General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you support banning semi-autos? Yes or no.
My answer; yes.
Single-shot everything only.
The rest? Melt 'em.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,171 posts)greeny2323
(590 posts)Except in highly-regulated circumstances where protection from wildlife, etc. might be needed. The weapons allowed would be extremely limited.
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)
petronius
(26,607 posts)
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,735 posts)
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,472 posts)50 Shades Of Blue
(10,074 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Of my 9 "Long Guns" 2 shotguns are semi automatic and one .22 rifle is semi automatic. The rest are mostly lever action which is what I prefer. I don't have the kick-back with the lever action.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I have 8 1960s semi-auto shotguns in my collection.
But I must admit some of my favorite shotguns in my collection are pumps.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)yardwork
(61,729 posts)
bushalert
(200 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)
Mr. Ected
(9,674 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)"Why are we STILL not making progress? It's everyone ELSE who's being unreasonable!"
LOL.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)No, please. Carry on.
CatMor
(6,212 posts)Softail1
(56 posts)going too far, sorry.
sarisataka
(18,839 posts)But to clarify are you asking about semi auto or anything that holds 2 or more rounds?
GoCubsGo
(32,098 posts)If you want to own one of them--or any gun, you should be required to carry liability insurance for each gun, just as drivers of motor vehicles are required to be insured.
spin
(17,493 posts)at a fair rate and make a nice profit off it.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because what would it really accomplish? It sounds great if you never actually thought about specifics, but while it makes a great talking point it's a horrible policy idea.
Most gun deaths are suicides. Insurance is useless there.
Most gun crime is down by... wait for it... criminals. Guess who won't buy insurance on their guns? Criminals.
So it won't even be a factor in most cases.
Insurance also doesn't cover illegal actions. If you take your car and plow it into a crowd of people intent on killing them your insurance isn't paying their bills.
So we are left only with actual accidents that would be covered. Accidents are around 500 deaths a year from firearms, less than 1%.
So you are covering less than 1% of you gun deaths.
Now what is you unintended consequence? Guess who the only major player selling firearms insurance is? The NRA. Guess who makes money on insurance? The NRA.
Guess what gets you a deep discount on that insurance rate? Being an NRA member.
The NRA currently has around 4,000,000-5,000,000 dues paying members if you believe their numbers. If half the gun owners in the US sign with them to buy insurance you just made their numbers soar by a power of ten and their income rise even more because they are getting insurance profits and membership dues. And you have 50,000,000 people getting their propaganda direct to their homes now too- people likely pissed at being forced to buy the insurance to begin with.
So you are trading insurance that will come into play only for about 1% of shootings for an NRA that grows 10 times richer and more powerful.
lapfog_1
(29,232 posts)complete with around 100,000 rounds and many bump stocks.
Because the right wing gun humpers might, someday, come hunting liberals like me.
OTOH, if you can take their weapons away... I'm good with banning anything more than a six-shooter.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)reclaiming them from their owners, and crushing them to bits.
Man_Bear_Pig
(89 posts)The nation just spent the past two Sundays protesting police brutality. So let me see if I have this straight:
We don't trust police not to be trigger happy and abusive and violent, yet we would trust them to be the only ones with the guns, let alone guns we've deemed ONLY good for mass murder?
The double think there is giving me a headache.
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)I kind of wonder if some of the trigger happy cops are responding to the reality that any person they encounter is potentially armed.
Man_Bear_Pig
(89 posts)I just find it strange to deem a semi-auto rifle terrible for self defense and only good for mass murder, then turn around and want the cops to have it.
Firstly, if the rifle has no self defense purpose, then why would one want the police to have it since their job requires them to have tools best suited for self defense? Then of course if the rifle is only good for going around and killing lots of people quickly, that doesn't seem like a tool a police officer would need.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)You said that.
I hardly think the solution to police brutality is disarming police.
spin
(17,493 posts)to defend themselves when they attempt to arrest a violent felon.? How many current cops would remain on the force?
I know damn well if I was young I would never consider become a cop in this nation without the ability to defend myself against a violent person with a gun. Only a total fool would consider such a job for the pay cops get. if I was a cop and my weapon was taken away I would find a much safer occupation. There are far too many people with guns in our nation who may be violent.
Obviously a percentage of cops commit brutality on those they deal with. I have also known some cops who were racists as well as many cops who were not. I never was a cop but before I retired i worked for a major corporation and encounter a few racists who were supervisors or in higher levels of management. Such people do exist everywhere but obviously there are many people who are not racist and treat others fairly.
One time I was talking to a number of ex-cops griping about those who were currently on the force. One described the current force as a bunch of gorillas who loved authority and tended to bully citizens. I asked why this was and they all agreed that being a cop in our current nation is so dangerous that it attracts people who love power.
I know one cop in Georgia who married a girl I knew well. She makes more money than he does as a waitress in a popular restaurant because of the tips she receives. Her husband is considering working for a firm in Iraq as he has army experience in that area acquired during the war. He feels if he is going to stick his life on the line everyday he should get paid well for doing so. Take his firearm away and he definitely will quit his job. I can't blame him.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)So they can have an even easier time violating our rights without fear? You know what happens in a society when cops/mil are the only ones with guns? Bad things can happen.
spin
(17,493 posts)from it if we are wise.
procon
(15,805 posts)There's just no weapon that could be bought that would prevent the police from using the military grade arsenals at their disposal to remove someone who posed a security threat with their damned guns.
As for the ridiculous, comic book, assertion that bad things happen unless a society is armed to the teeth, seriously, paranoid much? Take a deep breath now, and think about all the industrialized nations whose citizens live their entire lives without ever owning a gun. Go look, it's a very long list.
Disarm? If it came down to a choice between a gun toting wacko with bad judgment and paranoid delusions vs the "power hungry cops" (and their power is legally conferred, yeah?)... hmmm, I'm going with door number 2, Monty.
ellie
(6,929 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)There's millions of these things already out there. They're made of steel and aluminum. With proper cleaning and care, they're remain functional for a hundred years easy. And now with 3D printing, people can make them themselves. We're talking about late 19th century tech here, not atom bombs.
Pass a ban and how would you force compliance? At best, maybe 50% would get turned in, by people you weren't worried about in the first place. The Deplorables would hang on to millions, soak them in cosmoline and bury them in the ground, claim they were lost in a fishing accident (har har...).
All this goes without saying that a ban currently does not have the public support needed to offset the political capital that would be incurred.
Point is, it's easy to say one is in favor of a gun ban but when you look at the details, it becomes complicated.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)And what they turned in was mostly rimfire junk.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Oddly, both the U.S. and Australia saw a slight up-tick around 2012 but overall, our gun death rate per 100,000 people is almost half of what it was during the peak of the crack epidemic during the early 1990s.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)where gun control exists.
EX500rider
(10,882 posts)....how's that working for them?
Like this:
Jamaica 43.2 deaths per 100,000 per year
Mexico 16.3 " " " " "
USA 4.8 " " " " "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Being turned in. There are something like 300,000,000 guns in public hands in the US. Some would get turned in, but not many, and most that were would likely be junk. Aren't there example from city buyback programs in the US that resulted in just a bunch of junk guns being turned in?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Every NRA talking point makes me laugh!
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)But factcheck says that Australia's buyback program resulted in about 20% of guns being turned in. A similar rate here would mean there would still be 240 million guns in public hands (instead of 300 million).
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Using the FBI's definition of four or more murders in a single continuous event, there have been nine mass killings in Australia in the twenty years since the gun buyback. This contrasts with 13 mass murders in a comparable period before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 that brought about the new restrictions. So approximately a 30% decrease.
The post-ban incidents consist mainly of arson, gassing, stabbing, and vehicular-assault deaths, as compared to a preponderance of gun deaths in the earlier incidents.
None of this takes into account large-scale massacres of indigenous Australians in the 19th and early 20th centuries, most of which were carried out with firearms.
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)And its not clear at all that Australia's buyback program actually changed anything.
Any success Australia and Great Britain had reducing gun deaths would be hard to replicate in the U.S., because of how it differs from those places before their bans. One of the most obvious differences is that these other nations are islands. Smuggling in illegal guns is harder in places like Australia and Great Britain because they don’t have land borders. The U.S. also has far more guns already within its borders; as of 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco estimated there were more than 300 million guns in America.
There’s another important difference between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to guns. Neither Britain nor Australia has anything like the Second Amendment, so many parts of their reforms, from total bans to requiring a reason for gun ownership, might not survive judicial review in the U.S. — if there were ever the political will to make them laws in the first place.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
Calista241
(5,586 posts)the government has to buy that stuff back from civilians that own a formerly legally purchased item. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.
A Brand New World
(1,119 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,917 posts)it's perfectly okay for mass shootings to occur in this country.
I just wish that once someone who is quite fine with all of these weapons would somehow be impacted by one of these mass murders. And if you then say, "I'm fine that my (wife, brother, mother, son) was murdered. It's a small price to pay so that anyone at all can own a gun, including semi-automatic weapons," I'll then suggested you are as psychopathic as the murderers themselves.
No. No semi-automatic. Licensing and training for all gun owners. Mandatory insurance. Mandatory reporting of theft, and holding liable those whose guns were stolen if those guns were later used to kill someone. Limits on how many guns anyone can own. Background checks. Real background checks that exclude people who have no business owning guns. Major limits on ammunition.
And STOP fucking saying it can't be done. It can be if we want to.
Meanwhile, men in Congress are restricting women's Constitutional right to control their own bodies. Because, OMG! What if some woman actually enjoys sex! Punish her!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Method of debate and dissuasion in your world.
For the record I don't own a gun and never have. I pretty much abhor guns in general and loathe hunting.
Your argument tactic of shouting "NRA TACTIC!" Is pretty much guaranteed to have the opposite effect and just cause the person to reaffirm their stance.
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)In spite of the hypocritical hand wringing that goes on every time it happens.
It's not just an NRA or GOP thing either, as a perusal of DU right now will clearly demonstrate.
I'm not even interested in fighting it anymore, or feeling bad when the consequences of our national choices play themselves out.
At this point my only concern is keeping myself and family out of the line of fire.
I would quite happily move to a civilized country if it were feasible.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,917 posts)at the gun apologists who whine that nothing can be done, or who piously say that THEY are responsible gun owners and so it's not their fault. Or those who try to compare guns to cars.
Guns are designed to kill. That is their only purpose. Cars have many more uses and are rarely (although sadly it does happen) are used only as a killing device.
