HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Five Gun Safety Laws ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:26 AM

The Five Gun Safety Laws That Gun Owners Support


By Annie-Rose Strasser on Jan 15, 2013 at 9:02 am

Vice President Joe Biden is slated to deliver his suggestions for a series of gun violence prevention measures to the President today. Most likely, stronger gun regulations will be among the measures Biden proposes. And while the gun lobby may argue that such laws are out of step with the opinions of gun owners, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that people who have a firearm in their home actually support a lot of gun safety measures.

Here are the top five gun laws that most gun owners would like to see:

1. Universal background checks. -snip-

2. Background checks for ammunition purchasing. -snip-

3. Ban on extended magazines. -snip-

4. Gun database. -snip-

5. Assault weapons ban. -snip-

The support for each of these measures demonstrates that the gun lobby is out of step with everyday gun owners. NRA representatives insist that Congress won’t pass ammunition clip bans, for example, and say that background checks are “unnecessary” and expensive. But even NRA members support more regulations on guns than the lobby would like to indicate.

-snip-

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/15/1447961/laws-gun-owners-support/

64 replies, 3605 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 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Five Gun Safety Laws That Gun Owners Support (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
LAGC Jan 2013 #1
eallen Jan 2013 #48
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #2
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #3
hack89 Jan 2013 #5
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #7
hack89 Jan 2013 #9
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #23
Orrex Jan 2013 #8
hack89 Jan 2013 #11
Orrex Jan 2013 #17
hack89 Jan 2013 #22
Orrex Jan 2013 #24
hack89 Jan 2013 #25
Orrex Jan 2013 #28
hack89 Jan 2013 #31
Orrex Jan 2013 #32
hack89 Jan 2013 #33
Orrex Jan 2013 #36
Buns_of_Fire Jan 2013 #27
Orrex Jan 2013 #30
frylock Jan 2013 #40
hack89 Jan 2013 #41
frylock Jan 2013 #42
hack89 Jan 2013 #44
frylock Jan 2013 #45
hack89 Jan 2013 #46
frylock Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #49
frylock Jan 2013 #50
hack89 Jan 2013 #51
frylock Jan 2013 #52
guardian Jan 2013 #29
Taverner Jan 2013 #55
hack89 Jan 2013 #57
Taverner Jan 2013 #60
hack89 Jan 2013 #61
Taverner Jan 2013 #62
Heimer Jan 2013 #15
Orrex Jan 2013 #19
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #34
Tsiyu Jan 2013 #37
hack89 Jan 2013 #58
Tsiyu Jan 2013 #63
hack89 Jan 2013 #64
ileus Jan 2013 #4
Robb Jan 2013 #6
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #10
derby378 Jan 2013 #12
Robb Jan 2013 #16
derby378 Jan 2013 #18
Robb Jan 2013 #20
Paladin Jan 2013 #43
Heimer Jan 2013 #13
derby378 Jan 2013 #21
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #14
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #35
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #38
jeff47 Jan 2013 #53
Orrex Jan 2013 #39
samsingh Jan 2013 #26
NCTraveler Jan 2013 #54
Glassunion Jan 2013 #56
justanidea Jan 2013 #59

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:29 AM

1. What about safe storage and owner accountability for their firearms?

I think that would have a lot better chance of passing Congress than any of the items mentioned in the OP, and be more effective at hindering gun crime to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:25 PM

48. The Heller decision explicitly overturned that

In part, the Heller decision affirmed the right to keep guns in the home for defensive purposes, and accordingly, overturned DC's trigger-lock law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:34 AM

2. My response:

1. Universal background checks. -snip- I don't have a problem with this, I just would like to know
how it would be implemented


2. Background checks for ammunition purchasing. -snip- No Way! If it works like the background check for guns does this
would be a huge problem. Sales of guns are often delayed because of problems with the system. For a hunter
to go to the store prior to hunting and be denied the ammo he needs for that day would be wrong.


