But we don’t do that. We don’t ban, we place reasonable restrictions.
We don’t put governors on cars, but we do pull you over if you are going too fast. Banning opioids would cause a great deal of harm, bu we are looking into ways of restricting their distribution in ways that may help, as well as having programs to help to get people off their addiction. We restrict cigs to adults, we restrict where you can smoke (you can take your gun more places than you can smoke these days), and we fund programs to reduce the number of smokers.
If in any of those cases, we find that as a matter of public safety, some regulations should be changed, we change them.
We put none of these types of restrictions on firearms, there are not reasonable discussions about what changes can be made to gun policies that would reduce their harm.
Well, we do try to reduce violent crime, do we not? As I said in another thread:*“And indeed, we are trying to reduce murders and violence. Just not by putting law abiding citizen gun owners in prison for crimes their guns might possibly commit. Extra police, extra sentencing for gun use during the commission of a crime, better forensics to catch killers, and so forth.”
*
We arrest you if you use a gun in a crime and add extra years to sentencing. We restrict various ages from buying various guns and we fund guy buy back and education programs.
But we DO put those types of restrictions on firearms: when you buy a new gun you register that firearm. There are restrictions, in various states, on magazine size, bump stocks, ownership of “assault weapons”, waiting periods, age restrictions, and of course felons, wife beaters and certain mentally ill people can not own firearms at all.
And remember, there is no evidence at all that “assualt weapon bans”, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc have ANY significant reduction in violent crime.
" *“However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate”. *
I don’t know that we do all that much to reduce violent crime. Our justice system is a mess as is, and just increasing penalties for committing crimes doesn’t make them stop. You have to address the roots of the crime, not just threaten punishment.
I do not need to register a gun if I buy it from my friend, and he can tell anyone that is interested that he thinks he lost it in a boating accident. There are no federal restrictions to most of that, and the state restrictions are constantly being challenged as being too restrictive. I would be very onboard with states and cities being allowed to have their own gun laws, but they are not allowed to. You say that domestic abuse and mental illness disqualifies one from owning guns, but if they don’t actually come take them, they don’t actually put your name into the database, then that does no good.
Universally, the only things that you list calls out is felons.
That’s crime rate. Not violent crime rate, and certainly not gun violence rate. There is much evidence that gun restrictions have a very significant reduction in gun violence.
This is question begging. Since we don’t know the future we don’t know that gun control with mean a reduction in the number of mass shootings and other shootings. There is a possibility of that if your model of how the world works is correct. On the other hand if gun control is passed we know that gun owners will be impacted. So the trade off is not guns versus few shootings, it is the certainty of fewer gun rights versus the possibility of fewer shootings.
Would that include posting vague warnings about popular insurrections if the Gun Grabbers come for yours? Extra credit for adding “Molon labe” in your signature.
Hi. I’m aware that a similar argument is used against mandatory training requirements. A sufficiently anti-gun county sheriff or other local government could use this in “bad faith” as they do in restrictive may-issue localities.
I don’t currently have a response to this other than to perhaps build in some sort of appeals process.
And to be honest, especially for that case, which he successfully claimed were not real threats, but just a parody of threats, I don’t know that jail is the appropriate way to deal with that sort of thing. But, I would say that he has demonstrated more then enough intent that he should have his access to guns restricted. That is something that the 2A’ers won’t let happen.
Is there anything that a person can do, short of actual criminal action, that you would find acceptable to take a look at whether or not he should have as easy access to guns as you and I do?
ETA: Specifically to the recent school shooting, do you think that law enforcement should have been able to restrict his access to guns?
Ok, I would revise my original post and say “detachable box magazine”. Also, disregard my “heirloom” wording. I would just grandfather-in all currently owned semi-autos and allow transfers to family members.
If I’m understanding the terminology correctly, I searched for
30 round stripper clip
in Google and got some results that indicates yes. But we may want someone with more knowledge of this topic to chime in.
Evil black rifles in California are restricted if the have easily detached magazines. A company makes a device that reloads 30 rounds through the ejection port about as fast as most folks can swap magazines. Probably faster than some others can do so.
The idea would be to use three separate stripper clips in succession to load a 30-round magazine (or 2 to load a 20-rounder, or 6 to load a 60-rounder, etc).