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) 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
??straw purchasers?? You have to mean something beyond the buyer of a bale of straw for a target...
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Really? without force, how to do you propose to enforce those common laws? With the private security forces? Forces interested in ONLY what their employer wants and what is good for him?
The constitution, and it's results are far from perfect. Nevertheless, it is still better than the alternative of whoever has the biggest gun wins.
No they don't - you are grossly and intentionally misrepresenting the facts. They aren't permitted to murder indiscriminately, even if the definition of murder is changed to include any killing. The cops can't steal, only the people as a whole - you don't like the will of the majority, leave. You can't hire private security to enforce your will onto the rest of the country.
Nor do cops with guns cause the welfare state we are in (there IS no police state in the US). That comes from those misguided souls that think it will work to support anyone that doesn't want to do it themselves.
The forces respond to their customers, who desire a just and equal level of enforcement and will withdraw funds if it is not given. Come on, think about your education in economics!
"...the alternative of whoever has the biggest gun wins." You mean, like government?
Drone strikes, for instance, are indiscriminate killing, 93% civilian. No civilian has the right to build a drone and blow up people, yet the military does. By definition, the military is legalised murder. A man shoots another multiple times in the front and back and its murder, a cop does it and it's 'negligence'. Wilderness, government is all about 'one rule for us, another for them'. It's so blatant it's insulting that you miss it.
I said 'warfare', not 'welfare'. You cannot deny that the US is a warfare state, having caused more destruction in the world in the 20th century than many centuries of empires combined, nor can you deny that it is a police state. The US is the home of indefinite detention, kill lists, NDAA, CISPA (passed whilst we were distracted by Boston) and THIS:
What I read is that they went door to door asking if people were ok, asking if they would like to be evacuated, and asking if they would like the police to search their house for them.
Yep! Like the government we as a people own and operate.
By your definition, wartime killing is murder. Most people will disagree. Most people will even disagree that unintentional, accidental killing is not murder, even when done by a soldier performing his job.
If you don't like drones (or any other military operation) killing civilians, you might consider explaining to the "civilians" that they should not be hiding the terrorists. Then explain to the terrorists that using civilians as a shield is neither effective nor moral.
Nice pic, even if the (lying) words put a spin 180 degrees from what actually went down. Judging by the cheering, clapping and dancing in the streets I do believe the people were quite pleased with the police response yesterday.
For me, absolutely. Free is no good if you're dead.
For you, maybe, but how exactly does this give you the right so sign away the rights of everybody else for your personal security?
I'm sure when the East Germans were being tortured and violated in the name of 'national security' they didn't mind because "at least we're not dead".
It doesn't... It gives me the right to vote if the majority agree to give up their "civil liberties" then so it goes.
Just because it is popular doesn’t make it right. There was a time when the majority believed in Separate but Equal, they believed that women should not vote, and we should go to war with Iraq in 2003.
No, it doesn't make it right. It can wrong as wrong can be.
It doesn't change that the alternative is anarchy, though - something even more wrong. We live in a world of compromise; if you wish to live in the same world you will compromise as well.
I agree that popular does not always equal right. I can name several examples of where that's true. However, popular is what we've got. There is no way to ensure "rightness" except by public consensus... I'm sure that people still believe in separate but equal... however they are in the minority, so they have to accept what the majority has decided. They can try to influence public opinion, they can lobby, they can try to change the people's minds. That's how the minority becomes the majority... then changes are made. Public opinion is still the best indicator of society norms and voting is still the best way we've got to decide rules. It's not perfect but it eventually works out in most cases.
Actually it took troops to enforce what was right. In many cases it is the minority lobbyist that have more of a say than the majority. The voice of the people don't pay as well.
The troops enforced the government's will which enforced the people's will. Those complaining were the recent majority turned minority (sore losers... sheesh)
I agree that lobbyists have too much power, however they only have power over elected officials. If the official blatantly defies the people's will (as recently happened) then they won't be elected officials much longer. Then they are of no use to the lobbyists.
I agree it's not perfect, I also agree that there are times when the people's will is overridden. I'm still better with that than with "you are protected only if you have enough money to be protected" that innersmiff is suggesting.
"There is no way to ensure "rightness" except by public consensus"
That is one of the most hilarious fallacies.
By this dictum, if the majority decided that 2 + 2 did in fact equal 5, would it be so? Would this be the new 'right'?
Flat-Earth, slavery, genocide, discrimination . . . all of these things have been supported by the majority at some point in history. Were they 'right' then?
According to consensus, Justin Bieber and Michael Bay represent the greatest artistic talent in the world and McDonalds represents the best food mankind has to offer. Are they right too?
I have no time for such disingenuous rubbish. It is this kind of thinking that causes all kinds of evil in this world.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Life is not logical. Just look around at people.
Doesn't mean we should be illogical.
Why make a wager based on flawed reasoning? It's like going up to the Roulette table and betting your life savings on 21, with the reasoning 'It's either going to hit, or not, so I have a 50% chance of getting 35 times more money!'
It's actually a 35 to 1 on hitting your number. If there is no God then you will die at the end of your life , if there is a God you will die at the end. The house always wins.
Which is why I believe in God regardless... but I try to be honest about that belief having absolutely no logical or rational basis. It keeps me from knocking on doors and picketing funerals
I believe in the Cleveland Browns if that tells you anything.
I just spent a month knocking on doors selling. Not as much fun as it sounds, but I don't get the funeral thing. I remember some stories where people where picketing funerals of Vets and Homosexuals, but I think that is not what you are talking about.
What part of WV are you in (if you don't mind me asking)? I have family in Huntington, Wheeling, and a small town called Pliny.
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.
by ahorseback3 months ago
"Ban the gun" becomes the slogan most yelled for weeks after the shooting anywhere , Those here at Hubpages , like all other mass media , jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon . Before...
by David4 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through...
by lesliebyars4 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
by My Esoteric21 months ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by Josh Ratzburg19 months ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're...
by Marcy Goodfleisch3 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.