Reasonable gun control

[Inthemiddle]

This idea of "reasonable" gun control has been floating around alot lately, in the media, the public discourse, and on this board as well. Largely, it is being offered as an alternative to a complete ban on all firearms, almost in a compromising spirit. I, for one, am perfectly willing to consider "reasonable" gun control. But I'd like to know more details about what "reasonable" gun control would look like. In order to get the discussion kicked off, I'd like to offer a few items that I feel a "reasonable" gun control policy would not include:

No band on semiautomatic pistols or rifles

Semiautomatic weaponry is not the evil technology that some uninformed people sometimes think it is. It's pretty much standard stuff, nothing more. It's a vital element of safety. It is the most safe technology for a novice to learn how to operate a firearm and for him to carry. It is important for effective self defense.


No ban on high capacity magazines

As demonstrated in the thread about the intruder who was shot six times by still was able to get up and walk away, round capacity can be very important for self defense. Not only that, but attempts to limit magazine capacity are superficial solutions at best. It's not difficult to change a magazine, and any bad guy who intends to wreak havoc with a fire arm can easily obtain more magazines anyway. Since there is no actual benefit that can be derived, but actual harm that can result, a reasonable gun control policy must reject such a proposal.


No restrictions based on aesthetics/cosmetics (including pistol grips, telescoping/collapsible rifle stocks)

This should be easy. The way a gun looks on the outside obviously has nothing to do with public safety. Therefore, any restriction based on the way a gun looks is outright silly and should be rejected immediately.


That's it. Nothing much, just some basic and common sense stuff. I'd now like to hear people's proposals for what we could or should ban in order to keep the public safe. Please, be specific. Also, I have taken the time to give explicit reasons for each of my points above, and why those things cannot be part of any "reasonable" gun control policy. So please make sure to give your own reasons for each thing that you feel a gun control policy should restrict. Please also remember to explain how any policy points will actually accomplish the stated goal.

I look forward to a productive discussion.

 

[Missourian]

Well, you've singlehandedly destroyed the liberal gun agenda.

Good luck with the productive discussion.

How to you reason with folks whose position boils down to "We don't want one, so we don't want you to have one either"?

 

[Pheonixops]

I agree with the points made by the OP and would add the right to privacy regarding 'gun ownership'. What that newspaper did in New York was and is pretty reprehensible. I think purchasing a legal firearm should have the same simplicity as going to buy a six pack of beer or alcohol.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

 

[Inthemiddle]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

In other words, you don't want reasonable gun control. You simply want to ban things in a reactionary hope that it will accomplish something. You don't offer a single reason why any of those things should be done, and you simply overlook facts that aren't convenient to your desires.

 

[Darkwind]

I agree with the points made by the OP and would add the right to privacy regarding 'gun ownership'. What that newspaper did in New York was and is pretty reprehensible. I think purchasing a legal firearm should have the same simplicity as going to buy a six pack of beer or alcohol.

I agree. In fact, is is better for public safety to purchase a gun than a six pack of beer.

Lets see..alcohol is regulated, but it is still used illicitly AND is responsible for many more deaths than guns.

Hows that working out for us?

 

[Darkwind]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

and our final offer is this:

Amend the Constitution if you want any of that. We won't wait up.

 

[jtpr312]

This idea of "reasonable" gun control has been floating around alot lately, in the media, the public discourse, and on this board as well. Largely, it is being offered as an alternative to a complete ban on all firearms, almost in a compromising spirit. I, for one, am perfectly willing to consider "reasonable" gun control. But I'd like to know more details about what "reasonable" gun control would look like. In order to get the discussion kicked off, I'd like to offer a few items that I feel a "reasonable" gun control policy would not include:

No band on semiautomatic pistols or rifles

Semiautomatic weaponry is not the evil technology that some uninformed people sometimes think it is. It's pretty much standard stuff, nothing more. It's a vital element of safety. It is the most safe technology for a novice to learn how to operate a firearm and for him to carry. It is important for effective self defense.


No ban on high capacity magazines

As demonstrated in the thread about the intruder who was shot six times by still was able to get up and walk away, round capacity can be very important for self defense. Not only that, but attempts to limit magazine capacity are superficial solutions at best. It's not difficult to change a magazine, and any bad guy who intends to wreak havoc with a fire arm can easily obtain more magazines anyway. Since there is no actual benefit that can be derived, but actual harm that can result, a reasonable gun control policy must reject such a proposal.


No restrictions based on aesthetics/cosmetics (including pistol grips, telescoping/collapsible rifle stocks)

This should be easy. The way a gun looks on the outside obviously has nothing to do with public safety. Therefore, any restriction based on the way a gun looks is outright silly and should be rejected immediately.


That's it. Nothing much, just some basic and common sense stuff. I'd now like to hear people's proposals for what we could or should ban in order to keep the public safe. Please, be specific. Also, I have taken the time to give explicit reasons for each of my points above, and why those things cannot be part of any "reasonable" gun control policy. So please make sure to give your own reasons for each thing that you feel a gun control policy should restrict. Please also remember to explain how any policy points will actually accomplish the stated goal.

I look forward to a productive discussion.

Good luck with that bud. You cannot have a productive discussion with the anti-gunnut liberals on this board or off this board for that matter.

 

[westwall]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

Here's my "reasonable gun control", I will follow any law that applies equally to the police and politicians. Whatever they get to carry and possess I do too.

Hows that for you?

 

[squeeze berry]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

No, end.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

In other words, you don't want reasonable gun control. You simply want to ban things in a reactionary hope that it will accomplish something. You don't offer a single reason why any of those things should be done, and you simply overlook facts that aren't convenient to your desires.

Mea Culpa, I though my post was dripping in sarcasm, sorry you didn't get it. You want reasonable gun control yet drww lines in the sand, mine were drawn in the sky.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

Assuming ‘single shot’ refers to bolt action rifles, a deranged criminal armed with a SMLE could maintain a respectable rate of fire, producing many casualties. And given its more powerful .30 caliber round, one shot would indeed result in one kill.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

Why not make it illegal to own crossbows while you are at it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As a counter offer to the OP and in the same spirit I will be happy to negotiate as long as,
1. Only single shot firearms remain legal, all other be surrendered and distroyed.
2. No single shot firearm can be shorter than 24 inches.
3. Only one such firearm can be owned or in the custody and control of any person.
4. The muzzle velocity can be no greater than 1,000 fps.

Okay, begin.

Here's my "reasonable gun control", I will follow any law that applies equally to the police and politicians. Whatever they get to carry and possess I do too.

Hows that for you?

Did you ever see the news footage of those two guys in LA who had greater firepower and better Armor than the entire LAPD. Most officers are armed with semi auto hand guns, are you suggesting they should carry AR 15's routinely?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You people shoot without thinking, didn't anyone of you read "dripping with sarcasm"?

 

[Inthemiddle]

You people shoot without thinking, didn't anyone of you read "dripping with sarcasm"?

I guess Poe's law applies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The more rigid and unwilling to compromise gun owners become, the greater the likelihood the effort to control firearms in our society will grow. The OP suggested 'reasonable gun control' and then went on to take reason off the table; my initial response was "dripping with sarcasm" for that reason.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The more rigid and unwilling to compromise gun owners become, the greater the likelihood the effort to control firearms in our society will grow. The OP suggested 'reasonable gun control' and then went on to take reason off the table; my initial response was "dripping with sarcasm" for that reason.

How have I taken reasonable off of the table? On the contrary, I've explained logically why three particular proposals are inherently unreasonable.

 

[hazlnut]

Well, you've singlehandedly destroyed the liberal gun agenda.

Good luck with the productive discussion.

How to you reason with folks whose position boils down to "We don't want one, so we don't want you to have one either"?

We don't want these people to have them:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

And we'd like to hear your suggestions for curbing the illegal sale of guns to these people.

What if every time you clear a NICS check, the gun dealer prints out a little piece of paper with your name and address on it, maybe a digital photo, and you can use that paper for the next 365 days to purchase guns at shows or from private individuals? Would that be so horrible?? Of course, if you smack your wife around and she takes out a restraining order, then you'll get a letter informing you the paper is no longer valid. It's on you to destroy it or face the consequences if you get caught with it at a gun show.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, you've singlehandedly destroyed the liberal gun agenda.

Good luck with the productive discussion.

How to you reason with folks whose position boils down to "We don't want one, so we don't want you to have one either"?

We don't want these people to have them:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

And we'd like to hear your suggestions for curbing the illegal sale of guns to these people.

What if every time you clear a NICS check, the gun dealer prints out a little piece of paper with your name and address on it, maybe a digital photo, and you can use that paper for the next 365 days to purchase guns at shows or from private individuals? Would that be so horrible?? Of course, if you smack your wife around and she takes out a restraining order, then you'll get a letter informing you the paper is no longer valid. It's on you to destroy it or face the consequences if you get caught with it at a gun show.

All your listed demands are already the law of the land, dumb fuck. And licensed dealers at Gun shows have to follow the same law at the Gun show the follow anywhere else. You people are stupid and ignorant.