Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 8, 2013.
Sounds like a reasonable direction to me.
The one thing I would add is that "responsible gun ownership" should not mean "unlimited gun ownership".
We need to set firm and significant limits on what firearms people can own.
Hope America gets together and have some reasonable gun controls on step at a time to prevent any more deaths in the future.
Any personal opinions on what firearms people shouldn't be able to own? Please be specific if you do.
I think any firearm that shoots more than 45 feet or so should be banned. Any firearm that doesn't record who shot it with some level of biometric accuracy should be banned. Any firearm that doesn't imprint the projectile with an identifying mark of some sort should be banned. Any firearm that isn't one of the ones I own should be banned.
I would say any gun that can kill 30 people in 5 seconds.
Do you know of any firearms which are capable of this feat? ... And that are legal for private citizens to own now?
Here's the problem...that depends entirely on the user. This is why the people aspect is more important than the mechanical one IMO. How can we prevent people from getting their hands on tools that in their hands will be used to harm other law-abiding individuals?
As of today, the firearms that could theoretically do this are banned from civilian ownership, but my point is that like any other tool, the potential capability of the tool depends upon the user's competency. Therefore, it makes this a more difficult issue.
Let's start with no magazines [loading capacity] for handguns or rifles above 6 bullets.
I'll give you six because of the historical precedence of the revolver.
You are talking about limiting magazine capacity. So does that mean you have no issues with any specific firearm?
I'm concerned with the capability and performance of the gun and not the type of gun in particular.
If I misled you by the imprecise wording of my previous post, than I apologize.
Regulate the capability of the gun.
That would be my goal.
I would say any gun suitable for a well regulated militia circa 1776 should be allowed, and anything more powerful or smaller, more easily concealable, should be banned. In other words, black powder long rifles and a few single shot pistols and nothing else.
Full auto versions of any of these are already illegal for private ownership except when owned by those already heavily vetted by state and Federal authorities and closely monitored by BATF.
Could you tell me what it is (functionally) about semi-auto versions of any of these (I don't think the VEPR is available in semi-auto configuration) with which you have an issue? If it is just high capacity magazines, then your issue, like citizenzen, is with the magazine capacity, rather than the firearm itself.
What specific capability are you referring to? Specific?
Any gun that is not black powder, single shot, or has a range in excess of 100 meters should be banned. Any gun that may be concealed should be banned.
(edit) I hope you know that I'm a gun owner who wants to continue to be such, but if the choice is between the lives of children and my right to shoot paper targets, I'm going to insist on some regulation, even if it is too much. I would prefer no guns at all to losing my son.
I share your desire to preserve life. And I've shot at least a hundred thousand rounds worth of paper, trees, old cars, and various inanimate objects. But I disagree that this is the way it will happen.
Well, until the NRA and those who advocate for 2nd amendment rights decide to become meaningful participants in the debate, and provide workable solutions that they would support, it sounds like the best way.
Here are some thoughts.
1) For hunting: Allow bolt action, no-magazine rifles and breech load shotguns. Stored at home, transported in a locked case, or active hunting use only. (Ie, you can't carry your hunting rifle to the movies.)
2) For personal defense: Allow non-lethal weapons only. Chemical spray, taser, etc.
3) For 2nd Amendment protection against tyrany: Allow military rifles for members of official state-level regulated militias. Millitia must include combat drills, firearm and hand-to-hand training, yadda yadda, similar to the Switzerland model where people are allowed to take their military rifle home with them and such.
4) For law enforcement: Allow police to carry whatever weapon they are issued, regardless of location as long as they are withing their jurisdiction.
5) For recreation: Allow AR-15 style semi-automatic sporting rifles at licensed ranges. Perhaps even allow most kinds of fireams, period, including full machine guns? No transportation outside of those ranges. All rounds to be accounted for by the range.
Just brainstorming. Rubbish? Brilliant? A start that's somewhere in between? I'm not saying the above will solve all our issues, as seen by either side.
