General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere do you personally stand on what guns, if any, to ban or allow?
I'm posting this because I'm curious. Not really looking to attack anybody's ideas or even debate the merits of them (although I know that's probably going to happen anyway). I'm just curious as to what, if you ran the country and had absolute power, laws you would pass regarding guns. Forget about political climate, election consequences, the realistic possibility of getting a particular thing passed or not. You have absolute power. What would you do and what do you think is fair? I'll start:
Ban all semi-automatic rifles. The preferred weapon of choice for mass shooters. No reason to have them in society in my opinion. Get rid of them, you would see a dramatic decline in mass shootings.
Ban all handguns. While semi-automatic rifles are the preferred weapon for mass shooters, the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are done with handguns. Get rid of them, you would see a dramatic decline in gun deaths overall.
Shotguns, lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, single shot rifles, are all okay and would still be legal. That gives you plenty of room to work with for hunting, home defense, and sport shooting. Mandatory background checks and licensing required. 15 day waiting period also required.
Anyways, that's my list. What's yours?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(14,354 posts)
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)...oh wait, no it hasn't, their homicide rates are way above the US.
LonePirate
(14,354 posts)But do whatever you need to do to obtain the false sense of security your gun addiction provides. We're coming for your guns even if it takes us a few decades.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)But not so much in more violent countries like on the American continent.
Region Rate
Americas 16.3
Africa 12.5
World 6.2
Europe 3.0
Oceania 3.0
Asia 2.9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)People are tired of gun nutters mowing down people each day
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Not decent people?
johnpowdy
(116 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)my hobby, my toy, whatever you want to call it.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)is passionate about nobody having to die over YOUR hobby.
It is a hobby that is now shown to cause way way way more problems than it is worth, but some folks simply dont care, they want what they want.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)It is about guns. sorry
Marengo
(3,477 posts)On numerous occasions to provide examples of when and where militia membership was a prerequisite for the possession of firearms by private citizens. I don’t recall you ever answered that either.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,282 posts)
Marengo
(3,477 posts)
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... since every Xbox everywhere would be doing equal damage no matter what the owner or operator was doing.
gibraltar72
(7,629 posts)My wife laid an old NRA marksmanship patch on my table this morning to tweak me. It must have laid in a drawer was never sewn on my shooting coat. I parted with NRA when they lobbied for cop killer bullets. I don't think all guns should be banned. I respect target shooters and for that matter those who wish to hunt. That is as much a choice as a womans right to an abortion. Assault weapons should be banned. Private citizens should not have the right to loosely open carry. No citizen should be able to outgun the law. Having said that the law has to be more minbful of everyones rights. No gun should have 30 rd magazine. That is not a sporting weapon. If that still doesn't curb gun violence. I would be open to more restrictions. Open carry needs to be drastically cut back. I am as progressive as anyone but I would be very happy with the above.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)These days, can't they come up with some kind of laser gun game that simulates the real thing, yet doesn't harm human beings?
I'm sorry, but the use of a gun as a "hobby" is the lamest fucking excuse I have ever heard.
Calculating
(3,000 posts)And defend myself and my family against those who would seek to hurt us? IDK how you defend yourself against multiple armed home invaders without a gun, maybe you're fine with getting killed, tortured or raped but I'm not.
LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Question, so looking for a yes or no please.
LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)There are some DUer gun owners who will freely give up all of their weapons in order to protect people. Then there are others, much like yourself, who, to paraphrase Obama, seem to be clinging to their guns no matter what. If your guns are more important to you than having our kids be safe at schools or any of the rest of us being safe at a concert or a movie or at work or wherever, then you know how I will answer.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Not decent Americans?
LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)LonePirate
(14,354 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Their guns then the livesof children?
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)the answer is yes
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Is indecent. I’ll make an effort to remind anyone you engage going forward of that if it seems relevant.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)You are really a rethug right?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)
Squinch
(58,924 posts)That's 7 by your count, but about 20 by mine! 
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Might say 27 repetitions of the same thing might constitute a scripted argument.
gibraltar72
(7,629 posts)People equating another person that wants to hunt or plink tin cans with child killers. Jesus Christ I expect more on here. I do not get where some people come from. Some of my neghbors keep guns to protect their calves and chickens.They are not bad people. That argument can't and should not be won.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Response to Marengo (Reply #70)
Post removed
Marengo
(3,477 posts)
Happy?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Squinch
(58,924 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Squinch
(58,924 posts)out your SCRIPTED responses MUCH more than five times! Give me some credit!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)about it...and decide for yourself...leaning towards...good people value kids over guns. But you have to decide who and what you stand for.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Cast into hell for continuing to own a gun after MSD, or ascend into heavan for not doing so. We can certainly apply the same standard to other debates. For example, still drive an internal combustion vehicle after climate change irrefutably proven? Thanks to that’s, untold millions of children will suffer and die because of that choice. There are many other choices folks make that demonstrably cause harm to unseen others or in ways not apparent to rhe persom making the choice.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
samnsara
(18,740 posts)...have competitions with the local GOP.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)vote for anyone who supports them in a primary.
MyOwnPeace
(17,463 posts)"the majority" - you know, the ones not lining the pockets of the elected representatives of the NRA - AKA: Congress!
(really, you had to ask?)
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Noticed, but that is what that poster is advocating.
MyOwnPeace
(17,463 posts)but, by God, the majority wants SOME action - and it has to start somewhere - and it has to start soon!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)and us selling everything imaginable to anyone
guns are our biggest export
drugs for guns must stop
legalize all drugs... educate, treat and provide opportunity
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)US top 10 exports....guns don't make the list:
Machinery including computers: US$201.7 billion (13% of total exports)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $174.2 billion (11.3%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $138 billion (8.9%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $131.2 billion (8.5%)
Vehicles: $130.1 billion (8.4%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $83.6 billion (5.4%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $61.5 billion (4%)
Gems, precious metals: $60.4 billion (3.9%)
Pharmaceuticals: $45.1 billion (2.9%)
Organic chemicals: $36.2 billion (2.3%
At the more granular four-digit HTS level, America’s top export products are refined petroleum oils followed by cars, automotive parts and accessories, electronic integrated circuits then mobile phones.
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-exports/
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)but we do export a lot of weapons legally and illegally
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)a couple dozen fighter jets would dwarf those numbers
we are arming the world and starting up wars
we sell weapons all around the world it is very big business
guns are not the answer I believe if we try we can find better solutions than arming everyone
schools should be gun free, walmart should be gun free
I am proud stand with children an say NO to guns
and No to bullies like pro gun nuts
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)A "couple dozen fighter jets" would not dwarf over 200 billion in machinery exports.
In 2014 we had around 36 billion in total arms exports.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and drug cartels. That's the problem there.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)They ALL have draconian gun control laws and they all have a homicide rates 4x's+ the US rate.
And poverty does not explain it all, Palestine and Indonesia have rates lower then the US and Africa has lower rates then the American continent avg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
treestar
(82,383 posts)Third world countries may have gun bans, but they may not be enforced, or there is corruption, or other problems that cause the homicides.
They don't need mass shootings in places where masses of people die from the unrest in the country.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)US: 4.8 per 100,000
Europe: 3.0 per 100,000
The countries with the worst rates are over 50 per 100,000, all in Central or South America
Cherry picking a few European states with low rates can be done in the US too, New Hampshire's rate is 1.1 per 100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state
Upthevibe
(10,114 posts)
I think it should be fine for folks to have a hand gun (I don't even know know the correct words) in their home that is locked in a safe (that can only be obtained with the owner's fingerprint)...Thanks for the post....lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
Merlot
(9,696 posts)
Clarity2
(1,009 posts)But living in an area littered with deer and the lyme disease that goes with it, hunting is a necessity to reduce the population. They are literally on my property on a daily basis. I dont know any other solution except local govt using other methods that are expensive and time consuming.
Lyme is scary, an epidemic, and I know multiple people who have it.
Thats really all Ive got. Single shot bullets or whatever - low velocity (?) used to get that job done...I dont have any knowledge of guns or ammo.
Im on the fence about hand guns for those who are for instance being stalked, or are victims of violence or domestic violence and need to protect themselves. I think they would have to show just cause.
Thyla
(791 posts)It works, you can still play boom, boom if it tickles your fancy and it is sensible.
That said I don't believe that you could implement such widespread changes in the USA in one go. It'd have to be over a decade or so.
stonecutter357
(13,010 posts)I would like to see a 30 day waiting period, on all semi-automatic rifles and handguns. and must be 21 or a military id card .
chowder66
(12,007 posts)If gun owners then continued to abuse those policies I would broadcast to ban all handguns for civilians if abuses that resulted in death and/or injuries rose beyond a certain percentile. This way gun owners would have to hold each other accountable and come up with being part of a solution as opposed to being part of the problem or ditching the problem all together.
Fantasy... I know.
maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)Stop saying "Ban".
Start saying REGULATE.
Stop saying "Assault Rifle".
Start saying MSSA (Military-Style Semi-Automatic), the way a sane country (NZ) does.
beaglelover
(4,449 posts)maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)but we've got to stop with this absolutist language and this binary thinking.
there are 300 million plus guns in a country of 300 million plus. we are saturated with firearms. it's too late for "bans".
people need to bone up on this issue before they call for "banning" this or that. it's absurd.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)How many guns did Australia have? They seemed to do it
maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)They don't have a population on self-righteous radicalized yahoos. I heard on the radio this morning (KEXP) that 'Merica has 3% of the world's population and 40% of its firearms. That's the situation.
I didn't say "give up and let them win". You are putting words in my mouth - another habit that we need to stop.
I said to stop saying "Ban" and start saying "Regulate". I think that's pretty clear.
The Regulations I'd propose give a Gundamentalist an aneurysm. I'd start with the Unorganized Militia.
moriah
(8,312 posts)1) All sale and resale/transfer, public and private, of firearms must go through a local FFL. People can support their local gun store and range this way. This would drive up the price of true "black market" firearms without an extensive burden on the legal buyer/seller. It would also allow for people who offer sale without such on public websites to be shut down.
2) Waiting periods for any purchasers except CHL holders and people with paper shields (and allow reimbursement to local FFLs so they provide a free check to anyone who has a paper shield). The FFL can hold the gun and payment in escrow for private party purchasers. It would also let a father just go with his daughter to the gun store once she has her paper shield from the courts to give her his pistol, which they'd hopefully do to get ammo anyway.
3) Long gun magazine restriction to five round capacity for sale or transfer, private or public. Buy-backs of legally purchased extended capacity magazines that fit into the owner's rifles or pistols without modifications being required to make them fit. States left to regulate if any pistol that comes standard from the factory with a magazine larger than a certain amount (SWAG here, 10? I don't shoot plastic guns with double stack magazines) can be sold or legally carried.
4) I'm going to use the B-word here -- ban sale, resale, and manufacture of any kit or device to modify a firearm from factory standards to increase its ability to fire ammunition more quickly or reduce need for reloading. Police would have the right to seize any firearm so modified if found, in order to remove the modification, and confiscate the modified gun itself if found outside of a home. This would ban bump stocks, belt feed mods, and many other receiver modifications.
5) Work with states, ammunition manufacturers, and computer experts to serialize ammunition and track ammunition purchases with a 10-year deadline for implementation. At age 18, voting age, a person would be able to register to purchase ammunition, and a "will issue" policy being defined if a person could legally purchase a firearm. Point of sale tracking and ID for ammunition purchases being required, and the point of sale shall be able to contact the state database to determine if ammunition license is still valid. Ammunition degrades far faster than firearms. We have the technology to update and revoke an ammo license if a person commits a crime that makes them unable to purchase a firearm. I'd be willing to give up my issues with women being forced to hunt down marriage and divorce licenses to get ID to fly, and even showing it to vote, if we implement ammunition ID and tracing. It's a long-term solution to a long-term problem, and people might stockpile old ammo for awhile, but that means it's more likely they'll blow up their guns if they risk using it
maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)And #4 is peachy with me, though it won't be with many of DUs Gunner Crew.
I just get frustrated with knee-jerk binary reactions. It's too late to "ban all guns"; the cat is out of the bag.
moriah
(8,312 posts)... may be pissed, but my proposal would still leave them with their regular rifle unless they took it out in public. They'd still be able to have their fortified bunker they must think they're going to need because to drop that much suggests imminent fear of TSHTFing. But not to take it out and play with it in public. (Should we make a "Guns are like a penis" metaphor there, or is that already overdone when we use it to discuss religion?)
And you have to do something usually to draw suspicion to yourself before police come inside your home. Even then it'd be just removing the modification, and returning the weapon to factory specifications, unless what caused them to come into your home and see the modified gun would also lead to probation conditions that specify no guns.
The #5 is what I think will be the long-term solution. Chris Rock might have been setting his pricing structure a little high, but yeah, I do think regulation of ammunition would be more effective than just regulation of guns. Eventually old stockpiles of ammo will be unsafe to shoot, and while that might take a long time, it still degrades faster than steel and plastic.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I'm not foolish enough to think guns will go away forever in this country, but very tight regulations should be in order. At the very least they should be regulated like any other dangerous "toy". Right now, it's a free-for-all for gunners. And those who are opposed to any regulation are the ones whose guns should be confiscated first, because obviously they have no intent on acting in a lawful manner.
lostnfound
(17,447 posts)
ooky
(10,815 posts)I guess, selfishly, because my 5 yo granddaughter is starting school next year.
Its way too easy for shooters to walk through the door and do damage. That effort needs to be driven from local governments but will work much better with the support of state and federal funding.
I want our lawmakers to focus on real solutions, but that isn’t going to happen with the NRA shills in control of Congress. So we have to figure out how to fight the NRA money and propaganda and get people to the polls to vote for dems. Our ability to be successful at the polls is going to depend on how we present our message on how to fight this gun issue, which is why I prefer your approach.
highplainsdem
(60,895 posts)to buy guns to be accompanied by statement of why the gun is needed and what it is expected to be used for. Mandatory safety training for everyone puchasing a firearm. Minimum age of 21.
hunter
(40,490 posts)... as smoking in workplaces was denormalized.
We have to empower family, friends, and communities to reject gun fetishes; to question anyone who buys guns for non-utilitarian reasons.
The law will follow.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)hand guns, hunting rifles and shotguns are all fine.
the bigger need is background checks, gun registration and insurance on individual weapons
johnpowdy
(116 posts)It will not make a difference unless we target ALL semi-automatic guns. No one needs a semi auto in this day and age. The police will protect you. We live in a modern society...not the 1800s
sarisataka
(22,361 posts)Did you actually just say that 15 minutes after you posted pictures allegedly of the police standing outside the school while a shooting was happening?
johnpowdy
(116 posts)...a military style assault rifle. I guess it defeats the "good guy with agun". They might have been outgunned. If we ban those guns then the police will not have an issue and not have to wait for a SWAT team. An assault rifle spews thousands of bullets per minute.....ban those and all semi-auto and the police will have no problem protecting you
sarisataka
(22,361 posts)An assault rifle vaporizes a boar.
Even if the police could be everywhere, they don't have to lift a finger for you. See Warren v. District of Columbia
johnpowdy
(116 posts)The right wingers are going to argue the case of the deputies waiting outside the school doing nothing means the police won't protect you too. We need to control the narrative. Say they were outgunned......say it defeats the "good guy with a gun". This way we can move to finally push for a semi-auto ban and bring down an outdated, ridiculous amendment
sarisataka
(22,361 posts)I will not just say something just to suit my wishes.
You can say it however you want, you can repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban every gun from the United States but that will not change the fact that the police have no duty to protect you.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)sarisataka
(22,361 posts)It would take a big change to tort law and also require giving police far more broad Powers over regular citizens than they have now
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I would not support banning hunting, fishing and eating meat. The real issue is with background checks and lax state laws that allow straw man purchases. The american people would never support a total gun ban for good reason...
the answer doesn't lie in either the extreme left position or the extreme right position. People better get that if you WANT ANYTHING DONE AT ALL
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)
Runningdawg
(4,660 posts)+ raise the age, waiting period, ban bump stock and high cap mags, gun restraining orders, all military type weapons must be registered, only one per person.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)
demigoddess
(6,675 posts)under 21 may not be able to buy them but parents could and then give them to child or leave them available at home.
Make a data base of mentally ill or dangerous people that anyone could report to and cops or FBI could check whether that person should be on list.
Waiting list would be great.
REquire home gun safes.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)But I'm ok on restrictions and background checks.
GoneOffShore
(18,009 posts)With the addition of pump action shotguns and any rifle with a magazine being illegal.
Double barreled shotguns - legal.
Rifles - bolt action, single shot only - legal.
30 day waiting period. Minimum age of 25 to buy.
Anyone under 25 could only shoot at a registered shooting club, under supervision.
Background check, psych exam, mandatory training in firearm safety.
Guns only transported to registered shooting clubs or ranges or designated hunting areas. Some exceptions for farmers and ranchers.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)I believe this is how many of the European countries do it, including Australia
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)That would get the high-powered sniper rifles using rounds like the Lapua .338 and .50 BMG like the Barrett out of private hands as well.
GoneOffShore
(18,009 posts)your point wouldn't be on my radar.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Even though I haven't fired a gun since my grandfather's .22, fifty years ago.
I despise this awareness. It's one of the last vestiges of my old self.
GoneOffShore
(18,009 posts)When I lived in England I shot with the Windsor Rifle and Pistol club.
We would go down to Bisley and shoot .762 and .303 on the 1000 yd range. I enjoyed it, but stopped when my wife and I split.
Haven't shot in over 40 years.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts).338 and .50 are human-killing calibers. The .338 (especially the .338 Lapua Magnum) was developed as a military sniper round, and the only reason for the .50 to be available to civilians is to use in rifles like the Barrett - which is a military sniper rifle.
Basically I'm looking for ways to get weapons that are primarily intended as human-killing machines out of circulation: handguns, semi-auto .223s, sniper rifles etc.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The most popular hunting rounds in US history but originally designed for the military for “human-killing”. Same for .308. I imagine those calibers have killed far greater numbers of humans than .338 as they were specifically designed to.
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)I guess my criteria are the lethality of the weapon, and the degree of fetishization that the weapon supports.
I'm not after stopping all gun deaths, which is impossible. I want to reduce them as much as possible, but first and foremost I'm looking for interventions that will change the toxic, fetishistic aspects of gun culture.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)You’re not going to gain any traction calling for bans on certain cartridges based on “degree of fetishization” which is highly subjective. What then about 9mm, the most common military pistol caliber in thr world?
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)Addressing ammunition is only useful in a couple of cases, like .338 and .50, but even then only as a way to reduce the temptation to think of oneself in militaristic terms, by eliminating the guns that use it. It's not the intrinsic bullet lethality I'm lookin at, it's the role of the weapon itself as a fetish or totem, and the results of that twisted thinking when the fetish object is in hand. Hunting rifles make lousy fetishes, but AR-15s are perfect in that role, as are sniper rifles and handguns.
We don't have a bullet problem so much as a psychological dysfunction problem, IMO.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)In the case of the sniper rifle that attitude is shaped by the knowledge that the gun he is using has killed people from half a mile away.
The knowledge that a 30-06 has killed a lot of large game doesn't have the same psychological consequences.
The attitude shifts in the presence of a fetish object (a military-style rifle) but doesn't shift in the presence of a banal tool.
IMO the problem is not "the gunz" but the attitude of their users. I think of an assault/sniper rifle and handgun ban as involuntary psychotherapy for the mentally ill. Their illness is concretized and amplified by the gun itself. Take the gun away and the illness, over time, subsides - especially in the most dangerous cases.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)By your argument, wouldn’t that make anyone who happens to own a Win M70 suspect? BTW, the current Win M70 can be had in both 30-06 and .338. We ban .338 because people may be attracted to it’s effectiveness as a sniping round but not the 30-06 which has likely killed a far greater number historically in that role?
The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)A Win M70 isn't a common fetish object. A hot-looking sniper rifle or a Bushmaster is.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)This is my gun control fantasy.
Reality is going to be very different: a road to hell paved with NRA money and the shot-up bodies of children. None of this mental masturbation on here is going to stop the slide.
Live by the gun, die by the gun. USA all the way! USA all the way! USA all the way! USA all the way!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)My real personal opinion is that there are no "reality-based" solutions that will work, because American society has gone stark raving, gibbering insane. Front to back, side to side, top to bottom.
As seen from north of the Canadian border, anyway.
Good luck. And you're all going to need good luck., because you won't get effective gun control - in my opinion.
k8conant
(3,038 posts)"Can't be singing louder than the guns while I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here" --Phil Ochs
johnpowdy
(116 posts)Issue an order..."Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in"
Give them a week
Anyone who fails to comply will be arrested
Reward people who turn in those who did not comply
We could ban them all within a month if we truly wanted too........
In the meantime I am fine with dismantling it in pieces
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)Plus:
"I sold it awhile back"
"It fell over while boating"
etc
Calculating
(3,000 posts)Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)Bankrupt them.
lapfog_1
(31,785 posts)Federal ban on all weapons in private hands except
Bolt action single shot rifles.
Single or double barrel shotguns that are breech loaded.
Handguns of limited magazine size (9 rounds, 11 rounds, someplace like that) which have a biometric trigger lock keyed to the owner (fingerprint or otherwise).
Federal background checks to buy any weapon. Background failures include any domestic abuse or violence, negative reports of cruelty to animals i.e. shooting to kill something just to kill it, any mind-altering drug use - legal or otherwise, potentially any history of PTSD, possibly other issues)
Stiff penalties (including mandatory prison time) for straw purchasers.
No private sales of weapons. No automatic transfer as part of an inheritance.
Must present federal gun license and have it checked when purchasing ammo.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)They seem to have done something right.
boston bean
(36,910 posts)You can have your toys. But no removable mags and the fixed ones hold no more than 5 rounds.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)johnpowdy
(116 posts)Start with assault rifles....
Then hand guns....
Then any other semi-auto gun.....
Let hunters have their shotguns with special licenses, registration, and the requirement they be locked up in a safe separately from the ammo
maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)For killing Coyotes and Wild Boars and Insurrections, etc.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)
Tribalceltic
(1,000 posts)My Solution:
Ban the sales of any new firearms until and unless the gun nuts come up with a reasonable way of regulating and preventing any more "active shooter" situations... they created the mess, let them clean it up!
maxsolomon
(38,412 posts)nt
Sancho
(9,190 posts)There will always be weapons development - so there needs to be a way to make it much harder for dangerous people to have possession of weapons. Unless weapons (past, present, and future) are rounded up...there's no answer by defining a certain type of "gun". There has to be a proper screening, and not just for purchases, to POSESS or USE or CARRY or BUY a serious weapon. The individual right to weapons does not warrant a shootout on every road and classroom in American. That's why my response is as follows:
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
For those who want to argue legality, please reference: The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman
yagotme
(4,135 posts)"Most of you know that a license is no big deal."
Well, let's just get a license to vote, too. No big deal, right? Need license for everything else...
vi5
(13,305 posts)If it were up to me they would all be banned and each one melted down/destroyed.
That's not feasible, and I'm not the ruler of the country.
So all I really want is meaningful regulation.
Full background checks that ban people with violent criminal records (assault, murder, rape, etc.), and people with certain mental illnesses. And higher thresholds for anyone wanting to own anything above a rifle, handgun.
That's it. Yeah, I'd like much, much more but I know that's not realistic.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)Your suggestions won't work.
IllinoisBirdWatcher
(2,316 posts)
Meowmee
(9,212 posts)Would be banned for the any of general public, any gun ownership would be more closely monitored, licensed and registered each year and full background checks etc. The age to own and use guns should be raised. Gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers are closely monitored and held libel for deaths. Limit on how many guns and ammo can be purchased. Illegal sales of guns and ammo have severe penalties.
Ideally I’d like the British system but I doubt that will ever happen here.
pamdb
(1,439 posts)Personally I think we should repeal the second amendment. Or make everyone buy a smooth bore flintlock musket.
I think gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.
samnsara
(18,740 posts). ...I have a Glock 17 and a Lady Hammerless S/W. Hubby has a glock and many rifles. I will lie about and hide my guns if they are banned. I'm keeping them cuz I'm one that should have them.
I would want all the checks and balances required to make sure NO gun..even rifles shotguns etc..gets into the hand of someone who should NEVER have a gun. However the Universe makes that determination is OK with me. AND assault style weapons should never be used by civilians.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)I have owned guns in the past...but for society to progress in terms of security, they must be banned with harsh penalties for those who break the law.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)till they aren't.
marlakay
(13,114 posts)I have never used a gun nor do I want to. Don’t want my grandkids teachers with them either.
I also think that licensing isn’t enough, it should be like driving a car, get licence, take test, have insurance in case anyone gets hurt, have license revoked if you threaten anyone.
And be at least 21 to get license even for hunting, maybe after 18 you can use one with permit while with a parent hunting, parents gun and they are responsible for anything you do.
Makes me wonder if you should be 21 to enter military as training younger ones to use guns adds to problem when they get home possibly with ptsd.
librechik
(30,955 posts)Denis 11
(285 posts)Exception for active duty and trained military veterans,
If they pass background checks that would disqualify them. Possibly allow rural hunters and law enforcement officers also.
In the interim there should be restricted to adults older than 25 years old taking them out of the hands of those who are high school & college age.
Gun owners should have to provide annual proof the are safely stored and are proficient in their safe use and maintenance.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I personally have no idea why a person would want to own an assault weapon, but I hate guns in general, so I guess it is natural for me to feel that way. I have no issue with people owning guns, as long as they are responsible owners and keep the guns secured.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)rifles. I would not ban plinking guns like .22 pistols. There are a lot more but I can't think of them.
I would like to see all auto type guns banned. I don't know gun lore and don't want to know so spare me the lessons.
bullimiami
(14,074 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Most gun crime is committed using handguns.
Response to FarCenter (Reply #83)
Calculating This message was self-deleted by its author.
Calculating
(3,000 posts)-ban magazines >30 rounds in capacity. Literally zero need for them outside of killing sprees.
-Universal background checks.
-No guns for anybody until they're 21 years of age.
-Better communication among the groups who are meant to safeguard against killing sprees and such. The Texas church shooter and the Florida shooter both had all the red flags in the world which were ignored.
Takket
(23,567 posts)That's it.
no magazines.
maximum 1 of each per person
triggers should be locked with a thumbprint guard so only the legal owner and up to 2 other authorized users can fire the weapon.
guns must be registered just like cars. if you cannot produce your title at the request of police, they impound the weapon until you can get the title verified with the secretary of state. if you cannot get the title, probably because it is not your gun, it is destroyed.
just like your car you are issued a physical title with your gun and a registration, renewed annually at a cost of $100 per hunting rifle (free for handguns for defense), to keep in your wallet.
The following will carry mandatory prison sentences, as determined fair by Congress:
1. Possessing a weapon with tampered with/removed serial number.
2. Possessing a weapon modified to fire more shots without reloading as described above.
3. Possessing a weapon you do not have the registration for, or are not listed as an authorized user of
4. Carrying more than one gun in public at any time, any place.
Any weapon confiscated for violation of the above is destroyed.
Other laws for restricting who can own guns is needed as well......... but that's separate from your OP.
Ammo wold generally be unrestricted since the capacity of the guns is limited. Armor piercing bullets are banned.
It would take a long time for all the existing weapons to "filter out" of the system, but within a generation gun deaths should drop dramatically.
Stinky The Clown
(68,941 posts)Melt every last one of them.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Owned it for about 30 years. It scares the moose out of the garden.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Just place all semi-auto center-fire guns and magazines over 10 round capacity on the NFA Class III list. That will solve 99% of the problem. The number of guns sold will plummet dramatically.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)the police have proven many times they are not responsible, take their's too
they should be able talk someone down
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)So cops take on armed bank robbers with tazers?
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)guns are not stopping banks from being robbed
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)would you have one?
guns are a big problem
yagotme
(4,135 posts)would you do it?
Murderers are a big problem.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)criminals will keep their guns is the dumbest argument ever made. They will but they will be criminals for doing so and can be taken off the street every time they are caught with them. With the prevalence of guns we have now it will take decades to remove them but that does not mean we should not get started.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)Criminals are already breaking laws to have firearms, doesn't seem to stop them though.
"Taken off the street" like in Mexico? They have one govt owned gun store in the capital. And yet the criminals all have guns.
You could magically melt every gun in the US and by the end of the month smugglers would have rearmed the gangs and criminals.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)we can continue to take them away. The majority of these massacres were not committed by previously convicted criminals.
Mexico is deeply effected by the drug cartels.
Sounds like a good way to break up gangs to me. If they are dumb enough to walk around with a criminal conviction on their person.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)"Sounds like a good way to break up gangs to me."
Sounds like a way to make them even richer and more powerful.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)yagotme
(4,135 posts)Same group of people in the Govt have control over each. Ban alcohol. Increase bootlegging, home manufacture, smuggling, etc. Ban drugs. See above. What makes you think that guns would be any different?
Remember, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, well, I'll let you fill in the rest...
MaryMagdaline
(7,952 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)they actually hunt and are irrationally paranoid. Someone on a farm, probably needs something for varmits, etc. But, we are talking only a few guns AT HOME and they need to be kept under lock.
No pistol or rifle should hold more than 6 cartridges and all new gun production should have fixed clips/magazines. Older guns would have to be modified to disable removable magazines.
There should be almost no public toting. By golly, if you are too afraid to walk down the street without a gun, you are probably a danger to society when carrying.
Ammo purchases should be restricted and monitored.
As funny as it sounds, I think we could all but stop gun proliferation by an idea proposed this morning which would require guns to be pink and ammo designed to make a wussy sound when fired. If you feel you absolutely need one gun for home defense, you can have a pink one that makes a wimpy sound.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10286189
I think we would be better off without any guns and would support that if practical. I just don't think there is a chance in the world that will pass anytime soon.
I'm more about preventing another 10 million new guns per year to end up on the street, toting, and banning or converting so-called "assualt weapons" so that the weapons will not embolden killers, intimidators, militia groups, white wing racists, and fools who can't imaging life without a house full of guns and one or two strapped to their body even when they are just taking the grandkids to Chuck E Cheeze.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)you arm up with a bunch of guns, tote publicly, etc., you are irrational. Plus, guns increase the odds of being robbed because other than money, jewels, it's probably the most easily thing converted into a lot of cash. And, it puts more guns in hands of criminals.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)Not so much to me.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)in this country, do just fine without resorting to arming up and toting.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)I own mostly 60+ year old bolt action rifles, only place they get "toted" to is the gun range in my trunk. My pistol is a 50 year old Warsaw Pact CZ-52 that holds 8 rounds so you might need to trade in your crystal ball.
The vast majority don't need fire extinguishers either-until they do.
CTyankee
(67,922 posts)Do you drink or take drugs? Get angry and a bit out of control? Just wondering.
I don't care if you go to a gun range. Hope they are unloaded when you put them in the car. If that is your thing, go for it. I just don't want your gun to be at the ready for my family member's "execution."
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)CTyankee
(67,922 posts)previous record of misuse of guns but managed to kill my niece in a drunken rage.
So it is something that burns in my memory. So I ask these questions out of my own personal anguish. Ownership of guns was a tragedy in my family.
Please try to understand.
EX500rider
(12,255 posts)The numbers should be in your favor, over 300 million guns used in around 9,000 homicides per year gives you around a .003% chance my guns will do any harm.
CTyankee
(67,922 posts)The only thing that matters is that their loved one is DEAD. And we have to live with the result the rest of our lives. And, as I have said, it reverberates in our lives until we die.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)I'm not sure exactly where the line would/should be, but anything that can fire thirty rounds in half a minute or less without reloading, or anywhere close to that, could and should be banned. Banning specific guns (makes, models, etc.) is way too easy to get around. Example: ban a certain make or model of AR-15 copy (fine, nobody needs a goddamned AR-15 outside of law enforcement) and the manufacturer will get around the ban in less time than it takes to have lunch by changing the stock/grips/etc.
treestar
(82,383 posts)All automatics, semi-automatics and handguns.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I would support a ban, or any of a myriad other bits of legislation that could keep more guns out of more hands. Keep us moving in a less gun-oriented direction, and I'm happy. Ban the guns you mentioned, and enforce those bans with the army of flying pigs you'll need, and I would be extremely pleased.
mvd
(65,869 posts)I like that the youngest generation is being very proactive. People say that other kinds of attacks happen elsewhere, but mostly it's not an epidemic like guns are here. And some of the attacks in other countries are terrorism related while random gun violence happens in the US every day.
StTimofEdenRoc
(445 posts)Change the culture. Do not legislate too far ahead of the culture, or you will loose power and all of your other issues. Remember rural people have a different culture.
Semi-automatic rifles should be a good place to start. if it takes 30 rounds to get your dear, you need glasses.
jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)
KWR65
(1,098 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)
A friend at work brought up the gun subject out of the blue and thought I might be sensitive or angry about it.
My logical choice since I didn't know if he was a gun nut or not was to tell him they should at least ban all assault rifles since there only real or actual legitimate practical use for them is for slaughtering multiple people.
Then to find out he was actually on the other side of the equation that made for some good conversation.
gopiscrap
(24,598 posts)
Skittles
(170,282 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Then the extreme reaction that disrespectful action would generate would cause a transfer of power to the Republicans and it'd be repealed.
This is a democracy. The wishes common to both conservatives and liberals are a tremendous power to be used to achieve that common ground. Using a temporary legislative majority to smash it to nothing would be a dreadful mistake.
Even "HEAVY" regulation needs to be tempered with reality and designed to be able to survive. Gun regulations can't price handgun ownership out of reach, for instance. One out of every four households has some kind of gun.
quaker bill
(8,262 posts)I exercise my 2nd amendment right by the freely made decision to never own or bear a firearm. I have no personal objection to hunting and some friends do so. I actually approve shooting the local wild hogs, as they are an imported nuisance species that destroys habitat for native plants and animals, and done up right, make right tasty barbeque. I do not hunt, in part because I will not own or bear a firearm, but even more because I went on one hunt and the mix of beer and high powered weapons was not a desirable experience I would care to repeat. Beyond that I have no use for firearms and would be happy to see them properly recycled into something actually useful.
Enoki33
(1,605 posts)comfortable with the banning of all other guns.
mvd
(65,869 posts)I wonder if our culture and how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted (wrongly IMO) will allow it. I don't think assault weapons (semi-automatics) should be allowed. I also support strong and more expansive background checks, licensing/safety courses, and registration.
backtoblue
(13,127 posts)Is your curiosity better now? Such a broad question and everyone knows damn well we aren't going to get along on this. Divisive crap. All of these "just have a question about" posts are bait.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I'm just trying to get an idea of what people want and use that going forward as we try and develop policy. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. If you don't want to read then don't read. But stop being such a whiner. If we can't talk about things, there's no hope for anything.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)
CozyMystery
(710 posts)hueymahl
(2,904 posts)A ban would require an amendment to the constitution.
There have been many excellent proposals in this thread and other threads about what a regulatory scheme would look like. To me it comes down to three factors:
1. Safety and use training - should be at least as hard to get a gun license as a driver's license. Licensing would be graduated based upon use. Hunting rifles, shotguns, certain antique guns would fall the least restrictive category. Licensing would get harder and more restrictive as the threat rises. (think the difference in gettin a license for a car vs a truck that carries hazardous materials). Licensing and training would have to be refreshed periodically.
2. Insurance - all owners must carry insurance. If one of your guns is used to harm someone, your insurance pays. On a related matter, repeal the law shielding manufacturers from liability.
3. Real background checks. None of this instant background crap. You have to pass a real security clearance, and pay for the privilege of having one done.
brettdale
(12,748 posts)First I'm not an American, I think if I was an American I would think like this.
Its in the Constitution, people who want to buy a gun should be allowed one, as long
as they can pass a background check, no matter where you buy a gun from, there must be
a background check.
Should assault weapons like the AR15 be banned from the general public???
Are you fuckin kidding me???? of course they should!!!! Are you insane??? you want people
walking down the street with fuckin machine guns!!!
That's where I stand!!
meadowlander
(5,109 posts)Unless specifically required for a job, the only guns that civilians can own are hunting rifles. These must be kept in a locked cabinet except when in use.
With "extreme vetting" and a special license, people that require handguns for their job (cops, security guards, private detectives, etc) can own personal weapons.
If you want to target shoot, you can rent any gun you want from the range but can't take it away.
Also the processing fees are cumulative. If the license costs $200 to cover the cost of the background check, you pay $200 a year for every gun you own even if you have sixty of them.
samir.g
(836 posts)Vinca
(53,579 posts)If people feel they must shoot everything else, gun ranges might be certified to offer them at their facilities for target shooting. I don't really get the whole gun obsession thing, but I don't get ATVs and snowmobiles either. Lots of destruction and lots of noise with nothing positive as an end result.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)All these proooisals for sweeping bans are nonsense fantasy.
It’s not going to happen.
On top of that if you did get it to happen you would be going down a path that costs a ton in money, manpower and political capital and accomplishes not nearly as much as could be done to reduce violence using that same money, manpower and capital in other ways.
You want to never win an election again for 20 years in states with big rural populations who own guns like PA and NC? Then by all means roll on with a sweeping ban on all semi-autos that will result in almost every household with a gun being made to forcibly hand one or more over. And while your at it deal with the huge amount of civil disobedience that will come along with that.
That will be your last thing you do for decades because of the huge loss of political capital and power. And you will spend billions of dollars trying to enforce it, requiring huge amounts of manpower you don’t have.
All that money, manpower and capital could and would yield far better results if you expended the same amount on programs proven to reduce violence and the desire/root causes for it. Things like poverty reduction programs. Interventions to keep the most at-risk youth in school through graduation. Improved mental health care and access. Domestic violence intervention programs.
All those things will reduce not just gun violence more than some sort of almost impossible to implement ban will, but also reduce all other forms of violence AND also improve quality of life for people in the most marginalized communities. Instead of just trying to ban some guns and ignoring everything else.
I see folks calling for mandatory annual psychological evaluations for anyone owning a gun. Do any of you have any idea what the state of the mental health system is in this country now for people who need it? Here is a clue- there is t enough help to go around now. There are a finite number of providers out there to provide services now. Where are you going to get the trained professionals to administer evaluations to all these people? Let me real.
Just doing the simple math- let’s allow 1 hour per evaluation for the evaluation and any associated paperwork with it. Not long. Let’s say the professional can do 35 a week, allowing for missed appointments, scheduling issues, other administrative needs etc. This is actually a higher number than most would manage in reality, but let’s go with it.
Give them 4 weeks vacation a year so they work 48 weeks.
That is 1680 evaluations a year one mental health professional can do.
So if we make all 75,000,000 gun owners (a conservative estimate reality is probably closer to 100,000,000) then we need 44,642 mental health professionals to do nothing but gun owner evaluations.
And that assumes also you get totally perfect distribution and scheduling and everything is perfect. Reality is you will need closer to 60,000 to allow for inefficiencies.
Where do you get them? Are you going to throw people who actually need mental health treatment out of care to make room?
And if you are going to fund that, how? And if you find the money is it actually best to spend it on putting 60,000 people out there to do evaluations on a population that 99.9999% doesn’t need them when you have a huge backlog of people who need care and can’t get it now? Or would you be better off spending that money not on evaluations of people who don’t need them (but that you just don’t like) but in all the people already identified as needing care and not currently getting it or getting enough.
Bans and all the similar ideas are solutions that sound good if you don’t actually think them over. But when you analyze them and what effect they would have, look at the costs (not just financial) and look at what ways you can better spend the same amount, without taking huge political hits, and get better results.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Ban all semi-autos and all hand guns.
Sorry, responsible gun owners: irresponsible gun owners have spoiled it for everybody.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)The second Ammendment .
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)I don't respect anyone who owns a gun. I view it as stupidity...an inept value system and sense of probability.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Rimfire semis, like .22LR, have lots of legitimate hunting and sporting applications and are generally considered poor "defensive" weapons.
Other than that, I agree with everything else. I don't think it will happen, but I find it agreeable.