Hrmm, I haven't waded into a Gun debate discussion in awhile. Time to see how many blindsides I have.
Limiting magazine sizes - I have no problem with that. Many states already do that. In California, where I live, magazines are limited to hold 10 ammo. However, the only thing this will do is slow someone down from switching mags. What's the difference if I have 3 magazines holding 30 rounds vs. 9 magazines holding 10 rounds (assume we are talking about rifles and not pistols)? Pistols are different because it isn't realistic to have a 30 round mag (even a .22 mag holding 30 rounds wouldn't be realistic).
Supposition argument: If we take into account police response and/or Blaze of glory types, it certainly would be an advantage to force the 'bad guys' to slow down to switch mags now and then.
I agree that there isn't much difference other than that, but that seems like a clear advantage for controlling the .01% of crazies who don't bother to secure bigger mags.
Regardless, it leads to the question of why the rest of us non-crazies need the bigger mags. If the only defense is 'because I want to fire off 30 rounds', then that raises a red flag on that person's 'non-crazy' status in my book. Need > Want would be what I'd support, but I admit that gets subjective quick.
ozzonelayyer said:
Expanding background checks. Again I have no problem with this but... I don't believe someone should have to go through a background check every single time they buy a firearm. That's ridiculous and just a means to make more revenue because it costs you every time it's done. Expanding them to all sales is ok, but they should be only done on a time basis (in other words a maximum of once each year if you purchase a gun).
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree with your logic. Red Tape = blarg. On the other, if we accept waiting periods as necessary, then the 'once a year' stance isn't tenable. Also, the smart gun buyer will buy in bulk once a year rather than get hit with the cost of multiple background checks a year due to poor impulse control in purchasing.
ozzonelayyer said:
Waiting periods. This should only be as long as it takes to complete the background check, or 3 days, and not a mandatory 10 days like here in California. I've been told by gun dealers that it only takes a day or two to get the results back. The argument that the waiting period is to prevent someone from buying a gun (out of anger or some current emotional state) is a valid one but 10 days???? Seriously? Most people don't stay angry more than a day or two. What other reason would there be for a waiting period? I've heard the argument it's a "cool down" period before actually acquiring the gun.
I have to ask you to see your sources on the 'most people don't stay angry more than a day or two'. If a crazie has decided they want a gun to shoot someone(s), then I don't think their anger is 'normal'. I suppose another reason for the waiting period is to give authorities a chance to catch up? 10 days may allow them to catch the crazy in the plotting stage? I guess the weakness of that argument is if the background check is done in 2-3 days, then is there an actual check at the end of the 10 day period, or is it just a hopeful 'let's see if the crazy reveals their plan early and gets caught by the authorities before they pick up their gun(s)'.
Regardless, the sad truth of any regulation in regards to mental state is going to be weird since there is little medical technology can do now to 'quantify' anger cool down. When Medical Technology DOES hit that kind of level... then we have to deal with Minority Report type struggles.
ozzonelayyer said:
Mental health checks. Hmmm. This one is the toughest and presents the biggest slippery slope. What mental state should a person have that would prevent them from buying a firearm? Who would determine that? How? In my opinion, a person should not be required to have a check done BUT if there is a recent history of a SERIOUS mental issue, then they should be flagged and that should be caught in the background check. What do you want to do, have people go see a shrink before they buy a gun? Get real.
This kinda ties into the previous point. I'll just add: Forcing everyone to go to a shrink before they buy a gun would be 'nice'... If we could get your previous slippery slope questions answered in a way we like. Probably would need socialized health care to avoid the pitfall of social economic status robbing one of their 2nd amendment right. The issue I have with mental checks, regardless of seriousness, is how it could act as a determent from people getting the help they need for their issues. *shrugs*
ozzonelayyer said:
One thing I will never, ever agree on is a national registry. Too many ways for the government to abuse it.
On the one-hand, I agree with Captain America. On the other hand, Stark kinda has a point. I have to go research how Driver's Licenses work now.
You know, it boggles the mind that after all the people we've had killed by guns in this country, you people still want to argue about which guns they used in the mass killings.
Sadly, I think that has to be part of the argument. Unless all guns are banned, good regulation should take each gun into account. If magazine or 'automatic' status is part of the regulation debate, then this further shows that the 'type of gun' should be looked at. I think the 'type of gun' issue suffers majority to what SJS said about either side working the definitions to fit their agenda.
Anywho, that probably ended up being more sharing than arguments. I try to play it safe when it comes to guns.