Pro-gun posters: What regulations do you want?

[MikeG]

Sandy Hook was not his gun but his mothers. So you need to take guns from people related to lunatics.

Or just make it a criminal offense to allow your weapon to fall into the hands of those disqualified from using one. That should provide the incentive for people to store them safely.

 

[sadhatter]

I think that in light of recent events, it is fair that the Pro-Gun side be allowed a platform to explain what their ideal regulation system would be for dealing with gun crime.

Any history of disruptive mental illness no gun.

Any criminal record no gun.

Any known criminal associates no gun.

Any type of attempting to circumvent any firearm law no gun for life.

Any history of confirmed threats (whether charges were passed or not. As long as there is evidence of the threat) no gun.

Any illegal modifications on any weapon, lifetime ban.

Any member of the house having meet these parameters (in addition to existing gun laws) no gun.

Any weapon that is more practical to use against a building ,area or group, banned.

No more person to person sales treat it much the same as medication. If you sell rent or lend and are not an official dealer (again I suggest a pharmacy like system of regulation. Up to and including making gun dealer and dealer assistant protected roles) lifetime ban and huge legal penalties.

In addition to existing gun laws, and much more severe punishment and enforcement.

 

[MikeG]

He can fight overseas in the military, and vote, but he can't be trusted with a common rifle or a can of beer...

Never mind the iniquitous situation of Americans who can legally buy an AR-15 but can't legally buy a beer.

 

[Thermal]

Any history of disruptive mental illness no gun.

Any criminal record no gun.

Any known criminal associates no gun.

Any type of attempting to circumvent any firearm law no gun for life.

Any history of confirmed threats (whether charges were passed or not. As long as there is evidence of the threat) no gun.

Any illegal modifications on any weapon, lifetime ban.

Any member of the house having meet these parameters (in addition to existing gun laws) no gun.

Any weapon that is more practical to use against a building ,area or group, banned.

No more person to person sales treat it much the same as medication. If you sell rent or lend and are not an official dealer (again I suggest a pharmacy like system of regulation. Up to and including making gun dealer and dealer assistant protected roles) lifetime ban and huge legal penalties.

In addition to existing gun laws, and much more severe punishment and enforcement.

Some of those could get tricky, though. For instance, association with a criminal. I've worked with various criminals for years in construction, including convicted killers. Would non-violent crimes disqualify you? How is that line drawn? Living in a poor urban area, where having a gun for self-defense is an actual thing, a petty criminal could or the son on one could find himself unarmed with a neighborhood full of violent criminals, and be too poor to move.

 

[sadhatter]

Some of those could get tricky, though. For instance, association with a criminal. I've worked with various criminals for years in construction, including convicted killers. Would non-violent crimes disqualify you? How is that line drawn? Living in a poor urban area, where having a gun for self-defense is an actual thing, a petty criminal could or the son on one could find himself unarmed with a neighborhood full of violent criminals, and be too poor to move.

Some folks would have limited access. I'm fine with that. Less guns in crime infested areas is not a bad thing in my opinion as most people use one as a deterrent which quickly turns into a gun for a criminal.

Want a gun? Clean up your associates. If you don't want one that bad I don't trust you to follow other laws or procedures with regards to firearms.

For the record, with the exception of anything designed to look innocuous I'd make all unpowered hand to hand weapons legal. I believe in self defense but when we bring in the level of ease firearms have I want only those who are serious about safety to own them.

 

[Thermal]

Some folks would have limited access. I'm fine with that. Less guns in crime infested areas is not a bad thing in my opinion as most people use one as a deterrent which quickly turns into a gun for a criminal.

Want a gun? Clean up your associates. If you don't want one that bad I don't trust you to follow other laws or procedures with regards to firearms.

For the record, with the exception of anything designed to look innocuous I'd make all unpowered hand to hand weapons legal. I believe in self defense but when we bring in the level of ease firearms have I want only those who are serious about safety to own them.

And if you are unaware of an associates criminal background? What if you find out your boss at work committed a crime when he was younger? I think that might ostracize former criminals too drastically, effectively branding them for life.

 

[3point14]

He can fight overseas in the military, and vote, but he can't be trusted with a common rifle or a can of beer...

While in the military, his access to firearms will be severely limited and, until such time as he demonstrates competence in firearm safety, supervised.

Edit: As I understand things. I've not actually ever been in the US military myself

 

[ahhell]

While in the military, his access to firearms will be severely limited and, until such time as he demonstrates competence in firearm safety, supervised.

