Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.
No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.
 

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,394
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.
Yea, I have to agree it's a bit much. I'd be disqualified as well FWIW.

The way I look at it is the purpose of a gun is to kill. You want to own one? Sure, no problem. But it literally exists to kill - there shouldn't be a low bar to own one.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
1,713
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.
I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
1,456
Location
Madisonville
Offline
My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.
Do you have any realistic ideas because requiring military service to own a gun isn't one?
 

DJ1BigTymer

Yo! We got some hats now...
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
744
Reaction score
1,210
Age
48
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Yea, “We cannot clearly credit the law with the nations recent drop in gun crime” from a 2004 study isn’t evidence that it didn’t work.
Exactly, we don't know what we don't know.

There's no telling if that old law would have stopped this or other mass shootings, but what if it stopped one, wouldn't it matter to someone? I bet the families of the recently murdered wouldn't be in unmeasurable pain right now. One of the arguments against new measures have always been that it would not stop theses shootings from happening, how do they know?

There are hundreds of ambiguous gun laws on the books already and there's no way to know if any of them has indeed stopped a mass shooting because all we know about is the individuals who were able to acquire a gun and complete their murder spree. What's the harm in rescinding those toothless laws and crafting sensible gun reform laws with stricter background checks, magazine limits, and red flags that would deny access for some?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #44
OP
brandon

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
2,091
Offline
My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.
I think we also have to do something about the number of guns already in circulation.

I’ve been beating the drum for a gun buyback for years. Perhaps mandatory for some types of weapons (AR-15s, most semi-autos, and the like) and optional for all guns. Offer higher than market price so gun owners are fairly compensated and incentivized not to stash their guns away illegally.

Follow it up with restrictions on manufacture of new weapons.

If we reduce the number of guns, we reduce access to guns. If we reduce access to guns, we reduce gun violence. It won’t be perfect, and it won’t stop every gun death, but it WILL help. A lot.
 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
785
Reaction score
1,391
Age
45
Location
San Antonio
Offline
View attachment 4068
We live in a very different environment today than we did in 2004. I don't remember mass shootings like we have today in 2004, much less the period that study likely covered (1994-2002). To say that an assault weapons bans wouldn't be effective today, when that is literally the weapon just about every one of the mass murderer uses is to be blind to our current reality. Sorry, but resting on some study from 2004 is not a convincing or sufficient for the the argument you're assuming we all should believe because of that tweet.

I'm also willing to bit that the conclusions of that 2004 study are likely different than represented in that article/tweet. Just a wild hunch.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.
The focus need to be training and improving gun technology. I really think some sort of fingerprint or bio tech that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than the owner would be a step in the right direction. This would play a big role in preventing accidental shootings in the home, particularly for kids. That's a big problem. Smart guns could also prevent an individual from shooting another person.

I realize the gun lobby and activists would howl at this, but something has to happen, and this would be a compromise between banning guns entirely and making them safer for the general public.

I actually like shooting guns at the range and skeet shooting as well. I don't own a gun currently, but would purchase one when my kids are out of the house.

I like technology, so I hope that can be a way to make guns safer.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
1,456
Location
Madisonville
Offline
We live in a very different environment today than we did in 2004. I don't remember mass shootings like we have today in 2004, much less the period that study likely covered (1994-2002). To say that an assault weapons bans wouldn't be effective today, when that is literally the weapon just about every one of the mass murderer uses is to be blind to our current reality. Sorry, but resting on some study from 2004 is not a convincing or sufficient for the the argument you're assuming we all should believe because of that tweet.

I'm also willing to bit that the conclusions of that 2004 study are likely different than represented in that article/tweet. Just a wild hunch.
Considering that mass shootings account for less than 1% of the yearly 16k-20k shootings a year, why would you think reinstating the assault weapons ban would make much of a difference?
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Virginia
Offline
Can you post any studys that showed it worked?
There are a number of studies that show the effect of various gun control laws and homicide rates.



https://watermark.silverchair.com/mxv012.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAqIwggKeBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKPMIICiwIBADCCAoQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMfCroWmZHNL-k8x-yAgEQgIICVaei2MHHtDVJAVUTM4uCua67kVvLO3bDeCvM7F8A5OYdg5BmYnPXLzkQy5hKoZCcnegGVy_IpRcoQHCxidL1Y7Pmx_y5PYnfi_45yFz0WbxNibBhQSkO5tEQLZ53fxjdspqP3avGAppZwqLBU4MVbi_9P0MKmYy_cYcC8UKsvqpPln0TQNO3EJMNyewoOzKSSE77mX469JTEOLbhQgT--RuFQ4W5X_I4FRwyTfpbGfFgMQpYuEKODQzEJUtaJq_25UWKYobFnEA0oEkrZaDItjDtPcnCmJ3vlcjuxwRcvitJhlI4DIoxeq9Q5_CG7E3176FzyWZQ6sjbr1ylqg91TIEiVuq1kVWP2bm2DHK6VFL2_Hj95zn6dVi_DHYqZDIWb0Bs8NTcUPlFcNxsoRYYDb1zxm5Ixo-kbwlgX5XMknxMwnEVVXfgrhPZGNHmrfHS7U5THaHBuw35ZCCYG7zw5Qns975tiqaIoT_PTIEty4s8Neou9NBYP9IFQvPTv3SitxBuJYkJTviR_TItDxGzac-TXkYINQLKi1ha6vfIMrik787VL8yZAZ5-Wn-LQ46sRfitby1sEq-R26UPpRsuVsRyoqT_f9Yg6pS_RQHNml-rAYIuwM4NC7IMOGZPm444jzwFSRCF0N-NNeLOL8vp3xLU58rdJbMosPCKzgZRcpjq-_tJLLgoTLo71DBUI1qBPqvUjlxGeuaXYMuLsSSzBTEV93Xr1ZaMATvB0pr3N39c5PLSSFUTVv9w5lDYmCmAbaEggsMAt3KU3HJTH3cTItwfPxKBnA

It's not a clear cut science of course. But basically, when you control who can own a gun, and reduce the number of guns in circulation, homicide rates go down.

It has to pass constitutional muster which I won't claim to be an expert on - we clearly all agree that we can't let any one own any type of weapon, so it's basically a matter of degree.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #52
OP
brandon

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
2,091
Offline
Considering that mass shootings account for less than 1% of the yearly 16k-20k shootings a year, why would you think reinstating the assault weapons ban would make much of a difference?
Here’s another guy making a solid argument that we need to ban handguns, too.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.
The US has already had a draft and it didn’t work. In fact, that was one of the main reasons Vietnam vets were unfairly criticized, and cruelty treated by an populace divided by 10 years of taunts, name-calling, and insults. You can try and argue “ Well, let’s try and make it fairer and more equitable this time”, which may work to a limited extent but then have you have to deal with “consciousness objectors”, “medical and college deferments and we’d be in the same socio-economic shirtstorm we faced during the Vietnam War situation. Your term of mandatory military service still equals draft and reinstituting the draft is tantamount to political suicide. The last time it was even remotely discussed was about 15-16 years ago during Iraqi/Afghan wars under Bush 43’s administration.

Typically also, liberal Democrats tend to have an anti-militarist streak, so just automatically doing a 180 and saying they support mandatory two-year military service legislation would make for “hypocritical” optics.

And why should we take legally purchased hunting weapons out of the hands of law-abiding Americans and put them in hunting lodges and make them feel like second-class citizens who should be shunned, ostracized from family, friends, and co-workers because they “OMG, they own dangerous guns, their weird and paranoid, maybe we should keep our distance from them”. It send s a sign that their government believes them to be irresponsible like frat age college kids and it justifies even more government intrusion into our personal lives.

They bought those forking guns, legally bought with universal background checks and with no prior mental illness history. Why would want to target them and confirm what right wing critics have always said you would do? Take away their guns. all in the name of restricted, Swiss-styled gun legislation and “protecting public safety
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.
National Service still sounds like a draft just with mandatory strings attached, “either/or” and if it’s compulsory, some people might resent it because they didn’t voluntarily decide to work in federal agencies or in FEMA or in the Peace Corps and if this service feels forced or pressed upon them, “for the good of your country” it loses its authenticity.

In Cuba, they have similar laws where every adult young male or female is FORCED to do 3 years of work benefitting the state and the UK abolished National Service in the late 50’s because of its class bias where mostly working-class Brits were the ones overwhelmingly chosen to fight in the Korean War and in Kenya, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Malta, or Cyprus against insurgent, independence groups fighting from dying, splintering, post WWII British empire. It doesn’t work in the long haul in most calculations you try to enhance, redefine, or improve it to “make it fairer”.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom