Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[applecorped]

Since automobiles kill more people every year than deaths by firearms, I guess gas should be $10,000 a gallon?

No. Gas should be free.

 

[gumboot]

I guess your country does not trust its citizens to own firearms.

Or alternatively his citizens trust their government enough that they don't feel like they need them.

Seriously, you guys should consider a Constitutional Monarchy. I am sure Her Majesty would let you back in if you asked.

If a tyrant government tried to establish itself here or in the land of your northern neighbours, our absentee landlord would simply order the military and police to dispose of said government, and elections would be held.

No need to worry about popular uprisings.

 

[Cicero]

No. Gas should be free.

So it isn't the numbers of innocoent people killed, just the method used?

 

[Tricky]

Can you name a single case in which that has happened? There are large numbers legally armed citizens in the US that go into public places every day and yet there have been no examples of any of them starting a gun fight.

You don't know of any examples? Nightclubs, bars and pool halls are notorious for this sort of thing. People get in fights and somebody pulls a gun. Here's one example.

Police say an argument on the dance floor of a Baltimore nightclub spilled out onto the streets about 2 a.m. Saturday, leaving one woman dead and two others wounded by gunfire.
Officer Nicole Monroe says the female shooter remained at large Saturday.
Monroe says the suspect was bumped on the dance floor of the Coconuts Cafe and got into an argument with at least two women before leaving.
She says the woman attacked the two friends using a metal pipe and a handgun early Saturday outside the club.

I must be misunderstanding your point, because gunfights break out in Texas with some degree of regularity. Read the crime blotter of your local paper. In Houston, you'll see several a week.

 

[Cicero]

Or alternatively his citizens trust their government enough that they don't feel like they need them.

Seriously, you guys should consider a Constitutional Monarchy. I am sure Her Majesty would let you back in if you asked.

If a tyrant government tried to establish itself here or in the land of your northern neighbours, our absentee landlord would simply order the military and police to dispose of said government, and elections would be held.

No need to worry about popular uprisings.

After the Founding Fathers had a belly full of British rule, they were not as trusting of government as you seem to think Canadians are of their government. That's why they placed the right to bear firearms second to freedom of speech. Odd how outside of New Zealand, Commonwealth countries have draconian firearm laws.

 

[Texas]

Iraq?

Specious

 

[Texas]

You don't know of any examples? Nightclubs, bars and pool halls are notorious for this sort of thing. People get in fights and somebody pulls a gun. Here's one example.



I must be misunderstanding your point, because gunfights break out in Texas with some degree of regularity. Read the crime blotter of your local paper. In Houston, you'll see several a week.

It says nothing about her being legally in possession of a gun and there isn't a state in the Union that allows guns, legal or not in a bar. Yes guns are used all the time by criminals if that is what you meant.

 

[Texas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Statistics

Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007[update], 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[46] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[47] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007[update].[48]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small. North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[49]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[50]

 

[Tricky]

It says nothing about her being legally in possession of a gun and there isn't a state in the Union that allows guns, legal or not in a bar. Yes guns are used all the time by criminals if that is what you meant.

It also says nothing about her using the gun in the bar. If it was legal posession (and we can't know, because she is still at large) then your point is moot.

But you know, people who were not criminals up until the point where they used the gun illegally also have guns and they often use them to commit their first felony. It is a well documented fact that no gun crimes are committed in places where no guns are present. Yes, other crimes, including murders occur, but having guns around greatly increases the chance of a fatality.

 

[balrog666]

I had a poll on this a long time ago and it seems to have been lost.

I am repeating to see if I get similar results.

The poll is for US residents that identify themselves as liberal or conservative, to measure the spectrum of opinion on gun control.

For purposes of this thread, assume that the 2nd amendment is not in effect. If you think it's a good idea, feel free to vote for the banning of all firearms without regard to the legality of it.

In other words, I'm trying to gather opinions without factoring in the side issue of how to interpret the Constitution properly.

With regard to local differences in laws, make your vote according to your impression of gun control laws overall in the US, especially federal laws.

Liberal/Conservative only covers one axis of the political spectrum. Practically speaking that's an incredible waste of time.

 

[Pardalis]

I guess your country does not trust its citizens to own firearms.

Or alternatively his citizens trust their government enough that they don't feel like they need them.

I tend to agree with Gumboot. The people should work and enjoy life, the police and the law is there to protect the people, let them carry the guns.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I am, as ever, frustrated by a poll that requires me to declare myself as "liberal" or "conservative" before stating my view on the subject at hand. I'm not either. I am generally "socially liberal"--what people smoke, drink, read, view or screw is not the State's business--and "fiscally conservative"--the State should stick to a limited list of responsibilities, and should collect and spend tax money parsimoniously. What does that make me?

I am in favor of a uniform federal requirement on licensing and tracking gun and ammunition sales; I am in favor of mandatory gun handling/safety exams, similar to the requirement for a driver's license; and I think that mandating Liability Insurance would solve many of the problems with inadequate gun storage. (I am open to the notion that certain kinds of weapons--military-type semi-auto and fully automatic, high volume weapons--should require a higher level of licensing, comparable to the special endorsements that are required to ride a motorcycle or drive a semi.) I think that Shooting--or even Carrying--Under the Influence should be a crime (though Carrying should be a 'secondary offense').

I think enforcement of existing laws would be a good place to start. I think "gun people" turning in careless gun users would do a lot to disarm (no pun intended) the Ban The Guns sentiment in this country.

I also think that if some people on the VT campus had been armed, there would have been a dead gunman--or at least, a holed-up gunman--when the police arrived. I think comparing a circumstance with a clear nutjob attacking what he believes to be an unarmed group to a couple of gangbangers outside a nightclub is ridiculous--those posts obviously from someone who does not know people who use guns for recreation or hunting. The "cowboy" behavior on TV shows is not how responsible gun owners act: A popular pastime in shooter groups is pointing out errors in gun handling in movies and on TV!

Criminals will get guns regardless of the law; but a small percentage of responsible, trained gun owners can act as a protective balance against that, especially in places where the time to law enforcement response is long. Yet I think that gun ownership is not and should not be an unmitigated right, since the consequences of misuse and negligence are demonstrably high.

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

 

[Miss_Kitt]

But you know, people who were not criminals up until the point where they used the gun illegally also have guns and they often use them to commit their first felony. It is a well documented fact that no gun crimes are committed in places where no guns are present. Yes, other crimes, including murders occur, but having guns around greatly increases the chance of a fatality.

Evidence?*

I would expect that most people who use a gun as part of their first felony have a history of lesser law-breaking behavior before then. But I am of course going to go with the weight of the evidence.

Thanks, Miss Kitt


*Boy, I really feel like a JREF-er now.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The two leading choices seem to indicate that most people - conservative & liberal alike - are pretty much okay with things as they are.

So what's all the hubbub?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am, as ever, frustrated by a poll that requires me to declare myself as "liberal" or "conservative" before stating my view on the subject at hand. I'm not either. I am generally "socially liberal"--what people smoke, drink, read, view or screw is not the State's business--and "fiscally conservative"--the State should stick to a limited list of responsibilities, and should collect and spend tax money parsimoniously. What does that make me?

Smart

 

[dirtywick]

Except firearms clearly don't prevent people being robbed, mugged, raped and murdered, so I fail to see the relevance.

Not absolutely.

I think people have a personal right to protect themselves, others, and their property. As much as the government can try to provide that right to everyone, it's simply not possible. I think firearm regulation is reasonable now in what's essentially allowing people to provide themselves that right.

 

[Cicero]

It also says nothing about her using the gun in the bar. If it was legal posession (and we can't know, because she is still at large) then your point is moot.

But you know, people who were not criminals up until the point where they used the gun illegally also have guns and they often use them to commit their first felony. It is a well documented fact that no gun crimes are committed in places where no guns are present. Yes, other crimes, including murders occur, but having guns around greatly increases the chance of a fatality.

Or, plenty of gun crimes are committed in areas (i.e. New York City) where there are laws against law-biding people from caring firearms.

But you now, people who are not criminals up until the point they get behind the wheel drunk and they injure or kill someone also have autos, and they have used autos to commit their first, second and third felony.

 

[Cicero]

I tend to agree with Gumboot. The people should work and enjoy life, the police and the law is there to protect the people, let them carry the guns.

Why should the government make that decision for the citizen? How are the police going to protect you during the time the intruder has entered your home and is heading for your bedroom?

Why would you provide special dispensation for the police to own and carry firearms and not a law-biding citizen?

 

[Drudgewire]

My right wing friends accuse me of being too liberal. My left wing friends accuse me of being too conservative. Since there's no "I don't let political ideologies dictate me" option I can't vote in the poll.

But I looooves me some guns, carry one everywhere I go.

 

[fuelair]

I'm sorry about that.

But can't one defend oneself without the use of a gun? If the criminal is using a gun, then this comes back to the question of how he acquired the gun in the first place.

Not from a gun (well, in the right circumstances, yes, but if you can't control the circumstances, control your weapon). In those situations, I have never heard of a victim being worried about how the bad guy got his gun/knife/cosh, just what he did to the victim with it or due to it's presence.