Poll: Your view on Gun Control

[IconOfEvi]

It seems everyday, politicians offer more incentives for a person to operate, remain, and exist outside of 'the law'

Just an observation

[NeedsABetterName]

If the suspect was at large and you were known to own such a weapon then why not?

I've had police come to my door because I own a similar car to what was used in a crime. Police need to investigate the possibilities. 99.9% of the time it's simply a matter "I was drinking beer watching the game officer or trolling neo cons on Mp.Net"

They wouldn't be doing their job would they?

In the US, you've narrowed your suspect pool down to a few million people. Good police work, I guess.

Canada, our northern neighbor, recently went through this debate. Curiously, the scenario you describe simply hasn't played out in a significant manner. Quite the opposite, the police there are reporting minimal crimes being solved with their registry.

[IconOfEvi]

I think a very important unmentioned point is that maximal freedom in gun law is the most moral option

Basically, maximal freedom, and even a required state of being armed says two things:

* That your government has a reason, an incentive to be good, and do the right thing and preserve and extend the freedom you won.

* That with even a maximally violent and armed society, you trust your fellow citizens with your life



People confuse the state with the nation too easily...

[Malcolm22]

Gun control = same s***, different day.

a gun is a tool- a tool thats has a variety of uses; depending on the situation and the user.

I've heard somewhere that countries with tight gun control have less gun related crimes;
possibly true, but some of the listed countries such as Israel- That country almost always at war and all of its citizens are inlisted in the military.

Here is some food for thought: those countries without guns have been invaded at some time.

The are other countries out there ( mostly 3rd world nations) that have a lot of violence (including gun violence).

[sidewinderl]

If the suspect was at large and you were known to own such a weapon then why not?

I've had police come to my door because I own a similar car to what was used in a crime. Police need to investigate the possibilities. 99.9% of the time it's simply a matter "I was drinking beer watching the game officer or trolling neo cons on Mp.Net"

They wouldn't be doing their job would they?

Do you drive a metallic green 1964 Buick Skylark convertible with a white top?

[NeedsABetterName]

Gun control = same s***, different day.

a gun is a tool- a tool thats has a variety of uses; depending on the situation and the user.

I've heard somewhere that countries with tight gun control have less gun related crimes;
possibly true, but some of the listed countries such as Israel- That country almost always at war and all of its citizens are inlisted in the military.

Here is some food for thought: those countries without guns have been invaded at some time.

The are other countries out there ( mostly 3rd world nations) that have a lot of violence (including gun violence).

The United States has had foreign troops on its soil at least two since the Revolution: the War of 1812 and World War II. Switzerland being the lone exception I'm aware of, there isn't really a correlation between "having guns" and "not being invaded." A lot of our good fortune stemmed from the fact that we're across two major oceans from the rest of the major world powers, which is why an invasion was a difficult prospect.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

In the US, you've narrowed your suspect pool down to a few million people. Good police work, I guess.

Canada, our northern neighbor, recently went through this debate. Curiously, the scenario you describe simply hasn't played out in a significant manner. Quite the opposite, the police there are reporting minimal crimes being solved with their registry.

But like I mentioned. It's not about preventing crime. It's simply about PR and making it appear you are doing something to prevent it.

[NeedsABetterName]

But like I mentioned. It's not about preventing crime. It's simply about PR and making it appear you are doing something to prevent it.

So what you're getting at is that there's little to no reason behind such legislation apart from its feel-good nature? Sounds like excellent public policy.

[IconOfEvi]

But like I mentioned. It's not about preventing crime. It's simply about PR and making it appear you are doing something to prevent it.

Whimsical feelings and PR is not a good foundation for fundamental constitutional law

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Exactly. The trick with this issue is that you need laws that make it appear something is being done when it actual fact nothing is being done.

[NeedsABetterName]

Exactly. The trick with this issue is that you need laws that make it appear something is being done when it actual fact nothing is being done.

OK. I just wanted to be clear on what you meant before I pointed out that such an idea flies contrary to every last bit of public policy education I've had (several years, by the way). Furthermore, considering the goal of public policy to "do it better," to solve some sort of societal problem in a more effective manner than it is currently being solved, your logic falls flat.

The idea that we create laws to appear to be acting, while in reality doing "nothing" (though the gun registration scheme you proposed has led to a lot more than "nothing" in the past) strikes me as an asinine waste of time for legislators. Quite frankly, it worries me that people who think that such a method is rational vote.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

OK. I just wanted to be clear on what you meant before I pointed out that such an idea flies contrary to every last bit of public policy education I've had (several years, by the way). Furthermore, considering the goal of public policy to "do it better," to solve some sort of societal problem in a more effective manner than it is currently being solved, your logic falls flat.

The idea that we create laws to appear to be acting, while in reality doing "nothing" (though the gun registration scheme you proposed has led to a lot more than "nothing" in the past) strikes me as an asinine waste of time for legislators. Quite frankly, it worries me that people who think that such a method is rational vote.

It's how politics works. If it worries you that voting people can think of such things then it must scare the crap out of you because every single politician thinks the same way as I do.

Fact of the matter is that very few if any politicians actually do anything to improve anything and most pieces of government policy are just rewording of existing laws and regulations that already exist

[NeedsABetterName]

It's how politics works. If it worries you that voting people can think of such things then it must scare the crap out of you because every single politician thinks the same way as I do.

Fact of the matter is that very few if any politicians actually do anything to improve anything and most pieces of government policy are just rewording of existing laws and regulations that already exist

I don't disagree that politicians pass a lot of feel-good legislation. Times of crisis are perfect for anybody wishing to make a name for themselves. The fact that you would suggest or encourage such behavior, however, is what is worrisome.

[Smok]

What country has "guns for everyone"? Certainly the US doesn't.

Comparing to Polish law (and European) it is "guns for everyone".

[Gunbuyer]

I have over 80 firearms (last count) to include a MG34 that said I'm a collector, I enjoy being able to have them and will continue to buy more. I have no want for any laws that are resrictive of my gun rights such as they have in the Europe.