HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » so whats a reasonable gun...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:25 AM

so whats a reasonable gun control measure

you can demand a ban on guns all you want but it wont happen. you can demand a ban on ammo sales but it wont happen.
so whats a reasonable gun control plan.
one that has to
a: pass both houses of congress
b: pass scotus scrutiny
c: be enforceable

rather than rant and rave about what you demand how about a discussion on what is reasonable and would actually have a chance of passage

148 replies, 6023 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 148 replies Author Time Post
Reply so whats a reasonable gun control measure (Original post)
rdking647 Dec 2012 OP
spanone Dec 2012 #1
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #141
shraby Dec 2012 #2
former-republican Dec 2012 #3
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #7
former-republican Dec 2012 #12
Recursion Dec 2012 #35
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #130
Greywing Dec 2012 #4
rdking647 Dec 2012 #11
Logical Dec 2012 #114
WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #5
former-republican Dec 2012 #6
WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #10
former-republican Dec 2012 #14
whathehell Dec 2012 #19
former-republican Dec 2012 #28
whathehell Dec 2012 #29
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #51
randr Dec 2012 #91
axetogrind Dec 2012 #99
former-republican Dec 2012 #103
randr Dec 2012 #113
former-republican Dec 2012 #120
randr Dec 2012 #125
former-republican Dec 2012 #127
randr Dec 2012 #135
former-republican Dec 2012 #140
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #107
former-republican Dec 2012 #124
jody Dec 2012 #64
DanTex Dec 2012 #8
rdking647 Dec 2012 #13
former-republican Dec 2012 #16
DanTex Dec 2012 #18
former-republican Dec 2012 #21
jody Dec 2012 #70
DanTex Dec 2012 #71
jody Dec 2012 #81
morningfog Dec 2012 #84
DanTex Dec 2012 #110
former-republican Dec 2012 #85
DanTex Dec 2012 #89
jody Dec 2012 #96
DanTex Dec 2012 #108
jody Dec 2012 #112
DanTex Dec 2012 #115
jody Dec 2012 #126
DanTex Dec 2012 #134
jody Dec 2012 #139
ibegurpard Dec 2012 #102
jody Dec 2012 #109
former-republican Dec 2012 #117
JVS Dec 2012 #9
Scuba Dec 2012 #15
rdking647 Dec 2012 #17
Scuba Dec 2012 #22
rdking647 Dec 2012 #25
Scuba Dec 2012 #42
former-republican Dec 2012 #20
rdking647 Dec 2012 #24
former-republican Dec 2012 #46
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55
former-republican Dec 2012 #61
Hoyt Dec 2012 #131
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #23
MH1 Dec 2012 #37
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #38
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #26
rdking647 Dec 2012 #40
Bandit Dec 2012 #27
rdking647 Dec 2012 #39
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #52
rdking647 Dec 2012 #66
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #118
auburngrad82 Dec 2012 #104
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #30
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #33
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #47
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #50
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #54
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #60
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #65
bettyellen Dec 2012 #116
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #121
bettyellen Dec 2012 #128
auburngrad82 Dec 2012 #105
rdking647 Dec 2012 #143
Marengo Dec 2012 #48
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #87
samsingh Dec 2012 #31
Apache Crew Chief 65 Dec 2012 #32
octothorpe Dec 2012 #34
99Forever Dec 2012 #36
rdking647 Dec 2012 #43
99Forever Dec 2012 #78
Berserker Dec 2012 #56
99Forever Dec 2012 #67
octothorpe Dec 2012 #146
jody Dec 2012 #41
morningfog Dec 2012 #44
jody Dec 2012 #57
morningfog Dec 2012 #68
jody Dec 2012 #72
morningfog Dec 2012 #74
jody Dec 2012 #76
morningfog Dec 2012 #77
jody Dec 2012 #79
morningfog Dec 2012 #80
jody Dec 2012 #83
morningfog Dec 2012 #100
boles13d Dec 2012 #45
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #49
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #142
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #53
former-republican Dec 2012 #58
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #59
former-republican Dec 2012 #63
rdking647 Dec 2012 #62
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #73
rdking647 Dec 2012 #75
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #93
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #122
frank380 Dec 2012 #69
randr Dec 2012 #82
rdking647 Dec 2012 #90
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #95
randr Dec 2012 #111
valerief Dec 2012 #86
rdking647 Dec 2012 #94
valerief Dec 2012 #98
treestar Dec 2012 #88
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #92
Generic Brad Dec 2012 #97
graham4anything Dec 2012 #101
jody Dec 2012 #106
meanit Dec 2012 #119
missingthebigdog Dec 2012 #123
Hoyt Dec 2012 #132
Hoyt Dec 2012 #129
rainlillie Dec 2012 #133
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #136
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #137
rdking647 Dec 2012 #144
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #138
slackmaster Dec 2012 #145
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #147
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #148

Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:27 AM

1. our system is so broken, it doesn't matter what the citizenry wants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:05 PM

141. Good thing we aren't a democratic republic

 

Oh, wait.

Yes, it does matter what the citizenry wants. If the current batch of politicians pass something the citizenry overwhelming does not want, they will be replaced over the next few elections and that law will be replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:30 AM

2. Cause a percentage of the money from sales of guns to be dedicated to supporting and

improving mental health facilities across the county so they will be accessible and free for those seeking to use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:30 AM

3. The only person who could put together a reasonable gun control

 

proposal is a person who knows about firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:34 AM

7. Or seeks to live his/her life without the threat of these instruments of death

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:36 AM

12. We are not going to ban all firearm ownership

 

I want to see real gun control not feel good gun control.
That's what politicians do for their constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:59 AM

35. No. Ignorance is always a bad place to legislate from

We don't want a repeat of the 94 assault weapons ban fiasco

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:27 PM

130. Ignorance of what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:30 AM

4. Slap a huge tax on ammo, gun powder etc

let people keep their guns but make them take a hit in the pocketbook. $20 for 500 rounds? ... disgusting.

Not the ultimate solution I would like to see but it would be a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Greywing (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:36 AM

11. how would you get suck a tax passed

and if passed how would you stop the black market?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Greywing (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 AM

114. That WOULD NOT stop mass shootings. Money was not a factor in the decision!!! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:31 AM

5. here's a few

ban gun shows.
background checks that include mental health screenings by professionals.
stop selling ammuntion online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:33 AM

6. There's nothing wrong with gun shows

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:35 AM

10. i think I was unclear with that

sales of guns and ammo at gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:38 AM

14. How about make it where only dealers can sell at gun shows.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:43 AM

19. There is if they don't include background checks for gun buyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:51 AM

28. All dealers have to use the NICS check for a firearm sale at gun shows

 

The problem arises when private sales happen at gun shows.

Gun shows should be dealer only.

Is that what you're asking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:53 AM

29. "Gun shows should be dealer only"....Agree One Hundred Percent. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:16 AM

51. Checks are required for all dealer sales, regardless of location

Black letter law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:04 AM

91. I have been to many gun shows and have wittnessed

the sales of weapons out of pickups in the parking lots. Wholesale supplies distributed in cash transactions.
Enforcement of existing laws are most often non-existent at "gun shows".
In Colorado we have thousands of registered gun dealers and a handful of agents to inspect transactions.
Majority of crimes using guns are done with illegally obtained guns.
We need stronger enforcement and stiffer punishment for offenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:14 AM

99. YES!!!!!!!!

 

All firearms sales, including private sellers, should have an NICS background check done before the sale and transfer. If I had my way, all transactions would go through an FFL dealer, no execptions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:20 AM

103. You're going to have some crooked dealers , we can't stop all crime

 

Those dealers are criminals and some have had their license revoked and some have been
prosecuted.

For the most part though most gun dealers do follow the law.
And those that don't need to be dealt with .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #103)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:35 AM

113. The penalty for illegal sales of weapons

should be increased to life in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #113)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:48 AM

120. I feel that way about a lot of crimes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:01 PM

125. for instance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #125)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:09 PM

127. pedophilia , anything that involves adults hurting or molesting children

 

In fact I wouldn't care if we went barbaric on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:03 PM

135. Agreed--so do we hang illegal gun merchants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #135)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:23 PM

140. from the neck or the thumbs

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:29 AM

107. Except of course that they provide a loophole to the existing regulations.

But there are no proposals for increased regulation that gun nuts will support. We could have daily massacres and they would still be stuck in reverse unable to locate the clutch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #107)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:01 PM

124. I think it's changing

 

We can't change Nuts, but not all gun owners are nuts and the majority
at least in my humble opinion realize a change is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:34 AM

64. "background checks that include mental health screenings by professionals" and if a person flunks

 

they lose all civil rights, not just RKBA.

Today a convicted felon after serving their sentence may have their civil rights restore.

If that is done without exception, then that person has her/his RKBA restored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:35 AM

8. Licensing and registration for handguns.

It is supported by the majority of Americans, and it would actually make a difference. No, it won't pass the house right now, but that's not an excuse for not pushing for it.

Instead of cowering before the GOP/NRA and refusing to consider policies that Grover Norquist doesn't approve of, we as Dems should put up a fight and push for strong gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:37 AM

13. i dont have a problem with that and think it could be passed and pass scotus scrutiny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:41 AM

16. That should have been done long ago , but yes that would be a start

 

Also safe storage of all firearms in the home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:43 AM

18. Hey, we agree on something!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

21. stop

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:41 AM

70. What benefits do you believe will come from registering handguns in addition to CCW licensing

 

individuals currently used in most states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #70)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:45 AM

71. Registering handguns makes it much harder to be a straw purchaser, for example.

Less people would be willing to buy a gun for someone else if their name would end up listed next to the gun in a registry. It would also prevent private transfers without background checks -- if you sell your gun to someone else, they have to be licensed, and you have to transfer the registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:57 AM

81. Registering firearms carries with it the threat government will use that list to confiscate them. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:59 AM

84. So, you are even against registering firearms?

You are more extreme than the NRA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:32 AM

110. Actually, the NRA is also opposed to registering firearms.

It's hard (but not impossible) to get more extreme than the NRA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:00 AM

85. That's been the theme but you and I know

 

Unless a firearm is home made there is a paper trail some where for all modern firearms sold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:03 AM

89. Umm, yeah, I'm not too worried about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:08 AM

96. My point: to sell a new limitation on firearms you must convince citizens it will not threaten their

 

ability to exercise a right that our Constitution obligates government to protect.

I believe there have been one or two cases in the US where a list of registered firearms was used to confiscate firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #96)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:31 AM

108. There are very few people who buy the "registration leads to confiscation" talking point.

That's the NRA and the hardcore pro-gun extremists. In polls, not only do most Americans support handgun registration, but even most gun owners. For example, here's a poll that finds 66% of Americans in favor of registrering all guns (not just handguns), along with 49% of gun owning households, with 48% of gun households opposed (question 28). It's also worth noting that only 6% is "strongly opposed" to a national gun registry, which means that, assuming you are "strongly" opposed, only 6% of the country is with you.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #108)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

112. My point is that to sell that law one must convince people. See DU thread below:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #112)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 AM

115. But the "registration leads to confiscation" crowd is small and extreme enough that

it doesn't matter much. We're never going to convince everyone. See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021998233

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #115)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:02 PM

126. I've read many of the posts to DU threads about gun-control over the past few days. I haven't read

 

one proposal that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Proposals such as evaluating a person's mental ability before they are allowed to possess a firearm ignores the fact psychiatrists and psychologists disagree themselves on such things.

One need only watch those experts testify in a murder case for the prosecution and defense to conclude it's the person who performs best before the jury that wins.

On top of that, people who post on that issue are often long on invective and short on facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #126)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:37 PM

134. Maybe not this particular shooting, but we can certainly reduce the overall level of gun violence.

It's hard to look back on any individual event and say for sure that it would have been stopped. Arguably, for example, a mental health evaluation might have prevented the Gabby Giffords shooting, since that guy seemed pretty clearly having mental problems. But maybe not. What we can say, though, is that certain policies (e.g. licensing and registration of handguns) would reduce the number of people shot and killed every year.

On the other hand, I don't see any legitimate arguments against requiring licensing and registration for handguns. The fact that it won't prevent all gun violence is not a sound argument. Neither is "registration leads to confiscation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #134)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:49 PM

139. If no one has a proposal that could have prevented this tragedy, then I'm not optimistic that

 

a new law would balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for self-defense with society's right to defend itself as in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #81)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:19 AM

102. If the government somehow reaches the point that it decides to confiscate weapons

no personal arsenal in the world will be big enough to stop them.
registration and a license to own a gun is a good start.
I own a handgun by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #102)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:31 AM

109. My point is that to sell that law one must convince people. See DU thread below:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:45 AM

117. What it would do is create a data base for BATF or the FBI to make their job easier

 

Right now if a weapon is found in a crime.
The serial number is traced back to the manufacture.

Then the serial number is tracked back to the wholesaler that bought it.
Then it's tracked back to the dealer who bought it from the wholesaler and so on......

When a dealer sells the weapon the person fills out a 4473 and the dealer has to keep the copy for 20 years
or if the dealer goes out of business .All forms (4473's ) and his bound book is turned into BATF

There is always a paper trail to be followed unless the gun is stolen and then sold.

Making a central registry would make it easier for law enforcement to track down where a firearm came from.
Who's hands it went through , when the weapon changed hands etc....

People who complain that the government would know I own a gun are idiots.

Unless you bought the gun illegally there is a paper trail some where and enough investigation and plain
old foot work from an agent would uncover it .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:35 AM

9. Make bullet boxes that show the results of shooting the way that Australian cigarette packs show...

the results of smoking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:40 AM

15. Greatly limit firepower and deny ownership in many more cases.

No, I'm not going to suggest specifics. That's what we need a national conversation about. You know, the conversation that the NRA says cannot happen. Slippery slope and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:43 AM

17. the gunman in ct used a .223

which is actually to low powered for lot of hunting..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

22. "Firepower" includes not just caliber but the ability to deliver multiple rounds...

A light-power, high-capacity weapon has more firepower than a slightly larger single-shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:46 AM

25. so where dop you draw tha line?

magazine size? caliber?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 AM

42. I would argue that limits on both are appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:43 AM

20. How about also no private sale of any firearm

 

If citizens can't have access to NICS checks "all sales have to go through a dealer"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

24. not sure that would pass scotus scrutiny

in addition with the millions of unregistered guns out there how would a ban work????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:11 AM

46. It would have to be passed through state legislature like it did in my state

 

In my state no hand gun can be sold privately unless the person has a permit
and it goes through a dealer.

This stuff won't be done over night but having the President involved with governors would be a start.

We need all governors from all 50 states sit in a room in Washington with the President leading the conversation.

This is a national issue that needs to be addressed. And have the meeting televised.
My personal belief is right now more than ever "the majority of the country would support common sense gun control"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:23 AM

55. Or give them access to NICS checks...and mandate them.

A small step,but perhaps a useful one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:32 AM

61. The more I think about that the less I like it

 

I would rather have a 4473 filled out.

I know the outrage will be it will cost money for a private sale transfer ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:30 PM

131. Not a good idea. Dealers are required to keep paperwork, have a lot to lose if they screw up, etc.


If you are a truly responsible gun owner, then pony up the $35 or so before selling a gun.

I know it's easier to just take a fistful of cash and absolve yourself from anything that happens -- but you guys really need to start acting like a "responsible" gun owners before anyone is going to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

23. Probably, "reasonable" is a gun safety measure rather than gun control

a requirement for secure, locked, separate storage for firearms and ammunition, say (if the guns in this Connecticut case had been locked in a gun safe, would the shooter have been able to access them? Perhaps not.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:00 AM

37. I agree, except typically, adult members of a household would have access to the gun safe

It's very likely that the perp in this case would have had access to the guns even if they'd been in a safe.

He killed his mother anyway, what would have stopped him from threatening her to get access to the safe/

Of course this is all speculation anyway regarding this specific case.

Your suggestion would probably help in some cases. But people who think they need a gun to protect their castle would not support it. Therefore the NRA and all their congressional stooges would stop it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:01 AM

38. Throwing up your hands and saying "well the GOP/NRA will block it anyway" is defeatist

and as far as sensible gun safety measures go it's probably a good start and about the most that can be hoped for in the present environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:50 AM

26. How about...

Maximum magazine capacity of six rounds. Handgun or rifle. Period. Anything larger=felony
Rifles locked way while transporting to range, hunting area, etc
No sales without background check. No exceptions
One week waiting period. No exceptions
Uniform gun laws across the nation strictly enforced

There is a start.
On another note....I am a gun owner with a CCW and if they decided that you were not allowed to carry a handgun on your person in public I would be OK with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:04 AM

40. uniform gun laws wouldnt work

what about a gun produced in one state and used in that state. no interstate commerce,the us cant do anuthing about it

6 round magazine limit- no chance of passage
background checks for all- reasonable
1 week waiting period- reasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:50 AM

27. Limit the amount of bullets that can be fired before needing reload

It sounds drastic but that policy is already in effect for shotguns. When duck hunting you can only have three shells in your gun. That law hasw been in effect for more than half a century and NO ONE has ever questioned it or complained that Government was taking away their gun rights. The very same Law with the exact same reasoning could be applied to ALL guns except military models, and those would not be abailable to the average citizen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:02 AM

39. how would you get that passed???????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:18 AM

52. With perseverance.

Why not limit the number of rounds in a magazine? If you could limit it to 30 then you could limit it to 6 or 8. I don't see any legitimate reason the average person needs a larger magazine whether hunting, target shooting or defending your home.
Sure, it would be an inconvenience...so suck it up and deal. You and I both know you can change a magazine in 1 second. The whole point is to reduce the risk and change the dynamic that is causing more and more people to rush to own more weapons drive by fear.

To defend against the government is ridiculous..you would never hear the drone coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:35 AM

66. how would a ban like that actually work

there are millions of large magazines out there. do you retroactivly ban them? that wont happen
ban future sales? that would work but it would be a long process to winnow down the number of magazines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:47 AM

118. Maybe start with the larger magazines grandfathered but....

if they leave the home it's a felony.
There is no perfect immediate solution but there needs to be a beginning to the process. Long or not.
I have a couple of 17 rounds mags myself. If I have to buy a smaller mag for going to the range then so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:21 AM

104. It's already been done is several states

New York, for instance, does not allow weapons that can fire more than 10 bullets before reloading to be owned by anyone not associated with law enforcement or the military. If the killer in CT had to stop to reload maybe someone could have stopped him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:53 AM

30. A couple ideas:

Mandate proper security measures for civilian firearms and impose criminal penalties on persons who fail to properly secure their guns should those guns fall into criminal hands. Harsher if the guns are used to inflict harm. It might be necessary to subsidize this program so as not to present a barrier to the poor.


Expand the NICS database to include more mental health records (rather than just involuntary commitments and adjudications). This will require modification of the laws concerning the privacy of medical records, but that shouldn't be an issue. The content specifics would remain unavailable to people using the system to verify purchaser eligibility; the system would simply tell them "yes" or "no" to the prospective purchase (like it currently works).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:56 AM

33. Again people completely missing the bloody point

"if those guns fall into criminal hands"

We are not talking about that. In none of the cases of mass shootings recently...not in Connecticut, not in Wisconsin, not Arizona...was the shooter a "criminal", nor was the shooter using illegally-obtained firearms. The focus on "acquisition of guns by criminals" is a red herring; it's disingenuous at best. None of the shooters in the mass shooting incidents was a "criminal" until they committed their crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:11 AM

47. So are you.

Yes, we ARE talking about that. This thread isn't about mass killings, specifically. It's about overall gun control ideas, and could thus be considered to be more about the vastly greater death toll from firearms illegally in the hands of criminals.

Before you accuse others of disingenuousness, consider actually reading the thread with due care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:14 AM

50. No, it's blatant disingenuousness

because...why are we talking about broader gun control measures? Helpful hint: it's got nothing to do with illegally-obtained firearms used by persons with prior criminal records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:19 AM

54. Sorry, but that's rubbish.

Not every gun control thread is about mass killings; try and get that into your head. The OP asked about reasonable gun control measures. Not "gun control measures to stop mass shootings." A lot of people have managed to let the emotions abate a bit and recognize that mass killings are a very small part of our nation's problem with gun violence. Consider becoming one of them.

Oh, and if you slander me again (that horseshit about being disingenuous), welcome to ignore. I have no patience with that kind of asshattery any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:30 AM

60. Except that it is about "gun control measures to stop mass shootings"

because...why are we even having this discussion, in the first place? Why now? Sure, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing, but that's not why we're discussing this; it's guns in the hands of people with no prior criminal convictions who go amok. And strictly speaking such killing sprees are probably more easily stopped by gun control measures than criminal use of weapons; criminals will have the connections, means and determination, in most cases, to obtain illegal firearms. Someone like Jared Loughner, or this Adam Lanza? Might not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:34 AM

65. Nope. That's what YOU insist on reading into every gun thread right now.

Sure, it might be the reason this thread is allowed to exist in GD, but the thread itself is clearly NOT just about mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

116. yet the idea of preventing mass killings is important to those who are interested in gun control

And you're going to pretend to be surprised by this? No one here is stupid enough to think one restriction is going to reduce all types of crime. Spare us the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:49 AM

121. "Spare us" the needless vulgar insults.

Might want to consider dispensing with the straw man arguments, while you're at it...

*sigh* Another entry on my ignore list...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:15 PM

128. if "bullshit" offends you, stop spewing it. it is you who insult DUers intelligence.

and this post is more BS. look up insults and straw men, before you throw those terms around, because right now you are not making a lick of sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:24 AM

105. start by reinstituting the ban on assault weapons

No one needs a weapon that can fire more than ten bullets before reloading and no one needs a weapon that fires 6 bullets per second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auburngrad82 (Reply #105)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:17 PM

143. 6 bullets /sec is a fully auto weapon

which hasnt been used in a mass killing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:12 AM

48. Out of Curiosity...

What additional elements of a person's mental health records other than involuntary commitments and adjudications should, in your opinion, be a disqualifier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:02 AM

87. Excellent question!

I'm not a mental healthcare professional, so this is very much a layperson's viewpoint, but I think some candidates for denial might be diagnoses of psychopathy, paranoid schizophrenia, some of the more extreme forms of sociopathy, various forms of psychosis, and so forth. A psychiatrist would be able to suggest better, more specific examples, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:54 AM

31. yes, we should be afraid from doing the right thing

we're mourning, not 'ranting' and 'raving'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:56 AM

32. Weapons of War

Greed is worship in America as a sign of success and we have Americans praying for the victims of greed.

Looking at our country in this hour of grieving and wondering when will this insanity ceased to exist.

The mother of the killer fortifying herself with weapons designed for war against our enemies and yet we question who is insane in America today.

We are currently engage in the longest war in American history with terrorists from Saudi Arabia who attacked us on 9/11 2001 with box cutters. On December 14, 2012 we have a extremely unstable 20-year-old extinguish the life of his mother on his path of insanity to extinguish the life of 26 individuals in a grammar school in Connecticut with weapons design for war.

Our leaders are currently debating the purse strings of America as most of America is grieving and praying. Greed is a bully and will continue to use all of its arsenals to silence the majority of Americans who want to divorce itself from this insanity of guns designed for killing our enemies in war sold in America. Who is insane that is the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:58 AM

34. make black and chrome firearms illegal...

They all have to be neon colored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:00 AM

36. Who the fuck appointed you..

... Master of What's Possible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 AM

43. so your not interested in a discussion of whats actually possible????

claiming a ban on all guns is possible is unrealistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:53 AM

78. Exactly.

Your reading comprehension is spot on, except for one thing, you don't KNOW what is "actually possible" and repeating it ad nausium doesn't change that. There is a difference between your opinion and what is an actual fact.

People in this Nation once claimed that ending slavery was "impossible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:23 AM

56. Stop the hate

 

Adults are trying to talk. Almost everyone in this country is trying to figure this out. And thanks to the OP for trying.
Licensing and registration is already being done for hand guns. Mandatory guns safes are a good idea. Stronger penalties for gun crimes are a good idea. There are many good ideas but will it keep the criminals and lunatics from killing NO. Laws mean nothing to them laws are only for us.
Our society is sick and I think that is the root of the problem and it's all our fault every damn one of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:38 AM

67. Stop the shooting of babies.

I'll hate till the happens. The "root of the problem" is that every fucking yahoo, gun psycho has access to killing machines.

No one, I fucking repeat NO ONE appointed you OR the OP to decide what position the rest of us must take.

Get over yourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:53 PM

146. But someone clearly appointed you to decide what people can discuss and how it can be discussed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:05 AM

41. If a firearm is used in a crime, charge the defendant separately for use of a firearm, sentence

 

him/her to the maximum years if convicted, require that time to be served non-concurrently with other sentences, and no probation for the sentence relating to firearm possession.

Today most convicted felons are allowed to serve sentences for gun possession concurrently with other sentences effectively negating the sentence for criminal use of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:09 AM

44. That is sentencing reform, not gun reform. It will do nothing to ebb the flow of

guns and the murders that causes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:25 AM

57. If you are correct, your argument means no new law can have any effect on crime. Govt. can only

 

make and enforce laws so what non-government solutions do you propose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:39 AM

68. My argument is thougher sentencing has never been a deterrent.

You have a real problem with avoiding the issue of the thread with red herrings. Try to follow.

Laws do work and help. Limitations on the types and numbers of guns legally available for purchase would help. Background checks and waiting periods on ALL firearm purchases. Full registration on all guns owned would help. New laws imposing criminal or civil liability on gun owners if their weapon was used in a crime would help. Those types of laws would help reduce the number of guns and reduce the number of unsecured guns.

Here is the distinction, I'll make it simple for you (although I know will dismiss it, ignore it or toss out another red herring):

The reforms I mentioned and that have been discussed on DU help to secure guns and restrict the flow. It would encourage those those who are law abiding citizens to secure their guns. It would make access by those who intend to commit mass murder much harder.

Stricter sentencing laws are never a deterrent. Criminals don't weigh the potential time before committing crimes, usually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:46 AM

72. You say "thougher [sic] sentencing has never been a deterrent." How will

 

you enforce your proposed laws without "sentencing"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:47 AM

74. Yep. It flew over your head.

Sorry, re-read what I wrote. I don't think you are as dumb as you act. I think it is intentional ignorance on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:50 AM

76. You wrote "Laws do work and help. Limitations on the types and numbers of guns legally available for

 

purchase would help. Background checks and waiting periods on ALL firearm purchases. Full registration on all guns owned would help. New laws imposing criminal or civil liability on gun owners if their weapon was used in a crime would help. Those types of laws would help reduce the number of guns and reduce the number of unsecured guns."

I ask again, how do you propose to enforce those laws without sentencing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #76)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:51 AM

77. Re-read it again, with the part you omitted. You are almost there. So close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:54 AM

79. OK your post reveals you can't answer my question. After you've thought about it please post your

 

answer.

Until then goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:55 AM

80. Well, at least you gave it the old college try!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #80)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:58 AM

83. No, sometime professors simply give up when a student demonstrates inability to learn. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #83)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:14 AM

100. As I have with you. You are absolutely hopeless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:10 AM

45. Spider Jerusalem is a gun lobbies dream ...

 

Lanza was a criminal.

He stole the guns.

He illegally entered a school.

The school happened to be a designated gun free zone.

Lanza was less that twenty-one years old. In Connecticut a person has to be older than 21 to possess a hand gun.

Do I need to keep going?

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

You are making their point for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boles13d (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:12 AM

49. "Stole" his mother's guns

and he wasn't a criminal until he did this, anyway. And the fact remains that those guns were legally acquired (and, probably, not properly secured).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boles13d (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:09 PM

142. He is not the only one

Several posters here are so hard over on their polemics that they are providing great fodder for their opposition.

There are ways to address and discuss this without the F-word in every post and "every gun owner has blood on their hands" hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:19 AM

53. Well, since a few of these have involved extended clips

We need to LIMIT the size of these.

NRA talking point notwithstanding, having to change a clip will mean three seconds of not actively engaging in the hunt.

We need to focus in the mechanics of the weapon, not how gnarly they look.

It won't pass this congress, but certain full classes might have to no longer be sold to civilians, I am including semi automatic pistols. (The majority of murders are committed by pistols).

I know Saturday Night specials are pervasive, so here is the other sad point, anything we do on this front will take twenty years to be very noticeable.

Also we cannot expect just one thing to solve this health crisis...we may need face a fact, we need to have cultural changes. The media needs to start showing the bloody sheets. Hollywood should stop the very impressive moulage and some classes of movies, the theaters should be empty. The last one, I have little hope.


I forgot, gun shows have to be very regulated, get rid of the loophole.

No more Internet sales.

All this has to be federal or we're pissing in the wind.

Oh I know it won't pass, but those who wish to own infantry weapons most be required to drill with the guard once a month, that was the intent of the second amendment. So while it won't pass, stop giving people a pass...

Oh and one last thing, once the technology gets there, all guns in private hands have to be back fitted to smart technology, and foes without saying, licensing and registration.

I realize some of this, unicorns in the forest have a better chance of farting, sadly I think all of it. Our congress is damn scared of the NRA, more than Norquist actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:28 AM

58. Governors is the key

 

Have the President call a national meeting for all governors.

I know we have a couple of crazy ones , what the hell is her name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:29 AM

59. Jan brewer from AZ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:33 AM

63. that's her

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:33 AM

62. the vast majority of hanguns sold in this country are semi austomatics

banning them will NEVER happen.
as to the gun show loophole it should be closed. I shouldnt be able to go to a gunshow and buy a gun,no questions asked.
as to internet sales do you mean private sales? i dont think that could pass. dealer sales over the internet involve a background check
i also think there should be a waiting period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:47 AM

73. I said it would not happen

I said what should, not what would. So we need to design a mechanical solution that new guns do NOT accept anything longer that a 10 round magazine

It could be done.

There is already a waiting period in most states.

And Internet sales, all of it. It has to do with ease of stolen identities. Period.

Won't pass, precious lovers are safe from any common sense or not so common sense regulations. Our law makers fear the NRA more that Grover, and it's bipartisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #73)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:49 AM

75. thats why we need to concentrate on what actually could pass

pie in the sky dreams are one thing but wont have ANY impact. Reasonable,passable laws might

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:05 AM

93. Magazine size and expanding the background checks won't pass either

In this Congress, we both know this. Why I stated that none of this would pass...unicorns have a better chance of farting in the forest. I will still advocate for what I believe. And I will give a donation that I can ill afford to the Brady Campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:52 AM

122. What is it about internet sales that bother you?


If they involve interstate transactions then they follow Federal law and involve an FFL and NICS.

If they involve intrastate transactions then they follow that states laws.

Either way, there is nothing about doing the transaction over the internet that makes them more or less prone to corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:40 AM

69. Safe storage.

 

A law about the safe storage of guns might have a chance.

But the only way I can see to enforce it would be to punish people after their guns are stolen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:57 AM

82. We did have a ban on assault weapons at one time

and stopping sales of multiple round clips would be difficult but not impossible.
WE must begin somewhere someday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:04 AM

90. the problem with the aw ban was it doesnt work

the law banned clips over 10 rounds.
i could easily carry 2 handguns and have a multitude of clips on me.it only takes seconds to drop an empty clip and reload if they were large enough caliber,say 40s/w or so i could do as much damage as was done in ct w/o a so called "assault weapon"
the vas majority of gun incidents in this country involve plain old handguns. massacres like in sandy hook attract the attention but the problem is handguns. until we figure out a way to control them we are just spinning out wheels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:07 AM

95. I agree...

the AWB was poorly conceived legislation. And you're also right that "assault weapons," the current tragedy notwithstanding, are not used in crimes very often -- at least compared to a standard semi-automatic handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:33 AM

111. The problem we are facing is enormous

I often think of how we removed Quaaludes from our midst as an example of the difficulty and inevitable success we can achieve when we desire and work hard enough to make the world a better place.
Nothing worth while is easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:01 AM

86. What laws do the civilized countries have? Adopt those. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #86)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:05 AM

94. like switzerland

where everyone has a rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Reply #94)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:10 AM

98. The issue was laws, not gun ownership. Buh-bye. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:02 AM

88. I'd look into what some other countries do

Though they don't have a Second Amendment. At least ban assault weapons - rare is the case where we'd need one to defend ourselves. Make sure the only people who can buy them have a permit and passed a background and mental health check. Have laws about locking them up if there are children in the house, or people not qualified to have the gun.

IMO the problem is who has the guns. Hunters and law enforcement are one thing - have training requirements and continuing training requirements - the license to have one expires without making sure the person does not keep up on target practice/safety classes, etc. And keeping them secure from people unlicensed to have them. The mother owned the guns, and that meant any child or friend of hers invited into her house had access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:05 AM

92. ..with an asterisk

The NRA opposes everything, as do some members of Congress. So "reasonable" has a somewhat sketchy definition here.

But here are mine:

1. Limit Federal Firearms Dealers to bricks-and-mortar locations ONLY. No internet sales of guns and ammunition.
2. No private sales of guns -- only through a Federally-Licensed Dealer w/ background checks (see above).
3. Ban on high capacity magazines, i.e., more than 15 rounds.

Increased funding for community mental health services. No a gun control measure, but it needs to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:10 AM

97. The status quo is unreasonable

Keeping things the way they are is an affront to humanity.

Change needs to come and needs to come down like a ton of bricks. We have allowed this situation to be possible by allowing right wing extremists to have their way. Now it is time for extremists on the left to have their day. The only way we can ever achieve balance is to allow the pendulum to swing swiftly, harshly, and unforgivingly to the left on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:17 AM

101. Reframe the entire issue. Make guns/bullets a part of the war on terror & from there

 

apply the war on terror to guns

where the rules are already in place and authorized

with no guns legal/illegal allowed in streets, then any gun can be dealt with

(legal gun owners can keep them in their private house only, no exceptions.)

reframe the issue.

once its done, specific second steps can be announced.


Thank God our President is through running for office.
He is free of any political constraint and change can happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:28 AM

106. Makes sense, give all authority to the president, seize all means of production, create two

 

committees to advise the president, one for corporations and one for labor, and the president to chair joint meetings to make the trains run on time and recover our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:48 AM

119. So what's a "reasonable" gun control plan?

There have been hundred of ideas on "reasonable" gun control measures that have been introduced, only to then be ripped to fucking shreds by the NRA and the gun lobby and then the people who proposed them targeted with million dollar campaigns to unseat them from office and / or ruin their reputations.

A "reasonable gun control plan" is NRA / gun lobby bs code for the "gun has nothing to do with it, so what's your solution?" nonsense.

The NRA and the multi-million dollar gun lobby are the damn problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:56 AM

123. Cradle to grave tracking and responsibility

Guns should have titles- like cars. To transfer ownership, you transfer the title and registration.

Start with an amnesty period, allowing everyone to register and obtain titles for the guns they currently own. Once that period is past, anyone found in possession of a gun not registered to him or her goes to jail, as does the person who the gun is registered to unless they have reported it stolen.

Insurance requirements. Again, use the automobile registration model. Liability insurance is required for all gun registrations. In this way, the insurance industry will actually help in policing gun ownership. Their underwriting process would weed out many who should not have guns.

Secure storage laws make sense. Might not have prevented this tragedy, but would prevent a lot of smaller ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to missingthebigdog (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:35 PM

132. +100000. Heck, the Australians bit the bullet in 1996 -- why not us. Switzerland is another good


model. You can keep ONE gun at home secured (in fact, most folks are required to keep a gun for a national emergency), but almost no one can walk around with one, almost no one can collect/hoard/worship them . . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:26 PM

129. More than legislation, we need to change the perception of guns in our society -- just like smoking.


But, it will be nice to see the NRA lobbyists/lawyers, other right wing gun organizations, gun toters and accumulators, etc., running all over the place trying to prevent legislation that limits their access to their cherished lethal weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:35 PM

133. I'm very anti-gun, BUT if we start banning things we don't like..

The right wingers will do the same to things we do like. So far, your post IMO has been one of the most sensible post I've read. I hope and pray that our elected leaders will come up with some type of solution, because enough is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:21 PM

136. How about this: All guns have to carry liability insurance just like cars.

All guns must be kept securely locked inside a strongbox/safe when not in actual use by their registered owner. If anyone other the owner is to use them, the insurance has to add said person to the policy. The insurer is free to require background checks and psych exams on all prospective users.

If a gun is not properly secured and is used to harm anyone, the registered owner is subject to the exact same liability and prosecution that the actual gun user is. If they fell into the hands of some random person and are used in mass murder , that means the owner might be subject to the death penalty.

If this risk disturbs the owner, he is free to lock the guns up properly or maybe not even own them anymore.

Each individual gun needs a serial number and documented registration like a car. Any time a gun changes ownership there is a fee for the transaction, and of course annual registration fees for ownership of each gun.

Insurance and fees aren't taxes, so that should make you tax-haters happy. The fees must be high enough to pay for all costs of the program. Insurers can kick in some fees to the enforcement program, too.

And if folks don't like all the hassle and expense of their toys, they don't have to own so many of them. Just like cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:24 PM

137. Question. What would rdking647 agree with? Curious. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonhomme Richard (Reply #137)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

144. mandatory registration

waiting periods
i dont think liability insurance would make a lick of difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdking647 (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:26 PM

138. Oh, BTW, I am not aware of a SINGLE DUER who has advocated for

a ban on all guns. You and your little friends have very overactive imaginations.

Most Americans don't hate the idea of gun ownership, they hate irresponsible, negligent gun owners and sellers.

But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

My dad used to take me deer hunting. He took me with him to target practice once (I was bored by it). I have no interest in owning guns myself, but I do understand traditional gun culture. Modern gun-obsessives, however, need medication for their illness IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #138)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:23 PM

145. Here's an example of exactly that from earlier today

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=188083

Even when specifically confronted about the obvious need for armed police to carry out the confiscation of all firearms from non-police, this individual steadfastly advocated a position of literally "no guns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #145)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:39 PM

147. The only one I have spotted is somebody who is clearly a gun nut just shitstirring.

You know full well most DUers do not want a total ban on guns. People need to stop making like we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #145)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:45 PM

148. Gun safety should be taught in schools

The problem has become living long enough to be taught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread