Guns : A simple solution

[ZippyDSMlee]

Now with that said I am for throwing out all gun law and creating a set of basic rules.


1.States can not ban the right to own a firearm unless under a felony or a constitutional amendment.States must follow these rules, these rules cover all weapon/firearm permits, licnses or special privileges.

That's not how the Constitution works. States have the rights to pass their own laws, some of which interpret the Constitution differently from other states (but don't violate it). That power is given to the states by the Constitution itself.

3.Some rifles,shotguns or pistols will require joining the firearm registry.

The criteria will need to be specific, observable, and universally applied. What is it about certain rifles/shotguns/pistols that warrants joining the registry?

6.The firearm registry may do a full background check, physical health check and a mental health check that focuses on outgoing emotional issues uncontrolled or random violent issues, one can appeal this process but good luck telling a judge that....

Probable cause is still a factor. That kind of background check, for the purpose of determining criminal activity, is considered a "search." So this could be done at registration, but not afterward without probable cause.

7.All extended and or advanced firearm or weapon accessories fall under advanced permit and firearm registry.

See above -- each item must have specific guidelines. Blanket "all accessories" kind of language won't fly.

8.All gun sells must be processed though the firearm registry.(if one can do it with credit I see no reason why one can not do it with firearms)

This will be an issue of enforcement. It'll require more than a 1% tax to cover the establishment of what is basically a DMV for firearms.

10.Under a permit/license suspension or permanent ban one may still own the item the permit covers but it can not be kept on or near the owners property or the owner or the owners intimidate friends or family, under a permanent ban you have 6 months to sell off the items covered under the permit/license. It would be nice if ranges and gun shops offer cheap weapon storage.

If someone is guilty of an infraction that warrants the permanent removal of gun privileges, they should not be given six months. That'd be like saying, "You're going to jail, so we'll give you another three months of freedom to get your stuff ready." Permanent bans? Confiscate immediately. We could debate whether or not financial reimbursement is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

11.One may get a temporary moving permit (up to 90 days) to move a firearm or advance weapon from one location to another. Items must be unloaded, locked and locked within a metal container inside the vehicle.

Requiring the unloaded/locked is already pretty much there. Metal case? That's a bit superfluous. But mostly, getting a permit to move the weapon is ridiculous. Change of ownership? Sure, I can see that. Moving to a new location? No -- it's registered to YOU, not to an address.

Not really making blanket statements just giving an ideal of how things should work in the real world trying to limit the trouble caused by overreaching local rules and mindsets.

The trouble is under some states moving a firearm(specifically pistols) without a carry permit can get you a fine or worse.

There are other things that are only barely protected and some not so much, also the Constitution has been sold to the highest bidder so it matters more we have rules and law that seek and enforce basic protections for the individual that can not be easily fudged with by our out corporate sponsors in office otherwise we are pretty much doomed. Even tho we are already pretty much doomed.

 

[Guybythestreet]

The problem with these threads is that the United States has a bad case of denial. So no matter how many facts, reasonable arguments and good ideas people put out, there's always the "you can take mah gu-uhns! Jesus said I could have gu-uhns! The constitution said I could have gu-uhns! (Actually it doesn't. It says members of a militia have the right to bear arms, but civilians outside of a milita... got left out). So it all comes down to trying to argue logically with crazy people and you just can't reason with crazy.

I'm of the mind that, as a country, the US should just "shit or get off the pot". Either acquit this "Joker" guy, because it is his right as an American to kill people in his vicinity if he feels the need, and quit bitching or grow up and realize there is a problem. The problem doesn't have to be solved with all out bans or drastic measures. Other countries (well civilized countries, but chin up "Umerica" you can at least try) have restricted firearms with decent success by using amnesty days (bring you illegal firearm in to the police, no question asked) and other means of legally disposing of weapons that have become restricted.

(I'm anti-gun control)

When you look through these gun control threads you see that the people anti gun control will cite all kinds of facts and then of course also argue about self defense.

When you see pro gun control posts the vast majority of them say "GET RID OF GUNS CUZ GUNS CAUSE GUN CRIME", gun crime isn't worse than any other kind of crime. I don't see gun crime being worse than the crazy amount of car accidents, or worse than being stabbed, crippled, etc. And yes, NO SHIT no guns means no gun crime, but that doesn't mean no death. We can look to England where after gun control was implemented violent crime RATES went up.

On the matter of rates to all the people, both pro gun and anti gun control citing some flat number about gun deaths or gun crime really doesn't mean anything. Lets say we have two imaginary countries A and B. You don't know the exact (or approximate) population either country (You probably didn't bother to do any research before making up garbage arguments). In country A has no gun control and there are 70,000 gun related deaths per year. Country B has gun control and has 30,000 gun related deaths per year. O HAY CLEARLY GUN CONTROL WORKS. Ok and what if country has a population of 10 million while country B has a population of 200,000. And maybe, you are right, Maybe A has 500,000 people while B has 800,000 people. THE POINT IS THAT FLAT NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. Give me a statistic(hopefully accurate, and even better, a link to a credible source) and I am MUCH more willing to agree with your points.

Furthermore, you shouldn't just limit rights because "oh hey you don't need those rights so lets just take them away because someone might do something dangerous". Prove that those rights are causing so much harm that they need to be limited.

Also, IF YOU AREN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT AMERICAN LAWS. Jesus Christ, if you don't live in America or aren't an American citizen then what makes you think we should consider your opinion on how we govern ourselves. (Just to all those people who aren't Americans or living in America and post like its their god damned business). Oh what, are you going to vote for someone that sanctions America until they raise their gun control. As far as I'm aware (and I might be shooting myself in the foot here) America is the only country that tells other countries what to do under the guise of Justice, Freedom and Democracy.

And lastly, to jump into the baseless name calling, the guy I quoted is an asshat. "OH HUR LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DANGEROUS THINGS MEANS YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO KILL EACH OTHER"

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm - yes the site is anti-gun control but they have sources so don't judge unless you hate on their sources

 

[Malyc]

I have a theory that will end all the arguments for or against gun control: STOP MAKING THREADS ABOUT IT!!!

 

[omega 616]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

OK, again, this isn't Hollywood! A guy who threatens you with a knife is going to be in stabbing distance (even the most dense muggers isn't going to try to stab you from 10 meters away), so what do you think you are going to do? Whip out your gun, aim and fire before he stabs you? I doubt you would even touch your gun!

Also in a country where you can get a gun with a loaf and a 12 pack, why would you be mugged by a guy with a knife?

 

[senordesol]

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow up.

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed.

Knives are designed to cut food, baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, fists and feet ... Guns are designed to kill in the quickest way possible. That is the difference, always thought this argument was stupid 'cos sure everything can kill if used wrongly but a gun used correctly kills people!

Are you trying to argue that people who are surrounded by smoke are able to effectively determine who the attacker is in the panic, then accurately shoot the attacker without harming an innocent? This isn't hollywood.

Dose not matter, they are all weapons.
Also cars kill more people yearly than firearms, so going after firearms is disingenuous.

That is not the point, humans like to believe we are some civilized race but we think it's perfectly okay to make and carry things that's only reason for being is to kill? We aren't even half way to civilized 'cos it's not like we are only carrying guns in war zones, we are carrying them to the super market ...

You're right. We're not even halfway to civilized. I mean, people still think it's a good idea to take a knife and threaten to stab people if they don't give up all of they money they were on the way to the supermarket to buy groceries with.

And that's why guns are, at worst, a necessary evil.

OK, again, this isn't Hollywood! A guy who threatens you with a knife is going to be in stabbing distance (even the most dense muggers isn't going to try to stab you from 10 meters away), so what do you think you are going to do? Whip out your gun, aim and fire before he stabs you? I doubt you would even touch your gun!

Also in a country where you can get a gun with a loaf and a 12 pack, why would you be mugged by a guy with a knife?

You could run, gain distance, turn and draw.

You could draw if he gets distracted.

You could try to get something between you and he and then draw.

If he does manage to stab you, that's not necessarily an instant kill; you can draw while the knife's still in.

You could try forcing him back a few steps with a physical maneuver and then draw to provoke a full retreat.

There's several scenarios in which you can gain the upper hand even at an initial disadvantage, hell the greatest stories in any sort of contest of combat start from such a premise.

Plainly, if you're in a situation where a gun can't help you; it doesn't matter if you're carrying or not. But if you're in a situation where a gun CAN help you, it certainly matters if you're carrying or not.

Further, criminals tend not to be the tactical geniuses you make them out to be. They're prone to all types of stupid mistakes and there are plenty of robberies here in America where the assailant chose not to use a firearm.

Like a palm branch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hO8vA0EO7U

A Stick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Also Knives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

 

[mirage202]

Completely avoiding the main topic of gun control, so apologies in advance.

and the majority of Americans are rightfully unwilling accept false promises of safety in exchange for their personal liberties.

I just had to pick up on this part.

What exactly do you consider the Patriot Act, and the 2012 NDAA? I see or hear nothing about Americans rising up in mass protest at the prospect of indefinite military detention just because you said something the Govt doesn't like. (Honestly, anyone that believes the powers that be wouldn't abuse this, or any other method open to them in a heartbeat to suit themselves are incredibly naive, that applies to any Govt, not just in the US)

When the media across the western world seems intent on keeping everyone on the brink of mass hysteria, draconian laws like this slip through while Joe Public drools over the latest episode of Jersey/Geordie Shore, again, where are the mass protests from this supposed majority of unwilling Americans?

Take away my guns? NEVER! Erase the Constitution one section at a time? Eh, who cares? TV!

 

[omega 616]

You could run, gain distance, turn and draw.

You could draw if he gets distracted.

You could try to get something between you and he and then draw.

If he does manage to stab you, that's not necessarily an instant kill; you can draw while the knife's still in.

You could try forcing him back a few steps with a physical maneuver and then draw to provoke a full retreat.

There's several scenarios in which you can gain the upper hand even at an initial disadvantage, hell the greatest stories in any sort of contest of combat start from such a premise.

Plainly, if you're in a situation where a gun can't help you; it doesn't matter if you're carrying or not. But if you're in a situation where a gun CAN help you, it certainly matters if you're carrying or not.

Further, criminals tend not to be the tactical geniuses you make them out to be. They're prone to all types of stupid mistakes and there are plenty of robberies here in America where the assailant chose not to use a firearm.

Like a palm branch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hO8vA0EO7U

A Stick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Also Knives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqoC8ZWnF0

Run? Just hope you're faster?

He could get distracted? Really? "oooh, a shiny!"?

What? "Wait there while I go hide"? Or is this another run tactic?

So he stabs you, you don't grab the wound in pain? Your more manly than me! Even if you shrug off the pain and go for your gun it's still quicker for him to pull the blade out and stab again....then again as you aim.

So body check the guy holding a blade between you and him? Even if you push him away, he is going to react half a second later by stabbing you.

I didn't say they were tactical geniuses, it's just a normal reaction. If you are willing to threaten somebody with something, I am betting they are willing to harm with it.

I have heard some stories of stupid people but the majority aren't that fucking daft.

Also, this isn't Hollywood, so the average idiot thug with a knife isn't exactly going to be pulling off complicated combat maneuvers. Also, he generally doesn't assume that his target is going to be fighting back, figuring that just the existence of the knife is enough of a threat. He's hoping his target will just decide to hand over his money, instead of putting up a fight.

What do you think you are going to do? You take a step backwards as you draw your gun, point it in the general direction of the mugger, and they run away.

Sorry, are you arguing with me or agreeing? 'cos your first paragraph is pro guns and the other is anti gun.

 

[kickassfrog]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

EDIT: Yes, it seems extreme, and should probably be revised for the purpose of not killing innocent civilians.
Also, in answer to one quote, it would be ideal to put the chip somewhere that means dismantling the entire gun to get to. And which goes off when activated. And continues broadcasting when smashed with a hammer.


P.S. I don't really care for guns. Personal forcefields would be an obvious solution, but a bit wishy and sci-fi.

 

[Sami Veillard]

As a conscript, I was made to use, keep and take care of my assault rifle, and I have to say, the only time I ever was scared of a firearm it was a pistol. Long-arms are designed to be engaged at a certain distance, pistols are close range weapons, and those are the weapons that can be decently engaged by civilians against civilians. Handguns are so much more "dangerous" that it ain't funny. And for those that claim a concealed weapon can be effective to prevent an attack on your person, most people who suffer knife wounds don't ever see the blade.

 

[senordesol]

Run? Just hope you're faster?

You don't need to be 'faster' it will take him a moment to react to the sudden motion. You only need to get a few steps and get the weapon out.

He could get distracted? Really? "oooh, a shiny!"?

You don't think getting caught will be concern? Glancing around to make sure there aren't witnesses or hears a noise or starts counting the money in your wallet.

What? "Wait there while I go hide"? Or is this another run tactic?

Partially a run tactic, just getting something between you and him; table, chair, whatever.

So he stabs you, you don't grab the wound in pain? Your more manly than me! Even if you shrug off the pain and go for your gun it's still quicker for him to pull the blade out and stab again....then again as you aim.

In high-stress situations, humans have been known to not notice traumatic -even fatal- injuries. It's part of the fight-or-flight response, you're not going to escape or topple your adversary if you're doubled over in pain.

So body check the guy holding a blade between you and him? Even if you push him away, he is going to react half a second later by stabbing you.

A half-second may be all you need, especially if you're reaching for the weapon in the midst of the act.

I didn't say they were tactical geniuses, it's just a normal reaction. If you are willing to threaten somebody with something, I am betting they are willing to harm with it.

I have heard some stories of stupid people but the majority aren't that fucking daft.

Not daft, but likely desperate. None of the above choices listed offer any guarantees, but there's no guarantees about anything when dealing with desperate people. The only thing that matters is that all of the above things are possible, but are only possible if you have a weapon.

I can offer you case after case where victims suffering the initial disadvantage came up and thwarted their attackers. The key is usually speed, surprise, and violence of action -again; tried and true elements of any successful combat action. Allow an assailant to think he's in control and he may take that control for granted.

 

[nexus]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

Ugh.

People like you are the exact reason we need to continue owning firearms.

Since you advocated for "shooting someone on sight" for breaking the law. Then I advocate shooting people like you on sight for being a fascist.

The person who could get suspended/banned for saying what they said, either him or myself, will prove to everyone what kind of society we live in.

 

[Nimzabaat]

The problem with these threads is that the United States has a bad case of denial. So no matter how many facts, reasonable arguments and good ideas people put out, there's always the "you can take mah gu-uhns! Jesus said I could have gu-uhns! The constitution said I could have gu-uhns! (Actually it doesn't. It says members of a militia have the right to bear arms, but civilians outside of a milita... got left out). So it all comes down to trying to argue logically with crazy people and you just can't reason with crazy.

I'm of the mind that, as a country, the US should just "shit or get off the pot". Either acquit this "Joker" guy, because it is his right as an American to kill people in his vicinity if he feels the need, and quit bitching or grow up and realize there is a problem. The problem doesn't have to be solved with all out bans or drastic measures. Other countries (well civilized countries, but chin up "Umerica" you can at least try) have restricted firearms with decent success by using amnesty days (bring you illegal firearm in to the police, no question asked) and other means of legally disposing of weapons that have become restricted.

(I'm anti-gun control)

When you look through these gun control threads you see that the people anti gun control will cite all kinds of facts and then of course also argue about self defense.

When you see pro gun control posts the vast majority of them say "GET RID OF GUNS CUZ GUNS CAUSE GUN CRIME", gun crime isn't worse than any other kind of crime. I don't see gun crime being worse than the crazy amount of car accidents, or worse than being stabbed, crippled, etc. And yes, NO SHIT no guns means no gun crime, but that doesn't mean no death. We can look to England where after gun control was implemented violent crime RATES went up.

On the matter of rates to all the people, both pro gun and anti gun control citing some flat number about gun deaths or gun crime really doesn't mean anything. Lets say we have two imaginary countries A and B. You don't know the exact (or approximate) population either country (You probably didn't bother to do any research before making up garbage arguments). In country A has no gun control and there are 70,000 gun related deaths per year. Country B has gun control and has 30,000 gun related deaths per year. O HAY CLEARLY GUN CONTROL WORKS. Ok and what if country has a population of 10 million while country B has a population of 200,000. And maybe, you are right, Maybe A has 500,000 people while B has 800,000 people. THE POINT IS THAT FLAT NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. Give me a statistic(hopefully accurate, and even better, a link to a credible source) and I am MUCH more willing to agree with your points.

Furthermore, you shouldn't just limit rights because "oh hey you don't need those rights so lets just take them away because someone might do something dangerous". Prove that those rights are causing so much harm that they need to be limited.

Also, IF YOU AREN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT AMERICAN LAWS. Jesus Christ, if you don't live in America or aren't an American citizen then what makes you think we should consider your opinion on how we govern ourselves. (Just to all those people who aren't Americans or living in America and post like its their god damned business). Oh what, are you going to vote for someone that sanctions America until they raise their gun control. As far as I'm aware (and I might be shooting myself in the foot here) America is the only country that tells other countries what to do under the guise of Justice, Freedom and Democracy.

And lastly, to jump into the baseless name calling, the guy I quoted is an asshat. "OH HUR LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DANGEROUS THINGS MEANS YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO KILL EACH OTHER"

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm - yes the site is anti-gun control but they have sources so don't judge unless you hate on their sources

Ah, a gun-nut. Well actually the figures I was looking at were deaths per 100k so the total population of the country doesn't really matter. The US was 10.27 per 100k, Canada at 4.78 and England and Wales at 0.46. Trending towards... guns are bad. Interestingly enough in the US, 68% of murders are with firearms and approx 70% of those are handguns. Trending towards... handguns are bad. But I am fully aware that solid facts and figures can't win over crazy so feel free to ignore all that because Jesus didn't kill the devil with a knife...

Though I sort of agree with the non-Americans shouldn't complain about laws in the United States. The only reason we would have to complain is if there should be a need for "the voice of reason" anywhere in the arguement. I mean, there's no way that a sane solution would occure locally now is there?

 

[senordesol]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

So how do you know if someone doesn't have a tracking chip? If you wanted to use a weapon for nefarious purposes wouldn't the first order of business be to disable it?

And 'shoot on sight'? Really? No trial, no jury, no attempts made to even understand why - just killing for all you know otherwise law abiding citizens in the streets and in their homes.

They don't even shoot serial killers on sight.

 

[nexus]

So how do you know if someone doesn't have a tracking chip? If you wanted to use a weapon for nefarious purposes wouldn't the first order of business be to disable it?

And 'shoot on sight'? Really? No trial, no jury, no attempts made to even understand why - just killing for all you know otherwise law abiding citizens in the streets and in their homes.

They don't even shoot serial killers on sight.

This is the world we live in now. You're freely able to be a techno-fascist, control freak, bully, sociopath and just plain miserable. You can say that as much as you want and no one will take interest. No one is going to monitor you. You can even say, "Kill people on sight" if it fits this paradigm. Kill Islamic people, watch non-conformists closely, bomb cities with drones.. whatever you get the idea.

Say people like this should be killed, and guess what, you're being monitored. After all, they only care about your safety, so why would you want to see them go?

 

[alandavidson]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

In the US, the only automatic weapons that can legally be owned by civilians are those registered before May 1986, and those are very thing on the ground.

What's the stance on Machine Pistols, like the Glock 18 or the Steyr TMP? I'm always curious about that when people start talking about automatic weapons.

Civilians cannot access machine pistols in the US (the only exception is the official Glock shooting team, and that's kept under strict regulation). Police and law enforcement are allowed to carry machine pistols, so if one winds up on the streets, we know it came from a dirty cop.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Handguns are actually better for home defense than shotguns, because a home invasion is likely to be very close quarters. They're also much easier to use.