HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A serious question about ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:30 AM

A serious question about gun control- Isn't it too late?


First things first, let me say this. I HATE MOST GUNS. Shotguns, and hunting rifles, I don't mind, but all other guns, I LOATHE.

But lets be honest here. There are 300 million guns in this country, that we know of. And more that we don't, I'm sure. Even if we put a ban on AR-15 style weapons today, what will it accomplish? Those weapons will not just magically disappear. The owners will not suddenly have a change of heart and desire to turn them in. They will cling to them like a death dealing life preserver.

So what would banning them really accomplish? A person that wants a gun will find a way to get one. Pure and simple. Banning guns would be as effective as banning Marijuana or banning Alcohol. We all know just how effective THAT is/was.

I wish I could wish the guns away, and I wish that bad people would never do these kinds of things, but when you face the reality of the situation we're facing, there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it.

This is just my opinion, and I'm sure it will be flamed and such, but I wish that I didn't feel so helpless in the face of this situation, but I believe that we are far beyond the point of being able to change things by enacting bans.

70 replies, 2827 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 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply A serious question about gun control- Isn't it too late? (Original post)
dorksied Dec 2012 OP
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #1
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #11
tridim Dec 2012 #14
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #51
GoingUnder Dec 2012 #49
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #2
Logical Dec 2012 #16
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #17
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #53
reformist2 Dec 2012 #3
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #4
JanMichael Dec 2012 #10
white_wolf Dec 2012 #60
Ilsa Dec 2012 #5
librechik Dec 2012 #68
Ilsa Dec 2012 #70
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #6
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #7
riqster Dec 2012 #8
dorksied Dec 2012 #9
riqster Dec 2012 #19
GoingUnder Dec 2012 #52
riqster Dec 2012 #69
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #12
Recursion Dec 2012 #28
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #13
dorksied Dec 2012 #22
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #36
jmg257 Dec 2012 #15
dorksied Dec 2012 #20
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #21
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #37
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #54
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #61
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #64
jmg257 Dec 2012 #26
sendero Dec 2012 #18
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #24
sendero Dec 2012 #29
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
sir pball Dec 2012 #39
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #40
sir pball Dec 2012 #41
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #45
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #55
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #59
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #23
dorksied Dec 2012 #25
sendero Dec 2012 #31
Iggo Dec 2012 #27
peacebird Dec 2012 #30
Hoyt Dec 2012 #32
creon Dec 2012 #33
Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #35
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38
dorksied Dec 2012 #46
spanone Dec 2012 #42
mainer Dec 2012 #43
dorksied Dec 2012 #47
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #44
GoingUnder Dec 2012 #48
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #50
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #56
jeff47 Dec 2012 #65
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #57
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #62
jeff47 Dec 2012 #66
0rganism Dec 2012 #58
mwrguy Dec 2012 #63
Jennicut Dec 2012 #67

Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:34 AM

1. Guns will not

 

disappear in this country for a very very long time. It's a fantasy of anti gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:06 AM

11. I think you mean, anti gun rational people.

I think we know that guns won't disappear in this country. We don't believe in magic gun-control pixies. We'd just like to get STARTED on the road toward a reasonable civilization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:16 AM

14. +1 This is all about advancing civilization.

The gun fetishists I know don't care about advancing civilization, they just care about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

51. "advancing civilization"???

 

And what else needs to be "Advanced?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:26 PM

49. The problem is that we, as a country, have a fundamental disagreement about what it means to advance

 

civilization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:35 AM

2. higher prices for illegal guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:24 AM

16. Yes, because people who want to kill worry about money! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

17. no, because tighter supply drives up prices. as happened with the assault weapons ban,

 

demonstrably.

and that's the point, i thought -- higher prices means fewer will have the ability to pay them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:13 AM

53. No that didn't happen.

All that happened under the AWB was that the gun companies changed the cosmetics of the guns to comply with the law and changed the name of the gun, and continued selling them. The after ban guns were functionally identical to the pre-ban guns, with only minor changes in the looks. People started buying the near-ban guns in massive numbers.

During the ban gun controllers screamed that the gun manufacturers were evading the law, but the reality was that they were obeying the law to the exact letter of the law while shredding the spirit of the law, and laughing at the gun controllers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:36 AM

3. We have to start somewhere. It's not too late to protect people from guns not yet purchased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:54 AM

4. I think the following would happen

Collectors would hoard the stuff that is about to be banned and it will end up sitting in some weirdos gun safe somewhere. How often to you hear about any crimes being perpetrated by a fully automatic weapon yielding criminal? None that I can recall. The ban on the introduction of new machine guns went into place in 1986. After a while, the machine guns that were available to collectors got hoarded up by the serious collectors. The same would happen with assault rifles given enough time.

I believe that a lot of the weapons that are used by the drug cartels in Mexico come from the US and I'm sure everyone knows about the problems the Mexican government has been having fighting cartels. So, our guns aren't only our problem. I believe everyone should have the right to own a firearm for personal protection, but military grade weapons are beyond what is reasonably required to protect yourself.

Say someone was to enter your house with an assault rifle. At close range, a pistol would be just as effective as an assault rifle. The 5-20 feet range that you would probably engage your target from would be optimal for a pistol in close quarters. Also, you don't have to worry about the penetrating power of your pistol ammunition nearly as much as you would the penetrating power of that assault rifle. You aren't going to have to worry about that pistol ripping through all the walls of your house and impacting into your neighbors house like an assault rifle's round would.

Now if you were trying to cover the movement of a fire team as they were maneuvering to assault an enemy position you'd probably want that assault rifle or a medium machine gun. Or, say were you trying to lay down suppressive fire while you were trying to break contact after an enemy ambush you'd want to shoot as much ammunition as you could quickly. That 30 round magazine or belt-fed machine gun would be your best friend in a situation like that. However, how often does the average citizen in this country have to go on a combat patrol or contend with being ambushed by a squad or platoon sized element while they are on their way to the store to buy milk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:04 AM

10. Exactly....a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons would immediately make

the nutters think "collector's item!" They would be hoarded, and rarely shot so they would "hold their value."

Price would kill the market, and you are correct...they would just end up sitting in a vault somewhere...or museums, much like the "Tommy guns" of the 1920's.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:50 AM

60. How often to you hear about any crimes being perpetrated by a fully automatic weapon?

Some of the more powerful street gangs get their hands on automatic weapons from time to time. Normally through their cartel connections. In fact I even remember reading a story where a group of Marines sold military weapons to L.A. street gangs. Just to be clear I'm fully in favor of much stricter gun laws, but I just wanted to clarify that one point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:56 AM

5. I wouldn't mind seeing a gun buyback

program, even if it only clears about 5% of the AR-15s.
They'll become very expense, and gradually, I think we'll get a lot of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:23 AM

68. Gun Buyback is how the Aussies made "no new mass murders" the law of the land.

I'm an extremist, but i wouldn't mind spending half the Pentagon budget to buy back guns. $300 million guns at $1000 a pop. Actually not all the guns would come back, so it would be less than that. Give the guns to the military so they can do something useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:42 PM

70. I think some cities have done

Gun buybacks, and I've heard they can be successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:27 AM

6. Lanza would likely not have "found a way to get one".

I'm pretty sure he didn't have the wherewithal, or the underworld contacts.

Yes, gang members or dedicated criminals would probably have ways and contacts to obtain illegal weapons. But mentally ill psychos, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:48 AM

7. No. But perhaps we should wait until there are 600,000,000 guns here.

Or maybe wait until there are a billion guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:51 AM

8. Kinda like saying it's too late to combat rape

...because there are so many penises already out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:59 AM

9. That is a false equivalency, and your comment is completely idiotic. Those 2 are nothing alike...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:48 AM

19. Not at all

At a time when we have rooms full of dead children, we cannot take a fatalistic approach. Just because a problem is massive, complex, and deeply rooted in a culture does not mean it is "too late".

I would argue that rape and control of assault weapons are in fact far more alike than you might think: both are related to aggression, control, violence, a sense of entitlement without responsibility to others, and so on.

To say "too late" is a cheap and easy out. And it is a way that will only result in more dead children. To hell with that. We must do what we can; ask any of the parents or loved ones of those who were slain.

I confess to a high degree of emotional investment- having buried my son this year, I am not of a mind to accept the counsel of temporization or desperation.

Yes, there are many weapons out there and we cannot get rid of them all. But these individual slaughters are not carried out by millions of guns: they are carried our by a few, each time. So every small measure we take can make a huge difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

52. Rape is always a crime, there are however responsible ar-15 owners.

 

The gun itself is not a crime. False equivalency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoingUnder (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:50 AM

69. Das ding an sich is a weak argument

("The thing in itself" for all who haven't heard that phrase.)

There are responsible penis owners, too. Responsible chainsaw owners. Responsible butcher-knife owners.

Things in themselves are neither good nor bad. However, some lend themselves more easily than others to uses beneficial or destructive, and to different degrees.

I suggest that the AR-15 is popular because of the recoil - it has very little. It is a fine weapon for close-quarters combat and any sort of "spray and pray" situation. Killing people, in other words. So it is well- suited for destruction, but pretty useless for anything else.

If someone owns a battle rifle, they are buying a gun that is suited for battle. That alone is not bad per se, but does not make it, in itself, a benign object.

Of course, the owner/operator of any thing is the primary determiner of how that thing will be used,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:08 AM

12. Not helpful. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:01 AM

28. No, but it's like saying it's too late to combat penises because there are too many penises

If you can't see the difference in outlawing behavior and outlawing things (specifically that the one often works and the other often doesn't) then you need to think some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:09 AM

13. No, it's not too late.

No one thinks that beginning to enact reasonable legislation is going to make the issue disappear overnight. But we'd like to get started. If you really hate most guns, you should be on board with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:56 AM

22. I really hate guns. I just think that what you're talking about is utterly doomed to failure.

The sheer number of assault weapons in the hands of the public, along with their rabid fanbase and a powerful lobbying group that wants more people to have guns, and the fact that as a culture we're obsessed with guns and explosions and death and destruction, all of these factors combine to make passing and enforcing a law like this seriously unlikely.

Would I like to see legislation passed that prohibited certain guns? Absolutely. Would I support any effort to enact it? Sure. Will it succeed? I doubt it. But sometimes, the losing battles must be fought, while knowing that they're losing battles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:06 AM

36. Well, you feel the way you feel, and that's okay.

But please fight the battle anyway. I look it at this way: there are three things I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.

One is an African-American president. Elected twice, despite an unthinkable boatload of money spent to defeat him.

Two is the Affordable Care Act. Flawed as it is, I never thought we'd get ANYTHING. And it's been upheld by SCOTUS. You could have knocked me over with a feather that day.

Three is gay folks being able to legally marry in several states. That will be the law of the land before very long, but it was used successfully as a wedge issue by the 'pukes as recently as 2004.

Things DO change, but not by themselves. Not without work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:21 AM

15. Never too late. Forget the brain washing of what "can't be done".

Serious problems deserve serious solutions...
IF a real difference is to be made.

Maybe it's time to ban possession of certain guns and devices too.

Make the penalties for illegal possession severe enough to make 'law-abiding gun owners' think real hard about breaking the laws and keeping them. Make the penalties for illegal use of any gun even more costly and mandatory.
People will be faced with making a choice between the very real possibility of serious jail time or feeling good that 'I still got mine though I can't ever use it'...we'll see how it goes. Think that a great indent will be made.

"A person that wants a gun", even bad guys, will NOT find it so simple to get one when there just aren't that many around.

Unfortunately most drugs and alcohol are physically addictive, guns really aren't.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:51 AM

20. That is a fantasy. Gun owners would cling to their guns despite sever punishments, they'd just hide

them better.

You'd have to do house to house sweeps to enforce it, and at that point, we're suddenly in dark and scary territory.

The fact is, there is no way to stop it now. Guns will keep proliferating, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

So, since guns are here to stay, perhaps it is time that we tackle the underlying issues that cause people to go apeshit with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:55 AM

21. Why are house to house sweeps for guns bad while the same for drugs is OK?

People's homes are invaded constantly by cops looking for dangerous drugs, why not the same for guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:12 AM

37. Neither are OK.

There...solved your problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:19 AM

54. Nobody has been to my house sweeping for drugs.

The police don't try to sweep every house in a town. They have to have a warrant and probable cause. To collect 300,000,000 guns would require a masssive door to door sweep of the entire nation. And your sweep would still miss most guns, while igniting a genuine revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:56 AM

61. So as long as it's not your door that's getting kicked in you don't care

What a surprise.

Freedom is the one thing you can't have unless you let everyone else have it also.

If you're good with taking my freedom to do what I wish with my own body away what possible motive would I have for giving the slightest fuck about yours?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:54 AM

64. No, I was pointing out that we have NOT been doing sweeps for MJ. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:59 AM

26. Fantasy? Not really. Cling to them - hord them.

Become a felon and keep them hidden in safes and basements - even better - bury them in the back yard - that is great!
Take your chances and hold out for the apocolypse until 'you' and the guns whither away. At least they will be out of circulation until someone comes to their senses that they just aren't worth it

Hmm...or let your kid slip up that Dad kept his AR after all, and hope no one files a complaint. Let the neighbor's note you cleaning your illegal arms and call the cops. Try ordering ammo or accesories, or simply imagine the ATF going through all those 4473 forms to see just who has bought what in the past and see all those warrants being issued. Won't take door to door sweeps to enforce the laws, or to produce the desired results, just the typical fear of being caught, some stepped up law enforcment, and attrition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:40 AM

18. You could ban guns outright...

... and demand that they all be turned in, and you would have about as much success with that as the government has had with reducing the use of illegal drugs, that is to say NONE WHATSOEVER.

This board is full of folks who fit the very definition of "knee jerk liberal", who think there is a legislative solution to every problem. There is not, and no rational objective person thinks there is.

I have no problem with an assault weapons ban, or a ban on hi-cap magazines. But neither will solve ANYTHING. The incident that just occurred could have easily been carried out without either. EASILY.

So, some people cannot face the uncertainty that their very life is imbued with. It must suck to be them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:58 AM

24. It works in Japan, they've had a year with *two* gun deaths.

And most years there you can count the number of gun deaths on your fingers and toes.

The UK isn't quite so peaceful but they have gun deaths in the dozens yearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:04 AM

29. Japan didn't start....

...... with a populace armed to the teeth. Japanese culture is nothing like ours. Japanese care for the mentally impaired is nothing like ours. Other countries have anarmed populace (perhaps not as many guns, but plenty of guns) and they never have these mass shootings.

The pipe dream of being like the UK or Japan where there really are very few guns is a delusional both politically and practically. And even in the UK plenty of gun deaths occur, the thugs and gangsters have guns.

I have no problem with considering practical solutions to any problem. I have little time for delusional nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:16 AM

34. Well once again the debate comes down to right of center moderates versus right wing nutjobs

And needless to say the truth lies somewhere in the middle of those two positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:54 PM

39. And they started from a totally clean slate

Amazing what being literally burned to the ground, militarily occupied for seven years, and forcibly and totally disarmed will do, innit?

Is that how far you're willing to go here? With what army?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:06 PM

40. We have no problem with a war against a common weed that's completely non poisonous

Not sure where I can see a problem with extending or even shifting the ban from a weed to a device.

It's not like guns grow on trees you know and all those DEA and other drug agents will need to be kept busy if pot ever does become legal.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:51 PM

41. That's not the kind of war we're talking about

A "war on guns" would be just about as effective as the "war on drugs".

