Common Sense Gun Control Proposals

[Wildman]

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[Wildman]

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[2aguy]

Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new studypublished in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.

There are under 100 kids killed a year in accidental deaths

Where in the fuck do you come up with your bullshit? Did you prove the 4383 DGU's every day yet? Fuck no. You can't prove it. But you cling to that number don't cha?

Yeah...if you include 16 to 24 year old gang members as children....then your numbers work.....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new studypublished in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.

There are under 100 kids killed a year in accidental deaths

Where in the fuck do you come up with your bullshit? Did you prove the 4383 DGU's every day yet? Fuck no. You can't prove it. But you cling to that number don't cha?

Yeah...if you include 16 to 24 year old gang members as children....then your numbers work.....

Tragic as those deaths are, they are irrelevant to the fact that we have a guaranteed right to own firearms

 

[WinterBorn]

One thing that the OP seems to be missing, and that is that guns used for murders are a relatively rare thing, when you consider how many guns and gun owners there are.

There are roughly 65 million legal gun owners and 300 million legally owned guns. The majority of the gun murders (between 8k and 9k annually) are by people who cannot legally own a gun. Even if (and they are not) the murders were committed by legal gun owners, it would only constitute 0.013% of the gun owners.

The problem is not the guns. It is the criminals.

Actually the problem is that criminals have access to guns.

And restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will not change that any more than making drugs illegal made them inaccessible to criminals.

And it is the criminal that makes the gun dangerous.

I wasn't proposing any regulations that prevent law abiding citizens from having access to guns.

A better solution is to eliminate parole for any offense committed with a weapon. Criminals aren't stupid. If they figure out that they are going to be locked up for longer periods because they used a gun to commit a crime they will find other ways to get what they want that don't involve guns. Yes, there are some that will continue to use them for "defense" just as law abiding citizens do but I am talking about the use of guns in robberies. If you can significant'y reduce those then the risk to civilians goes way down. It also reduces the risks for the cops.

how about ending parole period

That works as far as violent offenders goes. The more time they spend behind bars the better in my opinion.

Exactly what I have been saying for a long time! Keep the violent offenders behind bars and allow the nonviolent personal use drug offenders to be paroled.

 

[Jarlaxle]

5. Nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to handle a firearm. No if, and's, or buts about it. Not while hunting, not while at the range, nothing. Only exceptions are for military recruits.

Interesting. But I like my idea better. No men under the age of 30 should be allowed to own/buy a gun. Shooting with a person older that 30 is ok. Hunting with a person older than 30 is ok. But until they are over 30, no ownership of guns.

Caught with a gun, go directly to jail till they turn 30. Use a gun to commit a crime while under 30, go to jail for a longer time. Murder someone with a gun, forfeit your life.

Ever notice all the mass killing and most of the domestic violence shootings are young men under 30. Also a great many of the kids who find Dads gun and shoots themselves or someone else, those kids have Dads under the age of 30.

So by keeping guns from men till they are past the age of 30, you get a decrease in mass killings, a decrease in kids deaths and a decrease in domestic violence shootings.

And what did it cost the young men to not have guns till they were past 30? Not a fucking thing.

You are a SPECIAL kind of stupid...

 

[Jarlaxle]

Apparently you prefer your ideas because they are even dumber than his.

Hey, why not just make being under 30 against the law?

Hey why don't you just type something stupid and nonsensical.
Oh wait. You already did. It's what you always do.

So give it a shot. Tell me what harm would occur if young men couldn't own guns till they are 30.

But stop with the stupid fucking shit you are known for, like;" why not just make being under 30 against the law".

What a stupid fucking comment.

My uncle would be dead. I would be dead.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What if, before a gun is ever sold they fire it and register the unique markings it's made when fired?

Useless. Marking change with wear, barrels get replaced. (My Model 29 is on at least its third.) Shotguns have no ballistics.

What if, before a gun is ever sold they fire it and register the unique markings it's made when fired?

Because every time you clean the weapon it changes those marks.

Really? So when the police catch a criminal because he's in possession of a gun used in a crime it's because he didn't clean it afterwards?

I'm asking. We have guns but my husband keeps them clean and oiled.

No they catch the criminal in the act in possession.
I dont know about changing the marks with every cleaning. You'd have to clean the gun with steel wool and rasps.
But defeating the unique marking isnt hard.

So it would literally be useless, or the gun owner would have to make an effort to change the markings?

Can changing the markings be detected, like filing off the serial numbers?

ioioioioioioioioi

ooooh lord how i wish that phrase could be banned from anyone using it, "filing off S/N's" is stupid, most guns that i know of makes it near impossible to accomplish that feat, besides.., if the number is "filed" off the imprint of that S/N is still imbedded very deeply and can be brought to the surface using newly developed (about 1960) process using chemicals/acid.

when i hear that term, filing off the serial numbers on TV crime and cop shows i start yelling at the TV.., it is near IMPOSSIBLE to completely obliterate a S/N

There is a way...though most crooks do not know it. (However, I associate with two professional machinists...)

 

[2aguy]

One thing that the OP seems to be missing, and that is that guns used for murders are a relatively rare thing, when you consider how many guns and gun owners there are.

There are roughly 65 million legal gun owners and 300 million legally owned guns. The majority of the gun murders (between 8k and 9k annually) are by people who cannot legally own a gun. Even if (and they are not) the murders were committed by legal gun owners, it would only constitute 0.013% of the gun owners.

The problem is not the guns. It is the criminals.

Actually the problem is that criminals have access to guns.

And restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will not change that any more than making drugs illegal made them inaccessible to criminals.

And it is the criminal that makes the gun dangerous.

I wasn't proposing any regulations that prevent law abiding citizens from having access to guns.

A better solution is to eliminate parole for any offense committed with a weapon. Criminals aren't stupid. If they figure out that they are going to be locked up for longer periods because they used a gun to commit a crime they will find other ways to get what they want that don't involve guns. Yes, there are some that will continue to use them for "defense" just as law abiding citizens do but I am talking about the use of guns in robberies. If you can significant'y reduce those then the risk to civilians goes way down. It also reduces the risks for the cops.

This is one of the things the Japanese do.....besides the police state tactics...they have a 90% conviction rate so if a criminal, organized or not, gets caught with a gun, they know they are going to jail for a good period of time...

If we lock up a lot of criminals....then we lock up a lot of criminals....we need to lock up criminals who use guns...that is the type of gun control that will work....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Close enough for government work. You have a gun, we control you. Onward.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

These proposals probably won't be implemented within the next two years, due to the NRA's monetary sway over the current congress. As we move forward towards a saner society, though, this should be the loosest standards for gun laws in the country:

1. ---- Rifles cannot be automatic, and must not have any military features such as a pistol grip, a vertical grip, buffer tube, barrel shroud, holosight, detachable magazine, etc. No high powered ammo such as any bullets used by the military should be allowed. Also, clips must only come in five bullets or less.

So a more draconian "assault weapons ban" after the first one cost Democrats Congress and then the presidency for 8 years?

---- You don't need more than five bullets to shoot a deer. You don't need anti-tank ammo to shoot a deer. Could somebody please tell me why .22 caliber doesn't work for hunting?

This is the problem, people who know nothing about guns but want to make gun laws.

That's a .22 bullet to the left of the penny. Do you know what happens when you try to kill a 120 lb buck with it? Nothing. So you have to shoot it again. And again. That's called a botched killing and hunters consider it an intolerable act of cruelty. A 30.06 hunting round, even bigger than the two military bullets to the right of the penny you think the public shouldn't have, has the capacity to punch through both heart and lungs on a well placed shot, causing a relatively painless death within 10 seconds. Which would you rather be shot with?

---- Trying to overthrow a tyrannical government? You are paranoid and should have your guns confiscated.

That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, you idiot.

2. Shotguns can only shoot two bullets at a time. They cannot use clips to reload, but must be manually reloaded. Also, no military grade calibers are allowed.
--- Why do you need more than two bullets at a time to kill a deer?

Ignorant moron. The military doesn't use shotguns and when they did, such as in Vietnam, they used a 12 gauge, which is the most common caliber.

3. A ban on handguns for anybody besides for security guards, police, and military. Also, a complete ban on carrying guns outside the home, unless hunting or at the range.
--- A handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill you than a criminal, according to Arthur Kellermann.
--- Trying to be a big man and save the world with your gun while out shopping? You are paranoid and should not be able to own guns.

So which is it, high-speed? Only police and private citizens who work security should have handguns or everyone can have handguns but have to leave them home?

4. A mandatory background check, and one month waiting purchase for all gun purchases.
--- It will be a lot harder for the black market to function if illegal buyers are eliminated through background checks and have to wait a month before getting their guns. No more buying a gun out of the trunk of a car in a dark alley.

Triple Dumbfuk delight, How long does it take a criminal to buy a gun? How many legal guns are sold from a trunk?

5. Nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to handle a firearm. No if, and's, or buts about it. Not while hunting, not while at the range, nothing. Only exceptions are for military recruits.

Leftwaticus Maximus,
How many crimes are committed by people under 21?

6. A proper interpretation of the second amendment, which talks clearly about well regulated militias, aka the national guard, not any random Joe off the street. And don't give the that bs about the Heller decision. That was an awful decision, like plessy v. ferguson or dredd scott, which can, must, and will be repealed.

The 2nd Amendment is fine as it is and won't be going anywhere any time soon. If you don't like it, then pass another amendment. And I wish you the best of luck on that and all your other moribund agendas. The only thing you've proven is that YOU can't be trusted with a gun....because you know nothing about them, and that's how accidents happen.

Bad Leftist, no gun.

 

[jon_berzerk]

One thing that the OP seems to be missing, and that is that guns used for murders are a relatively rare thing, when you consider how many guns and gun owners there are.

There are roughly 65 million legal gun owners and 300 million legally owned guns. The majority of the gun murders (between 8k and 9k annually) are by people who cannot legally own a gun. Even if (and they are not) the murders were committed by legal gun owners, it would only constitute 0.013% of the gun owners.

The problem is not the guns. It is the criminals.

Actually the problem is that criminals have access to guns.

And restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will not change that any more than making drugs illegal made them inaccessible to criminals.

And it is the criminal that makes the gun dangerous.

I wasn't proposing any regulations that prevent law abiding citizens from having access to guns.

A better solution is to eliminate parole for any offense committed with a weapon. Criminals aren't stupid. If they figure out that they are going to be locked up for longer periods because they used a gun to commit a crime they will find other ways to get what they want that don't involve guns. Yes, there are some that will continue to use them for "defense" just as law abiding citizens do but I am talking about the use of guns in robberies. If you can significant'y reduce those then the risk to civilians goes way down. It also reduces the risks for the cops.

how about ending parole period

That works as far as violent offenders goes. The more time they spend behind bars the better in my opinion.

exactly i would not limit it to whether or not they used a firearm

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually the problem is that criminals have access to guns.

And restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will not change that any more than making drugs illegal made them inaccessible to criminals.

And it is the criminal that makes the gun dangerous.

I wasn't proposing any regulations that prevent law abiding citizens from having access to guns.

A better solution is to eliminate parole for any offense committed with a weapon. Criminals aren't stupid. If they figure out that they are going to be locked up for longer periods because they used a gun to commit a crime they will find other ways to get what they want that don't involve guns. Yes, there are some that will continue to use them for "defense" just as law abiding citizens do but I am talking about the use of guns in robberies. If you can significant'y reduce those then the risk to civilians goes way down. It also reduces the risks for the cops.

how about ending parole period

That works as far as violent offenders goes. The more time they spend behind bars the better in my opinion.

exactly i would not limit it to whether or not they used a firearm

Violence is violence. Doesn't matter whether it is a gun, knife, baseball bat or fists. No parole for anyone convicted of committing a violent crime.

 

[zeke]

The only thing you've proven is that YOU can't be trusted with a gun....because you know nothing about them, and that's how accidents happen.

Bad Leftist, no gun.

He knows enough to not get himself shot and killed by his own 2yo kid. And thats a hell of a lot smarter than the dead gun nutter woman in Walmart now isn't it?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The only thing you've proven is that YOU can't be trusted with a gun....because you know nothing about them, and that's how accidents happen.

Bad Leftist, no gun.

He knows enough to not get himself shot and killed by his own 2yo kid. And thats a hell of a lot smarter than the dead gun nutter woman in Walmart now isn't it?

You ASSUME he's smarter than a woman who tragically forgot to put the safety on her gun.

Don't make an ass out of you.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I've got a house full of children, godchildren, step-children, and a husband right now. It is my responsibility to feed them, shelter them, and protect them. If some asshole wants to harm a single hair on any one of their heads I'll shoot the fuck out of him.

Now take your careworn philosophies and kindly shove them up your ass.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think the best gun control policy would be to have mandatory gun training classes for all high school students. Preferably taught by retired military. Maybe then the left will stop thinking of guns as some kind of magical Eye of Sauron.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think the best gun control policy would be to have mandatory gun training classes for all high school students. Preferably taught by retired military. Maybe then the left will stop thinking of guns as some kind of magical Eye of Sauron.

Oddly enough, it used to be that way, at least for high school boys. But I think boys and girls both should learn to shoot and handle firearms at some point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think the best gun control policy would be to have mandatory gun training classes for all high school students. Preferably taught by retired military. Maybe then the left will stop thinking of guns as some kind of magical Eye of Sauron.

Oddly enough, it used to be that way, at least for high school boys. But I think boys and girls both should learn to shoot and handle firearms at some point.

Well I know of four kids all under 11 who learned what a gun is actually for yesterday. That's a start I guess.