Who should be restricted from owning a gun

I have left the options at multiple choice and some are deliberately vague. This I hope will lead to discussion as to where the cut off should be I,e, children - at what age is it appropriate for a child to own a gun?

 

Your categories are ok but the problem is... defining the problem. One person might think Bill is a great guy but the neighbor on the other side heard him raise his voice once and considers him extremely violent as a result. One person might think Liz is a great person but the neighbor on the other side sees her as overly forgetful and suffering from dementia. One person might think Henry is a great guy but the neighbor on the other side saw him yell at his wife once and considers him abusive. That's what is so scary about the new "red laws". Its so subjective as to be totally unconstitutional.

 

: roll:

When I wrote the poll I did not think I had to qualify or with “criminal record”

 

"Criminal record" and being on a terrorist watch list are cut and dried. Its a matter of record. "Dimentia", "psychiatric disturbance", and "domestic violence", however, is a lot more subjective.

 

The problem with it is it's leans too much on generalities.

One that particularly bothered me was people who are on a terrorist watch list. We have a political party in our country that tends to put anybody who gives them any resistance to any political movement in the terrorist category.

We had people going to their School district getting involved with democracy deemed terrorists by the department of Justice.

So all of those legal terms absolutely not. They'll make that up just to try and stop anybody and everyone from having guns.

I think if you're out of jail you should be allowed to own a gun. If a person can't be trusted to legally own a gun they can't be trusted to exist in a society where they can obtain one illegally and that's every society.

 

The result is people aren't going to answer your poll.

 

Correct. I won't answer the poll. Too much opinion... not enough facts. Same problem with the "red laws". All it takes is for someone... anyone ... to think a person is "demented" when just a little slow.... or "abusive" because they raise their voice. Its all too vague.

 

Why not just choose the first option?

 

Ownership of a bolt action rifle, a shotgun (excluding pump action), pellet/BB guns should be allowed as long as they meet the criteria of basically having a clean record as outlined in your poll.

Pistols, revolvers, automatic and semi-automatic rifles or any other weapon which can be used as a weapon of mass destruction should not be allowed.

 

"Weapons of mass destruction" are nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons... not guns. Guns are just... guns. And there is no gun made that can fire a million rounds at once.

Gun Control- A theory that assumes a woman lying dead in an alleyway, strangled with her own underwear, is somehow morally superior to another woman in the same back alley explaining to police how her attacker got that bullet hole in him.

 

Response #1 Don't wear underwear.

Response #2 Don't carry a gun since the attacker will most likely end up taking it away from you and shooting you with your own gun. Instead learn martial arts; most women can take a man down in seconds if she is properly trained. I like my theory better than yours since nobody dies.

 

I would much rather engage an attacker long before he gets close enough to hurt me. Ever hear the old adage "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"? There's a reason and a lot of wisdom behind that.

 

Everyone with the following exceptions:
-under 18 unless permitted by their legal guardian (schools and daycares are effectively temporary legal guardians)
-people on private property where guns arent permitted (this would apply to posession, not ownership)
-wards of the state such as incarcerated criminals and the mentally unfit (both should require a trial, jury and all due process be respected prior to the removal of civil rights)

 

Because it's not adequate.

I know we can't edit it now but let this help you in the future.

 

Why bother at all....if you've noted any threads or posts from Down Under regarding firearms they'd likely be fine with making the possession of a picture of a gun a criminal offense.

 

I find it funny they don't know anything about it. And they think they have valid points.

 

Texas "Constitutional Carry"... YAY TEXAS!
Texas new "Silencer" policy... YAY TEXAS!

 

Erm, first line should be "Nobody, with the following exceptions..."

 

I like it when the rapist dies.

 

Force him/her to eat my mother-in-laws meatloaf; it works every time.

 

BB, you've overlooked the issue with your poll.

Step back for a second, please.

EVERYONE that fits in any or all of your listed subgroups of society did NOT fit into those subgroups before they did something to add them to any of those lists.

 

You get a "like" because that was funny as hell.

 

People who are too dangerous to own a firearm are too dangerous to sit next to me on an airplane. A firearm does not transform a safe person into a dangerous one. Lock away the violent, and the non-violent can coexist peacefully, firearm or not.

 

Anyone adjudicated mentally unfit, or who is not competent as a witness in court, or a currently incarcerated person or person who has been released early from incarceration based upon terms of parole.

Anyone else is good to go. If that means you shouldn't let violent criminals off with a light sentence, then stop giving them a light sentence.

 

You are also missing the point. Every single violent person was, at one time, non-violent. Do you see why that formula doesn't work?