I'm talking the total loss of a total war, followed by armed occupation and mandatory complete disarmament. That's where Japan started from and while it has worked extraordinarily well to keep their firearms violence low, it's makes any comparison or "why don't we do that here" more or less invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:58 PM

45. We make war more than anyone else on the damn planet by orders of magnitude

Don't tell me removing the guns couldn't be done if we were actually serious about it because the USA has the mightiest military machine in the history of the known universe.

The guns could be removed if we had the will.

The war on pot's been going on for nearly 80 years now and the government hasn't conceded yet and I suspect they never will. Millions of lives have been ruined over it, what's a few more million ruined over guns?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:23 AM

55. And the war on MJ is completely ineffective. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:46 AM

59. The difference between pot and guns is that pot does grow on trees (well, bushes anyway)

A common weed that can be grown just about anywhere.

It's possible to make a gun by hand without much in the way of equipment but it won't be a very good gun and it will cost a crapload of money. Boutique hand made items are expensive.

On the other hand you can take a handful of pot seeds and scatter them around and that hardy weed will just pop up all on its own.

I for one would purely love to see gun owners treated like pot smokers have been for going on 80 years now.

Gunners let the NRA speak for them, that has worked out pretty well for them for quite a while, I think the NRA is just about to become a net liability to the gun owners of America and it couldn't possibly come fast enough.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:57 AM

23. IMO the best solution is to require insurance for each gun owned.

Kinda like how cars must be insured now. This will discourage idiots from owning a large number of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:58 AM

25. I've been advocating this same idea to friends of mine.

I really like it. Its not a total answer, its just a piece of a complex puzzle. But I do think that it would be pretty sweet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:07 AM

31. I think...

... that is a creative solution that could reduce the number of guns out there. But not to be too big a party pooper, this would require registration of all guns. What would actually happen is a large number of folks would just decide they did not wish to report their ownership of a firearm and most guns used in crime would turn out to be, guess what, unregistered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:59 AM

27. Never too late to start saving lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:06 AM

30. It worked in Australia. I don't know why it couldn't have the same success here

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html

Sydney, Australia (CNN) -- Could the leader of a democracy reverse his nation's slide toward the ever more permissive use of firearms and mandate stringent new gun control laws in less than a fortnight? Well, yes. One of America's loyal allies did just that -- and with massive voter support.

In a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semi-automatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as "assault weapons." Now we discover that a similar military-style rifle enabled the Connecticut killer to add his name to the global list of gun horrors.
(...)

In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. In the 16 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. Gun deaths which attract smaller headlines are 80 times more common, yet the national rate of gun homicide remains 30 times lower than that of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:08 AM

32. Let's do nothing for another decade and we'll have another 100 million of damn things to deal with.


As poster above notes, Australia bit the bullet in 1996 and passed really tough gun legislation after a similar massacre.

Why would we wait for millions more to be produced, and who knows how many more dead. Sooner or later, some generation is going to say "enough is enough" and mean it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:13 AM

33. It is not too late

Steps have to be taken; we can ban assault weapons and large magazines ( over 5 to 10 rounds).
If no more are made, they will become an object to be hoarded by collector/enthusiasts. They will become much more expensive and harder to find.

Disposing of the 300,00 odd weapons is a long term project. A massive buy back is impractical.

I think that things like banning assault weapons and large magazines is the best that we can do at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

35. I think we could solve the whole problem and not take away anybody's guns this way ...

Outlaw high capacity magazines. Restrict Handguns to 10 rounds for a .22 caliber or less and 7 rounds for anything above .22 caliber. For rifles above .22 caliber restrict magazines to 5 rounds. Five rounds is often used as a rule for hunting weapons. Rifles .22 caliber or less should be restricted to 10 rounds.

Make it a serious felony (5 years mandatory sentence) to to possess high capacity magazines after a certain date. Include all magazines now held by gun owners. A 5 or 6 year grace period should be enough. That would give people and the gun makers time to comply with the law and purchase new magazines.

