Gun Laws and Control - Page 3 - Political Forum

Ummwhat · 04-25-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Well, i'm quite sure local cops and cops in the gang violence department will be able to tell who are gang members, i'm quite sure random searches of them might just help somewhere along the lines.

Ya see. Guns are not the problem. The people are the problem. Take one gun away from a gang member, he ends up getting out of jail and gets another one. If he does not get out of jail, there are five more gang members out there going to get guns. The guns are not the problem. The criminals are the problem.

Early intervention, dissuasion and redirection. You catch them early, and set them up for success.

Now random searches are illegal and against the Constitution.

Might I remind you of something one of our (or rather my) founding fathers said?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Kazikli Bey · 04-25-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ummwhat

Ya see. Guns are not the problem. The people are the problem. Take one gun away from a gang member, he ends up getting out of jail and gets another one. If he does not get out of jail, there are five more gang members out there going to get guns. The guns are not the problem. The criminals are the problem.

Early intervention, dissuasion and redirection. You catch them early, and set them up for success.

Now random searches are illegal and against the Constitution.

Ah, but you see, if you take enough guns away from them, you'll eventually drive their bank accounts down as well. The best way to win any war is by financially strapping your enemy in every way possible. This would be simple way because you can stop your enemy (in this case, gangs) from getting certain guns legally (Tec-9, Mac-10s, etc), and limit them in what they can and can't have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ummwhat

Might I remind you of something one of our (or rather my) founding fathers said?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

That's a rather stupid saying considering we ask for safety in a government which takes away liberty. Does that mean only anarchist states deserve liberty and freedom?

Ummwhat · 04-26-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Ah, but you see, if you take enough guns away from them, you'll eventually drive their bank accounts down as well. The best way to win any war is by financially strapping your enemy in every way possible. This would be simple way because you can stop your enemy (in this case, gangs) from getting certain guns legally (Tec-9, Mac-10s, etc), and limit them in what they can and can't have.

Well guess what buddy? Only between 2 and 5% of weapons used in crime were purchased legally. So you still are not doing anything of value. Illegal weapons are not too much more expensive. In many cases they are cheaper because the seller did not pay for them.

Quote:

That's a rather stupid saying considering we ask for safety in a government which takes away liberty. Does that mean only anarchist states deserve liberty and freedom?

No, that is not what it means. It means we need to stop sacrificing our liberties because we feel it will make us safer, because it does not make us safer. You should not expect the government to provide for your personal safety. That responsibility falls on you.

Troianii · 04-26-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

OK, i started this thread specifically to to find out what is your take on Gun laws and Gun control. Is it a necessity that all people should be allowed a weapon? Should there be restraints as to what types of weapons one can have or should we allow anyone to possess any weapon? Most importantly, should there be parameters as to who can own a gun and who can't?

To answer my own questions: I am against complete freedom of ownership, but i do feel that people should be allowed to own weapons. In my country (and i like the gun controls in my country) one must get a gun license to own a gun, and there are different types of gun licenses which specify what type of guns one can own. To get a gun license, you have to undergo a thorough background check, and even then, there is the possibility that you might not get it.

The most common type of gun license is a hunting license, which allows a person to own shotguns and rifle. The rifles cannot be automatic or assault, they must be cocked. Shotguns cannot be pump action or automatic, they must be single or double barrel only.

Another beauty is that a person can get a permit for a handgun but they then must go to a shooting range of any kind at least 12 times a year with it and, if a police officer ever checks your identification, you automatically come up as 'possibly armed and dangerous'.

So, what about you? What do you believe in regards to the questions?

In general I'm in favor of freedom over restriction, and that includes guns. It's especially true (to a point) with guns because we're dealing with not only an offensive weapon, but also a defensive weapon. Gun control really has little capability of controlling criminal use of guns, gun control generally keeps guns out of law abiding citizens' hands. That's just common sense. Someone who breaks the law isn't going to respect gun control laws, someone who follows the law is.

Caltex · 04-26-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Well, i'm quite sure local cops and cops in the gang violence department will be able to tell who are gang members, i'm quite sure random searches of them might just help somewhere along the lines.

Searching people because they look funny is a police state action, where guilt is assumed of all citizens. How would you like it if cops walked up to you on the street and searched you for no reason? What if they start using that ability to not only search for guns, but other things?

dahermit · 04-26-2008, 09:49 PM

[quote=Kazikli Bey;172901]This would be simple way because you can stop your enemy (in this case, gangs) from getting certain guns legally (Tec-9, Mac-10s, etc), and limit them in what they can and can't have.
QUOTE]
"MAC-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The MAC-10 (Military Armament Corporation Model 10) is a highly compact, blowback operated, selective fire machine gun (technically, a machine pistol) ..."
The MAC-10 is full automatic and therefore not likely to be purchased legally in the U.S. and then sold to Mexican drug dealers.
The Tec-9 [SIC, Tek-9] is available through legal arms sales in the U.S. However it is no more than a pistol with a large capacity magazine and would not likely be of utility or interest to drug dealers who want a full auto.

Kazikli Bey · 04-26-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ummwhat

Well guess what buddy? Only between 2 and 5% of weapons used in crime were purchased legally. So you still are not doing anything of value. Illegal weapons are not too much more expensive. In many cases they are cheaper because the seller did not pay for them.

But you are removing the illegal weapons from the community, that is the point. If you force gangs to use registered weapons, it makes them easier to trace when they are used in gang related incidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ummwhat

No, that is not what it means. It means we need to stop sacrificing our liberties because we feel it will make us safer, because it does not make us safer. You should not expect the government to provide for your personal safety. That responsibility falls on you.

So, we should get rid of police forces and militaries? Because they are there for our protection. So, it is not their responsibility to protect us? What are we paying them for, get rid of them, the government shouldn't be expected to provide them for our personal safety

.

Ummwhat · 04-26-2008, 10:00 PM

Ok good. So we are in agreement. Gun control does nothing. So why do politicians push it?

Answer.

Because it makes the sheep feel safe, and wins votes.

Kazikli Bey · 04-26-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

In general I'm in favor of freedom over restriction, and that includes guns. It's especially true (to a point) with guns because we're dealing with not only an offensive weapon, but also a defensive weapon. Gun control really has little capability of controlling criminal use of guns, gun control generally keeps guns out of law abiding citizens' hands. That's just common sense. Someone who breaks the law isn't going to respect gun control laws, someone who follows the law is.

That is true to a point, but the ease in which one can get a gun in America is one of the key reasons that gun related incidences are so high, not only that the limited restrictions on them. I'm not calling for complete gun control, just measures to make it harder for criminals to carry them.

Kazikli Bey · 04-26-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Searching people because they look funny is a police state action, where guilt is assumed of all citizens. How would you like it if cops walked up to you on the street and searched you for no reason? What if they start using that ability to not only search for guns, but other things?

If you are a law-abiding citizen, you should have nothing to worry about if you get frisked by a cop. And it is not people who look funny, but known gang members that the police could frisk.