Another school shooting

[michigancat]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

[Emo EMAW]

Has the added benefit of pricing guns out of the hands of people

Guns that fund over $500MM of wildlife conservation every year (and that's just the federal money).

[steve dave]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

yeah, this seems reasonable. auto owners fund auto programs with licensing, plate, etc taxes. set up something similar.

[Emo EMAW]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

The difference is driving is not a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution, which makes it much easier to regulate. 

FWIW, I'd personally be willing to pay a higher tax on guns/ammo for a trade-off: extend the P-R act to include more outdoor gear (including the REI type stuff), and require the non-fishing/hunting outdoors folks to purchase a license to access certain public lands.  Like the hiker/bird watcher types.  And guarantee that all those funds go towards conservation.  As it is now the hunters/fishermen fully fund the outdoors in this country, something that benefits the general public. 

[michigancat]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

The difference is driving is not a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution, which makes it much easier to regulate. 

FWIW, I'd personally be willing to pay a higher tax on guns/ammo for a trade-off: extend the P-R act to include more outdoor gear (including the REI type stuff), and require the non-fishing/hunting outdoors folks to purchase a license to access certain public lands.  Like the hiker/bird watcher types.  And guarantee that all those funds go towards conservation.  As it is now the hunters/fishermen fully fund the outdoors in this country, something that benefits the general public.

Criminals that buy ammo support wildlife conservation, too.

And lol at hunters/fishermen "fully funding the outdoors".

[Emo EMAW]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

The difference is driving is not a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution, which makes it much easier to regulate. 

FWIW, I'd personally be willing to pay a higher tax on guns/ammo for a trade-off: extend the P-R act to include more outdoor gear (including the REI type stuff), and require the non-fishing/hunting outdoors folks to purchase a license to access certain public lands.  Like the hiker/bird watcher types.  And guarantee that all those funds go towards conservation.  As it is now the hunters/fishermen fully fund the outdoors in this country, something that benefits the general public.

Criminals that buy ammo support wildlife conservation, too.

And lol at hunters/fishermen "fully funding the outdoors".

They absolutely are.  While that is tough to prove, you certainly must agree they are paying more than their fair share?

[michigancat]

And the logic that it should be more difficult to regulate literal killing tools than transportation devices because "it's in the constitution" is absurd. I know it's the reality but if that's how we use the constitution we're pretty rough ridin' stupid.

[michigancat]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

The difference is driving is not a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution, which makes it much easier to regulate. 

FWIW, I'd personally be willing to pay a higher tax on guns/ammo for a trade-off: extend the P-R act to include more outdoor gear (including the REI type stuff), and require the non-fishing/hunting outdoors folks to purchase a license to access certain public lands.  Like the hiker/bird watcher types.  And guarantee that all those funds go towards conservation.  As it is now the hunters/fishermen fully fund the outdoors in this country, something that benefits the general public.

Criminals that buy ammo support wildlife conservation, too.

And lol at hunters/fishermen "fully funding the outdoors".

They absolutely are.  While that is tough to prove, you certainly must agree they are paying more than their fair share?

No, I do not think they are paying their "fair share". And I would rather gun owners pay for background checks on private party sales and registration fees and things like that and let the public pay for wildlife conservation.

[Emo EMAW]

Do you need a background check to buy a car?  For example, someone with a revoke/suspended driver's license, could they not buy a car? 

Guns are already pretty regulated.  More regulated than cars and cigarettes which kill an order of magnitude more people every year.

[steve dave]

And the logic that it should be more difficult to regulate literal killing tools than transportation devices because "it's in the constitution" is absurd. I know it's the reality but if that's how we use the constitution we're pretty rough ridin' stupid.

"well regulated" is also in there which you can argue is the only part of the second amendment that isn't being properly handled currently.

[Emo EMAW]

I don't want to ban guns at all. I think you could significantly reduce gun deaths without banning them.

(I'm sure we've been over this before...) How would the regulation you have in mind be funded?

The gun owners would pay for a lot of it, (through things such as registration and license fees) but I'm sure the general population will pick up much of the tab.

Non-starter.  If the public is the beneficiary of the regulation, the public should pick up the whole tab.  Guns are already taxed enough.

Car owners/drivers pay for their safety inspections, licenses and registration, seems reasonable for gun owners to do the same.

And really, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals SHOULD be at the top of mind of gun owners if they want to preserve gun ownership long-term. Doing nothing will backfire. (Not literally)

The difference is driving is not a protected right guaranteed by the Constitution, which makes it much easier to regulate. 

FWIW, I'd personally be willing to pay a higher tax on guns/ammo for a trade-off: extend the P-R act to include more outdoor gear (including the REI type stuff), and require the non-fishing/hunting outdoors folks to purchase a license to access certain public lands.  Like the hiker/bird watcher types.  And guarantee that all those funds go towards conservation.  As it is now the hunters/fishermen fully fund the outdoors in this country, something that benefits the general public.

Criminals that buy ammo support wildlife conservation, too.

And lol at hunters/fishermen "fully funding the outdoors".

They absolutely are.  While that is tough to prove, you certainly must agree they are paying more than their fair share?

No, I do not think they are paying their "fair share". And I would rather gun owners pay for background checks on private party sales and registration fees and things like that and let the public pay for wildlife conservation.

Evidence?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I can't believe the libtards haven't introduced legislation to prevent the public from acquiring missile defense systems. Dont they care about our safety????  Particularly since Pubs clearly obviously candidly believe missile defense ownership is protected under the second amendment. Seems like low hanging fruit that could get them the momentum they need to finally disarm all americans - except the mentally handicapped, of course.

I'm also surprised Mir hasn't dropped in with his usual "nice strawman" quip

I would enjoy this. A lot. Some Democrat needs to introduce this legislation pronto.

[Emo EMAW]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way. 

[steve dave]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way.

well, we've done it 27 times before.

[DQ12]

start a Guns for Stunz program where if you turn in your gun then ksuno1stunner is your wingman for a rousing alpha male night on the town.

[steve dave]

start a Guns for Stunz program where if you turn in your gun then ksuno1stunner is your wingman for a rousing alpha male night on the town.

I have an old 16 gauge with no bullets that would be turned in day 1

[Emo EMAW]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way.

well, we've done it 27 times before.

Ok just do that then, problem solved!

[DQ12]

start a Guns for Stunz program where if you turn in your gun then ksuno1stunner is your wingman for a rousing alpha male night on the town.

I have an old 16 gauge with no bullets that would be turned in day 1

i think i'd probably buy a gun just to turn it back in.  sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

[Emo EMAW]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way.

well, we've done it 27 times before.

Ok just do that then, problem solved!

The last one only took like 200 years to ratify so just please be patient and let the process work.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So Rusty, your proposal is adding background checks for private sales? Why would that help? How many of these mass shootings would that have prevented? How many criminal injuries or deaths result from guns legally purchased in private sales without background checks?

None of these are rhetorical questions, btw - I really don't know the answers. But my suspicion is that the numbers are quite low.

Ok, and one slightly more rhetorical question: if background checks are so beneficial, how is it that these lunatics seem to keep passing them?!

I think the genie is out of the bottle on this issue, and has been ever since... the Second Amendment. The only thing I can think of that might meaningfully reduce gun crimes would be to (1) Repeal the 2A, (2) shut down all gun manufacturers in the US, (3) ban imports, and (4) engage in a massive efforts to buy back and/or confiscate and destroy guns. Even that would take decades. Since that really isn't possible, maybe we should focus on more closely tracking the mentally ill and increasing security instead.

[michigancat]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way.

Nothing I've proposed would be unconstitutional. There precedent has already been set.

[steve dave]

Maybe just change the Constitution?  That seems like the easiest way.

Nothing I've proposed would be unconstitutional. There precedent has already been set.

yeah, "well regulated" is already in there. I like your plan rus.

[DQ12]

maybe an Arms for Farms program whereby libtard hayseeds like Steve Dave can put their farms where their mouths are and turn over some farms in exchange for some guns or something. 

[michigancat]

So Rusty, your proposal is adding background checks for private sales? Why would that help? How many of these mass shootings would that have prevented? How many criminal injuries or deaths result from guns legally purchased in private sales without background checks?

Background checks for private sales combined with mandatory registration would reduce the number of guns that enter the black market. It probably wouldn't do much to reduce mass shootings but could help the overall criminal injury rate.

Hopefully, a new education and licensing program would filter out some of the mentally ill that conduct mass shootings, but perhaps more importantly, it could help reduce the insane number of accidental shootings of and by children every year and keep guns out of the hands of the suicidal.

We should also look at ways to make guns safer, such as better/mandatory locks or perhaps fingerprint recognition safeties. (This isn't a complete list, and these aren't necessarily feasible at this time.)

None of these things will instantly reduce gun deaths, but it's a start and something gun owners should support before God forbid something worse than Sandy Hook takes place and people actually want to do something more drastic.

[DQ12]

here's a thought -- get the thumbprint and name of people who purchase ammunition.  cross check it with a criminal database.