Forums → WEPR → Sensible Gun Control
| 73 | 28441 |
With the Oregon school shooting that happened earlier this month, the never-ending debate on gun control resurfaced. This is simplifying things, but concerning this issue, you have four groups of people:
One, the pro-gun people. These are people who don't believe in gun control (e.g, the NRA in its current state), who want more guns everywhere.
On the other side of the debate, we have gun control advocates. They want, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms. The more extreme want all guns to be banned in the United States.
Then there are those in the middle, the so-called moderates. They want a balance between gun control and gun rights.
Finally, there are those people who couldn't care less about the whole issue.
As for myself, I identify with the third group. I believe in having firearms, yet I want gun owners to have some responsibility and respect for their pieces. Here are my propositions for a possible addition or replacement to existing federal firearm laws:
The following laws will apply to all 50 states.
- Minimum age to buy handguns: 21 years old
- Minimum age to buy rifles (including semi-automatic) and shotguns: 18 years old
- Potential firearm purchasers must meet following criteria:
- Must be at least 18 years old (21 for handguns)
- Not previously convicted of a felony
- No history of substance abuse or mental illness
- Legal resident/citizen of the United States
- In addition to above rules, any member of the immediate family (parents, children, siblings) of a potential firearm buyer/owner must not have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness.
- Persons who are in possession of firearms and have members of his/her immediate family who have a history of mental illness before this law takes effect are exempt from above law.
- A gun buyer must apply for a Firearm Purchasing Permit and a Firearm License.
- After applying for the FPP and the license, the buyer must have his/her mental health evaluated.
- After getting the FPP and the license, he/she can buy up to five guns in one month.
- After buying the guns, the owner must enroll in a month-long, Firearm Training Exam (provided by the federal government) to show that he/she can handle a gun safely.
- After buying gun, owner must have his/her mental health reevaluated annualy.
- A gun magazine that has the capability of holding more than 30 rounds are illegal for a civilian to own. Magazines that can hold 30 rounds or less are legal.
Additional Rules:
- The FPP expires two months after the buyer receives it.
- If a person is looking to buy an automatic weapon, he or she must meet following criteria:
- At least 30 years old
- Must meet same criteria as those wanting to buy "regular" firearms
- Must go through a background check and mental health evaluation
- After buying weapon, he/she must buy $2000 tax stamp verifying that buyer has purchased weapon through legal means.
- Buyer must also have mental health reevaluated annually to prove that he/she is still fit to have weapon.
EDIT: Added some things I forgot.
Thoughts?
- 73 Replies
Fingerprint guns! Seriously this idea has been shot down every time I brought it up.
Fingerprint guns make sure only the 'responsible' gun owner will be able to use it. This is mainly directed towards self defense handguns though (you can't put one on a shotgun... I think...) but you shouldn't be out playing around with your gun anyways! It's meant to be a self defense weapon used only by you.
Fingerprint guns would also need to be paired with other measures, such as a a much more structured test for a gun license. Not all states even require a license, and even in those that require one, it's far too easy to obtain one. If you require a form of testing to get a driving license, it stands to reason you'll need an even more stringent one for a lethal weapon.
It also seems more of a compromise and short term solution, a bandage to cover a deep wound.
That's the point though, it is finding middle ground in a on going conflict. You should not have a self defense handgun (which is the majority) just to mess around, we all agree on that. Also it is clear that you cannot simply take away a firearm from someone for various reasons (high costs, family heirloom, etc). Handguns are the only type of firearm you can conceal on your person effectively (unless you hide a tommy gun under your trench coat). This is a compromise and short term solution that can be built upon with like you said additional measures.
Yeah, but I have a more "radical" stance on gun politics - I'll like to see guns banned everywhere and to a full degree one day. It's not going to happen anytime soon or even in our lifetimes, but it's a hope. Lots of countries have instituted buy back programs and more or less eliminated guns. It's not going to work quickly in the States where there are far more guns then Australia for example, but it's again, a hope.
Fingerprint guns! Seriously this idea has been shot down every time I brought it up.
Here's a thought though: Most other countries do not have problems with guns, and yet they have no fingerprinting technology on them as far as I know. So there must be another way, possibly much easier.
One overlooked problem is that although guns might be tightly restricted in certain states, neighbouring states might not be as harsh on their clampdowns. This makes the obtaining of guns easier once one just circumvents state borders and controls. The classic example is Chicago, where there are no retail gun stores within the city limits. Yet buying a gun is simple, just a few hours drive out of town into Indiana with its much laxer gun laws.
The NRA also cannot be blamed entirely for political lobbying and corporate muscle. It's already deeply ingrained into the mindset of some that guns are a god given right.
The NRA also cannot be blamed entirely for political lobbying and corporate muscle. It's already deeply ingrained into the mindset of some that guns are a god given right.
It is. However, the NRA contributed its fair share to breeding this mindset.
The NRA also cannot be blamed entirely for political lobbying and corporate muscle. It's already deeply ingrained into the mindset of some that guns are a god given right.
Give a gun to a coward and watch him behaving all tough and powerful.
Then the coward thinks: "Hey wait a minute, the bad guys might have assault weapons so I'll get one or two or three!"
Next they'll want to own a rocket launcher then a tank.
Gun obsessed people are plain an simple cowards. Take away their guns and watch them poop their pants and hide in their house.
Being manly doesn't mean you have to be armed to the teeth BTW.
Let's change the NRA name to a more appropriate name - the NCA (National coward association).
The proper and sensible answer to criminals having guns is not to give everyone guns. It's to take those guns away and to clamp down on crime.
The proper and sensible answer to criminals having guns is not to give everyone guns. It's to take those guns away and to clamp down on crime.
And there you have people against gun control arguing that "people have a right to protect themselves" and that "blaming the guns is wrong, because the people are the ones to blame and we are not focusing on the real issue"...*facepalms*
Great job Obama! Since the Republican in Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards, the president has decided to close the gun show loophole.
How the heck will it be enforced though?
Gotta wait for more details, everything's so hush-hush now.
[quote]Gotta wait for more details, everything's so hush-hush now.[/quote
It is sad when the leader of a country has to issue an executive order to pass a bill requested by the majority of the population.
All this trouble caused by an extremist organization and greedy selfish gun makers pressuring the member of Congress to strike down any bill they dislike.
You must be logged in to post a reply!