ginnyfizz Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 So you don't just want to ban assault weapons then, you want to ban/seriously restrict all of the types of weapons found or used at Sandy Hook?Sounds like you want British style gun laws to me, which are so draconian that only the criminals (with one or two exceptions where legitimate persons can carry sidearms) have those types of weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I don't quite get it still. Banning a weapon simply because of what it is, and it's capability, NOT because it has been demonstrated to have been used in a significant number of crimes? really?? Why?? Handguns are used in a majority of crimes, yet, no one is talking about banning those? It's always all about assault weapons. (not to mention that several municipalities HAVE hand gun bans, which haven't made a bit of difference in shooting deaths.......) Why do GUN laws need to be reformed? Why not where weapons may be carried? I would point out, that in the example of the Israeli school shooting, the shooter was stopped by a STUDENT carrying a weapon. Now, I am NOT advocating letting elementary kids carry weapons.... but, teachers/administrative staff? That would work. Be cheaper than armed guards as well. (by a good stretch) Why not ban Gun-Free zones? Most mass shootings of this nature occur where folks KNOW there shouldn't be anyone else around that could stop them. History has already shown that banning something does NOT reduce crimes committed by/for said item. In all reality, crime related to said ban actually INCREASES. How is there any logic to banning it then? Especially as relates to guns in the US? Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll?????? I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) I don't quite get it still. Banning a weapon simply because of what it is, and it's capability, NOT because it has been demonstrated to have been used in a significant number of crimes? really?? Why?? Handguns are used in a majority of crimes, yet, no one is talking about banning those? It's always all about assault weapons. (not to mention that several municipalities HAVE hand gun bans, which haven't made a bit of difference in shooting deaths.......) Like I said before to some people this would be the 1st step to serious and meaningful gun reform. History has already shown that banning something does NOT reduce crimes committed by/for said item. In all reality, crime related to said ban actually INCREASES. How is there any logic to banning it then? Especially as relates to guns in the US? History also shows that banning/restricting things does reduce things as well... Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll?????? I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D Football and athletic programs related to deaths are not concidered violent crimes or murder. Edited December 31, 2012 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomis8329 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 As I said previously surely it is a matter of education from a young age if need be. If children grow up learning to respect the weapons they have access to then this will help in the long run. It seems that it is the few that cause the problems rather than the many and, as usual, this causes problems for all. Yes we have a strict gun policy in the UK and it can be thought of as draconian especially in the sporting world as many of our athletes that compete in shooting competitions can only train abroad as it is illegal to use even those kind of weapons over here. This is the extreme and not one I would recommend in the US as your gun culture is more ingrained than the UK. What we don't have we don't miss to a greater extent. There is gun crime of course and that is on the rise in some areas, but then we had a rise in knife crime for a while and an amnesty was declared and many weapons handed in. A few years earlier, a gun amnesty was declared (primarily after Dunblaine) and again a large number of illegal weapons were handed in. These courses of action do help get illegal weapons off the street, but from what I understand the weapons used by the young person at Sandy Hook were legal were they not. If there is to be a crack down then surely it should be on those who sell illegal weapons, modified or otherwise. They should be easy enough to find and deal with. However, I guess it is like drug dealers, for every one you get rid of two more take their place. An enigma and not one easily remedied by the look of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I don't quite get it still. Banning a weapon simply because of what it is, and it's capability, NOT because it has been demonstrated to have been used in a significant number of crimes? really?? Why?? Handguns are used in a majority of crimes, yet, no one is talking about banning those? It's always all about assault weapons. (not to mention that several municipalities HAVE hand gun bans, which haven't made a bit of difference in shooting deaths.......) Like I said before to some people this would be the 1st step to serious and meaningful gun reform. History has already shown that banning something does NOT reduce crimes committed by/for said item. In all reality, crime related to said ban actually INCREASES. How is there any logic to banning it then? Especially as relates to guns in the US? History also shows that banning/restricting things does reduce things as well... Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll?????? I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D Football and athletic programs related to deaths are not concidered violent crimes or murder. I put forth that GUNS don't need to be reformed. After all, a gun is an inanimate object, therefore, it is impossible to reform. (and, one could argue, reform it from what? Should it be a baseball bat instead?) I am talking about people dying. HOW they get that way isn't really relevant. The major complaint here is that folks get dead. Why should we permit something simply because it isn't classified as a violent crime, when it actually kills more people than assault rifles? Isn't the goal to reduce deaths?? Do you not care that little Johnny got thumped on the athletic field, and subsequently died? Is it only a tragedy if someone shoots him with an assault rifle?? Drunk drivers kill more people than assault weapons..... drunk driving IS banned.... Still happens more often than folks are shot with assault rifles though. Perhaps we should ban alcohol altogether? Oh, wait, we tried that once, and it failed miserably.... to the point that the ban was repealed.... Hhhhmmm... Could it be that legislation is NOT the answer? Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) I am talking about people dying. HOW they get that way isn't really relevant. The major complaint here is that folks get dead. Why should we permit something simply because it isn't classified as a violent crime, when it actually kills more people than assault rifles? Isn't the goal to reduce deaths?? Good luck trying to advocate to reform american Football. I have no opinion on sports where the players become brain dead by their mid 40's. Drunk drivers kill more people than assault weapons..... drunk driving IS banned.... Notice how enforcing Legal limits of alcohol level and driving has reduced DUIs? Just imagine today If there was no laws on drinking and driving. Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective...... Why not all of the above plus more? I agree education and cooperation between various government agencies would be nice as well as gun reform. Edited December 31, 2012 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I am talking about people dying. HOW they get that way isn't really relevant. The major complaint here is that folks get dead. Why should we permit something simply because it isn't classified as a violent crime, when it actually kills more people than assault rifles? Isn't the goal to reduce deaths?? Good luck trying to advocate to reform american Football. I have no opinion on sports where the players become brain dead by their mid 40's. Drunk drivers kill more people than assault weapons..... drunk driving IS banned.... Notice how enforcing Legal limits of alcohol level and driving has reduced DUIs? Just imagine today If there was no law on drinking and driving. Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective...... Why not all of the above plus more? I agree education and cooperation between various government agencies would be nice as well as gun reform. Gotta agree with ya on the sports thing.... :D I am still curious how one reforms a gun..... Most gun deaths are suicides..... (better than half) Banning any particular segment of them won't change that. (unless you ban them altogether.... and even then, they will still be out there.) I seriously doubt our governments ability to propose any kind of reasonable legislation that would have any significant effect on gun deaths... they can't even balance a budget.... I also am of the firm belief that NO flavor of legislation that restricts gun rights will have any significant effect either. Restricting who can purchase, or where, or where background checks must be done, doesn't seem to have deterred any of the various shooters. In almost every case, the weapons used were acquired legally by the owner, and then the shooter got ahold of them. (either from family members, or, having someone that CAN legally buy them, go and get them.) Exactly what kind of legislation did you have in mind? Perhaps that would be a better topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) I seriously doubt our governments ability to propose any kind of reasonable legislation that would have any significant effect on gun deaths... they can't even balance a budget.... I also am of the firm belief that NO flavor of legislation that restricts gun rights will have any significant effect either. Restricting who can purchase, or where, or where background checks must be done, doesn't seem to have deterred any of the various shooters. In almost every case, the weapons used were acquired legally by the owner, and then the shooter got ahold of them. (either from family members, or, having someone that CAN legally buy them, go and get them.) Exactly what kind of legislation did you have in mind? Perhaps that would be a better topic? Here is something else I totally agree with you on. Our governments ability to propose any kind of reasonable legislation could be a debate on its own. I was never suggesting gun reform would be easy. And the topic of what kind of legislation is actaully a better subtitle than what I used "Will this lead to extreme change to gun laws in america?" Exactly what kind of legislation did I have in mind? Honestly I am conflicted to 1st banning assault weapons to extreme restrictions to guns all together. I believe banning assault weapons would be the 1st step that would lead to stricter laws on guns down the road. But a mixture of education Like maybe in order to own and operate a gun you would need more than just a simple firearms licence. It would be nice in order to receive a fire arm you need to get certain educational degrees to aquire them (like a 4 year firearm degree you get to own and operate a simple handgun). This idea in itself does not go against the 2nd amendment because it's not taking away the right to bare arms. Also this would be easier and more effective way to monitor firearms in the gernal public. Just imagine the money the NRA would make opening up Firearms colleges around the nation. But I am open to any suggestion to gun reform. Edited December 31, 2012 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukeban Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Given the impossibility (physically and politically) and doing anything to meaningfully restrict the flow of weapons into society, I propose the following dubiously legal (but likely effective!) measures: 1. Make gun owners EXTREMELY accountable for their weapons: Any sentence stemming from a gun-related crime is automatically applied to the gun's OWNER, regardless of whether or not they committed the crime themselves. If somebody steals your gun and commits murder with it--YOU get charged with murder as well. Talk about a nice incentive to lock up your weapons! 