3. Ban on extended magazines. -snip- I see this having zero benefit but it will probably happen

4. Gun database. -snip- What?! No way! Gun registration is wrong.

5. Assault weapons ban. -snip- I see this having zero benefit but it will probably happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:41 AM

3. My response to your response

On ammo. I agree that a background check is overkill. How about, you have to show ID to confirm that you have previously passed a background check? So assuming that you went through a background check once before (and passed) then you're good to by ammo.

On the gun database. This is a no-brainer. If someone breaks into my house and steals my unregistered firearms, I'll NEVER get them back. With a gun database, if they turn up at a crime scene or are otherwise confiscated by law enforcement, I'll get my property returned to me. Why wouldn't I want that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:48 AM

5. The issue with a gun database

is it would be ok if there was an ironclad guarantee that in the future there would be no law passed banning the possession of certain classes of weapons.

There are many here that feel that private citizens should not be allowed to own certain semi-automatic rifles and advocate loudly for their ban and confiscation. In such an atmosphere, can you understand why a gun database is looked upon with suspicion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:55 AM

7. You know something?

The medication that you take for paranoia is included in your permanent health record. If it's OK to have a database of your medications to treat that unconquerable fear that the boogey man is coming for your guns, then it's OK to have a database for your guns.

I don't give a flying fuck about anybody's "suspicions" about some future totalitarian state. Unless your pop-gun can handle this:



Then owning it is not going to be us much use, whether there's a database or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:00 AM

9. Do you deny that there are people and groups that oppose civilian ownership of guns?

there are many here at DU - are they delusional? Are you saying I should not take them seriously?

I don't own guns to fight a government or self defense. I just like competitive targeting shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:21 AM

23. They are as delusional as you are...

Will there be a ban on military-style weapons? It can't happen soon enough.

Hunting rifles? Shotguns? Handguns? Never going to happen. When you count the number of households that own these firearms, along with the number of more-or-less libertarian, non-gunowning households, there's never going to be enough votes to ban them. Never. Never Ever.

The fact is, even in most countries that have strict gun control laws, gun ownership IS STILL ALLOWED. It's just controlled and regulated. Well-Regulated, you might say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:56 AM

8. In turn, can you understand...

why many here feel that private citizens should not be allowed to own certain semi-automatic rifles?

Despite your concerns, can you understand why a database of gun ownership is held by some to be reasonable and appropriate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:04 AM

11. So if private citizens should not be allowed to own certain semi-automatic rifles

the first step before confiscation is to discover where the guns are, right?

A database may be reasonable in your eyes but we know it is not to make anyone safer. The Newtown shooters guns were in a database after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:12 AM

17. You'd need to convince me that such a database would do more harm than good

To be honest, you'd also need to convince me that your fear of gun confiscation is reasonable and not based in paranoia. Does this fine nation of ours have much history of gun confiscation?

A database may be reasonable in your eyes but we know it is not to make anyone safer. The Newtown shooters guns were in a database after all.
Depends what the database is used for, no? When Gun Owner X is arrested for some felony or other, we can say "you own twelve Bushmaster AR-15s. Where are they?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:18 AM

22. Just phrase the laws in such a way to keep actual possession legal

and we would have a good starting point. I would meet you halfway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:24 AM

24. Making progress, but let me clarify...

Is it inconceivable to you that a firearm might justifiably be reclassified as illegal? Suppose that the M134 minigun were declared illegal to possess, for example. Should possession be automatically grandfathered for people who already happened to possess one? That would be a pretty toothless law.

Or must any firearm that's currently legal to possess remain legal forever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:32 AM

25. It is time to properly define what cosmetic features semi-automatic rifles can have.

the NFA has worked well for 78 years because it has useful and technically relevant definitions. It is time to unmuddy the waters deliberately muddied by the invention of the term "assault weapon" by gun control advocates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:49 AM

28. I'm ok with that, but what about my question?

Do you accept that certain existing firearms might reasonably be declared illegal, based on technically relevant definitions?

