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

[TurtleDude]

And a digital registry of all the bullets..... but that sort of thing is opposed by some people

yeah its idiotic in many ways

1) Md had a similar system. they scrapped it as a waste

2) it would dramatically increase the cost of ammo

3) you can make bullets out of lead and you can jacket them as well. I know lots of people who cast their own bullets. and its easy to jacket them with the right tools.

 

[jamesrage]

I support universal background checks on all firearms purchases or transfers...... registration of all firearms .... no automatic weapons and no kits to turn legal firearms into anything approaching automatic capabilities like the Vegas shooter used ..... limits on magazine sizes ..... laws preventing people from assembling their own arsenals .....

So that is yes for a ban on bump stocks, a ban on 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban and a limit on how many guns someone can buy?

 

[haymarket]

So that is yes for a ban on bump stocks, a ban on 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban and a limit on how many guns someone can buy?

Perhaps more than ten rounds .

 

[Mach]

A gun doesn't cause someone to commit suicide. That stupid.

No one claimed it did.
What did occur is that your claim was shown to be incorrect and stupid. Which is typical. You will carry on with your antics though, we know.

 

[Waddy]

How about as a first step we put mental health records on the Instant Check data base? And require the mental health community to report people who are deeply disturbed and capable of violent acts, or who are suffering from serious depression. Right now only people who have been adjudicated by a judge get reported, but this is a tiny percentage of at risk people with serious mental health issues. And not every state even reports on these types of people.

Why this hasn't been done already is the objections from the mental health community. They feel, probably correctly, that reporting serious mental health risks would deter people from seeking help with their issues. But doesn't public safety trump the right to privacy, if you are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people?

Both the Sandy Hook shooter and the Columbine shooters had a history of being treated for mental instability, and were on prescription mental health drugs. Many of these shooters had a history of mental health issues. And the families of these people, because of HIPPA privacy rules, were never advised properly about how potentially dangerous these people could be. Mental health therapists should have sat down with the families and advised them to remove all guns from the home and keep a careful watch on the patient. But the rules prohibit sharing such information about the patient's condition, or involving the entire family without the patient's consent.

Until we get past the doctor-patient privilege and take the steps necessary to protect the public from dangerously mentally ill people they will get their hands on the weapons they want.

 

[apdst]

No one claimed it did.
What did occur is that your claim was shown to be incorrect and stupid. Which is typical. You will carry on with your antics though, we know.

You're claiming that fewer guns means fewer suicides. Yes?

 

[The Mark]

*snip for glorious brevity*

The two I have least issue with are the microstamping (depending on how it's implemented and how it effects prices and such), firearms owner insurance (Depending on that that means), and possibly the smart gun thing (although I think most of the measures listed could be bypassed with enough effort).

Sure, you could ban bumpstocks, but anyone like the recent asshole in Las Vegas could just make some for themselves. It would only make it slightly harder for them.
Banning firearms with detachable magazines is ridiculous. Magazine size restrictions are less ridiculous, but still problematic.
I never quite got the whole "assault weapons" thing, but keep hearing it.

The mental test is extremely problematic, especially dependent on how precisely it would be implemented, what would be "acceptable" mental state, and how it was enforced.
Personally I think a program to educate the citizens on mental health and how to deal with it would be far more effective in combating that trigger of violence.

 

[TurtleDude]

How about as a first step we put mental health records on the Instant Check data base? And require the mental health community to report people who are deeply disturbed and capable of violent acts, or who are suffering from serious depression. Right now only people who have been adjudicated by a judge get reported, but this is a tiny percentage of at risk people with serious mental health issues. And not every state even reports on these types of people.

Why this hasn't been done already is the objections from the mental health community. They feel, probably correctly, that reporting serious mental health risks would deter people from seeking help with their issues. But doesn't public safety trump the right to privacy, if you are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people?

Both the Sandy Hook shooter and the Columbine shooters had a history of being treated for mental instability, and were on prescription mental health drugs. Many of these shooters had a history of mental health issues. And the families of these people, because of HIPPA privacy rules, were never advised properly about how potentially dangerous these people could be. Mental health therapists should have sat down with the families and advised them to remove all guns from the home and keep a careful watch on the patient. But the rules prohibit sharing such information about the patient's condition, or involving the entire family without the patient's consent.

