If you could make all the gun laws...

[zombienerd]

Zoogster, I just want to be clear, you're advocating that a man who murdered his wife and children (or a random stranger for money), got a life sentence, should be able to be paroled 10 years later? That's how it works now.

I think if you kill someone with obvious intent and malice, you should be done, period, over.

If you assault someone with obvious intent and malice (obviously not during self-defense), I also think you should never see the outside of the jail again.

 

[tju1973]

Little to no gun laws..just maybe 18 to buy, no violent felon ownership-- and that's about it.

It really sucks that we cannot defend ourselves adequately against possible tyranny with the same weapons the government has.

 

[zombienerd]

They instituted the Brady background check in 87, preventing violent felons from buying guns at a FFL, yet crime dropped in the early 90's. According to 'Freakonomics", there are other reasons for this drop, such as increased police presences, long-term effects of Roe vs. Wade, etc. Regardless of whether or not the authors argument is correct, there are too many additional variables related to crime rates to easily make some type of link. It's clear to me that their is no (easy) causation link between denial of guns to violent felons and changes, in any direction, in the crime rate.

What do you think?

I could get behind this... IF they were to stiffen sentences for violent criminals.

I also understand that if someone wants a gun, the law won't stop them from getting one.

So, what can we do about it? I'm always open to other people's suggestions and opinions...

 

[BluesDancer]

Zombienerd, I do agree with you about murder. You kill someone with intent/malice, and it should be an automatic life sentence if convicted, period.

 

[Zoogster]

My point is things are rarely simple.

A gradually scaled punishment system is necessary for proper deterrent.
Some will still not be deterred from even the worst crimes, but a higher percentage will be.

Even crimes despised by the population must be kept in context. For example we know there is sexual predators out there. Nobody wants their loved one victimized by such people. Yet the punishment for their crimes must be kept significantly below that of murder. Or we would all be less likely to ever see those they victimize alive again.
If such a predator was facing decades in prison for kidnapping and victimizing your loved one, then the additional punishment for murder and elimination of the main witness is not that much different.
I know I would rather see a loved one who is victimized again than lose them forever.

You must determine what the worst is, and put it on top with the worst punishment. Then gradually scale back from that with the punishment for other crimes.
Leaving a deterrent system in place that attempts to give the most favorable results as often as possible.

It will not always leave us happy with the results, but sometimes you must choose the lesser of the evils.

 

[Hunter125]

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but hear me out.

I'm against any kind of gun ban, I think that it is total crap to say we can't own a specific kind of gun, but I do think that guns should be registered, even rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, etc. I don't care if the government knows that I have guns, as long as they don't infringe on my right to own them or use them.

I would require everyone who owns a gun to be printed and take a safety test, both written and hands on at a range, to prove that they are capable of using a firearm safely. There would be a free firearm handling safety course for anyone who wanted to take it. Once a person has passed this test, they could own whatever guns they wanted.

All gun companies would be required to fire a shot through each barrel that they manufacture and submit it to a national database so that LE would have a database of all of the striations of all the barrels made. All ammunition manufacturers would submit a sample of each bullet manufactured to a similar database so that the LE would have a metallurgical match to all bullet lots manufactured as well. If all of this were in place, the LE would know with a simple search of national databases exactly which gun was used in the crime they are investigating.
I know you all probably think I am a liberal hippie, but I am a conservative outdoorsman, have been hunting since I was 10 and shooting since I was 5. I love having and shooting guns, but these are some things that would make things safer for the community at large and easier for LE.

Before you tear me apart, think about this: We take a tests, both written and driving, before we can drive and even have to renew it every 4 years. Why should it be different for guns? I know that it's a second amendment right to own them, but nothing I said infringes on that right.

Not trying to start a fight, just what I think.

 

[wally]

No limits on ownership, every criminal misuse of a weapon resulting in death would automatically be death penalty case.

Simple.

--wally.

