General Discussion

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

44. Perhaps.

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:12 PM

Dec 2012

But even if those penalties were truly severe, I have little doubt that literally millions of owners of banned weapons would apply the "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" maxim. Whether that's valid or reasonable or not isn't particularly relevant. The end result would be the same: massive non-compliance and a reduction in the ability of law enforcement to keep track of these weapons.

I have a feeling that we are indeed looking at another "back to the status quo" situation. There are reasonable steps to be undertaken...but the sides aren't talking to each other...just like they aren't on so many other political issues.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Honest question for those demanding immediate gun control [View all] Azathoth Dec 2012 OP

What regulation would have prevented this? Simple Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #1

So we get rid of everything except revolvers? Azathoth Dec 2012 #15

I didn't say "get rid of everything except revolvers", no Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #17

Sorry, I assumed you were implictly including things like pump-actions Azathoth Dec 2012 #23

Nope Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #25

"For self-defense in the home a shotgun is a better choice than a handgun." Azathoth Dec 2012 #51

You're aware of what buckshot does, yes? Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #56

I am well aware of the effects of a shotgun blast Azathoth Dec 2012 #98

You know what Thomas Jefferson thought about the Constitution? Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #106

Jefferson had a lot of changing and conflicting opinions Azathoth Dec 2012 #116

Wonder if you would say that if your neighbor oldbanjo Dec 2012 #62

Number four birdshot is enough for home defence Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #65

Who are you to tell someone else what they need? Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #88

My neighbor is about 300 yards away, oldbanjo Dec 2012 #94

I have my hand gun to kill anyone that breaks in this house. oldbanjo Dec 2012 #55

And how many times has that happened? Zoeisright Dec 2012 #92

you do realize WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #16

Handguns should probably be banned then quite honestly Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #19

Only if such a regulation were actually obeyed. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #20

It would if there were penalties for non-compliance Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #22

Perhaps. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #44

The standard magazine has been six rounds for decades. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #31

Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #34

If we follow your logic, all handguns would be illegal. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #100

All handguns probably should be illegal, honestly. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #108

Disproportionate response. Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #86

Sure it is Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #96

I can't wait until that unconstitutional garbage is thrown out. Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #97

She shouldn't have been ABLE to legally purchase a death weapon MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #2

Yes! Sheldon Cooper Dec 2012 #10

I think you hit the nail on the head ... "And if the goddamn fucking fear-mongering terrorist group RKP5637 Dec 2012 #14

+1 Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #68

Assault weapons also include hands guns Marrah_G Dec 2012 #3

What handguns are "assault weapons"? nt Codeine Dec 2012 #5

Any one that assaults or harms a person TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #12

Here Marrah_G Dec 2012 #13

I would call any handgun that firs more than 6 rounds before re-load an assault weapon. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #49

The fed limit was 10 Marrah_G Dec 2012 #69

It should be lowered to six, except for police owned and controlled handguns. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #102

Ok, so you're proposing banning all handguns? n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #59

It's specific handguns and combinations of accessories and magazines Marrah_G Dec 2012 #84

I'd be fine with banning all handguns, yes DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #109

"The guns were purchased legally" scheming daemons Dec 2012 #4

UK gun laws: Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #7

How incredibly sane of the Brits. Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #72

So no weapons for self-defense at all? Just deer hunting? n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #18

It's not legal to defend yourself in the UK...... oldbanjo Dec 2012 #78

"A single-action hunting rifle "???? oneshooter Dec 2012 #45

Until the 80's NO ONE needed anything more than a shotgun or .38 handgun DainBramaged Dec 2012 #6

Sorry, I didn't realize no one owned a 9mm handgun before the 80's n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #29

You obviously didn't grow up before then. DainBramaged Dec 2012 #36

It seems that M1911 45s were around though nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #39

1911-style handguns have been prevalent for decades NickB79 Dec 2012 #41

Since 1911, of course they were. DainBramaged Dec 2012 #53

My sister in law was a cop in LA nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #66

1984 DainBramaged Dec 2012 #70

Retired nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74

I think you're a post behind me...... DainBramaged Dec 2012 #77

The Browning Hi-Power has been common for decades NickB79 Dec 2012 #111

You're right.. letemrot Dec 2012 #42

Some 45's brought home from the wars yes. DainBramaged Dec 2012 #54

That be a .45 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #64

OK, I made note of the .45's previously DainBramaged Dec 2012 #73

That explains some of it. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #75

My aunt (Mother's sister) lived in Camden until she died in the late 70's DainBramaged Dec 2012 #81

1935 Browning Highpower 9mm oldbanjo Dec 2012 #83

And? DainBramaged Dec 2012 #91

I never claimed 9mm handguns were prevalent back then Azathoth Dec 2012 #115

We were just discussing the same here at home, how would anything have prevented this short of 7x24 RKP5637 Dec 2012 #8

if there was tighter enforcement and gun owners held responsible if others get access to their guns bettyellen Dec 2012 #28

That, is an EXCELLENT idea!!! RKP5637 Dec 2012 #37

Exactly. Same with straw purchases. If you are a channel and you didn't take due TPaine7 Dec 2012 #43

Owners controlling access to guns is important, after background checks and registration. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #60

that too. I think there shld be legal penalties and huge fines for those irresponsible bettyellen Dec 2012 #89

I don't disagree. nt bluestate10 Dec 2012 #103

Technology my friend nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #79

Interesting!!! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2012 #87

Here, some good reading nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #93

Thanks, as always!!! RKP5637 Dec 2012 #101

I just read it, extremely interesting and this or something similar is the way to RKP5637 Dec 2012 #114

Also, how is that ban on cocaine working out? Cocaine is rare to non-existent, right? banned from Kos Dec 2012 #9

Cocaine has never killed 20 kids in a school all at once RetroLounge Dec 2012 #21

You missed the point. You can't ban something people will do anything to get. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #26

"There are 40 million people in this country who would die defending their guns." RetroLounge Dec 2012 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author oldhippie Dec 2012 #80

Grow the fuck up. No one wants to take your guns away. RetroLounge Dec 2012 #113

Anyone who would die "defending their weapons" likely deserves to. bettyellen Dec 2012 #33

YOU go take their guns away then. I live in Georgia. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #46

HA. No thanks. bettyellen Dec 2012 #85

guns aren't the same as a highly addictive drug like cocaine and so the analogy is dumb NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #50

You've never been around a gun nut who owns 10-20 guns. banned from Kos Dec 2012 #61

I suppose that's true NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #112

What regulation? This regulation... Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #11

Seven. Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #24

Uh, eleven Azathoth Dec 2012 #57

A Complete Ban on Unnecessary Weapons Taverner Dec 2012 #27

Sounds good. What is "unnecessary" and who determines that? n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #58

I'd like to see limits on ammunition Turn CO Blue Dec 2012 #30

Wasn't some company working on ammunition justiceischeap Dec 2012 #40

Pretending there is no solution, is not a solution! you have a God damn nerve using the standard BS. DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #35

I didn't say there was no solution Azathoth Dec 2012 #38

Answer your own question mokawanis Dec 2012 #48

I don't know. I'm not a professor quizzing students. Azathoth Dec 2012 #52

the requested action is complete repudiation of the NRA and embracing rational regulation of guns bettyellen Dec 2012 #107

Hence my original question, exactly what "rational regulation" would have prevented this? n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #117

do you not red anything here or are you just having fun with this? bettyellen Dec 2012 #118

I've read through the entire thread Azathoth Dec 2012 #119

The OP didn't claim there is no solution. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #67

It doesn't matter if greater gun control would prevent incidents like this. randome Dec 2012 #47

So there were no laws broken til that guy started shooting people! TheDebbieDee Dec 2012 #63

You just touched on the problem, and it is people with your viewpoint. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #82

I got news for you - many gun owners are already nuts! Everytime there's a shooting, TheDebbieDee Dec 2012 #104

Two points nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #71

It would be ironic if the fruit did nothing to address the precipitating event n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #105

How about lesgislation about all guns being locked up at all times marlakay Dec 2012 #76

Making owners responsible for their guns is a cornerstone to good gun laws. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #95

I suspect this is the direction that future regulation will take Azathoth Dec 2012 #99

"You're just exploiting it to further a pre-existing agenda." Are you serious? rhett o rick Dec 2012 #90

A 'well regulated militia'... Blanks Dec 2012 #110

It's not about regulating guns, it's about educating the youth and caring for the mentally ill - Flagrante Dec 2012 #120

I agree n/t Azathoth Dec 2012 #121