Until we get past the doctor-patient privilege and take the steps necessary to protect the public from dangerously mentally ill people they will get their hands on the weapons they want.

so if someone is "mentally ill" but still can think things through, and they know anything they tell their doctor is not protected by privilege, tell me what that will do in terms of people seeking help from mental health care providers

 

[vegas giants]

so if someone is "mentally ill" but still can think things through, and they know anything they tell their doctor is not protected by privilege, tell me what that will do in terms of people seeking help from mental health care providers

Uh....currently they can be detained in a hospital against their will....but people seem to still talk to doctors

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh....currently they can be detained in a hospital against their will....but people seem to still talk to doctors

that's a different issue legally.

 

[vegas giants]

that's a different issue legally.

And yet is directly related to your point about talking to doctors

 

[TurtleDude]

And yet is directly related to your point about talking to doctors

why haven't you voted on the poll. BTW I believe you have a duty to include my full quote concerning suicide. you didn't do that so I am putting you on notice

 

[Moon]

None of the above. We have more than enough gun laws on the books as it is.

 

[HK.227]

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

None of the above.
At the moment, the best compromise I am aware of is to limit citizens to those weapons which are not exclusive to territorial defense style military organizations.
That is to say any weapons that are available to municipal, state or federal agencies, should be available to all citizens and under the same conditions.

- Regarding civil rights, a badge is a sign of sanction, not that one belongs to a special kind of citizens who are all equal, but some more equal than others.
- Regarding lethality and mass killings, if a weapon type is too dangerous for citizens to posses, then it is too dangerous for citizens with badges. Both can commit atrocities.
- Regarding criminals and balance of power, if citizens with badges encounter problems with criminals using banned weapon types, this must be accounted for by the making, interpretation, and enforcement of law. (This should have been the case long before mlitarized police started becoming a problem.)
- Regarding oppressive governments and military weapons, the military should consist of citizens soldiers, so government cannot rely on the military to oppress the citizenry.
- Regarding citizen soldiers, so should other government agencies. (i.e. no militarized agency subcultures with "them and us" mentalities.)
- Regarding opressive governments and agencies, if agencies are compromised, the balance of power should be such that a citizen majority are able to overthrow government who relies on said agencies to oppress the citizenry.
- Regarding the solving of crimes, tracing weapons and ammunition proactively would be convenient but is not realistic before such time as civil rights are set in stone. Given a state of trust it could be accomplished, but recent abuses are still too fresh in the public memory.

/0.02c

 

[jamesrage]

Perhaps more than ten rounds .

So if a standard capacity magazine holds more than 10 rounds you want it banned?

 

[jamesrage]

None of the above.
At the moment, the best compromise I am aware of is to limit citizens to those weapons which are not exclusive to territorial defense style military organizations.
That is to say any weapons that are available to municipal, state or federal agencies, should be available to all citizens and under the same conditions.

I feel that is how our gun control laws should be. If Joe Schmoe is banned from owning a Ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine in a state then so should police and other government agencies in that state. If Joe Schmoe can't easily open or concealed carry in a state then neither should police and other government agencies in that state. If Joe Schmoe in a state can only have one gun then so should what ever security detail regardless if private or a government agency then only one of those people can have a gun. Because if Joe Schmoe can only have the protection of one gun then so should what ever politician,government official or celebrity. I kind of think that problem with anti-2nd amendment loons in office is that the gun control laws they enact don't effect them.They can hire a bunch of armed security guards, even police or some other government agency to protect their ass and follow them where ever they go.While Joe Schmoe can't. So if we made our laws effect those in office equally in office as they do regular citizens then they might be less likely to enact some of the nonsense they do.

 

[haymarket]

So if a standard capacity magazine holds more than 10 rounds you want it banned?

Before I answer perhaps you can help me with information that will help me answer. Why would a person need a firearm that has a magazine capable of firing more than ten shots at a time?

 

[jamesrage]

Before I answer perhaps you can help me with information that will help me answer. Why would a person need a firearm that has a magazine capable of firing more than ten shots at a time?

Being able to shoot center mass at a target that is perfectly still is not the same thing as shooting at someone who not just moving but also trying to harm you.That means some of your shots will miss, and some that do hit may not stop the individual. So if multiple armed home invaders come through your door or you encounter a pack of dangerous animals out in the woods having more than ten rounds will come in handy. But the 2nd amendment is not about need.

 

[haymarket]

Being able to shoot center mass at a target that is perfectly still is not the same thing as shooting at someone who not just moving but also trying to harm you.That means some of your shots will miss, and some that do hit may not stop the individual. So if multiple armed home invaders come through your door or you encounter a pack of dangerous animals out in the woods having more than ten rounds will come in handy. But the 2nd amendment is not about need.

But when our society considers the question as to which weapons are allowed in our society, need must be considered as well as the practical use for such a weapon.

Just how often does the situation(s) you speculated about arise?

 

[jamesrage]

But when our society considers the question as to which weapons are allowed in our society, need must be considered as well as the practical use for such a weapon.

Just how often does the situation(s) you speculated about arise?

There are a whole lot more home invasions than they are these high profile mass shootings.I would also think that since millions of Americans hunt they probably do occasionally come across a pack of dangerous animals.

8 Burglary Stats Every Homeowner Should Know
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf?kbid=62750
Home Invasion Facts & Stats
http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf

 

[haymarket]

There are a whole lot more home invasions than they are these high profile mass shootings.I would also think that since millions of Americans hunt they probably do occasionally come across a pack of dangerous animals.

8 Burglary Stats Every Homeowner Should Know
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf?kbid=62750
Home Invasion Facts & Stats
http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf

Thank you for that information. It was very interesting.

I notice it talked mostly about burglary and break-ins and there was next to nothing about my actual question as to how much need there was for a magazine larger than ten bullets.

Correct if I am wrong, but for a person to need ten bullets it appears that there would have to be
1- several invaders, or
2- the home owner is a really poor shot, or
3- it is a lengthy gun battle

Again, I would like to know how often these situations actually occur where one would need more than ten shots at a time before reloading.

 

[TurtleDude]

I feel that is how our gun control laws should be. If Joe Schmoe is banned from owning a Ar-15 with a 30 round standard capacity magazine in a state then so should police and other government agencies in that state. If Joe Schmoe can't easily open or concealed carry in a state then neither should police and other government agencies in that state. If Joe Schmoe in a state can only have one gun then so should what ever security detail regardless if private or a government agency then only one of those people can have a gun. Because if Joe Schmoe can only have the protection of one gun then so should what ever politician,government official or celebrity. I kind of think that problem with anti-2nd amendment loons in office is that the gun control laws they enact don't effect them.They can hire a bunch of armed security guards, even police or some other government agency to protect their ass and follow them where ever they go.While Joe Schmoe can't. So if we made our laws effect those in office equally in office as they do regular citizens then they might be less likely to enact some of the nonsense they do.

this has always been my standard. Governmental units should be estopped from claiming the same weapons they issue their civilian employees are too dangerous for other civilians to use for self defense against criminals in the same environment. Where civilian police have additional rights/powers is the fact that they can openly carry said weapons into some areas other civilians cannot and these LEOs have the benefit of not causing alarm when bearing such arms.

If police who usually are far more ready for a confrontation with violent criminals than homeowners and shopkeepers (who never pick the time when they are attacked) need 16-30 round magazines, than obviously so do private citizens

 

[AGENT J]

I voted none of the above.

gun limit and stamping may be ok but i'd have to know the plan before i could support them. I also dont know if a "limit" would be ok but a flag or additional check might be. I mean if a nondealer buys 100 guns in month, it wont hurt to give that a second check lol

 

[jamesrage]

Thank you for that information. It was very interesting.

I notice it talked mostly about burglary and break-ins and there was next to nothing about my actual question as to how much need there was for a magazine larger than ten bullets.

Correct if I am wrong, but for a person to need ten bullets it appears that there would have to be
1- several invaders, or
2- the home owner is a really poor shot, or
3- it is a lengthy gun battle

Again, I would like to know how often these situations actually occur where one would need more than ten shots at a time before reloading.

You are trying to claim well since those situations rarely a occur then a ban on magazine capacity of ten rounds or more are justified.While at the same time trying to use an event that statistically rarely occurs to justify more gun control. You don't have any room to play the "well that hardly ever happens" game. You don't have a leg to stand on.Because statistically the odds of anyone being a victim of a mass shooting are probably about the same odds of winning a big prize on a lottery, having sex with hot twins, or being struck by lightning .

 

[TurtleDude]

You are trying to claim well since those situations rarely a occur then a ban on magazine capacity of ten rounds or more are justified.While at the same time trying to use an event that statistically rarely occurs to justify more gun control. You don't have any room to play the "well that hardly ever happens" game. You don't have a leg to stand on.Because statistically the odds of anyone being a victim of a mass shooting are probably about the same odds of winning a big prize on a lottery, having sex with hot twins, or being struck by lightning .

the only purpose for a ten round magazine limit is to get closer to a zero magazine limit