HR 45

[column5 63]

that's why I think gun laws often do more harm than good as they do little to stop the wrong people from getting guns, and from using them.

 

This is the key to this argument. To give you some hard facts, here in Tennessee we had a law for several years (just repealed earlier this year) that required the purchasers of firearms to have their thumb prints taken and placed on file. While this law was in effect, over 2.5 million sets of prints were taken and filed. During this time, the TBI (state criminal investigation office) requested exactly one (1) set of prints as part of a criminal investigation.

 

There are couple of conclusions that can be drawn from these facts.

 

1. People who purchase firearms through legal channels overwhelmingly do not use those firearms in the commission of crimes.

 

2. Criminals who employ firearms do not purchase their weapons through legal channels.

 

Therefore, laws that restrict the ability of citizens to purchase firearms through legal channels will have no positive effect on the incidence of crime involving guns.

[GwynO 16]

C5, I agree with those points to an extent, but two additional things would concern me from abandoning all restriction. First, the focus of any gun law should be to target the criminals, e.g. those who don't buy guns legally but from the black market, where are the proactive efforts to find and destroy those weapons going to come from without laws that clearly demarcate legal from illegal gun ownership. Secondly, I can't speak about what will happen in your part of the world because I don't live there, but from what I know of the UK and Greece, having the authorities know exactly what gun you have, who you are, where you live and even a thumb print is a huge disincentive that aids a person to "cool off" before making a decision on when and how they use their weapons, in a total free for all, some areas would suffer I think from an increased level of shoot first, regret later incidents, but of course that is not guaranteed to happen in all places, that depends on the underlying culture of the people. Big city anomie is totally an other world to mountaintop village, but the citizens of a country are all equal so I suppose any law faces the awkward balancing act of reflecting the needs of society regards the best behaved people, and the lowest common denominator.

 

A big stick works like a charm for most people to behave decently, the stick needs to be there though for the idiots, but the main conclusion I can draw from my experience of guns in the UK and in Greece is more needs to be done to stop the black market, to get rid of the gangs and the criminals, stop them at their root like feed them to the sharks, or send them off on rafts across the Med.

[column5 63]

C5, I agree with those points to an extent, but two additional things would concern me from abandoning all restriction.

 

Well, note that I'm not advocating abandoning all restrictions...the fact that we require a simple criminal background check (done electronically, usually only taking a few minutes to complete) is precisely what makes our system work so well--criminals can't pass the check, and thus can't buy firearms through legal channels. Because of that, the incidence of legally-purchased firearms being used to commit crimes is quite low (it does happen, often in domestic disputes).

 

I am saying that further restrictions on law-abiding citizens will not have any effect on the incidence of guns being used to commit crimes, because the criminals are already getting their weapons through underground channels.

[GwynO 16]

Well, note that I'm not advocating abandoning all restrictions.

Totally

 

 

I am saying that further restrictions on law-abiding citizens will not have any effect on the incidence of guns being used to commit crimes, because the criminals are already getting their weapons through underground channels.

 

That is the key issue that gets thrown out by the extremists on either side, the anarchists who think that there isn't a need for ANY restrictions, licensing, checks or anything at all that goes between an individual and their gun, and the woolly minded hippies on the other side who don't trust any civilian to have a gun no matter what.. those extremists spoil the fun for everyone else and cloud the real solution to the problem which is give people a chance to behave decently with guns, but more importantly, DO something about the black market and the criminals that use it.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Kopis n Xiphos

[+Brain32 265]

I am saying that further restrictions on law-abiding citizens will not have any effect on the incidence of guns being used to commit crimes, because the criminals are already getting their weapons through underground channels.

Apsolutely true! Like I said I can't own a gun legally here, but just two days ago a bank was robbed and the robber had a freakin AK-47!!!!!

[JediMaster 451]

So, will he face more time for the bank robbery or having the AK?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Kipo::

cancellation of a soap opera (men), or to complain about cancelling of a soap opera (women)

heeh thanks for that. :good:

[herman01 0]

From what I've seen no Congressional Committee has even picked this bill up. I think there's a reason that the legislative process exists, and to its credit it can be good at almost never allowing "dumb"“bills to make it anywhere. This bill can't even see they the light of a committee hearing so it's not very reasonable to worry about.

Edited May 9, 2009 by herman01

[eraser_tr 29]

The sad thing is, alot of good bills never make it anywhere too.