 

[zignal_zero]

ZOOGSTER -

A gradually scaled punishment system is necessary for proper deterrent.
Some will still not be deterred from even the worst crimes, but a higher percentage will be.

it would be great, if it worked this way, but i don't believe it does. the problem with anticipating how much of a deterrent something will be is - unless you are a murderer, you can NOT understand their perspective. i believe statistics have already proven that states with a significantly higher than average number of executions do NOT have a significantly lower number of murders.

don't misunderstand, i AGREE with big punishment, i just have no illusions about it making a difference in a TRUE criminals likelihood to commit a violent felony.

 

[Zoogster]

I would require everyone who owns a gun to be printed and take a safety test, both written and hands on at a range, to prove that they are capable of using a firearm safely. There would be a free firearm handling safety course for anyone who wanted to take it. Once a person has passed this test, they could own whatever guns they wanted.

In theory your system seems good. However the intent of the founders was not that some people considered safe be allowed recreational use of firearms.
Rather it was that government be deterred from tyranny by a well armed population.

Giving government control of a process which allows them to determine who is and is not suitable to possess arms removes the intent of the 2nd Amendment.




Those with what the government considered 'radical' views or likely to stand up to the government certainly would be prevented from posing a danger to those enforcing the will of the government. They would be "extremists" or people with "links to terrorists" (if they have ever met another radical that is considered a terrorist.)
Which may seem good much of the time, but not when trying to deter a government from infringing on freedom and liberty and becoming tyrannical. (Which is the only time it really matters within the context of the 2nd Amendment as intended and discussed by the founders.)

Your method also assumes a future government will never abuse those tools in ways even you do not agree with. Like rounding up all of certain types (increasing the types every few years) of firearms once every single one and every single owner is documented and the location registered in a computerized database.
Or even just gradually decreasing those who pass the process, reducing the prevalence of firearms, percentage of firearm owners, and gradually reducing the firearm culture and supporters as time goes on as a result. Making future opposition to increased restrictions even less widespread.

Even if you trust a current government, all future governments will have those tools you give them, to abuse as they see fit.

 

[tominct]

Hunter:

Nothing you've suggested infringes on that right, as long as the Powers That Be don''t have the incentive or inclination to do so.

What's the guarantee that some future politician/special interest group/public opinion won't decide that this national registry/database needs to be the starting point for confiscation?

This is, in fact, the mechanism that has been used throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world to take people's guns away (see 1930s Germany, UK and Australia in the last 20 years, etc.).

Regarding your "tests"...... Do you seriously believe that these hurdles won't become more and more difficult for the average citizen to pass? That's the case in many places, such as NYC, Maryland, NJ, and your own Chicago as far as carry permits are concerned. And sooner or later, someone will want to apply these rules to purchases as well. See NYC's Sullivan Law, etc.

I'm curious how old you are, because I wonder about your historical perspective. Are you aware that until 1968, you could buy firearm through the mail? And felons weren't prohibited (on a national level) from owning them? And that many states had few or no requirements for carrying in public?

Addressing the OP, not yours, I think it's fair to realize that in 1775, there were no restrictions on private possession of battle-capable ships, cannon, Congreve rockets, muskets, or any other items that were State of the Art in military hardware.

Hence our ability to successfully fight the British (our government at the time).

And the Redcoats did attempt to seize armories and privately owned weapons.

EDIT TO ADD: Where in the Constitution does it say there's a RIGHT to a driver's license?
Once you regulate a right, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.

And privileges can be revoked.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but hear me out.

I'm against any kind of gun ban, I think that it is total crap to say we can't own a specific kind of gun, but I do think that guns should be registered, even rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, etc. I don't care if the government knows that I have guns, as long as they don't infringe on my right to own them or use them.

I would require everyone who owns a gun to be printed and take a safety test, both written and hands on at a range, to prove that they are capable of using a firearm safely. There would be a free firearm handling safety course for anyone who wanted to take it. Once a person has passed this test, they could own whatever guns they wanted.

All gun companies would be required to fire a shot through each barrel that they manufacture and submit it to a national database so that LE would have a database of all of the striations of all the barrels made. All ammunition manufacturers would submit a sample of each bullet manufactured to a similar database so that the LE would have a metallurgical match to all bullet lots manufactured as well. If all of this were in place, the LE would know with a simple search of national databases exactly which gun was used in the crime they are investigating.
I know you all probably think I am a liberal hippie, but I am a conservative outdoorsman, have been hunting since I was 10 and shooting since I was 5. I love having and shooting guns, but these are some things that would make things safer for the community at large and easier for LE.

Before you tear me apart, think about this: We take a tests, both written and driving, before we can drive and even have to renew it every 4 years. Why should it be different for guns? I know that it's a second amendment right to own them, but nothing I said infringes on that right.

Not trying to start a fight, just what I think.

You'll get no flack from me for your opinion. But, I'll elucidate upon certain aspects of the Second Amendment you have misconstrued:

Any requirement you must satisfy comes between you and keeping and bearing arms. It is thus an infringement.

As to the tests we take, both written and driving, before we can drive and even have to renew every so many years, and why it is different for guns is because there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the several states from infringing upon your privilege to drive.​

If it come between you and your gun, it's an infringement.

Another thing to consider is that even without the Second Amendment, we still have the right to keep and bear arms. It's the source of the power we granted to the Union to keep and bear up arms for our common defense.

As stated, you do have a right to your opinions and the freedom to express them; so, no flames.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[ganymede]

"We don't deprive violent felons of the right to free speech, nor the right to peacefully assemble, nor the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure"

Is that a joke, or do you mean only after they are released from prison?

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

I would have a lot of free time.

 

[BluesDancer]

"We don't deprive violent felons of the right to free speech, nor the right to peacefully assemble, nor the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure"

Is that a joke, or do you mean only after they are released from prison?

To clarify, I mean that when and if they are released from prison. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear in my original post.

 

[oneounceload]

IMO, there would not be a worry about violent felons and guns, because they would be eliminated before setting foot back on the street.

HOWEVER, I favor a basic IQ sort of test - if you can't tie your own shoes, then driving, guns, and other activities are not in your future.....in other words, if your IQ is lower than the mulch in your front yard.......guns are a no-no, otherwise, suppressors should be OTC like NZ, sbs, like Canada - no problem.....ATF would be the stuff I put in my transmission, not a gov't agency

 

[rfurtkamp]

Before you tear me apart, think about this: We take a tests, both written and driving, before we can drive and even have to renew it every 4 years. Why should it be different for guns? I know that it's a second amendment right to own them, but nothing I said infringes on that right

Rights do not require permission, licensure, or pre-approval to exercise. You don't have to ask Mommy-may-I.

You don't have a right to drive; stupid, I know, but that's how it works.

The saddest legacy, though, of the "Greatest Generation" once they hit power in the post-war era was the systematic, control-driven removal of gun rights and a break with almost two hundred years of success in the name of safety, fear of the black man, and their fellow citizens.

 

[rfurtkamp]

HOWEVER, I favor a basic IQ sort of test - if you can't tie your own shoes, then driving, guns, and other activities are not in your future

"Simple tests" have been used over and over again to selectively deprive unwanted people of their rights as citizens.

See the sad example of polling tests, and why they are no longer required or allowed to be able to vote.

 

[Publius1688]

No restrictions!
Heck, these days, I'm thinking 'no government'.

 

[General Geoff]

To those folks who have replied with selective approval of background checks, fingerprinting, ballistic databases, IQ tests, and other "reasonable restrictions":

Remember, true freedom is not guaranteed safe, and anyone who may potentially be restricted from owning arms by these "reasonable restrictions" will simply bypass them anyway, if they are truly motivated to obtain a firearm for nefarious purposes. Simply put, any restrictions are in a very real sense, a waste of government time & money to enforce.

This is on top of the fact that "Shall not be infringed" does not leave room for "reasonable" restrictions.

 

[oneounceload]

And I'll say that folks whose IQ is lower that the IQ of rock salt should not be allowed to own guns as individuals. We don't allow them to operate 3 ton weapons in the form of automobiles, or do may other activities....guns are off the table for them

"Simple tests" have been used over and over again to selectively deprive unwanted people of their rights as citizens.

Correct - and seeing the current state of this country, maybe they need to be reinstated, especially when it comes to voting - but that's another thread in another forum

If you're so mentally incompetent, so educationally lacking in some form of basic common sense and knowledge - then, IMO, you don't get to own guns, drive cars, vote or similar

 

[Sunray]

"...must be some limit on the type of weapons a person can own..." Why? A law abiding adult shouldn't be told what property he can or cannot own. Criminals don't care if a particular firearm is illegal to possess.
"...not a gov't agency..." Government agencies should not be allowed to make law by regulation either.

 

[General Geoff]

And I'll say that folks whose IQ is lower that the IQ of rock salt should not be allowed to own guns as individuals. We don't allow them to operate 3 ton weapons in the form of automobiles, or do may other activities....guns are off the table for them

No. You're looking at this the wrong way. Someone who is so mentally incompetant that he can't be trusted with a firearm, would inherently be under the care of another due to lack of ability to care for him or herself. This would fall under the "legal responsibility of another," in other words, if this incompetent individual's parents still care for him, they are still responsible for discretion in exercising his or her rights. That does not mean the individual does not have the right.

 

[KarenTOC]

There would be a free firearm handling safety course for anyone who wanted to take it.

By "free" I assume you mean that the taxpayers will pick up the tab?

If you feel that you are not paying enough taxes, I'll gladly let you pay some of mine.

 

[zombienerd]

All gun companies would be required to fire a shot through each barrel that they manufacture and submit it to a national database so that LE would have a database of all of the striations of all the barrels made. All ammunition manufacturers would submit a sample of each bullet manufactured to a similar database so that the LE would have a metallurgical match to all bullet lots manufactured as well. If all of this were in place, the LE would know with a simple search of national databases exactly which gun was used in the crime they are investigating.

This is the biggest misconception ever

I don't fault you for believing that which the Antis have pushed to get onto TV and in the news. Sure, striations have been used in a few cases, and was able to help the prosecution. But ballistics databases would be a giant waste of money with no results to prove they work, they are already used in two metropolitan cities, and NEITHER ONE, EVER has even HELPED in solving a crime.

A few excerpts from "Gun Facts v 5.1":

Fact: "Firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users. They are not permanently defined like fingerprints or DNA."

Fact: "Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results.”

Fact: The same gun will produce different markings on bullets and casings, and different
guns can produce similar markings. Additionally, the type of ammunition actually
used in a crime could differ from the type used when the gun was originally test-fired -- a difference that could lead to significant error in suggesting possible matches.

Fact: The rifle used in the Martin Luther King assassination was test fired 18 times
under court supervision, and the results showed that no two bullets were marked alike.
“Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet.”

Fact: "The common layman seems to believe that two bullets fired from the same
weapon are identical, down to the very last striation placed on them by the weapon. The
trained firearms examiner knows how far that is from reality."

Fact: The National Research Council deemed a national ballistics database as
impractical due to practical limitations of current technology for generating and
comparing images of ballistic markings

Fact: Maryland’s ballistics database “is not doing anything”111 and “has not met the
mission statement of the state police."112 In the first five years of implementation, it
failed to lead to any criminal arrest or convictions, despite collecting over 80,000
specimens at a cost of $2,567,633

Fact: More than 70% of armed career criminals get their guns from "off-the-street sales"
and "criminal acts" such as burglaries114, and 71% of these firearms are stolen.115
Tracing these firearms will not lead to the criminals, as the trail stops at the last legal
owner

Fact: Computer image matching of cartridges fails between 38-62% of the time,
depending on whether the cartridges are from the same or different manufacturers

Fact: Criminals currently remove serial numbers from stolen guns to hide their origin.
The same simple shop tools can change a ballistic profile within minutes. “The minor
alteration required less than 5 minutes of labor”.118 Criminals will make changing
ballistic profiles part of their standard procedures

Fact: “We in law enforcement know it will not, does not, cannot work. Then, no one
has considered the hundreds of millions of guns in the US that have never been registered or tested or printed.”125

Fact: “One, the barrel is one of the most easily changed parts of many guns and two, thebarrel, and the signature it leaves on a bullet, is constantly changing."126

All of these are excerpts from "Gun Facts, v5.1" pages 18 and 19, and can be read here:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would require everyone who owns a gun to be printed and take a safety test, both written and hands on at a range, to prove that they are capable of using a firearm safely.

I think I'd rather see that one applied to voting...... poorly used votes kill a LOT more people than poorly used guns.