2. Put gun sellers on the hook financially. ANY gun-related crime tracked back to a store/individual incurs a fine of 100,000 dollars. This would have the benefit of making gun owners extremely paranoid about what their weapons are being used for, and would "force" (if they are rational) them to secure their weapons at all costs, lest they pay a dear price. Most gun owners probably would not even want to deal with the potential consequences of this, "encouraging" many "fence-sitting" owners (not enthusiasts/lifestyle owners) to sell their weapons back. Truly responsible owners and/or those living in the boondocks, would have little to worry about. It would also spike the price of guns, as store owners would have to buy crazy-expensive insurance policies (and raising the price of their weapons accordingly), thus "pricing-out" many thugs and criminals that thrive off of the cheap availability of guns. Would it also price-out some law-abiding citizens? Potentially, but if owning one is that important to you, make it a financial priority and save up. It would also "encourage" gun store owners to rigorously screen their own customers before selling, lest they inadvertently sell to a drug-dealing thug or psychopath who goes out and commits a gun-related crime. Obviously, this would not deter the insane, but then again--no law would (they are insane after all). But it WOULD restrict their access to weapons, since those around them would make dang sure to keep their guns under extreme lock and key (and/or off-premises). It would also likely deter even "private" sales of weapons between thugs, as the seller would know that HE is on the hook--potentially for the death penalty--if the gun he sells to another thug is then used in a crime. Criminals ARE rational, most would not particularly like being faced with that choice. -------------- Anyway, pretty sure that runs afoul of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" in the Constitution (a LAME provision if ever there was one :D) and it would have no chance of ever being politically viable (since it actually solves a problem!), but it is what I think is best... and it does not touch the 2nd Amendment, instead allowing the justice system and free market to sort out the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Given the impossibility (physically and politically) and doing anything to meaningfully restrict the flow of weapons into society, I propose the following dubiously legal (but likely effective!) measures: 1. Make gun owners EXTREMELY accountable for their weapons: Any sentence stemming from a gun-related crime is automatically applied to the gun's OWNER, regardless of whether or not they committed the crime themselves. If somebody steals your gun and commits murder with it--YOU get charged with murder as well. Talk about a nice incentive to lock up your weapons! 2. Put gun sellers on the hook financially. ANY gun-related crime tracked back to a store/individual incurs a fine of 100,000 dollars. This would have the benefit of making gun owners extremely paranoid about what their weapons are being used for, and would "force" (if they are rational) them to secure their weapons at all costs, lest they pay a dear price. Most gun owners probably would not even want to deal with the potential consequences of this, "encouraging" many "fence-sitting" owners (not enthusiasts/lifestyle owners) to sell their weapons back. Truly responsible owners and/or those living in the boondocks, would have little to worry about. It would also spike the price of guns, as store owners would have to buy crazy-expensive insurance policies (and raising the price of their weapons accordingly), thus "pricing-out" many thugs and criminals that thrive off of the cheap availability of guns. Would it also price-out some law-abiding citizens? Potentially, but if owning one is that important to you, make it a financial priority and save up. It would also "encourage" gun store owners to rigorously screen their own customers before selling, lest they inadvertently sell to a drug-dealing thug or psychopath who goes out and commits a gun-related crime. Obviously, this would not deter the insane, but then again--no law would (they are insane after all). But it WOULD restrict their access to weapons, since those around them would make dang sure to keep their guns under extreme lock and key (and/or off-premises). It would also likely deter even "private" sales of weapons between thugs, as the seller would know that HE is on the hook--potentially for the death penalty--if the gun he sells to another thug is then used in a crime. Criminals ARE rational, most would not particularly like being faced with that choice. -------------- Anyway, pretty sure that runs afoul of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" in the Constitution (a LAME provision if ever there was one :D) and it would have no chance of ever being politically viable (since it actually solves a problem!), but it is what I think is best... and it does not touch the 2nd Amendment, instead allowing the justice system and free market to sort out the details. This is quite an excellent proposal for reform. Yet I would still not rule out the idea of education. I still think HeyYou was on to something about education integrated with my idea of needing a fire arms degree over just needing to acquire a simple fire arms licences. If some one wants to own a firearm that badly they should have atleast a bachelor's degree in firearm safty and history as well as knowledge of accountability etc... which they would have to prove they are competent through atleast 4 years of education like people would go through to get a degree in science or law or mathmatics etc... Education does not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Edited January 1, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts