General Discussion

guardian

(2,282 posts)

96. I think the majority of those making such proposals do want a blanket ban.

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:51 PM

Jan 2013

I perceive all of these limitations/regulations/measures as nothing but an incremental step toward the ulterior goal of a total ban. They just know they can't get their ultimate goal implemented now. I think many pro-gun people think the same as I. You apparently contend a total ban is not the goal. But until those making such proposals convince the pro-gun people that a total ban is not the goal I think both sides will keep talking past each other.

Perception is reality. Perception is powerful. In communication, the onus is on the sender, and not the receiver, to clear up misperceptions. For me personally, a good start would be for those wanting measured limitations to be as vocal and forceful against those antigunners wanting a total ban or $5000 per bullet tax as they are against lawful gun owners. When you start calling someone calling for a $5000 per bullet tax "little penis" then maybe I'll start believing you. Until then...talk to the hand because the face ain't listening.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A "high firepower weapons ban" [View all] Scuba Jan 2013 OP

I really appreciate your post and attempt to move the conversation forward. I've been confused KittyWampus Jan 2013 #1

Agreed. Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #60

Too restrictive. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #2

"more people are murdered by being beaten to death" Lex Jan 2013 #3

Media event murders are covered by my last suggestion. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #4

Should we also hold secret trials of those arrested for "rampage" shootings? onenote Jan 2013 #11

Good question. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #24

It would never survive constitutional scrutiny onenote Jan 2013 #45

Gun killings are the fault of the media! But *never ever ever* due to the gun! villager Jan 2013 #31

So as long as there is a break in between ... Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #102

No relevance to mass shootings that happen within minutes. nt Lex Jan 2013 #123

So .... Yes? Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #153

I would think any meaningful progress ... Straw Man Jan 2013 #142

Then you'd be wrong, Straw Man. Lex Jan 2013 #150

OK, just as long as we're clear. Straw Man Jan 2013 #151

"Magazines can be printed on a 3-D printer. Have fun trying to outlaw them." Hugabear Jan 2013 #5

One solution would be to outlaw sale of guns that can even accept a magazine. Make all bullets stevenleser Jan 2013 #7

Well, that must be why all firearm related homicide in California is so low... waitasec... AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #108

Please continue... nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #127

Continue what? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #134

Still not the same thing. But you knew that. nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #137

No, you described California's assault weapons ban. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #138

My Grandfathers Model 1892 rifle holds 14 rounds oneshooter Jan 2013 #121

The solution would depend on the gun stevenleser Jan 2013 #124

All of my collection is locked in 650# fireproof safes. oneshooter Jan 2013 #126

Restrictions on 3-D printers? GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #9

The technology exists to do so Hugabear Jan 2013 #17

How often will your police come around and inspect my printer? N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #23

Depends - if you get caught with an illegal magazine in your possession Hugabear Jan 2013 #25

Most gun violence comes from the 1st round, not the 30th. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #32

Airplane crashes are rare but they get a lot of attention. Same with mass shootings Recursion Jan 2013 #75

Not all attention is rational. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #140

Some of the printers are open sources and will never support such restrictions ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #37

People are building these printers from the ground up, on their own with their own open source AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #139

Vaginas can be printed on 3D printers too, good luck "usin" one. Jus sayin, the 3D printer excuse is uponit7771 Jan 2013 #70

Take a look at this one: GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #91

Great job. GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #132

Make some suggestions then ... Scuba Jan 2013 #8

I think the item we agree on would take care of most of the problems. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #14

"As for printing magazines, make it a crime." guardian Jan 2013 #86

Are you kidding me? Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #12

The media ban would have to be very narrow to be Constitutional. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #20

That's a ridiculous suggestion. thucythucy Jan 2013 #106

You Can Have A Gun To Protect Yourself, But You Cannot Have A WMD Yavin4 Jan 2013 #21

WMD is used to mean nukes, poison gas, biological agents, radioactive fallout. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #29

WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction Yavin4 Jan 2013 #39

So when Bush was claiming Saddam had WMDs... GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #47

Worldwide, Machine Guns Kill More People, in particular children, than a dirty bomb Yavin4 Jan 2013 #51

WMDs are by definition indiscriminate...guns not so much. N/T beevul Jan 2013 #112

What was discriminating about the victims in Aurora and Newtown? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #114

Bullets are not self guided. beevul Jan 2013 #116

So No One Has Ever Been Killed by a Stray Bullet? Yavin4 Jan 2013 #117

Improperly aimed is still aimed. beevul Jan 2013 #118

So if guns are now WMD, what are nukes, gas, and germs? N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #135

I know you won't like hearing this... wercal Jan 2013 #155

You can't have a WMD because it is impossible to use defensively without killing innocent people. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #141

Whoa there ... Straw Man Jan 2013 #143

Too bad. Buy a 22. Deal with it. The free for all is coming to an end. Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #41

You really think so? hack89 Jan 2013 #59

the tide has turned. Too many dead children. Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #80

So why are at least 12 Senate Democrats saying they will not support an AWB? hack89 Jan 2013 #81

How the NRA is winning - article in the Washington Post hack89 Jan 2013 #82

Thank you, you are one of the people that have convinced me.. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #77

Your mind was already made up before you read any of my posts. N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #94

Yes, I just said that. Kalidurga Jan 2013 #104

I did make two suggestions. Try reading again. N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #136

Not sure how this would work. For example Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #87

Hmmmm.... Scuba Jan 2013 #88

Most folks up north do not trust their lives to pepper spray. Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #107

Pepper spray will really help... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #131

I think you have to add muzzle velocity/muzzle energy to this list instead of Caliber stevenleser Jan 2013 #6

Please explain why that is a relevant metric ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #35

Muzzle Energy is often described as the destructive power of a given firearm or load stevenleser Jan 2013 #38

So you are arguing for banning/restricting hunting rounds ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #44

No. Edited to add... stevenleser Jan 2013 #46

The point you are missing is that you need that for large animals ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #83

When you go to hunt for hippos, elephants and whales, you get a special permit that allows use of stevenleser Jan 2013 #85

Elk, deer, moose are all larger game animals ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #89

Easy, use a points system Recursion Jan 2013 #40

This is in the right direction theKed Jan 2013 #76

Great idea ..... oldhippie Jan 2013 #10

Where do you think the limit should be set? Scuba Jan 2013 #13

They already vote republican by a vast majority. Really not a big threat. Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #42

It IS a big threat. NickB79 Jan 2013 #145

22% of democrats own guns. Some small percentage of those are "gun nuts". Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #149

This is a good idea SpartanDem Jan 2013 #15

Too hard...someone would have to make a list with specs of every weapon ever made. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #16

You forgot the satire thingy. Scuba Jan 2013 #18

Cause I was serious...Ok - I see where you are coming from. Please jmg257 Jan 2013 #52

Don't know. See Recursion's post # 50 for an interesting suggestion of how that might be determined. Scuba Jan 2013 #57

Sheesh - that is even worse! Holy shit!!! jmg257 Jan 2013 #64

Thanks, these suggestions are worthy of further discussion. Scuba Jan 2013 #67

No, that's the beauty of Scuba's idea: it doesn't require that Recursion Jan 2013 #36

Caliber is a bad metric hootinholler Jan 2013 #19

Best I've seen rrneck Jan 2013 #22

Please see my post #27, which I meant to reply to yours. Scuba Jan 2013 #28

"fire power" based on ammuniation isn't that simple. SayWut Jan 2013 #26

You're apparently better versed than I on these details. What would you suggest? Scuba Jan 2013 #30

It would help if I knew exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish. SayWut Jan 2013 #49

If you can't be constructive, perhaps this isn't the thread for you. Scuba Jan 2013 #56

I offered my knowledge of the subject, and my opinion of why your idea is full of holes. SayWut Jan 2013 #69

Muzzle energy is probably the best metric Recursion Jan 2013 #34

Unenforcible and problematic. SayWut Jan 2013 #63

I suggested a "points" system earlier Recursion Jan 2013 #66

You're right. SayWut Jan 2013 #73

Thanks. I used to proofread, even... Recursion Jan 2013 #74

The problem with the point system you suggest, is that there are too many variables. SayWut Jan 2013 #78

There are. And restricting types of guns isn't my personal thing Recursion Jan 2013 #79

My 1875 Sharps rifle uses a 530gr cast lead bullet oneshooter Jan 2013 #122

I could see an easy work-around for that though NickB79 Jan 2013 #146

so now Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #154

Yes, to perhaps inappropriately use a "shooting" metaphor, there is no silver bullet solution ... Scuba Jan 2013 #27

Well rrneck Jan 2013 #48

Or we have to mandate all firearms transfers go through an FFL Recursion Jan 2013 #72

It gets real complicated real fast. rrneck Jan 2013 #111

I get that, and I don't mind sticking with transfer of actual legal ownership Recursion Jan 2013 #129

I can see that. And the trace data would be invalueable. rrneck Jan 2013 #130

I really appreciate this thread. Some thoughts about rate of fire. Recursion Jan 2013 #33

I suspect rate-of-fire has to come from the base design. I doubt one can retro-fit that ... Scuba Jan 2013 #43

Rapid-firing is low-powered. HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #58

Which is why ... Straw Man Jan 2013 #144

So let's assume that 3 people break into my home. I can only shoot one shot every five seconds ... spin Jan 2013 #95

This works really well with a "points" system Recursion Jan 2013 #50

Good concept. I'm not an expert but does an AR-15 then get ... Scuba Jan 2013 #62

Oh, yeah, the numbers were completely off the top of my head Recursion Jan 2013 #65

What do you think of this? ... Scuba Jan 2013 #68

jmg257 has a point, and his way is simpler Recursion Jan 2013 #71

Include the range of fire ... the weapon's effective kill distance. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #53

Except murders basically never happen outside of 15' Recursion Jan 2013 #55

Maybe we use a standard size school room, or movie theater? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #61

Just ban black guns. HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #54

Can we stop with the endless litany guardian Jan 2013 #84

Strawman much? nt Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #90

It's satire, not a straw man guardian Jan 2013 #92

No, it's strawman. You just added some satire in there for good measure. Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #93

I think the majority of those making such proposals do want a blanket ban. guardian Jan 2013 #96

Oh, snap girlfriend! Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #97

Just as I thought guardian Jan 2013 #98

You're the one putting thoughts in people's heads. Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #99

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #100

You started the subthread with snark/satire and then complain about snark? Fumesucker Jan 2013 #133

Some here clearly do ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #101

Uh-huh. Straw Man Jan 2013 #148

I don't want to ban them all. That's an NRA talking point. Why do you repeat it? Scuba Jan 2013 #105

That's NOT an NRA talking point! NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #109

A few DU members do not make decisions for the President or Congress... Scuba Jan 2013 #110

The poster was grumbling about Posts on DU. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #113

Add muzzle velocity cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #103

Caliber category is a little wierd. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #115

Nice Try On Your Part. But You See What's Happened To Your Thread. Paladin Jan 2013 #119

There are some constructive posts. I knew the antis would try to muddy the waters ... Scuba Jan 2013 #120

Wait, what? 2ndAmendmentRights Jan 2013 #125

A very fine point, if this does not seem reasonable let's go for a bb gun Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #128

Have you ever considered ... Straw Man Jan 2013 #147

good ideas samsingh Jan 2013 #152

I like the concept, JoeyT Jan 2013 #156