Edit: As I understand things. I've not actually ever been in the US military myself

For the most part, even after demonstrating competence, access is limited to those who need them for their work.

 

[mgidm86]

Do you agree that changes need to be made?

I do but I'm not a gun enthusiast or "pro-gun" so this thread is not really for me.

 

[mgidm86]

I rather suspect that people would be more willing to bring gun owners (or their representatives like the NRA) into the conversation if they contributed more than just "Hands off our guns! Obama is the antichrist! Freedom! We need more guns!".

I agree. I would also say that both sides can be pretty rabid, not just gun owners.

In fact that seems to be the status quo right now across the board. Hyper partisanship I mean. I don't know if it is worth the effort for me to even think about because I see no end in sight. I have other concerns with this country, some of which may actually be solvable.

 

[uke2se]

I see some proposals here that deal with punishing people for guns winding up in the hands of killers. I think one of the things that need to be agreed upon before getting into this kind of discussion is what problem you are trying to address. If you are trying to limit mass killings, punishing people for said killings (the killer or anyone who knowingly or not aided the killer) isn't really a solution, because it still leaves people dead. To prevent the deaths another solution is needed.

Maybe if we could all agree on the factor that separates the US in murder statistics and gun violence statistics from other Western nations. If we could identify that thing (or things) we could focus our solutions on that. Maybe that would help?

 

[dudalb]

Never mind the iniquitous situation of Americans who can legally buy an AR-15 but can't legally buy a beer.

Or, better still, Join the US military where you are issued an M4 (the latest incarnation of the military version of the AR 15;Weapons based on the AR 15 design have been the standard personal firearm of the US military for 50 years now) and, in some states can't buy a beer until you are 21.

 

[dudalb]

While in the military, his access to firearms will be severely limited and, until such time as he demonstrates competence in firearm safety, supervised.

Edit: As I understand things. I've not actually ever been in the US military myself

Oddly enough, In US Army basic training, a recruit is required to know exactly where his M 16/M4 is at all times;when not actually in his hands for traiing or maintaince it must be secured to a rifle rack in his barracks with a lock and key;and the Wrath of your Drill Sergeant will descend on any recruit who leaved his weapon on his bunk unattended .

 

[3point14]

For the most part, even after demonstrating competence, access is limited to those who need them for their work.

Oddly enough, In US Army basic training, a recruit is required to know exactly where his M 16/M4 is at all times;when not actually in his hands for traiing or maintaince it must be secured to a rifle rack in his barracks with a lock and key;and the Wrath of your Drill Sergeant will descend on any recruit who leaved his weapon on his bunk unattended .

Thank you both.

The US military seem to have a much better understanding of the level of idiocy that can overcome an apparently competent person every now and then than do those who legislate civilian firearm ownership. Maybe it's because training a new one is expensive?

 

[Ranb]

Any type of attempting to circumvent any firearm law no gun for life.

Any illegal modifications on any weapon, lifetime ban.

Would this be zero tolerance? Would it include those who cut down a barrel in violation of the law but claim they were destroying the gun?

Any weapon that is more practical to use against a building ,area or group, banned.

Seems rather broad. So anything with a magazine? Anything that will penetrate the wall of a residence; 22lr and up? Anything with a scope?

In addition to existing gun laws, and much more severe punishment and enforcement.

Good idea, but it doesn't get people re-elected. Suggesting that the current law be enforced makes you sound like the NRA. There is nothing more interesting than dropping a bill for a ban in the USA.

 

[johnny karate]

I think that is a great question because the only way any significant change can occur is if gun owners are not only brought into the discussion, but are also in agreement that changes actually need to be made.

How are gun owners being prevented from being a part of the discussion?

 

[mike81]

Any criminal record no gun.

So someone should be denied a gun if they have some minor offense on their record? Say a criminal trespass nearly 20 years ago when they were 19?

 

[applecorped]

Lol

 

[LTC8K6]

While in the military, his access to firearms will be severely limited and, until such time as he demonstrates competence in firearm safety, supervised.

Edit: As I understand things. I've not actually ever been in the US military myself

Sure, I was in the Army.

It would just seem very odd to come back from a combat assignment and not be able to buy a Ruger 10/22...

 

[theprestige]

Sure, I was in the Army.

It would just seem very odd to come back from a combat assignment and not be able to buy a Ruger 10/22...

I mean, I think it's odd not to be able to buy a Ruger 10/22, but I don't think your second clause follows from your first.

For example, it doesn't seem odd to me at all that a tank commander can come back from a combat assignment, and not be able to buy a main battle tank.