Anonymous wrote:Interested in what your average DC urban professional feels about this question:

If you are in favor of banning certain firearms (i.e.- AR15s) and accessories (magazines taking over a magical 10 rounds, flash suppressors, folding stocks,etc)...what should be done with the tens of MILLIONS of these arms and perhaps hundreds of MILLIONS of these accessories that are already in legal private ownership?

(a) enforce Mandatory relinquishing, (i.e. Confiscation)
(b) Unconditionally grandfather
(c) Conditionally grandfather
(d) other---- please explain


This is not a right or wrong or gotcha question. People always talk about banning but the question posed here is rarely broached or answered.

Of the things you list, I'd only support a ban on mags over 10-12 rounds.

How to implement? I'd be in favor of a government-funded buy-back program or exchange, where owners get their $$$ refunded or get equivalent value of merchandise.

After a reasonable period (say 2 years?) of this program, higher capacity magazines would be illegal and possession would result in fine for first offenses, with increasing penalties for multiple or repeated violations.

Last time we grandfathered them for their current owners, and I think that's good enough. It's not perfect, but it cuts off legal gun purchases to newly minted wackos.

Anonymous wrote:I think AR15s have no place outside of a war zone. I think confiscation would get violent. Maybe stop selling the ammo? I'm not sure but they were created to kill people in war. Hunters don't need them, why do we even have access to them?

the second amendmenters would say we need them in case we need to fight in militias to overthrow an unjust government - or something like that. Either way, it will be like throwing rocks, as our government has nuclear weapons and cool stuff like that to fight back with

I think AR15s have no place outside of a war zone. I think confiscation would get violent. Maybe stop selling the ammo? I'm not sure but they were created to kill people in war. Hunters don't need them, why do we even have access to them?

Anonymous wrote:A.

Value can be deducted from your taxes.

Trump paid none according to the year he LOST a billion dollars... so how does that work again?

A.

Value can be deducted from your taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP = I am not in favor of an “assault” weapons ban.

Just chiming in to tell you (and you probably already know) that the majority of people posting here don’t have a clue what these weapons are.

Oh yeah. Why don't you tell me what you think I know?

Alternatively, if you want to complain for the 100th time that people don't understand these terms, let's hear your definition of them.

Weapons are weapons... given the number of degrees swirling around this town, I am assuming that there are NOT many dumdums out there that do not know - but to confirm is this definition?

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud."

here is an interesting link to a recent Johns Hopkins University q/a on guns

http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/10/12/guns-in-america-facts-figures/

Why is changing gun policy in the U.S. so difficult?
Webster boils it down to two issues: the structure of our government and the effectiveness of the gun lobby. He points to the Republican-controlled Senate and the need, practically speaking, for 60 or more votes to pass legislation.

"There's no motivation for senators in rural states to vote 'yes' on gun reform, as there is no political benefit and it would likely come back and haunt them next election period," Webster says. "In this political climate, it's very, very hard to do something nationally."

He adds that the National Rifle Association of America is incredibly effective, with a lot of help from media. When the Hopkins center conducts surveys on specific gun policies, such as expanded background checks and restrictions on individuals with a restraining order or multiple drunk driving offenses, 70 percent or more of gun owners and a similar percent of Republicans support changes.

"There's not much disagreement on who shouldn't have a gun in these cases," Webster says. "But the gun lobby changes the discussion and portrays any specific legislation as 'the government wants to change our way of life, take away our guns.' They make it a tribal thing. They are masterful at controlling the discussion and making it very difficult to come to a consensus. They fuel distrust of government."

I am in favor of having stronger restrictions and mandatory training on assault weapons. I know a full ban, even on the table would never work.

I never understood why I needed several months of a permit to drive with lessons to get a license to drive a car - and then have to do even more training, etc to drive a mac truck with trailers... and I could go to a store and get a semi-automatic weapon without any idea how to use it.

That said, I think we need to approach training and permits for guns a different levels we we do drivers licenses... higher risk more time and training on how to use and store safely.

I also think that people with guns in the house should pay higher health and home insurance, as death/accident risks are higher. Additionally, if a kid gets a hold of a persons gun and gets shot or killed the owner should go to jail at least 10 years.

I am not a second amendment - but think that we can keep the sense of the law and protect public health and safety

This is going to be a calm, productive discussion.

Anonymous wrote:OP = I am not in favor of an “assault” weapons ban.

Just chiming in to tell you (and you probably already know) that the majority of people posting here don’t have a clue what these weapons are.

Oh yeah. Why don't you tell me what you think I know?

Alternatively, if you want to complain for the 100th time that people don't understand these terms, let's hear your definition of them.

I am in favor of confiscating not only assault weapons but also HANDGUNS, which are responsible for the majority of violent deaths in the US.

I would make an exception for hunters. License to own guns would be closely controlled and potential owners would need to be tested for fitness and background.

OP = I am not in favor of an “assault” weapons ban.

Just chiming in to tell you (and you probably already know) that the majority of people posting here don’t have a clue what these weapons are.

I am in favor of a. Mandatory confiscation. There is no place for assault weapon in the hand of civilians.

Interested in what your average DC urban professional feels about this question:

If you are in favor of banning certain firearms (i.e.- AR15s) and accessories (magazines taking over a magical 10 rounds, flash suppressors, folding stocks,etc)...what should be done with the tens of MILLIONS of these arms and perhaps hundreds of MILLIONS of these accessories that are already in legal private ownership?

(a) enforce Mandatory relinquishing, (i.e. Confiscation)
(b) Unconditionally grandfather
(c) Conditionally grandfather
(d) other---- please explain


This is not a right or wrong or gotcha question. People always talk about banning but the question posed here is rarely broached or answered.