If you guys get nothing else from what I post, just remember this; just like with Alcohol and Drugs, Prohibition does not work. If you want to solve this problem, you have to approach it from a different angle.
At 12/14/12 02:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote:
Basically, "Smart guns" Would be an ideal solution is what I'm saying.
And how would you retrofit this technology to work with the estimated 300 million some odd guns currently in circulation as we speak? And how you do you intend to keep this technology from being hacked given how quickly technology is outdated?
At 12/14/12 04:33 PM, Feoric wrote:
I also find it hilarious that there are people in this thread unironically calling for all the teachers to have guns.
I find it hilarious that there are people who would trust their children to the school system for 8 hours a day, but don't trust that same school system to keep their children safe in the event of a spree killing. Even the cops will tell you that they can't be there to protect you 24 hours a day, and that you are ultimately responsible for your own self defense. So why is it unreasonable that somebody on the school grounds be armed when the shit hits the fan?
At 12/14/12 05:21 PM, Feoric wrote:
No, the reality is that there is never going to be any meaningful gun control law ever passed in this country because of the shitty second amendment.
No, the reality is that any gun control law you bunch can come up with will be rendered ineffective by one very simple fact; new gun control laws are aimed at controlling guns yet to be sold, not the guns already in circulation, of which there is an estimated 300 million. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban put the kibosh on the manufacture and resale of new high-capacity clips, but it did not prohibit the possession and resale of clips (or guns prohibited by the bill) already in circulation, thereby rendering the entire ban an ineffective joke, which explains why it had little to no effect on gun crime.
So, instead of writing laws that have little to no teeth which only serve to frustrate the legal acquisition of firearms, why not try coming up with some ideas that will actually work?
At 12/14/12 06:47 PM, JMHX wrote:
In seriousness, can I get us to agree that the current lack of registration, mental health screening and background checking in the gun market now is a serious problem that needs to be fixed?
It was fixed. In the wake of the V-Tech shootings, a law was passed that mandated any information regarding a citizen's mental unsoundness be tied into their criminal background check. While a noble act that was supported by the NRA, this only works if the individual has ever been a legal reason for a person's sanity to be called into question.
So far, none of the shooters have ever seen the inside of a courtroom or been declared mentally unfit, rendering this law moot.
At 12/15/12 03:16 AM, Feoric wrote:
Barring another constitutional amendment, it has to be respected and upheld in the courts.
Actually, the very wording of the amendment means it will never been amended away, and the courts have already voiced their opinion that it's not going away (Heller v. District of Columbia, 2008 reaffirmed the right of the average citizen to have guns, as ruled by the Supreme Court). Keep dreaming.
The trick isn't to take it away, it's to make it expensive and/or harder to obtain while still respecting your right as an American citizen.
Are you aware that it's a violation of the Commerce Clause to legislate against person-to-person gun sales, and as such, any law you write in an attempt to frustrate the average law abiding citizen's ability to purchase a new firearm will have ZERO effect on person-to-person transactions?
So, all someone has to do to sidestep your little idea is... go buy a gun off of a private owner instead of going to a shop where they have to fill out paperwork. Hell, before I bought my Mossberg for home defense, I had coworkers walk up to me with offers to sell firearms they didn't own. I had the chance to buy one gun that would have made every last one of you green with envy, but the guy wanted a month of my pay for it, so I passed.
But, hey, that's the legal situation in America right now. This is reality. Something of which the majority of you arguing for "stronger gun legislation" have little clue about.
At 12/15/12 03:16 PM, Feoric wrote:
Impose harsh penalties to sell weapons from an unlicensed dealer and buying from one.
Harsh compared to what?
Make setting up gun shows much harder than it is now and make it felony to have an unlicensed dealer selling guns and ammo at the show.
Are you absolutely sure that's not a crime already?
Start having more checks on private sales.
And who would be the governing authority on that matter, and how do you propose such a thing should be enforced?
Implement a national gun registry.
Were you not paying attention to how Canada's National Gun Registry is, by and large, a bureaucratic failure and financial black hole?
Besides, what purpose would it serve? Is registering a gun going to magically keep it from being used in a crime?
Control high capacity magazine sizes.
You can't control something that's already out, as I've already mentioned. I've got a catalog right next to me from Cheaperthandirt.com where I can buy high-capacity magazines all day long. And unlike guns, they don't have serial numbers on them, so they can't be traced.
At 12/15/12 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote:
Plus it's logistically easier and low risk to smuggle guns into a country across the border in an 18 wheeler, as opposed to importing Kalashnikovs via cargo planes.
Ah, yes, that's another issue you've got to deal with in this clusterfuck of a problem; the border with Mexico. It's never a problem until it magically is, now is it?