6 ms·

What kind of gun control should there be?

panarky 7y ago
1) Nobody can own a gun until they complete 40 hours of training in usage, safe handling, safe storage, tactics and law, and demonstrate proficiency in each area to an impartial test proctor. 2) Each weapon purchased must include a certificate of insurance that will reimburse $10,000,000 to any innocent individual harmed by that weapon. 3) No restrictions on cosmetic appearance of weapons, as long as personal firearms are incapable of firing more than 10 rounds in 20 seconds.
- flyingfences 7y ago
  1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. 2) Any bolt-action rifle is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Any revolver is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. A single-shot long gun is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds.
  - tlb 7y ago
    1) States today require a written proficiency exam. (At least, California does). I don’t see the argument for why any reasonable level of making sure people know how to use their guns properly is unconstitutional.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      Things like large license fees and mandatory expensive classes will disproportionately impact poor people and minorities. Not everyone gets a week of paid vacation so that they can take a class. Some would argue that this is by design. It actually reminds me a lot of voter ID laws (and imagine if you had to pay $400 and spend 40 hours studying your voter guide to vote in an election!). Regardless, it's not clear to me that this 40 hour class would be the best way to save lives. Accidental gun deaths have already been rapidly decreasing for decades. Assuming the classes were equally effective, you'd save an order of magnitude more people by requiring someone to take a 40 hour swimming class before setting foot in a pool.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    > 1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. Only under an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment. We already have a large number of restrictions on gun ownership [0] (see question 11 for a convenient list) in addition there are whole classes of 'arms' that private citizens can't own, it's impossible to own a modern automatic weapon (built in the last 20 years). All of those are largely accepted exemptions to a literal reading of 'shall not be infringed' in the Second Amendment and have also survived direct Second Amendment challenges. [0] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - BuckRogers 7y ago
    The 2nd Amendment only covers weapons available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those weapons are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that nuclear weapons and bazookas were to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. We did ban most of those weapons (a 2nd Amendment violation according to the unrestricted interpretation), but we didn't quite get the regulation for the remain for guns and magazine sizes.
    - flyingfences 7y ago
      The 1st Amendment only covers publications available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those ideas are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that wrongthink and hatespeech were to be covered by the 1st Amendment.
      - BuckRogers 7y ago
        Your imagined "right" to having a dirty nuke is not equivalent to freedom of speech, and you're fully aware of that.. merely frustrated about it. The schools are still open for enrollment, it's better to develop your mind than imagining what you can do with weapons of war. Ironically enough, gun culture fetishes that lead people to think weapons are solutions to their problems are being defeated by those of us utilizing our 1st Amendment rights. The weapons you hold so dear to your heart can no longer be used as a tool of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the rest of us from utilizing our 1st Amendment right any longer, outside of a mass shooting. No matter how much that pains you.
- emilfihlman 7y ago
  >1) Nobody can own a gun until they complete 40 hours of training in usage, safe handling, safe storage, tactics and law, and demonstrate proficiency in each area to an impartial test proctor. 40 hours is pretty fucking lot. Are you sure you'd not be okay with like 4 hours lecture and exam based on the lecture and then like 5 two hour training sessions? >2) Each weapon purchased must include a certificate of insurance that will reimburse $10,000,000 to any innocent individual harmed by that weapon. Ah, you are not actually honestly in this, you are just trolling. >3) No restrictions on cosmetic appearance of weapons, as long as personal firearms are incapable of firing more than 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Sigh.

1) Nobody can own a gun until they complete 40 hours of training in usage, safe handling, safe storage, tactics and law, and demonstrate proficiency in each area to an impartial test proctor. 2) Each weapon purchased must include a certificate of insurance that will reimburse $10,000,000 to any innocent individual harmed by that weapon. 3) No restrictions on cosmetic appearance of weapons, as long as personal firearms are incapable of firing more than 10 rounds in 20 seconds.

flyingfences 7y ago
1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. 2) Any bolt-action rifle is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Any revolver is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. A single-shot long gun is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds.
- tlb 7y ago
  1) States today require a written proficiency exam. (At least, California does). I don’t see the argument for why any reasonable level of making sure people know how to use their guns properly is unconstitutional.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Things like large license fees and mandatory expensive classes will disproportionately impact poor people and minorities. Not everyone gets a week of paid vacation so that they can take a class. Some would argue that this is by design. It actually reminds me a lot of voter ID laws (and imagine if you had to pay $400 and spend 40 hours studying your voter guide to vote in an election!). Regardless, it's not clear to me that this 40 hour class would be the best way to save lives. Accidental gun deaths have already been rapidly decreasing for decades. Assuming the classes were equally effective, you'd save an order of magnitude more people by requiring someone to take a 40 hour swimming class before setting foot in a pool.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > 1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. Only under an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment. We already have a large number of restrictions on gun ownership [0] (see question 11 for a convenient list) in addition there are whole classes of 'arms' that private citizens can't own, it's impossible to own a modern automatic weapon (built in the last 20 years). All of those are largely accepted exemptions to a literal reading of 'shall not be infringed' in the Second Amendment and have also survived direct Second Amendment challenges. [0] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- BuckRogers 7y ago
  The 2nd Amendment only covers weapons available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those weapons are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that nuclear weapons and bazookas were to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. We did ban most of those weapons (a 2nd Amendment violation according to the unrestricted interpretation), but we didn't quite get the regulation for the remain for guns and magazine sizes.
  - flyingfences 7y ago
    The 1st Amendment only covers publications available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those ideas are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that wrongthink and hatespeech were to be covered by the 1st Amendment.
    - BuckRogers 7y ago
      Your imagined "right" to having a dirty nuke is not equivalent to freedom of speech, and you're fully aware of that.. merely frustrated about it. The schools are still open for enrollment, it's better to develop your mind than imagining what you can do with weapons of war. Ironically enough, gun culture fetishes that lead people to think weapons are solutions to their problems are being defeated by those of us utilizing our 1st Amendment rights. The weapons you hold so dear to your heart can no longer be used as a tool of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the rest of us from utilizing our 1st Amendment right any longer, outside of a mass shooting. No matter how much that pains you.
emilfihlman 7y ago
>1) Nobody can own a gun until they complete 40 hours of training in usage, safe handling, safe storage, tactics and law, and demonstrate proficiency in each area to an impartial test proctor. 40 hours is pretty fucking lot. Are you sure you'd not be okay with like 4 hours lecture and exam based on the lecture and then like 5 two hour training sessions? >2) Each weapon purchased must include a certificate of insurance that will reimburse $10,000,000 to any innocent individual harmed by that weapon. Ah, you are not actually honestly in this, you are just trolling. >3) No restrictions on cosmetic appearance of weapons, as long as personal firearms are incapable of firing more than 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Sigh.