Gun Control discussion

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gun Control discussion

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#223525 4-Oct-2017 12:37

I have long felt the approach to gun control should look like this:

1) No automatic weapons or extended clips allowed for sale. No hollowpoint or other types of non-standard ammunition.

2) Gun Lockers are mandatory.

3) Inspections can randomly occur, but minimum twice a year. Refusal to permit an officer to inspect weapons/lockers should result in confiscation and destruction of weapons and a 10 Year Ban from owning a gun. Failure during inspection same thing.

4) No-one with a criminal record should be allowed to purchase a gun.

5) Anyone with a mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a gun.

6) No guns in a house with a person with a mental illness or Criminal record residing there.

7) Mandatory safety briefing twice a year.

8) Minimum of 2 hours every 2 months in a gun range. (Ensures guns are in a safe workable condition for the safety of owners as well as many other benefits).

9) Signed annual declaration by owner of how many guns, what types and confirmation requirements have been met as per above.

Logistically a nightmare, I understand. Lots of "civil liberties" being trampled on, but then 500+ people had theirs taken from them too. Heavy handed I agree.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 8

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1877183 4-Oct-2017 12:52

Is that intended for local (NZ) application? Or as a blueprint for solving "mass shootings" internationally?

Personally, I have no experience with firearms or firearm legislation... But my *impression* is that NZ law aligns reasonably closely with what you're proposing. Could you elaborate on where your ideas are significantly different from the status quo?

Of course, the counterpoint to any discussion around tightening up on gun laws is that (by definition) they only tend to effect law-abiding people. Criminals won't be bothered by stricter laws any more than a recidivist drunk driver is bothered by laws lowering the permissible BAC level.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1877185 4-Oct-2017 12:55

I am sure the American lawmakers will be reading this and really taking note.

I am more than happy with NZ's gun laws and dont really understand the topic.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877186 4-Oct-2017 12:55

Pumpedd:

I am sure the American lawmakers will be reading this and really taking note.

Does your sarcasm make you feel better? If you have nothing to contribute, why are you in this thread?

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877190 4-Oct-2017 13:09

6FIEND:

Is that intended for local (NZ) application? Or as a blueprint for solving "mass shootings" internationally?

Personally, I have no experience with firearms or firearm legislation... But my *impression* is that NZ law aligns reasonably closely with what you're proposing. Could you elaborate on where your ideas are significantly different from the status quo?

Of course, the counterpoint to any discussion around tightening up on gun laws is that (by definition) they only tend to effect law-abiding people. Criminals won't be bothered by stricter laws any more than a recidivist drunk driver is bothered by laws lowering the permissible BAC level.

It should apply here (mostly) already in NZ, but the above rules I think would be beneficial a lot more in the US.

I disagree with your comments around gun laws only affecting the lawful. If it's illegal to buy mods, extended mags, non standard ammo, and the like, they will become much harder to get. It won't stop the determined, but it would make it so much harder to compile 19 fully automatic weapons.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#1877230 4-Oct-2017 13:44

Let us breakdown some of this.

1) On the surface fine. Would there be an exception for appropriately licensed individuals and use cases?

2) Also good, any other details e.g Should guns be stored in an unusable condition e.g firing pins removed, stored separately, perhaps keep ammunition in another secure box?

3)Twice per year is probably too often. Who will pay for this? I think currently it is when you change address and renew your license. How about people who live well outside main centres? travel and inconvenience for the assessor will be major.

4) Any crime? even ones which don't involve violence? How about a shoplifting offense from 20 years ago? Prefer to keep the current police background check system.

5) Define mental illness. Also this could lead to people not getting treatment because of fear of losing access to a hobby. How about something which had been treated in the past. E.G Depression or anxiety when younger.

6) So if your flatmate shoplifted at a supermarket ten years ago you lose your guns? How about if your child commits a petty act of vandalism? Once again define mental illness and would it make people less likely to seek the help they need?

7) Once again cost and travel issues for remote residents. What would need to be covered each 6 months? Would there be a test or would everyone turn up to say they did and ignore it?

8) Once again travel and inconvenience for rural users, essentially a big government handout for the privately run ranges. Also what would they need to do with their time in the range shoot a minimum number of rounds? Show some skill level?

9) Not so bad, maybe juts require an up to date inventory be lodged with the local police.

I think the majority of gun ownership in New Zealand is on farms where they are a fairly important tool of the trade so to speak. These requirements would cause a lot of problems for a very vocal and active voting block.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877232 4-Oct-2017 13:54

Varkk:

Let us breakdown some of this.

1) On the surface fine. Would there be an exception for appropriately licensed individuals and use cases?

No, what good reason could there possibly be to have this?

2) Also good, any other details e.g Should guns be stored in an unusable condition e.g firing pins removed, stored separately, perhaps keep ammunition in another secure box?

Ammo should be stored separately I believe.

3)Twice per year is probably too often. Who will pay for this? I think currently it is when you change address and renew your license. How about people who live well outside main centres? travel and inconvenience for the assessor will be major.

Yes, it's not a perfect plan but better than 500 people being injured and 60 Killed.

4) Any crime? even ones which don't involve violence? How about a shoplifting offense from 20 years ago? Prefer to keep the current police background check system.

I am not certain about this, but violent crime seems a reasonable approach, but a complete ban is much easier to monitor and manage don't you think?

5) Define mental illness. Also this could lead to people not getting treatment because of fear of losing access to a hobby. How about something which had been treated in the past. E.G Depression or anxiety when younger.

I think the number of people and impact who wouldn't get treatment for fear of losing their hobby is a lot less than the number of people killed by gun violence.

6) So if your flatmate shoplifted at a supermarket ten years ago you lose your guns? How about if your child commits a petty act of vandalism? Once again define mental illness and would it make people less likely to seek the help they need?

Again it would need discussion, but easier to ban against all crime rather than have renters policing what is deemed appropriate levels of crime.

7) Once again cost and travel issues for remote residents. What would need to be covered each 6 months? Would there be a test or would everyone turn up to say they did and ignore it?

If you can afford a gun and ammo, you can afford the time and cost to own it and use it responsibly in my mind. Same as if you can afford to drink, you can afford a taxi.

8) Once again travel and inconvenience for rural users, essentially a big government handout for the privately run ranges. Also what would they need to do with their time in the range shoot a minimum number of rounds? Show some skill level?

Yes, I'd imagine it not unreasonable to be able to load, unload, aim and shoot safely. This would need some consultation. Potentially the intervals would need to be discussed.

9) Not so bad, maybe juts require an up to date inventory be lodged with the local police.

I think the majority of gun ownership in New Zealand is on farms where they are a fairly important tool of the trade so to speak. These requirements would cause a lot of problems for a very vocal and active voting block.

Yes, I agree, it's going to cause a lot of concern among farmers. It's been a long time since my childhood where I was raised on a farm, and guns were extremely uncommon, but what are normal calibre? Potentially you could say .22 rifles and handgun ownerships are reviewed annually or so. Maybe even 2 yearly. Anything high calibre yearly if rural.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1877242 4-Oct-2017 14:14

I was a keen hunter in my younger days, when we decided to have a family we did not want firearms in the home with small kids and we got rid of them and never replaced them.. Two of our three sons joined the Army and both were very good marks men, they now have kids and will not have firearms in the house. I feel our gun laws are OK however the opportunities and places to use them safely are become less and less.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kingdragonfly

11984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12867

Subscriber

#1877243 4-Oct-2017 14:16

I know I may come across as a gun-control nut, but this is only in relation to USA policies.

I must admit I wouldn't be 100% comfortable with "Swiss" style laws, but I wouldn't object.

Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

The vast majority in NZ probably have no problem with standard shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.

In technical terms, I don't mind long guns where the breach is manually opened and closed.

Obviously these are extremely dangerous weapons even when they are unmodified, and can be used by criminals.

The solution is making a sentence for offenses that involve a gun should be many times more serious than ones without.

I would add that a toy gun qualifies as a more serious offense, if the victim perceives it as a real gun.

However armor-piercing shells, hollow points, extended clips and the like I definitely should be limited to the military and the police.

I also believe hand guns should be severely restricted also, again preferably to just military and the police.

kingdragonfly

11984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12867

Subscriber

#1877270 4-Oct-2017 14:49

Before there was Nerf...

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1877296 4-Oct-2017 15:16

There is no justification for hand guns to be in the hands of the public. The only exception is for target shooting and these weapons could be kept under strict security at clubs and used only at clubs and official shooting competitions. A hand gun is an antipersonnel weapon with very little accuracy and only good at very close range.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877299 4-Oct-2017 15:19

MikeB4:

There is no justification for hand guns to be in the hands of the public. The only exception is for target shooting and these weapons could be kept under strict security at clubs and used only at clubs and official shooting competitions. A hand gun is an antipersonnel weapon with very little accuracy and only good at very close range.

Well, I don't like guns, but I had less issue with a handgun for defense in the home (home intruder etc), than I have with assault weapons of any type. There is no legitimate reason for an assault rifle. I can understand a Shotgun for a farmer, even a .22 or a .303.

A hand gun has no business being outside of a property. It should never be outside the home. (based on self defense being the only reason for owning a handgun)

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1877303 4-Oct-2017 15:28

networkn:

MikeB4:

There is no justification for hand guns to be in the hands of the public. The only exception is for target shooting and these weapons could be kept under strict security at clubs and used only at clubs and official shooting competitions. A hand gun is an antipersonnel weapon with very little accuracy and only good at very close range.

Well, I don't like guns, but I had less issue with a handgun for defense in the home (home intruder etc), than I have with assault weapons of any type. There is no legitimate reason for an assault rifle. I can understand a Shotgun for a farmer, even a .22 or a .303.

A hand gun has no business being outside of a property. It should never be outside the home. (based on self defense being the only reason for owning a handgun)

Assault rifles should never be in the publics hands period, they are a Military weapon. As for hand guns unlike what is shown on the silver screen most people couldn't even hit their fridge door at ten paces or even five paces. Movies of cops hitting the criminal at 100 meters or shooting out the tyres of a moving car are total bollocks. As my military family members say, hand guns are good for making a noise and that is it.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1877309 4-Oct-2017 15:41

Lets cut to the chase.....the shooter had 47 guns with him!!! Seems to be find in Nevada and well beyond our sphere of influence.

Saying that mentally ill should not have guns or be in houses with guns is a huge assumption in my opinion. Define mentally ill. I am sure we could find a Doc who may well diagnose you with some form of mental illness.

NZ doesn't have a constitution so we have no rights to bear arms...phew. A 200 year old law thats not even relevant today.

Sporting types should have rights to own guns, and I believe the Police should be armed.

Our laws are fine imo. Yes we do have mass killings but they are rare and will happen again.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877310 4-Oct-2017 15:42

MikeB4:

Assault rifles should never be in the publics hands period, they are a Military weapon. As for hand guns unlike what is shown on the silver screen most people couldn't even hit their fridge door at ten paces or even five paces. Movies of cops hitting the criminal at 100 meters or shooting out the tyres of a moving car are total bollocks. As my military family members say, hand guns are good for making a noise and that is it.

Given how many people in the USA are killed by guns each year in the USA (Average) 11564, it's a reasonable assumption a good portion of those are handguns, so I would refute that claim.

As per my suggestions, training is a way to do this. I have fired handguns of various sizes in a gun range on a few occasions, with no training, and I was able to hit my target each time. Whether I could do this in the heat of the moment in reduced light with a moving target is an entirely different thing.

I think personally, in the USA, 1 gun in a house, locked in a gun locker, with an owner who cleans their gun and spends time practising shooting, because they want it for self-defense isn't entirely unreasonable. I don't have a gun in my house, I wouldn't want one even if we didn't have kids. I don't feel a self-defense requirement. But I don't live in a high crime area either.

One of the gun ranges I went to in Hawaii, I found to be a very interesting experience. The owner was saying she had a number of people coming in that day with their young kids. I was flabbergasted and asked how could that parent be so irresponsible. I was incensed. She was very calm and explained that a lot of parents bring their kids to the safety of a range and let them feel and fire guns, so they know how destructive they are, that they are super powerful, and they want their kids to grow up understanding the reality of guns, not just what they see in video games and on tv with someone firing 20 rounds one handed etc. I had to give the idea some merit.

I grew up on a farm, and guns on a farm are a part of life I'll agree. Having said that I can probably remember seeing or touching a gun less than 5 times in my first 12 years of life. Always under supervision of an adult. They weren't kept in the house, they were kept in a locked shed and the ammunition was somewhere else (I do not know where to this very day but not in the house, or that same shed).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1877331 4-Oct-2017 15:45

Pumpedd:

Lets cut to the chase.....the shooter had 47 guns with him!!! Seems to be find in Nevada and well beyond our sphere of influence.

Saying that mentally ill should not have guns or be in houses with guns is a huge assumption in my opinion. Define mentally ill. I am sure we could find a Doc who may well diagnose you with some form of mental illness.

NZ doesn't have a constitution so we have no rights to bear arms...phew. A 200 year old law thats not even relevant today.

Sporting types should have rights to own guns, and I believe the Police should be armed.

Our laws are fine imo. Yes we do have mass killings but they are rare and will happen again.

I wasn't limiting the discussion to NZ. I was discussing what I think every gun owners requirements should be regardless of where they live. Mentally ill is a generic term, it would require consultation and some illnesses may be excluded from it potentially.

If you are a sports person, then you should already be meeting 99% of those suggestions. The police should be the most well-armed people in New Zealand.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 8