Gun Control

[Landlord]

I've got two small boys obviously, but they aren't aware that their lives along with the life of my wife have been threatened several times over the years. Obviously being in law enforcement would help me obtain the ability to carry a weapon "off-duty" but I'd be curious what might happen if they passed a check that said, "You've got small kids? Nope..........." Not arguing just more curious than anything on how that would work. I also live in a fairly safe city.

I'm not sure either, just entertaining hypotheticals, but the fact that 23 toddlers have shot people or themselves in our country since January is absolutely horrifying to me.

 

[knapplc]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

It's not that hard to come up with some kind of a plan that is atleast a foot in the right direction. Just because it won't entirely eliminate something doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a plan.Limit magazine size, and you could granfather in existing mags. Maybe have people register them within 3 or 5 years to make them legally grandfathered. I don't know too much about magazine, but as an engineer I would think they have a limited service life; corrosion, wear and tear, springs breaking, whatever. They must be desposed of and cannot be refurbished. You'd don't register or what have you and you pay a fine or do time, having your magzine and maybe weapons confiscated. Enforcement is like any other law. How do we enforce hunting tags? Switch blades? Supressors?...

Thankyou for looking at it constructively.

In the case of my Glock, the mags are mostly plastic so yeah I'm betting they wear down quickly with frequent useage. If we started imposing a limit on mag and clip capacity, over time it could certainly help.

The prolem with taking mags and limiting them is it would be very hard to police with international shipping being so easy. Say you are allowed 2 per firearm you have registered, get caught with more and you pay a fine etc. I'm cool with that, 100% cool. It would be a pain in the a$$ when I go plinking, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant a chance at less gun related deaths.

Again, thankyou for being constructive about it.

How is this any different than what I've been saying? It's like you're not reading the words I say, and making up your own narrative in your head.

Oh, wait. That is what you're doing:

Knapp: Why do you need a 30 round clip?

Redux: I don't need one, but how do we get rid...

Knapp: NOT THE POINT! YOU ADMITTED IT!

Redux: But I don't own....

Knapp: (plugs ears) LAAALALALALALLALALALALALALALAL

 

[knapplc]

Just for clarification, in the 15 years I've been doing this I've never had access to a fully automatic weapon in either of the two agencies I've worked for along with several years on a large SWAT team. All of the weapons I've used are semi-automatic weapons. My standard rifle has been an AR-15 for several years. And MY GOD with the clip word..............they're magazines!

I will admit I don't know the jargon.

But if you can get us time on a firing range, I'll drive out there and I'll pay for the ammunition if you supply the gun to shoot.

 

[Enhance]

Now, unless I'm mistaken, a gun for personal protection is not substantial enough reason in the UK. This would be an incredibly difficult law to sell to Americans and I admit that.

Not that it would ever actually work, but it would make sense to me to allow personal protection to qualify as "good reason". If you live in a city or a neighborhood with certain crime rates, if you work a dangerous profession in the sen of it could create enemies, stuff like that could easily allow people to have that work towards a permit, whereas if you live in safe suburbia, or if you have young children that could gain access to your firearm, would make it a lot harder.

I've got two small boys obviously, but they aren't aware that their lives along with the life of my wife have been threatened several times over the years. Obviously being in law enforcement would help me obtain the ability to carry a weapon "off-duty" but I'd be curious what might happen if they passed a check that said, "You've got small kids? Nope..........." Not arguing just more curious than anything on how that would work. I also live in a fairly safe city.

Certainly questions worth vetting. As law enforcement, I agree that off-duty permissions should be given. And even if people had to give valid reasons, the substantiation by two qualified references would be enough. For example, someone's significant other could offer reference and then a parent, friend, etc. But, those references would also have to have their backgrounds vetted. Think of how many people would be unable to get that or would be too nervous to even try getting a gun?

But, for the "normal, everyday American" argument, it should be no problem to get those references and legally obtain the gun.

 

[Redux]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

It's not that hard to come up with some kind of a plan that is atleast a foot in the right direction. Just because it won't entirely eliminate something doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a plan.Limit magazine size, and you could granfather in existing mags. Maybe have people register them within 3 or 5 years to make them legally grandfathered. I don't know too much about magazine, but as an engineer I would think they have a limited service life; corrosion, wear and tear, springs breaking, whatever. They must be desposed of and cannot be refurbished. You'd don't register or what have you and you pay a fine or do time, having your magzine and maybe weapons confiscated. Enforcement is like any other law. How do we enforce hunting tags? Switch blades? Supressors?...

Thankyou for looking at it constructively.In the case of my Glock, the mags are mostly plastic so yeah I'm betting they wear down quickly with frequent useage. If we started imposing a limit on mag and clip capacity, over time it could certainly help.

The prolem with taking mags and limiting them is it would be very hard to police with international shipping being so easy. Say you are allowed 2 per firearm you have registered, get caught with more and you pay a fine etc. I'm cool with that, 100% cool. It would be a pain in the a$$ when I go plinking, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant a chance at less gun related deaths.

Again, thankyou for being constructive about it.

How is this any different than what I've been saying? It's like you're not reading the words I say, and making up your own narrative in your head.

Oh, wait. That is what you're doing:

Knapp: Why do you need a 30 round clip?

Redux: I don't need one, but how do we get rid...

Knapp: NOT THE POINT! YOU ADMITTED IT!

Redux: But I don't own....

Knapp: (plugs ears) LAAALALALALALLALALALALALALALAL

Ditto. If you would approach it with less intensity like Zrod did I would be much more prepared to converse about it. All of your posts come off as very stubborn and idealistic, not that theres anything wrong with that, but it makes it hard to respond without doing the same.

And come on, that was funny.

 

[knapplc]

Ditto. If you would approach it with less intensity like Zrod did I would be much more prepared to converse about it. All of your posts come off as very stubborn and idealistic, not that theres anything wrong with that, but it makes it hard to respond without doing the same.

And come on, that was funny.

It's really hard to approach this with a happy-go-lucky attitude when people are dying. Guys get more intense talking about football than I'm getting talking about gun deaths. That's a game. This is someone's kid getting killed.

I mean... what do you expect? Guns aren't toys and this is a serious subject. It's concerning that people think this should be treated "with less intensity." Seriously concerning.

 

[zoogs]

But, those references would also have to have their backgrounds vetted. Think of how many people would be unable to get that or would be too nervous to even try getting a gun?

But, for the "normal, everyday American" argument, it should be no problem to get those references and legally obtain the gun.

I don't see how that filters out everyone except for "normal, everyday Americans". Or rather, future radicals/criminals and future angry people can fall well within any reasonable definition of the term. So, how far do we keep upping the bar on what constitutes a "normal, everyday American", and if you really are one, you'll have no problem proving it by _____ ...?

So there'd be a strong argument that these are still half measures that don't stop criminals. I'm not against the references idea; it seems like a good way to filter out casual interest for a serious responsibility. It does not, however, filter out bad intent.

What would be a full measure, then? IMO, it's either:

1 - Precrime: find these 'potential bad apples' and strip them of their rights before they hurt anyone, or

2 - Decide that these are dangerous products, and restrict/remove them as necessary.

The only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles, all termed "Section 1" firearms.

I like what Enhance posted above. The English template seems to acknowledge #2 fully.

 

[Redux]

Ditto. If you would approach it with less intensity like Zrod did I would be much more prepared to converse about it. All of your posts come off as very stubborn and idealistic, not that theres anything wrong with that, but it makes it hard to respond without doing the same.And come on, that was funny.

It's really hard to approach this with a happy-go-lucky attitude when people are dying. Guys get more intense talking about football than I'm getting talking about gun deaths. That's a game. This is someone's kid getting killed.I mean... what do you expect? Guns aren't toys and this is a serious subject. It's concerning that people think this should be treated "with less intensity." Seriously concerning.

Who said it wasn't a serious issue, surely you're not implying I am? If so, stay outta my mouth good sir.

I appreciate your passion, it's just difficult to discuss actual solutions. I mean, we're on page 11 and it's like you're still trying to sell me an idea that I was on board with on page 2.

 

[knapplc]

Ditto. If you would approach it with less intensity like Zrod did I would be much more prepared to converse about it. All of your posts come off as very stubborn and idealistic, not that theres anything wrong with that, but it makes it hard to respond without doing the same.And come on, that was funny.

It's really hard to approach this with a happy-go-lucky attitude when people are dying. Guys get more intense talking about football than I'm getting talking about gun deaths. That's a game. This is someone's kid getting killed.I mean... what do you expect? Guns aren't toys and this is a serious subject. It's concerning that people think this should be treated "with less intensity." Seriously concerning.

Who said it wasn't a serious issue, surely you're not implying I am? If so, stay outta my mouth good sir.

I appreciate your passion, it's just difficult to discuss actual solutions. I mean, we're on page 11 and it's like you're still trying to sell me an idea that I was on board with on page 2.

The problem is that you're not wrong.

I'm not wrong, either.

You're right in that responsible people with good intentions should be able to own any gun they want. They will take care of them properly, teach their children properly, and in every way be totally safe about that gun. That's the majority - the vast, VAST majority, of gun owners.

I'm not wrong in that guns cause too many deaths. Large magazines, large bores, easy availability, carelessness, or just a momentary lapse of caution can and do kill. Guns are dangerous as hell and far too often, an irresponsible gun owner or lax laws or even large, well-financed lobbies counteract simple common sense. People die.

Where's the bad guy there? Not me, not you. But somewhere in there, amidst the letters and spaces and commas, is the problem. And in the midst of that, people are dying. I don't know how to fix it, and I don't know how to be dispassionate about it.

 

[Saunders]

I've got two small boys obviously, but they aren't aware that their lives along with the life of my wife have been threatened several times over the years. Obviously being in law enforcement would help me obtain the ability to carry a weapon "off-duty" but I'd be curious what might happen if they passed a check that said, "You've got small kids? Nope..........." Not arguing just more curious than anything on how that would work. I also live in a fairly safe city.

I'm not sure either, just entertaining hypotheticals, but the fact that 23 toddlers have shot people or themselves in our country since January is absolutely horrifying to me.

It sucks, and it's 100% because people are stupid and don't lock their guns up. Unfortunately, it's the same type of attitude that lets swimming pools be so deadly for kids. I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

I've made my point over and over. There are things I fell that we absolutely can fix that will curb the issue. I posted my list on page 1. At the same time, I think there are things that get bandied about as "solutions" that won't do a thing to actually help, but they sound good on paper to people who aren't fully informed.

 

[ZRod]

Maybe we need laws better enforcing gun safety? Maybe PSAs as well? Should it be illegal to not have your gun locked up with a minor in the home? Should we hold parents liable for the death of their child if the weapon was unsecure and the child died because they were playing with it?

I think part of the problem is the whole idea of gun ownership as a right. People take it less seriously (from a safety/caring standpoint) when it's not a privilege.

Locking guns up and having proper respect for them would put a large dent in some of those statics I would wager. You'd take stolen guns off the street, save childrens lives, have more knowledgeable operators, etc.

 

[Enhance]

But, those references would also have to have their backgrounds vetted. Think of how many people would be unable to get that or would be too nervous to even try getting a gun?

But, for the "normal, everyday American" argument, it should be no problem to get those references and legally obtain the gun.

I don't see how that filters out everyone except for "normal, everyday Americans". Or rather, future radicals/criminals and future angry people can fall well within any reasonable definition of the term. So, how far do we keep upping the bar on what constitutes a "normal, everyday American", and if you really are one, you'll have no problem proving it by _____ ...?

So there'd be a strong argument that these are still half measures that don't stop criminals. I'm not against the references idea; it seems like a good way to filter out casual interest for a serious responsibility. It does not, however, filter out bad intent.

What would be a full measure, then? IMO, it's either:

1 - Precrime: find these 'potential bad apples' and strip them of their rights before they hurt anyone, or

2 - Decide that these are dangerous products, and restrict/remove them as necessary.

The only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles, all termed "Section 1" firearms.

I like what Enhance posted above. The English template seems to acknowledge #2 fully.

Just for clarification, my "normal, everyday American" comment was in regards to huskerfan2000 saying any changes to gun laws would hurt the "normal, everyday American." I wasn't mentioning it as a point of reference or some kind of benchmark for gun sales.

Theoretically, lets say I wanted to buy a gun following a modified UK version. I'd submit the necessary paperwork for a permit, the type of gun I'm purchasing, my intent and two references. I'd be given a full, thorough background check and then my references would be vetted as well to check their backgrounds. They would also have to knowingly understand they're being listed as references for someone wishing to purchase a handgun - either they'd be contacted by the retailer or they'd have to sign their name as a reference.

A gun retailer could then use similar criteria to how they currently accept/deny gun sales. For example, if there's any indication that I may be unstable from my references or my background check, sale could be denied. And it's not like gun retailers are going to be stingy. They want to sell a gun. But, if I don't meet the standard, I shouldn't have a gun.

There are obviously specifics that would need to be hammered out, but this looks like a nice middle ground. Particularly, as I've stated, people are still going to die by the hands of gun no matter the laws in place. But, if these change could prevent otherwise unnecessary deaths...

 

[Saunders]

Maybe we need laws better enforcing gun safety? Maybe PSAs as well? Should it be illegal to not have your gun locked up with a minor in the home? Should we hold parents liable for the death of their child if the weapon was unsecure and the child died because they were playing with it?

I think part of the problem is the whole idea of gun ownership as a right. People take it less seriously (from a safety/caring standpoint) when it's not a privilege.

Locking guns up and having proper respect for them would put a large dent in some of those statics I would wager. You'd take stolen guns off the street, save childrens lives, have more knowledgeable operators, etc.

+1 Z.

The funny thing is... this is what the NRA was actually created to do. They still do have programs like these (and their actual instruction programs are top notch) but they've been hijacked at the top levels by the crazies.

 

[Landlord]

I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

Honest question - about how long do you think it would take you to get to, unlock, and load your gun from say, your living room or your kitchen in the event of an armed robbery?

 

[Enhance]

Maybe we need laws better enforcing gun safety? Maybe PSAs as well? Should it be illegal to not have your gun locked up with a minor in the home? Should we hold parents liable for the death of their child if the weapon was unsecure and the child died because they were playing with it?

I think part of the problem is the whole idea of gun ownership as a right. People take it less seriously (from a safety/caring standpoint) when it's not a privilege.

Locking guns up and having proper respect for them would put a large dent in some of those statics I would wager. You'd take stolen guns off the street, save childrens lives, have more knowledgeable operators, etc.

I've spoken about it a few times in this thread, but many of the illegal guns we see on the streets are thanks to idiotic gun owners. I've had law enforcement tell me this several times. Owners leave them unsecured in glove boxes, trunks, under the car seat, in closets, in a dresser drawer or under the bed. A lot of gun owners don't deserve the gun purely based on their stupidity, but of course, there's nothing legally preventing them from owning that gun.

Statistics from the last 5-6 years suggest about 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities report having owned a gun at some point in the past, which by nature is illegal because they're juveniles.

Better gun owner responsibility, safety, security and knowledge would go a long way towards preventing deaths. Most of the gun owners in my family keep their guns in secure, incredibly heavy gun safes. Though expensive, I believe having the right to own a gun gives you the responsibility to do everything you can to keep it out of the hands of criminals and the young.