I’m down with that. In a perfect world, when guns are bought, they really wouldn’t need to be transferred anyways.
I don’t want gun enforcement because of law enforcement. That’s part of it, but guns fucking kill people. Handguns, specifically, kill more.
I assume you’d probably want a couple more things in exchange for banning all handguns, then. If so, I’m still listening.
I don’t think you’re getting it.
There is not a single person that has posted thus far that has consented to any sort of compromise on a handgun ban. There is not a single person here that will consent to any sort of compromise on a handgun ban. It is simply not going to happen. There is no possible compromise on the subject. If we don’t agree to any sort of Assault Weapons Ban, what makes you think that we would assent to banning an entire class of weapons?
LOUNE, I think enipla just specifically said that banning handguns is still a deal-breaker. Face it: that is one thing that pretty much nobody is going to accept, regardless of what you offer in return. Constitutionally, it’s a bit like asking what someone would be willing to take in exchange for making it illegal to criticize government officials: it’s an absurdly outrageous proposal from the very beginning, and enipla, JXJohns, E-Sabbath, Airman Doors, and others are quite right in dismissing it as nonsense out of hand.
And think about it light of your interests, even: if you ban handguns, the criminals aren’t going to be turning theirs in any time soon. Even as the supply gradually diminishes as a result, criminals will simply resort to stripping and cutting down semi-auto rifles to concealable size. Is it any surprise that criminals don’t care about the law? Bans on entire classes of weapons just don’t make sense, in addition to being unconstitutional.
Huwhaa? Suppose I buy a gun and then decide to sell it down the road? Or give it away? Or leave it to my children as part of their inheritance?
For what it’s worth, gun owner registration and everything stemming from it is also a deal-breaker for me, along with onerous restrictions on private sales. (Criminal charges for knowingly transferring to a convict, fine. Mandating government registration and background checks for private transfers, not so fine.) Such measures simply represent too great an intrusion of government into the private affairs of individuals to be acceptable. This isn’t just about gun rights anymore - it’s about our basic assumptions about the liberty of the individual citizen and the appropriate powers of government.
You know what, I think that’s a pretty decent idea. Seriously. Is anyone in the Detroit area (preferably Canton-ish) and wants to take me to the shooting range? I’ve never been shooting before.
Now, pleading ignorance for the other side isn’t going to cut it. Let’s continue the debate.
Outside of the inheritance part, why would you want to? Is it just to have the option open in case you do want to sell it to another person?
It’s not that huge an intrusion into your rights, really. You’ve got rifles, shotguns, and everything else that goes bump in the night and not handguns. If guns are mainly for hunting or self-defense, what’s left?
The pursuit of coming to an answer and ending this fun conundrum. Really, when you set the parameters and say “We’re not budging”, that makes it hard to talk about things, right?
I don’t think Airman Doors is saying he won’t budge on any issue. He’s presented ideas he’d be willing to discuss. But a handgun ban is not something he (or most other gun owners) is going to accept.
Heck, I’m not even a gun owner and I can see their point on this one. A handgun is one of the most useful weapons for self-defense or many other legitimate reasons for owning a gun. It’s also one of the cheaper firearms to own or buy ammunition for, so banning handguns would place an economic burden on potential gun purchasers.
I think that part of this is the pro-gun folks waiting for a gotcha that I don’t intend to spring.
The thing is, there are two different sorts of self-defense situation. If someone breaks into your home, a shotgun might be the best choice of weapon (gun owners, correct me if I’m wrong on that). But if you’re out on the street, you’re not likely to be carrying a shotgun around, because they’re pretty large and awkward to just stick in a pocket or whatever. If you want a firearm to defend against situations where you’re attacked on the street, a handgun is really the only option. And thus, if a person thinks that that situation is one of the more important reasons to have a gun, that person is not going to be willing to give up handguns in exchange for anything, because there’s nothing of equivalent value they could possibly stand to gain.
That said, though, it’s incorrect to say that a gun ban (of any sort) would only affect law-abiding folks, and not the criminals. Most guns used by criminals were, at some point in their history, legally obtained. Maybe the criminal stole it from someone who had legally bought it. Maybe the criminal legally bought it himself from a licensed dealer. But if guns of that type were banned, the theft victim wouldn’t have had it to be stolen, and the dealer wouldn’t have had it to sell. Yes, there would still be guns in circulation from before the ban, but they eventually go out of circulation. The police might capture a few in a raid, or a gun might break down, or a low-life might come into possession of a gun but not want to be caught with it, and turn it in. And if those guns that are taken out of circulation aren’t replaced, then eventually, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would diminish.
We are ass deep in guns and nobody thinks we can take them away.
But some of us think we made a serious mistake when we permitted guns to flow in America. Some of us think we would have a more peaceful and safe country if we did not make such a stupid error. I hate guns.
i think they are part of the reason we are such an aggressive pushy folk. When I was a lad kids got in fist fights. Bar fights wound up with chipped teeth. Robbers did not brandish weapons like they do now. There were gang fights that had no shootings.
In about 40 years or so it has all changed. It did not change for the better.
But like I said when I started ,that ship has sailed. The gun nuts won. They are everywhere and the world is a more dangerous place. I just wish they would quit crying about any and every person who wishes we could go back, as an evil person who just wants to take your constitutional god given rights to protect your families from the evil hoards that are lined up trying to kill your children.
gonzomax, the Second Amendment wasn’t ratified 40 years ago. :dubious:
We have more gun control now than we did 40 years ago. If something in our society has changed in that time for the worse, it ain’t the guns.
Did you include people killed in wars?
[
Not LOUNE, but why I’d want handguns banned in a different world: The vast, vast majority of gun related crimes committed with guns are committed with handguns due to their small and easily concealable size. For all of the ‘assault weapon’ BS that floats around a lot of anti-gun arguments, criminals don’t run around sticking up ATMs with AKs or AR-15s, or for that matter shotguns. Why? You’re pretty obvious walking down the street with an M-16 over your shoulder. If you just want to commit a criminal act using a gun as the means of force, it’s by far easier to use a simply concealable handgun.
Handguns or for that matter guns aren’t going to be banned in the USA in any foreseeable future. I’m likely odd on the anti-gun end of the spectrum as far as it goes, but if I could control gun laws, assault rifles would be legal and handguns would be illegal. Not ‘assault weapons’ as defined by stupid congressional laws, assault rifles as defined by their military definition. Perfectly capable of home and self defense as well as being a meaningful weapon for being a part of a well regulated militia for the defense of the country, and perfectly incapable of being concealed to commit a crime.
Never going to happen though, but in my ideal world I’d make any easily concealable firearm banned, but all rifles legal, even fully automatic rifles. Just be part of a well regulated militia and all – but that’s another debate. Eh, just an ideal thought, trying to fight gun possession in the US is like pissing into the sea. It’s ** not** going to change.
A lot of things kill people. Alcohol for instance kills a LOT more people a year than guns do. So…why not ban that? Or, how about banning all alcohol made from any kind of grain? You can have (with some restrictions, see the fine print) Alcohol made from other things, just not from any kind of grain.
How about that? Do you think that would be cool? Why or why not? Where do we draw the line…and who decides if not the people?
You keep missing the fact that the pro-gun side has ALREADY budged…or been budged I suppose. The rights of gun owners have already been eroded for quite some time now. Granted, I actually agree with some of that…but you don’t seem willing too look at this issue from their perspective. You just want them to give up more as part of your ‘compromise’…which basically means that they need to do the compromising.
-XT
So, what, when my dad dies, you melt down his guns?
Well, guns aren’t cheap, you know. I started out with a $60 Mossberg, went up to my $1100 Miroku, and if I wanted a Beretta, I’m looking at four or five grand.
You can get really good shotguns for 20 grand, and I’m not talking automatic fire or anything.
You want me to what, just shove them in the closet? Is that what you do with your old car every decade or so? Or do you try to trade it in? Guns last a lot longer than cars, you know. Sure, I can have two or three shotguns for different uses, but I really only need one break-action trap gun.
For that matter, my Miroku’s as old as I am, literally, and I’m darn lucky to have found it. If I had to buy something new, it wouldn’t have been nearly as nice for the price.
(Think of it as buying a used BMW instead of a new Hyundai. )
Airman, i have noticed that in nearly all gun threads on this site, the meme that cars kill more people than guns - therefore you should ban cars, appears regularly. ( If i didnt have to wait 300 secs before searches i’d attempt to prove it to you ).
In fact it appears so regularly, that i suspect it has been held up in pro gun circles as a foolproof way of derailing gun control discussions. So - hows about a deal: no mention of cars by pro gun lobby, no mention of penii by anti gun lobby?
So back to the thread.
Hows about this for a compromise:
Gun owners can own and fire any non artilery weapon, but they have to agree to the development of smart guns which can only fired by their owner. ( i know gun owners hate the idea of smart guns because the mechanism might fail in an emergency, but this is a hypothetical thread so assume that smart guns are real and as reliable as normal guns are ). Also, ammo is similarly marked in a way that makes it traceable to the supplier, the person who purchased it and the gun that fired it.
Isnt that a win, win ? You can fire everything you want, but each time you do there will be an audit trail.
I can already have any rifle I desire. Your ‘compromise’ is giving me something I already have while the people in the wings are whispering about taking it away again (the AWB).
You want a compromise? OK, give me an AR-15 and an M1-A1 for my two handguns. Straight trade. I’d have to think about it, but it would at least be a compromise.
If you want to take away handguns, along with the hangings for proposing any additional restrictions at any future points, I would expect all laws pertaining to the carrying of long guns_including full auto_to be struck down. If I am to be unable to carry my .38 snubnose revolver in my pocket; then I expect to be able to sling a select-fire M-4 carbine or Krinkov over my shoulder and go about my daily business free from any interference whatsoever from LE.
Have you ever sat down and asked yourself WHY it comes up regularly in these kinds of threads? It’s because it demonstrates that people are terrible about risk assessment or statistical analysis. The anti-gun side plays on that by tossing out vewy scawy stats about guns…but when looked at next to common every day things that are more likely to kill you it gives you a bit of perspective. Or it WOULD, if you bothered to think it through instead of just dismissing the argument, as you obviously have.
If you don’t like the one about cars, think about alcohol instead. How many people die a year in your neck of the woods in accidents or whatever related to alcohol? I’m guessing (since I assume you are a Brit) that the answer is…lots more than die from a gun. Well, even here in the vewy scawy US full of guns someone is many times more likely to die in an accident related to alcohol than either an accident or intention murder by fire arm. Even if you are a gang banger you are much more likely to die by the bottle than by the gun.
And me thinks you have dismissed the argument too lightly, without bothering to actually think about it. Wonder which of us is right?
-XT