Another shooting... California Disability Centre

[Stoked]

Many gun owners are known but no you do not have to register. So million of guns are in unknown locations with unknown owners.

Your long term plan is more gun ban than gun confiscation. IMO.




I take that definition as a remove by force of a more immediate nature than over a couple decades.

 

[bigb]

When I sell a car it has registration, and in order for the buyer to become the legal owner he needs to obtain that registration. Why can't guns be basically the same way with a requirement that the registration be transferred prior to the gun? I realize it's inconvenient, but it's far more inconvenient for the recipient of the bullet if the gun gets sold to a criminal. Gun enthusiasts and owners should be among the most committed to keeping these weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Your car is always visible. It also has a visible license plate that if is not current, police know just by looking at it. My gun is not visible. It does not have a readily visible registration that police can see just by looking at me. There is absolutely nothing forcing me to register a gun I buy from a private seller.
It may be possible to pass a law starting that even private sellers have to inform the feds when they sell a gun, but I don't see that as being all that enforceable.

 

[Jamezz]

You act as if countries with gun bans always end in tyranny. This is proven false by the world we live in. Japan and England are examples. They have gun bans and still have freedom with the power in the people's hands.

Interesting that you bring up England, the nest for the international banks who want to control the economic market all around the world. You plan to fight these crooks back with sticks and stones?
Precisely it's for getting away from those greedy entities why the Independence War was fought, not because we hated the Brits. We're not immune from tyranny, yes even in the age we live in it could happen.

 

[Harambe]

Sorry for the slow reply. Got off work and I'm on my cell.

I'd do it this way:

outlawing the manufacturing and selling of said items and confiscate in full their inventory.
outlaw the import of said items and confiscate any that come in.
Secure the borders.

That seals off any supply and its down to what already exists. This gets even more difficult.

Outlaw the possession of said items and have a punishment sever enough to be taken serious.
Offer a generous buy back program to encourage self turn in.
Confiscate and destroy any guns used in a crime and increase the penalty for using one.
Require gun ranges and groups to turn in possessors of said items.
Establish a list of those known to possesses said items. (NRA lists, already registered, gun sale lists...)

Now the most dangerous part starts.

Confiscate from those people first. Most likely the most dangerous. Do so in a manner that gives them a carrot for compliance when you are at their door. Or a stick heavy enough to discourage resistance as you take it.

Then a national door to door search and seizure would be needed. Probably by DHS, ATF, FBI..., you don't want local cops doing it as it will be ineffective and increases the chance of revolt.
I'd also confiscate all guns owned by cops, security agencies and any non federal program.

Now this would lead to mass problems. Job loss from closed businesses, warrant and search violations, probably martial law during the process. Id also have to weed out military members that oppose said actions and have them busy over seas.

If I did it that would be the start of how I'd do it.

Disclaimer: I'm against this and this is only a rough draft.

Good heavens man... not even the democrats that lost their pregnant teenage daughter and grandbaby in mass shootings by commie terrorists would agree to this. This would never work without revolt.

Then again, I didn't mention "without revolt", so I guess it's bad on me.

 

[Harambe]

What you see as curbing I see as primarily insuring that good people won't have guns. I want guns in the hands of the good guys because I know we can't get them out of the hands of the bad guys.

This has been stated since our last exchange, but curbing ownership curbs both sides of the track. Fewer guns out there, fewer events.

AND if I'm going in for a mass shooting(citing 4 or more victims by death or wound) I've got the jump on everyone. I get off at very least one shot before anyone can react.

 

[gandalfe]

Have you ever looked at graphs re: how much BIGGER of a gun violence problem the US have vs. any other developed nation?

Kinda like saying "well Uganda has an HIV problem but you can't tell me that people in the US don't die from it!

And that argument is so disingenuous. Germany has over 80 million. Japan has over 120 million. It would be WAYYYY easier to carry out a mass murder in Japan. Mind-numbingly easy. I pass by thousands of people every day on my commute to work. Social media presence just as strong here. TV media might be even atronger. Why the lack of violence? Scientifically speaking, how does the rise in population from 120 million to 300 million all the sudden enable gun violence? There's simply no logical reasoning to that statement.




And no one would enter your home to confiscate them, as gun-collecting is still a thing (even in nations where their use is 'banned'-- like the UK). But, of course, if walking around with one on the street, that's when you'd get charged.

Japan is also a much more densely populated country than the US, isn't it?

<EDIT> Yes, Japan has 873/sq mile, vs 85 for the US.

 

[The Midnight]

So far this year (336 days), there have been a total of 355 mass shootings (defined as incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire).



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/

 

[Stoked]

Good heavens man... not even the democrats that lost their pregnant teenage daughter and grandbaby in mass shootings by commie terrorists would agree to this. This would never work without revolt.

Then again, I didn't mention "without revolt", so I guess it's bad on me.

What do you think confiscation means? It's not "if you'd like to give us your guns we'd appreciate that". Confiscation is not a passive verb. It by definition is "to seize by authority". To seize.

How would you do it?

 

[gandalfe]

 

[Jamezz]

Gandalfe, stop reading comic books. The sensationalism on that cover is off the charts. Notice the red letters in the word 'Terrorist', and how they add Wayne LaPierre to that group of scumbags. These sick propaganda tactics make me sick!

 

[gandalfe]

Well, hang on. Was Osama Bin Ladin a terrorist, even tho he never actually carried out any acts himself?

 

[fishonjazz]

Not always easy to define 'good' or 'bad' person... a 'good' person can just as easily turn into a 'bad' person over a simple workplace or a domestic dispute. Or in the case of this particular shooting, a change in motivation in a certain religious belief.


We're all a mixture of 'good' and 'bad' in my view... with the balance of good/bad changing constantly.

Good post