Poll on gun control methods
Please select your preferred prospective laws for achieving the desired control over gun violence.
If I've missed your concept, let me know and I'll add you preference.
| 23 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
| No new laws. The current laws are fine. | |
9 (39%) |
|
| No new laws but better reporting of those with mental and drug issues. | |
2 (9%) |
|
| No new laws but better reporting of those with mental and drug issues and crimes involving gang activity. | |
10 (43%) |
|
| Ban all handguns. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Ban all handguns and mag fed rifles. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Ban all firearms. | |
2 (9%) |
|
| Ban pistol mags > 10. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Ban pistol and rifle mags > 10. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
continues to fall while firearms ownership continues to rise.
Can you explain that?
The smuggling of guns is already outlawed. 
. how do you stop it? We can't even stop illegal immigration, stop the smuggling of drugs.
Also there is the matter of the second amendment, how are you going to get around that? How about the 280-300 millions of firearms already out there? Are you going to be part of the confiscation team? Or are you going to let someone else do your dirty work?
Do you really want a Repuke govt. for the forseeable future?
Did you even think this through? 
...in your world.
You seem to be in a world of your own.
BTW: welcome to DU.
I don't care what the laws are, but I think people should have the right to determine the laws for their city, and not be dictated to by the rural rest of the state, which has a completely different dynamic with regard to guns. Likewise, I don't think a populous enough city should get to dictate the gun laws of rural areas. If someone wants to carry a gun into a big city, they should know to check the laws first and make sure they are in compliance. If they don't like the laws and don't want to comply, don't come, or leave the gun behind.
My example for this is Philadelphia vs. Pennsylvania. To those who would argue that tighter gun control won't do anything to lower violence in the city, you may be correct (or not, I don't know) but that is not the point. People should get to determine their own laws, not be dictated to by others who have no experience at all with their situation. Let the city try the laws the people agree to, and when/if it doesn't lower violence, and people want to loosen the laws again, they can. (I have a similar philosophy with regard to drug and alcohol laws, too, btw. If a town is dry and I don't want to be there, I just don't go. Somewhere else gets my business. If the feds would stop being assholes about mj laws I would move to a more reasonable state. Of course, with global warming, Alaska will be a habitable place to live soon enough.)
Of course, any law the city adopts should still respect the right of law-abiding citizens to have and use guns for legitimate purposes.
(I'm not a regular gungeon poster, and may or may not return to this thread. Fire away! 
)
... and welcome. It's always great to have a fresh opinion.
Being a Philadelphia native, myself, and also having traveled extensively in the state, I realize that there are exceptional differences between say downtown Philly and the outskirts of Mile Run. I personally believe that the laws ought to be rather uniform like the traffic laws but I'll listen to what you have to say about exceptions/differences for both ends.
So what did you have in mind?
For one example, straw purchases are a huge issue. People who live in and pay attention to how things happen in Philly and what laws might have an effect, should be able to vote on more stringent purchasing controls, for example. Maybe. I actually don't live in Philly, just the burbs, but hear about this on the news. I'm not enough of a gun law follower to know what might work. But the people who are right there in the middle of it should have the right to try. After all it is their tax dollars, police and fire departments that have to clean up the mess.
I don't really care about a homeowner wanting to have a gun or two for protection or sport. I care about the right of people to try to address the issues they see on their own streets. Almost no one involved in the city-vs-rural discussion, is talking about shutting down gun ownership completely. There is a problem and people are looking for solutions. They should not have their hands tied - within the recognition that there is a level of gun rights protected by the Constitution. There is a line somewhere between allowing people to own all the nukes they want and buy them and play with them anywhere, vs no one but law enforcement having anything remotely resembling a firearm. Mostly we disagree on the line. No one in the city/rural discussion is taking the latter position. If they do, no one will listen to them anyway, because it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge and no one wants to waste their time, if they really care about actually solving the problem.
Anyway, I mostly just felt that option was missing from the poll, so I thought I'd throw it in there. It's probably not worth much more of my time here.
...should be addressed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what a reasonable measure to do so would be. In the urban v rural situation, if all that was required to circumvent the law was driving over the city line to one of the suburbs, legal measures enforced within the city will only be a partial solution.
I am okay with having certain municipal level measures required of FFLs within the city. I am okay with requiring private sales to include an NICS check either at the city level or even the whole state.
You've got something to contribute here. It's good to hear from you.
Thanks.
...but there are plenty of gun-owning Dems. Why to do you equate gun ownership with Republicanism? That really does sound like an NRA backed idea.
BTW, welcome.
...a funny guy 