In my own opinion, number 2 is a bad idea.
That's basically how it already is. Only problem is that only sales through registered dealers can be effectively regulated. When it comes to private unregistered citizens, how exactly is this to be regulated? It's a pipe dream at best.The compromise is as follows. The gun control people get something they want and the gun enthusiasts also get something they want.
1. We get universal background checks on all gun purchases, including gun shows, private sales, absolutely anywhere that guns are sold. Convicted felons are ineligible to buy guns, and the FBI is alerted if one tries to buy one. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is ineligible, as is anyone who's mentally unstable. It becomes illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer.
2. The 1986 ban on civilians owning automatic weapons is repealed. The import of foreign-made assault rifles (such as the Russian AK-47, the Swiss SG 550, and the Israeli Uzi) is legalized. A person is no longer required to remanufacture a foreign assault rifle, including at least 10 American-made parts. He may purchase one from a foreign factory with all foreign parts, and it may include an automatic feature. (It still must be sent to a gun dealer, not directly to him, and there still must be a background check.)
So, the gun control people get #1, the gun enthusiasts get #2. Vote if you're for this.
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence. Even in your #1 with mental illness, you'd have to raise the minimum age to buy guns for it to be realistic. Most with mental instability and anger issues aren't officially diagnosed (apparently not the killer in this case), and many convicted felons are and were harmless. It really doesn't take much (alcohol) to set off even a "normal" person who has a gun attached to their hip already. When I see reactions to the theater massacre like "I'm thinking of buying a gun" that just affirms my belief that most people are too irrationally scared ****less to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public.
They would not have stopped the massacre. They would have been hiding on the floor after the first tear gas was thrown or try to run away like everyone else did, or far more likely they at some point kill someone themselves in a fit of rage or it goes off on accident. Even more likely they would not have been there, or in any situation where they have time to react, get their gun out and use it. That's just what we need anyway, two gun toting idiots firing away in a pitch dark theater.
Not to mention in the vast majority of cases, if this is really about self defense and not reigning in one's fear (and feeling like a badass), mace and other non lethal objects should be more easily acquired than guns. Everyday people walking around with automatic weapons would just ensure I never leave the house, or high tail it to a more sane country.
I voted yes. But I am not sure how provision 1 would be successfully carried out. For example, how would a gun dealer check if someone is mentally sound? Mental health professionals cannot release that information without the patient’s permission. And how would a dealer even know if a buyer had visited a shrink? We can’t force shrinks to input information on all of their patients especially when most of their patients won’t have any interest in ever buying a gun..
projection and stereotyping is not an argument.
100 million guns lying around leading to an insane homicide rate is
I'm sorry, don't you already have enough of a problem with people engaging in shootings armed with semi-automatics? Making them automatic would just increase lethality. Isn't that the whole point of all the 'truth about assault rifle....' videos we see bandied about on these forums. A semi AK can shoot what maybe 60rpm. In fully auto 700-800 rounds. When you consider that people are an easier target in the first few seconds, that represents a large increase in lethality if a shooter had been armed with with fully automatic variants.
Background checks are useless especially for preventing the sort of mass-murders that tend to stir up calls for more stringent gun controls. James Holmes, Martin Bryant and many others would have passed a criminal check and mental status, possibly. How do you even asses mental status?
But it's a requirement to obtaining a firearm in your proposed deal, and therefore not optional.I guess I need to clarify the mental illness block to buying a gun. Mental health records would remain private and could not be released without your permission.
That's already an automatic bar from gun ownership.If you went to a shrink, you would be in no danger of your therapist reporting you to a "may not buy gun" list. Here's what could get a person put on that list. Someone commits a serious crime such as shooting people, attacking people, stabbing people, etc., but avoids a conviction due to an insanity defense. That, and only that, gets your on the "may not buy gun" list due to mental health.
Automatic fire "increasing lethality" is a myth. All it does is ensure that you won't have a steady aim, and that your magazine empties in seconds. It's why the M-16 is no longer fully automatic, and hasn't been since Vietnam with only a few exceptions. Fully automatic weapons in the hands of civilians are just very expensive toys with no practicality.I'm sorry, don't you already have enough of a problem with people engaging in shootings armed with semi-automatics? Making them automatic would just increase lethality. Isn't that the whole point of all the 'truth about assault rifle....' videos we see bandied about on these forums. A semi AK can shoot what maybe 60rpm. In fully auto 700-800 rounds. When you consider that people are an easier target in the first few seconds, that represents a large increase in lethality if a shooter had been armed with with fully automatic variants.
A person can rapid fire with a semiautomatic by using a technique known as "bump firing." They use a rubber band together with the gun's recoil to make the weapon fire over and over very quickly as if it were automatic. However, the shooter has less control over the gun, making it more dangerous. It would make a lot more sense to just allow automatic weapons to be sold instead of having people use bump firing. I'd doubt you would be able to ban rubber bands.
In my own opinion, number 2 is a bad idea.
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence. Even in your #1 with mental illness, you'd have to raise the minimum age to buy guns for it to be realistic. Most with mental instability and anger issues aren't officially diagnosed (apparently not the killer in this case), and many convicted felons are and were harmless. It really doesn't take much (alcohol) to set off even a "normal" person who has a gun attached to their hip already. When I see reactions to the theater massacre like "I'm thinking of buying a gun" that just affirms my belief that most people are too irrationally scared ****less to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public.
They would not have stopped the massacre. They would have been hiding on the floor after the first tear gas was thrown or try to run away like everyone else did, or far more likely they at some point kill someone themselves in a fit of rage or it goes off on accident. Even more likely they would not have been there, or in any situation where they have time to react, get their gun out and use it. That's just what we need anyway, two gun toting idiots firing away in a pitch dark theater.
Not to mention in the vast majority of cases, if this is really about self defense and not reigning in one's fear (and feeling like a badass), mace and other non lethal objects should be more easily acquired than guns. Everyday people walking around with automatic weapons would just ensure I never leave the house, or high tail it to a more sane country.
why, no civilian owned legal machine gun has ever been used in a crime of violence other than a DAYTON POLICE OFFICER shooting someone illegally with an UZI he owned
Mainly because automatic arms carry with them an exceedingly prohibitive cost, which I'm alright with.
Mainly because automatic arms carry with them an exceedingly prohibitive cost, which I'm alright with.
And Semi-Autos seem to have sufficient lethality as it is.
Anyway, this is not an issue i'm comfortable intruding on....
that is an interesting been of statism from a libertarian and that cost only became truly prohibitive in 1986. Sure when the law was passed 200 dollars was design to allow proper rich WASPS only to afford Tommy guns and not "Papist" or black laborers but by 1984, the cost of a MP5 was less than two grand. Now its 20,000. An idiotic consequence of an idiotic law
You can call me whatever you want. It doesn't take them off the shelves, so I see no problem with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?