My compromise for gun control

It's contagious!

 

I predicted that response tho. "Its ok that America is a shooting gallery full of people blowing each other away because it also happened in Thailand once. lol libtards"

 

Mac

But this is about public safety

So say some people like to drink and drive so they say that laws against drunk driving are aimed at a punishing them and therefore should be removed.

It seems to me that the gun lobby would need to have strong arguments for wanting to reduce public safety for what seems like a consumerist choice.

[edit] For example if someone wanted to own a dangerous animal (eg a large carnivore) I think there should be regulations to protect the public (and the animal) so that the animal is properly secured and looked after.

That could mean inspection of where the animal is kept and a vets report etc in the UK to obtain a Zoo licence (which I believe would be needed to own large carnivores) it cost £1832 ($2369)(plus an inspection fee to be charged prior to issue – the amount to be confirmed after inspection has taken place) the annual fee after the issue of the licence is £1236.

Now the owner might say that they bought the animal it is there possession and so they can do what they want with it, because it is an undue ‘punishment’ on them otherwise.

My question being should we compromise on public safety due to what is actually a consumer’s choice?

I’ll tell you what I’ll publish a list of gun control proposals that have gone up on the forum before for discussion

 

Gun control proposals

Here is an edited version of a list that has been posted a few times on the forums that was formed from a couple of lists me and MeAgain had presented at differing times.

*

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 for the purchase of a gun.

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 (been found owning a gun without these will result in fine or and been banned from 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.

Any gun kept at home, place of work or in a motor vehicle 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 loses 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 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 result in a fine losing the owner’s gun license (to deter straw purchases and passing on)

If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in a heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

*

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

The fines raised and a tax on firearms manufactures would be used to offset cost of these programmes.

*

These are just suggestions and if people think of improvements please post your ideas.

 

That's a faulty analogy because laws against drunk driving targets specific behaviors. They don't regulate what kind of car or drink you can have. You just can't drive while intoxicated. I have little to no objections to gun laws that target specific actions that endangers the public. What I do object to is laws that bans certain types of weapons or make the process of owning a firearm prohibitely expensive and time consuming to the average person with a clean background.

Like I said, as long as the laws aren't needlessly excessive, I'd be willing to support them as a compromise.

 

my compromise is dumping all gun laws altogether. i never liked rules and laws in the first place and beside this, the only ones who care about laws are those who respect them so where is the point ? there is no going back, get over it. guns are here to stay, think of that Pandora's box, such is the situation. I'm telling it the millionth time over, it's never the gun it's always the guy and that's why in Sweden, in Switzerland, in Finland there are a lot of guns yet no one ever goes postal shooting people at random and why ? sound education, civil attitude, hope in life. It is the murder like attitude of your toxic culture the reason of all the violence, it is having streets flooded with ignorant desperate people on the loose poisoned by the culture of being bullies and cowboys. all the guns around are just the result of this attitude. good luck changing that, it's gonna take far, far much work than signing a stupid law but i reckon people hope to solve problems with the magic wand bypassing all the hard work. sorry, reality is complex.

 

i'm going to be honest. It's this talk that makes me think you're a danger to society. Those laws are there for a purpose, Mac.

 

A society with personal atomic weapons is a polite society....










Because everybody is fucking DEAD

 

Mac

I did explain that it wasn’t a direct analogy and as with the example about dangerous animals I was trying to highlight how societies regulate for public safety, be it cars, animals, electrical appliances or anything else that might cause harm. The regulation is tailored to the situation it will be different for cars and animals as it would be with guns.

And there are regulations as to the kinds of car or drink you can have. In the UK a car has to be road worth for it to drive on the public highway (I believe some states in the US have something similar) and drinks sold to the public have to pass certain safety standards you can brew up beer at home for private consumption but you’d need licences and permits to sell it to the public.

Again it is about public safety.

But that is what I’m saying what are your objections to laws that are meant to protect public safety?

As I’ve pointed out other regulation involving public safety can come with a cost and can involve a certain amount of paperwork and time, so if it is in the interests of public safety why shouldn’t gun owners have to comply with such regulation?

I’ve even supplied a list of some ideas above.

 

The murderous Americans theory

This has often been presented by the gun lobbyists as a reason for why gun control would be ineffectual in the US – the argument seeming to be that Americans are much more murderous than any other people on earth and that even if they didn’t have ease of access to such very lethal weapons such as guns they would still kill and maim as many people with other less lethal weapons such as knives, bats or spoons.

Therefore the argument goes that there is no point in having any gun control.

But it seems to me that there is no evidence that Americans are inherently more violent other than other peoples other than to point to the high levels of guns related murder.

 

Social Problems as the cause for gun violence

Many of the people that call for prudent gun control are also those that would like to improve and reform the social systems of the US (wanting Universal healthcare, better welfare, very good public education, better housing, prison reform, changing drug policies etc).

They also see that could have an impact on social deprivation that can underlie criminal activity.

The thing is that many on the gun lobby side lean to the right and often see such social programmes as akin to socialism/communism and are more in favour of cuts in public spending.

So to blame social supply and lack of its reform for the high levels of gun violence seems rather disingenuous if those putting it forward are disinclined to do anything about it

 

When the left says “Power to the people.” What they really do is take power away from every individual and hand it to the state.

 

Is the expression 'power to the people' ever connected to the gun control debate? By other people than yourself i mean.

 

Not really when a total ban on things like pistols and so called "assualt weapons" is actually rare among western nations.

 

An unexplained mass shooting happened in Thailand days ago. everyone was baffled, because these things only happen (and consistently so) in the US. Cultural thing, I guess.

 

You're making a blanket statement about a nation that has around 20% of the US population and holding it up for comparison. You do realize how Thailand was formed of course.

 

Rebellion against the Khmer in the 1200's?

 

Even so, saying things about bump-stocks or pistol grips; those sorts of things are a little beyond ordinary items.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say, Mac, is the collecting "behavior"; the modding of weaponry, is a red flag to me. You don't seem to feel that way, and I'm aware of that. I don't think it's enough to red flag an individual for weapons confiscation, but I think it warrants concern of the type that should be monitored.

 

My only objection to certain gun control measures is that they haven't been shown to work in reducing violence. Take the proposed so called assualt weapons ban. At best, there is only inconclusive evidence that such a ban works. Most of the EU allows private ownership in some form or fashion and generally speaking, their gun violence rate is about the same as the few countries that has such a ban.

A far better solution is to have better vetting systems to make sure firearms don't fall into the wrong hands.