General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsmy (complete political non-starter) compromise for child-killing machines
in terms of lethality, it seems to me that there is a line beyond which ballistic weaponry becomes far less about home defense and hunting and more about rapidly killing masses of humans.
i'll leave it to people who know more about such weapons than i do to define that line, beyond my lay assumption that the type of weapons often used in mass shootings belong on the "yeah, those are really intended for killing lots of humans" side of the line.
my ideal solution is to ban them, or severely restrict them, in the same way ordinary people can't own surface-to-air missiles or bombs. i don't know why these other weapons are treated any differently. well, i do know. gun culture, the nra, republicans, etc. but logically, i don't it makes no sense.
that said, my ideal doesn't seem likely to happen in my lifetime, never mind any time soon.
so my compromise is that people can continue to buy and own such weapons, *however*, they must be maintained only at licensed shooting ranges and hunting grounds. when not in use, such businesses must lock them down securely, ideally disabled in some way. if your weaponry is at your local shooting range and you want to use them instead at a hunting ground or a different shooting range, you have to have your weaponry securely transported for you, again by licensed professionals with certain mandatory safety precautions for the transport.
alternatively, you can rent such weaponry from the duration of the practice shoot or the hunt. each weapon is clearly identifiable, records are kept as to who took what out, and of course it's a crime if they're not returned promptly.
as for the 2nd amendment, i don't think it's unreasonable to define "arms" as weaponry intended for home defense and hunting. bombs and missiles are in a different category and have different rules. i don't see why the weapons commonly used in mass shootings shouldn't be considered something more lethal than "arms" and subject to more regulation.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)as hand grenades, which are less lethal, are still outlawed.
None of it makes any sense.
unblock
(56,198 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,504 posts)Grenades are considered destructive devices. Unless banned by your state, they are legal to own provided they are registered, tax is paid, and they are stored properly. Same with artillery. Tanks aren't even regulated unless the gun is operational. There is a guy the next county over from me who has an operational T72 tank. Gun is disabled. Now for the grenades, no manufacturer is going to sell one to anyone except the government, and even if they did, there is still the whole storage issue that needs to be dealt with before the ATF will approve it. But it has been done. It's been years, but I remember reading that there were around 6000 hand grenades on the registry. Or it could have been 6000 explosive devices that included hand grenades. For artillery, the piece itself has to be registered, as well as every round of ammunition that is explosive. Same applies to grenade launchers. Non explosive training rounds for either do not need to be registered, if I remember right. It's been about 7 years since I had to know this stuff.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Years ago Popular Science ran a story about a guy who bought 300 surplus tanks.
The usual suspects plugged the gun barrels and did background checks to make sure he wasn't planning a revolition somewhere.
But none of this stuff implies that just anyone can walk in off the street and buy a truckload of Claymore mines the way they can claim the Constitutional right to have an M-16. Ok, they only get the civilian version of it, but they can alter it later for full automatic. And even without full automatic, it's still only useful as a human killing machine.