I should confess a certain unease with purely technical definitions, however, if they can be "lawyered" into irrelevance. If these can be prevented, then I agree that restrictions based on technical rather than purely cosmetic details is preferable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:56 AM

31. There would be more trust if we had strong definitions

that drew a bright line between legal and illegal. Gun control advocates need to play honest - they deliberately uses fuzzy language and non-technical made up terms precisely so they can stigmatize as many weapons as possible.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:08 AM

32. In fairness, that citation is 25 years old

You might as well post a comment from Reagan about the evils of the Berlin Wall. How about something more current?

Even so, I see your point, and wiggle room will inevitably be exploited. Of course, it works both ways, as was noted elsewhere in this thread. If a particular technical specification is banned/restricted, manufacturers will tweak a firearm's design until it just barely avoids the restriction. In effect, gun manufacturers need to be honest too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:12 AM

33. And yet what happens here when the conversation turns technical?

how many time do I have to be told that being precise about weapons is merely "deflection"? That tells me that having the proper attitude is more important then actual facts. Which I reject - ignorance for a good cause is still ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:48 AM

36. Well...

At least 9 times out of 10, once it "turns technical," it results in one party attacking the other party's shocking ignorance, rather than anyone trying to move the discussion forward.

If a presentation of technical detail comes across merely as a form of chest-thumping (as it often does), then the listener will likely dismiss the speaker or the fact.

Similarly, if one is presenting an overly technical detail (say, the thread-pitch on the screw that holds part of the molding to the stock), then it's helpful if the presenter takes a moment to explain why this particular technical detail is important; it's not enough to bark "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you need to do a little research before you open your mouth next time." I've seen similar accusations on a number of gun-related threads, and the effect is generally unhelpful.

So attitude is important, even if it doesn't ultimately substitute for technical fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:47 AM

27. Any definition is probably going to have to be filtered down a bit.

Just for the hell of it, let's say "AR-15s" and "M134s" are henceforth banned. Okay, fine. Until next month when the manufacturer comes out with their New and Improved "AR-27s" and "M148s". Oops. Not covered under the law. Go in peace.

I believe that it's going to have to wind up being classified by function. Rate of fire, ammunition capacity, that sort of thing.

Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:51 AM

30. I've had similar thoughts, in fact

Rate of fire is one that has made particular sense to me, but you're absolutely right about the potential exploitation of trivial differences, in the same way that a car with painted racing stripe isn't functionally different from the same car without those stripes, but it gets a whole new series number and is, technically, a different kind of car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:40 PM

40. do you honestly believe that if gun seizures are imminent..

that they're going to rely solely on a database? that they'll only pursue gun owners based on some kind of honor system?! they would go to everyone's house, whether they were on a gun owner's DB or not! your premise is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:52 PM

41. They would never attempt a house to house confiscation

the Constitution bars it.

I am not talking about a fascist police state scenario. Think about it. Many here support a ban and confiscation of certain guns. I can't imagine anyone at DU supporting house to house searches - so how will they be able to confiscate guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

42. they won't be able to confiscate guns, which make concerns of using a database..

to implement such seizures completely baseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:24 PM

44. Why won't they be able to?

California managed to do so in 1998.

When they passed their AWB, the SKS (a type of rifle) was legal as long as it was registered. So numerous owners registered them. Then, after whining from the Brady bunch, California decided that in fact the SKS was banned by the AWB. They then sent letters to those owners who had registered their SKS telling them that they had to turn them into the local sheriff or face legal action.

Registration has been used in America for confiscation. It is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:16 PM

45. well there you have it. my mistake..

I still support registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:18 PM

46. That's fine

just understand that gun owner reluctance is sometimes more than just paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:22 PM

47. on further review, it doesn't appear that there was a visitation by LEOs..

or other authority to confiscate weapons, per se. but a buyback program was implemented. of course, if caught with such contraband, an arrest is likely going to happen, but I don't see evidence that a database of registered firearms was used for anything other than sending notification that the rifles were now subject to a ban. the ban was also limited to SKS with a removable magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:26 PM

49. No - California did not buy back those SKS

is a letter from LEOs really much different than a knock on the door? Don't you think ignoring that letter would result in a knock on the door?

Stop splitting hairs here. The addresses were in a gun registration database.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:20 PM

50. BUYBACK PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN SKS SPORTER RIFLES TO END FRIDAY.

Byline: Cecilia Chan Staff Writer

Owners of SKS sporter rifles have until Friday to turn in their weapons, which will become illegal in the new year.

In return for handing over their rifles to a law-enforcement agency or a licensed gun dealer, gun owners will receive a $230 voucher
that can be redeemed through the State Department of Justice.

``We got 14 rifles that were turned in,'' said Eric Nishimoto, spokesman for the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. ``As of Jan. 1, they become illegal.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BUYBACK+PROGRAM+FOR+CERTAIN+SKS+SPORTER+RIFLES+TO+END+FRIDAY.-a083632814

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:27 PM

51. My bad - you are right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:32 PM

52. no prob. it's hard keeping up on this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:49 AM

29. an ironclad guarantee

 

You mean like a Constitutional Amendment? There is no quarter, no compromise on the issue a gun database.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:41 PM

55. Logic flaw: Slippery Slope

 

Cannot prove that A will lead to B

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:48 PM

57. No. But there is not a lot of trust between the two sides at the movement

Sometimes fears are justified.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:33 PM

60. I think in the interest of the country, the gun side should be at least willing to negotiate

 

...in good faith

The right to life takes precedence over the right to use a specific tool for self defense IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:42 PM

61. So what do you wish to see banned? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:49 PM

62. I don't know

 

I think the one thing missing is honest, unbiased research.

What have other communities done that has worked?

Why were they successful?

How comparative are the two groups (us and them)?



At the least, however, I think enforcement of current laws is a must - and that is why the EO is needed.

The EO does not have the power to make new laws, simply to change how the existing laws are enforced.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:09 AM

15. Sure you will.

Report them stolen. There is already a database for stolen weapons.

It's as easy as filling out the report and providing the LEO with the serial numbers. I keep pictures and serials of the few I own "In the cloud" just in case I were to lose everything in a fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:16 AM

19. What if you don't know they're stolen?

What if you're killed during the burglary, and someone else doesn't know that your guns were stolen? Will the serial numbers magically precipate from the cloud so that the authorities and your heirs can start the hunt to retrieve your firearms?

And let's assume that you're one of those famous Responsible Gun Owners. Are all gun owners equally responsible? In my life I have known quite a few who are not, and I have to assume that there are many more just like them. People who didn't store their serial numbers in the cloud. Are we to rely on their sense of Responsible Gun Ownership? No thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:33 AM

34. Why do I have to tell the government what guns I own...

...prior to their being stolen? I can just as well write down their descriptions and serial numbers and let law enforcement know
if they are stolen. I don't list my other possessions with the Feds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:56 AM

37. Why do I have to show a picture ID to vote?

Never had to before.

Why do I have to get a permit to have a protest? It's my right to peaceably assemble. Why do I have to name the type and manner of my assembly before they will issue a permit?

Why can't I go up to DC and just walk into Congress and start yelling out in protest? I have the right to free speech. If I'm thinking like a gun-humper, those rights mean that I should be able to say whetever I want wherever I want with no restrictions.

That 2nd amendment "right" has become an endless entitlement.


Rules and regulations are for EVERYBODY ELSE, according to the gun-humpers. And the gun-humpers wonder why sane people don't trust them with firearms?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:51 PM

58. Should you need an ID to vote? Should you need a permit to protest?

I say no. Lets expand civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:36 PM

63. Yes, let's have anarchy

The picture ID to vote is bullshit. Permit serve a purpose in some - not all- instances.

But the point is, we have limits on any right, and to declare gun rights "untouchable because it's right there in the Constitution" is bogus, selfish and ignorant.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:03 PM

64. There are limits on guns

background checks, age limits, legal criteria by which people lose their right to own guns.

Even Justice Scalia specifically states that limits on the 2A are perfectly fine. I have no problem with most gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:47 AM

4. I'd support 1 maybe 2 of those listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:51 AM

6. I support, and expect passage, of all 5.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:01 AM

10. I would not support number 4. I am good with the rest. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:04 AM

12. "That Gun Owners Support?" That makes me laugh...

They certainly didn't ask this gun owner, otherwise 2, 3, and 5 would be history. And I'd want a little more detail on 1 and 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:11 AM

16. Perhaps you are more fringe than you realize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:15 AM

18. Dude, I'm the new normal - and one day, you'll realize it's not that bad

Welcome to America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:17 AM

20. Among DU gun enthusiasts, probably.

Like many on DU, passionate and loud about an issue, but probably not in step with US politics.

Not a bad thing, but worth recognizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:22 PM

43. Try That Line On The Parents Of Those Dead School Kids, Mr. "New Normal" (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:05 AM

13. I support 2 of 5

Magazine bans will have zero impact.

I would also need to see the definition of "assault weapon" before I could say I would support a ban.

A gun registry is expensive and does not have the ability to make any impact in gun related crime. -see Canada.

The other 2 seem pretty common sense.. Maybe not a background check for ammo, but as another poster commented some sort of clearance or card. Say a CPL/CWP or something similar that shows you've undergone a background check.

It's worth noting however, none of these would have prevented the Newtown shooting. Safe handling and storage needs to be mandated in some form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:17 AM

21. Civilian armories

That would go a long way towards solving the safe storage problem. An armory would have prevented Sandy Hook. It is the only gun measure that would have prevented Sandy Hook that I'm aware of.

Cleita and I have both discussed the idea in threads in the past. I just wish it would gain more traction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:09 AM

14. Mixed bag.

One and two are just fine. Three and five are pointless, save as feel-good measures. Four can fuck right off.

Needs a sixth: mandatory firearms security for all gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:35 AM

35. "Needs a sixth: mandatory firearms security for all gun owners."

Completely agree! Why isn't this most sensible idea even being discussed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bay Boy (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:58 AM

38. I wish I knew!

This step would, I suspect, do more to reduce firearms violence than the other five combined...several times over. It's my understanding that theft is one of the major vectors by which habitual criminals who are prohibited legal ownership (that is, previously convicted felons) obtain guns. There might have to be subsidies so such a requirement didn't act as a barrier to the poor, but I think this measure should be considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:36 PM

53. Because SCOTUS says you can't.

The Heller decision struck down DC's requirement for trigger locks and has been interpreted to mean you can't put any storage restrictions on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:59 AM

39. How are you going to keep track of six if four can fuck right off?

Mandatory security for unknown guns? How is that supposed to work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:33 AM

26. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:39 PM

54. I think an overwhelming majority would agree with 1, 3, and 5. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:48 PM

56. My 5 are better

1. Universal background checks. - I Agree
2. Licensing of gun owners - Gets rid of the check on ammunition and is much cheaper. Would you rather track one owner or hundreds of practice rounds per owner?
3. Requirement to notify Law Enforcement of lost or stolen firearms within a reasonable period of noticing the loss. - This is a tool for catching straw purchasers.
4. An effective and properly funded ATF with teeth. - Apply them to where the problems are. Over 30% of illegal guns come from less than 8% of US gun shops. I have an idea where I'd like the ATF to go camping.
5. Stop the damn war on drugs...

#5 I feel would have the largest impact on reducing the gun violence in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:54 PM

59. "Most gun owners support"

 

I think thats a bit inaccurate. 90% of the gun owners I have ever met would only support #1.

Visit shooting ranges, gun shops, internet gun forums, and ask the gun owners what they would support. I'd bet virtually no one would support numbers 3-5.

Thats just the way it is.

The only gun owners I have met who support things like the AWB are people (usually older guys (65+) who can't hit the broad side of a barn and dont even know how to safely handle a gun.) who only own one gun (that their great grandpappy gave them) which they take out of the safe once a year to go shoot bambi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread