Political Polls [Pt.2: Political orientation]

[Cappytaino]

I support background checks, but a citizen that passes the check should be able to own whatever they want.

An ideal check (IMO, at least) would screen for any history of violent behavior and should also check a person's mental health through an evaluation and past records.

In my experience with the mental health care system, I've met people I like, but would never want them to be able to own a firearm.

[Ad Bot]

[Drydess]

gun control doesn't make sense to me; restricting it will probably make it so that there are even more gun problems
the only crimes that would be solved from that would be angsty teens shooting up schools, and despite that being bad there would be more problems created than them being solved

[Gytyyhgfffff]

how would there be more gun problems if we restrict guns

[Cappytaino]

how would there be more gun problems if we restrict guns

criminals have no regard for the law. Not difficult to figure that out.

Most every public place is already a gun free zone. Does that stop shootings?

[otto-san]

yeah, but if any forgeter can go to wal-mart and pick up an M11 i'd probably say that'd be a pretty large public safety hazard. there's definitely a reasonable middle ground

[rambo1220]

there should be no bans on guns whatsoever of any sort, but extensive background checks, and even moreso for Military Grade explosives and whatnot.

yeah, but if any forgeter can go to wal-mart and pick up an M11 i'd probably say that'd be a pretty large public safety hazard. there's definitely a reasonable middle ground

explain

[otto-san]

which part? i don't have much to add on the middle ground part if that's what you're asking, i was mostly just saying that a complete absence of gun control would probably be a bad idea these days

[rambo1220]

which part?

how it's a public safety hazard, Walmart does background checks so that seems fine by me, and not to mention if some forgeter's getting an M11 with malicious intent a background check won't stop him from obtaining it illegally.

[otto-san]

how it's a public safety hazard, Walmart does background checks so that seems fine by me, and not to mention if some forgeter's getting an M11 with malicious intent a background check won't stop him from obtaining it illegally.

i was taking about a non-existent hypothetical situation where there were zero gun restrictions, which would be a public safety hazard because anyone could have incredibly easy access to any gun they wanted as long as they could find one in stock and buy it, regardless of their history or intent

also it's generally going to be harder and riskier to get a gun illegally than it would be to go to your local Shoppe. doesn't stop them, but it's certainly not as easy as driving down to guns-r-us

[rambo1220]

i was taking about a non-existent hypothetical situation where there were zero gun restrictions, which would be a public safety hazard because anyone could have incredibly easy access to any gun they wanted as long as they could find one in stock and buy it, regardless of their history or intent

also it's generally going to be harder and riskier to get a gun illegally than it would be to go to your local Shoppe. doesn't stop them, but it's certainly not as easy as driving down to guns-r-us

ohh kk then, makes alot more sense with the context provided.

[Clone v.117]

Having restrictions and licenses doesn't negate your right to bear arms, but allowing easy access to guns is just irresponsible and a lot of people are dead because of it.
Restrict that stuff.

[Cappytaino]

yeah, but if any forgeter can go to wal-mart and pick up an M11 i'd probably say that'd be a pretty large public safety hazard. there's definitely a reasonable middle ground

which is why I support background checks. Once you pass, if you're a citizen, buy whatever the hell you want.

[sir dooble]

criminals have no regard for the law. Not difficult to figure that out.

Most every public place is already a gun free zone. Does that stop shootings?

But on the same token, criminals will always commit crimes. But if guns are restricted, or banned, then your average joe can't accidentally commit a guncrime, nor will he be able to easily take up guncrime.

There would be fewer guncrimes. Not all guncrimes are commited by career criminals. Many are accidents or crimes of passion.

[fireking]

b-but muh gun collection!!!!!

[Cappytaino]

But on the same token, criminals will always commit crimes. But if guns are restricted, or banned, then your average joe can't accidentally commit a guncrime, nor will he be able to easily take up guncrime.

There would be fewer guncrimes. Not all guncrimes are commited by career criminals. Many are accidents or crimes of passion.

a large part of the problem of gun violence in the US is gang violence. The most used firearms in such cases are .32 revolvers. I've never heard a single proposal to restrict a .32 revolver. All I hear about are larger caliber rifles and other long guns. Very little is ever said about handguns.

Another large component of the statistics on deaths relating to firearms is Self Delete. Almost two thirds of adult firearm related deaths are Self Deletes, at about 60%. Self Delete statistics are a completely different beast from homicides and attempted murder.

My state has some of the strictest gun laws in this country and I've heard of at least three shooting deaths in the last week in the town over. All three that died were in a Latino gang. Take it as you will, but laws don't do anything to these people.