|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 19, 2012 12:20:35 GMT -5
I know this is insane, but how about instead of banning guns we just ban ammunition. You can obtain ammunition at the shooting range or at the rangers station of designated hunting areas but no one is allowed to have it outside of such locations. That way collectors can still have their guns but they're now harmless.
I don't believe anyone actually needs live guns in their house for "self defense". I think only the police need guns, but people have the right to use them in controlled environments, but not nilly willy.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 19, 2012 12:43:19 GMT -5
i dont think that is insane. I think that is one of proposals listed above.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 19, 2012 13:54:07 GMT -5
Be prepared to re-write the Constitution if you want to actually ban ammunition.
Because I don't think even the most liberal members of the Court could keep a straight face by interpreting "the right to bear arms" as "the right to bear arms as long as they are not functional."
I think regulations and restrictions on ammunition are perfectly reasonable.
Bans on ammunition are basically bans on guns and you won't fool anyone with that.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 19, 2012 14:00:34 GMT -5
I know this is insane, but how about instead of banning guns we just ban ammunition. You can obtain ammunition at the shooting range or at the rangers station of designated hunting areas but no one is allowed to have it outside of such locations. That way collectors can still have their guns but they're now harmless. I don't believe anyone actually needs live guns in their house for "self defense". I think only the police need guns, but people have the right to use them in controlled environments, but not nilly willy. I know multiple people who have used their guns for self defense in situations where they would like have been seriously harmed, killed or raped without their weapons. And there was no chance of the police arriving in time to make a difference. So, yeah, I fundamentally disagree with you on the self defense aspect. Regardless, I believe under the current interpretation, the Supreme Court would stop an ammo ban for the same reason it stopped a gun ban (you can't get around Constitutional protections so easily)--the Supreme Court has stated the 2nd Amendment includes a right to self defense. I would like to here what people think can be done, short of a new Supreme Court decision or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The current legal framework allows regulation of guns. So what regulations would work? |
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 19, 2012 14:22:51 GMT -5
So, in this current world where the 2nd Amendment still exists, what new gun controls would you all implement? What different policies from the Assault Weapon Ban do you feel would make the difference? There is nothing that protects the 2nd Amendment so fundamentally that Supreme Court couldnt change or nuance it's interpretation. In fact, the S. Ct has barely spoke on the amendment the last 50 years. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 19, 2012 14:32:46 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 19, 2012 14:35:59 GMT -5
So, in this current world where the 2nd Amendment still exists, what new gun controls would you all implement? What different policies from the Assault Weapon Ban do you feel would make the difference? There is nothing that protects the 2nd Amendment so fundamentally that Supreme Court couldnt change or nuance it's interpretation. In fact, the S. Ct has barely spoke on the amendment the last 50 years. Yes, but they've spoken on it twice in the past 5 years or so. And the Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Amendment, allows gun regulation but that it protects our fundamental right to self defense. It doesn't allow gun bans, or bans that effectively serve as gun bans (like an ammo ban). So what regulations would you like to see? |
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 19, 2012 14:36:57 GMT -5
Yes, that was the one time. And, as the article cited by Austin in this very thread shows, it's hardly been held up to stop regulation of guns and ammo, and likely wouldnt, according to legal experts. People are probably right that you couldnt ban all guns and ammo in the country, but you could probably do almost every thing else suggested in the two pages of this thread. |
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 19, 2012 14:38:54 GMT -5
There is nothing that protects the 2nd Amendment so fundamentally that Supreme Court couldnt change or nuance it's interpretation. In fact, the S. Ct has barely spoke on the amendment the last 50 years. Yes, but they've spoken on it twice in the past 5 years or so. And the Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Amendment, allows gun regulation but that it protects our fundamental right to self defense. It doesn't allow gun bans, or bans that effectively serve as gun bans (like an ammo ban). So what regulations would you like to see? All of them. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 20, 2012 14:56:56 GMT -5
Here's what I'd like to see, TBird. 1. You have to have a license in order to legally possess a firearm. You would have to apply for a license just like you have to apply for a CHL now. In other words, you have to show you can proficiently operate the weapon you intend to carry and go through criminal history and mental health history checks. You have to renew the license every few years, just like a DL, and it can be revoked by the licensing authority if you are convicted for crimes like domestic violence or heroin possession, or if you are committed to a mental health facility. 2. Individual firearms have to be registered, and as part of the registration process you have to demonstrate that you can and will store your guns in a locked/secured area. 3. Eliminate private sales/gun show sales of firearms. (A woman who once rented the house next door to me decided to get rid of her guns, so she listed and sold them via craigslist. This is a violation of craigslist policy, but not Texas or federal law.) 4. Ban clips that have a capacity greater than 10 bullets. There should be a government buyback program for large capacity clips. 5. Develop some sort of system to better identify firearms; serial numbers are too easily scratched off. 6. Microstamping (gun prints a unique ID on bullets it fires). 7. If the Skyfall technology is available, that too. 8. Increase criminal penalties for crimes committed by unlicensed shooters or with unregistered guns. ON EDIT: Banning guns from campuses and churches would have been on this list last week, but there's a convincing statistical analysis that indicates that these bans may increase rather than decrease the chances of gun violence. ______________________________________________________ Some other thoughts on this issue: One pet peeve of mine, that I've seen frequently over the past few days, is the characterization of hollow-point bullets as armor-piercing bullets. Hollow-point bullets are simply designed to expand when they hit their target. People who keep guns for self-defense often load them with hollow-point bullets, which create greater stopping power and are more likely to lodge in a wall or furniture if they miss their target, rather than traveling into an adjoining room. Convincing recalcitrant gun owners to agree to restrictions on firearm possession would probably be helped if non gun owners took the time to fire a gun or at least learn about them a bit. _______________________________________________________ This article suggests that repealing drug laws could help to reduce firearm deaths: www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/12/18/actually-empirical-evidence-suggests-a-sure-fire-way-to-dram.html |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 20, 2012 15:15:18 GMT -5
Increase penalties in crimes where guns are present but not used even moreso than now -- mugging, domestic violence, dealing, possession, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 20, 2012 15:16:21 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 20, 2012 15:40:18 GMT -5
Anti-tank guns and bazookas?? OK, I might be moving over to Elvado's point of view now. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 20, 2012 16:07:30 GMT -5
I know this is insane, but how about instead of banning guns we just ban ammunition. You can obtain ammunition at the shooting range or at the rangers station of designated hunting areas but no one is allowed to have it outside of such locations. That way collectors can still have their guns but they're now harmless. I don't believe anyone actually needs live guns in their house for "self defense". I think only the police need guns, but people have the right to use them in controlled environments, but not nilly willy. I know multiple people who have used their guns for self defense in situations where they would like have been seriously harmed, killed or raped without their weapons. And there was no chance of the police arriving in time to make a difference. So, yeah, I fundamentally disagree with you on the self defense aspect. Regardless, I believe under the current interpretation, the Supreme Court would stop an ammo ban for the same reason it stopped a gun ban (you can't get around Constitutional protections so easily)--the Supreme Court has stated the 2nd Amendment includes a right to self defense. I would like to here what people think can be done, short of a new Supreme Court decision or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The current legal framework allows regulation of guns. So what regulations would work? I mean maybe there are cases, but I can't really think of a case where having a gun is the only way out of a situation and that the situation couldn't have been avoided from some other means. I'm not saying guns aren's useful in self defense, I just don't think they're necessary and think things like common sense would be more effective in keeping yourself safe e.g. not walking home alone late at night. Or where pepper spray would be just as effective. I think all the provisions suggested by Austin are good. I don't think an ammunition ban would ever happen hence my caveat to begin my paragraph. Separate question. What are the gun regulations in other countries? I mean there are countries like Canada that watch all the same violent tv and movies and video games we watch but have much lower rates of gun violence. What do they do in terms of regulation. I was shocked to find out how little regulation there is of guns in this country. It should definitely be like driving a car in the sense that you should have to pass tests and licensing exams in order to own and operate a gun. It's kinda scary that that's not the case and that anyone in most states could get a permit to carry a concealed weapon with out any training or knowledge of how to operate it safely. For the record I've done plenty of shooting at ranges of rifles and shot guns. I'm fine with hunting and people shooting at ranges. I just don't think anyone needs them outside of those situations except for the police and military. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 21, 2012 12:26:21 GMT -5
Here's what I'd like to see, TBird. 1. You have to have a license in order to legally possess a firearm. You would have to apply for a license just like you have to apply for a CHL now. In other words, you have to show you can proficiently operate the weapon you intend to carry and go through criminal history and mental health history checks. You have to renew the license every few years, just like a DL, and it can be revoked by the licensing authority if you are convicted for crimes like domestic violence or heroin possession, or if you are committed to a mental health facility. 2. Individual firearms have to be registered, and as part of the registration process you have to demonstrate that you can and will store your guns in a locked/secured area. 3. Eliminate private sales/gun show sales of firearms. (A woman who once rented the house next door to me decided to get rid of her guns, so she listed and sold them via craigslist. This is a violation of craigslist policy, but not Texas or federal law.) 4. Ban clips that have a capacity greater than 10 bullets. There should be a government buyback program for large capacity clips. 5. Develop some sort of system to better identify firearms; serial numbers are too easily scratched off. 6. Microstamping (gun prints a unique ID on bullets it fires). 7. If the Skyfall technology is available, that too. 8. Increase criminal penalties for crimes committed by unlicensed shooters or with unregistered guns. ON EDIT: Banning guns from campuses and churches would have been on this list last week, but there's a convincing statistical analysis that indicates that these bans may increase rather than decrease the chances of gun violence. ______________________________________________________ Some other thoughts on this issue: One pet peeve of mine, that I've seen frequently over the past few days, is the characterization of hollow-point bullets as armor-piercing bullets. Hollow-point bullets are simply designed to expand when they hit their target. People who keep guns for self-defense often load them with hollow-point bullets, which create greater stopping power and are more likely to lodge in a wall or furniture if they miss their target, rather than traveling into an adjoining room. Convincing recalcitrant gun owners to agree to restrictions on firearm possession would probably be helped if non gun owners took the time to fire a gun or at least learn about them a bit. _______________________________________________________ This article suggests that repealing drug laws could help to reduce firearm deaths: www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/12/18/actually-empirical-evidence-suggests-a-sure-fire-way-to-dram.htmlI would also add that you should be required to take out minimal liability insurance (as with cars) or at the very least pay a waiver fee (as allowed in some states for cars). |
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Dec 21, 2012 13:23:22 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 21, 2012 13:39:28 GMT -5
Well, he's right. We can talk about gun control measures until we are blue in the face. And I wholeheartedly agree with many of the reforms suggested by Austin. But they can't stop something like Newtown from happening. Even armed guards can't provide a guarantee, but they're more likely to be a deterrent** than any gun laws. And they also are equipped to cut incidents a lot shorter than otherwise. Look, you want to talk gun control measures because they are a good idea, I think that's fine. But if you want to talk preventing a tragedy, then LaPierre's suggestion is really the best one available. ** EDIT: I know it is challenging to determine what will be a deterrent to someone who is mentally ill, but most of these people, though very sick, are not blithering idiots. They have plans in advance in many cases, and I think it's safe to say that this would be a strong deterring factor. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Dec 21, 2012 13:52:59 GMT -5
Except there's nothing - not even anecdotal evidence - that supports the idea that it's a deterrent whatsoever (see: Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, etc).
I don't know what the answer is - but the idea that Wayne LaPierre has anything to contribute to the conversation was shot down today, everything out of his mouth is completely self-serving. He and his organization have no interest in solving this problem.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Dec 21, 2012 13:53:33 GMT -5
Well, he's right. We can talk about gun control measures until we are blue in the face. And I wholeheartedly agree with many of the reforms suggested by Austin. But they can't stop something like Newtown from happening. Even armed guards can't provide a guarantee, but they're more likely to be a deterrent** than any gun laws. And they also are equipped to cut incidents a lot shorter than otherwise. Look, you want to talk gun control measures because they are a good idea, I think that's fine. But if you want to talk preventing a tragedy, then LaPierre's suggestion is really the best one available. ** EDIT: I know it is challenging to determine what will be a deterrent to someone who is mentally ill, but most of these people, though very sick, are not blithering idiots. They have plans in advance in many cases, and I think it's safe to say that this would be a strong deterring factor. Really? The best one available? Let's say that I accept the NRA's proposal, which isn't necessarily a "terrible" idea. I would suspect (and I hope you are in agreement), that an armed officer in a school would be armed with a standard issue handgun as opposed to an AR-15. Now, what I would propose, is that the NRA conduct a poll all of the police officers that the NRA wants to fund as these new "school guards" and see whether they would support a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and high capacity clips. What do you think the response to such a poll would be? The fact is, a police officer with a handgun - or using the NRA's language - "a good guy with a gun" - who in a quiet town like Newtown is likely not going to have any experience dealing with a real-life crisis situation involving firearms - is going to have trouble stopping a bad guy with a semi-authomatic rifle with a high-capacity clip. The NRA is in fantasyland if they think otherwise. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 21, 2012 14:20:02 GMT -5
First of all, the more riled up you get about this, the less effective you are. Like I said, demonize the NRA all you want. It is entirely counter-productive.
Second, I never once said that I agreed with LaPierre that there should be armed guards in schools. I said they would be the best way to prevent a tragedy, far FAR more effective than banning weapons.
Third, you can question security people all you want, since our popular culture usually makes them out to be (A) corrupt, (B) bumbling idiots or (C) both. But yes, in fact they ARE highly trained in most cases to deal with crisis situations. Of course, they're not going to be shooting at bad guys every day. Hell, even most cops in New York City don't shoot at bad guys every day. That does not mean they aren't highly equipped to respond to a situation like this.
(And most police officers I know are personal gun owners. I don't think a lot of them would support outright bans; the clip issue is different and I never once argued that there shouldn't be restrictions on those.)
Look, the fact of the matter is, if there were a way to ensure an event like Newtown never happens again, we would do it. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, look at what we've come to tolerate from the government to just TRY to ensure that 9/11 won't ever happen again (no guarantee there either). But there is no way. I don't think armed guards in every school is a good idea, frankly. But I think it would be a lot more effective than an assault weapons ban, which almost certainly wouldn't prevent anyone who wanted an assault weapon for nefarious purposes to be able to get their hands on one.
|
|
