Gun Control - Opinions?

[NeverAgain]

I think we need rational gun control, universal background checks, psychological testing, and training. No Automatic Rifles, some ban on Semis. Anyways, thoughts, comments, or just a "hello" would be great

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

hello

[NeverAgain]

hello

Hi. Thoughts on gun control?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

hello

Hi. Thoughts on gun control?

the two main things i'd support are a nationwide gun registry and a nationwide unified licensing system. banning automatic/semiautomatic guns is a waste of time

[dead0man]

I don't understand wanting to ban automatic weapons.  The very tiny number of legal ones are NEVER* used in crimes.


(unless you don't understand what "automatic weapons" means, which wouldn't be surprising as gun control fanatics don't ever seem to know their trigger from their "shoulder thing that goes up", but your OP does seems to understand the difference)


*well, once, 60 years ago, by a cop that went nuts if my memory is correct.

[NeverAgain]

I don't understand wanting to ban automatic weapons.  The very tiny number of legal ones are NEVER* used in crimes.


(unless you don't understand what "automatic weapons" means, which wouldn't be surprising as gun control fanatics don't ever seem to know their trigger from their "shoulder thing that goes up", but your OP does seems to understand the difference)


*well, once, 60 years ago, by a cop that went nuts if my memory is correct.

I don't claim to know a lot about guns, I have shot a few but I just want to be safe like the rest of us. That being said, wasn't the "Bushmaster M4" used in the Sandy Hook shooting, and the "Smith & Westin MP15" used in the Aurora shooting. Both were automated and if the shooter in this case was using a non-automated weapon then they would have had to reload faster and less lives would have been lost. I really want to be corrected here to further understand Guns and Gun violence. Thanks dead0 for this banter.

[dead0man]

That being said, wasn't the "Bushmaster M4" used in the Sandy Hook shooting, and the "Smith & Westin MP15" used in the Aurora shooting.

Both are semi-auto.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

auto vs semi-auto has nothing to do with reload times.  Auto means, you pull the trigger, the gun fires until you stop pulling the trigger or your magazine is empty.  Semi means you have to actually repress the trigger each time you fire.  Automatic guns are legal, technically, but virtually non-existent, hard (if not impossible*) to get the required paperwork and stupid expensive.  That's probably for the best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

np



*depends on where you live

[TNF]

I am opposed to all forms of gun control under the present social system. The fact is that gun control is more or less designed to prevent those who most need guns from having them, and of course as an accessory to that, maintaining capitalist exploitation and racial/sexual/gender/etc oppression.

[Gass3268]

My views are currently between reversing the Heller decision and repealing the 2nd amendment.

Yet if that is impossible I would be in favor of bans on concealed carry, automatics, semi-automatics, handguns, advanced sniper scopes; universal background checks, mandatory psychological testing, Federal registry of all guns/gun owners, banning private transfers/gifts without notifying those in charge of the registry/processing background checks and psychological testing, magazine clip limits, and police officers on patrol are not allowed guns (like in the UK, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand).

That seems like a good start.

[Mercenary]

I'm okay with background checks but nothing else. I strongly oppose any kind of gun registry, especially a national one.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think we need rational gun control, universal background checks, psychological testing, and training. No Automatic Rifles, some ban on Semis. Anyways, thoughts, comments, or just a "hello" would be great

Psychological testing should not be linked to gun control.   It is not at all a good predictor of violence against others; a good test might possibly show whether there is a higher risk of suicide, but the cost to an individual's psychological privacy and the implication of a sort of stigma is too high I think.  Even worse is the idea of demanding psychologists tell police who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, which means people who need help might avoid going at all in order that this does not happen to them.
 
Gun control measures, whatever they are, need to be made in a way that is relatively easy for people to comply with, because otherwise there is a strong temptation to skirt the law for the sake of convenience when it comes to things like selling or transferring a gun.  That's something that legislators haven't always taken into account. 

I'm not real clear on what a federal registry would be supposed to do. I wonder if it could be accurate with so much informal and black market trade of weapons.  If I could be convinced it would actually prevent crimes I'd support it, so long as it is confidential and clearly limited by law in how it can be used.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Background checks, no lead ammunition, laser engravement and most importantly free penis enlargement surgeries.

[dead0man]

I think it's balls gun control fundies are missing that is more important than making their weeners bigger.  It doesn't matter how big your gun is, if you don't have any bullets, it's just a sh**tty club.

[bedstuy]

I would create a gun registry, try to raise the price of guns and focus on taking illegal guns off the street.  That seems like a good plan.

I don't understand wanting to ban automatic weapons.  The very tiny number of legal ones are NEVER* used in crimes.


(unless you don't understand what "automatic weapons" means, which wouldn't be surprising as gun control fanatics don't ever seem to know their trigger from their "shoulder thing that goes up", but your OP does seems to understand the difference)


*well, once, 60 years ago, by a cop that went nuts if my memory is correct.

Scud missiles aren't often used by criminals.  I guess we should make scud missiles legal.

Isn't the fact that something is illegal and isn't being used by criminals a good thing?

