Welcome to 'Murica

[NAOS]

One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.

That's all a different can of worms. For sure. No easy solutions for corrupted morals that have tipped into that kind of violence. It's far easier to take weapons away.

 

[Stoked]

One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.

I'd say all of the bolded and then some others not mentioned.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think you can preserve the sporting nature of hunting and remove automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the flow of guns. I come from a family of hunting enthusiasts (I was enrolled in hunters' safety on the first eligible day), and I've never met a passionate, sporting hunter who needed a magazine. Never met one who needed a handgun.

*I'd support halting the manufacture and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic guns.
*I'd support a large, nationwide, taxpayer-funded gun buyback program that paid handsomely for automatic and semi-automatic guns. Program also to be funded with taxes levied at the retail point-of-sale of all guns going forward. EDIT: Ultimately, the gun-buyback prices need to be kept higher than the prices for used guns.
*I'm not sure how much time the watchdogs need to adequately investigate a gun buyer, but I'd support a system that gave them the adequate time.
*I do have discomforts with the State being able to dictate what someone does with their guns once they've purchased them. So, I would not attempt ban the casual selling of used guns (it'd be ineffective law anyway). But, I would put a system in place where buyers and sellers could officially register the transfer of property if they chose to (since any investigation of a crime committed with a gun is already searchable to the last-known owner if such forensic evidence is found... or at least I think that's the case... and I can image a seller wanting to be free of that).

None of these attempt to criminalize those people who are currently in possession of guns of any type.




(That's a quick sketch)

Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.

IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.

That's all a different can of worms. For sure. No easy solutions for corrupted morals that have tipped into that kind of violence. It's far easier to take weapons away.

Well done guys

My favorite part:

IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

 

[Jamezz]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you ask me I think it's worth it taking the risk of having a few psychos go berzerk every now and then to ensure the permanence of a free State. More people die in car accidents every day.

That's what America is all about, individual freedom. The right to defend yourself and your property. The moment I convinced myself that the US government has been hijacked by international power groups that want to end the concept of sovereignty around the world the clearer things became to me.

 

[NAOS]

"free State"

 

[Jamezz]

"free State"

Yes.

 

[moevillini]

I'd say all of the bolded and then some others not mentioned.

I also think that just the prevalence of guns itself is a major contributing factor. It leads to a "shoot 'em up" type of mentality that wouldn't be as dominant if guns weren't as prevalent.

 

[Jamezz]

I also think that just the prevalence of guns itself is a major contributing factor. It leads to a "shoot 'em up" type of mentality that wouldn't be as dominant if guns weren't as prevalent.

So what do you think about the 2nd Amendment? What does it mean to you?

 

[NAOS]

Yes.

The fact that you will ascribe freedom -- in such absolute, black-and-white terms -- to the power of a State lets me know exactly what kind of thinker you are. On the street, you'd be called a bitch.

I'd suggest looking into what a State is. And how a State behaves. You could begin by asking Native Americans if the free State has been a good influence on their freedom.

the 2nd amendment: written by a slave State calling itself "free."

 

[♪alt13]

Where to start

Let's do Mass Murder

Will restricting guns lead to fewer mass shootings? Yeah, It probably would. Will it lead to fewer mass murders. I don't think so. The weapon of choice will just become bombs. Some of you will say it's hard to build a bomb. You are wrong. It's easy and it's cheap. Some will say that it takes time and that the murderer may change his mind. Again, I think you are wrong. The people that commit these crimes have been going over it in their head over and over again. They went out and they gathered the supplies for their rampage often times spending quite a bit of dough. Having to build a bomb will not deter them. Will they be less deadly. NO, hell NO. Search Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city building.

 

[fishonjazz]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you ask me I think it's worth it taking the risk of having a few psychos go berzerk every now and then to ensure the permanence of a free State. More people die in car accidents every day.

That's what America is all about, individual freedom. The right to defend yourself and your property. The moment I convinced myself that the US government has been hijacked by international power groups that want to end the concept of sovereignty around the world the clearer things became to me.

Good post

 

[fishonjazz]

Where to start

Let's do Mass Murder

Will restricting guns lead to fewer mass shootings? Yeah, It probably would. Will it lead to fewer mass murders. I don't think so. The weapon of choice will just become bombs. Some of you will say it's hard to build a bomb. You are wrong. It's easy and it's cheap. Some will say that it takes time and that the murderer may change his mind. Again, I think you are wrong. The people that commit these crimes have been going over it in their head over and over again. They went out and they gathered the supplies for their rampage often times spending quite a bit of dough. Having to build a bomb will not deter them. Will they be less deadly. NO, hell NO. Search Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city building.

Bombs are less predictable
And even if you think bombs are easy to make, as of right now if I wanted to kill someone I could simply grab my gun and kill someone..... However, as of right now I don't know how to make a bomb. So it would require a extra step for me to do my killing. (Research how to make the bomb, get the supplies for it, make it, set it up, etc)

There simply is no easier and more efficient way to kill some dudes than to use a gun.