Starker on 26/1/2018 at 16:57
This is why a gun license makes sense -- if you need a gun suitable for hunting, then you apply for a gun suitable for hunting, etc. Also, that way people would have to pay attention to how they are keeping their guns, as getting a new gun is not a simple matter of walking down to the store and buying one.
And reducing the number of guns available to people is not necessarily to make it more difficult for terrorists and mass shooters. The idea is to make guns have a status more than just a commodity or an ordinary tool.
I wager these would also reduce accidents, as there would be less chance of weapons lying around where kids, thieves, etc can reach them, if people would have to treat their guns responsibly.
heywood on 26/1/2018 at 17:53
I'm OK with gun owner licensing under two conditions:
1. Licensing has to be "shall issue". That means that as long as an individual meets the statutory requirements for obtaining a license, they are granted a license. They don't have to provide a justification, and no discretion is involved. We'll sort out what factors might disqualify someone from owning a firearm through legislation, and if necessary the Constitutionality of the legislation will be tested in courts.
2. If licenses are to be granted by the states, they should be reciprocally honored by other states. So hypothetically speaking, if I was issued a firearm license in Vermont, and I travel with a gun across the border into New York, I should be treated the same as if I had been issued a license by New York.
I don't think that limiting the number of guns you can own will have any appreciable effect on the rate of gun deaths. In my experience, the people I know who own a lot of guns are the best stewards of their guns. They tend to be serious about their shooting or hunting hobby, they're responsible, and they have a lot of money invested in their guns so they don't want them stolen or damaged. The people I worry about are the ones who own a single handgun for personal protection and keep it loaded in their bedside drawer.
catbarf on 26/1/2018 at 19:01
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, that way people would have to pay attention to how they are keeping their guns(...)
I wager these would also reduce accidents, as there would be less chance of weapons lying around where kids, thieves, etc can reach them, if people would have to treat their guns responsibly.
For that I favor the direct solution of implementing greater liability for stolen firearms, possibly but not necessarily including safe storage laws. Tocky brought up the (valid) point that safe storage often precludes quick access, but with biometric safes becoming cheap it's pretty easy to store a weapon in a manner such that you can retrieve it with a fingerprint or, if the batteries fail, with a key. I haven't spoken too much with other gun owners to gauge whether that would be acceptable, but I think at the very least, having some liability for firearms which are stolen as a direct consequence of their not being properly secured makes sense.
At the moment you can carelessly leave a gun in plain sight in your car, have it stolen and used to kill someone, and not only face no repercussions, but get your gun back if the police seize it. Change that and maybe people will stop being so stupid about them.
Quote Posted by Starker
The idea is to make guns have a status more than just a commodity or an ordinary tool.
Just to make sure I understand- do you just mean something along the lines of 'people should treat guns more seriously and responsibly than they treat screwdrivers and other tools', or something else?
caffeinatedzombeh on 26/1/2018 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Nicker
It's not about it being black and scary looking, it's about the ability of certain firearm designs and modifications to deliver more lead into more bodies faster than others. Faster, might I suggest, than any sane person in a civilised society should reasonable require.
That was my point, yes. Perhaps I shouldn't take the piss in a somewhat serious thread?
My understanding of previous attempts to control gun ownership and use in the USA was that it could be reasonably accurately summerised by the pictures in catbarf's post above. There's a bit more to it than that obviously and being 5000 miles away from it my knowledge on the details of it is approximately none at all but I think a situation where you can have two different but functionally versions of the same gun and the one that's banned is the one that looks "scary" is something worth mocking.
Quote:
And here we are again with the gun enthusiasts refusing to contribute anything meaningful to a discussion about public safety, because Muh Gunz!
I think you must have me confused with someone else, I'm not a gun enthusiast so much as opposed to banning things for the sake of being seen to do something.
Were sufficient number of people to vote for Steve's Mostly Benevolent Dictatorship the US would get gun regulation roughly equivalent to the licensing of shotgun ownership in the UK (specifically England/Wales, firearms is one of the areas that the UK isn't entirely U).
If you want one you fill in a form that says who you are, what you want, that you're not a dangerous lunatic and you promise to keep it safe. The local firearms officer comes round and checks you've got somewhere safe to keep it and that you understand the responsibilities that come with gun ownership and then you get your licence and you can buy your gun(s).
I think the restrictions on what you can own here are excessive but I do agree with the general principles if not the specific details.
Starker on 26/1/2018 at 21:58
Quote Posted by heywood
I don't think that limiting the number of guns you can own will have any appreciable effect on the rate of gun deaths. In my experience, the people I know who own a lot of guns are the best stewards of their guns. They tend to be serious about their shooting or hunting hobby, they're responsible, and they have a lot of money invested in their guns so they don't want them stolen or damaged. The people I worry about are the ones who own a single handgun for personal protection and keep it loaded in their bedside drawer.
I'm sure the people you know are all upstanding citizens, but I'm sure there are also just as many who would keep a gun in their car and all kinds of unsafe places. The people I would worry about are the ones who lose a gun and then just go on and buy another without even reporting it lost or stolen.
Also, if there's no effort to limit guns, the amount of guns will only keep increasing, as they are not exactly easily perishable goods. And that means the guns might not stay in the hands of responsible owners.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Just to make sure I understand- do you just mean something along the lines of 'people should treat guns more seriously and responsibly than they treat screwdrivers and other tools', or something else?
Yes, not like it's a toy. For example, I've heard that some people shoot firearms in the air at New Year's and on the Independence Day, which just boggles my mind.
Trance on 26/1/2018 at 22:05
Quote Posted by Starker
Yes, not like it's a toy. For example, I've heard some people shoot firearms in the air at New Year's and on the Independence Day, which just boggles my mind.
Can semi-confirm this. The neighbors across the street from me have handguns and an AR-15 that they take out to pour some rounds into a big oak tree in their front yard. Quite solidly illegal, but police are so busy responding to all the other idiots in my city on those nights that my neighbors are done having their fun by the time a cruiser rolls up.
st.patrick on 26/1/2018 at 23:35
Minor nitpick: they are not 'pretty much the same gun'. They resemble each other visually and they have the same caliber, as they were both designed around the 7.62x39 mm cartridge, but that's it. You can't swap the magazines.
Medlar on 17/2/2018 at 12:47
This reflects my feelings in light of the latest atrocity in the USA
[video=youtube_share;KkH3mJnloO0]https://youtu.be/KkH3mJnloO0[/video]
SubJeff on 17/2/2018 at 14:39
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
ffox on 17/2/2018 at 15:17
(
http://newsthump.com/) News Thump, a spoof news site has a couple of takes on this:
Quote:
Authorities say Nikolas Cruz killed at least 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida, but would not have been able to do so if more schoolgoers had been armed. NRA spokesperson Wayne LaPierre said that those in the school would have been unharmed had some inside just opened fire first.
"The Liberal media would have you believe that we should try and prevent our children from defending themselves using guns, landmines and grenades,” said a White House spokesperson. "We’ve worked incredibly hard with to make it incredibly straightforward to get a gun, so more people should take advantage of their availability."
And from another angle:
Quote:
Some people will make knee-jerk assumptions on why this tragic event occurred for political purposes, but I would ask you all not to lose sight of the fact that these children were gathered in a convenient place of learning. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and now Parkland Florida. Education is at the root of all these tragedies.
High-powered assault rifles don’t kill children, schools do.
