We need to deal with the failing education system and the increasing economic disparity to solve these problems, that would have a much greater effect than weapons bans or even ammo regulation
I wanted to quote this, as it is true and bears repeating. Gun control is a distraction from very real social issues that desperately need addressing. A man robbing a liquor store because hes hungry, has starving kids, cant get a job, cant keep a job, has a drug problem, etc is still going to rob a liquor store if he cannot get a gun. You address the fundamental social issues that create the gun crime statistics and you remove the need for gun control. Gun control will never address the fundamental underlying social issues and therefore cannot solve any problem we face.
Well, I would say gun control could solve the problem of people getting shot with guns. Underlying problems might be a contributing factor, but I don't see how you have to solve 1 without touching on 2, because it is probably a lot easier and cheaper to regulate guns first.
That's a cute soundbite, but it doesn't really solve anything. The people who will use guns to commit crimes will do so regardless of how illegal they are.
Dealing with societal problems will reduce the number of people who turn to crime.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
This is usually accompanied by some sort of "defense against the state" notion, because fascist regimes can spring up overnight all over the place. I don't know. Maybe you are a nation of freedom fighters in the making, but I think this mentality just strengthens a climate of paranoia and fear. In a civilized society protecting the citizens is the job of the police. If you think that you need a gun to survive in your neighbourhood, then maybe you should move.
If your distrust of your own government and police is so strong that you feel it is vital to own a gun then maybe you should move to another country.
I don't see anything good coming from carrying a weapon in public.
INCORRECT.
At least according to the Supreme Court which stated "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
This one is also nice: "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice (N.C. App. 1989)
And since I know you are going to ask for cites, here are some cases at the state, appellate, and federal level. Maybe you should read them.
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. 1995)
Bowers v. DeVito (7th Cir. 1982)
Ford v. Town of Grafton (Mass. App. 1998)
Oh well, as I have stated before, IANAUSC(US citizen), so my knowledge of the details might be a bit sketchy. If it is not the job of the police to protect the citizens of the US, what are they good for?
I say "beating up minorities" before someone else does.
They will commit crimes, yes, but the damage would not be so easily outsized.
I'm still hoping that someone can explain to me why we need commercial access to high-capacity magazines and weapons with this kind of capacity and fire rate as I outlined a couple posts back.
I do like how everyone is glossing over his homemade explosives and that this was clearly an individual who needed some form of help since he had become so unhinged as to methodically plan a series of murders.
Gun control is just one issue here and it's not what drove the guy to kill.
Well yeah, but his explosives killed 0 people while his guns killed 12 and injured nearly 50. I wouldn't say it's being glossed over, just that it isn't the critical issue here.
They represent a tiny percentage of the total statistic, yes, but that percentage of events are grossly more damaging on an individual basis when compared to the occurrences with things like handguns due to the destructive potential of a weapon that can throw out 70-100 rounds in 60 seconds without reloading compared to the small caliber weapon with 8 rounds. Someone with gun knowledge would understand this, I would think. Saying "They only get used in 2% of crimes!" is pretty disingenuous when that 2% are so much worse than the rest in terms of damage dealt.
Is it? Are these 2% of all crimes that much worse? How many of our "mass shootings" do you think have involved assault rifles with a capacity greater than 10 rounds? It is not a lot. we are talking even among mass shootings mass shootings with an assault rifle are still a minority. Your rounds per minute is grossly exaggerated on a semi auto, but the reality is that full autos are often less deadly than semi autos. Which is why the military moved away from them. You expend your rounds much faster, with less control. This is irrelevant however as given the circumstances as it posits that had he chosen other firearms that less people would have died. Handguns still kill much, much more people every year than assault rifles. Why should we legislate based on something that happens once every couple years?
What I don't get is why anyone would need a rifle that can put that much ammo in the air in such a small time for home defense or hunting. Or why anyone would need to be able to commercially, legally, and easily buy things like silencers for home defense or hunting. In the space of four months this guy bought a rifle and magazine that, according to the police chief of Aurora, would allow him to fire nearly 100 rounds in 60 seconds (even in semi-auto) without reloading, two handguns, a shotgun, high capacity mags, and 6,000 rounds of ammo.
Silencers? How about hearing protection. Movie magic aside guns are really really loud and can permanently damage your hearing. Silences do not make guns silent. They do however cut down on the risk of hearing loss. Can't imagine why we would want to bad that, unless movies have convinced us they actually make guns whisper quiet. If he fired nearly 100 rounds without reloading he must have spent quite a bit on a 100 round drum. Even then you might get 100rpm slamming the trigger with no accuracy. What is the problem however? In four months this guy bought 1 gun and 1500 rounds of ammo a month. Going to the range twice a week and firing off two 100 round drums would eat up 1600 rounds a month. That would take him aside from getting setup, tear down, and drive time 4 minutes a week. He probably take his time and fire much slower. That said 1500 rounds in a month could very easily be reasonable. Big number is big is a scare tactic.
Having some sort of restrictions in place that ensure that anyone can't just walk into a store and leave with enough firepower to decimate a 50 person crowd in five minutes is really that extreme? Banning commercial sale of high-capacity mags does not affect home defense or hunting. Making it legally difficult to purchase that much firepower in such a short time frame does not affect either of those issues.
I guess I just have a hard time understanding why we feel the need to allow access to this kind of hardware. Yes, things like this happen much more rarely than the armed robber with a pistol. But the results of them when they do occur are so tragically worse I fail to see why it is so horrible to make it difficult or impossible to legally obtain the items needed to perpetrate them.
We already have restrictions in place such as the three day waiting period on handguns not to mention background checks. Is four months a short time frame? One gun a month is hardly a call for alarm. Why exactly are high capacity magazines to be banned when most of the crimes committed with handguns involve firearms that do not have them? You are calling for bans on things that are scary not things that are used in the majority of crime. Why are you focused on the things that are rarely used in crimes?
They will commit crimes, yes, but the damage would not be so easily outsized.
I'm still hoping that someone can explain to me why we need commercial access to high-capacity magazines and weapons with this kind of capacity and fire rate as I outlined a couple posts back.
No one needs to prove they need those things. You need to prove that restricting them would have a noteworthy effect on violent crime, which I don't think you can because the facts aren't there.
Kamar on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They will commit crimes, yes, but the damage would not be so easily outsized.
I'm still hoping that someone can explain to me why we need commercial access to high-capacity magazines and weapons with this kind of capacity and fire rate as I outlined a couple posts back.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that people should be able to outclass a US infantryman in their arms purchasing, so this might not be the best place to get an answer to that question.
Contrary to what right wing media would have us believe, gun control is not an all or nothing scenario.
I think I should note that I am in favor of stricter gun control than we have now, but the kneejerk reaction to this event's getting my pro-gun ire up.
I support private ownership and concealed carry of whatever, but we can at least require as much testing for gun use as we do for car use, don't you think?
edit: Hell, might even be appropriate to have mandatory gun insurance, at least for people who carry open or concealed in public.
Constitutional issue aside who determines the test? What does it cover? What should i have to know to own a gun and how would proving i know it stop me from going postal?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think I should note that I am in favor of stricter gun control than we have now, but the kneejerk reaction to this event's getting my pro-gun ire up.
I support private ownership and concealed carry of whatever, but we can at least require as much testing for gun use as we do for car use, don't you think?
I think this is where I'm at as well, Kamar.
The problem is according to SCOTUS the answer to that question is "fuck off, commie". : /
That is my point. We can have access to guns without making it possible to put out this kind of damage in such a short time frame. Restricting one does not outlaw all.
And to the immediate, defensive "I don't need to prove anything, you do!" posts - I am, hard as this may be to believe on this part of the forums, honestly asking for help to understand why we need such easy access to these particular items. On the face of it, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all to say that people being able to buy handguns and hunting rifles is fine, but that when we start looking at things that let you fire hundreds of bullets before reloading very, very quickly it becomes a lot more murky.
And I've already said why I would be fine with restricting sales of things like the magazines, but not handguns/hunting rifles. I can see the use for those items, be it in hunting or home defense. I have a much harder time seeing the practical need or application of things like the mags or the AR-15.
If you could look at what I'm saying without having your own kneejerk, thinking I'm having my own kneejerk, this could be more productive.
EDIT: And for what its worth my 'grossly exaggerated rounds per minute' is from the police chief of Aurora in the evening press briefing yesterday.
Raynaga on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Constitutional issue aside who determines the test? What does it cover? What should i have to know to own a gun and how would proving i know it stop me from going postal?
What's to stop someone who has taken driver's ed from going nuts and mowing down pedestrians?
If people understand that a gun is a dangerous thing and treat it like it is instead of being this:
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Why do we have cars that go faster that 65 miles per hour? We do not ban things because people do not see a reason for them.
Snark aside because ultimately we as a country feel that gun ownership is an important part of our history. You can take the militia act of 1794 where very American male between the ages of 18-40 was legally required by law to own a firearm. Now? Self defense, guns do prevent a large number of crimes every year. How about familiarizing our soldiers? Not everyone grows up in a house with a firearm, but if your parents taught you the basics of an ar-15 you are going to have a leg up on other soldiers. This could also help you based on what you are wanting to do during qualification. Ar-15 rifles are excellent for hunting small game or varmints. People can and do hunt with them.They are more accurate at longer ranges than a pistol or a shotgun, and allow a much easier follow up shot if you miss. 3 gun competitions are becoming more popular. We even have a new forum member who posted about them earlier in this thread.
Heck being an assault weapon is based more on cosmetic features than anything else. Unless you are worried about someone bayoneting you the term is really designed to confuse people.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why do we have cars that go faster that 65 miles per hour? We do not ban things because people do not see a reason for them.
Snark aside because ultimately we as a country feel that gun ownership is an important part of our history. You can take the militia act of 1794 where very American male between the ages of 18-40 was legally required by law to own a firearm. Now? Self defense, guns do prevent a large number of crimes every year. How about familiarizing our soldiers? Not everyone grows up in a house with a firearm, but if your parents taught you the basics of an ar-15 you are going to have a leg up on other soldiers. This could also help you based on what you are wanting to do during qualification. Ar-15 rifles are excellent for hunting small game or varmints. People can and do hunt with them.They are more accurate at longer ranges than a pistol or a shotgun, and allow a much easier follow up shot if you miss. 3 gun competitions are becoming more popular. We even have a new forum member who posted about them earlier in this thread.
Heck being an assault weapon is based more on cosmetic features than anything else. Unless you are worried about someone bayoneting you the term is really designed to confuse people.
Not in the slightest.
There is a good argument to be made here, you're not making it.
And it isn't the regular AR15 that would be banned, it's the assault version. There's only one reason to own an assault weapon, and it isn't hunting or self defense. Getting one because you like to play soldiers is not something i'm terribly worried about accommodating.
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
Constitutional issue and supreme court rulings aside. What scan tron questions are going to determine if i am going to go postal? Who draws up the questionnaire? How can a person without a gun be expected to pass a field qualification in order to own a gun? We already require a background check. What constitutes a mental health evaluation? What conditions would disqualify a person? Since mental illness can disqualify you from voting, would not voluntarily taking this test and failing cost you your right to vote?
There is a good argument to be made here, you're not making it.
And it isn't the regular AR15 that would be banned, it's the assault version. There's only one reason to own an assault weapon, and it isn't hunting or self defense. Getting one because you like to play soldiers is not something i'm terribly worried about accommodating.
And what, pray tell is the "Assault version" of an AR-15.
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
There is a good argument to be made here, you're not making it.
And it isn't the regular AR15 that would be banned, it's the assault version. There's only one reason to own an assault weapon, and it isn't hunting or self defense. Getting one because you like to play soldiers is not something i'm terribly worried about accommodating.
And what, pray tell is the "Assault version" of an AR-15.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
Do you not see a fundamental problem with the argument "only rich people should be allowed to own guns."?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Mental health evaluation does not equal scan tron.
Yes, this will be more expensive. But you roll the cost into renewal and acquisition of license.
