Reasonable gun control

[AmyNation]

Why does "gun control" always amount to more restrictions on private citizens?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not to mention you have a better chance of being hit by lightening than being killed in a mas shooting.

 

[Inthemiddle]

[*]Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

In other words, you want non-violent offenders hit with petty drug possession charges to be prohibited from exercising a constitutional right. What does that serve?

[*]Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

In other words, you would deprive a person's constitutional rights without due process of the law.

[*]Is a fugitive from justice

And how do you propose to accomplish that? By passing a law? If they were law abiding citizens, they wouldn't be a fugitive from justice, now would they?

[*]Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

So, no cigarette smokers. Got it. This is silly, and underscores how your intentions are based more on demonization of people than anything productive.

[*]Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

There we go, let's demonize mental health issues, and create even more unattractive labels that people will wish to avoid instead of actually getting help that they may need. People can be committed to psychiatric facilities for alot of reasons. And I suspect that you have no knowledge or understanding of mental health issues in the first place, as to have any idea how to define the rather ridiculous term "mental defective." Shall we include every and any mental health diagnosis out there? Or should be arbitrarily pick and choose certain ones?

My sister once had herself committed for a week shortly after our 16 year old cousin died in a car accident. It was her freshman year in college, she had alot going on at the time, and as it all had started building up she had started sinking into clinical depression that made our cousin's death emotionally explosive for her. So what? There's nothing that makes her incapable of possessing a firearm.

[*]Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

I'd agree with this. Except once again, passing a law will not do anything about this. If laws were enough, they wouldn't be here illegally in the first place. Illegals will still be able to get guns, regardless of whether the law allows them or not.

[*]Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions

First of all, you don't seem to understand what happens when a person is discharged from the military, nor do you understand the kinds of dispositions that a discharge may be given. So your statement is somewhat nonsensical, and once again highlights how a lack of knowledge and education is so frequently displayed in the vast majority of arguments calling for gun control.

Second, what purpose would this serve? I'm sorry....nevermind. Since you don't understand military discharge procedures, dispositions, or meanings, I already know that you're saying this under a misguided belief that you'd be keeping guns out of the hands of "bad" people.

[*]Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship

Yeah, because there are all kinds of people in the US right now who have renounced their citizenship. It's starting to sound like you're just saying stuff just to have something to say.

[*]Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner

Absolutely no. Such orders and proceedings are virtually always highly biased against men, and often allow people to make untrue accusations to receive relief. Because such proceedings are not criminal matters, the burden of proof is very low. It's not uncommon for the disposition of such matters to, as a matter of expediency, be made based on a defendant voluntarily agreeing to stay away from the plaintiff. And when such matters to involve a hearing regarding the dispute, the defendant rarely has a lawyer representing him or her (an indignant person won't have the right to be represented by a court appointed lawyer for such matters). It is entirely inappropriate for a person's constitutional rights to be held subject to such whimsicality and lack of due process.

[*]Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Once again, another whimsical realm. Domestic violence cases are, as mentioned above, often very biased against men. Also, a person can be convicted of domestic violence for defending him/her self against an attacking partner, or even a violent roommate. There is alot of ways in which a person can be wrongly convicted of domestic violence offenses. Furthermore, a true criminal who is willing to commit domestic violence simply won't care if it's illegal to possess a gun. If he cared about the law, he/she wouldn't be committing domestic violence in the first place.

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

That's just it. You can't really do much to stop such illegal activity, short of a totalitarian police state. And even then, police states themselves generally fail to stop all activity of whatever ideological bend they are trying to prevent. People bent on criminal behavior will always find a way to hide in back rooms and conduct illegal business.

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.

Again, your entire idea here rests on the false belief that statutes are sufficient to engender compliance from criminals. If someone is willing to commit domestic violence, and they are intent on repeating that after being convicted in the first place, they are not going to refrain from doing so simply because they received a letter in the mail telling them to burn a piece of paper "or else."

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

An AR 15 is a semiautomatic gun capable of putting out 30 rounds as fast as a novice shooter can open and close his finger. It has a small 'kick' and is easy to train on one or a dozen targets. It is an effective weapon for mass murder.


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.

Nope. A 30-round magazine with a quick release button can be replaced quickly, making escape or attack as the shooter reloads a very problematic position. with three 30-round magazines in most venues a determined shooter will take down anyone in proximity to engage him or her.


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.

Baloney, a folding stock makes an AR 15 easily concealed. A pistol grip makes point and shot very easy, quick release buttons make reloading a breeze.


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.

I look forward to a rational and honest debate.

 

[LilOlLady]

We cannot control the possession of guns and more than we can control illegal immigration and secure the border or stop terrorism. We cannot keep guns out of nuts. Background checks will not apply to criminals because they will not buy guns legally. Like criminals illegal aliens will not come forth out of the shadows. The only way to protect our children is like we protect air ports and court rooms. Secure the schools like we secure prisons. We protect our prisoners better then our children. Then and only then will our children be safe.We cannot control the possession of guns and more than we can control illegal immigration and secure the border or stop terrorism. We cannot keep guns out of nuts. Background checks will not apply to criminals because they will not buy guns legally. Like criminals illegal aliens will not come forth out of the shadows. The only way to protect our children is like we protect air ports and court rooms. Secure the schools like we secure prisons. We protect our prisoners better then our children. Then and only then will our children be safe.
Gun control, back ground checks, mental evaulations is a waste of time.

 

[westwall]

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.

I am in full agreement with that. So why is it that my state is the only one that actually ARRESTS people for trying to buy guns when they are not allowed to? A good friend of mine was a deputy with the Alameda Co. SO. and arrested a parolee for being felon in possession of a firearm, battery, and spousal abuse. All of which should have violated him back to prison for 9 years.

He was back out on the street the next day. You want to stop crime you keep dipshits like him behind bars.

 

[Inthemiddle]

An AR 15 is a semiautomatic gun capable of putting out 30 rounds as fast as a novice shooter can open and close his finger. It has a small 'kick' and is easy to train on one or a dozen targets. It is an effective weapon for mass murder.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but I would not say that AR-15 has a "small" kick. First of all, the recoil is going to depend more on the ammo used than anything else. More powerful ammo will cause a stronger recoil. Achieving a lesser recoil will require less powerful ammo. Being well practiced will allow a person to control the recoil better. Again, this is preferable, because a person failing to control a weapon they are wielding is a safety risk.

The fact that competency is relatively easy to achieve is no reason to single out this particular type of weapon. We should hope that anyone using a given weapon is wielding it competently. Saying that it is "effective" or mass murder is an unsatisfactory argument. It is also effective for hunting and self defense. Additionally, there are plenty of other weapons that are equally effective for mass murder. Bombs will serve that purpose well. Hand guns are very effective for mass murder. Shotguns are very effective as well. Bow weapons can also be effective for this purpose. I once heard of someone even using poisoned kool-aid for mass murder. There is no good reason to single out the AR-15.

Nope. A 30-round magazine with a quick release button can be replaced quickly, making escape or attack as the shooter reloads a very problematic position. with three 30-round magazines in most venues a determined shooter will take down anyone in proximity to engage him or her.

The same can be said about 10 round magazines.

Baloney, a folding stock makes an AR 15 easily concealed. A pistol grip makes point and shot very easy, quick release buttons make reloading a breeze.

"Quick release" buttons are found on pretty much any weapon that is magazine fed. Shall we talk about how triggers make shooting a breeze?

I'm not sure that you've ever handled an AR-15 before, because even with a collapsing stock they are not usually easily concealable weapons. Of course, many people don't even understand what an AR-15 really is, and I suspect you don't either. So there's not much point in delving into this point farther.

If I'm using a weapon to defend myself, there's one thing that I want to do easily, and that's be able to point and shoot. If that's difficult to do then what is the point? I don't want to have difficulty using my weapon to defend myself. The same is true for hunting. You want to be able to point and shoot relatively easily.

All in all, I'm troubled by the fact that you are singling out a single model, the AR-15. I'm all the more troubled by the fact that your objections seem to revolve around nothing more than the fact that it works well, and that's just silly. Finally, I'm especially troubled by the fact that your entire position seems to be based on judging objects based on some kind of moral valuation. None of this addresses real issues of import.

Certainly, you're not naive enough to think that we can somehow, magically, make all AR-15s disappear. Though you do seem to have a naive belief that AR-15s are somehow magically more dangerous than other weapons. The fact is that AR-15s are more safe than many weapons because their high quality helps prevent accidental injuries from stray bullets, misfires, or other user errors. They are ideal weapons for hunting, and can be ideal for self defense in certain scenarios.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I'll let you sell that one to the police officers' association. If they're down with it, great.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What other rights would you like to see compromised? It isn't our 2A to compromise. It is the nation's 2A.

How about we throw out every measure of gun control there is for 5 years, every one of them If the crime rate is worse, we can institute controls. If not, it stays. Sounds reasonable, right?

 

[Missourian]

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.

I've had that problem myself....I use "/Sarcasm" to make my intent more obvious.

 

[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.

I repeat the listed requirements noted in the quoted post are already Federal laws. Do you people even know what the law is? You demand what is already law and claim you have a point?

 

[Papawx3]

How about if we all just went back to bows & arrows?
Really though. To those on the left, gun control is like taxation. A little just isn't good enough. The more the better, and once you get started, there is no end in sight.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why does "gun control" always amount to more restrictions on private citizens?

Very good point. Gun control always restricts law abiding citizens and gives even more gun freedom to criminals.

 

[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.

thats laughable...

We have another thread on here with a reasoned argument and you fucktards went in there and slammed it.

I fucking hate partisan retards, and you are one of them.

Yeah, most wishy washing, cowardly, feminine men hate people who believe strongly in a cause or an idea and most liberal scumbags hate anyone who holds strong beliefs in any cause or idea that doesn't mirror their own. So which are you? A wishy washy scrote, or a liberal scumbag?