Would this gun control work?
Would this gun reform policy work? I would love to hear varying opinions. I understand that a sweeping reform policy like this would never be implemented in the United States. This is obviously going 100-25mph pretty fucking quickly.
Anyway, here it is:
First, a blanket ban on semi-automatic firearms and a national buy-back of said firearms. Why? Can you defend a home with a bolt-action rifle or hunting shotgun? I would like to believe most would answer yes. There’s little need for anything beyond that.
Second, the process for purchasing a firearm would be changed. The legal age to purchase a bolt action rifle or hunting shotgun is 21 years old. A genuine need must be expressed. A full mental evaluation must be completed. An extensive background check process would be completed with numerous interviews with the purchaser’s peers. A full-day training course and exam must be passed.
Why do people need semi-automatics? They most likely don’t. When a teacher gives the classroom a toy car to play with and mouth-breathing Bruce throws it at Becky’s head, what happens? The toy car gets taken away. Does it suck for those who were using it properly? Yeah – it sucks but that’s life. Making sacrifices for the betterment of the whole.
Pro-gun guys it would be great to hear your concerns with something like this.
No because no one actually wants to pass that. If Democrats actually wanted gun reform, presumably they would've tried to do it when they controlled all 3 branches of government from 2009-2011. It's way more effective to have the media go crazy and to say that Republicans have blood on their hands then to actually create solutions.
This.
There's just too much money to be made for the government for them to ever pass such a policy.
Plus the USA government is the largest gun supplier, and runner in the world. It would look hypocritical of them to ban something and then sell it overseas - but on the other hand it is a bunch of politicians with no morals and short memories
Well, first, I guess the AR-15 my 18-year old just bought with his own money and had shipped to the local gun range would have to be shipped back so that he could get that "buy-back" you're referring to. Second, I am curious how many of the semi-automatic weapons currently circulating in our society would get turned back in for that buy-back, considering everyone whose weapons are on the registries would be a mere fraction of the actual numbers out there. Being a law-abiding firearms owner would become even more of an anomaly.
You refer to semi-automatic weapons as if they have a mind of their own. With a simple 6-short revolver, a trained shooter can unload an entire cylinder in less than 3 seconds. That sounds pretty "semi-automatic" to me. So how far are you willing to go to infringe on private citizens rights to possess firearms? Oh, and shotguns? unless you're talking about over-and-unders or other single load variations, a shotgun will typically hold 5 shells plus one in the chamber. Someone could unload 6 double ought buckshot shells in about 5 seconds. Sounds pretty semi-automatic to me.
Lest you think I'm a gun-totin' redneck with no common sense, I actually do not own a firearm. However, my children were raised with morals, they are adults, they enjoy going to the firing range with their weapons and practice firing the weapons they purchased legally. One is an Eagle Scout and both have been through gun safety training. One is double majoring in CompSci and electrical engineering and the other is in accounting school, so we don't fit the narrative the MSM love plastering all over the news.
There are myriad reasons to own a semi-automatic weapon, but none I could/would list that would be met with any reasonable responses. This is simply another hot-button issue the left is attempting to use to drive more of a wedge between the voting public.
Okay, I bit! I got pulled into a topic that really has nothing to do with why I am on this board, but such is life. I make no apologies for who I am or what I stand for, regardless of the ramifications. One of the beautiful things about being comfortable in my own skin.
Sure, there can be good reasons to own guns, but it is unfair to suggest that wanting to limit access to guns is a nefarious plot to sow division in society. In order to have a reasonable conversation we need to begin by acknowledging the other side is likely coming from a genuine belief and desire that they can make our society safer.
It's great that your kids are pursuing degrees and have taken necessary steps to ensure they are responsible gun owners. That's irrelevant to the issue. The truth is most people are not like your children and that's a problem.
Sure, the national buy back probably wouldn't bring in that many firearms in the short run (% wise) but with increased policing, harsh penalties, and higher black-market prices for such guns they would be reduced greatly in the long run. A quick look at the mass-shooters in America illustrates that there is simply no way that the average spree-shooter could afford to own a gun if forced to pay black-market prices.
Infringe on the "right to possess firearms". It's not a right to possess an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. How many rounds does it take to kill a deer or fend off a home invader? People like firearms like the AR-15, people don't need them.
How can gun violence be such a common occurrence and nobody ever flinches? Nobody stops to think, "maybe we're doing something wrong here." It baffles me.
I'm a republican who just happens to find guns pointless and more like a toy than anything else. Sure there's people who have an inherant need for firearms but the greater majority of gun-owners have no genuine need (unless you consider the feeling of pride that comes with gun-ownership and its ties to our national history a need).
RE: "I'm a republican who just happens to find guns pointless and more like a toy than anything else. Sure there's people who have an inherit need for firearms but the greater majority of gun-owners have no genuine need (unless you consider the feeling of pride that comes with gun-ownership and its ties to our national history a need)."
Ummm, that "inherent" need for firearms has much more to do with having the ability to protect ones family than it has to do with pulling a trigger and making a large banging noise. THAT is the genuine need so many of us dumb, illiterate republicans procure firearms these days to do. Sounds absolutely obtuse, I know. You enlightened repubs are a joke. You're about as republican as nancy Pelosi. Don't know why I'm spending anymore time responding to this, b/c this sounds more like a phishing post than most I've read.
We could get into the discussion of the number of rounds a magazine requires to kill a deer, or whatever garbage you've cultivated by doing a google search on a few items you can use to argue whatever point it is you're trying to make.
Get all of your facts together, put them down on a post, and I will be much more than a little happy to address each and every issue you post. Just about guarantee you there isn't a thing you can throw at me that isn't easily debunked. So get your fact straight, and let's have a real debate. Can almost assure you, it will end up with you getting offended, me getting another laugh, and nothing really getting accomplished; but we can always give it a try. So please, PLEASE, let us address all of your issues with private citizens owning their own weapons.
Oh, and in case you didn't read it or hear it elsewhere, my 18-year old just purchased an AR-15 that is, as I sit here tying this response, waiting for us to come pick it up and bring it home from the local firing range where we had it sent.
Good day you hard-core conservative.
No because @TNA" needs access to Assault Rifles and AR-15s with bump stocks so he can overthrow the tyrannical government bro
Totally agree. No government in the entire history of the world has EVER turned into a tyrannical regime, EVER. Never happened in Germany, never happened in the USSR, never happened in any country in Africa. Every government ever has always cared about their citizens so much and none would never imagine infringing on any of their rights or harming their citizens
You're right howard! Pol Pot so loved his people that he starved ~ 6M in prison camps. Hitler, Mousillini, Idi Amin, Mugabe, ...list is nearly endless. They were all so benevolent leaders that they completely stripped the civilian population to not only fend for itself, but they turned the general public into human cattle, automatons, because people were too damned afraid to protect themselves.
So, howard, I'm supposing your solution is that we develop some national aide organizations for these nations. I'm guessing we should hold another "We Are the World" circle jerk that did such a great job in the '80s making celebrities looked like they gave a damned, when in reality, it was all about a damned concert tour. These "awareness events" are nothing more than a venue for publicity whores to soak an bask in the glory of their own; no, it's the publics own, stupidity.
Have no idea what your real thoughts are on the subject, but would be more than happy to discuss them with you. Gun control is NOT the answer in this current conundrum. However, one good place to start would be to hold the right people responsible for every failed attempt at stopping one of these telegraphed events. They seem to be happening with incredible regularity these days and the warning signs are doing everything but blaring from streetside roadsigns. Sad, sad state of affairs.
Lastly: I'm delighted we were able to experience 8 years of the biggest "uniter" in the history of our country. THAT, my friends, is one of the biggest jokes ever perpetrated on the American public.
Do the USA a favor. Either get neutered ASAP or just keep it simple and drink a gallon of bleach. Were you to do this it would meet the definition of making sacrifices for the betterment of the whole.
Let's think about this for a second...
There are studies done that claim that an AR-15 is the gun with the MINIMUM necessary firepower to give the citizens even a SMIDGEN of a chance to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
With this line of thinking, why not make it a right to legally own bazookas? I mean, in the 0.0001% chance we will ever be in this tyrannical situation, hey...at least we have anti-aircraft weapons right??
There is no reasonable need for people to legally own an AR or similar weapons. Giving the average and below average American (who are legitimately dumb as fuck) the ability and the legal pathway to own a weapon that provides the capability to do mass amounts of damage is fucking insane. There are literally people who drive for 30 minutes at night without their fucking headlights on before they realize they're driving in total darkness. People are complete idiots.
This is coming from a guy who owns and loves to shoot shotguns. I love my fucking Benelli and no one will take that away from me, but again, there is no REASONABLE need for a gun like the AR-15 to be able to owned by the masses.
Given you are a stated gun owner please provide a link for "...There are studies done that claim that an AR-15 is the gun with the MINIMUM necessary firepower to give the citizens even a SMIDGEN of a chance to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.....".
People need to wake up and own the fact that AR type rifles account for 2% of annual gun deaths.
What's "similar"?
Can we own handguns? Most are semi-automatic. Which just means you don't need to reset the firing mechanism or charge a bolt.
An AR is just the same mechanism on a rifle.
If safety is your main concern, more people hurt and kill themselves (accidentally in this case) with handguns than ARs.
Lol.... Steve...have you ever shot a handgun and an AR-15?
Sure...they are both "semi-automatic". Besides that fact, and the fact that they both are tools that allow someone to shoot a bullet, the comparisons for the most part end there.
Let's see...
Let's see how these two stack up against each other: Accuracy: AR-15 Range: AR-15 Size of magazine: AR-15 Recoil: AR-15
An AR-15 is a completely different type of gun than a handgun. Saying that they're basically the same gun with the fact that they're both NOT SINGLE-SHOT is such a lazy argument.
For what it's worth, I enjoy shooting ARs. Doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be a heavier set of regulations that surround this type of weapon.
Ah here we have it, the crux of the argument - an unearned sense of superiority. The politics of low expectations. Americans are TOO STOOPID to have unalienable rights! Our bureaucrat overlords will "do what's best for us"!
If you don't believe the average and below-average American are insanely dumb and lack any type of critical thinking skill, then you my friend, may fall into that realm of the population.
You really can't ban "semi automatic" weapons. A decent pump/lever action rifle will easily put out 40 rounds a second, so what are you going to do...ban those too? Plus, despite all claims to the contrary, if the day comes where the government has to be overthrown, enough regular people armed with decent guns will overwhelm the military...there just isn't enough of them to conquer the whole country and a lot would desert and join the civilians anyway.
Both political parties are "crisis actors" who don't really make any real effort to find a fix, and just use this to rally their base. I'm generally pretty progressive (ie liberal "lite") but I love me some guns, and I'm more than annoyed by both the anti and pro gun crowds.
If the 0.0001% of people who should not have a gun were weeded out, this issue would go away.
If you think that getting a gun license and passing a background check and psych eval are bad...you're probably the type that will shoot up a school. And if you think guns are evil and want to take them...well, come try it, I'll shoot you.
More to the point, if you simply eliminate the worst people from the gun owning population, gun violence will drop and then people will find something else to make an issue out of.
This isn't hard, it just takes some common sense and some honest effort.
I'm not holding my breath though lol
Fair.
Last I checked, criminals don't follow laws and would still obtain semi-autos while the law abiding citizen gets stuck with a musket to defend themselves.
lmao, worst argument ever.
It is the truth. What the hell do you think those gang bangers are shooting with in Chicago and such? They are not walking down to the local gun store filling out ATF 4473's and making a legal purchase.
No
Fascinating to see people arguing that you can't ban guns because that would leave citizens vulnerable... in 2014 there were 6 gun deaths in Japan, 230 in Australia and 140 in the UK. Total Homicides, Suicides etc. thats 376 total deaths per year, just over 1 death per day on average.
Every time I bring these countries that banned guns up I hear "but you guys have bad knife crime", maybe slightly higher than usual, but people aren't running in to schools and stabbing 20+ people to death.
Although much harder, mass deaths (20+) from stabbing do occur.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-…
Japan is an interesting case. We're talking about a largely homogenous, monoethnic, low immigration population with a strong sense of national and cultural identity. I think this fosters an environment where heavy gun regulations works how it should.
Unfortunately for the U.S., at this point in time, we are probably on the opposite side of the spectrum, due to a large number of factors.
This is the kind of logic that fascinates me. Banning guns is the only solution to your problem.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/qz.com/1212809/compare-us-mass-shootings…
Pragmatically, you can't ban guns in America. There are something like 300,000,000 guns.
Also 20+, no, but 10+ yes. And deaths by knives, and bare hands, etc account for far more deaths than gun homicide. So the argument is that as long as you keep your murdering under 5 people you can use whatever weapon you want. Solution, let's ban knives, clubs et. al. then...oh would there be too many to confiscate too?
Pragmatically, its already been on in other countries as previously demonstrated. This logic is baffling to me, read what you've posted again and tell me you think knives are comparable to guns? Lets not focus on mass shootings. Lets focus on gun deaths annually.
Lets see total homicides in the UK last year (guns, knives, whatever): 571. Japan total homicides in 2014, all methods: under 1000 Australia total homicides in 2014, all methods: 500
Total combined population: ~200m Total combined homicides: ~2000 Double that to make it more comparable to the US population of ~320m
USA total combined homicides in 2016 (not even including suicides): 17,000 USA Total gun related homicides in 2015: 13,000 and 28,000 gun related injuries.
So if we double the UK,Oz and Japanese numbers to 4000, population of ~400m to make it more comparable to the US, with ~320m population, against a 13,000 death rate. Even though the non gun countries would then be 80m+ population to the US. You think if you ban guns that 10,000 deaths are going to then come from knives? You know 10,000 gun deaths annually are equivelent to more than three 9/11's every year?
Las Vegas and Orlando shootings are just a taste of whats to come. The total number of mass shootings is doubling. Its a almost a contest to see who can kill the most.
Banning guns is your only solutions im afraid. This NRA logic is easily nullified when you look at the US from the perspective of a country that has already banned guns, pure and simple.
Arm Teachers? The uzi-equipped FBI agents that surrounded Ronald Reagan when he was gunned down... they helped a lot.
10,000 Armed security guards sent to protect schools following Columbine? Yeah that worked.
Cant change whatever amendment you guys plead to dispute your right to gun ownership? By its definition is already an AMENDMENT. Did the amendment take into consideration the fully automatic weaponry or today? Did it take it in account mental health that cant always be diagnosed?
The civilised world continues to watch on in astonishment, as US citizens blindly follow their 'right' to gun ownership, even in the face of these shocking statistics. Keen to hear you're view/excuse/sympathy for these statistics.
While these reforms may seem extremely promising, I doubt if trump can deliver what he promised!
Gun Control (Originally Posted: 12/26/2012)
Ideas on stricter gun control laws?
Funny how an AR-15 mysteriously becomes a "semi-automatic assault rifle". Jesus H. Christ almost every handgun in the U.S. is a "semi-auto assault weapon". Fucking idiots. Second amendment. Go Amurica.
But for reals, with the gun control debates on full heat, what do you monkey's think?
-Proud owner of 2 glocks (10mm, .45acp) and a golden gun.
Booya
We already had a massive, massive thread on this. No need to rehash this bullshit.
must have missed it. search is useless. link?
must have missed it. search is useless. link?
Yeah, I agree. I'll invariably get sucked into this rant if it continues, but we have a 450 thread and counting debate going on.
And yes, it is clown how people don't understand semi automatic and what a rifle is. But does this surprise you? It surprises me how the morons inhabiting this nation don't forget to breath, let alone understand the complexity of one trigger pull, one bullet fired.
Things I hate about gun control debates:
1.) People that don't know anything about guns that say dumb shit
2.) People who love guns but have overly macho Rambo style views on guns
Both of these people are intolerable.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean we can't let them fight it out.
No, it is a fruitless exercise and only drowns out reasonable voices and suggestions.
What is reasonable to one person isn't to another. Gun Control is dead on arrival because the NRA vigorously defends the 2nd Amendment. Thanks god, because if they didn't we'd have to beg to own BB guns in this country.
TNA = Tyrannical Nazi AmeriKKKa?
I unfortunately don't share your enthusiasm for the NRA. They have a track record of sending owners of scary, black, "assault rifles" down the river to protect hunters and "sport" shooters.
I agree. I wish the NRA was more supportive of gun laws. Unfortunately this milk toast group is the best we can hope for.
Yeah, thank god, or else, like, the government might become tyrannical and we won't be able to create a militia to defend ourselves from despotism!!!
Exactly. Frankly, the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be justified, just like the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure, or the right to freedom of speech doesn't need to be justified.
A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.
For the record, I am actually in favor of restricting ownership of assault and semi-automatic weapons such as the Bushmaster rifle.
If you believe the first sentence, then why do you believe the second? The American people are at a greater disadvantage in being able to defend themselves from tyranny than at any point in our country's history. Back in the Revolution, the soldiers had similar equipment to the farmers. In the Civil War farmers' weapons still sufficed but were at a disadvantage to cannons and Gatling guns. Now the delta between an AR-15/AK-47 (essentially the top legal weapons you can own - in most states) and what the government has is massive. That is a scary proposition if you believe that we may, at some point, have to take up arms against the government.
I don't believe the below articles, but I have family members that do:
Part1: http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=238
Part 2: http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=239
It'll be a scary 2013, if any of this were to play out (I don't think it will).
Only people aligned with Nazi policy are the anti gun people who draw their inspiration from Hitler, like all totalitarians do.
TNA = Total Nascar Action?
Totally Narcissistic A...well, never mind.
And Stalin polices...
Oh god, this is such a wonderful website.
http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-c…
Anti-Constitution supporters are in fine company, with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pelosi, Obama, etc.
All fascists share a common bond, the desire to control and subject the populace to their ideas and thoughts. A free nation must fight these despots at every turn and on ever "reasonable" subject.
You forgot Bush, bruh.
Fact: Obama is gonna round us up and put us all in FEMA camps!
Luckily we have the NRA to protect our rights and vigorously so. If only Norquist joined forces with the NRA we could ensure that anyone caught stealing from the citizens or limiting their rights would be thrown out of office.
If only we had a Santorum - Gingrich Presidency. Then, and only then, would we be free.
Gingrich is a little to left wing for my tastes.
TNA sometimes I really wonder whether you believe the stuff you write.
What?
Taxation is government theft. Get at my level bro.
I could see Obama 100% supporting gun confiscation. Republicans need to know this is a line in the sand issue, no retreat, do not give an inch.
Gun Control:
In reality, it won't do much. Even if you ban EVERY gun out there, the streets will be flooded with weapons. You're only going to give the cartels another business to start, thereby increasing their revenue stream. In our modern police state, where everything we do, say, and think is monitored, the last line of defense we have is our weaponry. Banning weapons is only going to make a few gun-runners rich.
The NRA makes up nonsense about gun confiscation to make sure that gun sales remain extremely high. I commend them for the successful business strategy but I feel really bad for the idiots that believe what they say.
On the other hand the opportunistic tactics on the left are irritating as well. I've heard people propose that you can't buy a gun if you live with someone deemed mentally incompetent. Forget that, in my opinion, criminal insanity is just a phony rationale for why young white males commit crimes. How the hell do you expect to get that done?
I'll admit I know virtually nothing about guns or what makes something an assault weapon. Based on the media, it seems like everything badass-looking is an assault weapon. I appreciate that gun owning Democrats are getting involved, but again they're also being opportunistic. If all the characters in this story were black or brown they wouldn't be risking their political futures talking about guns.
1) Where were the police to protect the people of CT? They came after the fact, as they always do.
2) The US Military is getting their ass kicked by a bunch of goat herders in a place called Crapistan. Bunch of guys in pajamas did the same thing 40 years ago. This idea that the USA is going to launch a cruise missile strike against American Patriots fighting against a government that trounces their rights is a little far fetched.
Just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the US military would control urban centers while the vast majority of this country would be controlled by the rebels. Rebels that would blend in with the populace and fight a gorilla war. And this is assuming the Republican leaning military would do the bidding of a liberal nanny state trying to confiscate guns.
The 5 friends I know in the Army and Marines would urinate on Obama before they would turn against true Americans. So take that for what it is worth.
Qui accusantium eum sint enim consectetur. Debitis consectetur vero aliquam magni quis numquam. Facere enim dolor ad ut reprehenderit quis voluptatibus. Qui error dolores et eum dolor.
Necessitatibus ut quaerat delectus reiciendis at ea. Deserunt dicta voluptas quis sunt itaque exercitationem. Qui omnis veritatis voluptate accusantium non.
Consectetur quibusdam sint quo nam amet voluptas harum. Quod ut at dicta sunt dicta dolores fuga. Atque voluptate beatae temporibus nostrum autem. Cum doloremque est laboriosam consequatur minus laboriosam. Nesciunt nesciunt alias nesciunt omnis qui deserunt dignissimos.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eum placeat pariatur omnis autem. Sunt ut perspiciatis nemo aperiam natus impedit. Omnis eos possimus nesciunt ut.
Quidem eos numquam sit similique commodi ipsam. Dolores dolor deserunt vero eos laudantium sed. Veniam voluptatum in aliquid voluptate libero aspernatur atque. Qui ipsum ipsum animi omnis sint. Eveniet excepturi possimus iusto quia consequuntur eos hic provident. Voluptas modi id corrupti sed voluptas adipisci eligendi et.
Vero eos iusto perferendis eos explicabo sunt. Minima similique id in et. Beatae amet vero illum quibusdam quia recusandae. Qui animi beatae vitae voluptates eaque optio.
Quibusdam et consequatur minima voluptatem similique vel repudiandae minima. Sapiente totam quae non a est temporibus omnis sit.
Est rerum facere necessitatibus quasi exercitationem minima. Non voluptatem voluptatem eius modi ut ea est. Qui repudiandae ut debitis nobis aut harum illum. Mollitia assumenda qui velit eaque. Et in consequatur laudantium excepturi qui et reiciendis adipisci. Consequatur saepe nihil nihil deserunt officiis officia sequi. Voluptates voluptatibus voluptas quibusdam nemo quis est.