jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (15 posts)

Can guns be kept out of the hands of criminals without extra burdens placed on l

  1. Express10 profile image87
    Express10posted 2 years ago

    Can guns be kept out of the hands of criminals without extra burdens placed on legal/sane owners?

    It always appears that the rights of the sane, trained, and law abiding are under threat where guns are concerned. Why is the emphasis not place upon those who do NOT belong to the above group? Can guns be kept out of the hands of criminals without extra burdens placed on legal/sane owners?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12701946_f260.jpg

  2. Tusitala Tom profile image62
    Tusitala Tomposted 2 years ago

    I see this as a rather inane suggestion.   Who says that gun-owning people who are not criminals are entirely sane?   Until a person has control over their emotions to the point where they would NEVER lose their temper, people, cannot be trusted not to use their guns in anger against another human being.

    Jealous rages, and even temporarily bruised self-images and losses of face, can send some people temporarily over the edge of sanity into an abyss of ego-driven irresponsibility.   "He made me do it!"   How often do we hear such rubbish!   "I couldn't help myself, he made me so mad."

    Get real!

    Why do you think so many people are killed in the United States compared with, say, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, or virtually any First World Nation?   It's access to guns.  Get rid of guns to the point where it becomes extremely difficult to be able to own one and 90% of the gun accidents, and murders would end overnight.

    1. ronbergeron profile image85
      ronbergeronposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I've owned handguns for over 30 years. I've never even come close to using one against another person. Gun ownership is a serious thing and it takes more than simple anger to justify lethal force. Most gun owners understand that. Don't be paranoid.

    2. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If perhaps you did not understand the question, you could have asked for clarification or not answered Mr. Ware? I agree with Ron Bergeron. Criminals & those who are not sane do not CARE about laws. It's that simple.

    3. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If people get mad enough I suppose a lamp could be as lethal as a gun, couldn't it? That is no good argument.

  3. tirelesstraveler profile image83
    tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

    You are the first I have heard to mention this idea.  It's a good question.  Most gun crime is done with illegal guns. Stolen.  When are we going to address heart problems.

    1. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, don't get me started on heart problems smile I had a biggie knock me on my arse last November, completely out of the blue. Even the cardiologist said he was "mystified" as to why it happened to me.

  4. ronbergeron profile image85
    ronbergeronposted 2 years ago

    Laws only apply to the law-abiding. Criminals aren't controlled by gun laws. They don't care which guns are "legal" or where they might be permitted. The various proposed laws to require insurance on guns (similar to car insurance) will only affect the law-abiding citizens. They don't affect criminals.

    Why punish the people who follow the laws?

    I own several handguns. I enjoy target shooting. I also like the idea that I have the ability to defend myself under dire circumstances if needed. I take that seriously. I'm not going to pull a gun, which I consider to be a last resort, just to prove a point or save face. Potentially lethal force is reserved for life or death circumstances.

    Preventing criminals from having guns is a major challenge. I would first start by enforcing the existing laws. There are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are rarely enforced. For example, here in Massachusetts, there's a minimum 1 year prison sentence for the illegal possession of a handgun. That law has been on the books for decades. Even though people are caught illegally possessing handguns nearly every day in this state, I don't know if anyone has ever served that sentence. Prosecutors usually bargain that away at pre-trial hearings.

    Before another law restricting constitutional rights (whether you agree with them or not) is passed, ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS. Don't complain about loopholes, straw purchases, or any of that other crap until the existing laws are fully used.

    I agree that there is a violence problem in this country. Disarming law-abiding citizens isn't a solution to the violence problem.

    Start with providing hope to the hopeless. Show people that there are better ways to live, that they can make progress and advance in a society that they may not feel they belong to. Show them that they belong! I think that most people would gladly be helpful rather than hurtful if they thought it made a difference.

    1. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Amen! I wish I could give you thousands of thumbs up! Why do SO MANY people ignore the fact that criminals and anyone dead set on doing harm do not give a hoot about any laws?

  5. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 2 years ago

    If there actually was a group of sane, trained, and law-abiding gun-owners to begin with then it might be possible to answer your question, but there isn't. The gun club has spent forever making sure that there is a very low bar for entry into their group and have completely resisted any real barriers to entry. The result is that a bunch of very poorly trained and emotionally immature gun owners are running around patting themselves on the back for being law-abiding simply because they haven't yet shot anyone (or had someone get their gun and then shoot themselves or others).

    You can't really ask me not to burden a group, when that groups only assurance comes in the form of a wink. Sorry, but every single person in my life who has owned a handgun is someone who I don't think should have owned one, either because of very poor training, being not quite right in the head, treating them like toys, and/or improperly storing/maintaining/securing their weapons. And every single one of them sounded exactly like you and Ron Bergeron.

    1. ronbergeron profile image85
      ronbergeronposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly how many of the estimated 1/3 of adults who own guns in the US do you personally know? Rather than condemn a large percentage of the population based on your limited experience, maybe you need to seek out a better crowd to associate with.

    2. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I condemn the group because of the group actions (or lack thereof), namely, the complete refusal to allow any measures to help reduce gun violence. My anecdotal evidence was an anecdotal aside, not the totality of evidence for my position.

    3. ronbergeron profile image85
      ronbergeronposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps people are resistant to being punished for the actions of others. I know that I never cared for that myself. They'd probably be more open to things that might actually affect the troublemakers rather than the people who obey the rules.

    4. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We are smart enough to know criminals have all the guns they want regardless and even the government may supply them with many (Fast and Furious) also letting these criminals out of prison &  letting  drug cartel run rampant with no concern for t

  6. Jackie Lynnley profile image90
    Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 years ago

    Criminals will always have guns. Many have them now courtesy of Fast and Furious; no? Chicago has gun control; how safe is it? There is your answer.

 
working