If being an extremist gun nut means not comprising on gun registration, then most all of the 150 million gun owners in this country are extremists.
We already have registation to carry in public places. It's called CCW. How many of those registered CCW holders, out of millions are committing crimes? LESS THAN A PERCENT OF ONE PERCENT. When it comes to cars, how do you stop people from being irresponsible such as texting while driving, driving drunk, and having road rage problems? Do you start regulating the car?
That makes no sense. You can impose regulations on an item so it becomes more efficient. Take walking canes. You can regulate the materials going into the walking cane to make sure it doesn't break when someone puts their weight on it. Do you truly want guns to be "dangerous"? You could design a gun to go off randomly in the middle of the night, and that would be pretty dangerous right there. For a gun, the purpose of it isn't to be able to shoot. It's about being able to shoot with the controller in control the gun. Without the control, it has no use as a tool. Hence why the regulations I mentioned make sense, they support what a gun is supposed to be used for. - - - Updated - - - To that I ask you two questions. 1. Do you understand "cost" theory? (certain actions require more of a "cost" in order to do) 2. Do you know what a car is? - - - Updated - - - Not particularly cost efficient.
A lifetime ban? None that I know of. A temporary ban? Yes. DUI, Texting while driving, speeding through construction, school zones etc.
Let's say that it's a bracelet as the source of the radio signal. Doesn't it make logical sense for the bracelet to be at home, or for there to be more then one? I'm not saying human error doesn't exist. I'm saying that there is responsibility on behalf of the gun owner as well. So what you're arguing is that the average gun owner is a Mexican Gun Runner? They're not crazies armed to the teeth because "the guvernment tryin to take my guns away". Take a gun in, and get the batteries replaced. Ok. Cool. Do you take the batteries out of a fire alarm? No. I'm fairly certain that's illegal. Once again, gun owners are not Mexican Gun Runners. Take them in, and get them replaced. Gun owners know their guns, knowing when the batteries are going to die is not going to be the end of the world for them.
1. yes 2. yes Now I would ask you how is either of those questions relevant? Care to elaborate? Putting people in jail isn't cost efficient? Passing useless gun laws is even less efficient. Or are we saying that it's less expensive to just let criminals roam free to do whatever they want, and we pass laws just for the people who willingly comply? Are we concerned about money now instead of public safety? How much does it cost to paint the highways or pay police salaries? We could just get rid of those as well. You just recommended a bunch of useless and expensive gun modifications to try and prevent people from willfully killing others. That again exposes how liberal logic makes no sense.
I ask because when I start explaining, people who don't understand those ideas are lost and confused, and that takes time away from the real debate. Let's say that there is a man named Homer who lives in the Town of Springfield. In this town, you must have a valid drivers license in order to be able to own a gun. Homer one night is caught DUI and loses his license as a result. Now he is forced to bike everywhere he wants to go. Because he's so out of shape, he can only go in a 10 mile radius. If he was driving, he could go in a 50 miles radius. But he really wants a gun. The only town near him where he doesn't need a drivers license to get a gun is Quahog, 30 miles away. Assuming there is no public transportation system where he lives, can he get the gun? The answer is no. Why? Because the costs of getting it are too high. He can not bike there because he can't bike that far. He can't drive there because he doesn't have a license. Yes he could drive his car there, but then he's committing a crime. What gun laws do, is make it so committing a crime impossible by increasing the costs of doing it. So take a limit to the number of bullets in a round. Yes, a person can make their own. But that requires time to do. Time to learn how to do it, time to get the materials, time to do it, those all leave traces behind for people to pick up on. Hence why gun laws can work because they leave these traces. Now as for your money argument, it's not cost efficient to house people in prisons. Not money, cost efficient. While it certainly has a money aspect to it, it's about the individual's wellbeing as well. Because they're not becoming productive citizens. You're losing out on social connections needed in order to advance yourself in the world by being in prison. So it's not cost efficient for them to be there. The time spent in prison is lost time for learning skills or developing connections.
Let's say Homer should stop drinking and driving. How many times has he had a DUI? This is exactly how liberals are enabling irresponsible people and criminals. He's an adult, what you mentioned are called consequences of bad decisions. If Homer can't be trusted to not drink and drive do we want him purchasing guns as well? So what Homer does instead is have his girlfriend, or his cousin, or someone willing, to go there and buy the gun for him. Because you know, he really wants it. Since gun laws are rarely prosecuted what does it matter if "traces are left". What do 10 round magazines have to do with anything? What does it change? Nothing. If a gun is half an inch too short, you're now a felon. How does that make sense? How about we make the law simple. Hurt someone and you get punished. Act reckless and get punished. The only thing I might agree with you on is the justice system in general. There should be a gradation of offenses (and in many cases there are), but our laws have become so complex and ridiculous that people can become felons and not even know it. People should have a chance to learn their lesson, but if they cannot and will not... Habitual and violent offenders should be locked up permanently, or in the case of the worst of them, executed. These people cannot be reasoned with and cannot be rehabilitated and have no place in society. It is less costly to keep these people locked up forever than it is to allow them to roam the streets.
Thus rendering a firearm useless if a separate accessory should get lost, or otherwise disabled. It would make far more logical sense to simply not enact a system that is so blatantly, and easily flawed. Responsibility to use a flawed, and easily foiled design, that no police department in the country will require its police officers to use as well? Such a responsibility does not exist, nor should it. What is being argued is that your proposal was already tried, and proved to be an utter failure. How many times must a proven failure be repeated, in hopes of a different outcome, before it is finally abandoned as being useless? The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, with the same variables, and expecting a different outcome. Or simply do no construct a firearm that relies on batteries. There are a great deal many things that are illegal, and people continue to do them regardless. Then there is no sense in requiring batteries in the first place. - - - Updated - - - Then comparing restrictions on motor vehicles, to restrictions on firearms, is a pointless endeavor.
Explain the claims of Dianne Feinstein, how she could have prohibited the ownership of all firearms if there were enough votes in congress to get it passed. Then we should enact lifetime prohibitions on operating a motor vehicle for anyone convicted of a felony, correct? Except there would be no way of actually doing such.
Depends on how you use it, or if what ever you are "destroying" has any value. Shooting paper, and punching holes in paper, does not really make the phrase "tool of destruction" meaningful. "Destroying" paper doesn't have much of a shock value to me. Using the same line of reasoning your teeth are tools of destruction. Nails are tools of destruction. Yada yada.
Guns also don't work without an already existing separate accessory. They're called bullets. By asking gun owners to be responsible with their guns? Seeing as how some police don't even carry guns on them, it's not without reason that they could carry a bracelet around to make sure they're the ones firing their own guns. Your argument relies upon the premise that gun owners are crazy fringes who are afraid of the government. Your analogy is bad to begin with. Or simply do your job as a responsible gun owner. Hence why there is punishment for breaking laws. You can't think of a single situation of when having an electrical component to a gun could be useful? Guess what they're running on. Batteries. - - - Updated - - - That makes no sense whatsoever. Have I stated something that would be hypocritical? No, so the comparision can still be made.
If we say that there must be a drivers license to own a gun, then no, he can not be trusted to own a gun. At least until he is able to get his licenses back. Why would we want an alcoholic to be in control of a gun? At this point though, he's now committing a crime. So how much experience are any of these people going to have in committing this crime? Now there's a big difference between a girlfriend getting it and a professional gun runner. The girlfriend is a low risk because they see each other a lot, so in comparision to the gun runner (who is going to have a higher cost), it's lower. But that doesn't mean he's still not committing a crime. Now Homer is forced to go through this one person in order to make the lie seem believable. If Homer goes to a gun store in Town and asks to buy bullets, that's going to raise an eyebrow. So to keep the costs low, the buyer has to buy it for himself. Even though the law can only do so much, watch as Homer has to deal with all the costs of owning a gun illegally. 1. Source for your claim that gun laws are rarely prosecuted. 2. 10 round magazines are an example about how one law can increase the costs of committing a crime. 3. I have no idea where your "half inch too short" argument comes into play. Because that's too basic. Let's say that a judo master is trying to defend himself from another person who is trying to punch him. Is the Judo Master using self defense if he kills the person when he knows (and can use) a move that would merely cause the person to drop to their knees? Again it goes to the idea of Social connections. If you keep putting a person in jail, who are they going to talk to? Other inmates. Those are going to be people that will sustain them not only on the inside of prison but on the outside as well. Let's say a drug dealer meets a drug maker. Now the drug dealer is going to learn the tools of the trade and if he gets caught, the circle repeats itself.
An object's "value" doesn't determine whether it's destroyed or not. If I crush a ball of old dried poop under my boot, it's not less destroyed because it has little or no value. You're arguing about the subjective implications of the phrase "tool of destruction" as if calling a gun by that name is criticizing guns in some way. That was never my intention, and not the way the phrase was meant. It's an objective observation. A gun's primary purpose for existing is to fire bullets at things with the intent of harming, killing, or destroying whatever it is you're shooting at. You don't shoot guns at people to tickle them. You're not firing kisses at the deer you're aiming down the barrel at. You're firing a projectile with potentially lethal force to hurt or kill your target. That's what guns do. That's why they exist. They accomplish their task by being destructive in nature. That's why soldiers use them. That's why they put them on tanks and planes.
So, by that logic, all the bombs and missiles our military has that haven't been fired yet aren't weapons of destruction? By that logic, all the nuclear weapons in the world aren't weapons of mass destruction until they are set off? What the hell did we go to Iraq for?!?
The difference between ammunition and a radio bracelet, is that ammunition can be stored in the firearm. The bracelet remains separate, and is easily lost as a result. If you are going to make comparisons in an effort to support your position, critical thinking skills are a necessity. First prove that they are not being responsible. And before you even attempt to point to the number of annual homicides in the united states as proof, it will be pointed out that the FBI, the chief law enforcement organization for the country, holds that as many as eighty percent are tied to those who cannot legally possess firearms in the first place. Show us any police officers in the united states that do not carry firearms while on duty. Your comprehension skills in reading have been noted. What has been said, is that the ATF tried your proposal already, and found it to be a failure. Thus there is no need to bother with trying again under different circumstances. And despite punishment existing and being used, violation of the law continues unabated. Arguing that something being illegal stops someone from doing it, is intellectually dishonest. Meaning they are subject to dying at the most inopportune of times for those who need them right then. And it is being made incorrectly. One cannot compare regulating firearms like motor vehicles, unless one is willing to discuss regulating motor vehicles like firearms. Such a standard includes a lifetime prohibition to licenses being made available to anyone who has been convicted of a felony. For the comparison to be accurate, it would also require a drivers license not being valid in other states, unless there is an existing reciprocity agreement between the different states. If you do not like the comparison being critiqued on the grounds of logic, and showing how logic is absent, then do not make it in the first place.
Homer should suffer for already commiting the crime of DUI. How much should depend on how many times he's been a moron. It takes no special criminal knowledge for the girlfriend to go to a store and buy a gun and bring it home, it raises no eyebrows for someone to buy ammunition unless they're backing up a freight truck. I buy guns and bullets at the same time, no one has ever tackled me going out the door. Look up Brady Bill information on how many people were prevented from buying guns at FFLs and how many were prosecuted. Look up how often criminals picked up for illegal guns are prosecuted. Magazines are about 10 bucks each so it doesn't increase the cost of crime by much. If they get caught the crime for murder outweighs that a bit of a margin ,but they do it anyway. If a gun is a half-inch too short, you could now be the proud owner of an SBR. Without the paperwork for that, you are now a felon, even though you've done nothing logically wrong. Sometimes just taking off a stock recoil pad and putting a different one on could make you a felon. The law should be basic. The more complicated something is, the more likely it will either be abused, or be worthless. I mean look at all those ridiculous things you wanted to add to guns. The best solution is to keep things as simple as possible, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the law. Don't attack Judo masters. Not to mention a Judo is about disabling your opponent, not killing them. Who do you think criminals hang out with when they're not in prison. Our prison systems as they are are do not deter anyone. Prison needs to be a place NO ONE wants to go. In many ways prisoners have it better than the working poor in this country.
http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf Explain how. Federal law dictates the minimum overall length a firearm must possess to qualify as a legal rifle or shotgun. If that minimum overall length is one half inch under, it is an illegal firearm, and cannot be legally possessed.
Senator Diane Feinstein is one of the fringe anti-gun nuts just like Wayne LaPierre is a fringe gun nut and neither are really taken seriously by mainstream Americans. As a US senator she also knows that outright banning of firearms is unconstitutional. In addressing both firearms and automobiles there are cases when felonies should result in lifetime prohibitions. There are also cases where a felonies should have no affect on the ownership of firearms or automobiles. I'm also highly opposed to a legislature making this determination by statutory law in either case and instead it should be left to the discretion of the court in addressing the nature of the crime. Actually there is and there are other enforcement methods that can be used. For example law enforcement should be immediately notified and investigate cases where a person has a failed a background check. Over 1 million people have failed FFL background checks without any action by law enforcement and that's just not right. They're committing a felony by attempting to purchase a firearm and we're just letting them walk out the door to purchase a firearm from some dumb schmuck that doesn't have the ability to run a background check.
Just as a point of clarification a pistol can use any ammunition so if it's not a rifle or shotgun it could be a pistol of any barrel length and be competely legal.
