• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

would you support this gun control compromise?

Do you support Luna's gun control compromise?


  • Total voters
    20

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The compromise is as follows. The gun control people get something they want and the gun enthusiasts also get something they want.

1. We get universal background checks on all gun purchases, including gun shows, private sales, absolutely anywhere that guns are sold. Convicted felons are ineligible to buy guns, and the FBI is alerted if one tries to buy one. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is ineligible, as is anyone who's mentally unstable. It becomes illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer.
2. The 1986 ban on civilians owning automatic weapons is repealed. The import of foreign-made assault rifles (such as the Russian AK-47, the Swiss SG 550, and the Israeli Uzi) is legalized. A person is no longer required to remanufacture a foreign assault rifle, including at least 10 American-made parts. He may purchase one from a foreign factory with all foreign parts, and it may include an automatic feature. (It still must be sent to a gun dealer, not directly to him, and there still must be a background check.)

So, the gun control people get #1, the gun enthusiasts get #2. Vote if you're for this.
 
Last edited:
In my own opinion, number 2 is a bad idea.
 
In my own opinion, number 2 is a bad idea.

I would be thrilled if we did that. I wish to own fully automatic versions of all those guns listed, plus a fully auto M-16. I also want an M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle like they used in World War I. I want to own all these guns because they're sexy. Plus, I plan to use them for watermelon hunting. I'm a vegetarian and therefore don't hunt normal game, but shooting watermelons is really fun.

I'm going to get the next best thing to a fully automatic AK-47, which is a semiautomatic one with a rapid fire feature known as bump fire.
 
I almost forgot -- I want to own a Thompson submachine gun. I want to dress up in a sexy 1920s flapper dress and and be photographed in a provocative pose with the Tommy Gun and give it to my fiance for our anniversary.
 
The compromise is as follows. The gun control people get something they want and the gun enthusiasts also get something they want.

1. We get universal background checks on all gun purchases, including gun shows, private sales, absolutely anywhere that guns are sold. Convicted felons are ineligible to buy guns, and the FBI is alerted if one tries to buy one. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is ineligible, as is anyone who's mentally unstable. It becomes illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer.
That's basically how it already is. Only problem is that only sales through registered dealers can be effectively regulated. When it comes to private unregistered citizens, how exactly is this to be regulated? It's a pipe dream at best.

2. The 1986 ban on civilians owning automatic weapons is repealed. The import of foreign-made assault rifles (such as the Russian AK-47, the Swiss SG 550, and the Israeli Uzi) is legalized. A person is no longer required to remanufacture a foreign assault rifle, including at least 10 American-made parts. He may purchase one from a foreign factory with all foreign parts, and it may include an automatic feature. (It still must be sent to a gun dealer, not directly to him, and there still must be a background check.)

So, the gun control people get #1, the gun enthusiasts get #2. Vote if you're for this.

Meh, I'd rather have the Supreme Court force the states with the most oppressive gun laws to drop them.
 
I voted yes. But I am not sure how provision 1 would be successfully carried out. For example, how would a gun dealer check if someone is mentally sound? Mental health professionals cannot release that information without the patient’s permission. And how would a dealer even know if a buyer had visited a shrink? We can’t force shrinks to input information on all of their patients especially when most of their patients won’t have any interest in ever buying a gun.

The criminal check could be much easier though. It could be web based or even a number you call into. Similar to doing a credit check. Criminal records typically are public information so you don’t run into the same Privacy Act problems you do with the mental health side of the issue.

So I support it in theory, but doubt it could happen in practice (at least if mental health is included as one of the disqualifiers).
 
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence. Even in your #1 with mental illness, you'd have to raise the minimum age to buy guns for it to be realistic. Most with mental instability and anger issues aren't officially diagnosed (apparently not the killer in this case), and many convicted felons are and were harmless. It really doesn't take much (alcohol) to set off even a "normal" person who has a gun attached to their hip already. When I see reactions to the theater massacre like "I'm thinking of buying a gun" that just affirms my belief that most people are too irrationally scared ****less to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public.

They would not have stopped the massacre. They would have been hiding on the floor after the first tear gas was thrown or try to run away like everyone else did, or far more likely they at some point kill someone themselves in a fit of rage or it goes off on accident. Even more likely they would not have been there, or in any situation where they have time to react, get their gun out and use it. That's just what we need anyway, two gun toting idiots firing away in a pitch dark theater.

Not to mention in the vast majority of cases, if this is really about self defense and not reigning in one's fear (and feeling like a badass), mace and other non lethal objects should be more easily acquired than guns. Everyday people walking around with automatic weapons would just ensure I never leave the house, or high tail it to a more sane country.
 
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence. Even in your #1 with mental illness, you'd have to raise the minimum age to buy guns for it to be realistic. Most with mental instability and anger issues aren't officially diagnosed (apparently not the killer in this case), and many convicted felons are and were harmless. It really doesn't take much (alcohol) to set off even a "normal" person who has a gun attached to their hip already. When I see reactions to the theater massacre like "I'm thinking of buying a gun" that just affirms my belief that most people are too irrationally scared ****less to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public.

They would not have stopped the massacre. They would have been hiding on the floor after the first tear gas was thrown or try to run away like everyone else did, or far more likely they at some point kill someone themselves in a fit of rage or it goes off on accident. Even more likely they would not have been there, or in any situation where they have time to react, get their gun out and use it. That's just what we need anyway, two gun toting idiots firing away in a pitch dark theater.

Not to mention in the vast majority of cases, if this is really about self defense and not reigning in one's fear (and feeling like a badass), mace and other non lethal objects should be more easily acquired than guns. Everyday people walking around with automatic weapons would just ensure I never leave the house, or high tail it to a more sane country.

projection and stereotyping is not an argument.
 
I voted yes. But I am not sure how provision 1 would be successfully carried out. For example, how would a gun dealer check if someone is mentally sound? Mental health professionals cannot release that information without the patient’s permission. And how would a dealer even know if a buyer had visited a shrink? We can’t force shrinks to input information on all of their patients especially when most of their patients won’t have any interest in ever buying a gun..

I didn't address this because I wasn't sure OP was referring to that so much as court-ordered hospitalization, but...this would set a very dangerous precedent. The idea being voluntarily going in is treatment, not having constitutional rights voided. It would be sure to deter people from going in for such non-violent indicators like depression and relationship advice, or they just buy the gun and skip the therapy. Although some of that increases suicide risk, that's not what this thread is about I think. I mean where would you draw the line? Often even schizophrenia can be largely alleviated these days.
 
I guess I need to clarify the mental illness block to buying a gun. Mental health records would remain private and could not be released without your permission. If you went to a shrink, you would be in no danger of your therapist reporting you to a "may not buy gun" list. Here's what could get a person put on that list. Someone commits a serious crime such as shooting people, attacking people, stabbing people, etc., but avoids a conviction due to an insanity defense. That, and only that, gets your on the "may not buy gun" list due to mental health.
 
I'm sorry, don't you already have enough of a problem with people engaging in shootings armed with semi-automatics? Making them automatic would just increase lethality. Isn't that the whole point of all the 'truth about assault rifle....' videos we see bandied about on these forums. A semi AK can shoot what maybe 60rpm. In fully auto 700-800 rounds. When you consider that people are an easier target in the first few seconds, that represents a large increase in lethality if a shooter had been armed with with fully automatic variants.

Background checks are useless especially for preventing the sort of mass-murders that tend to stir up calls for more stringent gun controls. James Holmes, Martin Bryant and many others would have passed a criminal check and mental status, possibly. How do you even asses mental status?
 
I'm sorry, don't you already have enough of a problem with people engaging in shootings armed with semi-automatics? Making them automatic would just increase lethality. Isn't that the whole point of all the 'truth about assault rifle....' videos we see bandied about on these forums. A semi AK can shoot what maybe 60rpm. In fully auto 700-800 rounds. When you consider that people are an easier target in the first few seconds, that represents a large increase in lethality if a shooter had been armed with with fully automatic variants.

Background checks are useless especially for preventing the sort of mass-murders that tend to stir up calls for more stringent gun controls. James Holmes, Martin Bryant and many others would have passed a criminal check and mental status, possibly. How do you even asses mental status?

A person can rapid fire with a semiautomatic by using a technique known as "bump firing." They use a rubber band together with the gun's recoil to make the weapon fire over and over very quickly as if it were automatic. However, the shooter has less control over the gun, making it more dangerous. It would make a lot more sense to just allow automatic weapons to be sold instead of having people use bump firing. I'd doubt you would be able to ban rubber bands.
 
I guess I need to clarify the mental illness block to buying a gun. Mental health records would remain private and could not be released without your permission.
But it's a requirement to obtaining a firearm in your proposed deal, and therefore not optional.

If you went to a shrink, you would be in no danger of your therapist reporting you to a "may not buy gun" list. Here's what could get a person put on that list. Someone commits a serious crime such as shooting people, attacking people, stabbing people, etc., but avoids a conviction due to an insanity defense. That, and only that, gets your on the "may not buy gun" list due to mental health.
That's already an automatic bar from gun ownership.


I'm sorry, don't you already have enough of a problem with people engaging in shootings armed with semi-automatics? Making them automatic would just increase lethality. Isn't that the whole point of all the 'truth about assault rifle....' videos we see bandied about on these forums. A semi AK can shoot what maybe 60rpm. In fully auto 700-800 rounds. When you consider that people are an easier target in the first few seconds, that represents a large increase in lethality if a shooter had been armed with with fully automatic variants.
Automatic fire "increasing lethality" is a myth. All it does is ensure that you won't have a steady aim, and that your magazine empties in seconds. It's why the M-16 is no longer fully automatic, and hasn't been since Vietnam with only a few exceptions. Fully automatic weapons in the hands of civilians are just very expensive toys with no practicality.
 
I'd support it simply to be allowed to purchase automatic weapons much cheaper. And I don't have a problem requiring background checks for all gun sales, but as I mentioned in the other thread that brought that up, doing so will be impossible to enforce.
 
A person can rapid fire with a semiautomatic by using a technique known as "bump firing." They use a rubber band together with the gun's recoil to make the weapon fire over and over very quickly as if it were automatic. However, the shooter has less control over the gun, making it more dangerous. It would make a lot more sense to just allow automatic weapons to be sold instead of having people use bump firing. I'd doubt you would be able to ban rubber bands.

I had a feeling would come up, banning rubber bands no. But are there not certain stocks that allow bump firing much easier and more controllable, you could restrict them. The option is not simply oh, bump firing is possible let's make rifles with fully automatics actions legal without restriction. It seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps with limited mag capacity, maybe. But as you pointed out that is difficult to enforce. I just find it odd, shooting rampage occurs and suddenly renewed debate on legalizing fully automatic rifles.
 
In my own opinion, number 2 is a bad idea.

why, no civilian owned legal machine gun has ever been used in a crime of violence other than a DAYTON POLICE OFFICER shooting someone illegally with an UZI he owned
 
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence. Even in your #1 with mental illness, you'd have to raise the minimum age to buy guns for it to be realistic. Most with mental instability and anger issues aren't officially diagnosed (apparently not the killer in this case), and many convicted felons are and were harmless. It really doesn't take much (alcohol) to set off even a "normal" person who has a gun attached to their hip already. When I see reactions to the theater massacre like "I'm thinking of buying a gun" that just affirms my belief that most people are too irrationally scared ****less to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public.

They would not have stopped the massacre. They would have been hiding on the floor after the first tear gas was thrown or try to run away like everyone else did, or far more likely they at some point kill someone themselves in a fit of rage or it goes off on accident. Even more likely they would not have been there, or in any situation where they have time to react, get their gun out and use it. That's just what we need anyway, two gun toting idiots firing away in a pitch dark theater.

Not to mention in the vast majority of cases, if this is really about self defense and not reigning in one's fear (and feeling like a badass), mace and other non lethal objects should be more easily acquired than guns. Everyday people walking around with automatic weapons would just ensure I never leave the house, or high tail it to a more sane country.

silly hoplophobia raises its head again.

its funny that the people least educated on guns and self defense are the quickest to claim that guns in AUrora could not have helped.

I reject the blatherings of the unlearned on this subject as faith based nonsense
 
why, no civilian owned legal machine gun has ever been used in a crime of violence other than a DAYTON POLICE OFFICER shooting someone illegally with an UZI he owned

Mainly because automatic arms carry with them an exceedingly prohibitive cost, which I'm alright with.
 
Mainly because automatic arms carry with them an exceedingly prohibitive cost, which I'm alright with.

that is an interesting been of statism from a libertarian and that cost only became truly prohibitive in 1986. Sure when the law was passed 200 dollars was design to allow proper rich WASPS only to afford Tommy guns and not "Papist" or black laborers but by 1984, the cost of a MP5 was less than two grand. Now its 20,000. An idiotic consequence of an idiotic law
 
Mainly because automatic arms carry with them an exceedingly prohibitive cost, which I'm alright with.

And Semi-Autos seem to have sufficient lethality as it is.

Anyway, this is not an issue i'm comfortable intruding on....
 
And Semi-Autos seem to have sufficient lethality as it is.

Anyway, this is not an issue i'm comfortable intruding on....

people ignorant about weapons tend to assume full auto is more lethal than semi auto

it depends on the circumstances and generally is not true

but when someone's main source of education is watching Rambo or Commando they tend to have silly ideas
 
that is an interesting been of statism from a libertarian and that cost only became truly prohibitive in 1986. Sure when the law was passed 200 dollars was design to allow proper rich WASPS only to afford Tommy guns and not "Papist" or black laborers but by 1984, the cost of a MP5 was less than two grand. Now its 20,000. An idiotic consequence of an idiotic law

You can call me whatever you want. It doesn't take them off the shelves, so I see no problem with it.
 
You can call me whatever you want. It doesn't take them off the shelves, so I see no problem with it.

It prevented any new weapons from being bought

do you believe only the rich should have access to firearms that are clearly constitutionally protected

do you think the Hughes Amendment is not in violation of the second amendment?
 
Back
Top Bottom