(October 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:How much more strict can the ban be?

Ban them.  As Australia did.  Don't make them.  Don't import them.  Don't sell them.

Simple enough even for a moron like you, dripshit.

Um, not sure what you mean, but Australia has not banned all firearms. They do ban certain types, and the hoops you have to jump through to prove you need them are harder by comparison. But they don't ban things like hand guns or hunting riffles

I would agree nobody needs a spray weapon or war clips the size of Texas.

I would say the difference is they woke up after that 1 mass shooting, and they don't have the sick obsession we do here. And they don't pump them out like candy. In Australia their population actually gives a fuck where they end up.

Now here is where our resident idiots will falsely accuse me of wanting a 1 party fascist state.

Even the family members of the makers of I think it was, the A-R15 said clearly that the inventor never intended the weapon to end up in civilian hands.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-18/fa...se/7521520

But even if this was not the model used in Vegas, it does not matter, what matters are that too many disturbed people regardless of motive, regardless of legal or illegal are getting firearms way too easily.

They want it both ways. They would agree that firearms need to be kept out of the wrong hands, like criminals, the mentally ill, the racist and religiously motivated, then run from their own arguments when the sane agree.

(October 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Also, there's currently about as many firearms as people in this country (yes, 300+ firearms).  Most are owned legally.  It's going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get them out of people's hands in a way that doesn't ultimately make things worse.

A ban affects future weapons.  It does nothing for those that already exist.

Well, some countries that have enacted bans have facilitated the ban by establishing a federally funded purchasing program in case of surplus firearms.  This would most likely be more difficult than any ban, in the US.  Particularly in that it is already possible to effectively ban any given class of firearms, and these bans have withstood countless challenges. 

Meanwhile, to be able to purchase the total stock of a given firearm in this country would require an amount of funding so high that it would be the political equivalent of a cyanide pill.  One assumes that..if it could even be established, a steep discount would be in effect.  I think that the government would find that many gun owners would rather be made into criminals by fiat then give the us government a dollar for a nickel. Especially knowing that the same government which enforces this deal through a ban will then turn around and export those guns at immense profit.

(October 2, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Also, there's currently about as many firearms as people in this country (yes, 300+ firearms).  Most are owned legally.  It's going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get them out of people's hands in a way that doesn't ultimately make things worse.

A ban affects future weapons.  It does nothing for those that already exist.

Well, some countries that have enacted bans have facilitated the ban by establishing a federally funded purchasing program in case of surplus firearms.  This would most likely be more difficult than any ban, in the US.  Particularly in that it is already possible to effectively ban any given class of firearms, and these bans have withstood countless challenges. 

Meanwhile, to be able to purchase the total stock of a given firearm in this country would require an amount of funding so high that it would be the political equivalent of a cyanide pill.  One assumes that..if it could even be established, a steep discount would be in effect.  I think that the government would find that many gun owners would rather be made into criminals by fiat then give the us government a dollar for a nickel.  Especially knowing that the same government which enforces this deal through a ban will then turn around and export those guns at immense profit.

There's also the fact that a lot of these people view themselves as patriots, with their firearms being the only thing keeping a tyrannical government at bay.

regulate the bullets. If a bullet cost £100 each you soon see crime drop.

@Kev
IKR, and, in their defense....such a situation would do little to dissuade them of that notion.  Frankly, it would be difficult to honestly argue that they were wrong if law abiding citizens were forced to liquidate their assets at a steep loss to government for-profit.

@DBP.
Nah, you'd see an increase in handloads and subsequent blackmarket sales. Like we already have as longstanding stability in ammo prices have been disrupted by increased production of 5.56 and .223. The actual cost to manufacture other rounds didn;t increase, it was offset by opportunity loss. Here, in my town, the guys selling handloads are selling them at the same price the retailer used to, and making more money doing it than the retailers did by having cut out a variety of middlemen and taxes.

