good gun laws and bad ones....

[lukster]

Originally posted by lazs2
Background checks would still be needed but could be electronic and instant.

lazs

They are in Texas so it's certainly possible everywhere.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2
Background checks would still be needed but could be electronic and instant.

lazs

That is a problem up here in ma., criminals are going to places like maine and georgia to purchase guns w/o background checks at flea markets, then bringing them back here.

We used to have a law up here years ago that kept gun crime real low, not sure if we still have it or if they enforce it as they should. If you were caught with an illegal handgun(illegal mind you, and just a handgun) you did a year mandatory.

When I was young everyone owned a shotgun and the guy next door was a taxidermist, so we are not as anti gun as you think.

[FiLtH]

Everyone should be able to own a gun. This increases the chance they will use it committing a crime, which increases the chance the cops will have to use deadly force on the individual, which reduces prison populations.

[Angus]

Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Angus
Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns

Like guns, words can be dangerous too.  Also like guns, freedom of speech is protected by the bill of rights.

Would you advocate a permit for public speech?  In case you don't feel there's a good comparison, I'd like to note that public speech has been responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries, far more than have ever been killed by guns.  Also, more damning, just about EVERYONE has a mouth.

[Sandman]

I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.

We already have that in many states don't we? I am pretty sure Cali has the, use a gun in a crime add 5 years, fire a gun add 10, shoot someone life law don't we?


You know the only gun laws that work and punish the criminal and not law abiding gun owners.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Angus
Anyone with a criminal record: No. Not unless cleared.
A gun owner should have a permit.
Terms for the permit: mental health, a course taken, and guarantoors for the individual.
And I'd skip automatic's and handguns

Everyone does have a permit, it's called the constitution.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Like guns, words can be dangerous too.  Also like guns, freedom of speech is protected by the bill of rights.

Would you advocate a permit for public speech?  In case you don't feel there's a good comparison, I'd like to note that public speech has been responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries, far more than have ever been killed by guns.  Also, more damning, just about EVERYONE has a mouth.

Somebody sentenced for i.e. armed assault, rape, murder, robbery, burglary, battering etc should IMHO NOT be able to walk to the armory and buy an assault rifle.
Clear enough ?

[Chairboy]

Sentenced?  You mean, they're in jail?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
We already have that in many states don't we? I am pretty sure Cali has the, use a gun in a crime add 5 years, fire a gun add 10, shoot someone life law don't we?

You know the only gun laws that work and punish the criminal and not law abiding gun owners.

Are these laws working?

[Angus]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Sentenced?  You mean, they're in jail?

After jail.
Criminal record is the name.

Would you like to see Charles Manson with a pair of Uzis?

[Chairboy]

Well, Chuck Manson is still in jail, so no.  

Also, I feel (as I have mentioned at the top of the thread) that once someone serves their time, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.  If you continue to treat people like criminals, then they will remain criminals.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Sandman
Are these laws working?

You know I am not sure, I tried to find more info on them but I suck at googling lol.


I have heard they work well, but I can't find much to back it up.   They sound like a good idea though.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder if it would be easier to put the legislation on the other end of the spectrum. Rather than worry about gun licensing, background checks, mandatory waiting periods, CC permits, etc., make the penalty for illegal use very severe. If someone uses a firearm (or even an imitation firearm) while committing a crime, the punished severely.

The laws are on the books. The problem is the refusal to apply and prosecute. See: Project Exile.

If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, the odds of you being prosecuted for the crime itself are excellent, provided you're caught. The odds of you being prosecuted for the use of the firearm in the commission of that crime are the same as being killed by terrorists, struck by lightning, or winning the lottery. There are a FEW exceptions to that, in SOME very rare locales.

As it stands, legal gun owners are in favor of, and have long campaigned for, massive and severe penalties including very long manditory sentences for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime.