Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

In your opinion what would a sensible gun law entail?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (20194points) June 12th, 2016

That isn’t law right now.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Repealing the second amendment. Possession or ownership of any gun after July 1, 2016 is automatic five years imprisonment and revocation of driver’s license for the years after.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So again just ban them all,and all will be fine type thing??
That worked really well with hard drugs no one ever gets their hands on them anymore.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

In Alberta the government has passed a law , 5 or 10 years ago, against public ownership of armour and bullet proof vests. The federal liberal government appealed the long gun ownership licencing. A sensible gun law would be trail and error until they have one law that works.

zenvelo's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 It worked great in Australia.

Applying drug policy, a victimless crime, to gun policy, something that is designed for killing (and any other use is just serendipity,) is not the same.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Sensible gun laws would be wiping the books of all of the wacky nonsensical legislation that does nothing. Add legislation and funding to allow states and different agencies to share information more effectively for background checks that we already do. Allow permit holders to carry anywhere but expand the required training and re-certification. allow average citizens to obtain them, not just the rich and famous

@RedDeerGuy1 So Canada made protective gear illegal… wonderful. Glad I don’t live there.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

@ragingloli Thanks for the link not being NSFW.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@zenvelo Really drug policy a victimless crime?? Hard drug kill and destroy more lives than firearms do.
And works in Australia? They also have a higher minimum wage and a lower priced big mac than the states do how do you explain that?
I am not against sensible gun laws, but totally against an outright ban that only punishes law abiding firearm owners.

Coloma's avatar

I’m with @SQUEEKY2
I am not a gun fan, do not own one, never will, and feel that if one needs to fear leaving home unarmed then maybe it’s time to just do yourself in if it really is that bad.
I refuse to cower to fear, quit going to movie theaters, and do feel there are a lot of gun slingers out there that are just itching for a reason to draw their weapons. That said however, I also know several highly trained people with CC permits and your damn right, if the shit were to hit the fan I’d want them in my corner covering my ass while I hit the deck and hoped for the best.

Taking away law abiding citizens guns will only put more guns in the wrong hands and while I do not believe in a fight fire with fire ideology, well, sometimes that is exactly what needs to unfold. In a perfect world nobody would need to own a gun sans the occasional rattlesnake on the porch, and this is no longer 1816 when wolves and savages and wildcats and crazed mountain men were everyday encounters, still, the right to bear arms is part of our constitution and now we face predators of another kind in numbers not unlike those I mention in history.

Buttonstc's avatar

I understand people’s need for shotguns for self defense and rifles for hunting. Those are legitimate needs.

But why anyone really needs an assault rifle that can mow down 50 or more people in a matter of minutes, is beyond my logical comprehension.

I understand that people may want them. But I’m talking about genuine need. Who, other than active military, really needs assault rifles.

I would have no problem with a law which starts from that premise. And, yes, I realize the difficulty in precisely defining assault rifle in the past, but good grief, is there no room at all for common sense to figure out a way to keep military weapons out of the hands of every random nut job who wants to rack up a high body count before offing himself? There must be.

But the NRA will continue to block any efforts in that direction because it abridges somebody’s rights to own as much firepower as they want.

What about a six year olds right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness beyond age 7?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Just like automobiles…

Mandatory registration with state.
Mandatory licensing with yearly renewal.
Mandatory state inspections.
Mandatory operational training.
Mandatory operation licensing with four year renewal.
Mandatory liability insurance. The rates of which are established relative to the gun related medical traumas in the owners region.

In addition, we may should consider the need for mandatory psychological evaluation. If not for all, then potentially for anyone living in the highest gun related crime areas.

ibstubro's avatar

I like @RealEyesRealizeRealLies’ proposal.

Additionally I would have a moratorium on the manufacture, import and sales of any new guns for non-military use.
There are plenty of guns out there, already. Eventually I’d like to see them only in the hands of people like @SQUEEKY2 who know how to use and care for guns properly.

syz's avatar

A comprehensive background check with a waiting period.
Mandatory training (like driver’s ed).
A competency test (like a driver’s test).
A license (like a driver’s license).
Insurance coverage (like car insurance).
Registration of guns (like a car).
Tracking of ammunition purchases.
Elimination of Congress’s ban on the CDC researching gun injuries and fatalities.
Elimination of Congress’s ban on preventing gun sales to suspected terrorists.
Elimination of Congress’s ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Limits on the types of guns and ammunition that can be purchased (with a whole other level of extensive screening, evaluation, training, and licensing for anything beyond a basic handgun, rifle, or shotgun).

I use automobiles as an example to point out just how ridiculous it is that we regulate a mode of transportation so much more rigorously that something designed to kill people. We have a database of people buying antihistamines for fuck’s sake, but not ammo.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t think any law proposed would matter much anymore Squeek. It isn’t that the United States has a surplus of crazy people beyond other populations. Simply put there is no question that the abundance of weapons in this country has placed any chance of controlling access to them beyond feasibility. No one has any idea how many firearms are loose in the United States, but there are compelling clues that the high estimates north of 400 million are low. While the numbers of registered firearms may only be in the neighborhood of 200 million, a careful and exhaustive research project in Connecticut for example placed the registered weapons at 4% of the guns actually in the state. Then there’s the grim fact that gun production in the United states has DOUBLED since 2007 to 400,000 guns a year. The truth is that the NRA has nothing to worry about. There are few Americans beyond the age of being able to heft a gun who cannot find one or several of the things with relative ease.

ibstubro's avatar

Here’s a notion.
Let’s just classify firearms as another aspect of fireworks, and apply those laws
“Consumer fireworks include shells and mortars, Roman candles, rockets, sparklers, firecrackers with no more than 50 milligrams of powder, and novelty items, such as snakes, airplanes, ground spinners, helicopters, fountains, and party poppers, according to CPSC”
“Roughly 1 in 9 Americans lives in a state that bans all consumer fireworks, including those not blocked by federal regulations.”

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How about this…
If you are under suspicion from the authorities for any crime, firearm purchases are delayed till cleared.
If you have been found guilty of a violent crime you are banned from owning firearms.
If you are on the Governments no fly list you are not allowed to buy a gun.
Now that to me like a step in the right direction.
Not punishing the legal firearm enthusiast or the gun itself but actually targeting the problem people.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It makes sense, but I still believe that such laws won’t make much difference. The Federal government of the United States is prohibited from compiling statistics on shootings involving unregistered firearms. You wanna guess why? Those who believe that America is not dumbing down are either comatose or walking confirmation of the assertion.

ibstubro's avatar

You’re so misguided, @SQUEEKY2!

Here in the States we consider not having a gun a disability

” Under federal law, those convicted of a felony are forbidden from purchasing or possessing firearms and explosives. Yet as the result of a 1965 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, convicted felons were allowed to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for “relief” from the “disability” of not being able to buy and possess guns. The “relief from disability” program was established as a favor to firearms manufacturer Winchester, then a division of Olin Mathieson Corporation.1 In 1962 Olin Mathieson pleaded guilty to felony counts stemming from a kickback scheme involving Vietnamese and Cambodian pharmaceutical importers. Under the law as it existed at the time, Winchester could no longer be licensed as a firearm manufacturer. The “relief from disability” program allowed Winchester to stay in business.”

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther