Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lea101 said:
What do you think needs to be done to fix the mental health problem in the US?
Click to expand...
That’s a heck of a question. It’s an extremely complex issue. Also a very costly issue and one that is often taboo. The place to start would be for the lawmakers to put aside politics and exchange some serious discussion. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening anytime soon…
 
superblue said:
Well every politician knows to not let a good crisis go with out politicizing it. The mental health aspect as valid as it is, becomes very problematic. Who judges then the mental stability of someone on wether or not they should have the legal right to own a fire arm. That right there is enough to stall any well intentioned plan to keep firearms out of the hands of those with severe mental issues. But even then no one can even remotely come close to keeping fire arms out of the hands of those who are intent on finding them and using them, be those who are mentally ill or not.
Click to expand...
The courts do with (name removed by moderator)ut from medical professionals – a HUGE step forward from Obama’s executive order nonsense! I agree that it’s not going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals – particularly psycho criminals, but it is an honest start unlike the call for more gun control.
superblue said:
I guess if I had to force myself what is common sense gun control, would be to say that the government does have the right to limit how much ammunition and firearms one can legally own at any given time, and to ban any altercations to a fire arm or cartridge holder that. An can limit fire arm by type as well, such as being able to own only one of each, shotgun, rifle, pistol, and semi automatic rifle. An then if someone says well how much ammunition do we get, I guess if i had to pull a number out of the air I would say no more than 100 rounds of ammunition at any given time for each firearm. An then the government can change that for times of conflict or whatever.
Click to expand...
100 rounds, aye? That’s quite a bit for say a deer hunter. That’s hopefully enough for someone using their firearm for home defense. That’s nothing for someone who recreationally shoots skeet/trap or a multitude of other shooting sports. How would the gov’t keep someone from accumulating ammo? I load my own. How’s that going to work?
 
Last edited:
I would be careful about equating the NRA with all gun owners. The NRA has an agenda like all lobbying organizations and it is not always speaking for everybody with a gun or everybody who would like to see reasonable gun ownership continue. The NRA for example tried to stop the Heller case from going to the Supreme Court, first because they were afraid the gun owners would lose and second because the NRA was not managing the case strategy. That’s about where I began to look at the NRA with a jaundiced eye.
 
That’s a very vague and unhelpful answer though. If we’re having a discussion on how to save lives we should at least try to figure out what can be done or else it’s a waste of time.

You can’t expect the government to do anything about mental health without some sort of backlash. (eg mental healthcare, responsible media) Which is why I feel they’re better off coming up with a concrete plan with weapons and such, like background checks, mental health check up etc.

The mental health problem is more of society’s problem if anything. Keep normalizing aggression (and dare I say it, with males) and that’s what you get. Keep up with the ignorance of mental health issues with not-so-cute illnesses (eg schizophrenia compared to like, anorexia) and you will only find out someone’s mentally ill when they shoot up a place.

The government can’t do much about that besides ensuring these people (and their children) get proper care in rehabilitation centers/prison/etc. Unless ofc others have a plan?
 
Lea101 said:
That’s a very vague and unhelpful answer though. If we’re having a discussion on how to save lives we should at least try to figure out what can be done or else it’s a waste of time.

You can’t expect the government to do anything about mental health without some sort of backlash. (eg mental healthcare, responsible media) Which is why I feel they’re better off coming up with a concrete plan with weapons and such, like background checks, mental health check up etc.

The mental health problem is more of society’s problem if anything. Keep normalizing aggression (and dare I say it, with males) and that’s what you get. Keep up with the ignorance of mental health issues with not-so-cute illnesses (eg schizophrenia compared to like, anorexia) and you will only find out someone’s mentally ill when they shoot up a place.

The government can’t do much about that besides ensuring these people (and their children) get proper care in rehabilitation centers/prison/etc. Unless ofc others have a plan?
Click to expand...
Yes it is very vague, because it’s not my area of expertise. But delving into that is what it’s going to take to reduce gun-related violence in the USA.

Increased gun control isn’t going to work. That’s already been proven. I fully support SMART/LOGICAL background checks. I don’t support some of the garbage backgroud checks pushed by some politicos.

I don’t know what you mean by “mental health check up, etc.”? If you want a real political problem, just try to pass legislation where some individual (rather than a court of law) is going to judge whether someone else is psychologically healthy enough to own a firearm. The potential for abuse, from wrongfully denying someone’s constitutional rights is immense and would never be tolerated.
 
Here are common sense gun control laws that California has, perhaps all states should follow suit:
  1. California
    If you’re a gun owner in California, you must:
Pass a universal background check, no matter where you buy your gun
Wait at least 10 days to receive that gun (the idea here is to give law enforcement enough time to conduct the background check)
Get your handgun microstamped, which means the make, model and serial number of the gun is transferred to each cartridge case every time the gun is fired (the idea is to allow police at a crime scene to trace a gun back to its owner)
Take and pass a written safety test
You can’t:

Own most assault weapons or buy and sell large-capacity ammunition magazines or .50 caliber rifles
Buy your gun through a private sale, like online or via a friend, without first going through a licensed dealer (and thus getting a background check)
Buy more than one handgun a month
 
Jamie5 said:
Here are common sense gun control laws that California has, perhaps all states should follow suit:

California

If you’re a gun owner in California, you must:

Pass a universal background check, no matter where you buy your gun

Wait at least 10 days to receive that gun (the idea here is to give law enforcement enough time to conduct the background check)

Get your handgun microstamped, which means the make, model and serial number of the gun is transferred to each cartridge case every time the gun is fired (the idea is to allow police at a crime scene to trace a gun back to its owner)

Take and pass a written safety test

You can’t:

Own most assault weapons or buy and sell large-capacity ammunition magazines or .50 caliber rifles

Buy your gun through a private sale, like online or via a friend, without first going through a licensed dealer (and thus getting a background check)

Buy more than one handgun a month
Click to expand...
Sadly it’s very clear you’re spreading misinformation with respect to this subject. By the numbers:
  1. You missed the CA Firearms Safety Certificate. Before buying a gun, CA resident must pay $25.00 and pass a trivial safety test. It’s good for 5 years. It’s not purchased prior to each firearm.
  2. The background check ($25.00/gun) is “instant” via computer. The 10 day wait was originally sold (it dates back decades and was once 15 days and only applied to handguns) as a “cooling off period” for people buying guns who were angry about something. In some tragic cases, it keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who need the gun to protect themselves. For people like me (who already own guns), it makes absolutely no sense at all.
  3. Microstamping does not exist! NO firearms sold in CA today are microstamped because the technology to microstamp does not exist! There are lawsuits in the courts over this right now. It only applies (if it existed) to semi-automatic handguns anyway. Rifles, shotguns and revolvers are exempt. How could you not know this!?! Google “California handgun roster” for more information.
  4. No written safety test/gun purchase. See above.
  5. You forgot one needs to purchase a NEW gunlock if the gun doesn’t come with one, even if they already own a gunlock and bring it in the place of purchase, unless of course they own a gun safe.
  6. Assault weapons are machine guns. No private citizen can legally own one in CA – although some acquire federal dealer licenses so they can.
  7. You can’t buy/sell magazines over 10 rounds. Standard capacity magazine up to 30 rounds are banned as are high-capacity magazines.
  8. You can certainly own .50 caliber rifles in CA! You cannot own a firearm chambered specifically for the .50 BMG round after some politicos went on a childish tirade. That’s OK though, you can legally own a rifle chambered for the .50/.510 DTC. The ammunition is made from .50 BMG ammo – it just holds a bit more gunpowder and is thus more powerful.
Please, please do your homework before spreading more misinformation! This is a very incendiary subject and accuracy is extra important.
 
Last edited:
Jamie5 said:
Yes all states should follow these examples:
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually purchased a firearm in CA or did you just skim Wikipedia? 😉

CA guns laws are very ineffective and ridiculously illogical.
 
Last edited:
“Common sense” as applied to legislation is normally radical progressive buzz-phrase for some special interest group seeking increased governmental control over the individual.
 
Wrong again:

From 1993 to 2013 California’s firearm mortality rate declined by 56.6 percent — 29.9 percentage points more than the decline in the rest of the nation.

In 1993, over 14,000 people were shot in California, and over 5,000 of them died. The numbers have decreased steadily since then as gun laws have been enacted. Some of California’s most important gun laws went into effect in the early 1990s including: an assault weapons ban; universal background checks of gun sales/transfers (including gun shows); a Department of Justice (DOJ)-maintained database of all handgun sales; prohibition of gun sales to persons guilty of certain violent misdemeanors; a law making it possible to hold gun owners criminally responsible for child access and misuse of their gun; and a basic handgun safety training and certificate requirement for handgun purchases.
 
I really can’t believe you mentioned:
  • Microstamping
  • The Brady Campaign
while trying to defend CA’s gun control mess. LOL!!
 
Crisis legislation always produces bad law. Since the advent of modern “gun control” the violent crime rates have trended upward. If “common sense” is going to apply, it must examine results of a law - not the intent. Let’s ponder for a moment: Murder is illegal everywhere. Always has been. When a soul chooses to become a murderer, it is then simply a matter of waiting for the opportunity.

What has happened that we have a society seemingly saturated with murderers? That is a spiritual problem and that is where murderers will be deterred. Physical solutions to spiritual problems are doomed to fail.
 
You know you will never be able to achieve a law that respects rights of individuals AND keeps people from shooting each other.
The country is run by a man-made set of laws, when what we really need is a God made morality.

People will always commit violence. This will not stop, no matter what law is in place, until we adopt the same value for human life that God does.
 
Absolutely yes. I support various legal restrictions on violent felons, those found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental defect, noncitizens, anyone below 18, sensitive government buildings as long as they provide armed security, and the rights of private property owners to decide whether or not to allow firearms on their property.
 
Sensible gun control:
  1. Using both hands
  2. Being able to hit your target
  3. Knowing your target, and what’s beyond your target
  4. Knowing when the use of such force is appropriate and when it’s not
  5. Not carrying, handling, or cleaning firearms while drunk/high
  6. Not drawing a firearm in anger. etc.
  7. Recognizing that you are responsible for the projectile(s) that leave(s) the barrel
  8. Recognizing that once you pull the trigger, unless there’s a malfunction, something with lethal potential will exit the muzzle.
  9. Recognizing that carrying a gun doesn’t make you more macho, better able to go places you shouldn’t, etc.
Apparently, people have forgotten about the “mad minute,” and what can be done with even WWI era bolt-action rifles.

“Stockpiling” ammunition and weaponry isn’t the problem. The problem is people; always has been and always will be. I know of several people who would be branded as “stockpilers,” etc. for their collections. Not a single one of them has gone out on a rampage. They hunt, they varmint, and they have weapons for self-defense around the house. Heck, I’d probably get that label myself. Strangely, not a single one of my firearms or rounds of ammunition has gotten up and killed anybody. That includes the “evil” ones that have “evil” high-capacity magazines.

Owning different numbers of weapon types isn’t the problem either. Different gauges of shotguns work for different purposes. A 30-06 rifle is a great general purpose medium to big game rifle, but is massive overkill for coyotes and ground rodents. A .204Ruger rifle is good for coyotes and ground rodents, but useless on anything bigger. A compact 9mm pistol is a decent compromise for all-round carrying, but mostly useless if you are carrying it for critter protection out in the outdoors.

The question is: why should I, as a law abiding citizen, be prohibited from buying/owning multiple firearms or buying/owning quantities of ammunition if I so choose? The potential threats that I am likely to encounter sure won’t care about what the law is or isn’t, they wouldn’t be criminals if they did.

Why is it anybody else’s business if I want to buy 1 round or 1,000 rounds of a particular type of ammunition?

Gang bangers and their ilk have actually started moving away from semi-automatic pistols and toward revolvers for one very simple reason… the revolver takes the casing along with the weapon and doesn’t leave it behind. A gang banging thug can kill you just as dead with a .357magnum revolver as he can with a Glock 9mm with 17 round magazine.

One does have to wonder about the situation in Chicago, where gun control laws have reached their apex…
 
Duesenberg said:
Gun control has proven not to work.
Click to expand...
Since that is true, it is necessary to think of something else which will help the victims of these horrible crimes, if they are still living. Of course, if they are dead, having been gunned down, society should think of ways to help their families. One suggestion I read about was to required indemnity insurance on every gun sold or currently owned. If that particular gun is used in a crime, then the victims would be paid by the insurance company which holds the policy for that particular gun. It would be similar to requiring insurance when you own a car. The law would be such that a gun could not be sold without being registered and having the proper insurance, say 10 million dollars of insurance for each gun sold. Of course it would be higher for semi-automatic weapons. Anyone who owned a gun would be required to obtain the necessary insurance or turn in her gun. Any violation of said law would be heavily penalized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top