Poll: What gun legislation would you support?

[NUance]

fyi,  I check "conservative" although I an currently a registered Democrat.  I actually don't identify with either extreme, and don't particular care for either party.  (I flip-flop every few years.)

 

========================  

 

One gun control option not listed is more regulation by size.  That is, it should be more difficult to buy a pistol than it is to buy a shotgun.  Pistols are more easily concealed which gives rise to problems for police officers, as compared to shotguns and rifles.  Also, I'd be in favor of varying degrees of gun control based on the locale.  The gun control laws should be more stringent in urban areas like inner city Chicago than in rural areas like Cherry County Nebraska.  /jmho

[JJ Husker]

12 minutes ago, Enhance said:

You've probably heard the following Devil's Advocate viewpoints before, and I'm not trying to convince you to my perspective. Instead, I would simply request you reflect on them in comparison to some of your own opinions.

 

1) In regards to violent gun deaths, we are an anomaly among other countries we deem ourselves equal to or better than. We are embarrassingly more violent than the U.K., Germany, prominent Asian countries, etc. Those whom we do match up well with include Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Phillippines. It's pretty poor company to be associated with.

 

2) We deal with inanimate objects all the time rather than the 'sick person' who controls them. That's why we now have seatbelts and seatbelt laws. That's why we limit the amount of Sudafed you can buy. Yet, we don't have many people standing up and saying "the problem is people who want to make drugs, not the Sudafed!"

 

3) It's far more difficult to accomplish tasks like becoming a citizen, getting a driver's license or a passport. Hell, it's significantly more difficult to buy a suppressor (an item that is not dangerous by itself) than it is to buy a gun.

 

Again, not trying to convince you or anyone to my line of thinking, but they're important to consider especially when we go so far to say that someone's opinions on this matter might be "scary." I think all of the things I mentioned here are far scarier than the idea of stiffer gun laws.

 

I'm not against banning the tools that drastically decrease the amount of time it takes to kill and do harm. IMO, if a rifle isn't required for true sportsmanlike hunting then it shouldn't be available. High cap mags and bump stocks....ban em. But I would also like to see our experience and common sense be used to start solving the people part of the problem. If a person is deemed dangerous enough to be placed on a no fly list then gd it they also shouldn't be allowed to purchase any weapon. The problem there is not the policy, it's how we manage and administer that list. High risk, the mentally unstable, convicted felons, even dumb asses who cross the line posting threats of violence...I see no reason we can't and shouldn't limit their access to weapons.

[JJ Husker]

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Why should we be repealing laws that make it harder for mentally unstable people to purchase a gun?

 

Wut? Why in the hell are you asking me that? Did you misread something?

[Enhance]

15 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

I'm not against banning the tools that drastically decrease the amount of time it takes to kill and do harm. IMO, if a rifle isn't required for true sportsmanlike hunting then it shouldn't be available. High cap mags and bump stocks....ban em. But I would also like to see our experience and common sense be used to start solving the people part of the problem. If a person is deemed dangerous enough to be placed on a no fly list then gd it they also shouldn't be allowed to purchase any weapon. The problem there is not the policy, it's how we manage and administer that list. High risk, the mentally unstable, convicted felons, even dumb asses who cross the line posting threats of violence...I see no reason we can't and shouldn't limit their access to weapons.

I completely agree with you. I think addressing that side of gun violence is a worthy cause. Solving the gun violence problem involves a comprehensive solution.

 

Unfortunately, we have dozens of states failing to uphold mental health checks and meet federal standards as it is. I believe fixing these issues (and making them more strict) is a worthy cause but it would probably take a long, long time, especially if we want to address the elusive 'mental health' side of gun violence. 

[BigRedBuster]

18 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

Wut? Why in the hell are you asking me that? Did you misread something?

 

Just trying to figure out the logic behind actions our Dear Leader has taken since taking office.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

The problem with this kind of poll is the loss of detail/nuance. 

 

10 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 I don't think it correct to lump Repubs and conservatives together, not anymore.

 

2 hours ago, Stumpy1 said:

 can we quit talking about "assault rifles".   Assault rifles are already illegal to possess so that topic needs to be thrown out. 

 

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Just for clarity, I would have preferred if you would have just said liberal vs. conservative instead of putting party affiliate in this.

 

These are fair points, but I was trying to follow  the Pew Research poll as closely as I could, to allow a fair comparison between them.  That includes using the exact same language and terminology.  And for the record, the poll uses the term "assault-style" rifles, not assault rifles.

 

With any opinion poll there is going to be some generalization and less specific details.  Otherwise it is too complex to try and see trends.  Especially with a small sample size.  Hell, even trying to separate D/R or Con/Lib is problematic with less than 50 voters!

[HuskerInLostWages]

18 hours ago, commando said:

fwiw.....shouldn't it be longer waiting periods to get the guns?  i thought you could carry them out the store right away now...but to be honest i haven't bought a gun in years.  my old shotgun is plenty for me.    

 

also....to me it's the large capacity magazine that defines what an assault rifle is.   let people have those guns but not the high capacity magazines.  if you can't kill what you are hunting with 3 shots you are not much of a marksman and should have to pass some sort of marksman test before you get another hunting permit.  lol

Yes you can buy and take that day, if you've previously purchased a weapon and at the discretion of the seller and/or the background check that is done on you at the time of purchase. 

 

As for your second point, fish and wildlife only allows you to have no more than a 5 round magazine when hunting, they'll take your gun and fine you up the wazoo if you're out there with a 30 round clip, same goes for shotguns when hunting, 3 maximum rounds are allowed in the shotgun and you are required to make the shotgun only accept 3 rounds, the game warden will verify this by trying to load more than 3, if he can, your shotgun is taken, you are fined and possibly lose your hunting rights on both examples.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I completely agree with you. I think addressing that side of gun violence is a worthy cause. Solving the gun violence problem involves a comprehensive solution.

 

Unfortunately, we have dozens of states failing to uphold mental health checks and meet federal standards as it is. I believe fixing these issues (and making them more strict) is a worthy cause but it would probably take a long, long time, especially if we want to address the elusive 'mental health' side of gun violence. 

 

I agree. It is going to take a lot of time & resources to address that aspect of this issue. In general, in our country, mental healthcare is stigmatized and underserved by our elected officials. This current crop will focus almost entirely on that because it won't focus on regulating guns but rather people.

 

I firmly disagree with Comfortably Numb on this. People aren't the problem. Unparalleled access to guns in our society is the problem.

[Enhance]

13 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

I agree. It is going to take a lot of time & resources to address that aspect of this issue. In general, in our country, mental healthcare is stigmatized and underserved by our elected officials. This current crop will focus almost entirely on that because it won't focus on regulating guns but rather people.

 

I firmly disagree with Comfortably Numb on this. People aren't the problem. Unparalleled access to guns in our society is the problem.

I lean more in your direction as well but I think we can't discount that people are a part of the problem. We need to continue to improve and address the socioeconomic issues that plague parts of our country. Lost in the debate of mass shootings is that the vast majority of gun-related deaths in America happen on a smaller scale in our cities, towns and neighborhoods. Criminals with no business having a gun have almost unbridled access. "Responsible" gun owners are always having their guns stolen out of their homes and vehicles and face virtually no legal ramifications for their ineptitude.

 

I've long been a fan of a modified version of the UK's gun purchasing program (I acknowledge some of it would not fly here and I've detailed my thoughts on it in other threads before, and I don't want to take this thread down that rabbit hole). But, it just baffles me that people can look at the data, compare us to other first world countries that we think we're 'better' than and yet still come away with the conclusion that more guns or not making significant changes is somehow the answer.

[Danny Bateman]

13 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I lean more in your direction as well but I think we can't discount that people are a part of the problem. We need to continue to improve and address the socioeconomic issues that plague parts of our country. Lost in the debate of mass shootings is that the vast majority of gun-related deaths in America happen on a smaller scale in our cities, towns and neighborhoods. Criminals with no business having a gun have almost unbridled access. "Responsible" gun owners are always having their guns stolen out of their homes and vehicles and face virtually no legal ramifications for their ineptitude.

 

I've long been a fan of a modified version of the UK's gun purchasing program (I acknowledge some of it would not fly here and I've detailed my thoughts on it in other threads before, and I don't want to take this thread down that rabbit hole). But, it just baffles me that people can look at the data, compare us to other first world countries that we think we're 'better' than and yet still come away with the conclusion that more guns or not making significant changes is somehow the answer.

 

Well said. I was somewhat ineloquent in my post.

 

What I was trying to say was guns are the bulk of the problem. I agree with what others are saying about addressing mental health or the human side of the issue. But it's when people try and shove the gun side of the equation to the side & focus on anything but that I start to get upset. 

We can't have a serious conversation about this problem until we can talk about both. We have to be able to walk & chew bubblegum on this issue.

 

The sad part of it is the only reason people are so reflexive about not wanting to discuss addressing the gun side of things is because a bunch of hack politicians are afraid to do so. They'll kick the can on anything else as long as guns are safe.

That won't fix the problem in any serious way. We'd just be spinning our wheels. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by dudeguyy

[JJ Husker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Just trying to figure out the logic behind actions our Dear Leader has taken since taking office.

 

Oh, I thought you thought I was proposing doing that. My bad.

BTW good luck if you're trying to figure out any logic with Trump actions 

[JJ Husker]

47 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

I agree. It is going to take a lot of time & resources to address that aspect of this issue. In general, in our country, mental healthcare is stigmatized and underserved by our elected officials. This current crop will focus almost entirely on that because it won't focus on regulating guns but rather people.

 

I firmly disagree with Comfortably Numb on this. People aren't the problem. Unparalleled access to guns in our society is the problem.

 

You can disagree with me if you wish but as Enhanced stated it will take a comprehensive approach. Yes access to some of these weapons is definitely part of the problem but I don't know how you can ignore the fact that it is people acquiring these guns and pulling the trigger. Without people there is no problem whatsoever so yes, people are a primary part of the problem.

 

Edit-

Sorry, I responded before I get to your further clarification.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Comfortably Numb

[BigRedBuster]

Here is something I have been thinking about with all of this.  We have to be thinking about the actual application of any laws we propose.

 

Meaning, we are going to expect law enforcement to actually enforce them.

So, let's say we pass a ban on AR-15s.  How do you specifically expect that to be enforced?  Do we offer a buy back and pay the value of each gun to get a lot off the street?  Then what?

 

If we employment a gun violence protection orders......someone is going to have to actually go confiscate fire arms from someone who has this order placed against them.

 

Pardon me if I have flashbacks of Ruby Ridge.  

 

I actually think this type of thing is in the back of some politicians minds and they don't want to face it.

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here is something I have been thinking about with all of this.  We have to be thinking about the actual application of any laws we propose.

 

Meaning, we are going to expect law enforcement to actually enforce them.

So, let's say we pass a ban on AR-15s.  How do you specifically expect that to be enforced?  Do we offer a buy back and pay the value of each gun to get a lot off the street?  Then what?

 

If we employment a gun violence protection orders......someone is going to have to actually go confiscate fire arms from someone who has this order placed against them.

 

Pardon me if I have flashbacks of Ruby Ridge.  

 

I actually think this type of thing is in the back of some politicians minds and they don't want to face it.

 

 

 

My thought on that is always that we won't go and take guns away. Offer $ for them and don't sell them going forward.

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here is something I have been thinking about with all of this.  We have to be thinking about the actual application of any laws we propose.

 

Meaning, we are going to expect law enforcement to actually enforce them.

So, let's say we pass a ban on AR-15s.  How do you specifically expect that to be enforced?  Do we offer a buy back and pay the value of each gun to get a lot off the street?  Then what?

 

If we employment a gun violence protection orders......someone is going to have to actually go confiscate fire arms from someone who has this order placed against them.

 

Pardon me if I have flashbacks of Ruby Ridge.  

 

I actually think this type of thing is in the back of some politicians minds and they don't want to face it.

 

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

My thought on that is always that we won't go and take guns away. Offer $ for them and don't sell them going forward.

I agree with @Moiraine, offer money for the existing weapons and stop selling them. Then have some amount of time (a year?) for people to be able to trade-in those weapons, and then after that time period elapses confiscate, issue fines and/or criminal charges if/when these weapons are found by the police.

Edited February 28, 2018 by RedDenver