Honestly... If a mentally unhinged person loses their right to vote because they tried to buy a gun and they were deemed mentally unfit in a way that owning a gun would be a liability to society... either we fix that in the laws so that they don't lose the right to vote, or... Much like you seem fine having catastrophes like this be the price we pay for gun freedom, I am fine with a small handful of mentally unwell people temporarily losing their right to vote as the cost of keeping them from shooting up a theater or campaign rally.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
The government doesn't come and take your car if you don't pay your insurance premium. You can't drive it on the road. How is that in any relation similar to a firearm? People don't go around shooting up the place legally/every day.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
The government doesn't come and take your car if you don't pay your insurance premium. You can't drive it on the road. How is that in any relation similar to a firearm? People don't go around shooting up the place legally/every day.
Well I wouldn't want it to be the government seizing your gun, but if you do use it I could see the argument where you become liable for it. But like I said, I'm iffy on the insurance part of it. Maybe only on the larger caliber or capacity weapons?
But technically your gun is supposed to be registered if you own it but I wager many people don't follow through on that.
The government doesn't go in seizing weapons now, nor should they, so why would they with this new idea?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Do you not see a fundamental problem with the argument "only rich people should be allowed to own guns."?
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
You would only need to pay this every 4-6 years.
If gun violence and deaths from gunfire are as small as you claim, the liability payments will be rather small.
This isn't as issue of having to be rich to own a gun, this is an issue of making guns as regulated and tracked a commodity as cars, and protecting the victims and families of victims who incur massive expense when they get shot, and the shooter being some poor fuckup who can't afford to pay for tens to hundreds of thousands of medical expenses and funeral costs and whatnot.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So you think between 30-40% of the population should undergo a mental evaluation that could cost them the right to vote in order to exercise a constitutional right? If we find them mentally deficient what should we do about that? If i wish to own a gun should my wife and kids need to be screened? If I pass but she fails what happens? What exactly in this mental screening of 100 million people would disqualify someone from gun ownership? Also let us not forget the costs involved. Do you feel that it is appropriate for only rich people to be able to enjoy constitutional rights? Would this program not completely disenfranchise minorities?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's funny how every Western nation that restricted guns saw a massive decrease in gun crime, but the idea of doing the same in America is both a liberal fantasy and the first step towars crime dystopia. As with the health care debate, the underlying argument seems to be that Americans are somehow more dangerous/incompetent/stupid than the rest of the world.
And for the "it's too complicated" crowd, why would a gun ban work in far more rural Australia and not here.
Why are we using cars as an analogy for guns? One is designed to travel places and happens to be dangerous. The other is literally a machine designed to kill.
Do you not see a fundamental problem with the argument "only rich people should be allowed to own guns."?
Oh please. That's like saying only rich people are allowed to buy cigarettes.
Guns are expensive as shit now, anyway.
This is sensationalist nonsense and the reason we have such stupid gun laws in the first place.
Regulation=/=Destroying Your Rights
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Do you not see a fundamental problem with the argument "only rich people should be allowed to own guns."?
Oh please. That's like saying only rich people are allowed to buy cigarettes.
Guns are expensive as shit now, anyway.
This is sensationalist nonsense and the reason we have such stupid gun laws in the first place.
Regulation=/=Destroying Your Rights
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
I know... I was agreeing with you.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why are we using cars as an analogy for guns? One is designed to travel places and happens to be dangerous. The other is literally a machine designed to kill.
Because both are machines easily available and dangerous in the wrong hands. It's a decent analogy unless you're on the fringe of either side.
Do you not see a fundamental problem with the argument "only rich people should be allowed to own guns."?
Oh please. That's like saying only rich people are allowed to buy cigarettes.
Guns are expensive as shit now, anyway.
This is sensationalist nonsense and the reason we have such stupid gun laws in the first place.
Regulation=/=Destroying Your Rights
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
You would only need to pay this every 4-6 years.
If gun violence and deaths from gunfire are as small as you claim, the liability payments will be rather small.
This isn't as issue of having to be rich to own a gun, this is an issue of making guns as regulated and tracked a commodity as cars, and protecting the victims and families of victims who incur massive expense when they get shot, and the shooter being some poor fuckup who can't afford to pay for tens to hundreds of thousands of medical expenses and funeral costs and whatnot.
Odd that you know that offhand, explains a bit. Anyway regardless of cost 250-300 bucks is nothing to sneeze at. Heck i could get a couple guns for that. Why exactly would the premiums be small in a for profit industry? Really though the question is how exactly will any of this solve anything? Well its a pipe dream anyway, the entire ideal is unconstitutional. Not to mention uselessly expensive.
If we diverted all that time, money, and energy into social programs to combat poverty we would see a much greater return on our investment in terms of gun violence.
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
The government doesn't come and take your car if you don't pay your insurance premium. You can't drive it on the road. How is that in any relation similar to a firearm? People don't go around shooting up the place legally/every day.
Well I wouldn't want it to be the government seizing your gun, but if you do use it I could see the argument where you become liable for it. But like I said, I'm iffy on the insurance part of it. Maybe only on the larger caliber or capacity weapons?
But technically your gun is supposed to be registered if you own it but I wager many people don't follow through on that.
The government doesn't go in seizing weapons now, nor should they, so why would they with this new idea?
And you aren't liable for it if you use it now?!
Also, for someone who is from FL and a self professed gun owner, you seem to have very little knowledge of firearm rules... FL, as most states, does not require firearm registration.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
You mean kinda like what happened after 1984 with machine guns where increased regulation lead to only rich people having them.
Hell i am still wanting to know what an assault AR-15 is.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would love a system where to own a gun, you have to take a test (paper and field) attend a series of classes, and receive a mental Heath evaluation and background check before getting your license.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
The government doesn't come and take your car if you don't pay your insurance premium. You can't drive it on the road. How is that in any relation similar to a firearm? People don't go around shooting up the place legally/every day.
Well I wouldn't want it to be the government seizing your gun, but if you do use it I could see the argument where you become liable for it. But like I said, I'm iffy on the insurance part of it. Maybe only on the larger caliber or capacity weapons?
But technically your gun is supposed to be registered if you own it but I wager many people don't follow through on that.
The government doesn't go in seizing weapons now, nor should they, so why would they with this new idea?
And you aren't liable for it if you use it now?!
Also, for someone who is from FL and a self professed gun owner, you seem to have very little knowledge of firearm rules... FL, as most states, does not require firearm registration.
:eye roll: And in the places where they are cops don't raid people's homes and take their guns.
And in the first place I've already said gun regulation isn't going to solve the problem of gun violence as well as dealing with society problems will.
Posts
That's a cute soundbite, but it doesn't really solve anything. The people who will use guns to commit crimes will do so regardless of how illegal they are.
Dealing with societal problems will reduce the number of people who turn to crime.
Oh well, as I have stated before, IANAUSC(US citizen), so my knowledge of the details might be a bit sketchy. If it is not the job of the police to protect the citizens of the US, what are they good for?
I say "beating up minorities" before someone else does.
I'm still hoping that someone can explain to me why we need commercial access to high-capacity magazines and weapons with this kind of capacity and fire rate as I outlined a couple posts back.
Well yeah, but his explosives killed 0 people while his guns killed 12 and injured nearly 50. I wouldn't say it's being glossed over, just that it isn't the critical issue here.
Is it? Are these 2% of all crimes that much worse? How many of our "mass shootings" do you think have involved assault rifles with a capacity greater than 10 rounds? It is not a lot. we are talking even among mass shootings mass shootings with an assault rifle are still a minority. Your rounds per minute is grossly exaggerated on a semi auto, but the reality is that full autos are often less deadly than semi autos. Which is why the military moved away from them. You expend your rounds much faster, with less control. This is irrelevant however as given the circumstances as it posits that had he chosen other firearms that less people would have died. Handguns still kill much, much more people every year than assault rifles. Why should we legislate based on something that happens once every couple years?
Silencers? How about hearing protection. Movie magic aside guns are really really loud and can permanently damage your hearing. Silences do not make guns silent. They do however cut down on the risk of hearing loss. Can't imagine why we would want to bad that, unless movies have convinced us they actually make guns whisper quiet. If he fired nearly 100 rounds without reloading he must have spent quite a bit on a 100 round drum. Even then you might get 100rpm slamming the trigger with no accuracy. What is the problem however? In four months this guy bought 1 gun and 1500 rounds of ammo a month. Going to the range twice a week and firing off two 100 round drums would eat up 1600 rounds a month. That would take him aside from getting setup, tear down, and drive time 4 minutes a week. He probably take his time and fire much slower. That said 1500 rounds in a month could very easily be reasonable. Big number is big is a scare tactic.
We already have restrictions in place such as the three day waiting period on handguns not to mention background checks. Is four months a short time frame? One gun a month is hardly a call for alarm. Why exactly are high capacity magazines to be banned when most of the crimes committed with handguns involve firearms that do not have them? You are calling for bans on things that are scary not things that are used in the majority of crime. Why are you focused on the things that are rarely used in crimes?
No one needs to prove they need those things. You need to prove that restricting them would have a noteworthy effect on violent crime, which I don't think you can because the facts aren't there.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that people should be able to outclass a US infantryman in their arms purchasing, so this might not be the best place to get an answer to that question.
Contrary to what right wing media would have us believe, gun control is not an all or nothing scenario.
I support private ownership and concealed carry of whatever, but we can at least require as much testing for gun use as we do for car use, don't you think?
edit: Hell, might even be appropriate to have mandatory gun insurance, at least for people who carry open or concealed in public.
I think this is where I'm at as well, Kamar.
The problem is according to SCOTUS the answer to that question is "fuck off, commie". : /
And to the immediate, defensive "I don't need to prove anything, you do!" posts - I am, hard as this may be to believe on this part of the forums, honestly asking for help to understand why we need such easy access to these particular items. On the face of it, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all to say that people being able to buy handguns and hunting rifles is fine, but that when we start looking at things that let you fire hundreds of bullets before reloading very, very quickly it becomes a lot more murky.
And I've already said why I would be fine with restricting sales of things like the magazines, but not handguns/hunting rifles. I can see the use for those items, be it in hunting or home defense. I have a much harder time seeing the practical need or application of things like the mags or the AR-15.
If you could look at what I'm saying without having your own kneejerk, thinking I'm having my own kneejerk, this could be more productive.
EDIT: And for what its worth my 'grossly exaggerated rounds per minute' is from the police chief of Aurora in the evening press briefing yesterday.
The cost of the license should increase to pay for these services, and the mental health evaluation should be re-run every other renewal or so.
Finally, I want insurance companies in the game; people should have to carry liability insurance on a per gun basis. This will drastically reduce the stockpiles in individual homes. Combine this with the total destruction of the gun show loopholes and require sales from private collections to have to pass through a licensed gun sales middleman who confirms the sale is legal and confirms proof lot license and liability before approval of sale.
Yes, people can still buy them off the streets, but over the decades (there is no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight) the number of free floating weapons will diminish.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
What's to stop someone who has taken driver's ed from going nuts and mowing down pedestrians?
If people understand that a gun is a dangerous thing and treat it like it is instead of being this:
things will go farther.
you have my vote
Yeah, as a southern gun owner I can get behind this idea 100%.
Snark aside because ultimately we as a country feel that gun ownership is an important part of our history. You can take the militia act of 1794 where very American male between the ages of 18-40 was legally required by law to own a firearm. Now? Self defense, guns do prevent a large number of crimes every year. How about familiarizing our soldiers? Not everyone grows up in a house with a firearm, but if your parents taught you the basics of an ar-15 you are going to have a leg up on other soldiers. This could also help you based on what you are wanting to do during qualification. Ar-15 rifles are excellent for hunting small game or varmints. People can and do hunt with them.They are more accurate at longer ranges than a pistol or a shotgun, and allow a much easier follow up shot if you miss. 3 gun competitions are becoming more popular. We even have a new forum member who posted about them earlier in this thread.
Heck being an assault weapon is based more on cosmetic features than anything else. Unless you are worried about someone bayoneting you the term is really designed to confuse people.
Not in the slightest.
There is a good argument to be made here, you're not making it.
And it isn't the regular AR15 that would be banned, it's the assault version. There's only one reason to own an assault weapon, and it isn't hunting or self defense. Getting one because you like to play soldiers is not something i'm terribly worried about accommodating.
And what, pray tell is the "Assault version" of an AR-15.
Not me.
Test and background check- fine.
Making them expensive?- Not fine. People will just NOT do it. And what do you do about the millions of guns already out there?
Insurance companies?- Oh HELL no. You want one of the shadiest business models in this country to be in charge of insuring firearms? Have you seen the liability insurance premiums an armed guard company has to pay? Why do you think a contract that pays the guard $11/hour bills at $23+?
How is this going to reduce the number of free floating weapons? Is the government going to come into people homes and seize the firearms if people do not pay for the insurance on them? Are we going to make people who forget to renew their insurance felons to allow such an action?
I was wondering the exact same thing...
The insurance thing is a bit iffy, so I guess I'm not 100% behind it, but why shouldn't guns be expensive? What happens if you don't pay your car insurance premium?
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to work this out.
Yes, this will be more expensive. But you roll the cost into renewal and acquisition of license.
Honestly... If a mentally unhinged person loses their right to vote because they tried to buy a gun and they were deemed mentally unfit in a way that owning a gun would be a liability to society... either we fix that in the laws so that they don't lose the right to vote, or... Much like you seem fine having catastrophes like this be the price we pay for gun freedom, I am fine with a small handful of mentally unwell people temporarily losing their right to vote as the cost of keeping them from shooting up a theater or campaign rally.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The government doesn't come and take your car if you don't pay your insurance premium. You can't drive it on the road. How is that in any relation similar to a firearm? People don't go around shooting up the place legally/every day.
Oh please. That's like saying only rich people are allowed to buy cigarettes.
Well I wouldn't want it to be the government seizing your gun, but if you do use it I could see the argument where you become liable for it. But like I said, I'm iffy on the insurance part of it. Maybe only on the larger caliber or capacity weapons?
But technically your gun is supposed to be registered if you own it but I wager many people don't follow through on that.
The government doesn't go in seizing weapons now, nor should they, so why would they with this new idea?
A visit with a mental health professional without insurance is usually 250-300 bucks. If this is a standard procedure and can be rolled into a government service, that could EASILY be halved.
You would only need to pay this every 4-6 years.
If gun violence and deaths from gunfire are as small as you claim, the liability payments will be rather small.
This isn't as issue of having to be rich to own a gun, this is an issue of making guns as regulated and tracked a commodity as cars, and protecting the victims and families of victims who incur massive expense when they get shot, and the shooter being some poor fuckup who can't afford to pay for tens to hundreds of thousands of medical expenses and funeral costs and whatnot.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Guns are expensive as shit now, anyway.
This is sensationalist nonsense and the reason we have such stupid gun laws in the first place.
Regulation=/=Destroying Your Rights
And for the "it's too complicated" crowd, why would a gun ban work in far more rural Australia and not here.
No, saying that increased regulation means that we'll suddenly live in an America where only rich people will own guns is sensationalist nonsense. Pure hyperbole of the goosiest kind.
I know... I was agreeing with you.
Because both are machines easily available and dangerous in the wrong hands. It's a decent analogy unless you're on the fringe of either side.
Well then...carry on good sir!
Odd that you know that offhand, explains a bit. Anyway regardless of cost 250-300 bucks is nothing to sneeze at. Heck i could get a couple guns for that. Why exactly would the premiums be small in a for profit industry? Really though the question is how exactly will any of this solve anything? Well its a pipe dream anyway, the entire ideal is unconstitutional. Not to mention uselessly expensive.
If we diverted all that time, money, and energy into social programs to combat poverty we would see a much greater return on our investment in terms of gun violence.
And you aren't liable for it if you use it now?!
Also, for someone who is from FL and a self professed gun owner, you seem to have very little knowledge of firearm rules... FL, as most states, does not require firearm registration.
You mean kinda like what happened after 1984 with machine guns where increased regulation lead to only rich people having them.
Hell i am still wanting to know what an assault AR-15 is.
:eye roll: And in the places where they are cops don't raid people's homes and take their guns.
And in the first place I've already said gun regulation isn't going to solve the problem of gun violence as well as dealing with society problems will.