Tell me what we can do about the guns

[Anonymous]

I don't think this 14 year old serial armed kidnapper legally owned his gun.

https://www.popville.com/2021/09/arrest-14-year-old-juvenile-dc-kidnapping-gun/

When he's released tomorrow, maybe OP can ask him.

[Anonymous]

I think people who say that current laws are working and that they just need to be enforced are using a stupid and desperate argument. The families of Forty thousand dead Americans say otherwise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at Switzerland you guys- lots of guns, but very strict laws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

Why can’t we do the same? Why don’t we value life enough to do so?

People in Switzerland have army-issued MACHINE GUNS and ammunition at home.

This is because the problem is not the guns, but the scum of society. Switzerland has a far lower percentage of scum

We're not supposed to notice that, and certainly not to say.

Yeah I tried that argument several pages back but the anti-gun nuts like to blame inanimate objects instead of people. You’ll never change their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is the objective of a tax on ammunition?

All it would do is reduce the number of law abiding people going to the range to practice shooting or sportsman clearing nuisance deer.

Mass shooters and gang bangers don't care one bit. Ammunition is key to their thing. All you do is hurt the law abiding marginal buyers.

That all said, a punitive tax on ammunition would be rightly deemed unconstitutional.

This is actually right. Ammo is not the problem. It's the guns themselves. This is not a problem that can be solved with taxes or insurance. I doubt liability laws would even work. We need sensible regulations that make people jump through a reasonable number of hurdles to get a gun license. There should be limits on the number of guns people can buy. Private sales should be severely restricted.

Kindly provide a list of “hurdles” you consider reasonable.

Please list what you think would constitute “sensible” regulations.

Please specify what “severe” restrictions you advocate on private sale of firearms.

Please explain how a limit on the number of guns people can buy would operate, and how that would impact the criminal misuse of firearms.

Because all you’ve proposed so far are a bunch of empty generalities.

Well, obviously you don't think there is such a thing as a reasonable gun regulation.

Hurdles:


1. 30-day period between purchase and delivery for a background check for every gun sold.


2. 40-hour course for ownership of a handgun or any gun with a magazine or more than three bullets.

3. Five-year renewable term for all gun licenses.


4. Ban on magazines with more than seven bullets - (excluding special circumstances such as demonstrated need for rodent or hog extermination.)


5. Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase in a given term - say 5 guns over a five year period would curtail strawman purchases of guns where someone buys 50 guns and then sells them privately to people who could not qualify for gun ownership. This is a leading conduit for guns ending up on the streets.

6. Ban private sales so the purchase of any gun must go through a third party that reports the sale to state and feds. (Again - aimed at curtailing guns ending up on the streets.)

So I like where you are going. 3, 4, and 5 would likely not pass Second Amendment though. But 5 could be reworked a bit. 4 can't work ever. 3 is good and could pass muster if the burden was on the government to deny it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is the objective of a tax on ammunition?

All it would do is reduce the number of law abiding people going to the range to practice shooting or sportsman clearing nuisance deer.

Mass shooters and gang bangers don't care one bit. Ammunition is key to their thing. All you do is hurt the law abiding marginal buyers.

That all said, a punitive tax on ammunition would be rightly deemed unconstitutional.

This is actually right. Ammo is not the problem. It's the guns themselves. This is not a problem that can be solved with taxes or insurance. I doubt liability laws would even work. We need sensible regulations that make people jump through a reasonable number of hurdles to get a gun license. There should be limits on the number of guns people can buy. Private sales should be severely restricted.

Kindly provide a list of “hurdles” you consider reasonable.

Please list what you think would constitute “sensible” regulations.

Please specify what “severe” restrictions you advocate on private sale of firearms.

Please explain how a limit on the number of guns people can buy would operate, and how that would impact the criminal misuse of firearms.

Because all you’ve proposed so far are a bunch of empty generalities.

Well, obviously you don't think there is such a thing as a reasonable gun regulation.

Hurdles:


1. 30-day period between purchase and delivery for a background check for every gun sold.


2. 40-hour course for ownership of a handgun or any gun with a magazine or more than three bullets.

3. Five-year renewable term for all gun licenses.


4. Ban on magazines with more than seven bullets - (excluding special circumstances such as demonstrated need for rodent or hog extermination.)


5. Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase in a given term - say 5 guns over a five year period would curtail strawman purchases of guns where someone buys 50 guns and then sells them privately to people who could not qualify for gun ownership. This is a leading conduit for guns ending up on the streets.

6. Ban private sales so the purchase of any gun must go through a third party that reports the sale to state and feds. (Again - aimed at curtailing guns ending up on the streets.)

1. 30 day background check delay:

What is the purpose of a 30 day delay when background checks can be, and are, conducted virtually instantly right now in connection with the vast majority of firearm sales in the US, and certainly in DC, MD and VA?

2. 40 hours training except for guns with magazines that hold only 3 “bullets:”
How do you get to 40 hours? Curriculum? Cost?

Why 3 “bullets?” Why not 2? Why not 4?

3. Five year renewable term for all gun licenses.
Are you aware that, for the most part, there are no “gun licenses” other than carry permits, which typically run for less than five years. What purpose would such a license serve? What about existing gun owners?

4. 7-round magazine limit:
How do you get to 7? What gun are you using on rats, for God’s sake? And how are hogs different than other invasive vermin? What about self-defense? Do you not recognize that right?

5. Limit on purchases to stop straw sales:
Straw sales are already unlawful. Multiple sales are already reported to ATF. How do you arrive at 5 per year? Why no 4? Why not 6?

6. Ban on private sales:

Criminals aren’t using guns they purchase privately in any legitimate way. Responsible gun owners are also responsible private sellers. In any event, at least 2 of 3 local jurisdictions already require private handgun sales to go through dealers, with no discernible impact on crime.

Your “wish list” is just the same tired talking points we’ve been hearing for years, with their proponents all the while refusing to hold criminals accountable under the vast body of existing firearm regulation. Your proposals for magazine capacity limits are arbitrary and have no reference to guns that actually exist. Your idea that gun owners should be licensed is a synonym for registration, which has at best a tenuous relationship, if any, to crime reduction and raises legitimate fear in the minds of decent people. Much of what you propose is already the law in DC, MD and Virginia anyway.

The fact remains that law abiding people obey the law and criminals don’t. Lock up the criminals and prevent crime. When every firearm related crime is fully prosecuted with maximum sentences, come back with your idea that more laws will make things even better.

1. Suggest reasonable sounding proposals.
2. Keep expanding the number of reasonable sounding proposals.
3. Eventually you will have severely restricted or directly outlawed smoking, er guns.

[Anonymous]

“1. Suggest reasonable sounding proposals.
2. Keep expanding the number of reasonable sounding proposals.
3. Eventually you will have severely restricted or directly outlawed smoking, er guns.”

Here is the problem with the gun crowd. They don’t want reasonable solutions and come up with excuses to deny them. Maybe a reasonable solution is just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people who say that current laws are working and that they just need to be enforced are using a stupid and desperate argument. The families of Forty thousand dead Americans say otherwise

Nobody is making the “stupid and desperate” straw man argument you raise. Current laws are not working because they are not enforced. When every felon caught in possession of a firearm spends ten years in federal prison and then a consecutive term of years in state prison for the concomitant state offense, crime will go down. When every person caught making use of a firearm in commission of a felony and/or a crime of violence is imprisoned for the maximum duration with consecutive federal and state sentences, crime will go down. When every straw purchaser is prosecuted and given the maximum consecutive federal and state penalties, crime will go down. When every person found carrying a firearm unlawfully is prosecuted and given the maximum sentence, crime will go down.

These things are not being done. When they are done (project exile, for example) they are extremely effective. Then political pressure comes to hear because certain interest groups don’t like the demographics of the persons being imprisoned.

[Anonymous]

It's hilarious to see people suggest repealing of the 2nd. It's a logical impossibility that will only leave cities and suburbs more of sitting ducks for when then the boogaloo starts. Only law abiding citizens will give up their arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to see people suggest repealing of the 2nd. It's a logical impossibility that will only leave cities and suburbs more of sitting ducks for when then the boogaloo starts. Only law abiding citizens will give up their arms.

You are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to see people suggest repealing of the 2nd. It's a logical impossibility that will only leave cities and suburbs more of sitting ducks for when then the boogaloo starts. Only law abiding citizens will give up their arms.

You are an idiot.

Wow. What a well-reasoned, devastatingly logical, finely developed, substantive response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people who say that current laws are working and that they just need to be enforced are using a stupid and desperate argument. The families of Forty thousand dead Americans say otherwise

Nobody is making the “stupid and desperate” straw man argument you raise. Current laws are not working because they are not enforced. When every felon caught in possession of a firearm spends ten years in federal prison and then a consecutive term of years in state prison for the concomitant state offense, crime will go down. When every person caught making use of a firearm in commission of a felony and/or a crime of violence is imprisoned for the maximum duration with consecutive federal and state sentences, crime will go down. When every straw purchaser is prosecuted and given the maximum consecutive federal and state penalties, crime will go down. When every person found carrying a firearm unlawfully is prosecuted and given the maximum sentence, crime will go down.

These things are not being done. When they are done (project exile, for example) they are extremely effective. Then political pressure comes to hear because certain interest groups don’t like the demographics of the persons being imprisoned.

Careful. You're going to trigger progressives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people who say that current laws are working and that they just need to be enforced are using a stupid and desperate argument. The families of Forty thousand dead Americans say otherwise

Nobody is making the “stupid and desperate” straw man argument you raise. Current laws are not working because they are not enforced. When every felon caught in possession of a firearm spends ten years in federal prison and then a consecutive term of years in state prison for the concomitant state offense, crime will go down. When every person caught making use of a firearm in commission of a felony and/or a crime of violence is imprisoned for the maximum duration with consecutive federal and state sentences, crime will go down. When every straw purchaser is prosecuted and given the maximum consecutive federal and state penalties, crime will go down. When every person found carrying a firearm unlawfully is prosecuted and given the maximum sentence, crime will go down.

These things are not being done. When they are done (project exile, for example) they are extremely effective. Then political pressure comes to hear because certain interest groups don’t like the demographics of the persons being imprisoned.

What is the basis for saying the laws are not being enforced? Why do people on this thread keep saying this?

The US has the highest per capita prison rate of any developed country. We have already tried locking up the bad guys in perpetuity and it does not really solve our gun problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at Switzerland you guys- lots of guns, but very strict laws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

Why can’t we do the same? Why don’t we value life enough to do so?

People in Switzerland have army-issued MACHINE GUNS and ammunition at home.

This is because the problem is not the guns, but the scum of society. Switzerland has a far lower percentage of scum

Is there any evidence that the US just has more “scum?” What do you mean by “scum?”

Well, just look at the crime rate for all other crimes. The crime rate in Switzerland (and most other civilized countries) of all types that do NOT involve guns is already MUCH MUCH lower than in the U.S. The citizens of europe have much lower proclivity towards violence and other types of crime. Take a group of people with a natural proclivity toward crime (united states citizens) and arm them with guns, and you have a problem. Arm decent, law abiding citizens with guns and you do not have a problem. What's the mystery here?

Can you provide where you are getting these crime numbers please? I actually am not sure that the rate of crime in Europe is lower.

Also, given your initial assumption (that there is less crime in Europe), you are making a lot of connections here randomly. How do you know that there are not other conditions in Europe that help facilitate a lower crime rate? Why do you assume that people in the US just have a higher "proclivity" towards crime? That just seems like a lack of coherent thinking. There is no such thing that I know of as a "natural proclivity" towards crime. Can you share your source for that term?

The reason could be something entirely unrelated. Perhaps giving mothers parental leave starts children off better, leading to lower crime. Perhaps the fact that Europeans have better access to healthcare, more vacation time, less poverty, are all contributing factors?

Also, you state that US citizens have a "proclivity" towards violence, and then state that you need to arm them anyway. Do you see how that makes no sense whatsoever?

Where did I state that you need to arm US citizens? By proclivity I am lumping all unknown causal factors into a general tendency. Poor socioeconomic status, absent fathers, broken families, child abuse, drug availability, violent role models, bad schools, the list goes on and on. It's easier to just say that all of these things converge to create inherently violent people that western Europe, for the most part, does not have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people who say that current laws are working and that they just need to be enforced are using a stupid and desperate argument. The families of Forty thousand dead Americans say otherwise

Nobody is making the “stupid and desperate” straw man argument you raise. Current laws are not working because they are not enforced. When every felon caught in possession of a firearm spends ten years in federal prison and then a consecutive term of years in state prison for the concomitant state offense, crime will go down. When every person caught making use of a firearm in commission of a felony and/or a crime of violence is imprisoned for the maximum duration with consecutive federal and state sentences, crime will go down. When every straw purchaser is prosecuted and given the maximum consecutive federal and state penalties, crime will go down. When every person found carrying a firearm unlawfully is prosecuted and given the maximum sentence, crime will go down.

These things are not being done. When they are done (project exile, for example) they are extremely effective. Then political pressure comes to hear because certain interest groups don’t like the demographics of the persons being imprisoned.

What is the basis for saying the laws are not being enforced? Why do people on this thread keep saying this?

The US has the highest per capita prison rate of any developed country. We have already tried locking up the bad guys in perpetuity and it does not really solve our gun problem.

Felon in possession cases are rare enough that prosecutors consider them worth a press release.

“Project Exile” was a real thing. It evoked huge outrage and ended up being watered down.

Reading the news is enough to know that people with multiple priors are walking the streets here as of prison hallways.

“Broken windows policing” where people who commit small infractions are vigorously prosecuted clearly reduced crime. Unfortunately, the “wrong” people were overrepresented, leading to significant opposition and retrenchment.

Reading the news shows that people, even significant offenders, aren’t being given maximum and/or consecutive federal and state sentences.

As for locking people up not “solving our gun problem,” the people who are locked up aren’t engaged in the criminal misuse of firearms while in prison.

There are other reasons for violent crime, many of them social and not readily amenable to correction, particularly when the solution involves recognizing that parental absence/irresponsibility, substance abuse, lack of respect for education, and a tremendous devaluation of human life across society are major contributors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at Switzerland you guys- lots of guns, but very strict laws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

Why can’t we do the same? Why don’t we value life enough to do so?

People in Switzerland have army-issued MACHINE GUNS and ammunition at home.

This is because the problem is not the guns, but the scum of society. Switzerland has a far lower percentage of scum

Is there any evidence that the US just has more “scum?” What do you mean by “scum?”

Well, just look at the crime rate for all other crimes. The crime rate in Switzerland (and most other civilized countries) of all types that do NOT involve guns is already MUCH MUCH lower than in the U.S. The citizens of europe have much lower proclivity towards violence and other types of crime. Take a group of people with a natural proclivity toward crime (united states citizens) and arm them with guns, and you have a problem. Arm decent, law abiding citizens with guns and you do not have a problem. What's the mystery here?

Can you provide where you are getting these crime numbers please? I actually am not sure that the rate of crime in Europe is lower.

Also, given your initial assumption (that there is less crime in Europe), you are making a lot of connections here randomly. How do you know that there are not other conditions in Europe that help facilitate a lower crime rate? Why do you assume that people in the US just have a higher "proclivity" towards crime? That just seems like a lack of coherent thinking. There is no such thing that I know of as a "natural proclivity" towards crime. Can you share your source for that term?

The reason could be something entirely unrelated. Perhaps giving mothers parental leave starts children off better, leading to lower crime. Perhaps the fact that Europeans have better access to healthcare, more vacation time, less poverty, are all contributing factors?

Also, you state that US citizens have a "proclivity" towards violence, and then state that you need to arm them anyway. Do you see how that makes no sense whatsoever?

Where did I state that you need to arm US citizens? By proclivity I am lumping all unknown causal factors into a general tendency. Poor socioeconomic status, absent fathers, broken families, child abuse, drug availability, violent role models, bad schools, the list goes on and on. It's easier to just say that all of these things converge to create inherently violent people that western Europe, for the most part, does not have.

Do you guys realize how incredibly stupid and absurd these arguments sound? Are we supposed to pretend that Europe is some utopia without problems and THAT's why they have less gun violence as opposed to ACTUAL GUN LAWS? Give me a break.