LET'S BAN GUNS!

[Smitty-48]

If the person goes in knowing he's going to die, then death penalty laws aren't going to deter him. I would be for it anyways as a way to deter the ones who plan on getting away with murder and living on.

There's still a lot of misinformation flying about, but it sounds like hie wife or girlfriend knew about his plans. usually others close to these shooters have an idea of what is going down. Find ways to get these "accomplices" convicted with some harsher penalties and maybe you'd have someone rat him out before he can carry out his plan.

So, basically taking the model of the War on Drugs, and applying that to a War on Guns, sounds great, what could posssibly go wrong?

[DBTrek]

And TC, just because someone changes their stance doesn't mean they were browbeaten. If you aren't going to at least respect my opinion, then don't expect to get it back in the future.

Some opinions aren't respectable.
Do you respect Nukedog's opinions on black people? I don't.
Nor do I respect your opinion that if we just squeeze the law-abiding gun owners a little harder, if we just restrict their freedom a little more, THEN you'll sleep better at night.
Nope.
Not respectable opinions.
Harmful opinions that negatively impact others so the opinion holder can feel better about themselves, in both cases.

[The Conservative]

Serious question. Is there any such thing as a reasonable gun control?

I'm curious if some of you have any limits whatsoever?

Age, waiting period, background check?

Any and all comers, without restriction, no ID needed, whatever type of weapon they want? How about missile launchers, for example?

There is a background check, most places don't allow you to go with the gun you purchased without you passing it. I have no issue with background checks, but it should not be up to the sheriff if you pass said background check to not give you a gun license.

In my case here is what I'd want:

Background checks only last a month, if you purchase a second gun after the month is over you need to be re-checked. (This will allow updated statuses to be given to purchasers)

Semi-Auto weapons are legal, Any weapon that requires more than one person to carry ammo or utilize should not be able to be purchased by the average user. Those would require collector licenses. (Rocket Launchers, mortars, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc.

Any gun user must pass a firearm safety class before being able to purchase ammo. (You can purchase a gun, just not the ammo, not till you show you know how to handle a gun, and done so in a certified class.

For those that can make their own bullets (like me) need to have a way to keep track of said ammo. So that if it's used in an illegal act, they can be traced back to its creator. Either by serial numbering the casings in some way that can't be removed, or each one that is stamped is trackable. You would also need a separate license for the presses.

(That's on the top of my head) I have more but I'm working.

[PartyOf5]

Harmful opinions that negatively impact others so the opinion holder can feel better about themselves, in both cases.

It goes both ways. Your opinions on gun ownership just negatively impacted a couple hundred people in Las Vegas, so f*ck you.

[The Conservative]

The rest of you go into 'roid rage at the very mention of even discussing what could be done to prevent or limit attacks like the one in Las Vegas.

It's a lone wolf suicide attack, operationally, there's literally nothing you can do to stop that sort of thing, it's a one off, it's a black swan event, what could you really do? You could assemble the arsenal which that guy assembled, in Canada, with the very gun control laws that the most left wing of left wing Americans advocate for, we got all the laws, and we've had two mass shootings, with guys packing more firepower than that guy was shooting at the crowd with there, we had one mass shooter with an HK91, and another with an M14, and all the gun laws in Canada, didn't make a lick of difference, lone wolf suicide attack, is not subject to the law, it's not even subject to operations, and if you can acquire an HK91 and an M14 in Canada, then what realistically could you legislate to prevent that, in America, where the gun is king?

The gun is not king here, gun control is king, but it's a crown of paper, doesn't actually stop bullets when the lone wolf opens fire, black swan event.

That was actually my quote, not TCs.

If the person goes in knowing he's going to die, then death penalty laws aren't going to deter him. I would be for it anyways as a way to deter the ones who plan on getting away with murder and living on.

There's still a lot of misinformation flying about, but it sounds like hie wife or girlfriend knew about his plans. usually others close to these shooters have an idea of what is going down. Find ways to get these "accomplices" convicted with some harsher penalties and maybe you'd have someone rat him out before he can carry out his plan.

And TC, just because someone changes their stance doesn't mean they were browbeaten. If you aren't going to at least respect my opinion, then don't expect to get it back in the future.

Changing their stance because of FB is not a good reason, that is the ultimate copout of peer pressure.

[K@th]

It's only reasonable if it actually works to the stated purpose that the advocates are invoking, so we have all the laws which the gun control loonies in America want, and many more beyond even what they could reasonably hope for, and it still wouldn't have stopped that mass shooting, lone wolf suicide attack, so the reality is, it's security theater, which, no, that's not actually reasoned, that's all feelz.

So your answer is no, no restrictions.

A 12 year old can stop by the gun shop on his way to school and grab an automatic rifle. That's okay?

I'm asking a serious question.

Note - my question isn't about what's already in place. I'm asking if you had your Nirvana, are there ANY gun restriction laws you believe should stay on the books?

[PartyOf5]

Changing their stance because of FB is not a good reason, that is the ultimate copout of peer pressure.

I already said I don't use FB.

[K@th]

There is a background check, most places don't allow you to go with the gun you purchased without you passing it. I have no issue with background checks, but it should not be up to the sheriff if you pass said background check to not give you a gun license.

In my case here is what I'd want:

Background checks only last a month, if you purchase a second gun after the month is over you need to be re-checked. (This will allow updated statuses to be given to purchasers)

Semi-Auto weapons are legal, Any weapon that requires more than one person to carry ammo or utilize should not be able to be purchased by the average user. Those would require collector licenses. (Rocket Launchers, mortars, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc.

Any gun user must pass a firearm safety class before being able to purchase ammo. (You can purchase a gun, just not the ammo, not till you show you know how to handle a gun, and done so in a certified class.

For those that can make their own bullets (like me) need to have a way to keep track of said ammo. So that if it's used in an illegal act, they can be traced back to its creator. Either by serial numbering the casings in some way that can't be removed, or each one that is stamped is trackable. You would also need a separate license for the presses.

(That's on the top of my head) I have more but I'm working.

Well, those seem reasonable. I'd add those with a history of armed violence cannot get a weapon legally.

[DBTrek]

Harmful opinions that negatively impact others so the opinion holder can feel better about themselves, in both cases.

It goes both ways. Your opinions on gun ownership just negatively impacted a couple hundred people in Las Vegas, so f*ck you.

Didn't realized owning guns killed anyone in Vegas.
Here I thought it was using guns to commit homicides that killed people.
Damn.
I see why you're all fired up to attack people who own things.

Hey . . . while we're at it . . . do people own any other things that they use to kill people?

Maybe we should focus our efforts and simply attack private property in general, eh comrade?

[The Conservative]

Changing their stance because of FB is not a good reason, that is the ultimate copout of peer pressure.

I already said I don't use FB.

Actually, you said it as an example of what we say, but ok. Either way, if you are telling me that you are giving into peer pressure because of this BS without knowing the full facts, then please... do give up your man card. I am tired of people saying we need to protect people from themselves.

No, we don't, we need to protect ourselves from criminals, and creating laws to make it harder to do is just playing into the hands of criminals. So please explain to me why I should give away my rights to own an AR-15 when a criminal can get one easy enough with enough money in hand?