Gun control

[For the love of the game 56]

I said in my first post in this thread that I wasn't really interested in the debate one way or another because there is too much money in stalling the debate in politics rather than having an honest discussion.

 

If you want proposals, then I'm in favor of a national gun registry, eliminating all the ridiculous laws and regulations the NRA had put on the ATF to keep the ATF from actually doing its job, eliminating the gun show loophole, making mods that simulate automatic fire on semi-automatic weapons illegal, outlawing the various types of ammo designed to pierce armor, a mandatory waiting period on ALL weapons, more thorough background checks, outlawing extended magazines since if you're willing to own a gun then you probably should be willing to take the 5 seconds to reload your gun, and making a license to own guns include a stringent weapons handling and maintenance competency exam.

 

 

We agree on more things than I would have ever thought possible. I am not in favor of a national gun registry or the extended mags. I just do not think a registry of all the guns helps and what if it gets in the wrongs hands? Extended mags, maybe, but only over a certain number. I do not even know what the largest extention is is, but most hand guns I have seen only extend maybe 2 or 3 rounds.

 

Can you expound on the laws and regulations the NRA has put on the ATF?

 

I dont have enough knowledge on armor piercing bullets to say yes or no on it.

[Berto 338]

Yesterday I was thinking about how cool it would be cool if guns had a sensor that only allowed the owner to shoot the weapon like in Skyfall. Then I looked it up, and it's already a real thing. To the gun owners here, is that something you'd be in favor of if it was a part of a wider gun control proposal? I know the hardcore would just spout off about more government control, but do you think it's a good idea in general?

[For the love of the game 56]

Yesterday I was thinking about how cool it would be cool if guns had a sensor that only allowed the owner to shoot the weapon like in Skyfall. Then I looked it up, and it's already a real thing. To the gun owners here, is that something you'd be in favor of if it was a part of a wider gun control proposal? I know the hardcore would just spout off about more government control, but do you think it's a good idea in general?

 

Do you have a link? Are we talking biometric? That scares me because the biometric safes have a history of not working all the time because they do not recognize the finger print.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Yesterday I was thinking about how cool it would be cool if guns had a sensor that only allowed the owner to shoot the weapon like in Skyfall. Then I looked it up, and it's already a real thing. To the gun owners here, is that something you'd be in favor of if it was a part of a wider gun control proposal? I know the hardcore would just spout off about more government control, but do you think it's a good idea in general?

 

The concept has been around for a long time, and in theory, I think it's a decent idea, but I don't think it's developed to the point that it can be reliable and effective. It adds one more layer of complexity, introduces one more thing that can go wrong that, if you ever have to use it, it's likely that your life depends on it's reliability.

 

Some are linked to a specific watch or magnetic ring, some to an embedded (sub-dermal) rfid chip. However, I don't think the technology is reliable enough at this point. The most reliable, I would think, is the magnetic lock, but once you unlock it with the matched magnetic ring, anyone can fire it, so it's overall effectiveness isn't quite what you would hope for.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Can you expound on the laws and regulations the NRA has put on the ATF?

 

The ATF president must be ratified by the Senate, despite existing entirely outside of Congressional jurisdiction, due to a rider put into the Patriot Act that was written by the NRA, and NRA backed Senators have blocked every attempt to install a new president. There hasn't been a full-time ATF president in years.

 

The ATF is also not allowed to require gun shops to maintain an inventory, is only allowed to inspect gun shop inventories for proper handling once a year, and is so defunded that they now have the same number of active ATF agents in the United States as they had in the 1970s: roughly 2500, or an average of about 50 per state.

 

Process that for a second: the government agency in charge of regulating alcohol, tobacco and firearms in this country has fewer employees in the entire US than McDonald's has in most mid-sized cities.

 

Sidenote: this conversation about gun control and gun violence would be a lot easier to have with people if they realized that the NRA is a lot less interested in being a gun club or defending the right to bear arms, and a lot more interested in being a paid lobbying firm for gun manufacturers.

[For the love of the game 56]

The ATF president must be ratified by the Senate, despite existing entirely outside of Congressional jurisdiction, due to a rider put into the Patriot Act that was written by the NRA, and NRA backed Senators have blocked every attempt to install a new president. There hasn't been a full-time ATF president in years.

 

The ATF is also not allowed to require gun shops to maintain an inventory, is only allowed to inspect gun shop inventories for proper handling once a year, and is so defunded that they now have the same number of active ATF agents in the United States as they had in the 1970s: roughly 2500, or an average of about 50 per state.

 

Process that for a second: the government agency in charge of regulating alcohol, tobacco and firearms in this country has fewer employees in the entire US than McDonald's has in most mid-sized cities.

 

Sidenote: this conversation about gun control and gun violence would be a lot easier to have with people if they realized that the NRA is a lot less interested in being a gun club or defending the right to bear arms, and a lot more interested in being a paid lobbying firm for gun manufacturers.

 

I will have to look into the above. I simply do not have enough knowledge on the subject and in my brief google search I only found what appears to be left leaning to far left leaning opinions.

 

I made this point before, but if the politicians on both side of the aisle would stand on some personal conviction and get some intestinal fortitude the NRA, and any and all lobby groups for that matter, would have far less power. I am sure its tough to turn money and other gifts down, but the system is broken in that regards.

[For the love of the game 56]

The ATF president must be ratified by the Senate, despite existing entirely outside of Congressional jurisdiction, due to a rider put into the Patriot Act that was written by the NRA, and NRA backed Senators have blocked every attempt to install a new president. There hasn't been a full-time ATF president in years.

 

The ATF is also not allowed to require gun shops to maintain an inventory, is only allowed to inspect gun shop inventories for proper handling once a year, and is so defunded that they now have the same number of active ATF agents in the United States as they had in the 1970s: roughly 2500, or an average of about 50 per state.

 

Process that for a second: the government agency in charge of regulating alcohol, tobacco and firearms in this country has fewer employees in the entire US than McDonald's has in most mid-sized cities.

 

Sidenote: this conversation about gun control and gun violence would be a lot easier to have with people if they realized that the NRA is a lot less interested in being a gun club or defending the right to bear arms, and a lot more interested in being a paid lobbying firm for gun manufacturers.

 

Question, The NRA tells the ATF they cannot maintain the inventory and that they are only allowed to inspect gun shop inventories for proper handling once a year, correct? If thats the case then it points back to our politicians and the fact that they really do not want to change anything with regardings to firearms. A minimum of random inspections twice a year should be the norm.

 

With regards to the number of ATF agents, they arepretty under funded. Even if there were 100,000 agents, I would still say the would not have enough given the broad scope of the agency. There are currently 129,000, license gun dealers between shores, pawn shops, and collectors (who are licensed to sell and buy guns), 1200 gun manufacturers, 42,000 liquer stores etc. That number does not include the import and export number for both firearms, and alcohol and tobacco and explosive manufacturers and sellers, which I failed to look up. Also from what I read the FBI helps out in this area as well, though I am sure to a very small degree.

 

To get back on the gun market, while there are I am sure a few bad apples out of that number of gun dealers, the majority of illegally obtained guns would still come from black markets (including guns brought accross the mexican boarder) and the stolen type. But I agree, more inspections would at least help the issue.

 

Now to you last point. There are 4.3 million or so NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the USA, which basically equals .5 % of gun owners (not all of which share all the views of the NRA). While there influence I am sure stretches outside of there members say to 10%, its still a small portion. I for one have never followed the NRA other than knowing who they are and reading an article from time to time that mentions or is about the group. Lastly, whatever there purpose is (good or bad), does it not come back to defending the right to bare arms? Even if they are defending that right so the gun manufacturers can make money are they not defending the right for private guns owners in the process? If the right to bare arms goes away, the gun manufactures dry up a lot (still there because of wars etc).

 

Back to the other item I do not agree with you with on. How would a gun registry help prevent gun violence in your opinion?