jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (61 posts)

What laws, restrictions, or guidelines would you put on guns in the US

  1. mike102771 profile image84
    mike102771posted 3 years ago

    We hear and read so many people saying what they don't want. It makes me wonder what do people think would help. Please if you are going to list them then use a number system or bullet points. Thank you.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1) No automatics without special and hard to get licensing.  Semi-automatic is fine.
      2) no armor piercing ammo, no tracers (fun to shoot, but we've had several large fires near me in the last couple of years from them)
      3) background checks on every sale, including private.  Hire a gun store to do it for you.  Not sure at all it will help, but at $20 a pop it's cheap enough to try it out.
      4) No limit on clips - isn't going to help anything
      5) Investigate possibility of requiring an ID system before the gun will operate.  I believe these are almost to the point of being useful and cheap enough to put into every new gun.
      6) Decent training for a carry permit, and possibly before buying any gun.  Say an 8 hour course with both classroom and range training.

      1. mike102771 profile image84
        mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        6) I would recommend to anyone in Ohio that owns a handgun that they get a  carry concealed permit. Not only will it formularize you with the firearm it will also protect you when you are transporting the gun.
        3) This is the same thing we do for alcohol sales.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would not be adverse to requiring a concealed carry permit for every gun owner.  Not necessarily every user, but anyone owning a gun.

          You do a background check for alcohol sales?  ID,  yes, but a background check?

          1. mike102771 profile image84
            mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Recommend not require.
            For a company to sell booze they have to sell it through a licensed distributor. Even if you make it for your own restaurant. I misread the post.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We do the same here.  Funny - a micro brewery is operating in a restaurant in my town.  They must make the drink, bottle it, physically ship to the state distribution point and physically ship it all back to the restaurant where it was produced.  None of it is sold anywhere else.

              Stupid.  It costs that tiny company a fortune for the state to make sure it's getting all the tax it is due, and there is absolutely no way to be sure that company isn't slipping a few bottles directly through the door into the restaurant.  No purpose at all, then, except to run the cost up and protect the big boys from competition.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That!  (With a couple additions)

        I like the clip limit just because it gives authorities time to make a shot during reload.

        I'd also like to see criminal responsibility for manufacturer's who can't trace their weapons to licensed dealers and criminal responsibility to dealer's who can't trace their sold inventory.  In short, I believe that the gun makers and dealers should face much tougher charges if a gun they held in their inventory ends up with someone who uses it for a crime.

        I also think that mental health checks should be part of the licesening/selling process and that individuals with certain mental health conditions should be forced to forfeit their guns/be restricted from ownership.

        I'd like to see some laws dealing with carrying a gun when intoxicated as well.

    2. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Simple.  Make the consequences steep for those using a gun to commit a crime...AND ENFORCE IT!  Don't take guns from honest folks under the guise of disarming criminals.  That is pollyannish at best.

    3. Larry Fields profile image89
      Larry Fieldsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Our Marxist Messiah has stated that guns don't make people safer. I think that he should set a sterling example for everyone else, and disarm his Secret Service detail. Ditto for the security guards at his daughters' school.

      Instead, these guys should receive extra training in negotiating skills, and in Jedi mind tricks.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Straw purchasers serve a hefty, mandatory sentence!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ??straw purchasers??  You have to mean something beyond the buyer of a bale of straw for a target...

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Someone who buys a firearm legally and sells it to others that are not authorized to buy guns.

        Stopping ‘Straw Purchase’: ATF warns ‘gifting’ guns can land buyer behind bars

        http://catchwmw.com/2013/03/15/gun-stra … z2QwJyUitt

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          NONE!

          Our state and federal governments have failed to act on MILLIONS of failed background checks for gun purchases. Testifying before members of Congress, an official with the DoJ said he couldn't think of a single instance of a failed background check being prosecuted.

          Before we try throwing more laws at a problem, why don't we try enforcing the laws we currently have?

  3. innersmiff profile image78
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    No restrictions on 'guns', but restrictions on the use of guns, i.e. ban aggression. Then enforce the law with no discrimination, i.e. police forces, militias and militaries are tried as civilians are when they aggress against others.

    Abolish the state military.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think we've already got the banning of aggression.  It's generally a little illegal to shoot some without a very, very good reason.

      Military I'm not so sure about.  I think (not sure at all) that a marine walking about town that hurts someone is tried by a civilian court.  Shoot his commanding officer while on duty, however, and it becomes a matter for the military to handle (I think).  If so it should probably remain that way.

      1. innersmiff profile image78
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Aggression is illegal for the average citizen but just about accepted as normal for state institutions. I heard about a case recently where an innocent man was shot multiple times in the front and back, and the court never considered that the offending police officer might be a murderer.

        Where the military is concerned, I don't make a distinction between a murder in civil life and a murder during war. The state military is legalised murder.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like you've decided that any cop or soldier that pulls a trigger is guilty of murder.  Presumably any cop that touches another person is guilty of assault as well.

          Given that, there cannot be any reason to continue the discussion.  You aren't interested in honest, reasonable comments; you are interested ONLY in removing all weapons from everyone and disbanding all protection services.  You have decided to live in a fairy tale rather than reality.

          1. innersmiff profile image78
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If you've been paying attention to my posts at all you would know that I am absolutely in favour of protection services, and I definitely am not in favour of gun control. I want aggression-control. What I am not in favour of is government-enforced monopolies on those protective services, which will inevitably get away with much more harm than any private company.

            Any cop or soldier that intentionally kills another in aggression is a murderer, whether the reasons be 'national security' or 'wartime powers'. What I am asking for is equality of enforcement. Only the government can get away with being so inconsistent.

            Just like conservatives when they unwaveringly support the state military yet claim to be opposed to unsustainable government programs.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The post did surprise me some - it seemed a rather radical change.

              So you're in favor of protection services, just ones controlled by individuals instead of the population as a whole.  Protection services that do not have the ability to protect - while you may believe you can "talk down" an enraged PCP user your belief won't maintain your life.  Or the life of your private cop, hired to do the job but refused the tools to accomplish it.

              Same with the military; as soon as you turn all military matters over to the politicians and negotiators you will be at the mercy of those with the guns.  While you may wish to take the high road, giving your life to the ideal of never killing, I prefer to be the lion and defend our country (and our friends) with whatever it takes.

              1. innersmiff profile image78
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There is nothing to suggest that private protective services would not be as effective as a state military. This is your economic sense betraying you. As a free-market man, you must understand that competition and contract are regulators in and of themselves. This is true of all markets, including protective services. And as time goes by, businesses will get better at it.

                Your argument is similar in sentiment to the socialists arguing that if insurance was done by the market, it would leave us at the mercy of the fraudsters.

                But in our current system we are at the mercy of those with guns: the government. A government that is eroding civil liberties by the second.

                I wonder, does 'whatever it takes' include the complete erosion of civil liberties?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You misunderstand - there is little doubt that private security forces are more effective than police, at least in protecting the one that hired them. 

                  They are also just a little less interested in protecting anyone else, or their rights, particularly when there is no people run protection to enforce laws.  The result is that if you get in the way of those services you lose.  No recourse, no safety (unless your own private service is bigger and better) from whatever they choose to do.  The result is anarchy - the one with the most force wins.

                  When the people voluntarily give up their rights, as we in the US are, they deserve what they get.  It's unfortunately a part of being part of a democracy; the majority can, and will, run over the minority every time they can.  Our constitution was set up to limit that as much as possible, but it can and does occur every day.

                  Does it include complete erosion of civil liberties?  I guess if a soldier or cop kills someone they've lost all their civil liberties, so the answer would be yes in that regard.  Does it mean a cop or soldier can do anything they wish (as your private security forces can?)?  Certainly not; they operate under the laws approved by the people in general.

                  1. innersmiff profile image78
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You haven't really addressed the inconsistency in your thinking, if you truly are a free-market person. The rules of the market do not change with the service being provided. There isn't a lack of common law either with the presence of courts - just no monopoly of force upon the population. There is a historical precedence for this too.

                    "Our constitution was set up to limit that as much as possible, but it can and does occur every day." Yes, and this is not proof that such a system does not work? A constitution specifically designed to give the government very strict, limited powers has produced the biggest government the world has ever seen, simply because of this 'common good' monopoly of force.

                    "Certainly not; they operate under the laws approved by the people in general." They in fact operate under a completely different set of laws that legalise murder and theft, resulting in the warfare-police-state we're seeing right now.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  For me, absolutely.  Free is no good if you're dead.

                  1. mike102771 profile image84
                    mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Unless it is free coffin.

                  2. innersmiff profile image78
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    For you, maybe, but how exactly does this give you the right so sign away the rights of everybody else for your personal security?

  4. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    "What laws, restrictions, or guidelines would you put on guns in the US"

    I do believe I have the solution to this whole problem. Did you know that in order to get a carry permit for a taser gun you have to be shot by a taser gun as part of the required training to qualify?

    1. mike102771 profile image84
      mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      hmm

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  5. mike102771 profile image84
    mike102771posted 3 years ago

    I am almost sorry I started this without setting rules and boundaries. We are so off topic on some of this I just want to void it out and start over again. I would start by asking this forum be answered by Americans only because this concerns us. I would outline the premises of this to include the idea that we where starting from scratch (as in no laws) and going from there. But that was yesterday and yesterday is gone.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Nah, it was a good thread.

      They always go off topic... generally to either God, Abortion, or homosexuality.  As we haven't hit any of those three yet, it's actually pretty successful.

      1. mike102771 profile image84
        mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh ye of little faith. Just wait for it. When we talk about the 2nd we end up getting someone saying our rights are from God. Then the Anti-God people startup and that's the ballgame.

        1. profile image0
          LindaTuckerRDAposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That it's not the gun that is dangerous it is how people use them that's dangerous. But I don't need a gun to protect me with the good Lord by my side. I put all my trust in Him because I know He will protect me from the enemy.

          1. mike102771 profile image84
            mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            God helps those who help themselves. There is that whole story about the rowboat and God asking why the man didn't use any of the help he sent.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Unless there is no God.. in which case helping yourself seems like a pretty damn good idea anyway.

              See, I knew we'd get to God.

              1. mike102771 profile image84
                mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Look at it this way. If there is a God then praying to him/her will help you. If there is no God then all you did is waste a little time. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. all you have to do is use the word God and they will come.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah... Pascal's wager.

                  Not a big fan of it.  It's logically flawed.

                  And no I'm not an atheist.  Just calling it as I see it.

                  1. mike102771 profile image84
                    mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Life is not logical. Just look around at people.

  6. barryrutherford profile image27
    barryrutherfordposted 3 years ago

    It would be interesting know the cost to the health system that firearm injuries represent.  Many millions a year I expect .  This of course does not cover the cost of pain suffering and reduction in the lifespan of the average American. 
    A solution perhaps would be to impose a further tax on every firearm to take this into account.  Similaly munitions Just like cigarettes should incur  additional taxes.
    Moreover gun controls  and licences should reflect the true cost of policing guns by all the relevant authorities.  Maybe then the populace will truly wake up to the cost and benefit of owning firearms in the first place.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Would you support similar taxes on pools, cars, gas, sugary foods, fatty foods, alcohol, and sedentary lifestyles?

 
working