A Poll About Gun Control

[Noomi]

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?

 

[Ragnar]

I picked "B".

You don't violate the rights of one man because 99 volunteered to give up theirs.

 

[bayoubill]

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"...

 

[dblack]

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?

Hmm.... if this man is 'known to be dangerous' he should be in jail. He certainly shouldn't have a gun.

 

[syrenn]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Unless the individual has violated the law or is properly adjudged mentally incompetent you and the other 99 people do not get to decide his rights do not apply.

The Constitution is clear. The laws are clear. Just because 99 people do not trust or like one man does not give them the right to take away his rights.

How about the fact you insist a man found not guilty by a Jury of his peers is still guilty? Your opinion nor that or x amount of citizens does not allow for violating the law or the Constitution. Your feels have nothing to do with it.

And that in the end is what you are basing this hypothetical on, not facts, not the law, nothing tangible, just your feelings. Exactly why the Constitution and the laws exist, to protect us from a majorities FEELINGS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

The government may not take property without due process, and that someone is known to be dangerous is not justification for taking property, or subjecting someone to other punitive measures.

Ideally the person in question would receive the mental health treatment he needs to avoid potential dangerous behavior.

The problem is not the availability of firearms, but the inability or unwillingness to address mental health issues in a comprehensive and responsible manner.

 

[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?

Dangerous people don't need guns to harm people.... They use whatever is easy to hand...even using their hands... You see dear person, it's not the weapon that is dangerous..it is merely a hunk of whatever. The dangerous thing is the person using it....


Below are all Canadian Axe murderers..... You going to outlaw all axes? All knives? All hammers? Some day you might get it.... You can't outlaw everything...




B.C. Axe Murderer Who Killed His Mother 'Psychotic'

Girlfriend found guilty in Toronto axe murder - News - MSN CA

North Vancouver axe murderer gets life - News - North Shore News

 

[auditor0007]

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.

 

[S.J.]

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

 

[Missourian]

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?

False premise.

Forcibly removing the gun doesn't "make everyone else safe".

When the one guy with the firearm hears someone screaming for help next door, looks through the window of the neighbors house and sees this...

[youtube]d37NjA-drpg[/youtube]​

...and uses his gun to stop the assault and apprehend or kill the intruder...THAT makes everyone safer.

 

[Politico]

You hate guns we get it.

 

[idb]

You hate guns we get it.

You get nothing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The only logical answer is B

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

You make that last statement as if it were a proven fact: it isn't. It isn't true and it is not a fact. If it is, then prove it. Where is your empirical evidence of such a 'fact'?

 

[Indofred]

The only logical answer is B

Only if you use twisted logic.
The only reasonable answer is, A

 

[orogenicman]

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The only logical answer is B

Only if you use twisted logic.
The only reasonable answer is, A

What part of "the right to bear arms" do you have a problem with?

Just because 99 people chose not to exercise their right does not give them license to deny anyone else that right.

 

[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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"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.