Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[Basementdweller]

Dean asked the million dollar question

 

What is reasonable?

 

 

 

 

[noname]

Enforce the laws!24 yr olds are dropping rocks onto traffic on the interstate facing 42 years, ect... They got 3 months house arrest and probation- meanwhile a income tax evader gets 5 years? Wow-now there is justice. Enforce the laws!

[FScouter]

Raise some funds and use the money to help solve the problem. Armed guards in the classroom, bullet proof vests for the citizenry, meaningful background and suitability checks, mental health research, bigger prisons and longer sentences the specifics arent as important as is the resolve to solve the problem.

 

Self-policing doesnt work. Laws don't work. Guns are everywhere and anyone can get one.

 

It is reasonable is to expect that the negative aspects of firearms in society be mitigated by the owners of firearms. As with anything else, you fund it with a tax. $100 per gun sale, 25 cents per cartridge, $100 annual license fee.

[noname]

"Laws dont work"? Maybe if they are enforced. So if we tax, liscence ect... that have stopped this tragedy? They had money and lots of it so they would have paid your fees without any problems. Thugs, would they pay those fees? I hope you are joking...

 

[WasE61]

You asked ... for private individuals ...

 

Assault rifles - Ban

 

Automatics - Ban

 

Clips larger than 10 - Ban

 

You might want them...but you don't need them.

 

Mandatory prison for violations.

 

 

-or-

 

Just repeal the 2nd Amendment

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by WasE61)

[resqman]

Gun Control is hitting what you are aiming at.

 

Gun control would not have any effect on the CT shooting.

[Stosh]

If criminals can't control themselves in the use of guns/weapons, the citizenry should be able to defend themselves.

 

If every mugger were to think twice about whether or not their victim can defend themselves there will be a lot less muggings.

 

Police carry guns to primarily defend themselves, others are secondary. If I have a gun of my own, then I have skin in the game.

 

We are a society that relies on gun laws to protect them, if those laws are not enforced, then there is no protection. What we end up with is a society of target rich victims. That scares me more than a criminal with a gun because it's just a matter of time before I become one of those targets.

 

[Abel Magwitch]

The right to bear arms is in our constitution. I suggest as a start, this country should consider strongly regulate the ammunition and ammunition supplies for reloading etc. Of course nothing is ever foolproof and there is no way to get guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals but this would be a start. Perhaps it is time for the National Guard to take on the duties for regulating ammunition as the NG is our country's organized national militia which is well regulated.

[JoeBob]

Regulate and/or tax ammunition to curb violence?

 

Bull hocky!

 

Bad guys don't practice. Only responsible gun-owners burn enough ammunition to feel any impact of onerous regulation and taxation.

 

Impede the flow of ammunition only if you want to see innocent bystanders wounded.

 

 

[Papadaddy]

"the right to bear arms is in the Constitution"...so why should we expect Congress and the President to pay attention to THAT amendment? They have trashed most of the others. The right to commit a crime is not in the Constitution. Life without parole for any crime committed with a firearm. Period. Regardless of age. I would gladly pay higher taxes to get the feral thugs and whackos off the streets. Automatic weapons are already illegal, but that hasn't stopped the drug dealers from getting ahold of Uzis and Mac-10s (or whatever they are)...Most of the time the cops are outgunned with their 12 ga shotguns and 9mm service weapons. Need more room in the jails...let the pot smokers out...most of them never hurt anyone else.

[Brewmeister]

WasE61 says:

 

You asked ... for private individuals ...

 

Assault rifles - Ban

 

Automatics - Ban

 

Clips larger than 10 - Ban

 

You might want them...but you don't need them.

 

Mandatory prison for violations.

 

Well, half of these (the first 2) are already in place, so...

[Eagle732]

I lived through the riots of "68. We lived just a few blocks outside of the Baltimore City line. I remember my father and all the neighbors being very afraid that the riots, looting and burning would spread. Dad had a friend that owned a gun shop and I remember going with him to buy a few boxes of shotgun shells "just in case". I know he would have done whatever necessary to protect us.

 

So WasE61 turn in your guns but don't ban mine. I'll keep mine and protect my family. You're on your own, good luck.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[perdidochas]

Joebob,

 

Exactly. Restricting or otherwise stopping the flow of ammunition won't affect anybody but the law-abiding. Ammo has a pretty long shelf-life. I can recall in the 1980s reading a test of WWII surplus ammo (40 yr old). It had maybe twice the malfunctions of new ammo, but nothing that would be of major concern.

 

To answer the question:

Reasonable is current standards. They aren't too onerous to law-abiding citizens, who are basically the only people they apply to. No restrictions stop criminals.

[packsaddle]

So let's turn the question the other direction. Why not have fully automatic weapons just as available as the ones we have now? Let market forces determine availability.

Why not have weapons even larger than 50 cal? Let the market determine what can or cannot be available to the public?

If people can afford RPGs, why not allow them?

 

My point is that these are things that are restricted now. And the absence of noise about it in these threads seems to indicate that all of you, even the gun enthusiasts, are OK with those restrictions. It seems inconsistent, though, the quiet acceptance of restrictions against vomiting out rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger compared to no restriction if one has to squeeze it each round. Why not allow fully automatic? Where's the outrage? Where's the fear of not being able to defend oneself and one's family without that capability?

[Brewmeister]

>> It seems inconsistent

 

There is a rationale for that inconsistency; namely, "Give them an inch and the'll take a mile."

 

Let's compare the second amendment to the first.

 

We've already accepted as a society that there are certain limits on free speech--no yelling fire in a crowded theatre, for instance. And we quibble about things like "hate speech" and whatnot. But nobody calls for the abolition of the first amendment (or if they do I haven't seen it). Rather, the first amendment is considered to be a right that should be most broadly interpreted in favor of individual liberty.

 

So let's look at the second amendment. In this case each additional restriction on the right to bear arms is feared as a way to get to the complete negation of the amendment itself. The same people who argue for the broadest interpretation of the first amendment are the ones bemoaning how the second amendment is a quaint relic of a bygone time that no longer has any relevance.

 

So, we have a comfort level with banning RPGs, fully automatic weapons, and whatnot.

 

But as we travel down the "semi automatic" realm, where does that lead us? Most pistols and many hunting firearms are "semi automatic." And what is an "assault" weapon?

 

That is the concern, and the reason for the seeming inconsistency.