Legal or Illegal people can get guns what if one state has strict gun laws? you just go drive to another state what about the gang members and carter members? you going to regulate them too Warren G? @Reeko @Os Trigonum
Just follow it - enforce the "Well Regulated" portion of it.....and regulate it. 1. Regulate Assault style weapons 2. Limit magazines 3. No Bump Stocks 4. License all guns - renewable every year. 5. No mentally ill people can own a gun 6. 2 week background checks - no gun show sales DD
Currently, it's a PITA to purchase and own a suppressor (silencer) or an SBR (short barreled rifle). $200 tax stamp, a waiting period that often exceeds a year, lots of paperwork, fingerprints and a more arduous process than buying a normal firearm. If you've ever fired a gun with a "silencer," you'd know it's NOT like the movies. Especially with supersonic ammo (the overwhelming vast majority of ammo). It's still loud as hell, but safer for your hearing. I don't understand the stance against SBR's. Most non-gun people have no idea they even exist, and people get around the restriction by having a "brace" instead of a rifle stock and calling the firearm a pistol. THIS is a pistol: My "reasonable" gun laws would throw a bone to both the right and left. Get rid of the federal tax stamp laws for suppressors and SBR's. Hell, ENCOURAGE suppressor sales as they are safer for shooters' hearing. Instead of applying the tax stamp rules to the current NFA items suppressors and SBR's, apply them to detachable magazines of more than five rounds. You can own all the "assault weapons" you want (I use quotes because assault weapon is a "made up" term with no real defining characteristics), but if you want a higher capacity magazine than five rounds, you need to go through the current process for NFA items to own them. Allow current tax stamp holders to transfer their tax stamps from suppressors and SBR's to higher capacity magazines. This idea would require that detachable magazines of over 5 rounds be serialized, but i don't see any gun or magazine manufactures complaining about having to manufacture and sell new magazines. Could be a trade in program for older non-serialized mags to the new style.
I don't think we are able to or even should try to seriously reduce the amount of fire arms out there. I think things like "assault weapons bans" are problematic because they are based primarily on appearance. What we do need is better ways of tracking firearms and firearms purchases. I think any transfer of firearms through sales or even gifts need to be documented. Yes this would mean a national registration but there is nothing unconstitutional about registration of firearms. Even without a national registration people illegally obtaining firearms should be more heavily prosecuted along with obtaining things like ghost guns. Homemade firearms should be outlawed. I think liability insurance for firearm owners should be required. That liability would also cover minor family members who use firearms in their family. We need better tracking of mental health and other records. Someone like Aurora, CO and V-Tech shooters should've never been able to legally bought firearms. We also need stronger red flag laws as in many cases of shootings there are warning signs that family members and others are aware of.
Sign me up for all of this. Although one has to wonder how these shootings keep happening despite the warning signs. It seems like the background check/red flag laws are all very ineffective and I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was because of some combination of conservative manufactured government incompetence. Despite all of the fairly low hanging fruit gun laws and regs and programs we are missing out on, to me the problem is reflective of our dysfunctional government system, which creates negative outcomes for society. Happy, healthy people with abundant upward mobility don't shoot other people. Despondent, disaffected people with no path to a better life shoot people.
red flag laws might work, but the civil liberties, privacy, and mental health reporting issues are so numerous that I doubt you'll ever see such laws make a dent in the frequency of these kinds of shootings
Yeah, it's a nearly impossible line to walk (forget about the logistics) that doesn't tip over into civil liberties violation. I think criminal conviction is the one area (violent crimes) where I think you could have consensus. Flagging you ineligible for gun ownership due to having some kind of mental or emotional problem and seeking help would only discourage people from seeking that help in the first place.
I agree. Unless the USA do what Australia did decades ago - and which will sadly never happen in the USA - we will keep seeing horrible reports of yet another mass shooting. This might confuse some people who think I am hardcore right, but on this one, I am very European. The rest of the world looks at the USA and just cannot believe the attitude towards guns.
Let's sell insurance to them, so we can get a Universal Healthcare program and all those insurance folks can slide over to gun insurance, where there are more guns than people......should work great. DD
this kid decapitated a cat https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/alleg...endron-once-beheaded-cat-journal-entry-shows/ Alleged Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron once beheaded a cat, journal entry shows
It's always funny to see a right-wing European meet a right-wing American. Even the most conservative European is like "you're tellin me yall don't have universal healthcare and there are guns falling out of the sky?"
That might be true but happy people can be careless and negligent. Far too many children accidently shoot their siblings or commit suicide because they got their hands on their parents' gun that was left out and loaded. You don't need to be responsible or pass an IQ test to own a gun. Heck, many states don't even require safety training.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that you can buy a gun and carry it without even knowing how to use it. That's so dangerous. Why would anyone be against a firearm safety class and a written and practical test to demonstrate basic knowledge before carrying around something that can kill people. It's like giving anyone legal permission to go drive a semi on a highway without ever getting behind the wheel of one. 32 States Let People Carry Guns Without Learning How to Shoot One https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/
The Buffalo Massacre Illustrates the Inherent Limitations of 'Red Flag' Laws Predicting violence is a lot harder than people claim in retrospect, and a wider net inevitably ensnares more innocent people. https://reason.com/2022/05/18/the-b...es-the-inherent-limitations-of-red-flag-laws/ too long to quote in its entirety
related: Former Truck Driver Who Upset New Jersey Senate President Introduces Bills to Expand Gun Rights https://www.nationalreview.com/news...sident-introduces-bills-to-expand-gun-rights/ excerpt: Durr, a truck driver who shook up the state’s politics last year when he defeated longtime Senate President Steve Sweeney after spending just $15o on his campaign, announced plans last week to introduce a 15-bill package “to advance safe, responsible firearm ownership for law abiding citizens.” One of the proposals would see New Jersey pay $1 million for high school students to launch gun clubs and for schools to teach about gun safety. more at the link
It sounded good until I read the part where he also proposed a bill that would eliminate a state measure that restricts ammunition magazines to ten rounds. The measure would decriminalize the use of large-capacity magazines and remove several firearms from the state’s list of firearms that are considered assault weapons, including semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.
more unrealistic nonsense that just wastes time and energy in an attempt to look busy Senate Democrats propose DOJ license requirement for gun purchases https://thehill.com/news/senate/349...se-doj-license-requirement-for-gun-purchases/
Accountability. Hold gun sellers accountable via lawsuits (Thanks, Texas!). This would increase the barrier to entry to sell guns professionally because a professional gun seller would need to be insured/bonded. This would raise prices and make guns a less viable avenue. For private sellers, once there are several debilitating lawsuits, people would be much more discerning when selling guns to each other.
I foresee that most of the reasonable measures proposed here would be tossed out by the Supreme Court if they were actually enacted. All of these things put encumbrances on gun ownership that would result in some people on the margin who want guns not being able to have one. SCOTUS won't stand for it. So why bother? It'll be much more effective to engage in some dirty politicking to engineer a friendly Court that can suddenly find that a right you've had all your life suddenly doesn't exist anymore and the government can pass whatever law it likes to tell you what you can and cannot do.
The problem with reform is that incremental and "reasonable" progress in legislation has been stifled with charges of a Slippery Slope to outright banning. So instead of confinement of successive gun control laws towards a well regulated militia, you get one gun law, b****fest of that law, and decades of trench warfare to preserve that law. When that blows up, we start big all over again.