I don't know enough about firearms to suggest that I know what should and shouldn't be regulated or restricted. Perhaps limiting magazine size, perhaps limiting access to ammunition outside of ranges, perhaps limits based on muzzle velocity. I can't make an honest proposal here, other than to suggest that the answer isn't the status quo.
However, given that it's now 2013 and we have access to an amazing amount of data and information, I'm sure that a properly funded study could look at a huge number of factors and draw some reasonable conclusions. I also think that limiting and countering the influence of the NRA would be a fantastic way of helping to make that kind of information stick.
Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with your opinion, as we all are entitled to that which we believe. In addition, I am very much in favor of serious dialogue concerning the regulation and control over who should be granted access to firearms.
However, I personally disagree with most of your points above. As a serious and responsible firearm owner for 40+ years, I don't believe we need any further regulation on the tools. It is the tool wielders I have concern with.
I don't think it is. And it surely is not practical because of existing guns on the market. Doing so would make a massive black market. I agree with you that I would like to see the NRA take meaningful action to both address the issue at hand and help preserve ownership rights.
But I do not think restricting the objects is going to work in this situation, partly because of the above. Changing people or mandating that people abide by laws though, is IMO the way to go.
How many dead people would not be dead if, 1) firearms were properly stored, and 2) anyone handling a firearm have proficiency in firearm safety? Quite a lot I dare say.
Someone suggested that if one uses a firearm to commit a crime, a stupidly high sentence be mandatory. I like that idea. Let's work to deter crime, and especially crime with a firearm. Let's say 35 to life for any usage of a firearm in a crime not involving serious injury or death. No parole, no release, nothing. 35 years is 35 years. Then let's say life in prison or the death penalty for anyone who injures or kills someone with a firearm in a crime. That's a start.
Agreed. We control people. Not objects. We can also hold people responsable for controlling their objects, and accountable when they fail to control their own objects. And of course, that means in terms of law, we give people damned good reason to control their objects and deter them from failing to do so.
I agree with pretty much everything you have been saying in the assorted firearm threads. Those of us who are serious and responsible in dealing with firearms ownership are very much aware that it is the people, not the guns, which are at the root of the problems.
I posted my reply before the rest of yours. Bottom line obviously, is agreement.
Phasers set to "Stun".
We've been on agreement on 99+% of this. It's uplifting to see gun owners like yourself who are committed to allowing law-abiding citizens to own the guns they want, but simultaneously demanding accountability in both law and the actions of gun owners. The decades of ownership that you and many other owners have had without any incident show it is not the objects that are the root of the problem.
The bottom line IMO is that gun control is a ridiculous concept if you think about it...we are controlling objects (kind of like how managed care actually manages you). This worked great for alcohol and is doing a damned good job with drugs. All of the drug deaths that the war on drugs has prevented...wait... The black market of each speaks first hand to this. Law and order has been established by controlling people and more specifically controlling the actions of people, usually through deterrence and sometimes through rewarding.
Banning an AR15 (or any particular firearm) has no effect on a criminal's thought pattern whatsoever. Banning an AR15 has no effect on how an owner may choose to store their gun. Banning an AR15 has no effect on how a gun owner may sell a firearm on the secondary market. Banning an AR15 has no effect on the safety training individuals seek or safe handling practices. Banning an AR15 has no effect on teaching an owner what is and is not justifiable self defense, or how to work to avoid using a firearm in such a situation. So if we expect a criminal to not commit a crime, a gun owner to store their firearm responsibly, or safe handling practices to increase through our control an object or multiple objects, it's faulty reasoning IMO.
Let's control the actions of people that have equated to firearm deaths that are preventable.
Unfortunately my small, liberal democrat controlled town of Marlboro, NJ has become the first town in the US to have an armed officer in every school. Had to go to my old high school the other day to pick up my immunization history, was kind of weird.