So you’re changing the rules already. And you wonder why we don’t trust you.
The Newtown shooter reloaded frequently and had plenty of time to roam the halls looking for other victims. Reloading takes less than three seconds. Twenty of the twenty seven victims were killed in the first two classrooms he went in. I do not see how magazine limits would have changed anything about what happened.
Well, I for one am glad we’re “at about the most rational moment as can be expected on the gun debate”, so we can go back to ignoring stories like:
6yr Old Boy Shot in Head by 4yr Old
and this:
Boy, 5, Shoots And Kills 2-Year-Old Sister
Italics mine.
Yes, we’re all oh-so-very rational here.
No. National. Registry.
Deal breaker for me.
I really don’t understand that. Can you please explain why a national firearm registry would be bad?
If an adult has done something so heinous that they cannot be trusted to posses a firearm, why the hell are they free to walk among us at all?
Because we have the right to bear arms and a registry would be an infringement on that right. Do you want a registry of what books I have in my house, too?
Is anyone here of Native American ancestry? The OP should ask an Indian what they think of “grand bargains” and such.
In theory, it sounds nice. Having a universal CCW and consistent sales laws across the country would be a big benefit over the current situation, and I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I certainly wouldn’t care that my guns are registered on some list that would never be looked at until I commit a violent crime, as I never intend to commit any.
But in practice, it just doesn’t work out so well. Nevermind the ominous slippery slope of future confiscation, our governments already use existing registries to conduct witch hunts, even when that data is supposed to be confidential by law. The Feinstiens of our nation will continue to push for the legal jump from registration to confiscation, but until they get it they will happily settle for harassing and marginalizing existing gun owners by any means available, therefore making it untenable to provide them any more means.
And while requiring background checks and transfer paperwork for every change in ownership sounds like a good idea in theory, how does it actually work out in reality? How will Christmas morning go when a family member wants to give a firearm as a gift? Will I have to do 10 minutes of paperwork and pay a $30 fee to take a few test shots of an interesting gun from the friendly guy in the next booth at the range? Will I be able to go on vacation, leaving my guns locked up in the house with my roommate? You can say “of course we’ll allow that” now, but next year those will be the loopholes by which criminals are getting their guns.
In the end, it will all add up to no effect on gun crime. The vast majority of criminals that commit gun crimes are already not allowed to possess firearms, but do so anyways. Making it even more not allowed won’t change their minds.
I very much want the consistent CCW and sales laws across states, and I’d love to live in a world where universal background checks and firearm registries were practical and not onerous, but that just isn’t the world we live in. This is why both “90% of American support background checks” and “My voters won’t support me if I vote for this background check bill” can both be true, non-conflicting statements.
Because I think we can have some level of punishment besides “nothing” and “life in prison with no parole, or the death penalty”. I would treat a felony conviction like we do for voting rights - you aren’t necessarily going to be locked up forever, but we still don’t trust you enough for you to be a full citizen. So you can’t vote, can’t own a firearm, can’t work in a profession where you need to be licensed, etc.
Unless I am not understanding your point.
Regards,
Shodan
Man, I’m pissing myself with schadenfreude here. You hear this shit Damuri Ajashi? It’s like the trail of tears up in here!
Being locked up and/or fined is the punishment. Felons can vote in most states, and they can hold professional licenses.
I repeat; if an adult cannot be trusted to posses a firearm, whether it’s because they are criminal, drug addict, or mental, then they should not be free to walk among us. The way things are now is candy ass.
I think the point is that if you have a person that is walking free in society, but if presented with the opportunity to have a gun in his possession would go hog wild, robbing, raping, murdering, and firing randomly, that the problem isn’t with a gun law, but the law that let this guy out of jail.
Either he is reformed or not. If reformed, he should be able to use firearms responsibly. If not reformed, and would be a menace if he had access to firearms, he needs to stay in jail because he absolutely WILL have access to firearms..
Then I understood you correctly, and I just disagree. It would be OK with me if felons were not allowed to possess firearms. Or vote, or be licensed.
So, if the background check consisted of “have you ever been convicted of a felony” and “have you ever been found by a judge to be a danger to yourself or others?” that part of the package I could accept.
Regards,
Shodan
Why? If they can’t be trusted to do any of those, why do you trust them to be among us at all? And why would you subject the rest of us to a person you don’t trust very much?
Thank you.
I consider myself pro-gun for a somebody who’s generally a liberal, but far to the left of the NRA. I don’t own a firearm, but I occasionally shoot them at targets with friends and family. For the OP, I’m not sure why we need to add a bunch of fully automatic M-16s to the system. Since you mentioned removing the restriction on barrel length but not removing the restrictions on automatic weapons, I assume they would have the current level of restriction and registration that already exists for an M-16. I’m reluctantly okay with that, but I’m not sure how it’s meant to fit in with the greater proposal. All it does is flood the market with existing guns under the current restrictions, something that could be accomplished by the manufacturer if the market were there. (As I understand it, the basics of the current restrictions on M-16 ownership are a background check, a one-time tax, and registration.)
I’m in favor of national concealed carry and ownership standards. I shouldn’t have to look up the rules about what California prohibits when coming from it’s gun friendly neighbor, Nevada.
I’m not 100% behind the proposed licencing/carry requirements. What I’d like to see is a background check on every sale, a national concealed carry license, and registration. While I think everybody should have a gun safety course if they’re going to own a firearm, I don’t think it should be part of the process. I also don’t like that the ownership license is something that has to be renewed. If you were cleared to own the firearm during the background check phase, you’re done with the process. You’re now free to put the gun in the attic and forget you have it.
I can see the use in renewal for the concealed carry permit, so I’ll support it there. If you’re actively carrying, let’s do a basic check to make sure you haven’t been convicted of a crime and no doctor flagged you as a danger to yourself or others. Also, property owners have the right to restrict carry on their property, including government buildings, but not public areas (e.g. streets, sidewalks, wilderness areas). This is probably the area that will need the most nuance and negotiation.
I’m okay with a registry too. As I understand, some firearms are currently required to be registered at the federal level, and some states have their own rules as well. Nobody is going around grabbing the automatics or short barreled weapons. I also concede that it doesn’t directly prevent crime. But I suspect that it will help solve them just like vehicle registration helps solve vehicle crimes.
jtgain points out that such a registry is useless if the serial numbers are filed off a gun, but it’s my understanding that filing the serial numbers off is itself illegal. Like having a firearm with the serial number filed off, having an unregistered weapon is an indication that something is amiss.
The arguments about loaning firearms to friends rings hollow to me. Such a temporary transfer is no different from loaning somebody your car. It might raise a warning flag when you’re pulled over in a borrowed car for speeding, but it’s nothing that can’t be sorted out with a few questions. Similarly, if the police run the serial on your 30.06 they found in your friends possession, it’s something that can be cleared up without anybody getting a felony. If you’re loaning it for a long time and don’t want the hassle if the police run your gun in your friends possession, do the transfer paperwork and background check.
Likewise, the “slippery slope” fear that a registry is the first step to confiscation also rings hollow. First, “slippery slope” is the most basic of rhetorical fallacies. A leads to B, B leads to C… before you know it, they’ve taken all the guns. So stop it at C. If C is registration, I’m for it. If Z is confiscation of firearms in general, I’m against it. We’re already at B or so, registration of certain types of weapons and prohibition of others. We can stop the slope at any point. I choose after registration of most firearms.
The slippery slope argument also assumes links in a chain that I don’t think exist. We register many things, from fertilizer to cars, and they aren’t taken away. We didn’t register many things, like Japanese or Native American ancestry, and they were rounded up. The lack of a registry would not stop the government from banning private firearm ownership if it really wanted to. It might blunt the effectiveness initially, but I don’t think it would make it impossible to implement in the long term.
Certainly there must be some constitutional level of restriction to arms ownership in your mind, or are firearms a special case? Otherwise, anybody can own any arms, right up to WMD. A sarin bomb is an arm. Are you trying to say that the government can’t prohibit me from owning sarin? If firearms are a special case, what’s the justification?
I use sarin because it’s potentially something that can be manufactured without having to obtain something else that’s prohibited. If you think that banning the parts to make arms is unconstitutional (e.g. a law prohibiting firing pins), we can extend the question all the way to nukes.
Somebody requested a clarification, and DA provided. You consider that “changing the rules?” Does his proposal has to be 100% clear and perfect the first time or you don’t trust him? Where’s the room for clarification and negotiation?
No, because those aren’t militia arms.
That’s my point. If I’m Jimmy the Crack Dealer, I don’t care if I’m violating the “felon in possession” law, the “possession of an unregistered gun” law, or the “possession of a gun with a removed serial number” law.
How does registration affect me in any way since I’m committing the more serious drug trafficking felonies already? Or committing the MOST serious felony of murder already?
But they’re not unconstitutional any more than all laws abridging the right to free speech are unconstitutional.
Because you recognize that there is a way to severely inconvenience a crimnal’s ability to get a firearm with a relatively modest inconvenience to law abuiding gun owners. I realize that I have not proven this but lets say that I proved to your reasonable satisfaction that licensing and registration would significantly and meaningfully reduce the flow of guns to prohibited persons. Would you see a poitn to it then?
Let me turn that around a bit. Which gun grabber has swallowed hard and signed on to overturning local gun restrictions, a national carry license and selling surplus M-16’s? As far as I can tell a lot more gun nuts are responding (and several of them are swallowing hard and going along with the idea). There is jsut a higher response rate from gun nuts because they have probably thought about these issues (particularly registration) a lot more than gun grabbers (whose opinions are frequenelty based on their unfamiliarity with guns and gun issues, they just know that guns are really lethal and they probably wouldn’t want one (and some of them can’t imagine why anyone would).
But your point is taken, the gun grabbers are not equally as frosty, they are still seem pretty cold to the idea.
Because gun violence generally is a MUCH bigger problem than these high profile shootings like Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine. You combine all the victims of mass shootings over the last 10 years and I bet we have more homicides in a month. We have almost as many gun deaths per year as we do automobile deaths every year.
I think if the gun grabbers had started off making this about gun violence generally (something they could do something about) rather than the mass murder of little children by a crazy guy with a SCARY looking assasult weapon that we simply MUST to ban (unless you want more children to die at the hands of crazy mad men who apparently only know how to operate assault weapons and would try to commit mass murder with wiffle ball bats without their AR-15), they could have achieved something meaningful, instead they ended up with a real bitter taste in their mouth. Just a personal theory of mine.
Yes thats right.
You need the license to possess a gun.
As long as he had a license, you might as well be loaning the gun to a judge. (Presumably you wouldn’t loan your gun to a judge that you knew was on his way to go rob a bank). Seeing his license is all you need to loan him the gun. An FFL would run your license to make sure it was valid but you could borrow or rent a gun just by presenting your license.
Any time ownership changes hands the registry needs to by updated. You need to report stolen guns in some reasonable amount of time.
What do you want to know?
As you know they are legal right now, you just can’t get them registered. We would legalize suppressors, short barreled rifles and things like that and we would open the registry for surplus M-16’s (I should have said surplus small arms).
Off the top of my head, the difference is that we may not get Jimmy for the Crack Dealer we didn’t find, but we got him on the gun charge. Like Capone was found guilty of tax evasion, but not ordering hits.
In that case, you’ll need to define militia arms for me because it’s not a term I’m familiar with. Also, are you implying that the Second Amendment is only for a militia? If that’s the case, I can see a clear path to all kinds of restrictions on the grounds that some firearms aren’t militia weapons.
Militia arms the armaments of the foot soldier. Long guns, pistols, swords, knives, and ordnance that can be delivered by hand. If you do not trust an adult to posses these, then they are not free men and should not be walking among us.
Who are the militia? The whole people. You and me.
As I’m reading this, I am reminded of talking to a teenager. Any time a suggestion is made, the teenager responds with “no” followed by some long-winded excuse. In the end, all we have are excuses and no actions.
The facts we know and (I think) we can agree on:
[ol]
[li]Mass shootings are unacceptable.[/li][li]Mass shootings require a gun capable of carrying out the act (large capacity, rapid to fire, etc.)[/li][li]The number of gun deaths (including unlawful homicide, lawful homicide, suicide, and accidents) in the US is unacceptably high.[/li][/ol]
Things most people can agree on:
[ol]
[li]Some regulation of firearms is acceptable.[/li][li]Guns should not be possessed by individuals incompetent to handle the gun.[/li][li]Incompetence can include mental disability, physical disability (related to ability to handle a gun), and youthfulness.[/li][li]The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to possess firearms.[/li][/ol]
At the outset of this thread, Damuri Ajashi made several suggestions regarding the regulation of guns. In the course of the conversation, he has also identified himself (herself?) as a gun owner and user. Many in this thread of simply said “nuh-huh” to his suggestions and provided excuses as to why the suggestions are bad.
So, fine.
If we agree that the number of gun deaths in the US is too high, what do you suggestion as a solution? If the suggested solutions are not acceptable, or, in your opinion, do not even address the issue at hand, than what are ideas that you think would be acceptable?