Life isn't the Movies. When was the last time we had a HEAT style shoot out By time we hear about a shootout it is over I wonder how many hostage standoffs do HPD have a year Johnny on the Spot at the church still was too late for 25+ souls I will admit . .. I have thought of buying a gun every year . . .. but I just have a hard time justifying the expense While some here will think different . .. I'm just not someone that people want to kill I am poor broke and don't be in sketchy places. *grin* I take some precautions but . . . overall . . .. I'm old and settled Not out there in dem dere streets like I use to . .. . . I could be a victim of crime but it would be nothing more than random chance . . . .and a gun could not mitigate that Rocket River
I am not looking for gun control. That will never happen. But there is a value to gun safety. License - background checks - license - safety test Responsible gun owners should be want this because it helps protect them from being associated with nut-cases
Who can be oppose to police having the ability to track and trace bullets back to their owners? And why? Rocket River
The NRA must protect people from having the bullets they shoot into people traced back to them ya know. Can't have people digging bullets out of children's heads and tracing it back to someone.
I am a very big proponent of licenses with required safety courses. 2nd amendment gives citizens a right to own firearms but it does not give them a right to be irresponsible or ignorant. There is not a solid argument against this. Whether you're one who shoots for sport, for personal defense or if you believe its stops tyrants or foreign invaders, a person should know basic gun safety and how to use their firearm. We have enough gun laws on the books. Vast majority of shootings happen from people who could obtain the weapons even with more strict laws or just get them from illegal means....thats not saying we can't improve our laws. The problem with our gun culture is that we are too lackadaisical.
I think there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there who take great care not to use a gun in a way that might lead to harm. Those are the people I don't mind having guns. That said, I still don't understand why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle.
It occurred to me how ridiculous and short sighted the assault weapons ban movement has become. I have stated my opinion on this multiple times. Instead of trying to ban 'assault weapons', which has a good chance of happening, why not find a median compromise that makes better sense. Basically banning assault weapons would place them under Title II weapons(fully automatics and other restrictive weapons), which heavily restricts ownership. The ban probably would not lead to confiscation or restriction of ownership, which does not address the massive amounts assault weapons on the street. Instead, create a new class of weapons the assault weapons would fall under that requires a basic permit, very similar to the conceal carry permits. This permit could be simple and not very restrictive such as: -A small yearly fee to renew -Background check -Classes required every 3 years or so -Age restrictions Additional caveats/stamps/allowances (whatever you want to call them) that grant additional benefits. These of course would require additional fees or proof of competence or whatever fits the requirement: -Conceal carry -Allowance to monitor and supervise a limited number of other non-permit holders (such as family/friends) -Allowance to buy/sell/trade between other permit holders w/out background checks (restrictions of course apply) -A time period would require existing owners to comply, like 5 years. This would be a federal permit and would supersede state laws. IE: States can't make the permit more or less restrictive (by ownership, not use). States of course would have the right to dictate use. To clarify, this would only cover: -'assault weapons'. Semi-automatics and hand guns would not fall under this. -Other Title II weapons could be downgraded if seen fit (like sawed off shot guns) -Absolutely no gun registration Why gun haters should go for this: This allows for a federal permit system that can be better regulated. Banning certain weapons will not fix any problems. This allows a platform for better restriction in the future, which can later include all semi-automatic weapons. Why gun enthusiasts should go for this: Bans and restrictions are coming, like it or not. More and more states will start implementing super restrictive requirements. Get ahead of the game and help get guns out of the wrong hands. It stops super restrictive states stifling gun ownership rights. It allows intrastate use. (like you dont have to worry about getting a felony for driving through New Jersey because of some stupid bullshit law).
The nra and other crazies would laugh at your proposal space ghost and they seem pretty reasonable. I like them especially the age restriction.
I don't think it really does though. Right now there's a ton of noise simply because Democrats don't have an effective wedge issue for the upcoming midterms and they are hoping this will become it, but aside from the knee jerk polls that come out immediately after a tragedy, Americans don't generally support gun bans. The emotion of events like the school shooting in Florida quickly wears off and people revert back to actually thinking again and when they weigh the options with the facts, they tend to not support ineffective gun bans. What ends up happening every time there is a knee jerk attempt at gun bans is that groups like the NRA end up seeing a ton of new members and gun sales spike.
As a preface, I own a number of firearms. The Second Amendment isn't going to be repealed in our lifetime and I think it is a frivolous exercise to push for it. The majority of Americans would not support it either. It would result in years of violence between gun holders and the government. As far as the problems we are facing, I think there are a number of angles that need to be considered. First there are a lot of guns inside the USA, a conservative estimate is 250 million guns, but the A2K shows that there could be as many as 400-600 million. For effect, consider that there are roughly 250 million Americans over the age of 18 in the USA. Accordingly there are more guns that adults in the USA, and possibly way more guns than adults in the USA. Estimates are that less than 1/3 of adult Americans own guns. So those that do own guns typically own 3-6 guns. So what is the relevance of this? I am not entirely sure to be honest, but it is a shocking number and I wonder if reflects the fact that it is too easy to get a gun in the USA. To further illustrate the point, 3% of Americans own half the guns in the USA. My suggestion would be to have a program similar to that in Canada. Guns are still available in Canada, but they require different levels of back ground check, the waiting period to get guns is longer and there are mechanisms that allow people to go into court and have a hearing when someone with a gun is viewed as dangerous. Classes and certification need to be mandatory. Second, the gun show loop hole needs to be closed. Guns need to be dealt and sold through licensed and verified dealers only. Similar to establishments having a liquor license. I hear a lot about AR-15's being the problem. I don't think it is a black and white issue. Other weapons are capable of doing tremendous damage as well. I think a compromise is to have a higher level of scrutiny for certain classes of firearms. Last, the cost of implementing all of this need to be paid for by those that choose to buy/manufacture guns.
Perhaps I am missing something... how does this address the problem. How does this inexpensive permit (apparently voluntary in nature, w/o background check). How does this restrict ownership and lessen the use of such weapons to reduce shooting deaths and injuries?
I stipulated a background check would be required. The permit would be to own an 'assault rifle'. Again, this is the alternative to an assault weapons ban. An assault weapons ban will not lead to confiscation. That is simply not going to happen. What will happen is everyone will be grandfathered in. Those who don't have one will go out and buy them so they will be grandfathered in, thus creating a mass influx of more guns on the street. And with no gun registration and the massive amounts of guns on the street, it makes an assault weapons ban pretty pointless, as if its not pointless enough before. What this does is pave a road for better gun control. As I said before, an assault weapons ban pretty much guarantees no further gun control measures for another decade or two. One of the biggest problems we have is America has no gun ownership responsibility. If you're not a criminal, you can own a gun. And as we have seen, nearly every mass shooting has been from someone who can legally purchase a gun. What this does is place some responsibility on gun owners. If you want to own an assault weapon, pay your yearly fee. Take a course every three years. Demonstrate responsibility. It beats the alternative in which gun owners have no responsibility currently. This will lead to less people wanting to own guns.
I would be more inclined to go along with this with more details on the background check, using national standards. For example, reversal of trump's allowing people with mental health issues to be able to purchase weapons. I'd also require a waiting period of sufficient length to adequately check a national registry and to also allow for a "cooling off period". The FBI says 25 days are currently needed. If such a national registry can speed that time, great, it can be lessened. But I'd go with law enforcement's recommendations. I'd also have to learn more about the definition of "assault rifle". last, I'd have to see some tightening of who can sell weapons and how those sales are tracked. Point of sale and distribution channels cannot be allowed to be the dodge around safe gun ownership. Last, training should be often enough to weed out people that no longer qualify to pass background checks. Should also include mandatory gun security (safes, trigger locks) to reduce the number of accidental shooting and crimes with stolen weapons. Once this "compromise" passes, the government should monitor the effect on gun shootings/deaths/injuries. If this doesn't work... the next step needs to be increased gun restrictions (including "assault rifle" bans).
We really don't have a gun show loop hole. What we have is the lack of enforcement of existing laws that constitutes a dealer. I will admit its a hard law to back up. However the reality is, if you're selling a gun at a gun show, you are dealing guns and should be treated as such. There needs to be serious punishment for people who break this law. If you have sold more than X amount of guns, it must go through a FFL.
Perhaps you can help folks understand why the "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole at all, or isn't a problem, or what public benefit is satsified by allowing guns to be sold through this channel? PolitiFact Sheet: 3 things to know about the 'gun show loophole' http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/ Gun Show Loophole FAQ https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
No, what needs to happen is that guns need to be sold only by heavily regulated gun stores. Records need to be well kept and periodically reviewed to ensure they are being well kept, if they are not well kept them they should lose their right to sell firearms. I agree that the "gun show loophole" should be called the "private sell loophole" as others have said, I just used the term because that is the commonly coined term.
I'm not specifically familiar, but lack of enforcement indicates to me they didn't write the laws well.
Its going to happen. AR-15 shootings are increasing compared to before it was mostly handguns. There is a tipping point and we are starting to edge towards it. If gun owners/enthusiasts do not start compromising, they are going to start to lose massive amounts of rights.
