Which of the following do you think is reasonable gun control? (updated)

[jamesrage]

Which of the following do you think is reasonable gun control? If you have any other ideas then please list them.

Bullet micro-stamping
A ban on guns that are not smart guns
Ban on magazine capacities above 10 rounds
Ban on semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons
Firearm owners insurance requirement
A limit on how many guns someone can buy.
Ban on bump stocks
Ban on firearms that accept detachable magazines
Submit to psychological test before purchasing firearm
None of the above.


Just in case no one knows what any of the above terms mean-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
A semi-automatic, or self-loading firearm, is one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again—assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. To fire again, the trigger is released and re-pressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology. Microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. After being fired, if the cases are recovered by police, the microscopic markings imprinted on the cartridges can then be examined by forensic ballistics experts to help trace the firearm to the last registered owner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun
A smart gun, or personalized gun, is a firearm that includes a safety feature or features that allow it to fire only when activated by an authorized user. These safety features can prevent misuse, accidental shootings, gun thefts, and use of the weapon against the owner. Smart guns distinguish between authorized users and unauthorized users in several different ways, including the use of RFID chips or other proximity tokens, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or mechanical locks.[1] Related to smart guns are other smart firearms safety devices such as biometric or RFID activated accessories and safes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• 
  [*=center]Folding or telescoping stock
  [*=center]Pistol grip
  [*=center]Bayonet mount
  [*=center]Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  [*=center] Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• 
  [*=center]Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  [*=center]Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  [*=center]Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  [*=center]Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  [*=center] A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• 
  [*=center]Folding or telescoping stock
  [*=center]Pistol grip
  [*=center] Detachable magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire#Bump_fire_stock
Bump stocks, gunstocks designed to enable bumpfire, allow semi-automatic weapons to mimic the firing speed of fully automatic weapons.









I support none of the above.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yeah, none of the above. I can see keeping guns out of the hands of violent offenders, and maybe in rare cases where someone is declared mentally incompetent (which of course requires a background check take place at the point of purchase). But that's about all the gun control I could support.

 

[TheGoverness]

None of the above.

 

[KevinKohler]

I could support the biometric option...smart guns. Assuming the the tech is so cheap it doesn't affect the price of the gun.

To me, that's the same as password protecting your phone, or computer.

 

[Kal'Stang]

None of the above.

Micro stamping is easily gotten past and still won't tell you who killed a person even if its not gotten past due to stupidity.

"Smart" gun technology is too expensive and from what I understand still unreliable. Not to mention with over 300 million guns in this country you would never be able to get rid of all of em so a ban is impossible.

Magazine size bans is worthless considering it takes less than a second to change them out.

"deemed to be assault weapons"...if that isn't a misnomer I don't know what is. ALL guns can be considered as that. However if you're talking about "military styled weapons"...worthless. Hand guns are by far used far more in crime than any other type of gun. And military "styled" is just that...a style. A .22 semi-auto rifle that looks like a regular rifle will do the same exact thing and have the exact same capability as an AR-15.

Insurance: you shouldn't have to pay a continual fee just to exercise a Right. This will do NOTHING to curb crime of any type. Literally nothing. And I'd dare anyone to attempt to prove otherwise.

Limit on guns to buy: Limits on how many guns you can buy is worthless. Even the Las Vegas shooter didn't use all the guns he had. What would be the point?

Bump stock ban: you can do the same thing just by hooking your finger in your belt loop.

Ban on detachable mags: Considering how many guns there are in this country with detachable mags, another worthless scenario.

Psychological testing: There are over 300 million guns in this country. .001 percent of lawful gun owners use them in a crime. What would be the point? Besides, psych tests can be fooled quite easily by most people.

In the end what should be done has absolutely nothing to do with guns. Reform educational system. Reform mental healthcare system. Reform justice system. Reduce poverty. Stop the decisive rhetoric that is currently going on. All of that combined will drastically reduce crime rates. Including crimes committed with guns.

 

[Cardinal]

Bullet micro-stamping
A ban on guns that are not smart guns
Ban on magazine capacities above 10 rounds
Ban on semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons
Firearm owners insurance requirement
A limit on how many guns someone can buy
Ban on bumpstocks
Ban on any firearm that accept detachable magazines
Submit to psychological test before purchasing firearm
None of the above.

Forest for the trees. Reminds me of this Atlantic Article:

The Rules of the Gun Debate

The rules for discussing firearms in the United States obscure the obvious solutions.

Rule 1. The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, “Why do so many Americans die from gunfire?” but “What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?”

Rule 2. The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

 

[KevinKohler]

Forest for the trees. Reminds me of this Atlantic Article:



https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

So what's the move, then?

Should we try to prevent some guns to be ownable by all people, or prevent all guns from being ownable by some people?

 

[Common Sense 1]

Forest for the trees. Reminds me of this Atlantic Article:



https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

The normal response from the wacky left anti-gun zealots. If you support the 2nd amendment your are a ( pick your own derogatory name) or you won't address the true issue which it's bad to own any weapon.
The only way to fix this according to the left is ban guns that is exactly what it comes down too. Just watched a program on CNN and the message being pushed is people have to be taught that weapons are evil.
If you are a parent and have a weapon at home you are a bad parent. Evil, evil, evil!

 

[Cardinal]

So what's the move, then?

Should we try to prevent some guns to be ownable by all people, or prevent all guns from being ownable by some people?

That's another example of tree vs forest.

 

[KevinKohler]

That's another example of tree vs forest.

Note how the first sentence is a question directed at you. Ignore the second, if you wish.

 

[Cephus]

None of the above. I don't support gun control, I support crazy people control.

 

[jamesrage]

Forest for the trees. Reminds me of this Atlantic Article:



https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

The first nine poll options are based on what many gun control activists have said what needs to happen in almost any gun control debate.Most would like all those first nine to happen.

 

[Cardinal]

The first nine poll options are based on what many gun control activists have said what needs to happen in almost any gun control debate.Most would like all those first nine to happen.

Possibly. I would also add raising the price of ammunition so that it's prohibitively expensive, including the possible banning of the sale of firearms altogether. The main issue is the saturation of firearms throughout the country. Easier access to firearms = greater propensity for gun deaths. You certainly wouldn't see a dramatic impact right away considering that there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the country right now, but in a few years the restrictions would certainly take a bite of the ~8000 firearm-related homicides and 21,000 suicides per year.

 

[jamesrage]

Possibly. I would also add raising the price of ammunition so that it's prohibitively expensive, including the possible banning of the sale of firearms altogether.

THe polls only allow ten options.

The main issue is the saturation of firearms throughout the country. Easier access to firearms = greater propensity for gun deaths. You certainly wouldn't see a dramatic impact right away considering that there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the country right now, but in a few years the restrictions would certainly take a bite of the ~8000 firearm-related homicides and 21,000 suicides per year.

There are other well to do countries like Japan for example that has a higher suicide rate than we do, but a severe restriction on firearms. Unless you are trying to argue that Japanese are somehow more efficient at offing themselves a decrease in guns wouldn't effect those suicides at all. I think the criminals who commit murder might find some other means of offing their victims.

 

[Cardinal]

THe polls only allow ten options.

There are other well to do countries like Japan for example that has a higher suicide rate than we do, but a severe restriction on firearms. Unless you are trying to argue that Japanese are somehow more efficient at offing themselves a decrease in guns wouldn't effect those suicides at all. I think the criminals who commit murder might find some other means of offing their victims.

I'm more interested in the forest than the trees. Every time the discussion gets rammed through the lens of "Which gun regulation would have prevented x massacre?" or "What is the technical definition of an assault rifle?", the topic gets hopelessly driven into the weeds to the point that nobody remembers what the discussion is about anymore. It's like if the lava from Vesuvius was racing toward Pompei and everybody decided to argue whether Mount Vesuvius is a cinder cone or composite type volcano.

I'm including a price hike on ammunition because it's a solution that factors into the broader problem that, as a whole, guns and ammo are very, very easy to procure. This has resulted in a massive saturation of firearms and ammunition and is the reason why we have 29,000 gun deaths a year (I didn't look at the figures for deaths caused by accidents so that number will of course be higher). Solutions that are aimed at addressing the overall ease of acquiring guns, and therefore at stemming what leads to gun saturation overall, is what I'm interested in.

 

[LaylaWindu]

None of the above. I'd support gun control laws that actually do something though. I also admit I am totally unfamiliar with microstamping. In theory it could be something I support but the first thing is, it doesn't tell you who shot the gun right? Next questions are, how easily is it duplicated or defeated. What's it cost to manufacturing and lastly there are still a million guns out there without it.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Possibly. I would also add raising the price of ammunition so that it's prohibitively expensive, including the possible banning of the sale of firearms altogether. The main issue is the saturation of firearms throughout the country. Easier access to firearms = greater propensity for gun deaths. You certainly wouldn't see a dramatic impact right away considering that there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the country right now, but in a few years the restrictions would certainly take a bite of the ~8000 firearm-related homicides and 21,000 suicides per year.

How would one like me who owns a gun practice and stay efficient?

 

[Nap]

I think stuff like microstamping and smart guns will be more effective one the technology improves and becomes more available. It will not make much difference with crime however because there will always be someone trying to think about a way to subvert the system.

Prohibition type laws simply don't work and only hurt those that would actually obey the law. This has been proven throughout history. If you want to stop bad behavior then you must go after the incentive or root cause of such action otherwise you are just compounding the issue. Alcohol and drug use are prime examples from the past and the fact we haven't learned anything from those as a society is rather disappointing.

 

[Cardinal]

How would one like me who owns a gun practice and stay efficient?

In light of an average of 8000 gun related homicides per year (not the least of which is the massacre in Las Vegas just two weeks ago in which 58 people were killed and 500 more were injured, or the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook), I don't find that to be an especially compelling concern.

 

[Fledermaus]

Ban on STUPID.

Ban on Suicide.

Ban on Murder.

 

[LaylaWindu]

In light of an average of 8000 gun related homicides per year (not the least of which is the massacre in Las Vegas just two weeks ago in which 58 people were killed and 500 more were injured, or the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook), I don't find that to be an especially compelling concern.

Oh so both my own personal safety and me wanting to be proficient with a gun I own isn't a concern? That makes sense :roll: People will really rally behind that. Do you also support making gas $150 a gallon since 37K a year die in automobiles (1600 kids) a year. Consider me not interested especially when bullets can be mad black market style and the bad guys will still get them cheap its a very illogical idea that puts more people at risk.

 

[Cardinal]

Oh so both my own personal safety and me wanting to be proficient with a gun I own isn't a concern? That makes sense :roll: People will really rally behind that. Do you also support making gas $150 a gallon since 37K a year die in automobiles (1600 kids) a year. Consider me not interested especially when bullets can be mad black market style and the bad guys will still get them cheap its a very illogical idea that puts more people at risk.

If you think that the notion of you not having enough ammo for your gun is worse than ~33,000 gun-related deaths per year, then you and I have such a different view of the scale of the relative issues that you and I probably won't have much common ground here. In essence, it doesn't seem that you and I share enough common values to effectively argue toward an agreed-upon solution because our views of the problems are too different.

 

[LaylaWindu]

If you think that the notion of you not having enough ammo for your gun is worse than ~33,000 gun-related deaths per year, then you and I have such a different view of the scale of the relative issues that you and I probably won't have much common ground here. In essence, it doesn't seem that you and I share enough common values to effectively argue toward an agreed-upon solution because our views of the problems are too different.

What I think is your solution makes things worse and more dangerous for everybody, if you can't see that I agree theres no way to come to a solution because I don't want more people in danger. Its not my safety vs 33,00 deaths in any way because you solution wont stop those deaths it will probably increase them. AT least it will change the dynamics of them. While you are increasing the cost for me and making it hard for me to protect myself and stay efficient remind me what stops the bad guys from making their own bullets (which is not hard). What stops the black market from just exploding with ammo while again, people like me who will follow the law will have none or very little.

 

[apdst]

Possibly. I would also add raising the price of ammunition so that it's prohibitively expensive, including the possible banning of the sale of firearms altogether. The main issue is the saturation of firearms throughout the country. Easier access to firearms = greater propensity for gun deaths. You certainly wouldn't see a dramatic impact right away considering that there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the country right now, but in a few years the restrictions would certainly take a bite of the ~8000 firearm-related homicides and 21,000 suicides per year.

Do you support assisted suicide?

 

[haymarket]

Prediction: none of the above wins in a romp.