Americans' Dissatisfaction With Gun Laws Highest Since 2001.

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Master_Live (14191 posts) -

Increase in proportion who are dissatisfied and want less strict laws

Americans' dissatisfaction with U.S. gun laws and policies has increased to 55%, nearly matching the high of 57% in 2001. Forty percent are satisfied, down from the historical average of 47% since Gallup began asking this question in this way in 2001.

Overall, Americans' satisfaction with gun laws ranks near the middle of a list of 19 issues measured in Gallup's 2014 update of its annual Mood of the Nation survey. The highest levels of satisfaction were with the nation's military strength and ability to deal with terrorism; the lowest were with poverty and homelessness and the state of the nation's economy.

Americans may be dissatisfied with gun laws because they believe they should be stricter, or because they believe the laws are too strict as they are. Therefore, Gallup asks those who are dissatisfied with gun laws to choose among explanations for their dissatisfaction. Those who are dissatisfied have historically leaned heavily in the direction of wanting stricter rather than less strict laws.

But this year, the gap between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting less strict laws narrowed as a result of a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who want less strict laws, now at 16% up from 5% a year ago. Support for making gun laws stricter fell to 31% from 38% last January. The January 2013 poll was conducted shortly after the December 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting tragedy, which sparked some state governments to consider new gun laws and a robust national discussion about the issue.

More Americans "Very Dissatisfied" With Current U.S. Gun Laws Than Ever Before

In addition to overall dissatisfaction with gun laws rising, more Americans this year are "very dissatisfied" (35%) versus "somewhat dissatisfied" (20%). The 15-percentage-point gap between these views is the largest in Gallup's trend.

Implications

In the wake of multiple shootings around the U.S over the last few years, President Barack Obama pledged in his 2014 State of the Union address that he would continue trying to prevent shootings in shopping malls, movie theaters, and schools. Several states introduced legislation in 2013 to restrict gun ownership, although similar legislation failed at a national level.

Americans have become more dissatisfied with gun laws over the past year, but this is attributable to a greater percentage who say gun laws are too strict, rather than not being strict enough. Americans' changing views could set the course for future gun law debates and legislation.

--------------------------------------

Chew on that.

#2 Posted by toast_burner (21450 posts) -

Why does it matter what they feel? Laws shouldn't be made by mob rule.

#3 Posted by comp_atkins (31269 posts) -

Why does it matter what they feel? Laws shouldn't be made by mob rule.

uh.. actually a lot of them are

#4 Posted by dave123321 (33787 posts) -

Have gone laws gotten significantly more strict this past decade

#5 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3794 posts) -

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

#6 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

First do you have a link to that. Taking in the risks of having a gun in the house, statistically having a pool is a ton more dangerous. Also I remember seeing in the newspaper the Gun homicide rate has been down by nearly 50% since 1993; however thanks to the media Americans think the number is up significantly. .

Also if the trend continues people wanting strict laws will over take the ones wanting more strict laws. Also gun laws don't really do anything with the criminals, and also ignore the main point on the recent shootings. Mainly America's lack of a mental health care system.

#7 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

Gun laws aren't properly enforced anyway. More gun laws aren't going to do anything in a culture that likes guns, and a criminal culture that has easy access to guns illegally.

There are certain places around the country that have created stricter gun laws over the past twenty years, but that hasn't really happened nationally. There have been attempts, but nothing has passed divided or GOP-controlled Congresses.

#8 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3794 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

First do you have a link to that. Taking in the risks of having a gun in the house, statistically having a pool is a ton more dangerous. Also I remember seeing in the newspaper the Gun homicide rate has been down by nearly 50% since 1993; however thanks to the media Americans think the number is up significantly. .

Also if the trend continues people wanting strict laws will over take the ones wanting more strict laws. Also gun laws don't really do anything with the criminals, and also ignore the main point on the recent shootings. Mainly America's lack of a mental health care system.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

#9 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5287 posts) -

@Chaos_HL21 said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

First do you have a link to that. Taking in the risks of having a gun in the house, statistically having a pool is a ton more dangerous. Also I remember seeing in the newspaper the Gun homicide rate has been down by nearly 50% since 1993; however thanks to the media Americans think the number is up significantly. .

Also if the trend continues people wanting strict laws will over take the ones wanting more strict laws. Also gun laws don't really do anything with the criminals, and also ignore the main point on the recent shootings. Mainly America's lack of a mental health care system.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

I think a better question to ask is why are people committing suicide, and stricter gun laws will not make people less likely to have depression or suicidal feelings.

