A Poll About Gun Control

[Luddly Neddite]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.

About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.

Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.

They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.

Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:

Should everyone give up their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.

About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.

Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.

They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.

Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:

Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?

SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.

 

[boedicca]

The poll choices are inadequate.

In such a small group of people (100), it is irresponsible for 99 to hand in their weapons given that at least some of them should have known that one person was dangerous. If the 99 are so clueless that they would give up their means of defense against such a person, they should be assigned guardians and institutionalized as they are incapable of handling the responsibilities of being self-sufficient adults.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If there is a man in a community of 100 who is dangerous and untrustworthy and everybody knows it, why would they disarm themselves?

 

[asterism]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

Option B because the situation you described is why voluntarily turning in the guns won't work.

 

[Mertex]

I don't believe in taking guns away from people, but making sure that the people that buy them are sane is important.

I don't know how the people in this make-believe town would feel safe if they gave up their guns and looney still had his.

Seems to me like you've been watching "Under the Dome"!

 

[hjmick]

Kill the dangerous guy...

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'm willing to bet 50 would say they are turning in their guns but then keep them.

 

[S.J.]

Everybody in the town owns a gun, but there's no crime. Why would anyone not feel safe to begin with?

 

[Desperado]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I picked B ,but the question has some problems -- mainly was the man perceived to be violent or did he have a rap sheet? If he was felonious in anyway he'd had never had the gun so the question is kind of moot. When you say "known" to be violent that infers that he has been in trouble with the law.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.

Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.

 

[westwall]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

sorry, no gun control.

if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.


and just an fyi..... the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect.

And thanks to the second amendment, that person usually has a gun.

More to the point the old lady or the disabled man does too. The gun is not in the hands of ONLY THE CRIMINAL! But you already knew that didn't you olfraud?

 

[MikeK]

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:


Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent


Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics

 

[Meister]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

I can't vote on any hypothetical poll like this. The parameter is so tight as not to be any part of reality.

 

[Mertex]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

Ya, think?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/308911-a-poll-about-gun-control-2.html#post7717068

 

[Desperado]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.

Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.

I did not say it was a requirement to prove you are a true American, I just said that a true American would not give up their gun if they owned one.

 

[Bleipriester]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

Neither a) nor b).
The 99 fellow fools should have known the "dangerous guy" would not give up his guns.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.

Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.

Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.

I did not say it was a requirement to prove you are a true American, I just said that a true American would not give up their gun if they owned one.

Fair enough. I've just seen the sentiment that gun owners are somehow truer Americans than others, kind of like some of my fellow veterans that somehow feel they are truer Americans because they served. I guess I "jumped the gun" a bit (forgive the pun).

Anyway, I'm a veteran AND I own a gun, and have never felt like I was more of an American than anybody else. That attitude bothers me. If I assigned that attitude to you out of line I apologize.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

If your little town was absolutely and completely isolated from the rest of the world (i.e., never, ever subject to occasional visits by bands of outlaws, rogue government agencies, pissed-off ex-spouses, or other such folks with bad intent), then I might be tempted to vote for "A"...

otherwise, I'd vote for "B"...

This goes to the simple point of how gun control can work. It can only work if all guns are removed completely as is done in countries such as Great Britain. And even with that, murders will still happen, but the overall deaths are likely to decrease. The problem is that we live in a society where one governmental jurisdiction wants guns banned, but anyone can still get a gun by leaving that jurisdiction and then bring the gun back into that jurisdiction to do what they may with it. Without removing all guns from society, the bad guys will still have them, so nobody is any safer.

Except that you have just spouted a falsehood. Homicides never decreased as a matter of removing guns in Britton. They remain essentially unchanged (considering that the trend was moving up to begin with).

Of course, the OP really did not want to get into the details of successful gun legislation (because there isn’t any) but the question does hinge on that supposition.

It is a false idea that the rest of the 99 people are somehow ‘safe’ because there are no guns.