God, I'm not even a gun nut and I can argue against pretty much every point on this article. Hmm. Interesting. Is there a "bad-apple dealer" registry that I don't know about? With the exception of sales between two individuals, and the whole gun-show loophole, every firearm dealer has to comply with state and federal laws in order to legally sell firearms. A better proposal would be to close the gun-show loophole for one, and for two, if two people want to sell guns to each other, they need a licensed firearms dealer as an intermediary. Criticism of the Smart Gun An expensive, potentially clunky, and overall undesired feature among gun owners for a number of reasons. That'd be one hell of a hard sell. There are TONS of smaller firearm companies that don't seek government contracts. They'll be more than happy to pick up the slack if larger firearm companies start pushing undesirable features, such as ID locked firearms. See my previous point about licensed dealers. I can pretty much bet that 9 out of 10 do everything by the book 100% of the time. The consequences of not doing so and getting caught probably aren't pretty. Could it be that they stopped researching this stuff cause they found them to be a waste of time and money? I dunno. Probably? I don't really see how this will help anything. Criminals use what they can get their hands on. They'll find holes in the wall one way or another. Ugh How about we try better distribution laws first and see where that gets us?They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes.
They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings.
First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers. The Pentagon is in the process of selecting the provider of handguns for the United States Army. It should require all bidders to provide detailed information about their gun safety technologies and distribution practices in the civilian market. No response, no contract.
Second, work with companies to develop new models of distribution, such as through dealers certified by the industry as reputable.
Third, rescue the federal government’s smart-gun research efforts from oblivion. Tens of millions of research dollars are needed to help get promising safety technologies to market.
Fourth, develop a set of metrics for measuring manufacturers’ performance. We might measure, for instance, the number of a manufacturer’s guns found at crime scenes, as a percentage of their overall sales.
Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns.
To allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals.
I hate to disagree with you j4 but I gotta go with rd this time. A complete ban of funds would I'll serve the populace. Criminals will be the only ones with guns at that point. And this country already had issues with smuggling contraband. Have fun when the south secedes on grounds of second amendments rights violation. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It simply can't be done. So we need to find other alternatives.
Well, it would cause a lot of problems for people who live far away from regular civilization who need guns to do everything from protect their property and livestock, to hunt for food. There's also the fact that sport shooting and hunting are both past times that are enjoyed across the country, though I do know that hunting is on the decline and I wouldn't be surprised to hear if sport shooting was too. As for the fact that criminals would be the only ones with guns, I hear that sentiment thrown around a lot and yeah, there are so many guns in this country that if they were completely outlawed, it would be heck of a struggle to get them all off the streets. I doubt that would happen again.I hate to disagree with you j4 but I gotta go with rd this time. A complete ban of funds would I'll serve the populace. Criminals will be the only ones with guns at that point.
Have fun when the south secedes on grounds of second amendments rights violation.
Yeah, the link I posted suggested an alternative. I'd post the other things I'd like to see, but given that the link I posted wants to control distribution and rd said the only solution s/he'd accept is controlling distribution, well. I'm not sure s/he wants to agree.
I can't take a look at it right now but I will try to later and get back to you. Gotta pick up a friend
No. No. I totally agree that better distribution regulations would help. I even said that closing the gun show loopholes as well as using licensed dealers to facilitate sales between individuals would be a great start. What the author of this article suggested though, I disagreed, because quite frankly, I find the ideas to be both crazy, poorly thought out, and quite frankly, overkill.
Getting rid of guns won't prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312) Edit: Look. I only have half a dog in this fight. I personally don't think guns should be banned. However, I do think more regulation is needed. Throwing out half assed ideas though, that are easy to argue against and don't actually make concrete solutions, are not the way to go. There's better ways to go about gun control then taking half thought out ideas and trying to fly to the moon with them. The other problem is, the chances of banning guns in our country is probably never going to happen. They're so ingrained in our culture and they're legitimately used by so many people, that the very thought of doing it is not only unpalatable, it's political suicide as well. This is one of the areas where smarter, more acute regulation could really do wonders. That's what we need to push for. Not zany ideas and not half assed measures.
The Wikipedia article states otherwise unfortunately. I really wish you were right though. The NRA is a DC lobby group. A more reputable organization for gun owners is the 2nd Amendment Foundation. That said, there are good solutions out there. The biggest one being, in my opinion, better regulation of sales.A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured.
The solution being discussed now is never the right solution. I know. The NRA has done a very good job.
The link I posted suggests this solution (which will get sales at least somewhat more under control) because Congress has been unwilling to pass better regulations. Edit: Also, the Chenpeng stabbing is the one gun nuts used to make themselves feel better after Sandy Hook. No one died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing
I literally laid out a quick counter argument for every point in that article. If you would like to go back to my original posts and discuss those points, I would be more than happy to. However, ignoring my arguments and acting as if I've offered nothing is not a good way to get a dialogue going. The chances of Congress or The President going through with any of the suggestions proposed in the article are next to none. The gun lobby has a lot of influence. You're cherry picking here. There was a rash of school attacks in China, and there were deaths involved. Let's be honest here. If I went and found a random school shooting here in the States where no one was killed, you'd accuse me of cherry picking as well. Trust me. I like this discussion. I think it's an important discussion to have. I'm very much willing to talk about it, but you have to give me something to work with here. Edit: Combined the two posts I just made for ease of reading.The link I posted suggests this solution (which will get sales at least somewhat more under control) because Congress has been unwilling to pass better regulations.
Also, the Chenpeng stabbing is the one gun nuts used to make themselves feel better after Sandy Hook. No one died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing
Indeed. Gun laws in Australia are so tight, a lot of people think they're outright banned. Edit: Actually, the Wikipedia Article seems to be very informative.
I honestly don't know. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't have that big of a dog in this fight. I can try to look it up real quick though. Edit: Would it be considered rude to just toss this here at you? I'm pretty tired and I'm having trouble making sense of what's being said.