Yeah guys, why limit the right to bear dangerous weapons when we could instead limit freedom of the press? Clearly the latter is less vital to our society.

12/17/2012 2:24:16 PM

Quote :

"what if that one freak time i need my firearm for protection, my battery is dead or it otherwise malfunctions? that's not reasonable gun control imo."

It would be your responsibility as a gun owner to make sure your weapon is in working order.

The only circumstance I can think of off the top of my head as an argument against it (aside from being impractical to implement any time in the near future) is the situation in which you would need to immediately use another person's gun to defend yourself and I think those instances would be so rare as to not warrant much consideration.

12/17/2012 2:25:47 PM

perhaps we should limit the freedom of the press to print only. the internet is just too fast.

12/17/2012 2:26:43 PM

^^Or how about make all guns stab you in the hand so you only use them when you absolutely need to.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ^^]

12/17/2012 2:27:40 PM

Quote :

"I returned sarcasm with sarcasm."

No you didn't, you returned a valid point with sarcasm and continue to bitch about how no one offers solutions.

Quote :

"In his defense, most of those posts didn't do much to generate discussion."

So, what, I'm supposed to dress my solutions in incendiary tone so that someone pays attention? No, he's just being a moron. All I've heard from every talking head since this happened is "this nation needs to have a discussion." And here we are having it, and people would rather talk shit than listen to solutions proposed. This thread is a microcosm of the problem at large

Quote :

"It's not guns, it's video games. Got it."

Don't be obtuse.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 2:28:12 PM

yes, you have to be a raging boner

12/17/2012 2:29:23 PM

Quote :

"It's just incredibly narrow-minded to think that eliminating gun availability will stop mass killings or even have any significant net effect on public safety."

I don't think you know what the meaning of the word "narrow-minded" is. Typically, a person who shuts off his mind completely to an option or possibility would be characterized by that word, such as someone who rules out the usefulness of gun control altogether.



Clearly all this chart tells us is that the legal weapons are better for mass shootings.

12/17/2012 2:29:29 PM

the fact is a lot of americans love to shoot for sport. they spend billions on it. guns ain't going anywhere. we need to find a compromise.

12/17/2012 2:30:23 PM

Quote :

"No you didn't, you returned a valid point with sarcasm and continue to bitch about how no one offers solutions. "

Nice try. The valid (but completely old and tired and rehashed 1000x over) point was in your main post, the sarcasm was in your edit.

12/17/2012 2:30:35 PM

Quote :

"the fact is a lot of americans love to shoot for sport. they spend billions on it. guns ain't going anywhere. we need to find a compromise."

What some other countries have done is allow sport permits for rifles that are neither fully- nor semi- auto, and require the hunters return the rifles at the end of the season to a certified sporting club. That's a pretty good compromise for the sport-hunters.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:33:29 PM

I've done nothing BUT support gun control. And there was no sarcasm in my edit. Myself and NRR and a handful of others have proposed several ideas. Those I can recall come from experience with firearms, most more than myself.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM. Reason : giving your post benefit of doubt.]

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM. Reason : yall niggas postin in a fast thread]

12/17/2012 2:33:56 PM

^^you shoud log on under McDanger and agree with yourself itt

to the people you manage to fool, it makes the retarded points you make at least a little stronger.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:34:19 PM

the fact is a lot of americans love to shoot for sport. they spend billions on it. they also like to have the option of defending themselves with guns. they spend billions on it as well. guns ain't going anywhere. we need to find a compromise.

12/17/2012 2:35:29 PM

Because apparently it needs to be stated explictly, I very much support gun control

12/17/2012 2:37:19 PM

Use the system above for sport-shooting, and limit self-defense purchases to pistols, shotguns, and (non-semiautomatic) rifles.

12/17/2012 2:38:59 PM

Now there's a reasonable solution. I don't agree with it necessarily, but it's not idiotic like a lot of crap I've heard already. We should make a list.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:41 PM. Reason : damn]

12/17/2012 2:41:17 PM

Before you say that read again, because between those two proposals is a total ban on non-pistol semiautomatics.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:42:49 PM

Why are you so opposed to semi-automatics?

12/17/2012 2:44:32 PM

Again, I said it was a reasonable solution, but I don't agree with it. "Reasonable" in that I can understand the logic behind it, even if I believe it to be misguided. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen...that's how compromises are born.

I would take what you said and implement it. Those wishing to permanently possess semi-auto rifles with larger-capacity magazines must pass an appropriately-rigorous safety, aptitude, skills, mental and responsibility evaluation.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 2:45:27 PM

Quote :

"Use the system above for sport-shooting, and limit self-defense purchases to pistols, shotguns, and (non-semiautomatic) rifles."

so what's the difference between the two classifications? not sure why all firearms wouldn't just fall into the SD category.

sometimes i might hunt with an AR-15. sometimes i might defend my home with a .30-30 lever action

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 2:47:30 PM

Quote :

"Those wishing to permanently possess semi-auto rifles with larger-capacity magazines must pass an appropriately-rigorous safety, aptitude, skills, mental and responsibility evaluation."

i don't think this would help anything. just make this the case for all firearms. it is impossible to draw a line between "self defense" firearms and "sporting" firearms. they're the same. folks deer hunt with revolvers. your duck hunting shotgun wouldn't make a bad home defense firearm.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : point is, it's totally possible to have a discussion without name-calling and finger-pointing.]

12/17/2012 2:51:19 PM

I don't think most of this will help anything significantly, as I've said I don't think the primary problem is with engineered pieces of metal and plastic. I'm just trying to appease the push for gun control while still maintaining second amendment rights. But it would serve to somewhat reduce availability of the more devastating weapons over time to kids like this that yanked them from his unstable mother


FTR: I make no distinction between sport/hunting/SD for any firearm. Certainly most are designed with one or the other in mind, but all can be used unilaterally. I'm only concerned with a qualitative assessment of firepower, which could get quantitative...designate some power (in true power terms, i.e. tissue energy deposition over time) vs. lethality threshold that requires licensure

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM. Reason : asdfas]

12/17/2012 2:52:56 PM

it should make some sense. when we accept convoluted bullshit regulations, we end up with AWB '94.

honestly, if all we got out of this was another AWB, i'd chalk it up as a win for the NRA. i don't mount bayonets, i don't care about a flash hider, and my beard gets caught in my adjustable stock, so i'm thinking about taking it off. i've got enough 20 and 30 round mags to last me. i'd have to pay a little more for >10 rd mags for eventual purchases like an M1 carbine and a Glock 19, but that's a small price to pay.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 2:53:57 PM

I think the point is to radically change the idea of gun ownership. Instead of just having guns around that you can use both for sport and for home defense we would separate the two and more heavily regulate which are licensed for which purpose.

I'm not certain this is a problem that can be fixed with legislation anyway. I think it's something that has to organically change over many generations given how enshrined guns (and violence) are in American culture.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2012 2:55:54 PM

^exactly, to the latter point anyway.

12/17/2012 2:57:38 PM

My proposals:

- Start a massive government buy-back program for long guns and hand guns, fund it with taxes for gun manufacturers who sell in the US
- Require registration of all handguns
- Better define the AOW category of the NFA, extend it to include high capacity magazines for long guns and maybe some other things. Provide some kind of permitting process to better allow private citizens to purchase some of these controlled weapons and leave the barrier where its at for others. Essentially make a two-tier system and not just call some people dealers and let them have whatever.
- Increase the penalty for unsecured firearms drastically
- Increase the penalty for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm
- Increase base purchase permitting requirements at the federal level for state programs, allow states to have requirements above and beyond so long as they do not run contrary to 2nd Amendment case-law

12/17/2012 3:00:51 PM

Quote :

"Instead of just having guns around that you can use both for sport and for home defense we would separate the two and more heavily regulate which are licensed for which purpose."

so i'm on my way to my deer stand with my sporting-purpose deer hunting revolver under my coat and an individual assaults me with deadly force. can i shoot him with the revolver?

12/17/2012 3:02:33 PM

that distinction seems to be based on the false assumption that a self defense weapon is more deadly than a hunting weapon

12/17/2012 3:03:59 PM

Quote :

"so i'm on my way to my deer stand with my sporting-purpose deer hunting revolver under my coat and an individual assaults me with deadly force. can i shoot him with the revolver? "

It wasn't my idea to begin with, but I'm guessing if you're licensed for sport shooting you can then use either for either purpose (assuming it's still in season to be using your sport weapon). <shrug>

12/17/2012 3:06:51 PM

i could probably settle for dtownral's proposal, with the exception of the buy-back. that tax would just be passed-through to the consumer. guns are already taxed enough.

12/17/2012 3:07:58 PM

purpose designation is not gonna be a useful avenue unless you're a county official looking to bring in more licensing revenue

12/17/2012 3:08:20 PM

^^ Okay, well pay for it with existing gun taxes then. The point is to reduce the circulation of guns, we have to lower the number of guns. In Australia a gun buy-back program destroyed 650,000 guns, about 1/5th of the guns in circulation. Their National Firearms Agreement cut homicide rates 59% and firearm suicide rates 74% in 20 years. <- ignore this part

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM. Reason : EDIT]

12/17/2012 3:17:33 PM

overall homicide rate or firearm homicide rate?

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:19 PM. Reason : not sure why suicide is relevant here. if someone wants out, let them out.]

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM. Reason : iirc, australia had a mandatory semi-auto turn-in, right?]

12/17/2012 3:18:44 PM

If I edit my post and delete that statistic can we avoid the argument you are trying to establish and focus on the point I made instead?


Fore NeuseRiverRat
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

Quote :

"For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.2 The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).3 Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates. One evaluation of the law concluded that: The rates of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the gun laws; there is no evidence of substitution for suicides or homicides.2 A more recent evaluation, which examined the differences across states, concluded that “the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise”.4 This incredible size of the effect (80% reduction) strains credulity."

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM. Reason : staaaats battle]

12/17/2012 3:19:48 PM

no, we can't, because if they reduced the number of firearms and saw no discernable reduction in homicide rate, then it proves that guns aren't the problem (or weren't the problem for australia).

if you don't have the data for overall homicide rate, that's fine, too.

12/17/2012 3:22:27 PM

Quote :

"not sure why suicide is relevant here. if someone wants out, let them out"

It's a completely different topic and I agree with you to an extent, but I think preventing suicides (especially since they disproportionately occur in men) should be a worthy goal. More along the lines of better mental health care rather than banning guns though.

12/17/2012 3:25:34 PM

Quote :

" The point is to reduce the circulation of guns, we have to lower the number of guns."

when you introduce new registration and tracking requirements, you need to at the same time get some of the current existing guns out of circulation. a buy-back program provides an incentive to do this, and will reduce the number of guns that will remain unregistered (not to zero, but lower)

12/17/2012 3:26:15 PM

as a bit of a collector, i'd hate to see all those guns chopped up. just recently a woman turned in a $30k war bring-back that belongs in a museum for (iirc) a $50 gift card. why not just let these charity buy-back events take care of it. if we require all sales to go through an FFL, then we're gonna effectively have a national gun registration anyway.

gun clubs actually collect junk guns and turn them in at those events and use the money to put on youth firearm safety and marksmanship events.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 3:31:04 PM

so then don't sell your guns back

this is the advantage of the program, instead of banning things you provide an incentive to influence behavior to reduce the numbers.

12/17/2012 3:32:44 PM

The CA buy-back going on now gives $200 per firearm, NQA

1.) You're delusional if you think I'm gonna sell any of my quality weapons for that little
1a) I would certainly sell back my busted 12ga, worth only ~$150 in working order
2.) Where is the money for this coming from?
3.) I support a buy-back program, I think it will certainly help eliminate a bunch of loose ends just waiting to be stolen during home break-ins
4.) See 1. No-one is going to sell their AR-15 for a fraction of what it's worth

12/17/2012 3:33:08 PM

gun advocates with nice guns are not the target, its a voluntary program

12/17/2012 3:34:03 PM

but those are guns i could eventually add to my collection. to many of us, they are irreplaceable pieces of american history. as much as some would hate to admit it, firearms have, for better or worse, molded this country into what it is today.

12/17/2012 3:34:28 PM

Yeah I get it, my post was really more chit-chat style in intent

If even one life is saved...

12/17/2012 3:34:57 PM

there is no reason why youre gun group couldn't have a big buy-back charity vent to filter through what people are turning in, or have FFL accept guns for the program. the program should not be limited to these activities though.

12/17/2012 3:35:44 PM

so, if a gun club held an event and only destroyed the firearms that were beyond repair, what would happen to all the other ones? do they then get registered?

12/17/2012 3:37:37 PM

exactly

12/17/2012 3:39:28 PM

Quote :

"So fucking propose something."

This has been done. The anti-'s either voted it down, watered it down, or inserted poison pills.

12/17/2012 3:41:27 PM

seems like a reasonable trade-off. gun club holds a silent auction for members. the money goes back to the next buy-back. i could handle that.

i really really like str8foolish's proposal of a well-regulated militia. i would be tempted to submit to registration if we're allowed to maintain a militia with some serious firepower.

but let it be known that i do not believe any of these would reduce homicide rates. i would just rather do this than arbitrarily ban scary stuff.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM. Reason : afasdf]

12/17/2012 3:45:28 PM

We spent a lot of time breaking up militias in the 90's, we don't need to encourage it again. It may start out as nice people who enjoy guns, but it turns into neo-nazis and anarchists and domestic terrorist groups, etc.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ^did you read the link I posted, the provided some evidence. Its secondary to this discussion though]

12/17/2012 3:51:01 PM

so some folks say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right

others say that it doesn't allow for militias

it's gotta be either or both, right?


man, i don't wanna be a dick, but unless that link shows that australia's confiscation reduced overall homicide rates, then it doesn't prove anything.

[Edited on December 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2012 3:53:05 PM