What sort of gun control would you support?

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,298
10,973
1
SE PA
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

And to be honest, a 19 yr old should have to take an approved of civics course, with a passing grade, in order to be issued a voter registration card. Too many idiotic immature idealists with no concept of reality voting.
 
Last edited:

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
None, we have enough. However I do want CCW reciprocity and the removal of SBRs and SBSs along with suppressors from the NFA. Also the sale of new fully auto weapons under the current NFA rules.
As for the age limits, I'll support 21 years of age but then we do the same for voting, entering into contracts, etc. If we are pushing back adulthood we go all in.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,674
12,521
1
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

I propose anyone who is registered as a D should have their guns taken away. That bill should pass 100-0 in the Senate.
 

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
12,919
7,445
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
None, we have enough. However I do want CCW reciprocity and the removal of SBRs and SBSs along with suppressors from the NFA. Also the sale of new fully auto weapons under the current NFA rules.
As for the age limits, I'll support 21 years of age but then we do the same for voting, entering into contracts, etc. If we are pushing back adulthood we go all in.
Suppressors as NFA is so freaking stupid. Prime example of emotion in gun control laws....
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,972
22,031
1
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

Not a bad idea, but if the parents signed off and they used the gun irresponsibly, what penalty or liability would the parents experience? And I assume by “parents” you mean legal custodians.

And what about single parents households?
 

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2002
7,168
6,157
1
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public)
 

Fayette_LION

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 28, 2004
10,417
7,170
1
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

And to be honest, a 19 yr old should have to take an approved of civics course, with a passing grade, in order to be issued a voter registration card. Too many idiotic immature idealists with no concept of reality voting.
Only thing I would support is banning plus 10 round magazines and disallowing the purchase of bullet proof vests. Register all current plus 10 round magazines. It's a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public)
1. exists 2. hell no 3. not unless all adult decisions and restrictions are set at age 21 including voting. 4. Good luck with elective enforcement of laws. 5. See 4. 6. another hell no

None of these will stop street crime, however LE should be held to the same restrictions including security for our politicians. We are citizens, not subjects.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
Only thing I would support is banning plus 10 round magazines and disallowing the purchase of bullet proof vests. Register all current plus 10 round magazines. It's a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to own a kevlar vest? Are you saying I don't deserve the right to protect myself? And no on any magazine size limits. Explain how these will reduce crime and make myself safer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,298
10,973
1
SE PA
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks - this is not far from current reality. So I doubt it would make a hill of beans difference.
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds - would not support limits on magazine capacity. Again, wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic - would not support a ban of gun type. Again, wouldn't make a hill of beans difference. It isn't the type of gun that is important, it is the type of person that is important.
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun - Yes
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years - Yes
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public) - That is currently the case w/ the exception of private sales, I believe.
Above in RED

Gun control has to concentrate on the individual, not the gun. And simply registering a gun would not be a deterrent for someone willing to conduct an act that has a high likelihood of their own death. That the gun was registered means nothing to that person. I guarantee the guns used by this shooter in Tx were registered. That did absolutely nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

PSU87

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
12,919
7,445
1
Florida, where the weather suits my clothes
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public)
2).....Hard no.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
21,194
30,193
1
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public)

4 of these are absolutely useless. Two others exist in some states but often DAs just let the criminal off the hook for fear of overfilling prisons and accusations of racism.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
4 of these are absolutely useless. Two others exist in some states but often DAs just let the criminal off the hook for fear of overfilling prisons and accusations of racism.
All true , compromise means I get stuff. None of those involves me getting stuff.
The universal back ground check means my kids have to pass a background check or my cop friend can’t borrow my hunting rifle . You literally would have to get a background check done before letting your friend try out your pistol or rifle at a range .
These compromises are put out there by non gun owners who think they’re pro gun , not a person familiar with guns who uses them on a regular basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and JR4PSU

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2002
7,168
6,157
1
1. exists 2. hell no 3. not unless all adult decisions and restrictions are set at age 21 including voting. 4. Good luck with elective enforcement of laws. 5. See 4. 6. another hell no

None of these will stop street crime, however LE should be held to the same restrictions including security for our politicians. We are citizens, not subjects.
Will address the street crime first: the harsh penalties to keep crime rates low. While there are a ton of criminals out there, there are significantly less willing to actually take it to that level. The longer those types are in prison, the less there are of them who will commit the crimes. California's crime numbers after 3 strikes was passed dropped off a cliff, within a couple of years, murder rates dropped by half (they were over 4k when it passed and it dropped into low 2000s and ultimately high 1ks until 2020 saw a surge). 3k doesn't get all of the credit, tough gang statutes and gun enhancements also helped out. Violent crime dropped in raw numbers by about a third as well, this despite the fact that Ca added about 9 million people (1/3 of its population)
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,006
2,945
1
None. We have a culture problem with shitty parents and schools.
DAs arbitrarily enforce all different kinds of laws. Let them enforce existing gun laws first. Additional gun laws are to score political points and take more rights away from people who don’t commit gun crimes.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
Will address the street crime first: the harsh penalties to keep crime rates low. While there are a ton of criminals out there, there are significantly less willing to actually take it to that level. The longer those types are in prison, the less there are of them who will commit the crimes. California's crime numbers after 3 strikes was passed dropped off a cliff, within a couple of years, murder rates dropped by half (they were over 4k when it passed and it dropped into low 2000s and ultimately high 1ks until 2020 saw a surge). 3k doesn't get all of the credit, tough gang statutes and gun enhancements also helped out. Violent crime dropped in raw numbers by about a third as well, this despite the fact that Ca added about 9 million people (1/3 of its population)
I like harsh penalties for street crime, good luck with that. Already someone is screaming racism .
 

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2002
7,168
6,157
1
4 of these are absolutely useless. Two others exist in some states but often DAs just let the criminal off the hook for fear of overfilling prisons and accusations of racism.
I am under no illusion that we are going to eliminate gun violence in this country. However, making things a bit more difficult for the person who wants to do evil is a necessity, there is just no getting around it. For the traditional street crime, it has to be with harsh sentences that are enforced. For the random acts, there has to be some regulation.
And while its not gun control, there probably have to be more Mental Health locked facilities, which will require $$. Perhaps the Republicans can get out in front of this and list a number of government programs to scrap to fund them....
 

Lion8286

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
15,412
22,360
1
I like this topic, hope to hear some constructive ideas.
1) universal background checks
2) magazine capacity limited at 6 rounds
3) age 21 to have a semi automatic
4) 7 years mandatory minimum sentence for felon in possession of a gun
5) Use of a gun during a felony, minimum 20 years
6) All sales of guns have to be registered (however, the list is not public)

Am just curious for anyone with knowledge on the matter. If all the above were in place at the time, how many mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years (someone can go back further) would have been prevented? Which ones and why??
 

psualt

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2014
3,047
3,210
1
I’d be okay with raising the age to 21 for semi automatic purchases. Don’t think enough would support higher that. I know there are parents out there with 18 year old kids that have taught respect when handling a gun but there are too many losers out there that learned about guns from Call of Duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and JR4PSU

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
16,172
5,392
1
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

And to be honest, a 19 yr old should have to take an approved of civics course, with a passing grade, in order to be issued a voter registration card. Too many idiotic immature idealists with no concept of reality voting.
First - I do not support banning all guns.

I am in favor of:
ban on all automatic long guns - Assault weapons - only used to kill people. Maintain ban on machine guns.
introduce much stronger backgtround checks for purchase
ban all 'carry' provisions. Bring back Wyatt Earp and others that required all guns be turned in when enterering town - Dodge City etc
require all gun owners pass a test to ensure they know gun safety
Gun registration similar to auto registration - insurance required as well

Perhaps a few others all of which would be very much in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,125
55,941
1
I am under no illusion that we are going to eliminate gun violence in this country. However, making things a bit more difficult for the person who wants to do evil is a necessity, there is just no getting around it. For the traditional street crime, it has to be with harsh sentences that are enforced. For the random acts, there has to be some regulation.
And while its not gun control, there probably have to be more Mental Health locked facilities, which will require $$. Perhaps the Republicans can get out in front of this and list a number of government programs to scrap to fund them....
agreed. the issue is a) our divisive race/politics and b) our poor health care

let me take "b" first. Of course, mass shootings weren't that big of a deal two weeks ago when black people were killing white people. But both parties have clearly stoked the flames of racism and that is resulting in race based murders.