[dead0man]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

[Famous Mortimer]

Single national gun registry with single background check process. Anyone who thinks this will lead to an American holocaust and the government killing its citizens is frankly unpatriotic. Literally. If Australia and England can outlaw guns without become fascist states, why couldn't America just have a registry without doing so either? Do they think American democracy is weaker than Australian and British democracy? Like I said, unpatriotic.

[bedstuy]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

So, like many of the insane people on Atlas, you oppose all regulation on anything that could be used as a weapon?

You would support open sales of pipe bombs, plastic explosives, dynamite, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, sarin gas, etc. to the public?  Should anyone be able to go to the store and buy those types of weapons?  I'm just trying to understand your position.

[dead0man]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

So, like many of the insane people on Atlas, you oppose all regulation on anything that could be used as a weapon?

You would support open sales of pipe bombs, plastic explosives, dynamite, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, sarin gas, etc. to the public?  Should anyone be able to go to the store and buy those types of weapons?  I'm just trying to understand your position.

You're the Carl Lewis of jumping to conclusion.  What in my post made you think I would want sarin gas for sale at Wal Mart?  But some of those things are already perfectly legal, or at least their ingredients are, you just again, go through the proper channels to acquire them.  Just like automatic weapons (you know, the thing that started this insanity?), legal, but very difficult to  get a hold of.  I'm fine with that.  Perhaps you'd like to add handguns, and scary looking semi-automatic rifles to that category of items.  I disagree, but it's a conversation that can be had.  Jumping to the conclusion that I want to let toddlers buy RPGs in the toy aisle at Target is not going to help that conversation.  It's EXACTLY like saying people that are against immigration are racists.

[bedstuy]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

So, like many of the insane people on Atlas, you oppose all regulation on anything that could be used as a weapon?

You would support open sales of pipe bombs, plastic explosives, dynamite, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, sarin gas, etc. to the public?  Should anyone be able to go to the store and buy those types of weapons?  I'm just trying to understand your position.

You're the Carl Lewis of jumping to conclusion.  What in my post made you think I would want sarin gas for sale at Wal Mart?  But some of those things are already perfectly legal, or at least their ingredients are, you just again, go through the proper channels to acquire them.  Just like automatic weapons (you know, the thing that started this insanity?), legal, but very difficult to  get a hold of.  I'm fine with that.  Perhaps you'd like to add handguns, and scary looking semi-automatic rifles to that category of items.  I disagree, but it's a conversation that can be had.  Jumping to the conclusion that I want to let toddlers buy RPGs in the toy aisle at Target is not going to help that conversation.  It's EXACTLY like saying people that are against immigration are racists.

I was just asking you to say where you would draw the line.

Some atlas posters would say anything that could be a weapons or "arms" must be unregulated by the government, citing the second Amendment. 

Some atlas posters would say we shouldn't regulate the sale of any type of weapon/explosive, because people could assemble the weapons themselves.  IE, since you can make an improvised bomb out of fertilizer, you should be able to buy C4 plastic explosives without any license or regulation whatsoever.

To me, it's a calculation of the risk of the weapon vs. the utility to the public.  Something like a firework is an explosive, but it is not a huge risk as a weapon and it has recreational value, so you can make it available for consumer purchase.  Something like dynamite ought to be tightly regulated, because it has a large risk of being used as a terrorist weapon and it has no utility to the general public.  It's the same calculation for various types of guns.  A shotgun for hunting ducks or whatever is not a major risk and it has an actual use, hunting ducks.  A machine gun has no use besides killing people and it poses a major risk, so machines guns are rightly banned. 

[Blair]

Nukes for all!

[Figueira]

I basically support whatever gun control will lower the murder rate. In principle, I don't care about the "right" to own a gun.

[Republican Michigander]

There is high firearms ownership in my area. My area has 0 or 1 homicide a year with all weapons. I will not give up my rights because people elsewhere screw up.

[Classic Conservative]

I basically support whatever gun control will lower the murder rate. In principle, I don't care about the "right" to own a gun.

You need to the read the second Admendment buddy.

[Figueira]

I basically support whatever gun control will lower the murder rate. In principle, I don't care about the "right" to own a gun.

You need to the read the second Admendment buddy.

I said I don't care about it personally; the current legal situation is another story.

Also regarding your signature, you need to read the Fourteenth Amendment, buddy.

[PJ]

I'm not a fan of American gun culture, but a lot of forms of gun control, particularly assault weapons bans, aren't the best way to cut down on gun violence. I'd support some basic restrictions on gun ownership such as a national registry and universal background checks for gun purchases, and perhaps requiring liability insurance as well. Of course, societal violence is a lot more complicated than restricting gun ownership, and there are preventative methods that can be taken such as heavy public investment into poorer areas to discourage the incentive to form gangs, establishing universal and widely accessible mental healthcare, etc.

I don't have any sort of attachment to the right to gun ownership, but I'm fine with it existing as long as its done responsibly and the more negative connotations of guns can be curbed. Tinkering with the Bill of Rights is not really a road I'd want to go down.