Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

0rganism

(23,937 posts)
58. it means we go about gun control in that context
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:39 AM
Dec 2012

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.

Guns will not RegieRocker Dec 2012 #1
I think you mean, anti gun rational people. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #11
+1 This is all about advancing civilization. tridim Dec 2012 #14
"advancing civilization"??? a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #51
The problem is that we, as a country, have a fundamental disagreement about what it means to advance GoingUnder Dec 2012 #49
higher prices for illegal guns. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #2
Yes, because people who want to kill worry about money! n-t Logical Dec 2012 #16
no, because tighter supply drives up prices. as happened with the assault weapons ban, HiPointDem Dec 2012 #17
No that didn't happen. GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #53
We have to start somewhere. It's not too late to protect people from guns not yet purchased. reformist2 Dec 2012 #3
I think the following would happen Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #4
Exactly....a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons would immediately make JanMichael Dec 2012 #10
How often to you hear about any crimes being perpetrated by a fully automatic weapon? white_wolf Dec 2012 #60
I wouldn't mind seeing a gun buyback Ilsa Dec 2012 #5
Gun Buyback is how the Aussies made "no new mass murders" the law of the land. librechik Dec 2012 #68
I think some cities have done Ilsa Dec 2012 #70
Lanza would likely not have "found a way to get one". Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #6
No. But perhaps we should wait until there are 600,000,000 guns here. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #7
Kinda like saying it's too late to combat rape riqster Dec 2012 #8
That is a false equivalency, and your comment is completely idiotic. Those 2 are nothing alike... dorksied Dec 2012 #9
Not at all riqster Dec 2012 #19
Rape is always a crime, there are however responsible ar-15 owners. GoingUnder Dec 2012 #52
Das ding an sich is a weak argument riqster Dec 2012 #69
Not helpful. nt Chorophyll Dec 2012 #12
No, but it's like saying it's too late to combat penises because there are too many penises Recursion Dec 2012 #28
No, it's not too late. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #13
I really hate guns. I just think that what you're talking about is utterly doomed to failure. dorksied Dec 2012 #22
Well, you feel the way you feel, and that's okay. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #36
Never too late. Forget the brain washing of what "can't be done". jmg257 Dec 2012 #15
That is a fantasy. Gun owners would cling to their guns despite sever punishments, they'd just hide dorksied Dec 2012 #20
Why are house to house sweeps for guns bad while the same for drugs is OK? Fumesucker Dec 2012 #21
Neither are OK. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #37
Nobody has been to my house sweeping for drugs. GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #54
So as long as it's not your door that's getting kicked in you don't care Fumesucker Dec 2012 #61
No, I was pointing out that we have NOT been doing sweeps for MJ. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #64
Fantasy? Not really. Cling to them - hord them. jmg257 Dec 2012 #26
You could ban guns outright... sendero Dec 2012 #18
It works in Japan, they've had a year with *two* gun deaths. Fumesucker Dec 2012 #24
Japan didn't start.... sendero Dec 2012 #29
Well once again the debate comes down to right of center moderates versus right wing nutjobs Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
And they started from a totally clean slate sir pball Dec 2012 #39
We have no problem with a war against a common weed that's completely non poisonous Fumesucker Dec 2012 #40
That's not the kind of war we're talking about sir pball Dec 2012 #41
We make war more than anyone else on the damn planet by orders of magnitude Fumesucker Dec 2012 #45
And the war on MJ is completely ineffective. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #55
The difference between pot and guns is that pot does grow on trees (well, bushes anyway) Fumesucker Dec 2012 #59
IMO the best solution is to require insurance for each gun owned. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #23
I've been advocating this same idea to friends of mine. dorksied Dec 2012 #25
I think... sendero Dec 2012 #31
Never too late to start saving lives. Iggo Dec 2012 #27
It worked in Australia. I don't know why it couldn't have the same success here peacebird Dec 2012 #30
Let's do nothing for another decade and we'll have another 100 million of damn things to deal with. Hoyt Dec 2012 #32
It is not too late creon Dec 2012 #33
I think we could solve the whole problem and not take away anybody's guns this way ... Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #35
No it's not too "fucking late" READ THIS Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38
I read it. I agree with most of it. But as tired of the hand wringing as you are, I'm tired of dorksied Dec 2012 #46
no. spanone Dec 2012 #42
Too late to control guns. Not too late to control bullets. mainer Dec 2012 #43
A friend of mine re uses his shells. That wouldn't work, unless you're also talking about dorksied Dec 2012 #47
You will never see a complete ban though there are many who would welcome one Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #44
Think about the mindset of someone who is buying something that may get banned. GoingUnder Dec 2012 #48
Gun buy backs. Or send jack booted ATF thugs door to door. Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #50
Gun owners vote. And there are about 80 million of them. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #56
Yep. And they lost. jeff47 Dec 2012 #65
And Im sure criminals will line up to turn in their guns davidn3600 Dec 2012 #57
It's icky seeing pro gun boilerplate in DU forums Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #62
They don't have to - illegal guns don't last long jeff47 Dec 2012 #66
it means we go about gun control in that context 0rganism Dec 2012 #58
Make some examples of illegal gun-toters mwrguy Dec 2012 #63
There are reasonable steps that can be made regarding guns, mental illness, school safety etc. Jennicut Dec 2012 #67
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A serious question about ...»Reply #58