I also think it's time to start registering all guns and restrict all sales and transfers without first going through a licensed firearms dealer just like a new purchase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:33 PM

38. No it's not too "fucking late" READ THIS

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/12/18/death-to-all-guns/

Christ on a crutch I'm fucking sick of this stupid hand wringing and learned helplessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:40 PM

46. I read it. I agree with most of it. But as tired of the hand wringing as you are, I'm tired of

pretending that something can be done about guns. Good luck trying to convince the hundreds of millions of Americans to give up their guns, and give up their perceived rights. It just won't happen.

And to pretend otherwise is folly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:53 PM

42. no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:55 PM

43. Too late to control guns. Not too late to control bullets.

The guns are already out there, but they need bullets to do their job. Strictly control ammunition sales, and over time, there will be slow attrition of bullets through hunting and target shooting. Maybe in about 20 years, we'll be down to disarmament.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

47. A friend of mine re uses his shells. That wouldn't work, unless you're also talking about

restricting access to the components.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:56 PM

44. You will never see a complete ban though there are many who would welcome one

and that is their privilege to feel that way but what I have been saying is that when supporters of complete bans envision confiscation as a last resort I bet their are'nt seeing well armed gangs and drug organizations that operate in the US. I bet they see John and Jane Doe in the burbs and at most militia types hiding out in cabins in the woods. So I suggest, you want to see gun violence? Go try to take guns from the gangs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:24 PM

48. Think about the mindset of someone who is buying something that may get banned.

 

They know it may get banned, and yet they shell out a thousand plus bucks for it. Do you think that those people will just meekly turn in their weapons if a ban is passed? I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:28 PM

50. Gun buy backs. Or send jack booted ATF thugs door to door.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:26 AM

56. Gun owners vote. And there are about 80 million of them. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:58 AM

65. Yep. And they lost.

It's not like the NRA was inactive in the last election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:27 AM

57. And Im sure criminals will line up to turn in their guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:11 AM

62. It's icky seeing pro gun boilerplate in DU forums

 

Still not used to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:00 AM

66. They don't have to - illegal guns don't last long

If you're a criminal with a gun, you're going to use that gun. That will result in your arrest, or you having to dispose of the gun to sever it's link to you.

Criminals don't use the same gun for decades, like non-criminal gun users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:39 AM

58. it means we go about gun control in that context

An outright ban on gun ownership is not going to fly, no way no how. You know that, I know that, it's not hard to figure out. There are too many guns already in circulation for such a law to get any traction even if it were passed and upheld as constitutional. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many effective ways we can begin to mitigate the problem of irresponsible gun ownership, and a few of them are already mentioned up-thread.

Examples:
- buybacks
- mandatory owner's insurance, with rates deductions for those who prove they're responsible (i.e. have a secure storage location and use it consistently for all guns & ammunition)
- steep taxes on ammunition
- extensive background checks for purchase of firearms other than hunting rifles, with no exceptions for gun shows and private sales (previous owner held partially liable for any crimes committed with the weapon, etc.)
- require biometric trigger locks or RFID safeties on new guns

There are lots of things that can be done without excessively infringing on the people's right to keep and bear the arms they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:22 AM

63. Make some examples of illegal gun-toters

Most will turn them in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorksied (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:14 AM

67. There are reasonable steps that can be made regarding guns, mental illness, school safety etc.

To do nothing is pretty ridiculous.

I think many people want to frame what happened in Newtown and Aurora and Virginia Tech and other places as all about guns. That was only part of the picture. Mental illness has little funding, the insurance is terrible for the most part and even if people have the means for it they are too ashamed to seek help. I know, I have suffered from depression my entire life. Sometimes parents are ashamed that it is their child that needs help.
We are dealing with some things that legislation obviously will not solve totally. But we have to start somewhere. I mean, my cousin committed suicide with a gun to his head this summer. Newtown is 30 minutes away from me. I also grew up in Cheshire, Connecticut. It was the place of one of the worst home invasions ever in the United States. I see gun ownership from all sides and understand that people may want a gun to protect themselves. I also know that just being around a gun increases the chance that you will die from one or you may use it to hurt someone else. You can't simplify things, I know all to well it is just not that easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread