What is your definition and ideas for "gun control?"

[DemVet]

A controversial topic, to say the least. However, reading the many threads here on the DU in the short time that I've been a member, the term "gun control" has been used quite a bit and I get the feeling it is way too broad of a term to use sometimes. People have a different impression of what the term encompasses.

What is your definition of "gun control" and what legislation would you like to see enacted to support your definition? All personally owned firearms banned? Handguns and assault weapons banned? National database enacted? Concealed weapons laws repealed? These are just a few things to consider.

I support the possesion of personally owned firearms, support registration in a national database, support banning the ownership of assault weapons, and support mandatory training in gun safety to get a firearms license. Violation of any laws concerning firearms should be met with SEVERE consequences. :)

[3CardMonte]

1. my definition

of gun control is hitting your target.

All personally owned firearms banned? Handguns and assault weapons banned? National database enacted? Concealed weapons laws repealed?

I would vigorously oppose any attempts at such things.

[TheReligiousLeft]

3. JesseVentura

said the same thing in his book.

[3CardMonte]

6. predates

the "hitting your target" line predates Ventura by many many decades.

[damnraddem]

40. It is essential to ...

ban assault weapons, have an effective national database, and ban concealed carry. It would be ridiculous, and likely unconstitutional, to try to ban all personally-owned firearms. There are acceptable roles for handguns.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

42. Actually

It is much easier to make a 'Constitutional' argument for 'Assault Weapons' than for handguns.

[ma4t]

55. Another question...

...I'd like to see folks address is, "What is your definition of an assault weapon?" I hear many people say we need to ban assault weapons but I'm curious as to what they think such a ban would entail. How many here realize that the current assault weapons ban bans some weapons and fails to ban others with identical magazine capacity and rate of fire based solely on how the gun looks? In essense the current assault weapons ban is a ban on guns that some people think are ugly.

[theivoryqueen]

2. Everyone controlling their guns.

and making them stay out of trouble.

[Wild Bill]

4. What's an assault weapon?

can you define assault weapon for me? Thanks.

[calvinball]

8. words

an assault weapon is any weapon that will assault someone by
itself.  in other words, there is no such thing.  you can use
a pencil to assault someone, it's only a matter of time before
pelosi suggests it be illegal.  

why are we bickering over semantics?  we're losing touch with
the american people.  84% of americans support the
partial-birth ban and all I see here is people crying about
it.  the fringe isn't going to get dean elected.  at least not
by legitimate means.

[FormerMarine6055]

19. Assault weapon

it is a small caliber, magazine fed, shoulder fired firearm that is capable of either semiautomatic firing (one shot per trigger pull) or select fire (multiple shot per trigger pull).

Or according to the media, a firearm that looks scary. Usually defined by the ablility to accept an external standard capacity magazine, a pistol grip (or thumbhole stock depending on the day), a collapsible, telescoping, or folding stock, a bayonet lug, a flash supppresor/grenade launcher. if the firearm is capable of accepting a standard capacity mag, it my only have ONE other feature, usually being the pistol grip.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi FormerMarine6055!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[FormerMarine6055]

24. Hello! nt

[slackmaster]

34. Your definition does not match the federal one or any states'

The federal legal definition of "assault weapon" (more properly "semiautomatic assault weapon" specifies semiautomatic firearms only. Your post sounds like a proper definition of "assault rifle.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode18&STEMMER=en&WORDS=semiautomat+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/18/921.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

Your statement illustrates a widespread misunderstanding that has been deliberately planted in the minds of voters by years of propaganda by gun control fanatics.

[FormerMarine6055]

60. Wrong.

My background with assault weapons is from the Marine Corps.

The military knows more about what constitutes an 'assault weapon' than some lawyer.

And pray tell, what experience do you have with assault weapons?

[damnraddem]

41. No need.

Instead ban automatic firearms. If a hunter wants to be a 'sportsman,' he can damn well mechanically cock a weapon.

[Wild Bill]

43. so you want to ban machine guns?

Already done. Banned back in 1986. No new ones for civilian consumption since then. Before that they were all registration with the ATF due to NFA of 1934.

