Criminal disarmament is happening through buybacks, increased crackdown on arms trafficking and possession, and further restricting the flow of legal arms that end up in the secondary market.
I kind of glossed over the specifics of what's allowed and what's not. I figured the lockers were for high-powered options.
Again, I'd have to ask what's the point of vilifying one type of firearm over another? I know you weren't looking for links or videos, but did you watch the timestamped clip of the 1216 shotgun? Would magazine limitations be instituted toward something outlandish like that? If so, how many rounds is considered enough?
This is why I plugged mental health services into the community centers. You could voluntarily go or have screenings.
Good point. How does this work in China or UK? I know they have firearm experts. Maybe only they respond to home calls?
My answer would be that society would have to define what constituted automatic and probably set some baseline standards for home use, but generally it's not about villifying one firearm over another as much as giving people a basic home defense and sport option.
The lockers would be for anything over the standard.
Fully automatic is already illegal. And I'm lost on the idea of limiting options for home defense purposes. It's too extreme. It'd make more sense to start by curtailing who can carry and what they can carry in public, but even that is sensitive territory considering the 2nd amendment.
I think they should have different ownership levels based on the circumstances. I wouldn't mind applying the above legislation to those who are kind of flagged, in between processing (someone who's been 5150 with voluntary hold regardless of how severe the symptoms were, needs to give up their rights to own firearms for 5 yrs when discharging and have to appeal to court to take back ownership), something like that but hell no I'm going to check in and out my guns from a different location other than my home.
My guns and I have a personal relationship, I like to know everything about them.
I like to practice dry firing with handguns and other fundamentals with my rifles at home whenever I please.
My guns and I have a personal relationship, I like to know everything about them.
I like to practice dry firing with handguns and other fundamentals with my rifles at home whenever I please.
My bad I missed that point.
I’m up for any discussion on reasonable options. But have a hard time punishing the 99% of gun owners that are responsible. We need to start selling the idea that as an American using a gun in any illegal fashion is the worst thing you can do (short of murder or rape) and stop glorifying the use of them.
No, it's not. Criminals have a habit of not following laws. There are millions of guns already in existence. Some will end up in criminal hands, through a black market, theft, or manufacture. It is pretty easy to build a gun with easily obtainable tools. Even assuming a fairy dust and unicorn world where it would work, criminals will still be armed with other weapons. Three guys carjacking you with baseball bats and knives will kill you just as dead as three guys with guns.
I'm down with this.
I'd go even further as I've posted before, but peeps called me crazy lol.
I don't know. I don't think many homes in China and UK have firearms so I doubt it's that big of an issue.
There are too many weapons in America to have an unarmed police force. Criminals don't respect the laws we have now nor do they pay attention to cops telling them what to do. I'd think that issue only becomes worse if the cops are armed with nothing but billy clubs and mace.
I like the stiffer penalty idea. Crack down on the issue by punishing gun abusers, not by taking away the constitutional rights of those of us who never do anything wrong.
What you've done in that scenario is created one stop shopping for people looking to procure illegal guns. IMO, the mental health component should exist on its own merit not as part of a gun ownership prevention scheme. Mental health extends so far beyond the possibility of mass shootings it's almost absurd.
Automatic is already illegal, but I'm assuming you said that out of ignorance so I'll assume you meant semi auto. In any case, if someone is forced to defend themselves why would you place limits on their ability to do so?
If memory serves Australia only had an estimated 30% of guns turned in on their buyback. Come to think of it, Australia is still introducing disarmament legislation 20 years after their fabled buyback. As recently as last year they were still introducing new legislation.
1
1031
Guest
You guys are fucking stupid. I mean that too.
Your media has got you convinced there's some solution that just has to be put into action and this problem, that has taken generations to grow, will be taken care of.
It's a societal problem and it depends entirely on education. Look at where the most shootings occur and ask yourself what the situations have in common.
For the record, I think these mass shootings are the work of one or a few government agencies. The frequency with which they have been occurring is one of the giveaways.
Your media has got you convinced there's some solution that just has to be put into action and this problem, that has taken generations to grow, will be taken care of.
It's a societal problem and it depends entirely on education. Look at where the most shootings occur and ask yourself what the situations have in common.
For the record, I think these mass shootings are the work of one or a few government agencies. The frequency with which they have been occurring is one of the giveaways.
I clearly lean to the left as kneeblock does, but I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment.
We should have the right to bear arms, but steps do need to be taken here is what I want.
1.We still retain our right as citizens to bear arms.
2.The age to buy firearms goes fro 18 to 21
3.Once you buy 4 firemarms in a 12 month period, if you try to buy more firearms in that period you have to go to some office built for this purpose, maybe in your local government center and give a compelling case on why you should be allowed to buy a 5th firearm in less than a year. It will be a 2 week review by a board of some kind and if your argument is compelling enough to them, you get to buy your 5th firearm, if not you are stuck with 4 firearms until next year comes.
4.No bump stocks
5.Limit the type of weapons that have magazines and features that can be manipulated into turning a legal firearms into an assault weapon.
6.Stricter background checks with fresher vetting
7.If you have violent crimes, even non felonies, like misdeamonr assault even, you have to go to a board and present a case why you should be allowed to have a firearm and they review it and let you know afte r2 weeks.
8.If a person buys a firearms and then after the fact has violent crime issues, law enforcement goes and takes away their gun
So keep the 2nd amendment, put in these steps, we will be on our way to a safer society. People who say "you can go to war at 18 why can't you buy a gun then"
War is War, its a lot different if you are in a Iraq fighting a war as a 18 or 19 year, sure you have to have a gun.
But if you are 19 years old and you finish your enlistment, you come back home and you cannot wait 18 months until you are 21 to buy a gun and you just have to have a gun, there is something wrong wtih you and that is further proof why the legal age should be 21.
It's fucking insane that you can't buy a beer at 20 but you can buy firearms at 18. That is bullshit.
We should have the right to bear arms, but steps do need to be taken here is what I want.
1.We still retain our right as citizens to bear arms.
2.The age to buy firearms goes fro 18 to 21
3.Once you buy 4 firemarms in a 12 month period, if you try to buy more firearms in that period you have to go to some office built for this purpose, maybe in your local government center and give a compelling case on why you should be allowed to buy a 5th firearm in less than a year. It will be a 2 week review by a board of some kind and if your argument is compelling enough to them, you get to buy your 5th firearm, if not you are stuck with 4 firearms until next year comes.
4.No bump stocks
5.Limit the type of weapons that have magazines and features that can be manipulated into turning a legal firearms into an assault weapon.
6.Stricter background checks with fresher vetting
7.If you have violent crimes, even non felonies, like misdeamonr assault even, you have to go to a board and present a case why you should be allowed to have a firearm and they review it and let you know afte r2 weeks.
8.If a person buys a firearms and then after the fact has violent crime issues, law enforcement goes and takes away their gun
So keep the 2nd amendment, put in these steps, we will be on our way to a safer society. People who say "you can go to war at 18 why can't you buy a gun then"
War is War, its a lot different if you are in a Iraq fighting a war as a 18 or 19 year, sure you have to have a gun.
But if you are 19 years old and you finish your enlistment, you come back home and you cannot wait 18 months until you are 21 to buy a gun and you just have to have a gun, there is something wrong wtih you and that is further proof why the legal age should be 21.
It's fucking insane that you can't buy a beer at 20 but you can buy firearms at 18. That is bullshit.
Alcohol isn’t a right and also banning weapons goes against the 2nd, so you truly don’t support it.
I posted my opinion on this thread:
Society - Gun Control Discussion Thread | Page 3 | TMMAC - The MMA Community Forum
where I pretty much dismantled the OP.
Why aren't you advocating for alcohol control if you want to save lives?
Society - Gun Control Discussion Thread | Page 3 | TMMAC - The MMA Community Forum
where I pretty much dismantled the OP.
Why aren't you advocating for alcohol control if you want to save lives?
IF you wanna save lives how about Cellphone control
do you know how many people text while driving cause death/serious injury?
1 of 4 crashes are from texting
330,000 injuries per year via texting
over 4,000 killed per year via texting distracted driver
Priorities should dictate we do something about this....
do you know how many people text while driving cause death/serious injury?
1 of 4 crashes are from texting
330,000 injuries per year via texting
over 4,000 killed per year via texting distracted driver
Priorities should dictate we do something about this....
The liberals have already shown that they don’t care about kids dying from drunk driving or texting accidents. The true goal is disarmament, not child safety. A child is more likely to die in an accident on the way to/from school than being a victim of a mass shooting, but losing hundreds of children that way a year is ok.
Last edited:
need to explain how you're going to get that ratified.