Law Gun Safety Legislation: Signed into Law

[panem-et-circenses]

What's the point?

The purpose of such laws is to reduce the amount of resells, many of which end up in places like Chicago, a place I know people are worried about. It gets rid of the creepy middle-men, according to some lawmakers.

 

[spamking]

No no no...in your first line of this post you're already inventing shit.

I am? So I'm inventing stuff by inferring what I did based on your comment regarding when it would be proper to sue a car manufacturer vs a gun manufacturer?

One of the main purposes of a gun is to incapacitate people.

Interesting. So why support the need to sue a manufacturer if someone misuses a gun?

No purpose of a car is to incapacitate people.

Doesn't the purpose solely rely on the intent of the person using either the firearm or car?

 

[spamking]

The purpose of such laws is to reduce the amount of resells, many of which end up in places like Chicago, a place I know people are worried about. It gets rid of the creepy middle-men, according to some lawmakers.

If you can find a way to do so without creating a registry . . . . sure . . . but I haven't seen a way to implement any of that without one.

But we're not prosecuting straw purchasers now. Why do you think this would suddenly make that happen?

 

[spamking]

Compelling argument. Would read again.

Happy to help dude . . . you're more interested in trolling.

 

[spamking]

Keep voting for people who consistently defund mental health services while you suggest mental health is the issue.

I'm happy to shift how I vote to address one of the root causes of this problem . . . I'm fine with shifting funds for better access to mental health and improved school security.

 

[Greta Thunberg]

Nobody hates the US Constitution, but some hate the way wimpy cowards hide behind it while kids who have no say in it get slaughtered.

So do you really think, all American gun owners are inherently just a bunch of "wimpy cowards"?
Or, is this just another bad attempt to bash Americans and up your embarrassing SD post count?





Also, remind us all which country with the honorable and studious government you reside in?

 

[Greta Thunberg]

Strawman.

That's all they have.

Wrong. We have the guns.



Try and keep up.

 

[spamking]

Personally, I think a tiered system has some merit. Classify firearms based on how many shots they can fire within a pre-determined time period into 3, 5, 10 tiers. The number is secondary to the point.

What does this mean? Magazine capacity restrictions? The rate of fire depends on many different factors. The more some people train the better/faster they are so their rate of fire will be much different. I'm not sure you could reasonably use that as a means of classification.

No permits? No licenses? No blessing from local law enforcement agencies?

New owners can only buy from Tier 1. After X years without adverse incidences, which could range from speeding tickets to felony arrests, they graduate to the next tier.

So our access to and means of taking advantage of this particular right depends on how well we behave socially? Why in the world would a speeding ticket play any role in your ability to exercise your 2A rights?

Set the tiers appropriately far apart and you don't have to restrict gun types or magazines or licenses to carry.

I thought you wanted to set the tiers based on rate of fire? How do you do that without using gun type and magazine capacity?

Instead, your newest buyers are stuck with low danger firearms and gradually prove that they're responsible enough to own more dangerous options.

Low danger firearm? Are you referring to a single shot rifle? 6 shot revolver? Rifle/pistol with removable magazine? They're all dangerous in the wrong hands and if the user has intent to harm others.

Selling to someone beyond their tier level is a major felony resulting in 25 years in jail. Firearms are registered and sellers have to provide proof that their weapons are still in their control or records of who/when they were sold.

We're not enforcing straw purchases now. We're not sentencing criminals who use a firearm to commit a crime at any significant level now. Who do you foresee properly enforcing something like this?

And a registry? No way. Based on how some states have handled that data there is absolutely no way the vast majority of gun owners would be okay with that being "out there".

 

[Dalarna3]

Raise the age to 21 if anything.

 

[Siver!]

So do you really think, all American gun owners are inherently just a bunch of "wimpy cowards"?
Or, is this just another bad attempt to bash Americans and up your embarrassing SD post count?





Also, remind us all which country with the honorable and studious government you reside in?

Nope, but you could look at any number of people blocking changes in the name of the second amendment.

I'd specifically look at the cowards voted into power. Governors and the like, who only block change because it would cost them money.

I'm from the UK. Our government sucks, but we don't need guns for a straw man argument that we might need to defend ourselves from them. Politicians are inept, but no threat.

 

[andnowweknow]

Wrong. We have the guns.



Try and keep up.

And?

 

[Siver!]

Wrong. We have the guns.



Try and keep up.

It's working really well.

 

[panamaican]

What does this mean? Magazine capacity restrictions? The rate of fire depends on many different factors. The more some people train the better/faster they are so their rate of fire will be much different. I'm not sure you could reasonably use that as a means of classification.

No permits? No licenses? No blessing from local law enforcement agencies?



So our access to and means of taking advantage of this particular right depends on how well we behave socially? Why in the world would a speeding ticket play any role in your ability to exercise your 2A rights?



I thought you wanted to set the tiers based on rate of fire? How do you do that without using gun type and magazine capacity?



Low danger firearm? Are you referring to a single shot rifle? 6 shot revolver? Rifle/pistol with removable magazine? They're all dangerous in the wrong hands and if the user has intent to harm others.



We're not enforcing straw purchases now. We're not sentencing criminals who use a firearm to commit a crime at any significant level now. Who do you foresee properly enforcing something like this?

And a registry? No way. Based on how some states have handled that data there is absolutely no way the vast majority of gun owners would be okay with that being "out there".

I see that the primary points were a little difficult to follow. I suspect that you started typing in response to individual sentences rather than the concept as a whole.

There are no restrictions on what type of firearm people can own but there is a tier system on when they can access them. I didn't set tier levels with any specificity because that's a detail that can be worked out if the broader concept makes sense. Did you notice that I didn't specify the number of tiers either? I also didn't set time periods or the criteria for advancing between tiers, remember?

As far as how well people perform in society? We already do that -- the ATF lists 9 distinct groups that are not allowed to possess a gun or ammunition, the most obvious being convicted felons. You and others already accept the concept that people who behave poorly should have lesser access to firearms (personally, I don't think being felon should deprive anyone of their rights but I'm in the minority on that one).

I'm not particularly interested in nitpicking the details at this level of the concept. Here's the baseline -- It doesn't outlaw any firearms. It doesn't prevent anyone from owning any firearms. It doesn't penalize anyone for owning/carrying a firearm. It will interfere with people like the Uvalde shooter buying the most dangerous weapons he could get his hands on and then immediately using those weapons against others. Good responsible people keep owning what they want to own.

I don't particularly care if you like the idea but at least read it and understand it more thoroughly before your assess it so I don't have to explain broad ideas multiple times. There are no details on how many tiers, how to determine what goes in which tiers or how long between tiers. It's a surface level concept.

 

[HomeCheese]

That's your right to choose to do so . . . many of us choose something different.



Of course you (as someone who doesn't want to own a gun) would feel this way.



To make you feel safer? Nope.



Live with what? New red flag laws?

What do you need a high capacity magazine for? Seriously.

Would you be scared if it was illegal to have one?

 

[HomeCheese]

I'm happy to shift how I vote to address one of the root causes of this problem . . . I'm fine with shifting funds for better access to mental health and improved school security.

Shifting funds from where exactly? What programs are you willing to sacrifice for this?

If I understand it correctly, you are a conservative willing to support social programs because it will cause less crime resulting is less need to restrict access to firearms? So promoting social programs to protect gun rights?

This jibe with your perspective?

 

[Rand M Arthur]

Reopen the sanitoriums should he on there too TBH

 

[rob mafia]

i'd only be in favor of another bullshit restriction if there's ACTUALLY a compromise.

eg: "Expanded background checks" (whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean) for nationwide constitutional carry/reciprocity.

because the anti-guns want to bitch about "compromises" after we've already given up 4896896458745 things and have gotten jack shit in return.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Anyone advocating for gun control is a tool and doesn't correctly comprehend reality. This world is survival of the fittest, no amount of legislation can change that.

The only thing legislation like gun control does is put people who are dumb enough to go along with it, at a disadvantage.

Imagine talking about "survival of the fittest" in the aftermath of a school shooting. Should the kids have been armed or...?

 

[Greta Thunberg]

Politicians are inept, but no threat.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Personally, I think a tiered system has some merit. Classify firearms based on how many shots they can fire within a pre-determined time period into 3, 5, 10 tiers. The number is secondary to the point.

New owners can only buy from Tier 1. After X years without adverse incidences, which could range from speeding tickets to felony arrests, they graduate to the next tier. Set the tiers appropriately far apart and you don't have to restrict gun types or magazines or licenses to carry. Instead, your newest buyers are stuck with low danger firearms and gradually prove that they're responsible enough to own more dangerous options.

Selling to someone beyond their tier level is a major felony resulting in 25 years in jail. Firearms are registered and sellers have to provide proof that their weapons are still in their control or records of who/when they were sold.

It doesn't do anything about lagacy weapons but that's a different question for a different day.

The main feature that create the more firearms in such shootings are semi-auto fire and detachable magazines. Anything gun that has those will be effective in a mass shooting. Problem is that describes a massive chunk of firearms. Cleary semi-auto guns with detachable magazines are common use guns so I don't know that you could regulate them in the necessary way to drastically reduce mass shooting's given the Heller decision.