[HotAndSpicy]

47. automatic weapons

are not available to the general public. So what are we going to do re-ban them?

And the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sporting use of firearms.

[Wild Bill]

49. if anything should be banned it should be hunting firearms.

If it has not been use by the military in the last 150 years it should not be covered by the 2nd amendment. Some hunting rifles and shotguns have been used by the military so they would not all be banned. A side by side shotgun would be banned because it serves no military purpose.

a reasonable limit would be no crew served weapons. IE no heavy machine guns, no tanks, nothing that takes more than one person to operate or maintain.

I think that's what the founding fathers intended. None of this sporting purposes crap.

[HotAndSpicy]

50. I have heard others argue

that only firearms around at the time of the ratification of the Constitution should be allowed.

You like that idea instead?

[Wild Bill]

54. ok as long as ......

you ban everything media wise but the printing press. :)

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Total Abolition

Well, that's what is suggested I mean when I say I want responsible gun control.

[3CardMonte]

7. any other

Constitutional rights and human rights you would like to abolish? Or at least curtail and put restrictions on?

[Beaker]

57. I'm pro-choice.

ban assault weapons and cop-killer bullets, enforce current laws and close the "gun-show loophole". Training, liscensing, and mandatory liability insurance required for a 'conceal-carry' permit.

[DoNotRefill]

58. So, you're only for CCW for the very rich?

"mandatory liability insurance"

That'd be awfully expensive...

[karlschneider]

64. Actually, Beaker is exactly right. And that sort of "insurance" (a bond,

actually) costs less than most any handgun. But I would like to point out something (as about as liberal a person as one can be and have owned guns for 55 years) the way things are going, it could actually come to the point where we might need to defend against if not the federales, others so disenfranchised that they go berserk.)

Sometimes I wonder about how things might have turned out if the Native Americans had been well-armed in the 1700s.

[FormerMarine6055]

62. What is the 'gun show loophole'?

Oh.. you mean private sales between 2 people who do not make a living selling firearms.

Well, how about next time you want to sell your car to someone, you have to go to a dealership and have them do a credit check on the person, and
a driver history check, to see if the person really has a license to drive, or isn't suspended for DUI or something.

Or next time you have a yard sale, every item has to go to a store that sells those items to be transfered.

And don't try to sell your house by yourself...

[Beaker]

71. Ummmm...none of the items you mention-

are designed primarily to kill. If they were, those kinds of checks would be fine with me.
sorry. :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

9. Use both hands

Seriously, though, thoughtful registration programs are acceptable to me. Guns must be regulated according to the second amendment.

In fact, I would say failure to regulate guns would be unconstitutional.

[3CardMonte]

11. Regulated

The term "well regulated" has a wholly different meaning in the language of the day that the Constitution was written in than what today "well regulated" means.

Well regulated, in the language of the Constitution means "well trained". Not "regulated" as regulation, regulate, regulated, etc... means in todays language.

The "original intent" of the Founders is one of the few areas I agree with conservatives on. Original intent should be followed regarding EVERYTHING in the Constitution.

[Walt Starr]

17. I can buy that

Nobody can get a gun without first taking a training course and passing a test.

Makes sense to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Trust

Because I trust the government to administer such a test fairly. Next, we will institute a course to see if you can keep your right to free speech.

[Walt Starr]

61. There's nothing in the consitution about

"well regulated speech".

Read the second amendment. "Well regulated militia", very important verbiage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. There's no right to privacy either

But courts have interpreted the Constitution broadly.

Why is it that on the extreme left everyone wants ALL amendments interpretted broadly EXCEPT the 2nd?

[Walt Starr]

72. There's no language regarding "well regulated privacy" in the constitution

Look at the fourth amendment, no "well regulated" there.

[DoNotRefill]

59. Nobody can vote without first taking a training course and passing a test

doesn't make sense to me.

You shouldn't have to pass a test to exercise a constitutionally protected right, should you?

[Walt Starr]

65. There's no "well regulated" language associated with voting rights

in the constitution.

There is most definitely language indicating a "well regulated" situation with respect to gun ownership.

[BiggJawn]

73. Yes, use both hands if needed...

And education.

[funkyflathead]

10. This should be in J/PS forum but here goes

Anything bigger than .50 cal is prohibited for law enforcement and civilians to own.

Anything below that should be free and legal to own.

[Wild Bill]

13. your right... this will get kicked to j/ps shortly.

how about no crew served weapons? Crew served weapon meaning if it takes more than one person to maintain or fire it. Above 50 cal is already regulated by NFA

[mzmolly]

12. Drugs are illegal, and they are easier to get then any legal substance.

I agree with Howard Dean's reasonable position.

I personally wish people chose not to own guns, but I cant make decisions for other law abiding citizens. Additionally, I realize the numbers indicate that those who own guns are more likely to kill themselves or a family member then defend themselves against an intruder. They are not something I want in my home.

But again, I can't make that decision for my neighbors.

[Bandit]

14. First Place eliminate the terminology "Gun Control"

"Gun Safety" is how we refer to this issue. I don't know about you but I find it difficult to be against "safety". "Control" now that is a different matter entirely. Anyone who feels that guns are already too safe is nuts IMHO.

[bleedingheart]

15. A steady hand?

hee hee hee...

I crack myself up some times....

More seriously...

I don't think registration is all that bad an idea...hell in my state you can't even hunt without a license. If people want to buy guns...let them. If they start shooting at people then they will have to spend some time in the slammer with the tossed salad man...

The only weapons I don't want sold are those meant for military use...machine guns..etc

[sandnsea]

16. Gun responsibility

trigger locks and guns locked up for storage, a license to own a firearm like a driver's license which includes background checks, higher standards on the records firearms dealers have to keep and stiffer penalties if they're broken, closing all sales loopholes including gun shows and private sales, ban on all automatic weapons and semi-autos with large clips, and ban on other weapons of choice. Ban on whatever cop killer bullets, not being able to buy ammunition without the license, ban on concealable guns, and whatever else along these lines as well. And guns shouldn't be made with hair triggers in order to prevent accidents. That's not much different than having childproof caps on medicine.

Hunting rifles, shotguns and certain handguns would be fine. Carrying a concealed weapon if there is proven need is also fine which could also extend to keeping it loaded in the home if there is high need.

[calvinball]

18. "need"?

and who exactly determines this need?  you?

[funkyflathead]

20. Certain handguns??

Elighten us to which ones are okay?

Thompson Center Contenders??

[FormerMarine6055]

23. Ahh trigger locks...

They are a dangerous item. People will think that a trigger lock will keep the gun from firing, whereas, the actual installation of a trigger lock can cause the firearm to go off.

And yes, there have been incidents of people putting trigger locks on loaded guns, in ovens, and just about every other place you can imagine.

[ewagner]

22. After struggling with this issue for a lot of years...

I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1. There are far, far too many guns out there to try to adequately control them in any meaningful way.

2. Background checks are good and should be continued and expanded (closing the "gun show" loophole for instance) but there are still many gun owners out there who will never go through a background check of any kind.

3. We should make the NRA regret their famous words "guns don't kill people; people kill people". We should make penalties for commission of a crime with the use of a firearm so stringent that it is a deterent. In addition, we should increase penalties in terms of criminal negligence for anyone who is reckless with a firearm, anyone who owns a firearm and does not safeguard it and allows someone else to harm themselves or another with their gun.

4. The 2nd amendment may prevent government from disallowing firearms but it certainly doesn't prevent government from taxing the living hell out of them. There should be a firearms tax and it should be a beauty!

Flame away..........

[calvinball]

25. tax?

great, so you support expanding one injustice to enforce
another.  of course, the gubmint will have no problem using
guns to enforce your little "tax"... and they'll
have your support.  at least before it happens to YOU.

[funkyflathead]

26. There ARE taxes on guns

We hunters made the govt put them there many years ago to help fund wildlife conservation and the shooting sports.

[ewagner]

28. didn't know that

...haven't bought another gun since I bought my shotgun 35 years ago........

[FormerMarine6055]

63. Still have it?

If so, take it to the police and turn it in. You don't need that shotgun.

[FormerMarine6055]

27. About #3...

There are plenty of gunlaws on the books that are a supposed 'deterrant', but gues what charges are usually the first ones pleaded down?

Give up? Gun charges.

As to the taxing of them, do you think that the government should tax your right to remain silent? Or how about taxing the hell out of permits for peaceful protests. Or maybe a prayer tax?

[ewagner]

29. Ho Hum

false choices...mixed metaphors.......

[FormerMarine6055]

37. Really?

Remember poll taxes?

[roughsatori]

30. That sounds rather Republican to me: Only rich people get guns

due to the exorbitant "tax" you suggest. I don't think you really want only wealthy to have guns, but maybe you do. To actually promote citizens having to pay for their rights is really a very Republican concept. That is what the Supreme Court ruling also did when they agreed that Corporations count as "individuals" when it came to "rights." Something our Founding Fathers would have taken up arms against.

[funkyflathead]

32. Back in 1934 when they put the $200 dollar tax on machine guns

the rich mobsters and criminals could still afford to pay it.

The shooter who bought his Tommy Gun out of the Sears catalog could NEVER afford to pay the $200 tax and so had to give up their guns to the govt or risk being a felon.

200 was a LOT of money for 1934.

[ewagner]

33. didn't mean it to sound that way

I only used it as an example of the adage: the power to tax is the power to destroy....which is not a republican idea, but a useful regulatory tool. The goal was to eliminate the easy access to firearms.

Just goes to show you how slippery public policy making can be...

[Man_in_the_Moon]

31. Responses

1- True

2- True

3- The make the penalty for the 'criminal use of guns' stiffer is straight out the NRA's handbook.

4- There already is a built in excise tax on every firearm (10% or 11% depending on firearm type) and all the ammunition sold to the public. But to put prospective on it, would you accept a tax to vote, especially one which was 'a beauty'?

[funkyflathead]

35. Don't forget NFA taxes of 200 or 5 dollars

depending on weapon type

[ewagner]

36. go 'ya one better.........

how about a "beauty" of a tax if you don't vote! :evilgrin:

[Man_in_the_Moon]

38. Sure thing

and likewise how about a 'beauty' of a tax if you fail to arm yourself in order to fullfill your requirements as a member of the Militia, just in case you are every called upon to do so.

In order to get an idea of what that would entail in todays world look up 'The Militia Act of 1792', and mentally update it to todays standard, ie the mention of 'musket' would change to 'assault rifle' (and I mean a REAL assault rifle, like a select-fire M-16, not the silly cosmetic things that the 'assault weapon ban of 1994' banned).

[damnraddem]

39. Control of, not elimination of, the private possession of guns.

Gun-control measures should include:
1) strict regulation of gun sales;
2) prohibition on gun ownership by those convicted of violent felonies;
3) prohibition of automatic weapons;
4) requirements for trigger locks and other safety features;
5) requirements for safe storage in homes where children are present;
6) registration of guns;
7) continued gun buy-backs, getting unwanted guns out of circulation; and
8) strong laws about misuse of guns.

[Roark]

44. I'm with you

on everything but number 6. With the current administration, I do not trust the government to have a list of citizens with guns. Hilter did that in Germany before World War 2 and then seized them all before he started the war.

No way am I going to support giving * and his minions a list of every gun in America.

[DemVet]

56. On second thought....

...you may be correct about having a national list.

[slackmaster]

46. Most of your suggestions are already in place

1) strict regulation of gun sales;

Gun Control Act of 1968 established the present system of federally licensed gun dealers; all dealers must have a Federal Firearms License. Permanent provisions of Brady Act enhanced GCA to require background checks on all sales by gun dealers and established National Instant Check System (NICS). GCA also stopped mail-order firearms sales and made it illegal for convicted felons, etc. to possess guns of all types.

2) prohibition on gun ownership by those convicted of violent felonies;

Federal law prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms. (Gun Control Act of 1968.)

3) prohibition of automatic weapons;

National Firearms Act of 1934 created federal registry, transfer tax, and background check for all automatic weapons. Legally owned automatic weapons have been used only two or three times in crimes since 1934.

4) requirements for trigger locks and other safety features;

Many states have adopted "safe storate" or "child access prevention" or CAP laws.

5) requirements for safe storage in homes where children are present;

This is really the same issue as number 4.

6) registration of guns;

Why?

7) continued gun buy-backs, getting unwanted guns out of circulation; and

OK.

8) strong laws about misuse of guns.

We already have sentence enhancements and minimum sentence requirements for people who use guns in the commission of crimes.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

48. buy back programs

arent they just a roundabout way of subsidising the gun industry?

Get rid of the old guns so new guns can be bought?

[HotAndSpicy]

51. No

buy back programs actually end up being excellent ways for criminals to dump guns that have been used in crimes to get rid of them cleanly.

And no study has ever been able to produce a shred of evidence that gun buy back programs reduce crime.

[slackmaster]

53. Intent is to encourage people to get rid of unwanted firearms

IMO a desirable thing to do.

If the firearms turned in are subsequently re-sold on the legitimate market (through licensed gun dealers; with background checks on buyers, etc.) then the "subsidy" you write of is less likely to occur.

[GinaMaria]

52. I'd start with things that pretty much everyone agrees with

Let's face it most of the adult population acts like adults. The whole issue reminds me of being a kid when one of my siblings (it wasn't me I swear) would act up and we would all get punished. One would ruin it for everyone. I think this may be how gun owners feel about the issue. I'm guessing. It is a touchy topic.

I think most people agree that kids should not have guns. I think most people agree that the mentally ill should not have guns or people with a criminal past.

I think different areas of the country have different needs too. Who needs a gun to hunt in downtown Chicago? :-)

Hunting in some place like West Virginia may be an economical way to feed your family. A fourteen year old with a gun in West Virginia may be viewed differently than a fourteen year old in Chicago with a shot gun.

We need to look past our own backyards and understand that the issue may be different in a different part of the country. Just seems to me, that the starting point should be discussion, not just here but in all sorts of forums.

I think the fear issue (brought up in BFC) has merit and needs to be addressed. We have more fear than we can effectively manage. Fear of guns, fear of not having guns.

We do need to move from a culture of fear to a culture of hope. There also needs to be a little more respect for different opinions.

As long as someone's gun ownership does not harm or infringe upon my rights, not my business. I respect your choice re: guns. I would ask that my choices be respected too. Should I have a child, he/she will not be allowed to play at someone's house if there is a gun in that home. No debate on that one, no argument. I've seen kids with gun shots during my nursing career. I never want to see another one.

There's no easy solution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Mentally ill

Even this area where we agree is dicey.

If you allow the government to decide who is, "mentally ill" they could well conclude that anyone who desires arms for self defense is paranoid and needs to be denied them.

Plus, with the wild over-medication of our society these days, how do you define this term?

[veganwitch]

66. background checks, registration and classes.

those seem sensible to me.

[FormerMarine6055]

67. So, to excercise a right,

You need a background check, be registered, and take a government approved class?

What if you had to do those things to be allowed to go to church?

Or start a newspaper or internet site?

[killbotfactory]

68. Being able to aim

and hit a target...

The only gun control laws I'd support are:
Banning felons from buying guns...
Making people pass a test about gun laws before they can buy one...
Making machine guns extremely difficult to aquire.

but I'd rather see politicians address the root of the problem, like the drug war or poverty, than pass more gun control laws.

[RuB]

74. My idea would require a constitutional amendment.

You want to own a gun? Join the military. Then you can own a gun. Then you can own a gun after you get out of the military.

[solinvictus]

75. Gun Control

Essentially, I am opposed to more government regulations of guns and gun ownership. Here in Tennessee, we have to take an approved gun safety course prior to obtaining a concealed/carry permit. That's not unreasonable.
Registration of firearms has consistently been used for confiscation. If you perform a Google search using "Turkey & Armenia & genocide", there's a site that shows the progression of actions by both the Ottoman and post-WW1 government that led to the mass deportation and murder of millions of Armenians. The first action of the Turks was the registration and then confiscation of ALL weapons; guns, knives, etc. I prefer the mass of law abiding citizens to possess effective weapons to keep the government less dishonest than it is now. Can you imagine an unarmed populace with the Repukes in office? Mandatory unpaid overtime, OSHA and environmental regulations gone, unlimited price hikes on basic commodities, unfettered profit for the elite.