second is health issues. Most of these shooters are mentally ill (as are most of the homeless). In the USA, we have tried to "normalize" mental problems to give those affected a "normal life". I am aware of family members that work tirelessly to keep their mentally ill kids at work and living semi-independently. Don't believe me? Just go to the checkout line at any local Walmart. This guy, like the sandy hook guy, were just nuts. Maybe we could have limited the death toll by a few by limiting mag capacity (ok, you just pack more) or whatever but it certainly won't curtail the vast majority of shootings which are inner-city drug deals. We simply are not going to be able to go door=to-door and take guns away or make people register them: Pipe dream. So the most effective measure is preventative and that is improving mental health by a looong shot. And that probably means nationalizing mental health care/insurance. No carrier wants to touch it.

The problem isn't guns. it is our system of health care, competitiveness and exploitation of race. you don't see any other nation harping about race like we do. But here we are. I'd love to see what Steve Kerr is willing to give up to get more gun control. Everyone else is the idiot but he's smart right? Why doesn't he do something more meaningful than entertain people? When you get right down to it, nothing is going to change because nobody will compromise. The left isn't going to stop stoking race/hate and call inner city crime what it is. Hell, two years ago they were taking guns away from police and defunding them....they arrested people that tried to defend their property.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
that is unfortunately true. That is where people like Steve Kerr have turned a blind eye.
When we had the harsher sentencing, that was the cry. If you recall he was one whining about police officers at schools, demanding they get rid of them just a few years ago.
When I have more time I will tell my cousin's story, she had an incident in rural Pa. and the response time was over 45 minutes. One reason why I will never agree to any more limits. If we face a home invasion any restriction to me ability to defend myself can be deadly.
My wife has a suppressed .22 caliber pistol , she can't shoot anything heavier due to an arm issue. She's very recoil sensitive. It's a 10 shot Walther. I would use a suppressed AR 15 with special loads for a short barreled rifle or my pistol with a suppressor. The short barreled AR is actually more maneuverable with a suppressor than the pistol. We use the suppressors to protect from hearing damage, however both are still very loud, just not hearing damage loud.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,298
10,973
1
SE PA
First - I do not support banning all guns.

I am in favor of:
ban on all automatic long guns (automatic long guns and "short" guns are currently banned, unless you have a special permit) - Assault weapons - only used to kill people. Maintain ban on machine guns.
introduce much stronger backgtround checks for purchase (like what? I'm serious. This statement means NOTHING until you put meat on that bone)
ban all 'carry' provisions. Bring back Wyatt Earp and others that required all guns be turned in when enterering town - Dodge City etc
require all gun owners pass a test to ensure they know gun safety (I have no problem with this)
Gun registration similar to auto registration - insurance required as well (all gun purchases, except private, are registered. and what, exactly, would this insurance cover?)

Perhaps a few others all of which would be very much in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision.
Above in RED
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,795
23,310
1
I know most of the libs would prefer a complete ban on all weapons.

Beyond current laws on the books, I could be talked into requiring anyone under 21 that is currently legally allowed to purchase a gun, to require parental permission to purchase a gun. A lot of these school shootings are by "kids" under 21. Requiring parental sign-off would at least put one road block up for "pre-adult" purchases by immature individuals.

I would not accept limits on the types of guns any more than we currently have. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is keeping guns out of t hands of those with disturbed minds. And you can't rely on society as a whole to catch those individuals. They have to be caught by those close to them, their parents. And requiring parental approval for a 19 yr old to purchase a gun is an easy tool for a parent to be able to exercise.

And to be honest, a 19 yr old should have to take an approved of civics course, with a passing grade, in order to be issued a voter registration card. Too many idiotic immature idealists with no concept of reality voting.
I don't know what they are, but we definitely need to make more laws that criminals won't follow.
 

GregInPitt

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
13,215
9,370
1
We have plenty of laws already, just they aren't enforced, especially in Dem-led cities.
Yep, Dems defund the police, fail to support the police. Then when there are newsworthy crimes try and use that to pass more laws that they won't enforce.

Rinse and repeat.

211 gun murders in Chicago alone so far this year. Should the Dems be crying about that? Oh, Chicago already has about the most restrictive gun law on the planet.

Oh, and regarding the Buffalo shootings, Buffalo is still in NY last we checked. Also the land of gun laws.

How about supporting the police and just keeping guns out of hands of people identified with mental illness? Dems must be afraid they all would be classified as mentally ill by most standards............
 

Gnat91

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2016
3,687
4,683
1
Jacksonville FL.
I’d be okay with raising the age to 21 for semi automatic purchases. Don’t think enough would support higher that. I know there are parents out there with 18 year old kids that have taught respect when handling a gun but there are too many losers out there that learned about guns from Call of Duty.
I was 17 years old firing M16's in the military. IF....I wanted to buy one, I shouldn't be allowed?
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,360
23,389
1
agreed. the issue is a) our divisive race/politics and b) our poor health care

let me take "b" first. Of course, mass shootings weren't that big of a deal two weeks ago when black people were killing white people. But both parties have clearly stoked the flames of racism and that is resulting in race based murders.

second is health issues. Most of these shooters are mentally ill (as are most of the homeless). In the USA, we have tried to "normalize" mental problems to give those affected a "normal life". I am aware of family members that work tirelessly to keep their mentally ill kids at work and living semi-independently. Don't believe me? Just go to the checkout line at any local Walmart. This guy, like the sandy hook guy, were just nuts. Maybe we could have limited the death toll by a few by limiting mag capacity (ok, you just pack more) or whatever but it certainly won't curtail the vast majority of shootings which are inner-city drug deals. We simply are not going to be able to go door=to-door and take guns away or make people register them: Pipe dream. So the most effective measure is preventative and that is improving mental health by a looong shot. And that probably means nationalizing mental health care/insurance. No carrier wants to touch it.

The problem isn't guns. it is our system of health care, competitiveness and exploitation of race. you don't see any other nation harping about race like we do. But here we are. I'd love to see what Steve Kerr is willing to give up to get more gun control. Everyone else is the idiot but he's smart right? Why doesn't he do something more meaningful than entertain people? When you get right down to it, nothing is going to change because nobody will compromise. The left isn't going to stop stoking race/hate and call inner city crime what it is. Hell, two years ago they were taking guns away from police and defunding them....they arrested people that tried to defend their property.
Steve Kerr was whining about police in schools just two years ago.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,006
2,945
1
agreed. the issue is a) our divisive race/politics and b) our poor health care

let me take "b" first. Of course, mass shootings weren't that big of a deal two weeks ago when black people were killing white people. But both parties have clearly stoked the flames of racism and that is resulting in race based murders.

second is health issues. Most of these shooters are mentally ill (as are most of the homeless). In the USA, we have tried to "normalize" mental problems to give those affected a "normal life". I am aware of family members that work tirelessly to keep their mentally ill kids at work and living semi-independently. Don't believe me? Just go to the checkout line at any local Walmart. This guy, like the sandy hook guy, were just nuts. Maybe we could have limited the death toll by a few by limiting mag capacity (ok, you just pack more) or whatever but it certainly won't curtail the vast majority of shootings which are inner-city drug deals. We simply are not going to be able to go door=to-door and take guns away or make people register them: Pipe dream. So the most effective measure is preventative and that is improving mental health by a looong shot. And that probably means nationalizing mental health care/insurance. No carrier wants to touch it.

The problem isn't guns. it is our system of health care, competitiveness and exploitation of race. you don't see any other nation harping about race like we do. But here we are. I'd love to see what Steve Kerr is willing to give up to get more gun control. Everyone else is the idiot but he's smart right? Why doesn't he do something more meaningful than entertain people? When you get right down to it, nothing is going to change because nobody will compromise. The left isn't going to stop stoking race/hate and call inner city crime what it is. Hell, two years ago they were taking guns away from police and defunding them....they arrested people that tried to defend their property.
Our politicians just destroyed the mental health of children by shutting down schools during Covid. We are seeing the effects play out now. 2021 had the most school shootings on record of the last 50 years. So, now these same politicians want to pass additional gun laws that won’t prevent school shooting tragedies. Round and round we go. Where we end up who knows.
 

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2002
7,168
6,157
1
I was 17 years old firing M16's in the military. IF....I wanted to buy one, I shouldn't be allowed?

Don't think anyone is allowed to buy M16s in the civilian world.....God, I hope not anyway.....
 

Latest posts