After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

From MeAgain

Educate people about what the new legislation is about and would entail (Not taking away all guns, the goal is to reduce harm by limiting easy access to the criminal and irresponsible)

Reinforcing, enhancing, and mandating back ground checks.

Immediate destruction of any weapon, ammunition, etc. used or acquired illegally.

Limiting the amount of legal ammunition that can be bought and retained.

Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation)

A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun.

Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.

Let me add, the immediate confiscation of all private weapons that hold more than 6 rounds

From Balbus

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

From NotMyRealName

Enhance the requirement to obtain a license to carry a gun. In some states, no training is required. You simply fill out a form, pay your fee and you get a license to carry a weapon. That needs to stop.

Raise the age limit of gun ownership. A person who has served on active duty military could be exempted, but the rest no.

If evidence of drug or alcohol use becomes a recorded problem, or a mental instability flag gets reported, it should not only be a red flag to purchase , it should be at the least a temporary loss of privilege to posses a weapon, until such time as that condition has resolved. Issue a restraining order on the spot and make them turn in or sell their weapons.

Make the gun buyers pay a school fortification fee or tax. Use that tax as a way to fortify schools using the very same people that are buying guns.

Don't allow the private sale of guns to anyone that you haven't run a background check on. Make a national database a required to be documented before a private sale can take place.

Take away the illegally owned guns. Place the illegal gun owners in prison.

Make a crime committed using a gun, hard time in prison. No 3 strikes your out, one strike and you won't get out for a minimum of X years.

Make the attorneys who gets these slime balls off be part of a process whereby they are forced to pay a tax of some sort if they choose to represent them. Penalize them for helping get them off. If an attorney doesn't wish to represent them, too bad.

*

These would be national laws the same through all the states and a department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

 

No, I actually challenged some posters to support their ideas of what should be banned, and I have yet to hear a reply.

So, how many rounds of ammunition do you feel I should be allowed to have?

If enhanced background checks are mandated, then why are you concerned about guns that hold more than six rounds?

 

I didnt reply to you because I was confused why you were asking
I've given my ideas for what sort of gun control should take place multiple times throughout multiple gun threads

Not that I expect you to pay attention to what I'm saying specifically, but all the measures I would support have been brought up by other posters several different times as well and I dont see the point in rehashing things again and again and again. Going around in circles gets boring after a while. I'll write my congressmen again and tell them what I support instead

 

I find that the best thing to do is be active in political discourse. I feel like every relevant statement has already been made much the same as many of the other members here. I don't think that I have to argue "why" to anyone. It's simple. You can determine why of your own accord, Storch.

 

We all can have a conversation on hipforums when people can acknowledge others' points instead of refusing to and jumping on the "ban" guns wagon.

 

Nah. Just facts and logic.

The truth remains true even if it has been covered and addressed before.

No fear on my end.

The most likely outcome is that the gun control movement will focus entirely on pistol grips once again, leading to another total NRA victory.

All I've done is post facts and logic.

A classic lever-action .30-30 carries eight rounds. A magazine from a classic Colt .45 pistol carries seven rounds.

There is no justification for banning either of these weapons, so any such ban will run afoul of the Second Amendment.

If we are going to abolish fair trials, we'll need to remove due process rights from the Constitution.

 

For one we already have mandated background checks. You cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without one. For another background checks have never been proven to prevent crime.

I'm half way on board but why not resell to the legal market?

Why?

Because they work so well in New Jersey

Of the states that implement such standards to obtain a gun, are there any that have a dramatic decrease in gun deaths as opposed to those that implement constitutional carry?

Why?

Are you talking about registration?

1. Good luck with that. That'll be about as successful as the current drug war. 2. Why? Why take guns from law abiding citizens?

How are you going to enforce that and who will decide what is "secure"?

I'll agree to a point. Negligence that resulted in injury or death should be punished.

Evidence of that working to deter gun crime or violent crime in general?

As asked above, are these states that have no training requirements to obtain a gun have an increade in negligent duscharged or something?

Why?

I'll agree if it's by due procesd of law and nkt something you can do on your lunch break or something.

Again, why?

How are you going to enforce that? Plus less than 1% of illegal guns comes from private sales.

I agree with this whole heartedly.

I don't have enough info to make an opinion on this.

But what evidence do you have that the ones I objected to will work? What model country or system have this been implemented and gun crime and violent crime dropped because of it?

 

I wasn't referring to you.

 

Uh, I wasn't referring to you, either.

But I did ask you how many rounds of ammunition you feel I should be allowed to have. I also asked you why, if enhanced background checks are mandated, are you concerned about guns that hold more than six rounds?

But yeah, what's your stand on going door to door and telling people to hand over their guns that hold more than six rounds?

 

Some nut case hauls more than 20 rifles into a hotel room and opens fire on a concert event; the FBI ignores a guy who's saying "I'm Nikolas Cruz. Here's my arsenal, and I want to be a professional school shooter." And because of that, you decide that you want my gun taken away from me because it holds more than six rounds. But that's not going to happen. If you were a bit more creative, you might foresee that two six-shooters are just as good as a twelve-shooter. Would you then want the authorities to go door to door telling people to hand over their six-shooters?

 

You are just proving my point. You have blinders on refusing to see points people make.

 

I was pointing out that the proposal to confiscate guns with more than six rounds is unconstitutional.

This one's not going to work either. The gun control movement can't make something impossible to get and then turn around and say that people aren't allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights unless they have it.

Gun owners may find getting self-defense insurance tougher following Florida shooting

Broker Lockton Joins Chubb, MetLife in Withdrawing from NRA Insurance Programs

 

People have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

If you think six rounds is adequate for self defense, then would it be OK to limit the police to six round guns as well?