cosmonaut
Well-known
Well I'll make a prediction. The US will reinstate the assault weapon ban. This will include guns like the AR-15. Also extended clips. But what happened last time the assault weapon ban was in place it only covered the selling of new guns. It was still lawful to shoot what you already own. This only drives prices of used ones up. I think a private sell would be very hard to enforce.
Were I live hunting is a very big sport. Almost all of my co workers hunt. Deer, ducks, turkey ect. But like I said I don't have the belly to kill something. Who am I to decide if something lives or dies?
Were I live hunting is a very big sport. Almost all of my co workers hunt. Deer, ducks, turkey ect. But like I said I don't have the belly to kill something. Who am I to decide if something lives or dies?
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
One of the most disturbing things about the U.S. is that you can purchase all of these guns in department stores such as Wallmart.
http://www.walmart.com/browse/hunti...=cat4155-env458156-moduleB120712-lLinkFC1Guns
http://www.walmart.com/browse/hunti...=cat4155-env458156-moduleB120712-lLinkFC1Guns
The question is, how to eliminate 300 million that already exist.
The regulations you propose are ok for law abiders. I don't see how any of them will affect the deranged/evil.
Who says that sounds crazy? Practical? Perhaps. Effective? Probably not...don't forget...90 million gun owners with over 300 million guns...killed no one last year.
What is your point with this? Legal products are sold by many vendors.
Don't forget that the vast majority of these crimes are committed with handguns, and to my knowledge, no one is talking about banning handguns.
When there are 300 million that already exist, registration, licenses, and all the rest only affect law abiders. They have no effect on law breakers.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Only if its proportionate, Stewart.
Daughter says P`Dilly was in a similar situation.
I regard the underlying situation as worrying but not the response.
Yes, it's all just symbolic, if they reinstate such a ban.
Clips already exist.
Guns already exist.
If someone really wants one, they can get one.
And if they don't want to go to the trouble of finding an AR, they'll just use handguns. Three Glocks take up less space, and have more shots.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
My point is that these products should be illegal to purchase.
hteasley
Pupil
It will make it harder to get guns. It would make illegal guns more expensive.
Most guns used in crimes are obtained through straw purchasers, corrupt FFLs, and untracked private sale. My proposals would make all of that harder. A smaller percentage of guns used in crimes (10-15%) are stolen guns. My proposals didn't include any direct remedies for that, because that's harder to remedy, and I'd be happy with agreeing to do something less invasive of our liberties first, and see how much it helps.
If gun theft goes up as a result, and stolen guns become more of a problem, then I'd propose some things there, but I don't think we need to start there. I'm happy to seek out incremental improvement; in fact, I'd rather prove that incremental improvement exists with incremental regulation.
Is it fair to call out Walmart for selling a product that is legal, because in one's opinion, that product should be illegal?
Perhaps it would be better served to call out legislators...
...at least in theory.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
My god, this whole time you have been asking for a law that would have stopped the shooting. I'm suggesting the US makes all guns illegal to own and buy. Only those with a license and a reasonable excuse to own one (such as pest control or hunting) to own one.
Make it compulsory for all gun owners to hand in whatever weapons they have, if they do not have an appropriate license and reason to keep, receiving compensation, and then destroy all of the guns.
OK, finally after 16 pages we have a proposal. 
What are the terms of the license? How many exceptions will there be, such as pest control or hunting? Are those the only two?
Unfortunately such a proposal would require the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which is extremely unlikely.
What are the terms of the license? How many exceptions will there be, such as pest control or hunting? Are those the only two?
Unfortunately such a proposal would require the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which is extremely unlikely.
hteasley
Pupil
You seem to be taking the stand that nothing will work. I don't think that is the stance of someone interested in recognizing that there's a problem and solving it. If having ten thousand people a year die to guns, compared to dozens in other industrialized countries, doesn't strike you as a problem worth solving, then obviously the discussion breaks down. But I believe it is a problem, and it's worth solving. And I believe the rest of the world is proof that it can be solved.
Once upon a time, drunk driving was not treated seriously. Now it is, we spend money on enforcing those laws, and we have accepted a marginal decrease in our personal liberties to live with those laws. And deaths due to drunk driving are way down. They're not gone entirely, but they're way down.
If we applied what reads to me like your hands-in-the-air, "this won't work and I won't help" stance to drunk driving, we'd just say, "There's so much alcohol out there already, and so many cars, you can't solve the problem. There's no way you can enforce it, really."
I don't want to put words in other peoples' mouths, though, so if I've mischaracterized anything, please correct me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, we're definitely on opposite sides of the debate here, then. What's a 'reason' to own a firearm? As determined by a gun-phobic bureaucrat (or any gun-phobe) who's never fired a gun in his life? 'Gun-phobic bureaucrats' (and friends), incidentally, are why I argue very strongly that those of us who want to keep guns have to propose stratagems that will allow us to do so, rather than trying to block every attempt at any form of control. Because short-sighted stratagems of "Why can't we have whatever we want, without having to explain it to anyone?" will inevitably fail sooner or later.
The words "Cold, dead fingers" come to mind.
Cheers,
R.
First off, there are many parts of the 'rest of the world' that have murder rates far greater than the US.
Second, I simply said it's a 'theory.' How does that statement imply that I don't strike this as a problem worth solving?
I'm just being realistic.
You said it would be 'harder to get guns.' You seem to forget there are 300 million guns that already exist...if there is a law that could be drafted that legislates them out of existence...I have a unicorn to show you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm compiling them, but it's not completed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.