U.S. Gun Control

[E10Rifle]

we'll deal with this problem in our own ways.

moar gunz!

[Robbie Barrett]

Its not the weapon. Its the idiots with them where the problem is. Whether we talking about a .22 or bazooka. The hands these weapons land in what makes it dangerous.

Why don't they allow bazookas? The same reasoning can be used for all firearms.

[Robbie Barrett]

To defend oneself just in case the US government decides to take over.

The basic thought is that if the American government were ever to turn tyrannical and start taking over private citizens' property and/or infringing on their "freedoms," then your neighbor Joe, with his AR-15 assault rifle, would be able turn back the government tanks and troops attacking him.

Yep Joe is going to turn back all those armoured vehicles/troops/jets/drones etc with his gun.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I don't agree with banning guns. At all.

I much prefer the three alternatives that nobody likes.

1. When entering any area populated by more than 10 people, you are required to go through screening. If you're holding a weapon, concealed or not, you are required to check it at the door. Refusal to check it means you are refused from entry, and it's shoot to kill if you make a hostile move. That's how they dealt with it in the 1800's. Let them keep the ammo, but the empty gun stays with the fronter until you're ready to leave. Just like coats and bags.
   
2. The price of the actual gun can be whatever, but the price of the bullets should be outrageous - like, $20/bullet. On purpose. Gun sellers can profit off the guns, accessories, cleaning supplies, repairs, etc. as much as they want, but not the bullets. All proceeds from bullet sales are distributed evenly to non-profits against all forms of violence and mental illness.
   
3. as with saying the word "bomb" at the airport, if you make ANY sort of post, comment, or inflection that gives a whiff that you plan to shoot another human being - and yes, I'm including "freedom of speech" situations, because that doesn't apply against threats of bodily harm or terrorism - you are subject to arrest for terroristic threats, your existing firearms will be confiscated and you will be flagged on the check when you go to buy another one, so they'll know by what you buy what you are planning to do before you go do it. NO ban - just more awareness.

I already know what people will say on #2 . "They'll just underground sell the bullets!" Let them. Because the reality is, you won't stop gun violence nor should you try. You won't stop murder/suicides nor should you try. You won't stop suicides nor should you try. You won't stop straight homicides nor should you try. Inspired shooters will continue to be a thing, like that dumbass that posted on Facebook about Round 2 and then said he was "joking".

But you CAN prevent incidents like Charles Whitman in the 60's (the first "real" mass shooting) or Stephen Paddock recently (the deadliest mass shooting). #1 would have stopped both guys cold.

The goal is to minimize frequency, impact and damage from gun violence as much as possible. #1 deals with what #2 can't.

#3 is for the "government's comin' for me, brick up!" nutcases out in Hangem, Montana and these millennials whose parents should be locked up for supporting their gun fantasies from Call of Duty.


Banning guns isn't the answer. Just make them not worth the effort. If hunters really want to hunt they won't care about paying more money for their hobby. Especially since it's going to a good cause.

[Left Hook Tua]

Why don't they allow bazookas? The same reasoning can be used for all firearms.

Ppl do own bazookas

[Mud]

We'll deal with this problem in our own ways.

Any ideas?


.............

[Pretty Boy32]

Here's proposal for consideration, in the vein of compromise. A lot of discussion has been made with relation to the capacity of the weapons used recently in these spree killings.

Would posters on here think it favorably to pass legislation that would aim to mandate limited magazine sizes, say 10rds, and perhaps a maximum number by caliber type, 5 for arguments sake. In return, suppressors would be removed from the NFA, making them legal for purchase without requiring a tax stamp?

[tailchaser001]

How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control.

Criminals will not follow any bans.

[ΣNΣMY]

What is the justification for the continued availability of the type of weapons used in the latest shooting and Las Vegas?

Is it simply that people like them and thus this a is a price they accept or is there a reason? Hunting, no.
Self defence, it is called assault weapon for a reason

Hunting,yes. Self defense, yes. All guns are capable of assault. There is a price to pay for such freedoms. Assault rifle and military grade is something anti gun people came up with to make them sound like something people shouldn't have. They aren't military grade.

This isn't ***gy Ireland. If you hunt in large parts of North America there are bears,wolves and mountain lions. They can smell the blood from miles away when you're harvesting your kill. If you want a fighting chance against that nothing better than a higher capacity rifle.

[TJ highway]

How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control.

Criminals will not follow any bans.

Bill of Rights

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.