In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
That's a valid quote, but it's not an excuse to do nothing.
Completely unregulated markets are just as dangerous as over regulated markets.
Not when you really punish those that seek to due harm to the markets.
The biggest problem is that most, on both sides, are in the pockets of those that look to take every advantage they can of the system they pay to get set up.
Separate them and punish the wrong-doers and there is no need for 3/4 of the laws that we have now.
Except for the policies they happen to not like. For instance, I think most will agree that Title II of the Patriot Act is bad law that was passed in hasty response to a horrible tragedy.
Treat guns like cars for the most part.
Limit or monitor access for new users thru graduated levels of licensing, revoke the right for those that abuse it, a proper registration and title system for ALL purchases, an insurance scheme, and stricter criminal negligEnce laws.
In time these might reduce the amount of "illegal" guns on the street and reduce the most common gun incidents like accidentally shooting yourself.
Also a requirement to show a "gun ID" when buying ammo.
Most of these are implemented in places like Australia and Switzerland with statistical evidence of success.
Also in Switzerland, until recently, all males kept either a SIg-550 or Sig-9mm in their home as part of the militia. So they are far from being "anti-gun"
A concession from the left should be a federally mandated CCL. CCL carriers tend to be responsible people that don't want to commit a crime and lose their CCL, maybe a more stringent system with annual psych exams, but I'm not sure how effective exams would be
None of these are "radical liberal ideas" they are common sense in countries that don't allow Pro business lobbies to write government legislation
All illegal guns were purchased legally at some point. Currently the ATF can't monitor gun inventories for FFL dealers. Using Chicago as an example, many illegal guns are bought at gun shows in bulk in states like MS and then sold on the black market. The ATF doesn't have the authority to stop it, thanks in large part to the NRA. Allowing the ATF to do their job would help reduce black markets sales.
Reducing the supply of guns on the streets would involve a massive gun buy back program, and a quota system for new gun production.
Gun buy backs have had success in various US communities and other countries.
A quota system (like a carbon trade scheme, or like the one used sucessfully in some commercial fisheries like Cod) would reduce the amount of guns sold each year, while not reducing profits for gun companies since the price of each gun would be higher. It also creates an incentive to report on cheaters, since selling over the quota reduces market price.
The gun industry employs 220,000 people. It's a relatively small industry. As long as they are guaranteed tO keep their livelyhood, then there aren't going to be a bunch of "illegal" gun shops making guns on stolen CNC machinery.
Onviously all these examples would increase the cost of ownership, but The second amendment never said a sub compact 9mm should only cost $600.00
Many "illegal" guns in Chicago are bought by a friend or relative and magically reported as "stolen" once they are used in a crime; Stricter criminal negligence laws could reduce these cases.
If you leave your gun under your bed without a lock, and your cousin steals it to shoot his wife, then you go to jail too.
If the dad at columbine went to jail for not hiding the keys to his gun safe, maybe the lady from Sandy Hook would of thought twice before allowing her son access to her gun safe. Just a thought.
Not saying any of these fix the problem but they would reduce it.
We run on the free market. Supply and demand determines the price of guns. Also no not all illegal guns were once legal. Eric Holder gives them out to Mexican drug cartels like they're pez candy. People need to have a sense of responsibility about what they do in life. There are more blunt force object murders each year by leaps and bounds than gun murders. Maybe sports authority should register all those Louisville sluggers.
I would have no problem with a gun buyback, as I would never sell any of my guns.
I have no issues with some form of gun ID when buying ammo - what is involved in obtaining such an ID though?
Stricter laws and harsher punishment for negligence and gun crimes are fine with me. Like you mentioned, I have my CCL and am very responsible with my gun when carrying and when storing them in my house.
I would not be for any type of insurance system like we have for cars.
I am all for background checks at gun shows, etc.
Some of those ideas aren't bad, but implementing measures to require insurance and increase the price of the gun only hurts people like me. How are you going to keep a criminal that obtains his gun on the black market to purchase insurance and other forms of ID for buying ammo?
Actually there is no need to respond to my last post.
This topic has been debated ad nauseum already. The problem with crime and murder in this country is not because we have guns circulating, it's because our society is slowly going down the shitter. People just don't have any values now days. We have a people problem in this country, not a gun problem.
This post was edited by Marshall Nole 12 months ago
There are not more blunt force object murders than guns murders. Guns are the weapon of choice for about 70% of murders annually since 2007:
Yeah, I figured this would be the case. But in the context of gun control blunt force murders vs gun murders is a meaningless statistic. Either way it sucks to be murdered.
Actually I'd rather be murdered with a gun than a knife or piano wire or something.
That's not really the issue though. I'd rather be shot in the head and killed immediately than strangled or beaten, but guns are more likely to kill you because they are more efficient in causing harm. If people wanted to cause painful harm to intruders or criminals, then they'd use a baseball bat rather than a gun. But people would rather own a gun because they are much easier to prevent attacks than any other weapon.
The context shows that you are more likely to be killed by a gun than any of the other weapons combined because guns are intended to cause harm. All other objects have a different purpose, but guns are designed to either cause harm or create the fear of harm. Guns, like all technology, have become more user friendly and much easier for mass destruction or for accidents to occur more frequently.
As stated before. You'll never get a good response on this. Great points
You are drawing that conclusion based on conjecture not on a statistical proof. The context only shows that you are more likely to be killed with a gun than a knife or a bat - because guns are easy to acquire in the US. And yes, because that's what they are designed to do - kill.
But the only issue that matters are how many people are murdered. The +/- factor in terms of deadliness (gun vs knife) in the grand scheme isn't that meaningful a number. The reality is if you were to remove all guns in the US our murder rate would remain relatively constant. Deaths by accidental discharge, the shooting of unintended targets etc would plummet, obviously, but that's not a huge number to begin with. We don't have a crisis of accidental firearm deaths or bad aim in this country. We have a crisis of poverty and idiots that place little value on human life.
The last sentence is spot on.
As I said in a previous post, we don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a people problem. Too many people in the US are being raised in broken homes and have no values.
It's a combination of things. We do have a gun culture that has saturated the US with more guns per capita than any other country (nearly double that of other countries). Poverty and education also have effects on the violence in cities. I'm not going to blame violence on just guns, poverty, educations, drugs, mental illness, etc. because the majority of people who own guns, are poor, lack education, engaged in drugs, or are mentally ill are not involved in mass shootings.
But the issue being brought to Congress is about young adult men who don't come from poverty and don't come from broken homes who are mentally disturbed, but still able to obtain weapons that inflict damage upon defenseless students. We need to keep the guns out of their heads. This means a comprehensive approach to mental illness and gun control. There are plenty of measures that could be enacted that would not infringe upon law abiding gun owner's rights that are being blocked by lobbyists.
The loser from Sandy Hook could not legally obtain the guns he used in the attack. Sorry.
What measures are those? Banning high cap magazines? This does nothing as evidenced by the previous ban under Clinton.
Banning assault style weapons? That does nothing as evidenced by the previous ban under Clinton, and there is no reason for law abiding citizens to not be able to buy a rifle simply because it looks scary.
Banning assault weapons isn't happening right now, so I'm not going to fight for it. I find them unnecessary, but it doesn't appear that any legislation would pass for that measure to be enacted.
But rms02d had a great plan in this thread. For me, first would be universal background checks. Then nominate someone to head the ATF. Also, provide funding for schools that want to increase safety. There could also be funding to increase gun safety and education.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports