I bet all those gun nuts would support legislation to improve the social safety net.
Is there any group more prone to hysteria than gun owners? Teenage girls at a Bieber concert, maybe.
All guns should be registered. Possession of an unregistered gun? Ten year mandatory prison sentence.
Because there are far less mass-shootings that take place with hand guns then assault rifles?
But come on they’re called “Assault Rifles”. WHO NEEDS TO OWN AN ASSULT RIFLE??? Who hunts deer with a AR-15 with a 40 round clip?
I understand your Constitution says “The right to bear arms”. That’s pretty vague. I don’t know what there couldn’t be a ammendment to your Constitution limiting the types of firearms/weapons.
So yes you can own firearms, just not all kinds. Prohibit fully automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Then restrict certain kinds of firearms. So yes you can own them, but you need to take a special saftey course and pass more stringent backround checks to own these. In Canada you can own a handgun, but you are only allowed to use it at a certified gun range and you are only allowed to transport it from your house to the range and back. If you take it to the bush to go shooting and get caught by the cops, it gets taken away, your vehicle can be taken away, you can be charged and you probably won’t be allowed to own restricted firearms anymore.
All other firearms fill your boots.
What is so wrong with this? Will it stop all mass shootings? Maybe, maybe not. But it will make them less likely and rarer. And if they happen maybe there will be less casualties.
What are the short falls of something like this?
MtM
I beg your pardon?
What? Have we addressed this already in the thread? Coming into the thread late, but Yookeroo’s quote of the above just struck me as a bizarre state of affairs.
This is the same woman who was pulling in 250K a year in alimony, and we’re supposed to think she didn’t have the resources to treat her son? She may not have wanted to treat her son, or was in great denial about what a psychopath he turned out to be, but she didn’t have any resources? I’m confused. If she doesn’t have the resources to do it, then who would’ve? What resources would you have liked for her to have, that wouldn’t also sweep up a bunch of maladjusted kids/young people who weren’t ever going to shoot up a school?
What I was getting at is if you’re an avid hunter, hunting all kinds of species if you need 20 different rifles and 10 different shot guns great. But those rifes should be sem-auto or single shot with a reasonable max capacity magazine size (8? 10?).
Not modified semi-auto’s with 40+ shot clips.
MtM
Just out of curiosity–really, I’m not trying to be a dick here but…how will registering a gun keep it from being used in a murder (36%) and or suicide (60%)? Arguably the weapons the Sandy Point guy stole/borrowed from his mom would have been properly registered if that was a requirement. I don’t think we’ve ever had a major problem tracking down the folks who pull the triggers, which is all registering would be good for. The problem has been the dang triggers getting pulled in the first place. Suck on that: 60% of gun deaths are self inflicted, that’s a mental health issue not a gun control issue. Of the murders, I wonder how many of those are mental health issues and/or gang/drug violence-related. That’s a law enforcement thing, not a gun control thing.
- % refers to portion of all firearms-related deaths in 2009 according to CDC Report, table 18, USA firearms deaths (by intent)
This one would.
(I assume I qualify as a “gun nut” as I own more than a couple of firearms, was raised around firearms, have family that works with firearms as their main employment, and routinely use firearms to shoot holes in paper and put meat in my family’s freezer.)
Because everybody already knows it’s politically impossible. Most people who support increased restrictions on guns would support this, but they’ll also acknowledge there is no way on earth it’s going to happen, so they’ll settle for much smaller changes.
The terms assault weapon and assault rifle are vague and poorly defined a best, and at worst they don’t mean much of anything.
Thanks, but what does “in your boot” mean?
In your trunk.
In the same way the “bonnet” is the hood.
As many as you can stuff in the trunk of your car?
As many as an elephant can carry?
Oh “fill your boots”.
I guess maybe it’s Canadian (eh!). Just means be happy doing it, go crazy?
MtM
Thanks!
I just want to clarify – automatic weapons are already effectively outlawed in the US. A very few owned prior to the law change in 1934 were grandfathered in, and there are a very few locations where one can pay to fire one, but the licensing and taxation involved are very arduous. The current US discussion involves semi-automatic weapons.
Perhaps you were unaware of this, but the young man was legally an adult which greatly limits the ability of his parents to restrict his liberty. A minor is relatively easily confined against his will, for an adult it requires going to a court and convincing a judge said adult needs to be locked up.
In other words, it’s not just a matter of money.
Oh, I’m aware Lanza was 20 when he shot up the school. And I’m aware that it can be heart-rending dealing with an adult child with mental illness. As you’ve noted, it is difficult, if not impossible to have the child committed absent a showing that the child is intending to immediately harm themselves or others. There’s no guarantee they’ll stay in a therapeutic situation once you’ve miraculously been able to commit them either. Appointing a guardian is difficult, expensive, and may have been essentially impossible in Adam Lanza’s case.
I am just disagreeing with the idea that Nancy Lanza of all people lacked the resources to deal with the problem. Worst came to worse, if she suspected Adam of evil intent—she didn’t, of course—she by herself had the money to set him up in a separate apartment, away from her arsenal. But if that still aren’t enough resources to deal with the problem, what would you like the State of Connecticut to be able to do with an adult who is socially maladjusted, yet hasn’t expressed the ability or desire to harm himself or others? (As far as we know.) If we say, “Lock them up”, don’t you think we’re going to be drastically over-inclusive, and sweep up a lot of people who wouldn’t harm other people?
None of the proposed laws would have potentially stopped Lanza. Unless you out-and-out ban ugly black rifles and prevent their transfer to anyone, Nancy Lanza is exactly the kind of person who would be permitted to own one. It wouldn’t have mattered that her son was nuts—assuming he would have been adjudicated incompetent before he went off—she would have been permitted to own one. Probably too under the hypothetical proposed re-classification of semi-autos as equivalent to “Any Other Weapons” under the 1934 NFA. She certainly could afford the stamp, plus whatever political donations would be necessary to secure the LEO sign-off, and lawyers to set up a trust as the owner of record for the weapons, should she wish to go that route. She could also afford whatever storage mechanisms for the rifles that would realistically be proposed. And it still wouldn’t have stopped her son from getting a hold of them. I suppose we can say that any mentally unstable person in your household (good luck determining who’s classified as mentally unstable, BTW.) disqualifies everyone in the house from owning a firearm. Sure we want to go down that route?
Don’t you know that it’s never too early to set your hair on fire and run around screaming about the Tree of Liberty!
I want to see Obama make a public statement that he 100% adores LaPiere (? NRA President) and that he is finally ready to reciprocate all those man-crush love letters that LaPiere has been sending for over 4 years. Imagine the heads that would start exploding!
One negative has already happened. Ammo prices are way up. I bought my standard .22 target rounds from Cheaper than Dirt before Christmas for $6.79 a box. I decided to order more this month before Obama screws things up. 8.79 a box. :mad: Assholes jacked up the price $2 a box. I shoot a full box and sometimes 1 1/2 boxes anytime I go to the range.
Last month I bought a box of Remington .380 for $40. 100 cartridges. This month all the 100 cartridge .380 Remington boxes are out of stock and can’t be back ordered. They’re selling boxes of 50 cartridges for $40 instead. Twice the price. I choose not to purchase another box. I rarely use my .380 for target shooting anyway.
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/3-0301903?utm_source=email&utm_medium=confirmation&utm_campaign=transmark
I shudder to think how high ammo prices will go after Obama and Congress screw around. I’ve wondered if they’ll stick us with a tax like is charged on cigarettes. They could double the cost of Ammo just by taxing it.
This happens every time there’s a school shooting. It’s kind of hard to pin that one on Obama.