Gun Control Proposals

[Jimmy Higgins]

But why? Remember the 2nd Amendment is a blank check, so there is no viable reason that you can ban them... like you can other weapons of war.

“Weapons of war?” The very phrase sounds frightening. What exactly does the phrase specifically reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't supposed to sound "frightening". It is supposed to label the weapon (any semi-automatic) as what it is. A weapon capable of killing a large number of people indiscriminately. Something that is suited for the battlefield. Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando... not battlefields.

Semi-automatics have no civilian purpose, like an Abrams tank, F-22, or a canister of active mustard gas.

Personally a ban is impossible. But I think the sale of existing semi-autos should be heavily regulated and future sales taxed prohibitively.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

...
Bear in mind that I live next door to people who use semi-automatic and modified fully-automatic weapons to shoot toilets in the woods.
...

Hi Rhea

Forgive me if, as European, I am misinformed.

I understood fully automatic weapons are already very strictly regulated, even forbidden, in all states.
Modification kits ditto and strictly illegal .
If not bump stocks would be useless wouldnt they ?

You are completely correct.

 

[Treedbear]

Are you suggesting then the AR-15 should be banned in an effort to abate or preclude mass shootings and/or school shootings?

Ya, along with all other semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Also because it's really creepy that you can buy them.

You reference “semi-automatic” weapons. So, other semi-automatic weapons, such as the Glock handgun 9mm, the Beretta, Ruger SR series, etcetera, along with the AR-15, are a cause for mass shootings and school shootings and should be banned?

I like that response because it helps to zero in on the problem. So in your opinion, why is the AR-15 favored by gun enthusiasts compared to the others you listed? And in particular those civilians who view it as one of the best publicly available assault weapons?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This thread is for meaningful discussion of possible proposals and why and how they would work.
I am looking for productive discussion among people who want things to work.

Okay then.
I propose mandatory gun ownership for all adults.
The big limitation is that it requires people to purchase something simply because they live in the US. That limitation was overcome by the Affordable Care Act.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This thread is for meaningful discussion of possible proposals and why and how they would work.
I am looking for productive discussion among people who want things to work.

Okay then.
I propose mandatory gun ownership for all adults.
The big limitation is that it requires people to purchase something simply because they live in the US. That limitation was overcome by the Affordable Care Act.

How does increased gun ownership help? The risk of suicide via gun increases substantially if there is a gun in the house. Stopping shootings in public doesn't help, if there is a gun... in a locker in your house.

 

[James Madison]

But why? Remember the 2nd Amendment is a blank check, so there is no viable reason that you can ban them... like you can other weapons of war.

“Weapons of war?” The very phrase sounds frightening. What exactly does the phrase specifically reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't supposed to sound "frightening". It is supposed to label the weapon (any semi-automatic) as what it is. A weapon capable of killing a large number of people indiscriminately. Something that is suited for the battlefield. Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando... not battlefields.

Semi-automatics have no civilian purpose, like an Abrams tank, F-22, or a canister of active mustard gas.

Personally a ban is impossible. But I think the sale of existing semi-autos should be heavily regulated and future sales taxed prohibitively.

So, is it your view all semi-automatics should be banned?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This thread is for meaningful discussion of possible proposals and why and how they would work.
I am looking for productive discussion among people who want things to work.

Okay then.
I propose mandatory gun ownership for all adults.
The big limitation is that it requires people to purchase something simply because they live in the US. That limitation was overcome by the Affordable Care Act.

How does increased gun ownership help? The risk of suicide via gun increases substantially if there is a gun in the house.

The risk of suicide via other methods goes down by the same amount. If your concern is suicide, you should address that instead of guns.

Stopping shootings in public doesn't help, if there is a gun... in a locker in your house.

True. On the other hand, if there is a home invader, you are equipped to do something about it.

 

[ronburgundy]

You've got a pretty major case of not paying attention to the problems with the ideas.

1) Criminal handgun crime. Reality: Most criminals buy their guns on the street. Restrictions on legal sales, other than those aimed at straw purchases, are going to have a very minimal effect. Even getting rid of straw purchases isn't going to make a big dent as fenced guns are generally cheaper than legal ones. There's no point in putting a bank vault door in with a window next to it.

Where do you think the guns sold on the street come from? Hint: Most are not stolen for legal owners or smuggled into the country. FBI data shows that the overwhelmingly majority of them come from legal sales by dealers at gun shows, or by gun shops to "law-abiding" gun owners who then resell them to criminals. Current laws either make such sales legal unless it can be proven the seller knew the buyer was a criminal or make it impossible to enforce the laws because owners can buy unlimited guns and just lie and say "it was stolen" if one of them ever gets traced back to them (which lack of gun registration laws makes nearly impossible). After guns go through legal channels into the hands of someone with criminal intent, then they get further resold from criminal to criminal "on the street".

IOW, the legal gun market from manufacturer to buyer is the #1 source of guns used in crimes. Thus, laws that restrict that legal market are the only way to significantly reduce the use of guns in crime.

 

[ImGod]

The problems in the OP are really just symptoms of larger problems. Remove the guns and the underlying violence associated with the larger socio-economic issues will continue almost unabated.

Cure the disease and the symptom of violence will end with it, as well as, many other symptoms.

I propose people put their efforts into programs like Cure Violence which have much more successful results.

Gun deaths and injuries can be broken down into violence, suicide, self-defense and accidents. You're assuming that the simple act of banning an object will somehow "fix" these complex and unrelated issues. Suicidal tendencies if left untreated will result in suicide. Violence brought on by gang and criminal activity will continue. Self defense is an inherent right of every individual.

A nationwide gun ban doesn't fix any real problem, it simply shifts the symptoms to other modes of operation that will need to be to tackled later. In the mean time it creates a huge number of criminals out of formerly law abiding people; thereby eroding support. Most everyone right now would support methods that would actually help. But nobody's proposing any of those.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problems in the OP are really just symptoms of larger problems. Remove the guns and the underlying violence associated with the larger socio-economic issues will continue almost unabated.

Yes, but they will continue with far less deaths. That's a goal in and of itself.

If someone is bleeding out from a gut wound, you put a bandage on him. You don't have him lie there while you discuss how to deal with the long term issue of there being a lot of really sharp objects lying around the area. The immediate problem takes priority.

 

[James Madison]

And America will pay for it!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting then the AR-15 should be banned in an effort to abate or preclude mass shootings and/or school shootings?

Ya, along with all other semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Also because it's really creepy that you can buy them.

You reference “semi-automatic” weapons. So, other semi-automatic weapons, such as the Glock handgun 9mm, the Beretta, Ruger SR series, etcetera, along with the AR-15, are a cause for mass shootings and school shootings and should be banned?

Ya. Not just for the sake of preventing mass shootings, of course, but all the other bullshit you people get up to with them as well, but helping to prevent mass shootings would be one of the big ones.

In the context of the U.S., a proposal to ban the AR-15 and rifles akin to the AR-15 would not abate or preclude mass shootings (defined as a shooting in which 4 or more people are killed) or school shootings in the U.S. A reason is, as you alluded to, the proliferation of all kinds of semi-automatic weapons in society in conjunction with soft targets, such as schools, certain places of employment, public attractions such as theaters, restaurants, etcetera. As you know, these semi-automatic weapons are not vanishing any time soon, and neither is their lawful possession of some or all of them, because of the 2nd Amendment, the Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and subsequent decisions by the federal and state judiciary regarding firearms, regulations, and the 2nd Amendment.

The data regarding mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982 unequivocally demonstrates the vast majority of them were perpetuated by handguns, not rifles, and some of the most deadly mass/school shootings, if not the deadliest, was achieved with the use of handguns, not any rifles.

This is why I find proposals in the U.S. to ban the AR-15 and similar rifles to be vacuous. The visceral desire to do something, anything, to abate/preclude school shootings/mass shootings has resulted in the proposition of superficial solutions, like banning the AR-15 and similar rifles.

Since the 2nd Amendment is not disappearing from U.S. law anytime soon, and neither is the currently prevailing 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, possible solutions to abating/precluding school/mass shootings must include something more than the empty promise offered by a ban on AR-15s and similar rifles.

 

[Malintent]

solution to the gun problem: Read the first part of the 2nd amendment, and not just the second part.

"FOR THE PURPOSE of maintaining a WELL REGULATED MILITIA...

Describe your role in the state militia, and then we can discus what firearms are appropriate to possess.

The second amendment limits the power of the federal government to prohibit STATES from forming a MALITIA (we call it a Police Force in modern language).

If your position on gun control is solely based on the second amendment, then your only position can be that police officers actively serving the force are the only individuals that may possess a firearm

 

[ImGod]

The problems in the OP are really just symptoms of larger problems. Remove the guns and the underlying violence associated with the larger socio-economic issues will continue almost unabated.

Yes, but they will continue with far less deaths. That's a goal in and of itself.

If someone is bleeding out from a gut wound, you put a bandage on him. You don't have him lie there while you discuss how to deal with the long term issue of there being a lot of really sharp objects lying around the area. The immediate problem takes priority.

That's a huge unsubstantiated claim. Your supposition is that our homicide rate would drop with less guns. Yet our homicide rate has fallen over the last several decades with even more guns being sold. All you're proposing is that we do like the UK and shift our deaths from guns to other means while the overall rate of homicides stay the same.

Odd. I'd rather figure out why people are kill each other and get them to stop. Go to the source, so to speak. Why do 95% of the homicides in my state occur in a small area of one part of the largest city with the strictest gun control laws? While the places with more guns per capita are the safer areas to life in. It's almost as if you can't correlate gun ownership and possession with the violence that's occurring.

My supposition is that if all guns disappeared from the planet tomorrow, 95% of the homicides in my state would occur at roughly the same general rate in the same geographic location as they do now.

If people were serious about the actual gun homicide rate they'd focus on handguns. Death by all rifles, account for fewer deaths per year then beating people to death by hand. So an AWB is the bandaid on the bleed out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How does increased gun ownership help? The risk of suicide via gun increases substantially if there is a gun in the house.

The risk of suicide via other methods goes down by the same amount.

Unsubstantiated.

Stopping shootings in public doesn't help, if there is a gun... in a locker in your house.

True. On the other hand, if there is a home invader, you are equipped to do something about it.

Yes, the boogie man defense to mass arming.

Your post doesn't address how mass arming makes the public safer.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What my post didn't establish is that mass arming is useful in every situation, so therefore you concluded that it isn't useful in any situation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't supposed to sound "frightening". It is supposed to label the weapon (any semi-automatic) as what it is. A weapon capable of killing a large number of people indiscriminately. Something that is suited for the battlefield. Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando... not battlefields.

Semi-automatics have no civilian purpose, like an Abrams tank, F-22, or a canister of active mustard gas.

Personally a ban is impossible. But I think the sale of existing semi-autos should be heavily regulated and future sales taxed prohibitively.

So, is it your view all semi-automatics should be banned?

I believe that I already explained what I believed in the post you quoted.

I believe that all semi-auto and automatic weapons need the laws changed regarding the future purchase and sales of them. Whether that means banning future sales or taxing to prohibition is up for discussion. Removing them from society is a pipe dream.

 

[RavenSky]

The only part I disagree with is the idea of needing incremental laws to ban the AR-15 and other quasi-military weapons of war. They were outlawed once, and should be again... sooner rather than later.

What effect is a ban on the Ar-15 supposed to achieve? What is the purpose, uh, the goal of such a ban on the AR-15?

The AR-15 was specifically designed for war - the VietNam war to be precise. We don't allow the general public to own hand grenades, tanks, fully-automatic guns, etc. The same arguments for banning them applies to the AR-15.

It is the gun of choice for mass-murderers. You ask what effect a ban of the AR-15 is supposed to achieve? Fewer innocent people killed with them.

To analyze the issue, I look at all rampage killings, school shootings, workplace shootings, family massacres and mass killings over religion, race and politics, from 1973 to the present. Each case analyzed had five or more deaths, with many wounded.

In this study of 108 mass shootings, 92 of them occurred before the assault weapons ban, and after it as well, with only 16 mass shootings in the ten years in which we had an assault weapons ban. If you divide those by the number of years (34 for non-ban years and 10 for ban years), you find that we had 2.71 shootings per year in non-ban years, and 1.6 shootings per ban year.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

And the previous ban didn't even confiscate AR-15's already in circulation

 

[Playball40]

Maybe, but MacGuyver and Doctor Who spring to mind as non-gun heroes. Michael Weston used guns in Burn Notice, but it wasn't his primary thing and turned his nose down on the "shoot first" philosophy. And if you are going to change the culture, you need awareness. That requires information, and distributing of information.

Phasers on stun

 

[Playball40]

I think they should be illegal. Period.

Have a gun buyback program - allow people to turn them in voluntarily and be compensated for it. After a certain amount of time, that's it. If you're found with one in your possession, your house etc., you will face steep penalties or jail or both.

Handguns and hunting rifles should be licensed/registered and insured. If YOUR gun kills someone, YOU are culpable (how much would depend on the situation). Licenses must be renewed, training must be renewed, vision and health must be reviewed periodically (like a pilot or drivers license). You must be able to show proof of insurance at all times and if you have no proof of insurance you do not get a new registration.

The AR-15 was specifically designed for war - the VietNam war to be precise. We don't allow the general public to own hand grenades, tanks, fully-automatic guns, etc. The same arguments for banning them applies to the AR-15.

It is the gun of choice for mass-murderers. You ask what effect a ban of the AR-15 is supposed to achieve? Fewer innocent people killed with them.

To analyze the issue, I look at all rampage killings, school shootings, workplace shootings, family massacres and mass killings over religion, race and politics, from 1973 to the present. Each case analyzed had five or more deaths, with many wounded.

In this study of 108 mass shootings, 92 of them occurred before the assault weapons ban, and after it as well, with only 16 mass shootings in the ten years in which we had an assault weapons ban. If you divide those by the number of years (34 for non-ban years and 10 for ban years), you find that we had 2.71 shootings per year in non-ban years, and 1.6 shootings per ban year.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

And the previous ban didn't even confiscate AR-15's already in circulation

 

[RavenSky]

...
Bear in mind that I live next door to people who use semi-automatic and modified fully-automatic weapons to shoot toilets in the woods.
...

Hi Rhea

Forgive me if, as European, I am misinformed.

I understood fully automatic weapons are already very strictly regulated, even forbidden, in all states.
Modification kits ditto and strictly illegal .
If not bump stocks would be useless wouldnt they ?

Not entirely correct, though a common misperception.

For instance, "machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law". This and other loopholes allow all of the items you named to be legally traded, although it (and public opinion) makes it relatively rare.

And as I previously noted, even when "semi-automatic rifles" were banned, this did not apply to weapons purchased prior to the ban. But in spite of this glaring loophole, mass shootings by AR-15 dropped by more than 69%