#10 Edited by Audacitron (915 posts) -

Have gone laws gotten significantly more strict this past decade

No. Although NRA and right-wing fear-mongering over gun control reached fever pitch since Obama's been in office. And there are more guns out there than ever before.

#11 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29107 posts) -

Wonder how much of this is tea partiers who didn't know they wanted less strict gun laws until pundits told them they didn't.

#12 Posted by airshocker (29042 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Have gone laws gotten significantly more strict this past decade

No. Although NRA and right-wing fear-mongering over gun control reached fever pitch since Obama's been in office. And there are more guns out there than ever before.

Uhm, yes. New York SAFE act ring a bell?

#13 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3794 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@Chaos_HL21 said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

First do you have a link to that. Taking in the risks of having a gun in the house, statistically having a pool is a ton more dangerous. Also I remember seeing in the newspaper the Gun homicide rate has been down by nearly 50% since 1993; however thanks to the media Americans think the number is up significantly. .

Also if the trend continues people wanting strict laws will over take the ones wanting more strict laws. Also gun laws don't really do anything with the criminals, and also ignore the main point on the recent shootings. Mainly America's lack of a mental health care system.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

I think a better question to ask is why are people committing suicide, and stricter gun laws will not make people less likely to have depression or suicidal feelings.

but it does make suicide harder; suicidal thoughts usually only last a few minutes, if the persona hasn't killed themselves in that time they just go on living, if they find a gun, which is a very quick, easy kill, they die.

#14 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42627 posts) -

I, for one, hate the gun laws in the Peoples Republic of California.

#15 Edited by plageus900 (996 posts) -

Why does it matter what they feel? Laws shouldn't be made by mob rule.

If only we had an emperor with absolute power.

Shit would get done.

#16 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

#17 Posted by ferrari2001 (16815 posts) -

Does that mean people want stricter gun laws or looser gun laws? Considering gun laws are more strict now than they were in 2001 does that mean that there is greater dissatisfaction because people want less strict gun laws?

#18 Edited by toast_burner (21450 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

Why does it matter what they feel? Laws shouldn't be made by mob rule.

If only we had an emperor with absolute power.

Shit would get done.

Troll harder

#19 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

I, for one, hate the gun laws in the Peoples Republic of California.

I do love watching what the gun manufactures create to make certain products barely legal.

Extended mags illegal? Not a problem, haha.

#20 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

"You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL"

No you don't. That statement doesn't even make sense.

#21 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@Chaos_HL21 said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@Chaos_HL21 said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

gun owners are more likely to kill themselves or an innocent (usually a family member) than an intruder/assaulter.

Hope the trend continues, I'd like guns to be much harder to obtain.

First do you have a link to that. Taking in the risks of having a gun in the house, statistically having a pool is a ton more dangerous. Also I remember seeing in the newspaper the Gun homicide rate has been down by nearly 50% since 1993; however thanks to the media Americans think the number is up significantly. .

Also if the trend continues people wanting strict laws will over take the ones wanting more strict laws. Also gun laws don't really do anything with the criminals, and also ignore the main point on the recent shootings. Mainly America's lack of a mental health care system.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

I think a better question to ask is why are people committing suicide, and stricter gun laws will not make people less likely to have depression or suicidal feelings.

but it does make suicide harder; suicidal thoughts usually only last a few minutes, if the persona hasn't killed themselves in that time they just go on living, if they find a gun, which is a very quick, easy kill, they die.

If you want to kill yourself with a gun without waiting for any sort of background check do one of the following..

1) Rent a gun

2) Purchase a gun locally through the many classifieds on the web.

3) Purchase a long gun.

*the third option will result in a background check, but realistically it's not going to stop anyone that's clinically insane due to medical records being private.

Guns laws do nothing.

#23 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

How do I block people?

#24 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

#25 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

#26 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

#27 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Audacitron said:

@dave123321 said:

Have gone laws gotten significantly more strict this past decade

No. Although NRA and right-wing fear-mongering over gun control reached fever pitch since Obama's been in office. And there are more guns out there than ever before.

Uhm, yes. New York SAFE act ring a bell?

I wonder how that even got into law.

I know on Gun Broker and the many other sites people won't even sell to NY,CA, and a few other states - must be a real pain.

*Oh I forgot too many hippies in NY.

#28 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

#29 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

#30 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

Don't assume. Nowhere do I say "Federal Firearms License".

Proof read before you make ignorant assumptions.

#31 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

Don't assume. Nowhere do I say "Federal Firearms License".

Proof read before you make ignorant assumptions.

You seem to be very confused. I'm making no ignorant assumptions. I'm making very well reasoned assumptions supported by the thread topic and your reference in that post to gun laws.

#32 Edited by Wasdie (49628 posts) -

Most guns laws, especially the new ones since Sandy Hook, target the weapons used the least frequently in crimes and do nothing but annoy law abiding guns owners, that's why a lot of people aren't too happy with them. On the opposite side we have anti-gun groups constantly trying to demonize the big black assault "weapons" and convincing people that nobody should be allowed to own those super high powered weapons of war and thus people want more strict gun laws.

Our existing guns laws need better enforcement rather than more laws passed. New guns laws target the firearms people use for recreation rather than the small, concealable handguns that are used in the vast majority of crime. Banning stuff like having more than 2 attachments on a rifle and 30 round magazines does absolutely nothing to the vast bulk of gun crimes that are committed in the nation. These kind of laws are built from fear, misinformation, and more about beating a certain political ideology rather than actually working towards making the nation safer.

All we end up with is more control on law abiding citizens and less focus on the real problems.

What bothers me the most about Americans who are very anti-gun is they always talk about the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms as something only those people who own the guns have and how it's intrudes on the anti-gunner's rights to be safe. Really, any American living in the USA has the exact same right to bear arms and be safe and neither are really impeding the other. I find it amazing that in the time of the overreaching government spying through the NSA and other organizations, the CIA putting out hits on American citizens overseas without due process, and the continued militarization of our police, that so many people are still against personally owning firearms. Often I see the same people who are against stuff like the NSA and our "brutal" police force becoming more militarized are the same people who become strict anti-gun advocates. That just doesn't make sense to me.

#33 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

Don't assume. Nowhere do I say "Federal Firearms License".

Proof read before you make ignorant assumptions.

You seem to be very confused. I'm making no ignorant assumptions. I'm making very well reasoned assumptions supported by the thread topic and your reference in that post to gun laws.

Topics of discussion like in real can tree off of other topics.

You assumed sense this thread was about gun laws other topics couldn't be discussed - that is in fact untrue.

#34 Edited by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

Don't assume. Nowhere do I say "Federal Firearms License".

Proof read before you make ignorant assumptions.

You seem to be very confused. I'm making no ignorant assumptions. I'm making very well reasoned assumptions supported by the thread topic and your reference in that post to gun laws.

Topics of discussion like in real can tree off of other topics.

You assumed sense this thread was about gun laws other topics couldn't be discussed - that is in fact untrue.

You made a mistake, but that's OK. You have the opportunity to learn something new. Don't try to avoid the issue when you have the opportunity to learn.

Ignorance FTL.

#35 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

Only one word makes that statement untrue. Fix it for me?

An FFL is a Federal Firearms License. No one can purchase something from a license, regardless of their age.

Go to school.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant posts.

FFL means Florida Friendly landscaping.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

OK, but this is a discussion about gun laws. You were referring to a Federal Firearms License.

Don't assume. Nowhere do I say "Federal Firearms License".

Proof read before you make ignorant assumptions.

You seem to be very confused. I'm making no ignorant assumptions. I'm making very well reasoned assumptions supported by the thread topic and your reference in that post to gun laws.

Topics of discussion like in real can tree off of other topics.

You assumed sense this thread was about gun laws other topics couldn't be discussed - that is in fact untrue.

You made a mistake, but that's OK. You have the opportunity to learn something new. Don't try to avoid the issue when you have the opportunity to learn.

Ignorance FTL.

You seem to be confused and refuse to acknowledge reality.

I'm sorry that public education has failed you.

#36 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@Fightingfan: Again, you made a mistake, but that's OK. You have the opportunity to learn something new. Don't try to avoid the issue when you have the opportunity to learn.

#37 Posted by sSubZerOo (43082 posts) -

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

#38 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@Fightingfan said:

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

Because in America when you have a conceal carry permit they don't just hand you a gun and send you off on your way...

You're put into intense training under sharp supervision.... monitored by the state.

In America you can't just walk around with a gun without any form of training in 99% of the union (only the constitutional carry states allow the carrying of guns without any form of state/NRA run training).

You can be the most responsible 20 year old that can out gun any Navy Seal, but because you're not 21 and not in the military you don't have legal access to a handgun outside of straw purchases, or private sell, which one is illegal and the other dangerous

. I find it funny we can trust a 18 year old with an M16, but the 20 year old who goes to work in a bad area of town can't carry a gun for his protection even if he attends the mandatory gun safety courses mandated by the states.

*people in the military under 21 still can't purchase a handgun from an FFL holder.

#41 Edited by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@Fightingfan said:

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

Because in America when you have a conceal carry permit they don't just hand you a gun and send you off on your way...

You're put into intense training under sharp supervision.... monitored by the state.

In America you can't just walk around with a gun without any form of training in 99% of the union (only the constitutional carry states allow the carrying of guns without any form of state/NRA run training).

You can be the most responsible 20 year old that can out gun any Navy Seal, but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. I find it funny we can trust a 18 year old with an M16, but the 20 year old who goes to work in a bad area of town can't carry a gun for his protection even if he attends the mandatory gun safety courses mandated by the states.

*people in the military under 21 still can't purchase a handgun from an FFL holder.

"but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. "

Not true.

#42 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Fightingfan said:

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

Because in America when you have a conceal carry permit they don't just hand you a gun and send you off on your way...

You're put into intense training under sharp supervision.... monitored by the state.

In America you can't just walk around with a gun without any form of training in 99% of the union (only the constitutional carry states allow the carrying of guns without any form of state/NRA run training).

You can be the most responsible 20 year old that can out gun any Navy Seal, but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. I find it funny we can trust a 18 year old with an M16, but the 20 year old who goes to work in a bad area of town can't carry a gun for his protection even if he attends the mandatory gun safety courses mandated by the states.

*people in the military under 21 still can't purchase a handgun from an FFL holder.

"but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. "

Not true.

I'm aware, which is why I tried to fix the statement.

#43 Edited by sSubZerOo (43082 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@Fightingfan said:

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

Because in America when you have a conceal carry permit they don't just hand you a gun and send you off on your way...

You're put into intense training under sharp supervision.... monitored by the state.

In America you can't just walk around with a gun without any form of training in 99% of the union (only the constitutional carry states allow the carrying of guns without any form of state/NRA run training).

You can be the most responsible 20 year old that can out gun any Navy Seal, but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. I find it funny we can trust a 18 year old with an M16, but the 20 year old who goes to work in a bad area of town can't carry a gun for his protection even if he attends the mandatory gun safety courses mandated by the states.

*people in the military under 21 still can't purchase a handgun from an FFL holder.

Yet again getting your permit in NO way some how equates to the months to years of military training you receive if you enlist.. Training in which you can fail.. IN a military that even AFTER the training your still under supervision by your superiors. This is a stupid comparison..

#44 Posted by thegerg (14859 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Fightingfan said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@Fightingfan said:

Well, there are a lot of moronic gun laws.

For example,

It's 10 years in prison if you put a vertical foregrip on a pistol, but perfectly legally to use bump-fire modify - turning any weapon fully automatic.

You need to be 21 to purchase anything from an FFL, but can join the military at 17.

How is the military one illogical? When you join the military they don't hand you a gun and send you off on your way.. Your put into intense training under sharp supervision in which you have to pass testing to be trusted in it's operation on the field. On topic: The American public are filled with morons.. 2001 is a odd mark because there literally have been no huge gun restrictions instated, in fact we have been seeing huge deregulation and massive pro gun laws like "stand your ground" being instated..

Because in America when you have a conceal carry permit they don't just hand you a gun and send you off on your way...

You're put into intense training under sharp supervision.... monitored by the state.

In America you can't just walk around with a gun without any form of training in 99% of the union (only the constitutional carry states allow the carrying of guns without any form of state/NRA run training).

You can be the most responsible 20 year old that can out gun any Navy Seal, but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. I find it funny we can trust a 18 year old with an M16, but the 20 year old who goes to work in a bad area of town can't carry a gun for his protection even if he attends the mandatory gun safety courses mandated by the states.

*people in the military under 21 still can't purchase a handgun from an FFL holder.

"but because you're not 21 and not in the military you can't purchase a gun from a FFL holder. "

Not true.

I'm aware, which is why I tried to fix the statement.

Cool. I'm glad you finally decided to face reality.