Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

I don't want to remove the chance either, but I wouldn't use that one in ten million chance of success as a selling point for gun rights. Home defense is a far more reasonable need imo.

I'm horrified that Home Defense Shooting is even a subject.

Bah ants... Home Defense fucks ants up lol.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

The only areas of high gun shooting is in bad neighborhoods. Ban guns in these area except for store owners and home defense.
Guns are not the problem. People who reach for a gun for the most basic disagreement are.

@mram wasn't arguing for border control in the states. (s)he was saying that gun control in a specific area is meaningless if you can trivially circumvent it by driving for half an hour.

To be honest, I really don't know what the solution is. I genuinely think the problem in the USA is not so much guns, but your attitude to them.

In the developed world, plenty of other countries have lots of guns, but only in the states does this cowboy attitude with guns prevail. I have plenty of friends with guns, but none of them have them for "home defense". The very idea that I'd need a gun to protect myself is alien to me. It's the 21st century, not the wild west.

Possibly the genie is out of the bottle in the US. The argument of "gun control just means that only criminals have guns" might well be true. But if that is the case, how is it that countries like Ireland or New Zealand where even the police force don't carry guns* have lower firearm homicide rates (~1/10th the rate of the US). Surely we should have been overrun by lawless gangs of armed criminals while the police stand helplessly by?

*NZ Police do have access to firearms, but they don't carry them as a rule.

I feel bad for the kid and the dog because it's obviously neglected. However it made my day seeing a cat so defensive over its property. I would love to see an F1 Savanah go to town on an attacking dog. Seriously, I think modern breeding is going to create some awesome home defense cats.

I'm pretty pro-gun. I grew up in Kansas in a home with a .22 rifle, and had many friends that had a much more extensive arsenal in their homes. One "gun nut" friend had somewhere around 10 high-powered rifles, roughly the same number of shotguns, 3-4 pistols, and even an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) with extensive clips, flash suppressors, etc. purchased before the "assault weapons ban". That family was very responsible with their guns -- all locked in gun cabinets, fully unloaded, separate from ammo whenever not in use, sons all trained to use them responsibly, etc. I think a family/individual should have the right to do all that stuff. For defense, for hunting, as a farm "tool" (a firearm can be invaluable for protecting livestock, eliminating varmints and pests, etc.), for "home defense" (the least practical/intelligent use of firearms by a civilian IMHO), or even just for entertainment / target shooting -- whatever your reasons I think you should be able to legally purchase just about any kind of firearm.

That being said, the NRA goes completely off the deep end with some of the things it opposes. The Brady Bill, waiting periods, background checks, etc.? I'm fine with those "limitations", and I think that the NRA loses legitimacy putting up a fight against very reasonable measures like those. I understand the threat of slippery-slope issues, but waiting periods and background checks aren't going to bring the whole system down and definitely would do more good than harm.

All that being said, while I somewhat disagree with Jim Carrey's message in the "Cold Dead Hands" video, I liked it and could appreciate it as a good piece of satire expressing his point of view. The Fox News blowhards need to "Lighten up, Francis".