Originally posted by jaden101
Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners.
I agree things like this should be enacted, though I will point out some states do take some measures. For instance in my state..it is only legal to privately sell a gun to someone who has a "Firearm Owners Identification Card". A person cannot get said card without a background check.
Make guns have fingerprint locking so only the legally registered owner can fire it. If you can lock a phone with a fingerprint how hard can it be to lock a gun?
And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.
Originally posted by Surtur
I agree things like this should be enacted, though I will point out some states do take some measures. For instance in my state..it is only legal to privately sell a gun to someone who has a "Firearm Owners Identification Card". A person cannot get said card without a background check.And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.
Is there a mechanism for rescinding the card if a previously legal owner is banned from owning guns after being convicted of a felony? Do they have to hand that card over to the police? Are they easily counterfeited?
As for the technology. It not being "perfect" isn't a reason to not implement a safety feature. Brakes on cars fail on occasion. Is that a reason to not put brakes on cars?
Originally posted by jaden101
Is there a mechanism for rescinding the card if a previously legal owner is banned from owning guns after being convicted of a felony? Do they have to hand that card over to the police? Are they easily counterfeited?
Yes there is, no idea about how easily counterfeited they are,also about gun shows too: Police must conduct background check on prospective buyer before firearms are transferred at gun shows. Seller must check validity of buyer's FOID card.
For a private sale, the seller needs to check for it. I'm not saying the laws can't be better, just saying some states do have some stipulations.
Who's in control of all three branches of the government right now? Who has historically voted for fewer and fewer gun regulations? And if we're doing the standard "he's mentally ill" excuse cos he's a White man, who has voted to lesson restrictions on gun owners who have a history of mental illness?
The answer is indeed "Republicans".
Originally posted by jaden101
As I've said before, you can do numerous things. Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners.
Originally posted by jaden101
Make guns have fingerprint locking so only the legally registered owner can fire it. If you can lock a phone with a fingerprint how hard can it be to lock a gun?
You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.
You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.
Not to mention, on numerous occasions I've had to rescan my fingerprint to access my phone because my finger had something on it, or I didn't hold it to the scanner in exactly the right way, or I was sweaty, or something like that. If this happens with my phone, no problem, I can rescan it or type in the code and it's fine. If it happens with a gun while I'm in a really tense life or death situation, then I'm ****ed. Seems like something that could reduce someone's chances of survival in a life death situation.
And then once again, are you proposing we confiscate all guns that don't have this measure, because if not you'd be leaving a ****ton of the regular guns in circulation and if so you'd be seriously infringing on the property rights of law abiding citizens and you'd fail to actually confiscate anywhere near all of them anyways.
And then of course, if someone can modify a gun with a bumpstock, if people can disassemble and reassemble guns, what's to stop a person whose good enough with this shit from removing or circumventing this modification?
Originally posted by Surtur
Did you feel what you just typed justifies blaming republicans for this? Adorable.
i blame their voting record for the general trend, however i believe that this particular gunman had his firearms license revoked (despite the tireless effort of the GOP to preserve the right of the mentally ill to bear arms.)
Originally posted by Robtard
Who's in control of all three branches of the government right now? Who has historically voted for fewer and fewer gun regulations? And if we're doing the standard "he's mentally ill" excuse cos he's a White man, who has voted to lesson restrictions on gun owners who have a history of mental illness?The answer is indeed "Republicans".
So just to be clear: it's perfectly reasonable to blame Republicans for this? Gotcha.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Good luck enforcing that... seriously. You can legislate it, and I don't think I'd be against that, but that would be such an easy law to circumvent it's ridiculous to suggest it would actually put a serious dent in gun homicide deaths.And could you not see why many people would be opposed to this?
You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.
You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.
Not to mention, on numerous occasions I've had to rescan my fingerprint to access my phone because my finger had something on it, or I didn't hold it to the scanner in exactly the right way, or I was sweaty, or something like that. If this happens with my phone, no problem, I can rescan it or type in the code and it's fine. If it happens with a gun while I'm in a really tense life or death situation, then I'm ****ed. Seems like something that could reduce someone's chances of survival in a life death situation.
And then once again, are you proposing we confiscate all guns that don't have this measure, because if not you'd be leaving a ****ton of the regular guns in circulation and if so you'd be seriously infringing on the property rights of law abiding citizens and you'd fail to actually confiscate anywhere near all of them anyways.
And then of course, if someone can modify a gun with a bumpstock, if people can disassemble and reassemble guns, what's to stop a person whose good enough with this shit from removing or circumventing this modification?
I've addressed every single one of those points before in numerous threads.
Originally posted by Surtur
People keep bringing up the mental illness thing, but as I recall that was because of the wide variety of things that could prevent one from getting a firearm.You act like they are saying they want to put guns in the hands of mentally deranged people.
It's the same thing when pro-choice people go "Those damn republicans aren't in support of welfare and nationalized healthcare!" So ****ing what, a character attack is completely irrelevant to any discussion about anything other than the character. Maybe you can prove a point that someone's a piece of shit but it doesn't actually change the arguments as to whether a specific piece of policy or stance is valid or invalid.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that silly thing that has proven to be TOTALLY inconsequential, eh? (because imagination and fee-fees)
*sigh* You and your pals continually mislead people about this. If a person has been deemed as a danger to themselves OR to others they cannot legally purchase a gun.
Under the Obama rule(that got repealed), information from the Social Security Administration regarding mental disability benefits would be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database for use in firearm background checks.
Even liberal rags like Vox have articles like this:
Why disabilities rights activists like me sided with the NRA on an Obama gun control rule
Ignore the above:
The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. 🙁