No, you are guilty of irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a homicide. 3-5 in the state pen, if I had my druthers.
Sorry I missed this post.
Considering that something like 75% of gun murders are committed by handguns (a type of firearm that is specifically protected under Heller) and that all those long guns that are not typically used for hunting (good luck writing regulations on THAT) account for less than 3% of all gun murders, its hard to see how your idea makes sense.
They support background checks on private sales?
Eliminate the restrictions on suppressors, SBRs SBSs and possibly reopen the machine gun registry (at least for surplus military weapons).
They support preventing the sales of guns to prohibited persons. They also fight against any realistic means to prevent the sales of guns to prohibited persons.
edited to add: Who is on the list, btw?
More people would be knowledgable about guns and gun safety.
Poor people would not be left defenseless in dangerous neighborhoods and during civil unrest.
I don’t understand why an elected official (or anyone) would be required to own or carry a gun but gun aptitude should be taught in schools like drivers ed.
I don’t understand why we should make destruction of my own personal property a crime. if I want to make my vintage civil war rifle inoperable before I hang it un in my kid’s bedroom, I’m not sure why that should be illegal. If I want to melt it down in protest of the NRA, I still don’t see why that should be illegal.
And while I think there should be SOME penalty for wasting county resources to get cops to harass gun owners, 6 months is a lot of time. I would be OK with a warning then fines then 24 hours in jail for repeat offenders.
Well, don’t do it too often (perhaps it doesn’t happen often enough where you live to make that possible), at some point you are squandering county resources just to be a pain in the ass to someone you disagree with on gun control.
Well, good luck with that.
How did you win your independence from England?
You guys haven’t had things like the LA Riots?
And why would a cop not be in category 1 for you?
So riots are examples of where we want increased prevalence of private firearm ownership? Because of course all of the people rioting would have been prevented from getting firearms, because bad guys.
For most of those criminals, its already illegal for them to possess a gun. So how is making it illegal for me to have a gun going to get that criminal to give up his gun?
Alerting police is my civic duty. It’s not my job to determine if they are carrying lawfully. If they are carrying lawfully, what do they have to be afraid of? They answer some questions, show their permit (if required) and everybody goes on with their life. If one person is saved by my mindfulness, then it will be worth it.
Why is it illegal for them to possess a gun? Remember-they buy the gun, then they commit the crime, then(if they are caught and convicted) they get to the point where they aren’t supposed to have the gun. Do wanna-be criminals have to flash an official club card that prevents them from acquiring a weapon legally?
Since it is already illegal, all we need to do is institute comprehensive background checks to separate the criminals from the lawful citizens trying to get guns. Background checks do not depend on the honesty of buyers.
Or to put it another way: because when trained, experienced professionals are required, there’s an amateur with questionable judgment already on the scene.
“I know I have no medical training, but Bob needed open heart surgery now and the ambulance was *minutes *away!”
In what way(s) do you find the present FBI NICS insufficiently comprehensive?
Rather pointless in private sales in states that don’t require a background check.
or the honesty of sellers…
Well thank you, that’s a pretty rational way of looking at it. To me, because guns are an object to be manufactured, purchased, sold, and used, it needs to be treated slightly differently than exercising speech, for instance. Not that speech is entirely free, we have laws that regulate and restrict what you can say and print, so too do other rights have regulations. You cannot, for example, claim your religion allows human sacrifices and expect the government to let that go on.
With guns, I’m sure any small fee will be attacked by people who don’t even want to have the discussion, but I don’t believe licensing and maintaining a small, non-onerous fee for weapons is any infringement at all on your rights. Furthermore, I don’t believe confiscation is necessarily bad. If your car is an asset and you lose a civil case, the government can seize it to pay off your debts. If you divorce, a car can be claimed as an asset and either given to the ex or sold and split. Guns should absolutely be registered so that in case there needs to be a confiscation, they can be listed as part of your estate.
Which is fine if you can explain why this shouldn’t be taxed or regulated, but other types of rights can be.
Why not keep a record of it? You can validate that you went through it, other agencies can ensure that a check was done, and past information may make future checks faster. I think, again skipping ahead slightly, that there is a severe, debilitating undercurrent of mistrust, but to me its standard bureaucracy, neither bad nor good, and if it can help not repeating information gathering, then it can be a helpful thing. When you go to the doctor, your files have your medical history. Imagine if that was thrown away each time you are cured of a particular ailment or if a checkup turns up with nothing. You’d have to start over each time and that will cost time and money, and there may be mistakes missed that may lead to consequences later. For background checks on guns, you should definitely have all that on file. It would definitely help if, for example, something turns up in a previous check that prevents you from having a gun, let’s say a conviction, but if that record is not kept maybe the next check somehow doesn’t find that.
Combining that with my other proposals to limit purchases, a background check can see if you’re buying too many guys, or datamining can spot behaviors that may turn out to prevent loss of life later (like how Target datamined their customers and once predicted a pregnancy even before the girl’s father knew about it).
I put this here because I thought safety locks are pretty standard but not mandated across the board. I’m talking about a little switch on the gun that locks it, no different than a lever on a stroller you step on to lock the brakes. I cannot believe it would be too difficult. And also some guy, Sho-something, replied to me that its pretty standard and he seems to imply that its ubiquitous, and he’s no fan of my position. Anyway, I don’t see how it can be difficult. If all medicine bottles can have a cap that’s hard to open, then they can design a small metal thingy to jam the trigger when the lever is not at the right place
I don’t feel too strongly about this point so I wouldn’t fight for it much. I do think its utter irresponsible to hand such a thing to a child, even if it conflicts with tradition I think that people need to be more responsible with guns. One sticking point I can imagine between us: I think safety classes need to be designed and certified by the federal government, I would take that completely out of the hands of local law enforcement and I would certainly never allow certification from an organization like the NRA. You would need to pass a government course with law enforcement that are certified to teach it, and even then I would still have standards as to how young a child can be. If 18 or 21 is too old, then there should be an age too young to handle guns too
Due to the recent shooting in Oregon, some Dems are proposing some common sense legislation. I personally think all of those are low restriction and should be at least the minimum of what gun laws should be, not some extreme restriction that people oppose vehemently. In short, they are:
-
Expanding the background check system to cover guns sold at gun shows and online.
-
Extending the period, which is currently three days, after which a purchaser can get their gun even if a background check is not yet completed. (This is how Charleston, South Carolina, killer Dylann Roof got his weapon.)
-
Adding “abusive dating partners, individuals under a court-imposed restraining order and convicted stalkers” to the list of people banned prohibited from buying firearms.
-
Making it a crime to be a “straw purchaser” who buys a weapon for somebody else.
I think all of those are good laws, how about you?