who should we not allow to buy guns

[NutBucket]

Do you guys that own guns and are against gun bans really afraid that the government is going to come and take your guns away, declare martial law/turn the US military against us?

In short, yes. Do you fully trust the latter will never happen? Are the police always going to be able to respond to you in a timely manner. Wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend your family against an immediate threat?

Basically, I fear the government taking away our Constitutional Rights. Don't get me wrong, the attacks come from the left and the right so no bias there.

 

[pontifex]

I'll take serious damage over 50 innocent dead people.

I never got shot before so I don't know if I'm talking out of my *** or not, but I *think* I stand a better chance against a weapon that doesn't have a large clip and fire automatically.

Seriously, what purpose does a weapon like that serve other than to hunt humans? Cause animals are easy prey with a 'normal' gun.

You might be right about the point being moot cause automatic weapons are already out there and everywhere. But should they really continue to be made for anyone but the military?

there are very few automatic firearms out there in civilian hands. they are severely regulated and very expensive. you can't buy one made after 1986 unless you are a dealer.
very few have been used in crimes.

this is why no one takes you guys seriously. you have no knowledge or facts about what you're ranting against.

 

[z1ggy]

lol you guys are really hung up on your terms.

50 people dead...I know guns don't kill people...

I own 3 and have been to a gun range and hunting with my uncle. You scared now?

---

Do you guys that own guns and are against gun bans really afraid that the government is going to come and take your guns away, declare martial law/turn the US military against us?

Wait what? I'm on tappatalk but I swear you recently just said you don't know much about guns and don't shoot, and you call mags clips... But own 3 guns?

And a gun is just an object until a sick person decides to make it a weapon. You take away the guns, fine... But yot still have sick people out there who can still go buy hunting guns to accomplish similar feats.

Don't give into the boogeyman that the media wants you to think exists. If anything, we need bullet proof background checks and better mental health care.

 

[BoberFett]

My point was I'll take someone shooting at me with 6 bullets where they have to pull the trigger each time vrs them holding the trigger and the gun dispersing bullets in some form of automatic process.

On a per-bullet basis, automatic fire is far more inaccurate than semi-auto fire. Making someone pull the trigger for each shot will likely increase their accuracy.

Automatic weapons are for suppression fire, not for hitting your target.

Gun grabber don't know a damn thing about the topic they're discussing, but why let facts get in the way of faux outrage?

Black gunz are scary!!!!!!!

 

[Artdeco]

lol you guys are really hung up on your terms.

50 people dead...I know guns don't kill people...

I own 3 and have been to a gun range and hunting with my uncle. You scared now?

---

Do you guys that own guns and are against gun bans really afraid that the government is going to come and take your guns away, declare martial law/turn the US military against us?

Um, you realize you're not making much sense, right?

Perhaps you should stick to "Guns are bad" and your lack of understanding of the terminology and the issues involved don't reflect poorly on you.

 

[Linux23]

1 gun per household. 1 yearly licence per gun (need to be recertified yearly). Additional guns require an additional license. Each additional license would cost $9,995. Each bullet would cost $100 each and be registered (serial number) to each firearm. Any guns without a proper license and training/documentation would result in the removal of all firearms from said household for 10 years and a $1500 surcharge paid annually. I think that's reasonable and common sense gun control, no?

 

[Pandasaurus]

Do you guys that own guns and are against gun bans really afraid that the government is going to come and take your guns away, declare martial law/turn the US military against us?

While I won't say that idea is outside the realm of possibility, no. That's not what I'm afraid of.

What I am afraid of is the millions of anti-gun "nuts" (if we're nuts for wanting our guns, why can't they be called nuts for wanting our guns?) who prey on fear and hysteria and use emotion ("think of the children!") to further their agenda of "any mentally stable person who values life should be in favor of a gun ban" in the hopes of forcing the government to pass such a law, rather than try to explain to the masses why they value guns more than life (because clearly, that is the only logical explanation).

If you value life so much, why not start by enforcing the laws we have? Or banning abortion? Or drugs? Or human trafficking? Or any number of other options? Why is it only guns that take lives, and need to be banned right now?

I'll probably get some flak from all sides for this, but... We need a bit of humor to go with this debate.

#BlackGunsMatter

 

[NutBucket]

1 gun per household. 1 yearly licence per gun (need to be recertified yearly). Additional guns require an additional license. Each additional license would cost $9,995. Each bullet would cost $100 each and be registered (serial number) to each firearm. Any guns without a proper license and training/documentation would result in the removal of all firearms from said household for 10 years and a $1500 surcharge paid annually. I think that's reasonable and common sense gun control, no?

And what happens with the 300+ million guns in circulation today and likely trillions of rounds of ammunition?

 

[Linux23]

And what happens with the 300+ million guns in circulation today and likely trillions of rounds of ammunition?

That's a silly question. Either purchase the proper license/certification for those guns or give them back to uncle Sam. Can't afford it then sucks to be you.

 

[Paladin3]

Very few would dispute this reply. The bold part however, is myopic. If the guns and ammo were illegal, it would present numerous ways the suspect might be caught and/or stopped before acquiring everything necessary to carry out a violent crime using them. If the black market makes the hardware much more expensive, it would be a barrier for many would be purchasers. Some might be sponsored to commit acts of terrorism. The financing would provide opportunity for LE and other agencies to become aware. Some would need to commit other crimes to raise the cash, another opportunity to get caught before getting the weapons and ammo. Teh suspect might get caught up in a sting when going to purchase the weapons. Or run into an informant. Many scenarios that do not exist with legal ownership would come into play.

That said, I am a 2nd amendment supporter. And no matter what drastic measures were implemented, determined fanatics like this latest POS will find a way. And if they fail, another, and another will take their place until they finally do succeed. Infringing on the rights of all, is not a solution, it is a victory for those it would be intended to stop.

I don't get the point you are trying to make. Of course the ability to ignore the 2nd amendment would make law enforcement's job easier, as would abandoning due process entirely. Heck, locking us all in individual cells would stop virtually 100% of crime.

I'm just not sure how pointing stuff like that out furthers the discussion.

 

[Paladin3]

The solution is quite simple. Semi automatic firearms of a non-hunting purpose have no place in a civilized society. The rest of the civilized world already knows this, yet here we sit in our island of stupidity with a gun crime rate VASTLY higher than other developed nations pretending the solution is prayer in schools or some other bullshit. We are just too afraid to admit this painful truth because we think it will be too hard to change course. Thousands of people have to unnecessarily die every year so a bunch of nuts can hold onto some fantasy of overthrowing a tyrannical government,

Again, come up with a plan that can remove those weapons from America without starting a civil war and I will go along with it. America would be far, far safer without private ownership of firearms. If we could get guns out of criminal hands it would darn near be paradise. Just tell me how we are going to achieve this noble goal.

Nobody has a plan for that, and instead grabs for the low hanging fruit and infringes on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Then we lie to each other about how much safer we are until the next nutter starts shooting, and then demand even more gun control.

I contend there is no way to disarm all the bad guys in America. Firearms and personal freedom are too ingrained in our culture. Our only real choice is to try to enforce our current laws the best we can, continue to be vigilant, and fight back against evil whenever it rears it's ugly head.

 

[Paladin3]

1 gun per household. 1 yearly licence per gun (need to be recertified yearly). Additional guns require an additional license. Each additional license would cost $9,995. Each bullet would cost $100 each and be registered (serial number) to each firearm. Any guns without a proper license and training/documentation would result in the removal of all firearms from said household for 10 years and a $1500 surcharge paid annually. I think that's reasonable and common sense gun control, no?

We can't even get voter ID laws passed because the $20 it would cost for an ID card is too big of a burden on the poor. Now you want to make it so only the wealthy can exercise their second amendment rights????

Wait, you are being sarcastic? My meter is broken? Ah, you got me!

 

[pontifex]

1 gun per household. 1 yearly licence per gun (need to be recertified yearly). Additional guns require an additional license. Each additional license would cost $9,995. Each bullet would cost $100 each and be registered (serial number) to each firearm. Any guns without a proper license and training/documentation would result in the removal of all firearms from said household for 10 years and a $1500 surcharge paid annually. I think that's reasonable and common sense gun control, no?

Reasonable for whom? Not anyone i know. For shits and giggles, What happens if you already own than 1 gun?

 

[pontifex]

That's a silly question. Either purchase the proper license/certification for those guns or give them back to uncle Sam. Can't afford it then sucks to be you.

What do you mean give them back? I never got them from uncle sam to begin with! Are they going to be giving me money for the value of the gun or just stealing them?

 

[Paladin3]

Guns are simply a tool. A tool that has enormous potential for good or evil depending on the intent of the user. When some wacko goes on a shooting spree, who do we call to stop them? Good guys with...wait for it....guns!

Yes, if we could magically rid the world of guns we would be safer. Guns are by far a more efficient tool for killing that, say, pointed sticks. This doesn't mean that wackos wouldn't then resort to stabbing folks with pointed sticks, just that they would be doing less damage when they do since no guns.

Now, all this is a moot point because THERE IS NO REALISTIC WAY TO MAKE ALL THE GUNS IN AMERICA MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR! All stricter gun control laws would do is limit the ability of the law abiding citizen to exercise their second amendment rights.

 

[Artdeco]

What if the people in that club had the option to concealed carry, instead of being trapped in a gun free zone?

We still have 2 weeks of Ramadan left?

What are the softest targets in the US?

Schools, bars/clubs, churches, hospitals....

You ain't seen nothing yet, and it's not just the next 2 weeks, we'll be dealing with Islamic terrorists for decades.

 

[Fritzo]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to blame the shootings on guns, forget ISIS, and take away our freedoms, or be racist and homophobic, leave guns the way they are, and fight ISIS...

 

[BoberFett]

We can't even get voter ID laws passed because the $20 it would cost for an ID card is too big of a burden on the poor. Now you want to make it so only the wealthy can exercise their second amendment rights????

Wait, you are being sarcastic? My meter is broken? Ah, you got me!

No sarcasm, he's truly that stupid.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Again, come up with a plan that can remove those weapons from America without starting a civil war and I will go along with it. America would be far, far safer without private ownership of firearms. If we could get guns out of criminal hands it would darn near be paradise. Just tell me how we are going to achieve this noble goal.

Nobody has a plan for that, and instead grabs for the low hanging fruit and infringes on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Then we lie to each other about how much safer we are until the next nutter starts shooting, and then demand even more gun control.

I contend there is no way to disarm all the bad guys in America. Firearms and personal freedom are too ingrained in our culture. Our only real choice is to try to enforce our current laws the best we can, continue to be vigilant, and fight back against evil whenever it rears it's ugly head.

You don't criminalize existing guns. You cease the manufacture and sales of existing guns that are no longer deemed acceptable, and start a government funded buyback program to slowly remove them from circulation, which would pick up momentum as time passes, and probably take a generation or two. You put strict limits and controls on the purchase of ammunition, requiring registration and tracking of all sales. This problem won't be fixed overnight, but standing idly by while the situation worsens because you don't know where to start is unacceptable.

 

[z1ggy]

You don't criminalize existing guns. You cease the manufacture and sales of existing guns that are no longer deemed acceptable, and start a government funded buyback program to slowly remove them from circulation, which would pick up momentum as time passes, and probably take a generation or two. You put strict limits and controls on the purchase of ammunition, requiring registration and tracking of all sales. This problem won't be fixed overnight, but standing idly by while the situation worsens because you don't know where to start is unacceptable.

We love guns way too much to sell them to uncle Sam, unless we are getting bought out for near ludacris values.

I know it worked in Australia.... But this isn't Australia. I know that if my 1300 dollar ar isnt being sold back to the government for like 4000 bucks or more, it's really not worth giving up. I enjoy range time and so do the other 99.9999 percent of other law abiding owners.

Besides, pistols are fffffaaarrrrrr more deadly and dangerous than any rifle. But again, the media made them into these evil death machines. If they are actually serious about gun safety they would be looking into pistols and how to keep them out of gangs hands, and safer storage laws.

 

[Fritzo]

You don't criminalize existing guns. You cease the manufacture and sales of existing guns that are no longer deemed acceptable, and start a government funded buyback program to slowly remove them from circulation, which would pick up momentum as time passes, and probably take a generation or two. You put strict limits and controls on the purchase of ammunition, requiring registration and tracking of all sales. This problem won't be fixed overnight, but standing idly by while the situation worsens because you don't know where to start is unacceptable.

I'm for gun ownership. However, I'd also be for a ban one guns that can hold more than say 6-7 rounds.

The argument for gun control is always "it won't stop criminals from getting guns". No, it won't. But it will make it harder for them to get a hold of them. Over time less and less will be on the street. It's like someone saying:

"I have a treatment for cancer! It helps cure it by 18%!"
"But not 100%?"
"Well...no..."
"THEN IT'S WORTHLESS! DON'T EVEN TRY IT!"

 

[Mai72]

What if the people in that club had the option to concealed carry, instead of being trapped in a gun free zone?

We still have 2 weeks of Ramadan left?

What are the softest targets in the US?

Schools, bars/clubs, churches, hospitals....

You ain't seen nothing yet, and it's not just the next 2 weeks, we'll be dealing with Islamic terrorists for decades.

When you have people who are lone wolves, can get easy access to weapons, and are religious zealots well this is what you get. I don't care if every American was strapped with an M15, it's still going to NB e nearly impossible to stop mass murder.

And the shooter doesn't have to be a Muslim. They can be guys like James Holmes, Adam Lanza and Timothy McVay.

 

[Mxylplyx]

We love guns way too much to sell them to uncle Sam, unless we are getting bought out for near ludacris values.

I know it worked in Australia.... But this isn't Australia. I know that if my 1300 dollar ar isnt being sold back to the government for like 4000 bucks or more, it's really not worth giving up. I enjoy range time and so do the other 99.9999 percent of other law abiding owners.

Besides, pistols are fffffaaarrrrrr more deadly and dangerous than any rifle. But again, the media made them into these evil death machines. If they are actually serious about gun safety they would be looking into pistols and how to keep them out of gangs hands, and safer storage laws.

Most, if not all pistols would be included in the gun ban if it were up to me. Bolt action long guns and pump or lever action shot guns with an obvious hunting purpose are the only guns that should be legal to sell and trade.

Essentially any gun designed for war or combat should be removed from society, and any semi-automatic weapon regardless of purpose. If this leaves anyone feeling unsafe or unfree, so be it.

 

[Pandasaurus]

You don't criminalize existing guns. You cease the manufacture and sales of existing guns that are no longer deemed acceptable, and start a government funded buyback program to slowly remove them from circulation, which would pick up momentum as time passes, and probably take a generation or two. You put strict limits and controls on the purchase of ammunition, requiring registration and tracking of all sales. This problem won't be fixed overnight, but standing idly by while the situation worsens because you don't know where to start is unacceptable.

Or in other words... Incentivized criminalization of existing guns? I mean, you can't ban guns without making it a crime to possess them. Saying "We'd really like it if you'd give up your guns, but we aren't going to force you" certainly won't stop crime, which is supposedly the goal of removing guns from the hands of civilians.

We already have limits and controls (I won't say "strict", because that's a bit subjective, and depends somewhat on the state in question) on the purchase of firearms, and that (along with the tracing of firearms) is a not-insignificant burden on both retailers and the government and law enforcement. Now you want to add billions of rounds of ammunition to that? Good luck, I hope there's a budget for this.

Edit: Never mind the massive economic impact of hundreds (or thousands) of manufacturers losing a significant portion of their income. They will have two choices: Either hike the price for their sales to law enforcement/military by a huge margin, or go out of business (which would add a huge number to the unemployment). Where will the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the firearms/ammunition/accessories industry go for employment? If they hike the prices to LEO/MIL, where is this mystery budget coming from? We're already trillions of dollars in debt.

 

[Artdeco]

I just watched a video on CNN that said the Ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle

https://youtu.be/pY5tJzq2UeE