After this last tragedy for some time there will be a lot of talk about gun control. I would like to ask those of us here who are for stricter gun control a few questions. First I would like to set this up and lets assume that the 2nd amendment hurdle has been passed. That there is no Constitutional protections to worry about. 1. What laws would you put into place 2. How would you enforce those laws 3. What do you believe would be the impact of those laws.
First of all, gun regulation should be on a national level. The maze of differing state laws is ineffective. Gun enthusiasts like to point to gun violence in Chicago as their evidence that tough gun laws don't work. In reality, tough regional gun laws don't work as long as you can travel freely from a place with weak gun laws to one with strict ones. I think both a criminal background check and a mental stability check should be in order. I also think that gun owners should be able to demonstrated through an exam of some sort that they understand how to use, store and safely handle their weapons. We do this with automobiles. This will not prevent gun violence from occurring. But, I do believe that over time it will begin to gradually decrease it, and eventually do so significantly. I have no issue with people owning guns. I don't own one, and have no use for them, personally. But if you are so inclined, that's your choice. It's also your responsibility.
Now how would this impact gun crime? Only 18% of all gun crime is committed by a legally owned firearm. Would background checks, metal evaluations and such effect this in a meaningful way? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.2fa9a789e37f
How would this work though? People can get flipped into depression or anxiety or other states at any time. This guy was a gambler, maybe he'd just lost everything and flipped. Apparantly there was no warning.
That is a pretty weak argument and also a false one since most of the guns used in crime in Chicago come from Illinois. That should then mean that the areas with weak gun laws should have more problems than Chicago.
There is no reason, or evidence to support such a correlation. There used to be a lot of gun violence in DC, which had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. But as long as anyone could drive across the Potomac River, that impediment went away. I have no idea whether most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago came from Illinois. I would like to see you back that claim up.
Perhaps you can explain this piece of your own post: " But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime. One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown."
Laws governing the reporting of stolen firearms sounds like a more then reasonable thing to look into.
Hypotheticals are a waste of time, just like believing gun control will work! Most enthusiast I know simply require on thing and they will gladly surrender their firearms! Eliminate all weapons from the thugs and criminal in the inner city's and throughout the U.S. first, get that done and you have our blessing Until then sux it!
1. 100% background checks (or CCW) on all weapons purchased from an FFL after the law is enacted. Those purchased before the law i s enacted it is voluntary. 2. Bumpl fire and SIG brace controlled by NFA. 3. A mechanism by which a family or state can bring someone too court to have them deemed a danger and not able to possess firearms. This must be done through the courts with the subject given legal representation and informed okf what must be done to regain his rights.
I would repeal the second amendment entirely or rewrite it to define a very narrow role for the federal government in which it regulates interstate transport of guns and munition and runs the national registry for identification. Any broader authority to regulate guns, would rest with the state. My goal is to support local gun control efforts as opposed to national ones because I don't think what works for rural Montana, will work for Los Angeles County. If the laws the state chooses, are difficult to enforce, that is its problem not mine unless it happens in my state.
I think it's also about time we consider banning (or heavily regulating) semi-auto guns...long guns AND pistols. As always that does not mean that we confiscate existing guns...only apply this to new sales. Of course the gun lobby will fight this tooth and nail cause ya know...profits
So why long guns? We have never had a problem with those that I know of. Heck you can kill more people with a car quickly then with a long gun. You can conceal them, they have a purpose beyond harming people, and they are very rarely ever used in a crime. So what are your thought processes there?
That's one point I don't agree on; there are way too many guns in circulation already. I propose banning all automatic and semi-automatic weapons wholesale, and having a grace period where you can turn in all your illegal weapons no questions asked. Then, the US can have periodic gun amnesties, where people can do that during a limited time every few years.
Yes, I can see the Bloods and Crips all turning in their guns. Kumbaya. Try and cut down on the dried mushrooms 'cause you be tripping.
How? The Sandy Hook shooter did not own or buy the gun he used. he killed his mother for it. It's going to sound cold, but the person responsible for Sandy Hook is Mrs. Lanza. She should have had Adam committed to a mental institution years beforehand.
