Welcome to 'Murica

[gandalfe]

As I'm sure you're well aware, I'm in favor of firearm ownership and in ALL instances a supporter of the 2nd amendment. My position is an evolved one, as 20 years ago I would consider my self an unabashed hoplophobe. Like you, I didn't understand firearms and attributed them human characteristics.

Please show me ONCE where I ascribed human characteristics to guns. Also, hoplophobia is not a recognized phobia and has no medical legitimacy. It's a made up term to ascribe a pejorative to people who don't jerk off while playing with their guns. (See, I can be offensive, too!)

The NRA is a private non-profit, so that can have whoever they want at the helm. If you don't want to support them, then don't.

I notice you don't deny that he, himself, is a part of the problem.

Chamber locks, trigger locks, etc. are all run-of-the-mill "feel good" ******** that the left loves to offer as common sense solution. Firstly, how do you enforce these garbage?

At the manufacturer level. Have you heard of seat belts?

As a multiple firearm owner, I would never use any of this stuff. Why? Because a criminal will never give me a chance to rack my firearm. These solutions hinder the law abiding citizen and would give the criminal the upper hand.

Boy, you never use scare tactics yourself, do you? And, by the way, how long does it take to see that the "loaded" indicator is up?

Are you prepared to tell this woman that she should have asked the assailant for a "time out" so she could prepare her firearm?

https://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/13664961-55/reserve-woman-shoots-man-after

Do you think a trigger lock might have let this 3 year old live? (I've said it before, you don't want to get into an anecdote war. You will lose.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c511c6-36a1-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html

There are already reasonable steps in place in most states. For instance, here in California, I have many fees to pay in order to buy a handgun or a long gun. I have a waiting period. I have a certificate test I have to take.

So what's your problem with extending those same reasonable measures nationally?

Lastly, what does someone deciding to take their life have ANYTHING to do with me or anyone else protecting themselves against violence? Does a man shooting himself in the head in New York have anything to do with this man protecting himself:

https://www.ktnv.com/news/local-man-shoots-burglar-during-home-invasion

Statistics show that using a firearm to commit suicide is the most popular method in this country, as well as the most successful method by far (something over 80% success rate, vs <5% with pills). Also, something in excess of 90% of people who survive one suicide attempt never try again. I kind of value human life, and would like to take common sense simple measures to protect people from a rash decision. If someone REALLY wants to kill themselves, they will, but for those who are just having a bad time, or whose girlfriend just left them, making guns a little more difficult to obtain could very easily make the difference.

 

[gandalfe]

The problem that lies here is what is considered a "mental health problem?" Definitions are incredibly important.

Agreed. For example, "hoplophobe," a term you seem to like to spew, doesn't mean a thing.

Fun fact: Charles Whitman visited a single psychiatrist before he climbed the clock tower in '66 and killed 14 people. He had a brain tumor which has been theorized (but can neither be proven nor disproven, of course) to have influenced his actions.

 

[gandalfe]

Why? If one follows the 4 rules of gun safety, no indicators are needed. Accidents happen with firearms that have safetys because folks forget the 4 rules. Plain and simple. No amount of indicators will fix stupidity.

Yeah, and if they shoot a kid, well, that kid obviously deserved it for getting in the way. RIGHT?

Safety measures aren't perfect, but that's no reason not to try.

 

[gandalfe]

More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars

 

[VINYLONE]

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 to 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)

So, let me get this right, your pipe dream of an idea is to stop private companies from manufacturing legal items that have been made in this country since it's inception? How do you think you would achieve this? And to add, how do you think the populace would feel that only the government and LE agencies, I assume, would have access to the remaining guns?

It's more and more obvious that the left's anti-gun movement is the equivalent of the right's war on drugs. How did that war end? How did it help stem the tide of drugs coming into this country? Prohibition was a failure. The war on drugs is a failure. But you think this is going to work?

There are buy backs that happen all over this country but the problems that arise, like they did in Australia, is that folks don't want to sell for lower than market price. And since you've (in a general sense) have decided to have a national buyback, firearm prices would shoot through the roof and you would NOT reach market value.

Currently, 10 days is the waiting period and even that amount of time is ludicrous. If I don't have a criminal record, what else is there to know? What else is there to research?

Most firearm transfers in the US have to be done with a FFL and it's been that way for a while. I recently bought a rifle from some guy on a gun message board. I met him at the local FFL, I inspected the long gun, we exchanged money, I left the rifle there for 10 days and then returned to pick it up. That's the way it works here in California.

 

[VINYLONE]

I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like.

I'm not sure what this means. Guns DO NOT fire themselves. What you're really trying to say is that you don't trust yourself. Firearm discipline is paramount when owning a firearm and if you have it and follow the four rules of firearm safety, well, I'll let you draw the conclusions from there.

 

[VINYLONE]

(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).

So in essence, your plan would take guns out of the hands of the people that need them. Folks who live in poor areas and don't have the discretionary funds to buy them? In your scenario only the wealthy would be available to own firearms? The same wealthy who usually live in areas with low crime.

 

[VINYLONE]

The history of gun regulation suggests to me very clearly that people don't see the problem in similar terms. I've already said that. That's evidence. You?

The history of gun regulation is not based in fact but in hoplophobic thinking. Again, as I've stated before, many gun owners view the ownership of a firearm as an extension of a right to living. A right given to us by nature. You're willing to take this right to defense because of something that has nothing to do with me.

It's like your neighbor getting in a car accident after racing another car and the government taking your car away. Do you understand why your position falls on deaf ears?

 

[VINYLONE]

But guns are so prevalent today and the right to buy and own them is so entrenched that any measures that are allowable to remove guns, like buy back programs, will not reduce the number of guns enough.

There's a saying that goes, guns are forever. For the most part it's true. There are firearms in households around this country that were made in the early 1800's that still fire with ease and semi-precision. You should look to see how many guns there are in Australia even after the buy back. I think you'd be surprised.

 

[The Midnight]

Judge Judy is a legalistic simpleton.

The problems I see right off the top of my head:

Who pays for this? If the answer is the gun owner, than you've just added another "tax" to the ownership of a firearm which is regressive as it affects the poor and minorities more than it does the wealthy and non-minorities. I don't think I have to explain that the poor and minorities are MORE likely to live in crime ridden areas than the wealthy and non-minorities.

What's the baseline? Meaning, what condition bars you from owning a firearm? Who decides that baseline? Do you have to have a current condition or what if you had depression a decade ago, does that bar you? There are so many problems with this idea it's laughable.

How long will the test take? Who'll administer it? What's the waiting time?

Are you going to tell this woman that she does NOT have a right to defend herself because she's hasn't taken a psych test?

https://www.wafb.com/story/30207162/sheriff-woman-pulls-gun-on-ex-boyfriend-to-defend-herself

Will you tell all of these folks that they don't have a right to stop violence because they haven't taken a test yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Or will you tell this woman and her kids that they should have just dealt with their situation because Mr. Ragakus had not been tested?

Every single day, there are people defending themselves. And like in the last instance, many times, not a single shot has to be fired. Deterrence is very much a factor.

I don't think it's as bad an idea as you are making it out to be.


Everybody has a right to drive cars but they still need to pass a driving test before they are allowed on the road, right? Why not psychiatric test or at least a background check to determine if you're fit to own guns? For sure there are administrative costs involved but what doesn't? A driving test costs money too but people rich or poor still take them.


It's just another idea to consider I just don't like shooting down ideas before they're properly discussed or put in the 'too hard basket'.

 

[VINYLONE]

Until the 2nd amendment is struck down (wont happen short of civil war and new constitution imo) than these discussions are all theoretical and cannot be applied.

Most folks that are anti-gun don't realize that if you wanted to confiscate, you would need guns, to get the guns.

 

[VINYLONE]

I was just waiting for your unsubstantiated, pessimistic, throw-your-hands-up post of the morning. Yick. Links?

Los Angeles's gun buyback programs, which are very lightly funded, leave plenty of room for optimism. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/la-gun-buyback-2013_n_3229435.html

this also happened in the REAL WORLD.

I'm glad that you posted this link.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts that go to these buybacks to see what is being turned in. They then offer more than what will be offered by the LE agency if the firearm is worthy of purchase. Every now and again, friends will find something that is wroth purchase. Most of the time, the firearms being turned in are poorly made junk.

Those 1,100 that were turned in didn't even make a dent.

https://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130213/los-angeles-residents-buying-200-guns-a-day

Los Angeles residents apply to buy 200 guns a day, an alarming number making it difficult to get weapons off the street, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said in a preliminary report on gun purchases in Los Angeles.