Guns In America

[Washington Resistance Army]

Gun control is an absolute necessity.

There needs to be a long-term plan to not just control firearms, but to change the culture. We can't end gun violence unless we end the gun culture and stigmatize gun ownership. Pair that with a compulsory gun buyback program for certain types of dangerous weapons.

I support gun ownership for hunters/sport shooters - with an appropriate weapon (not a military style weapon). But beyond that - i.e. personal protection, etc - I don't really see a valid reason for gun ownership.

I admire the UK's gun laws, but I think something more like Australian gun laws are more appropriate.

I live in New Zealand, and the gun laws are fairly decent, although I'd bring in a mandatory gun registry.

What exactly would constituent a "dangerous weapon" and how on earth would you make a buyback compulsory?

[Atlanticatia]

Gun control is an absolute necessity.

There needs to be a long-term plan to not just control firearms, but to change the culture. We can't end gun violence unless we end the gun culture and stigmatize gun ownership. Pair that with a compulsory gun buyback program for certain types of dangerous weapons.

I support gun ownership for hunters/sport shooters - with an appropriate weapon (not a military style weapon). But beyond that - i.e. personal protection, etc - I don't really see a valid reason for gun ownership.

I admire the UK's gun laws, but I think something more like Australian gun laws are more appropriate.

I live in New Zealand, and the gun laws are fairly decent, although I'd bring in a mandatory gun registry.

What exactly would constituent a "dangerous weapon" and how on earth would you make a buyback compulsory?

Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc.

You would tell people they have 12 months, for example, to surrender their weapons in return for compensation. If they don't, then they will be charged with a criminal offence and have their weapons confiscated without compensation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What exactly would constituent a "dangerous weapon" and how on earth would you make a buyback compulsory?

Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc.

You would tell people they have 12 months, for example, to surrender their weapons in return for compensation. If they don't, then they will be charged with a criminal offence and have their weapons confiscated without compensation.

Automatics? Are you fucking serious? The weapons that have been used in two crimes in 82 years? Once by a cop? You would really go after those? This is why people on your side have no support from gun owners.

And how exactly do you intend to fund this buyback? When I get my new AR in a few days I'll have spent about 12,000 dollars on guns, unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing. Not to mention you won't even know who has guns or not because there's no registry.

[Atlanticatia]

Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc.

You would tell people they have 12 months, for example, to surrender their weapons in return for compensation. If they don't, then they will be charged with a criminal offence and have their weapons confiscated without compensation.

Automatics? Are you fucking serious? The weapons that have been used in two crimes in 82 years? Once by a cop? You would really go after those? This is why people on your side have no support from gun owners.

And how exactly do you intend to fund this buyback? When I get my new AR in a few days I'll have spent about 12,000 dollars on guns, unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing. Not to mention you won't even know who has guns or not because there's no registry.

If you read the post, you'd see that I said "Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc"..not just automatics. But I don't see a valid reason for ownership.

Regarding funding: Well, you wouldn't be confiscating every weapon, obviously. It'd only be certain types of weapons, and likely some groups would likely be able to keep certain prohibited weapons while there is a ban on further purchases on them. You could just raise taxes or borrow the money to fund it, like any other government program.

"unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing." Do you know what the word 'compulsory' means? You wouldn't exactly have a choice. If you don't comply with a law that says you're mandated to turn in a certain type of firearm, you would face prosecution and confiscation of your weapons without compensation.

And I did say that any major gun control plan would be long-term. You'd need to start small, and establish a gun registry. Before we get violent weapons off the streets and out of use, we have to know where they are. I'm not saying that we should do a gun buyback tomorrow. But 15, 20, 30 years from now? It could work.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Automatics? Are you fucking serious? The weapons that have been used in two crimes in 82 years? Once by a cop? You would really go after those? This is why people on your side have no support from gun owners.

And how exactly do you intend to fund this buyback? When I get my new AR in a few days I'll have spent about 12,000 dollars on guns, unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing. Not to mention you won't even know who has guns or not because there's no registry.

If you read the post, you'd see that I said "Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc"..not just automatics. But I don't see a valid reason for ownership.

Regarding funding: Well, you wouldn't be confiscating every weapon, obviously. It'd only be certain types of weapons, and likely some groups would likely be able to keep certain prohibited weapons while there is a ban on further purchases on them. You could just raise taxes or borrow the money to fund it, like any other government program.

"unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing." Do you know what the word 'compulsory' means? You wouldn't exactly have a choice.

And I did say that any major gun control plan would be long-term. You'd need to start small, and establish a gun registry. Before we get violent weapons off the streets and out of use, we have to know where they are. I'm not saying that we should do a gun buyback tomorrow. But 15, 20, 30 years from now? It could work.

It doesn't matter if you aren't just targeting automatics, going after them instantly makes the plan laughably stupid because it has no basis in reality.

Lets say you just ban AR's and offer 900 dollars for them at buybacks. Estimates put AR platforms in the US at several million owned, lets go with 5 million for this hypothetical. You would have to spend 4.5 billion dollars on that weapon alone.

I do know what it means, and I would have a choice. For one there's no gun registry so unless a bunch of cops kick in my door and ransack all of my stuff I'm pretty good on that front and then you run into the problem of people who simply wouldn't enforce such nonsense.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Gun control is an absolute necessity.

There needs to be a long-term plan to not just control firearms, but to change the culture. We can't end gun violence unless we end the gun culture and stigmatize gun ownership. Pair that with a compulsory gun buyback program for certain types of dangerous weapons.

I support gun ownership for hunters/sport shooters - with an appropriate weapon (not a military style weapon). But beyond that - i.e. personal protection, etc - I don't really see a valid reason for gun ownership.

I admire the UK's gun laws, but I think something more like Australian gun laws are more appropriate.

I live in New Zealand, and the gun laws are fairly decent, although I'd bring in a mandatory gun registry.

No. If you want those laws where you live in New Zealand, that's fine. We'll stick to what we have here in the US.

[Spirit of Hope]

Automatics? Are you fucking serious? The weapons that have been used in two crimes in 82 years? Once by a cop? You would really go after those? This is why people on your side have no support from gun owners.

And how exactly do you intend to fund this buyback? When I get my new AR in a few days I'll have spent about 12,000 dollars on guns, unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing. Not to mention you won't even know who has guns or not because there's no registry.

If you read the post, you'd see that I said "Handguns (in most cases), automatic weapons, certain semiautomatic weapons etc"..not just automatics. But I don't see a valid reason for ownership.

What do you consider a valid reason for ownership? I would put "sports shooting" as a valid reason for ownership, because I enjoy shooting. You don't really need to ban automatics, they are already de facto banned by the fact that no new ones can be produced or imported, and acquiring the few that exist is remarkably hard, needing local law enforcement to sign off on it. Banning handguns at least makes sense, they are the major killer, but what are the "certain semiautomatics?"

Regarding funding: Well, you wouldn't be confiscating every weapon, obviously. It'd only be certain types of weapons, and likely some groups would likely be able to keep certain prohibited weapons while there is a ban on further purchases on them. You could just raise taxes or borrow the money to fund it, like any other government program.

Well there are an estimated 100 million hand guns, you have banned them all. Even at a buy back price of $100 that is 10 billion dollars, that is a good bit of new taxes. And borrowing money means you have to either raise more taxes later, or cut other programs.

"unless I get at least what I spent on the weapons back I won't even consider taking part in a buyback and other gun owners on NSG have said the same thing." Do you know what the word 'compulsory' means? You wouldn't exactly have a choice. If you don't comply with a law that says you're mandated to turn in a certain type of firearm, you would face prosecution and confiscation of your weapons without compensation.

Fifth amendment of the United states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." You would have to pay a fair price. This also leads to the fun question of how you are going to know who has what guns, as there is no universal record of who owns guns in the United States.

And I did say that any major gun control plan would be long-term. You'd need to start small, and establish a gun registry. Before we get violent weapons off the streets and out of use, we have to know where they are. I'm not saying that we should do a gun buyback tomorrow. But 15, 20, 30 years from now? It could work.

See you will get nearly the same opposition to a registry plan as to a buy back, because gun owners aren't stupid and see that this is what some people are going for.

I would like to point out that it really isn't the weapons that are the issue, but the people. 40% of all homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by persons with a felony record, aka people not allowed to have guns already. 70% of homicides are carried out by persons who have an arrest record. We also know that about 40% of all guns used in crime are acquired through strictly illegal means.

Then there is the fact that research tends to show that homicides is connected to income inequality, and the United States has serious income inequality issues. Education is similar, research has shown better education and community connections at a young age does a lot to deter future criminal activity.

[Zakuvia]

I would like to point out that it really isn't the weapons that are the issue, but the people. 40% of all homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by persons with a felony record, aka people not allowed to have guns already. 70% of homicides are carried out by persons who have an arrest record. We also know that about 40% of all guns used in crime are acquired through strictly illegal means.

Then there is the fact that research tends to show that homicides is connected to income inequality, and the United States has serious income inequality issues. Education is similar, research has shown better education and community connections at a young age does a lot to deter future criminal activity.

Bloody hell, Spirit, I love you, and you spared me all the time it would have taken me to type that all out. It's all true. Once you remove the incentive to do gun violence against people, gun violence goes down, period. Also, having better weapons safety vetting and training should, I think, be mandated. Maybe a biannual or even yearly course for people with children. Teach them that keeping their loaded handguns in an unlocked drawer they're not sleeping on is probably a stupid, STUPID idea. I love my mother, but I could have easily blown my own damned brains out if I had been under the age of reason and had picked up her revolver. Don't get me wrong, it made me feel better about going to college/the military knowing that she was carrying, but I still can't imagine how it would have devastated her if either my brother or I would have AD'd ourselves to an early grave.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
I support gun ownership for hunters/sport shooters - with an appropriate weapon (not a military style weapon).

All weapons could easily fall under the category of 'military style'. The military uses, and has used, a wide variety of firearms configured in a wide variety of ways in all manner of caliber and action.
The category itself is absurd.

[Big Jim P]

...
I support gun ownership for hunters/sport shooters - with an appropriate weapon (not a military style weapon).

All weapons could easily fall under the category of 'military style'. The military uses, and has used, a wide variety of firearms configured in a wide variety of ways in all manner of caliber and action.
The category itself is absurd.

What do you expect when they call sport or defense rifles "assault weapons", and "high-powered"?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

All weapons could easily fall under the category of 'military style'. The military uses, and has used, a wide variety of firearms configured in a wide variety of ways in all manner of caliber and action.
The category itself is absurd.

What do you expect when they call sport or defense rifles "assault weapons", and "high-powered"?

Well, if it makes a bang and your head goes kersplat, it's obviously a high-powered weapon.
Therefore bats and cars are assault weapons.

[Viking Confederacy]

For the 17th time since he was sworn in as US president, Barack Obama attempted on Thursday to make some sense of an act of mass gun violence.

There is a name for people who waste their time trying to "make some sense" of completely senseless acts. Those people are called idiots.

There is also a name for people in power who try to infringe on people's rights while lacking the legal authority to do so. Those people are called tyrants.

The only legal way for the government of the United States to ban or otherwise severely restrict private gun ownership by the People of the United States is by proposing, passing and and promoting the ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To date, the tyrants in our government have been either too lazy or too afraid to pursue this path.