Guns : A simple solution

[soes757]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

 

[chadachada123]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

A bullet that goes through a person would continue into the wall behind it, shattering on that instead.

Besides, bullets are far, far too numerable to be serialized, when millions or billions of rounds are fired every single day, even if the casing could be recovered and wasn't picked up by the perpetrator.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

No, no, no.
If we heavily ban the guns, people will get them illegally, we need to constrict factories and contain imports better. If we allow people to have them, and say, add GPS to guns (new guns) and make the sale illegal (used guns) (Parentheses are fun!)we could keep better track of who is using them, and if someone get's shot, they track the serial off the bullet, to the GPS to the person, and if the gun has been ditched somewhere, we have the address on tab, moving without reporting and address change, or listing a false address (someone will have to check your home and see ID before you acquire a gun) would be a felony, see, Soes fixes the universe, again.
Also, this won't work, just stating ideas for people to change, alter, and fix, though, it fixed the universe.
It makes sense, really, it does, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Bullets tend to break up on impact. Those that don't can often pierce body armor

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

Depends on the bullet. Hollow point and fraggable ammo (such as those used by police forces) will bend and twist in a way that won't leave any serial numbers left, even in just the human body. They are made to make sure as much of the force goes to the person your aiming at, and not the person behind them.

Spoiler: Here is an example

You also have the problem of if the bullet gets stuck in a person and they don't die. Since the bullet is preventing the wound from bleeding as badly, or it could lodge itself in where it doesn't pose much risk to the person, but removing it does (say, if it is against your heart or lungs), you won't be able to get it anyway.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

This is where I think is the difference of thought. Freedoms, as the US views them, generally anyway, is the ability to do things without having to explain oneself or justify why one is doing it. Do you really need a Xbox 360? It isn't attributing to your job, it only is making your health worse since your not using a lot of energy while doing it. Why do you need a game console?

You don't NEED it, you want it. It was your money you earned, and it is your life, so you think you get to choose how you spend it. Nobody should be able to tell you otherwise, regardless of the risks to your health. Then why do other people, government or otherwise, get to decide what I do with mine?

Guns are a hobby, having cool guns is great for people like me because we like then. It is like supercars. Fast, a bit dangerous if your reckless, soaks up my money, and doesn't get the job done of getting me from point A to point B, but it still my choice to buy it. Over 30,000 people a year die in car crashes in the US alone, should the government be able to limit how I get from home to work because of this?

My gun has never hurt anyone. All the people I know who own guns have never hurt or been hurt by them. Why should we have limits on a hobby because somebody with a sick mind maybe will take one that they bought under questionable legality and hurt another with it? Why should we be punished for the actions of others?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Sounds decent enough, but still pretty off.

My own thoughts:

1: Any weapons that have the ability of automatic fire, anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, are banned. If you have to pull the trigger with every round, its fine, if you can fire two or more bullets with one pull of the trigger, its banned.

If it's made after 1986, it's already banned.

Hmm, I thought that was part of the Assault Weapon ban that expired a few years back...

No, but the language of the bill was obviously meant to make you think that. Congress loves to mis title bills to get support from those that don't read it. Oh, the 1986 bill? It was called the "Firearm Owners Protection Act."

3: Any semi-automatic weapon that could be converted into a full-auto must be given a greater level of checks, the weapon's manufacturer must examine the semi-auto weapon in question to see if it could or can be converted, and inform the government so as to apply the necessary level of restrictions. Any weapon that is found to be able to be converted into full-auto that wasnt discovered, and isnt discovered by the manufacturer, will result in massive fines for the manufacturer.

Guess what? With a fair amount of know how and firearm knowledge, you can convert any semi-automatic firearm to automatic. It's just going to be really poor quality and dangerous to the shooter, you know, exploding guns, cook offs and what not.

And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

Do you really want to leave that up to a dice roll? Is having a bullet spraying pipe bomb really sound like the way to make sure less people are injured?

4: Any foreign made guns that are imported into the US, if automatic, will be banned. If not automatic, they will still be regulated.

Not hard to circumvent considering manufacturers can just open up plants on US soil.

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

Only a couple, since a lot of the process can be done by robots. Besides, a the problem a bill fixes should be the problem the bill was intended to fix. If a bill doesn't do anything to stop the original attempt, but has some random side benefit, that is a failed bill in my book.

 

[Luna]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

we have not been legally allowed to own assault weapons since the 1930s. we do not have people running around armed with hks and m16s this is not afghanstan.

really wish you anti gun people would bother to learn something about gun laws before you presume to tell us what we should or should not own.


any modern day "assault weapons" ban, does not ban any assault weapons, the ban single fire weapons with magazines of over XX rounds, so they ban extended clips and things like that for standard everyday rifles.

i am so sick of the anti gun stuff period, how about you live your lives, we live ours, and using every and any tragedy that pops up because some mentally derranged moron decides to take a few people out for the lulz because he is in a state that does not allow anyone to be armed anywhere so it is like shooting fish in a friggin barrel, is disgusting at best.

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

or those armed burglers, if one neighborhood is a no guns zone, and another is armed to the teeth, which neighborhood would they burgle with impunity?

And I really wish you labeling judgementals' would think before judging. I'm not anti guns.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to argue about guns who's not necessarily against them in the first place. Learn to read effectively please.

 

[mooncalf]

Any gun that can be used to lethal effect is necessarily a risk to human life, you could ban all of them ("Not good!") or ban some of them ("Also not good!") or you could advance a society that values love, acceptance and outreach rather than hate, prejudice and insularity. ("Too Hard, Did Not Bother.")

I hope for a world when nobody's so messed up as to intentionally misuse a firearm.
Forget (you already have, haven't you?) "No child left behind.", we need "No PERSON left behind."

 

[Mr Binary]

Well, one idea would be to make the more powerful weapons (such as automatic rifles) under heavier restrictions to purchase. The problem with this though, is most criminals would get their weapons illegally. That would then leave the civilians under-armed against the criminals, causing complaints and escalation. This whole debate just seems like a never-ending cycle.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, one idea would be to make the more powerful weapons (such as automatic rifles) under heavier restrictions to purchase.

The only automatic weapons that can be legally owned by civilians in the US are those that were registered before May 1986. You can't get new ones legally.

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

First let me say that I appreciate where you're coming from. I could compromise and argue that we should make it harder to obtain an assault rifle but I cannot agree that those weapons should be banned. My question originally however was, let?s say assault rifles are banned, do you ban future sales only or do you take them from the owners with some sort of monetary offset or trade system? However if you only ban future sales you effectively contribute to a black market that already existed but then would be booming. Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the gun question in America.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Okay I'll ask again sir : Why SHOULD you be allowed to own anything other than a handgun for self defense or a rifle for hunting?

Why SHOULD people be allowed to have kids without permission or licensure? You see, you're taking the wrong approach to rights.

When making a law (which is a limit of rights), the burden of proof is on the people making the law. If the law cannot provide a compelling reason why law-abiding, responsible citizens should be able to own an M-16, or a hundred 9mm handguns, or whatever else, the right remains with the people.

When we start demanding that the public defend their rights, placing the burden of proof on them, we give the law (and thus government) infinite power over us. Because at that point, ANY right can be yanked away for some "greater good."

So, to answer your question: I SHOULD be allowed to own guns other than handguns because no one has demonstrated to any degree that I am a criminal, or that I have or will do anything wrong with those items.

But I'll counter your question: Since, as it is, nearly every single crime that involves guns comes back to handguns and hunting rifles (I'm going to group shotguns in there, because they are widely used for hunting), why are you looking to ban everything else?

Or do you tell me you think everyone should have nukes too? I mean we're constantly telling Iran they shouldn't ever dare to get nuclear weaponry but hey when they have nukes it doesn't mean they intent to use them right?

It's a difference of scale, and it's extremely easy to tell the difference (if you're not being intentionally ignorant).

Guns are legitimate defensive weapons, because guns are only effective within a certain territorial range of the person. You have to be able to see the target, and you fire from within that same visual range. Furthermore, their damage is focused and reasonably predictable (one bullet goes to one target). As such, it can easily be argued that these are defensive weapons -- they are limited by effective range and low likelihood of collateral damage.

There is no legitimate argument that a nuke is a defensive weapon for an individual. You can't use a nuke on anyone within visible range, because you'd kill yourself, too, not to mention the severe collateral damage. You can't accurately predict the total damage, so you can't be even remotely sure it's only affecting the intended target. So, widely-targeted weapon that can only be used from very, very far away? Clearly no argument can be made that it is a defensive weapon.

Grenades? Same thing. RPGs? Same thing. See how easy it is to tell the difference when you look at the real-life function of these weapons in a clear, reasoned way? So, we're not perched on any kind of slippery slope by allowing Joe Blow to own a semi-automatic AK-47 (which is effectively no different from a plain ol' Remington hunting rifle, except in apperance).

Okay fine you make a good case.
I would like to point out that pointing a nuke at someone who's threatening you usually scares them off (Cold war), so in that sense it is a defensive weapon.
However is it really a difference of scale? if you look into the situation more deeply and ethically, shouldn't it be the same discussion?
(I'm not intentionally being ignorant I know what you mean but you or someone before pushed a very similar absurd comparison in favor of guns so I'm wondering how this fares on the other end because the comparison ethically is a valid one sadly)

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Dude would you stop?
I've already documented in my responses that I have no accurate knowledge of the guns and any new info is handy (Although I knew about Bolt-Action etc but I wasn't sure if that was from games and didn't want to come off a laughing stock with you guys with throwing faulty terms into the pit)

The huntsman argument was worded a bit faulty yeah, what I meant was : how about we don't allow people to walk around with more ammo than they could possibly need?

but then again this is all just an idea to put a halt to all the "BAN ALL GUNS" discussion to satisfy both sides.



also : your arguments and rage took over when you shouted the 2nd amendment at me, this is no argument whatsoever and this is exactly what we're looking to change here.
I respect your views and your constitution but don't defend yourself with that as a divine shield, if the second amendment was "Kill all firstbornes" and I came to take your son and you would want to change that law you wouldn't be there sitting "Yes sir! it's in the constitution sir!"

Now I don't know if you've noticed it but the Anti-Gun crowd views every gun-owner as a potential murderer you have to reach a middle ground here.

Look, I for one applaud the attempt to find some middle ground. It feels like an uphill battle to convince people for heavy regulation or outright bans that your average legal gun owner is NOT Yosemite Sam waiting every night by his door just a-hopin' that someone will try to break in.

But let's talk facts. Regulating ammo is inefficient as a law. First, any yahoo with internet access can make his own ammo easily if he has a mind to. Also 'more ammo than you could possibly need' can be a bit misleading.

How much could I possibly need in a given space? Well I can easily go through 50 shells after one day at the range. Say I'm a guy with disposable income who likes to practice regularly (once a week), that's 200 shells a month/2,400 shells a year. Is that more than I could possibly need? Is that really even unreasonable?

What about pistol or rifle ammo (far cheaper in many cases) with the regimen I just outlined (just for practice, not for practical applications) one could go through maybe 8,000 rounds in a year. Is that unreasonable?

You're right in a way I can agree.
The ammo limiting was a hypothetical answer or in other cases a sweetener for the opposition ( because the limit doesn't need to be that tight, there just has to be a limit).

From my line of thinking came this "There has to be a line somewhere."

But that's just the practical philosophical answer

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Dude would you stop?
I've already documented in my responses that I have no accurate knowledge of the guns and any new info is handy (Although I knew about Bolt-Action etc but I wasn't sure if that was from games and didn't want to come off a laughing stock with you guys with throwing faulty terms into the pit)

I have no problem with faulty terms as long as you don't call magazines "clips".

The fact is that you do not understand what guns actually do. Would you try to pass legislation about eating meat if you didn't know what caused meat to become improper to be eaten?

The huntsman argument was worded a bit faulty yeah, what I meant was : how about we don't allow people to walk around with more ammo than they could possibly need?

Do you mean "own" or "walk around"?

Because you can't define how much ammo a person "needs". I don't have to justify the number of ammunition I own.

"Walk around"? What if a person says he's going to the range? That justifies carrying ammo on his car/bag.

What if a person is simply on a hunting trip that might last days? Or even if the person is actually living in the woods?

but then again this is all just an idea to put a halt to all the "BAN ALL GUNS" discussion to satisfy both sides.

Some people won't be satisfied until you ban all guns. In my language there is a saying that goes "You can't please Greeks and Trojans".

also : your arguments and rage took over when you shouted the 2nd amendment at me, this is no argument whatsoever and this is exactly what we're looking to change here.
I respect your views and your constitution but don't defend yourself with that as a divine shield, if the second amendment was "Kill all firstbornes" and I came to take your son and you would want to change that law you wouldn't be there sitting "Yes sir! it's in the constitution sir!"

1. I merely made a "bold" list, not shouted

2. Do you know what actually takes to change a constitution? And whoever wants it changed is just delusional.

3. My constitution does not give me 2nd Amendment rights. I am not American, despite your prejudice.

4. "Kill all firstbornes"? That is a Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Now I don't know if you've noticed it but the Anti-Gun crowd views every gun-owner as a potential murderer you have to reach a middle ground here.

So if the anti-gun crowd is being irrational, why are you treating them like sane, level-headed and rational individuals?

We don't have to reach a middle ground until they become a political influence big enough to change the constitution.

The Brady Campaign has less than 28,000 members. The NRA has a 4.3 million.

Should we remove all references to the Holocaust in school books because a few thousands of religious extremists don't agree with the First Amendment, which grants free speech?

Because we always treat every person as a sane person unless they openly threaten us or seem a threat to themselves.

Trust me there's a reason why people like Breivik are actually on trial or why people like Wilders even get told they're right in court.

I assumed you were an american because you were defending like you are an american.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

First let me say that I appreciate where you're coming from. I could compromise and argue that we should make it harder to obtain an assault rifle but I cannot agree that those weapons should be banned. My question originally however was, let?s say assault rifles are banned, do you ban future sales only or do you take them from the owners with some sort of monetary offset or trade system? However if you only ban future sales you effectively contribute to a black market that already existed but then would be booming. Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the gun question in America.

Although it's a tough thing to crack I'd say you would have to start taking in those guns (offering a cash value in return to get people to cross that line easier)
And following that of course the ban for future sales.

I can't say it's THE solution, I can see where the difficulty lies here but it's A solution.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Also while I am at it banning some stuff dose not take away the outcome of any shoot rampage, no automatic? A shotgun with the right load and a few rounds can do as much damage, 6 pistols(2 hips,2 under the arm and 2 on the back) with 7-9 rounds with the right load can do as much over all damage. Being proactive with crazy makes us all criminals....

snip

snip

Iz not my comment desu is
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.383657.15193718

---------------------------------------------------

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip.

Here's my thoughts; there are two differences between everyday object and guns

Bats, knives, cars, etc. have a lot more vital everyday uses compared to a gun regardless of what their original intent was when they were created. In other words the pros of keep everyday items far out weigh the cons of having them. You ban cars and chances are your're gonna fuck up everyone's life on a daily basis.

The other difference has to do with how they kill. With blunt and stabbing weapons you have to be within reach of the other person. This gives the person you're trying to kill(provided you he sees you coming) the chance to block, dodge, or run away. With guns its not the same. Even if the person aiming the gun at you is within reach, he is just a hair trigger pull away from ending you're life. And unless you're the Flash, you're not going to dodge or outrun the bullet if its heading straight for you.

If a man breaks into you're house and is armed with a knife or blunt object, chances are there is an everyday house hold item lying around you can you to use to put yourself on a more evening footing with the intruder. This item can be a chair, golf club, hell, even grandma's antic vase would work just as well. If the man is armed with a gun then you're fucked unless you have a gun.

Just because knives and cars kill more people it doesn't make ones attempt to ban or limit guns disingenuous. Knives and cars have killed more people because there are a lot more people out there who have them, not because they are more dangerous than guns. Just because people will continue to try to kill with or without guns it does not mean we should make it easy for them.

It is disingenuous to ban or ridiculously restrict them when there are more dangerous things out there, being the lesser of dangers makes the specific definition of the item kinda moot.

I am against banning things its a cop out to ignore the real problem.

One can still get automatics,explosives and silencers via a federal permit so it kinda makes things silly.....

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.


2.Under this rule individuals may be baned from firearm ownership if a local or federal level judge feels the level of violations are significant enough to warrant fines, suspensions or permanent removal of the permit/license, one can appeal this process .


2.Misuse or abuse of not having a firearm locked, misfire resulting in death, damage or injury, misplacement, brandishing, shooting in the ground or air, shooting wildly,ect,ect,ect


3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.


4.All reasonable weapons(no WMDs plz) listed in the firearm registry by the weapons maker shall not be banned but rather restricted to a advanced permit.


5.All automatic weapons, explosives, suppressors and silencers automatically fall under the firearm registry.


6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....


7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.


8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)


9.To pay for this system a 1% tax is placed on ammo, weapon/firearm accessories and firearms.


10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.


11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

As much I am for states rights they can be rather duplicitous and inbreed for gun rights and human right issues things need to be handled from the fed down. Well as long as gun rights are forced to focus on individual rights,freedoms and responsibility.


Uhg I hate it when I try and out think politicians and lawyers ><
---------------------------------------------------------------------

snip

snip.

snip

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

And its nice to have the freedom to become a skilled marksmen that only shoots inanimate objects.

 

[Dastardly]

Okay fine you make a good case.
I would like to point out that pointing a nuke at someone who's threatening you usually scares them off (Cold war), so in that sense it is a defensive weapon.

That's not defense, that's deterrent through the threat of offensive use. Guns can be good for that, too, as demonstrated by the police force. Sometimes they use them defensively, and other times they use them to deter resistance (Stop or I'll shoot).

However is it really a difference of scale? if you look into the situation more deeply and ethically, shouldn't it be the same discussion?

Not at all. Guns have selective targeting -- if I want to shoot Person A, I don't also have to risk killing Persons B through Z -- while nukes do not -- Kill one, kill 'em all. It's like the difference between the police arresting a particular suspect, or the police arresting everyone within a square mile of the suspect.

With guns, it is entirely possible to only harm the one person who is posing an immediate threat. With nukes, it is impossible to target one person, and impossible to use the weapon when the alleged threat is actually within a threatening range. Completely different.

 

[WanderingFool]

And with fair luck they will injure or kill themselves when they use it, and not take doezens of innocent lives with them.

And you're saying that like it's a bad thing. If some hick, or thug, or terrorist wants to turn a SA Mac-10/11 into a FA, it's at their risk of blowing their hands off. They'll either turn to other methods or learn the hard way.

And if they manage to do it, it's going to be hard as fuck to control, and highly prone to jamming unless they've had prior experience with the weapon platform.

OH No! Im not saying thats a bad thing, Im saying thats a good thing. Kill themselves before they kill others, I say thats nature dueing its part...

Well, with th...

Would that actually create jobs in the US?

Yes, yes it would. FNH already opened a couple of plants here, and they've done wonders for the local economy where they're located. Izmash (Makers of the AK and Saiga) briefly thought about it, but decided not to. I have no idea why.

Like the above...

Likewise.

Those would actually go under the part with semi-auto rifles as well.

So someone could go pop rabbits in their garden with an AR if it's registered and properly stored?This is something I've done plenty of times. Rabbit are douche bags if they're allowed to breed in large numbers.

Honestly, Im from Pennsylvania, and when I took my hunters safety course (a waste of time as after 2 years of not seeing a damn thing while hunting, I gave up and just stuck with target shooting) Semi-auto rifles were not allowed for hunting. Seni-auto shotguns were Okay, but if you put slug rounds in it, than it became a rifle, and was not allowed.

But with rabbits (I agree with you footnote), I dont see what wrong with exterminating them from your garden with extreme prejudice.[footnote]Having had a garden destroyed by rabbits, fuck'em.[/footnote]

 

[Dastardly]

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.

That's not how the Constitution works. States have the rights to pass their own laws, some of which interpret the Constitution differently from other states (but don't violate it). That power is given to the states by the Constitution itself.

3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.

The criteria will need to be specific, observable, and universally applied. What is it about certain rifles/shotguns/pistols that warrants joining the registry?

6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....

Probable cause is still a factor. That kind of background check, for the purpose of determining criminal activity, is considered a "search." So this could be done at registration, but not afterward without probable cause.

7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.

See above -- each item must have specific guidelines. Blanket "all accessories" kind of language won't fly.

8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)

This will be an issue of enforcement. It'll require more than a 1% tax to cover the establishment of what is basically a DMV for firearms.

10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.

If someone is guilty of an infraction that warrants the permanent removal of gun privileges, they should not be given six months. That'd be like saying, "You're going to jail, so we'll give you another three months of freedom to get your stuff ready." Permanent bans? Confiscate immediately. We could debate whether or not financial reimbursement is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

Requiring the unloaded/locked is already pretty much there. Metal case? That's a bit superfluous. But mostly, getting a permit to move the weapon is ridiculous. Change of ownership? Sure, I can see that. Moving to a new location? No -- it's registered to YOU, not to an address.

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

First let me say that I appreciate where you're coming from. I could compromise and argue that we should make it harder to obtain an assault rifle but I cannot agree that those weapons should be banned. My question originally however was, let?s say assault rifles are banned, do you ban future sales only or do you take them from the owners with some sort of monetary offset or trade system? However if you only ban future sales you effectively contribute to a black market that already existed but then would be booming. Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the gun question in America.

Although it's a tough thing to crack I'd say you would have to start taking in those guns (offering a cash value in return to get people to cross that line easier)
And following that of course the ban for future sales.

I can't say it's THE solution, I can see where the difficulty lies here but it's A solution.

Well offering a solution is still better then watching left and right scream at each other. So thank you for this civil conversation. It reminds me of the toys for guns drive from Christmas 1993. Some people may give up their guns but I won't be among them I'm afraid.