum.
Fine, I'm misusing it. Consider the spectrum then. My question is about where on the political spectrum you land on the gun control debate or where you think gun control should fall on that spectrum.
Most of the people on the left I know don't want bans on ALL weapons, that is a lie being spread. A ban on certain types of weapons yes, a ban on all weapons no. Across the board background checks with no internet and gunshow loopholes is a control that is common sense and that most reasonable people will agree to. They don't just hand out a driver's license to anyone who wants one unless you can prove you are fit and capable to drive. There is no good reason that should be a problem for responsible gun owners.
What about the idiots that give rifles to 5 year olds and leave them loaded in a corner? A 5 year old boy just killed his 2 year old sister because stupid people are making guns seem like toys and are not locking them up when not in use etc.
I grew up around guns, my dad had a small arsenal was a hunter etc. He was also trained in the military in their use and was responsible with them. He's a staunch right wing person with an NRA card and HE can see the logic of background checks and training. Most sane people can meet in the middle on this issue.
I read that story too. Broke my heart. Maybe we need an intelligence test for owning a gun? Here's a question for it: at what age should a child own a gun? If you answer "5", you fail.
The "Goldilocks" style of gun bans, eh. Ban guns that are too small, too big, too powerful, too black and scary, too easily loaded....why WE don't want to "ban guns." We will leave you with a single-shot musket that was popular 200 years ago.
Christin doesn't know that there is NO internet gun sale loophole... and that ALL guns bought and sold at gunshows and all buyers and sellers must meet all state and federal laws concerning the buying and selling of guns. But she comments anyway?
The five year old boy is a perfect example of the failure of gun laws and why they will never work... and why there will always be a demand for more... more.... more.... . What parent who leaves their kid in this situation is going to follow a "law"
I'm totally guessing here, but I bet that 5-year-old had a child car seat in mother's car, as did his sister. I'm sure there are people who refuse to buy child car seats. Should we get rid of that law?
I refuse to engage with angry people like Jack who won't use reason, only condescending answers. I know what I am talking about I am very familiar with the law and how it works. some people don't like debate they want to fight or argue no thanks.
That's a good approach. Instead of discussing his position, Jack wrote a screed comparing gun ownership to writing, which isn't an answer, just another tired analogy. The comparison is irrelevant and a way to obfuscate the issue.
Well, crank, what you want to do is to punish the people who are already putting cars seats in for their kids by making them jump thru even more hoops in your misguided effort to correct those who don't use car seats in the first place.
I don't think that's what Crank is saying.
christin confuses "angry" with "I can't really answer Jack so I'll call him names." And u ~don't~ know the law. Otherwise u wouldn't make an elementary mistake such a "internet loophole." This type of willful ignorance is why we can't have dialogue.
I am always happy to leave it to the readers as to what is a "screed" and what is meaningful. But the fact is, you and you ilk want to take away "selected" freedoms but when it is a freedom you happen to like, why, by God, that is protected.
No, Jack, that's not what I mean at all. I wonder if you will ever answer the question. I take it that you believe in no gun control whatsoever? If so, that's fine. That's an answer.
Actually, I wrote a hub on what I think is a highly effective program that will reduce guns getting into the hand of those who may do harm to others. It certainly makes much more sense than the proposals out there now...
Each gun legislation is designed to address different situations so depending on what issue there is, there is no such thing as common sense gun control. If you want to curb violence, there are a couple of options. If you want to cut down on gun death, that involves a different approach. To me, you must also address repeated violent offenders who cause the majority of violent crime and gun crimes in the US.
Overall, people support lowering violent crime and keeping felons from possessing firearms (which is illegal already). However, some of the approach to address these issues are out right foolish such as the assault weapons ban. This is due to ignorance of current laws which make people 'scared'.
For example, people assume that you can buy the firearm off the internet without a background check but the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits this (as well as listing those who aren't allowed to purchase firearms). If you order a gun online, you must have it shipped to an FFL dealer where you can then go through the background check and pick it up.
People on the other side get all paranoid about how background checks are bad and will lead to the registry of firearms of private citizens by the government. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 prohibits this and only requires those with an FFL or NFA weapons to register their inventories.
The debate now is the issue of private party purchases. Again, this is not buying off the internet. A really simple solution is to require that purchases and sales go through an FFL- it's that simple. However, since each state has different firearm rules in addition to federal laws, implementing a federal wide policy is becoming more difficult.
by Marcy Goodfleisch6 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by Christin Sander5 years ago
When is the right time to talk about gun control - NOT banning guns, but sensible controls?Why is it whenever the subject of gun control is brought up people get so hostile and angry about protecting guns at all costs?...
by Ytslemp5 years ago
How do you feel about 'common sense' gun control laws?
by My Esoteric2 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by A Thousand Words5 years ago
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70...
by Josh Ratzburg22 months ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.