Ammo is easy to make, not to detract from CR's awesome joke, or the notion that $100 bullets wouldn't reduce crime, in a vacuum. I'm sure it would, but it can't realistically be arranged, at least not in this country, at present. The complicity of manufacturers is required for current regulations to do as much, but the winners in a new market would not be the regulated or complicit manufacturers.

Ugh.

More than 58 dead, more than 500 injured from gunshots or trampling.

Fuck.

(October 2, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Also, there's currently about as many firearms as people in this country (yes, 300+ firearms).  Most are owned legally.  It's going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get them out of people's hands in a way that doesn't ultimately make things worse.

A ban affects future weapons.  It does nothing for those that already exist.

Well, some countries that have enacted bans have facilitated the ban by establishing a federally funded purchasing program in case of surplus firearms.  This would most likely be more difficult than any ban, in the US.  Particularly in that it is already possible to effectively ban any given class of firearms, and these bans have withstood countless challenges. 

Meanwhile, to be able to purchase the total stock of a given firearm in this country would require an amount of funding so high that it would be the political equivalent of a cyanide pill.  One assumes that..if it could even be established, a steep discount would be in effect.  I think that the government would find that many gun owners would rather be made into criminals by fiat then give the us government a dollar for a nickel.  Especially knowing that the same government which enforces this deal through a ban will then turn around and export those guns at immense profit.

The reason it is impossible right now is because of decades of bullshit indoctrination that the sky is going to fall if we do things differently. The far right nutters are actually the few that make up firearm ownership. The vast majority of firearm owners agree we have a problem and want to do something about it. But, because the factories and their corporate heat shield lobby, we are being held hostage.

But the good news is, things are changing. Not sure how long it will take, but w have tons of safty orgs that have popped up and are fighting back.

CSGV, Newtownaction, SandyHook Promise, Mom's Demand Action, Everytown For Gun Safety.

I think if they all pool they can along with the rest of us break the back of the NRA, or at a minimum, stop them from their fear marketing.

But yea, still wonder what the fuck it is going to take for America to wake up out of it's fetish and be pragmatic and reasonable.

Either way, the sane can't back down.

So . . .

would 5,000,000 people get together, hold their noses, and join the NRA now?

5,000,000 new recruits would be 50% of their membership and sufficient as a monolithic voting block to FUBAR the organization from the top down.


I'm thinking it's time.

(October 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 2, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Well, some countries that have enacted bans have facilitated the ban by establishing a federally funded purchasing program in case of surplus firearms.  This would most likely be more difficult than any ban, in the US.  Particularly in that it is already possible to effectively ban any given class of firearms, and these bans have withstood countless challenges. 

Meanwhile, to be able to purchase the total stock of a given firearm in this country would require an amount of funding so high that it would be the political equivalent of a cyanide pill.  One assumes that..if it could even be established, a steep discount would be in effect.  I think that the government would find that many gun owners would rather be made into criminals by fiat then give the us government a dollar for a nickel.  Especially knowing that the same government which enforces this deal through a ban will then turn around and export those guns at immense profit.

There's also the fact that a lot of these people view themselves as patriots, with their firearms being the only thing keeping a tyrannical government at bay.

The far right's definition of patriotism is the submission of all others. It isn't a value of common law or defense of pluralism.

---

(October 2, 2017 at 1:59 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: So . . .

would 5,000,000 people get together, hold their noses, and join the NRA now?

5,000,000 new recruits would be 50% of their membership and sufficient as a monolithic voting block to FUBAR the organization from the top down.


I'm thinking it's time.

The NRA only has 5 million members, while the totality of firearm owners dwarfs that number. We are literally being held hostage by the minority.

I have a weird relationship with guns. I really enjoy them for sport. As machines, they're fascinating and fun to play with. Still, I understand that their intention is not for sport, no matter what people say, and they will always be used for these kinds of shootings. I also understand that people will not have their gun-owning rights revoked. There has to be a willingness to find middle ground. I'm not hopeful about it, so that's all I'll say anymore about gun control here.