The other issue, every bit as important as our idiotic lack of gun laws, is that our culture, and specifically our mass media in the form of TV and movies, glorifies gun violence. It's not at all uncommon for a show or movie to show that going out and committing mayhem or murder with a gun is a logical solution to problems.
Which is why I don't think there has to be too much searching to figure out why that man in Las Vegas did what he did. He'd seen it modelled any number of times. It's clear he thought it through quite carefully. Booked a suite that gave him and excellent vantage point over the concert venue. Brought in an arsenal of guns and ammunition. Put up cameras to see when anyone would come for him. It could just as easily been a made for TV movie, although in the movie a clear motive would have been shown. But I don't think that he needed any motive other than to kill and wound as many people as possible.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
J_William_Ryan
(1,760 posts)Banning, restricting, more government, bigger government - that’s what authoritarian conservatives do, not liberals.
procon
(15,805 posts)You've got it backwards. Authoritarian regimes are by their very nature, given to austerity and ruled by tyrants. Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi would be in your wheelhouse. They are the opposite of liberal democracies that believe their government should inclusive and provide all the services needed to support the thriving population of a modern civil society.
Oh, and you might wanna look up "strawman fallacy" to get a better grasp of its meaning and usage.
better
(884 posts)The real argument is whether or not it makes sense, and to determine that, it's pretty important to properly understand what semi-automatic really means, which for the benefit of any reading this thread who may not know, is simply that firing a round causes the next round to be loaded without you having to additionally cycle the action.
A revolver, in essence, is semi-automatic.
Pull trigger, round fires.
Keeps working until the rounds have all been fired.
That's really all semi-automatic means.
The things that most impacts public safety are how many rounds can be fired, and how fast. A semi-automatic (barring modifications like bump stocks) can only fire with any reasonable degree of accuracy about 45-60 rounds per minute, or as fast as one round per second. A revolver can easily do that.
Banning conversions like bump stocks and high capacity magazines that let you fire 30-100 rounds in 2-10 seconds before you need to reload before you can do it again I can pretty readily agree makes absolute sense, and is justified in the interest of public safety, as supported by way more evidence than we should have needed to reach that conclusion. I think you'd find there's actually pretty broad support for that, even among people who love shooting.
Banning semi-automatics that can't hold more than 10 rounds, which it can fire in 8-10 seconds, maybe not quite so much.
You're right about the licensing and training, mandatory insurance, reporting of theft, liability and background checks (which should be recurring, not just universal), and I think you'd find that a great many gun owners (myself included) would agree with most of that as well.
So before you go saying anyone who opposes banning semi-automatics is okay with mass murder, please do be sure you understand that the vast majority of us are only opposed to banning the guns that fire up to 1 round per second, not the ones that fire 10-15
Your assessment of a good many of us may therefore be a tad hyperbolic, and we might indeed actually be on your side.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)it's perfectly okay for mass shootings to occur in this country.
... from someone whose avatar is a martini glass. Do you think it's perfectly OK for drunken drivers to slaughter innocent people on our highways?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Kaleva
(36,371 posts)The problem are the high capacity detachable magazines some of these guns are designed or modified to take.
A slide stock would be a waste of money if fitted to a semiauto with a fixed internal magazine or a detachable magazine that can hold no more then 5 rounds.
Crunchy Frog
(26,694 posts)
Different Drummer
(7,657 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,228 posts)
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)I do support banning:
Full auto completely, no exceptions. LEO / Military are the only ones who should have.
Any modification that allows for virtual full auto such as the “bump stock” modification.
Any type of silencer modification.
I support:
Restrictions on capacity to ten shots or less.
Requiring renewed registration.
100% BG check on all sales.
Mandatory safety training for use and storage. It is not a “tragic accident” when a child shoots them self or another.
24-48 hr waiting periods in purchases.
There are items / actions we have outlawed altogether or restricted heavily as a society because a “few apples” ruined it for everyone. This is certainly the cases with firearms.
still_one
(92,477 posts)mass shooting at Sandy Hook. It never even got a vote in Congress.
Until Congress changes the law, there are some pretty big loopholes that let Americans obtain weapons that are effectively automatic.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Agree with you 100%.
As long as congress does nothing these type of events will continue.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,596 posts)so I'd like to rework your question as follows:
"do you believe America has a problem when it comes to guns being used for killing people"?
until we can all agree we have a problem, proposed solutions are meaningless and will be used to distract attention from the issue. IMHO 
tirebiter
(2,539 posts)I like target shooting. Puts me in zen state.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Likely unconstitutional, certainly would be massively unpopular, and no chance of passing. I imagine a few Dem senators might get on board with this type of law but the vast majority would not, and those who did would be at serious risk of getting voted out of office.
Generic Brad
(14,276 posts)I have no experience with them, so am not in a position to judge.
better
(884 posts)I wish they would have your humility and objectivity, and seek to learn enough to write them well, because what words mean matters, especially when they're forming laws.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Very yes
shanny
(6,709 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)on all transfers; ban on high cap mags, bump stocks, certain types of ammo; new taxes on semi-autos and ammo; use of scanners and perhaps chips for detection of toters; licensing; loss of privilege if convicted of domestic violence; severe penalties for violating laws; violates guns will be destroyed, not resold; and a few others.
I would prefer total ban, but restrictions on number of guns --particularly semi-autos including pistols --will cool down gun market.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Period....
Doreen
(11,686 posts)If we have to have guns then nothing more than guns that have six bullets or single shooters. None of these damn guns with clips and 20 rapid shoot bullets. Hunting rifles and if home protection you do not need 20 bullets. If you can not shoot someone in six shots you should not have a gun in the first fucking place because you obviously have no clue how to actually shoot one. Classes and I mean a lot that covers everything I mean EVERYTHING to do with guns and you MUST pass with 100% so you better actually study and practice. Oh, until you get your license you must only be with someone who is a qualified licensed teacher for gun use and keep your gun in a secure gun range where you have your classes. Don't allow people to drive without licenses so the same should be with a guns.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)But not the magazine limit. What happens when 2 or 3 people with guns break into your home? Happens pretty often and if that is the case you are in a bind.
bluecollar2
(3,622 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 05:58 AM - Edit history (1)
For one thing and perhaps the most important reason is the banning and confiscation of all firearms with the exception of those capable of firing only one round will never pass in Congress and if our party pushes for it it will cost us many seats in Congress and any potential future presidency.
If by some miracle it would ever pass and be signed into law any attempt to implement it would lead to violence against those who try to enforce it as well as our government. We might well see our nation split right down the middle as many red states would secede from the union. Sure our national government could try to subdue the uprising with tanks and planes and if so our nation would rapidly resemble today's Syria. Many people in this nation currently have little trust in our government and would take up arms to resist it if they felt their freedom was threatened. I am now in my seventies and there is more hatred and distrust between liberals and conservatives than I have ever seen before.
Many states do not require the registration of firearms and therefore it is nearly impossible to know who owns them. I've known a good number of gun owners over the years who have said they have buried caches of firearms and ammo in case confiscation became a reality. While some may have been pulling my leg I have reason to suspect some were telling the truth. For years we have tried futility to implement a national registration system and have constantly met failure. Gun owners seriously believe that the only reason for a national registration system is confiscation.
There are a good number of "patriotic" veterans in our nation who have received excellent training from their time in our military and have combat experience. They understand the concept of guerilla warfare as they have been on the receiving end of it. They could easily disrupt life in our nation by attacking our infrastructure.
Also realize that firearms are used frequently for legitimate self defense. Both my mother as well as my daughter successfully used a handgun to deter an attack from someone who meant them harm. Both were attractive young females at the time and might have been raped had they had been disarmed or missed the first shot with a single shot firearm. As it was both their attackers fled when a revolver was pointed at them.
I support passing legislation to improve our national background check system and better enforcement to stop the straw purchase and illegal smuggling of firearms in our nation. Perhaps anyone found to have straw purchased or of smuggling a firearm into our inner cities for illegal sale could be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapon.
I also feel that the attempt to ban the sale certain firearms has proven unsuccessful in the past and will in the future. If nothing else the attempt will cause the sale of firearms to skyrocket as it did during the Obama administration. There were times when I have walked into a gun store and found the shelves bare of firearms and ammo. Many of the buyers had little experience or training with firearms which will lead to tragedies in the future. Few people have any reason to own an AR-15 but they were selling like hot cakes and on back order in many areas of our nation.
On the other hand I was surprised when the sale of bump stocks that effectively turn semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic firearms was approved. I remember at the time I thought that was a bad idea. We could and should work on making the sale of such devices illegal.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Australia, remember, did all you say at great length is impossible.
spin
(17,493 posts)There are an estimated 80.000.000 gun owners in our nation and that is most likely an underestimate. Add to that the fact that the gun owner may be married and his/her mate and of voting age children may support gun ownership and use the owners weapons. One estimate is that 1/2 of the households in our nation include a gun owner.
If our nation had a percentage of gun owners and users similar to other developed nations we would have been able to pass far more stringent gun laws.
Gun Ownership By The Numbers
***snip***
Per-capita Gun Ownership
At the rate of 1.0 (1:1), the United States has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world. That’s one gun for every man, women, and child in the United States. Figuring in the 24% of the US population that is under the age of 18, that leaves about 240 million adults. Using more accurate numbers, the U.S. could easily have a 1.5 rate of gun ownership among those of legal age to own a firearm. That is an incredible statistic. Compare the U.S. rate to that of Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Germany, and Austria whose per-capita gun ownership is all roughly 0.3, less than one-third of ours. Plus, we can carry firearms with us outside the home for personal protection, something not allowed with such ease in most other Western countries. Even in the traditionally gun-friendly countries Switzerland and Finland, the rate of firearms ownership is only 0.45, less than half that of the United States.
For another comparison, the rate in Australia is 0.15 (although this includes air rifles), and England and Wales boast a gun ownership rate of only 0.06, with Scotland slightly less yet.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)who owned firearms as in our nation at the time Australia passed its gun control laws?
If so produce your evidence.
Comparing gun ownership in Australia to that in our nation is a lot like comparing apples to sesame seeds. The sources of the data is largely irrelevant.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)In this case realize that I am a life long Democrat and gun owner who came from a long line of Democrats who were gun owners.
I attribute the fact that our party has lost seats at all levels of government in recent years largely to the push for strong gun control that has become so popular in our party.
Obviously I am not fond of Republicans and I wish to see our party regain power. I would suggest that it would be far better to work on improving our gun laws to make it much harder for people who are not sane or responsible to own firearms and to eliminate the straw purchasers and smugglers who enable the black market of firearms in our nation. Most gun owners would support such an approach. When it comes to firearms our party should simply ban the use of the word "ban" in most cases but of course the sale of devices that effectively turn a semiautomatic weapon into a fully automatic should be banned immediately. That would be a popular idea even with most gun owners.
I realize that to most of those on this forum my ideas will be unpopular. Realize that I am basically a dinosaur that comes from a different time and place. I don't want to see our party shrink from a big tent into a little teepee but I fear our position on gun control may end up leading to this.
We have made great progress in many areas in recent years. Unfortunately the push for strong gun control has cost us many voters. We keep trying to push for it and have for years. We can't even get a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban to pass.
It is my opinion that pushing for gun bans is like shooting ourselves in the foot. The gun culture in our nation is too strong and deeply ingrained to ever accept gun laws such as exist in Europe or Australia. Far too many people own and use firearms and they vote. However we can push for more reasonable legislation and win the gun owner vote over time. Responsible gun owners hate gun violence as much or more than most Democrats do and they wish to see the problem reduced significantly.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)However a significant percentage would follow Thomas Jefferson's advise:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC
Now obviously I am far to old and lack the testosterone and the health to play such games. However I am familiar with those in the gun culture and while most have fantasies of fighting in a revolution to preserve their Seocnd Amendment rights there are a good number of people who have the ability and means to do so. A good number have gained the training and experience in the best military in the world and because they have combat experience they will present a significant opposition.
Fortunately draconian gun control is simply a pipe dream in a nation with as many gun owners as ours. It can work in other nations with a much lower level of gun ownership. Consequently the chances of ever passing a law that bans and confiscates most firearms will never pass in Congress (at least not in the foreseeable future). What the push for such laws will do is weaken the Democratic Party and threaten the progress we have made in the last decade. it is quite possible that Hillary would be sitting in the Oval Office today if she had not mentioned that Australian style gun control (confiscation plus a buy back) was an idea worth considering. Now we have Trump as our president and a Congress controlled by Republicans.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In fact, that's why he and most period white wingers wanted guns -- to intimidate their slaves.
spin
(17,493 posts)Gun politics in the United States
***snip***
With the Civil War ending, and the question of the rights of freed slaves to carry arms and to belong to militia came to the attention of the federal courts. In response to the problems freed slaves faced in the Southern states, the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio used the Court's own phrase "privileges and immunities of citizens" to include the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights under its protection and guard these rights against state legislation.[20]
The debate in the Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War also concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves. One particular concern was the disarming of former slaves.
The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the Reconstruction era case of United States v. Cruikshank which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not cause the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to limit the powers of the State governments, stating that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Akhil Reed Amar notes in the Yale Law Journal, the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which would include the Second Amendment, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist Haymarket Riot case, Spies v. Illinois":
Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...[21]:1270
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
One often unsung hero of the civil rights movement is Robert F. Williams.
Robert F. Williams
Robert Franklin Williams (February 26, 1925 – October 15, 1996) was an American civil rights leader and author best known for serving as president of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP in the 1950s and into 1961. He succeeded in integrating the local public library and swimming pool in Monroe. At a time of high racial tension and official abuses, Williams promoted armed black self-defense in the United States. In addition, he helped gain support for gubernatorial pardons in 1959 for two young African-American boys who had received lengthy reformatory sentences in what was known as the Kissing Case of 1958. It generated national and international attention and criticism of the state.
Williams obtained a charter from the National Rifle Association and set up a rifle club to defend blacks in Jonesboro from Ku Klux Klan or other attackers. The local chapter of the NAACP supported Freedom Riders who traveled to Monroe in the summer of 1961 in a test of integrating interstate buses. In August 1961 he and his wife left the United States for several years to avoid state charges for kidnapping related to actions during violence after the Riders had reached Monroe. These charges were dropped by the state when his trial opened in 1975 following his return. Williams identified as a Black Nationalist and lived in both Cuba and The People's Republic of China during his exile between 1961 and 1969.
***snip***
Black Armed Guard Edit
Alarmed at the threat to civil rights activists, Williams had applied to the National Rifle Association (NRA) for a charter for a local rifle club.[15] He called the Monroe Chapter of the NRA the Black Armed Guard; it was made up of about 50–60 men, including some veterans like him. They were determined to defend the local black community from racist attacks, a goal similar to that of the Deacons for Defense who established chapters in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama in 1964-1965.[16]
Newtown was the black residential area of Monroe. In the summer of 1957, there were rumors that the KKK was going to attack the house of Dr. Albert Perry, a practicing physician and vice-president of the Monroe NAACP. Williams and his men of the Armed Guard went to Perry's house to defend it, fortifying it with sandbags. When numerous KKK members appeared and shot from their cars, Williams and his followers returned the fire, driving them away.[17]...emphasis added
"After this clash the same city officials who said the Klan had a constitutional right to organize met in an emergency session and passed a city ordinance banning the Klan from Monroe without a special permit from the police chief."[14]
In Negroes with Guns, Williams writes:
"[R]acists consider themselves superior beings and are not willing to exchange their superior lives for our inferior ones. They are most vicious and violent when they can practice violence with impunity."[18] He wrote, "It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."[19]
Williams insisted his position was defensive, as opposed to a declaration of war. He relied on numerous black military veterans from the local area, as well as financial support from across the country. In Harlem, particularly, fundraisers were frequently held and proceeds devoted to purchasing arms for Williams and his followers. He called it "armed self-reliance" in the face of white terrorism. Threats against Williams' life and his family became more frequent.[citation needed]
Decades later, political analyst Mary E. King noted that "The patriarchal metaphors of Williams' appeals for violence in response to violence in the name of protecting women curiously echoed the paternalistic rubric that was hypocritically used to justify white violence."[20] Historian Timothy Tyson observed that both non-violence and armed militancy were heavily gendered in the civil rights era: "Contestations of a notion of manhood that excluded black men did not start or stop with black nationalists …foot soldiers in Martin Luther King’s nonviolent armies frequently carried placards reading, 'I am a MAN'”[21] King wrote of Williams that he worked within the law to achieve justice; he appealed to federal authorities to combat the racism of Monroe.[20]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)race or gender have all the rights granted to us by our Constitution. Freedom and the rule of late should apply equally to all.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)You'd be ok with everyone else having them, including all Dem gun owners and the gang members shooting other gang members in the streets? Because the vast majority of homicide victims are not killed in mass shootings by "white wing men."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)more than a gun or two at home for hunting and the unlikely event they need to defend their home.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)See a need for more than a handful of guns, but I'm not the arbiter of other's needs. Curious why you think "white wingers" are a bigger threat? We certainly can't attribute all mass shootings to Trump supporters, and the day-to-day criminals run the gamut of political viewpoints.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
?resize=1200%2C1495
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)mcar
(42,424 posts)
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)we should just shrug and do nothing.
arthritisR_US
(7,300 posts)NickB79
(19,277 posts)
leanforward
(1,077 posts)My position is, revolver, lever action, bolt action, or pump action. That's what you would need to protect your home.
I have not heard that type of gun fire I heard on the news, since RVN.
Some on this thread suggest rules about this and that. My approach is to melt'em down.
My thoughts of protection go to our (my) LEO's, and first responders. Then the domestic violence victims for any type of firearm.
With that said, impeach pRezident dRumpf for treason. He's in bed with the russians.
Keep in mind the cold war. From the end of WW II through the end of the cold war in 1989, the paruskies maintained the iron curtain. How may US troops died? How many germans died trying to cross into West Berlin, after 1961? Putin was working through the ranks of the KGB in those years.
Kleveland
(1,257 posts)Essentially, it operates about the same as a double action revolver in the case of a hand gun.
You pull the trigger, it shoots after the trigger through physical leverage pulls the hammer back.
A single action revolver requires cocking the hammer first, but you can "fan" it, which increases the rate of fire.
Semi-auto cocks the hammer after each round, just a tad easier than pulling the trigger to cock the hammer, as in a double action.
There are single, and double action semi-auto hand guns. Really just addresses the first shot, after that, pretty much the same.
Rifles are a bit different overall, but the principal is the same.
Perhaps the question should specifically address rifles?
Bolt action single shot vs. semi?
Though a pump action shotgun is pretty scarey!
And there is the "Winchester" or other lever action rifles.
Now you get into the ammunition capacity!
Need I go on?
Gun control is the real issue, and the mindset of the owners, not generally the type of weapon.
Although, I will definitely say that fully auto rifles have no place in the hands of a civilized civilian society. Period.
They are tools of war, not hunting.
I truly and sadly appreciate the concern for the needless violence of man against man.
Sorry for the rant!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)bluestarone
(17,091 posts)Calculating
(2,957 posts)How would a semi-auto ban even work? Do you realize how many Americans own them? That's like ALL modern firearms. I have 2 semi-auto rifles myself and certainly wouldn't turn them in if they were banned. And would your semi-auto ban extend to the cops? I'm not sure I want the cops going around dressed up like seal team six, while we cannot even have semi-autos.
Docreed2003
(16,887 posts)The term “semi-auto” is so loose it could apply to damn near every modern hunting rifle or pistol.
I’m a gun owner and I’ll gladly support any and all sensible gun control legislation, but to “ban semi-autos” is a bit naive because the term is so broad.
dchill
(38,569 posts)And one musket per enlistee.
doc03
(35,395 posts)a background check on (ALL) gun sales or trades.
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)After reading all the posts on gun control the last few days, I am disgusted.
The Democrats have completely ceded this issue and all those who are saying we can't or shouldn't are as guilty as the politicians who have allowed it to get so bloody in the first place.
58 dead, over 400 injured and I'm reading from people afraid or unwilling to try because of cost, because it may not suceed and because of their own gun fetishes.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)On the buyback alone, might trigger open rebellion by the right, and it penalizes the 99.9% of innocent gun owners including myself. Gun control tends to be a losing issue politically, and I'm pretty sure it may have cost Hillary the election. Also what happens if we somehow pull off a near total gun ban, and then some guy just rents a big uhaul truck and drives through the crowd at parade? Banning guns will NOT make us safe from rampage killers. It will just force them to move on to more 'creative' measures. They might start mass poisoning our food supply, build bombs, drive over people in a truck, or just do the 'old fashioned' serial killer thing where they might claim 30-50 victims over a period of years.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)No will to try and stop the killing. Americans value their guns more than lives.
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)But I'd prefer repeal of the 2A.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Iggo
(47,579 posts)Fuck the NRA.
Coventina
(27,217 posts)djinmo
(16 posts)No I don’t
dflprincess
(28,086 posts)and banning large capacity magazines.
jrthin
(4,840 posts)
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,498 posts)J_William_Ryan
(1,760 posts)
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Lilma
(132 posts)yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
I do.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
forgotmylogin
(7,539 posts)I think a person should consciously need to think about every trigger pull.
If you are hunting, you only need to shoot once or twice at a time.
If you are protecting yourself and you cannot do so in 6-8 shots, you've got bigger problems.
No civilian needs the ability to mow down crowds of people at a distance.
Automatic and semi-automatic weapons have the only purpose to kill large groups of people quickly and only belong in the hands of trained military personnel in a war zone who are facing large numbers of other armed fighters.
ecstatic
(32,752 posts)other types? One day I was at the gun shop with a friend and decided to see what the home defense shot gun was like. Way too heavy and impractical.
snort
(2,334 posts)modify them. You can keep your guns, sorry about the just one shot at a time thing. Give gun owners a reasonable time to comply, it would take some years and gunsmiths would be quite busy certifying them as single shot only. After that if you're caught with a firearm that doesn't comply, you've got problems.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)
RandySF
(59,480 posts)wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)control, it always comes to me that none of the proposals will stop mass killings or even single incidents of gun violence.
We are probably the only society that puts gun rights before human life.
Nearly 600 killed or maimed in one incident and yet we can't discuss gun control!
My thinking is that the second amendment does not give us a right to own guns. And that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps gun rights.
We have more guns in this country than we have people. The mean number of guns gun owners have is eight.
We need to begin to cut down on the number of guns in this country.
We are the only society with this many guns and this much gun violence.
My idea is that we have to, as a society, make gun ownership an anti social act. We need to be ashamed before the world of our gun culture.
Future generations should be taught to turn their backs on gun ownership.
We need to stop being bullied by the NRA and the gun lobby and gun owners.
Somehow the "thoughts and prayers" thing fits in here. To me it is shirking our responsibility to do anything about mass killings. We say it is in god's hands not our own.
In many ways we are an unenlightened immature society and that is getting worse not better.
I believe if you are one to work against our society doing something about gun violence you are as complicit in that violence as if you pulled the trigger.
I am not saying here to pass laws rather I am saying our society needs to turn away from it's gun culture voluntarily.
That is what I am thinking tonight.
EX500rider
(10,882 posts)Well the 1st part of that sentence is right but not the 2nd half.
93 countries have a higher homicide rate then the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)a victim of GUN VIOLENCE.
59 were homicides.
None of the gunner logic is useful. It does not get us to we're we want to be.
EX500rider
(10,882 posts)....so to say ""We are the only society with this many guns and this much gun violence." is demonstrably wrong, and those are facts, not "gunner logic".
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)NO grandfathering this time.
You have 1 year to turn them in for destruction or you are a felon.
ImpeachTheGOP
(89 posts)
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)
Rincewind
(1,206 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)machines that can slaughter scores in a trice (and not because they had no guns or "forgot to 'get small''' ).
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)
pansypoo53219
(21,004 posts)Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And magazine size restrictions, and the ending of assault weapon sales.
Chuuku Davis
(565 posts)My family enjoys them
demmiblue
(36,907 posts)
HAB911
(8,922 posts)
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Time to takeaway some of the toys from mostly boys. Semis, bump stocks, silencers, body armor piercing ammo and the like need to be outlawed. Killing people is not a sport. F' the NRA! Second Amendment stays!
Vinca
(50,319 posts)Maybe they could be treated the way automatic weapons are treated. A few gun ranges are allowed to have them and you can go there to shoot.
Ohiya
(2,245 posts)A staple gun, a glue gun, and a grease gun
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)no reason to ban those....but the assault rifles absolutely
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)In which case I want a shoulder fired rpg, so I can protect myself from someone who is attacking me from 30 stories up
bullimiami
(13,109 posts)Bye bye guns.
haveahart
(905 posts)Calculating
(2,957 posts)Basically every single rifle cartridge other than .22 will pierce soft body armor. Know you even wanna take way uncle joe's 30-30 deer rifle.
haveahart
(905 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Sweeping bans of a whole class of any item or behavior need to be based on a clear scientific or statistical basis and supported by facts that justify it.
That means showing that those items are highly likely to cause harm, or to demonstrate that proportional to the amount of impact on people who are not criminals that the amount of harm reduced is worth the imapact.
And lastly, that the amount of money and effort spent on enforcing compliance with such a law really is the most impactful way to reduce violence.
The idea of a semi-auto ban fails on all those standards.
The likelihood that any individual semi-auto firearm will be used in a crime is very, very, very tiny. So the impact will be largely felt by law abiding people who have done no wrong and will do no wrong just to hope to reduce crime by a small portion of the population.
On top of that, it would be insanely expensive to implement. There is no record of who has what, andthere would be massive non-compliance. Just look at the rate of non-compliance with just registration in NY and CT. And that would end up being and insanely expensive program to implement when it's all factored in. You would end up with a decades long huge federal police action on a scale larger than the "war on drugs".
If you really want to reduce gun violence all the money and manpower that would take would be better spent on targeted programs on the people likely to commit gun violence, or any violence, or to be victims and focused on them.
So spend that money you would allocate for the massive law enforcement operation and massive increase in police agencies and focus it where it will have more impact. Most gun deaths are suicides, so start with increased access and outreach to those most at risk to suicide and use money to fund that and better mental health access. Past that the vast majority of gun deaths are gang or drug related between urban males between 16-24. We know that population is most at risk of commuting or being victims of violence (gun or otherwise) and targeted programs to reduce the factors that cause this and teach them better conflict resolution skills would yield far more results dollar per dollar than any ban. The third category are women harmed by an abusive spouse. A semi auto ban won't age g this number at all, but more money spent on enforcement of domestic violence laws, intervention programs and other programs proven to reduce domestic violence would be money far better spent.
The pot of money is finite. So policies should be focused on what will work best, not what sounds best because it's a simplistic answer. If you want to prioritize massive spending on a huge increase in the number of police officers to enforce a law confiscating hundreds of millions of guns from people who don't want to give them up instead of the solutions I listed above then you don't. Really want to reduce violence, you just want to focus on guns.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)That's where I'm at.
More people have died due to gun violence than to ALL of this century's wars. The 2nd Amendment is an obscenity.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)I suppose you'll volunteer to go door to door collecting them?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)telling us all these years?
To the person who got my similar post hidden months ago -- "Molon Labe" is a white wing gun meme, meaning "Come and Get em." Lots of white wing gunner like to tatoo that on their arms and back, put stickers on their vehicles, fly flags, and similar signs of dementia. It is not an obscene term. Well, on second thought, mabe it is.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There are some with legitimate, non-murder applications. Banning certain kinds of semi-autos or restricting magazine sizes would be preferable in my opinion.
BuddhaGirl
(3,614 posts)Nobody in a modern society needs such killing machines.
VOX
(22,976 posts)“It’s merely a tool,” I’ve heard over and over for decades. Yes, it IS a tool — a tool specifically designed to inflict as much lethality to humans in as short a time possible.
For hunting or target shooting, military-style rifles are vastly overdesigned and not particularly sporting. It’s an “ammo processor” and yes, it’s a rush to spray some lead into a remote hillside (I’ve done it), but that’s an absurd reason to own one.
There is no acceptable, reasonable excuse for civilians to possess such deadly firepower. For defense against a “tyrannical government” some say. For Christ’s sake, THE GOVERNMENT HAS DRONES.
Bonx
(2,079 posts)
Runningdawg
(4,526 posts)A ban can't be enforced without confiscation. If you think going door-to-door, searching houses and taking guns is going to cause less violence, you need to re-think your position.
Man_Bear_Pig
(89 posts)Showing one is so against guns and gun violence by being for people with guns causing gun violence on others in order to steal their guns (their expensive personal property). It is like being both pro life and pro death penalty at the same time.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)
kydo
(2,679 posts)No semi-autos or autos. No ammo for either. Only the military get those. No not law enforcement. Single shots should be all they need.
For all other guns, insurance should be mandatory. Full back ground check, and required gun owner license like a drivers license, and yes you would be required to take classes and test and renewal just like driving.
No sales at gun shows or on-line. Only gun stores licensed by the feds can buy, sell or trade guns. Just like hard booze, places that paid huge fees and abide by strict protocol can sell it.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)mvd
(65,180 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:58 PM - Edit history (2)
don’t see how we get rid of all of them in this gun culture. Plus, after Trump, we may need some kind of protection for out of control RW governments. I feel we have the freedom to not be shot, so controls like semi-automatic bans should happen.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Many (perhaps most) pistols and hunting rifles are semi-automatic. That isn't what makes them excessively dangerous.
The bump fire stocks need to be banned, along with high capacity magazines that allow many shots to be fired before reloading.
Better waiting periods and background checks would be good as well.
But my .22 calibre target pistol isn't going to be the weapon of choice for any mass shooter.
LuckyCharms
(17,469 posts)
Turin_C3PO
(14,099 posts)But I do support gun control including mandatory training, mental evaluations, registration, stock size limits, purchase per year limits, silencer ban, armor piercing bullet ban.
Johnny2X2X
(19,213 posts)What I'd like to see is more classifications of guns. The government (The people) can work with manufacturers to put each gun into a category. We do this type of thing for all types of other things that are manufactured, vehicles, homes, heck even furnaces, hot water heaters, and roofs. Why can't there be classes of guns where each new gun is put into a class before it's released to the public. Heck, they already separate guns into classifications.
Say something like this:
Class 1- Common hunting fire arms- Basically the same restrictions they have now, basic background check
Class 2- Handguns- Waiting periods like now, regular background checks, extra training, periodic retraining
Class 3- Assault rifles and some other "more lethal" handguns, waiting period, by permit only, extra background checks, regular training, mental exam.
Class 4- fully auto and very high caliber- Fully banned, no exceptions.
There would be give and take on which guns go into which classes, there would also be argument over training. But this isn't rocket surgery, we classify all types of things easily and successfully that are bought and sold in this country.
Here is the problem though. Here's where the gun nuts are coming from. They've literally convinced themselves that the last line of defense against a foreign invader is them with their assault weapons and weekend militias. They think they need automatic weapons to stop foreign soldiers. They also think that the government might order some type of genocide against it's own people and they will stop it with their guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Hangingon
(3,071 posts)doodsaq
(120 posts)Apparently we're too special.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)
krawhitham
(4,650 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)