I should preface all of my ramblings with the fact that I am a strong supporter of background checks for all arm sales, cracking down on FFLs that engage in shady dealings, and doing away with drum magazines (from what I've heard, most suck anyways and have frequent mechanical issues). I will also say that I am not attacking anyone, including BKsBimmer whom I partially quoted below. Just trying to provide some opinion, food for thought, and pose some, hopefully, new questions and/or ideas.
Originally Posted by BKsBimmer
How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?
I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.
To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.
So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.
You're likely in for it, in part, because you have nothing invested in ownership (note that I have no rifles either). Obviously, that would be in addition to the personal belief aspect.
I do not see a buyback happening given the current fiscal climate up on the Hill. I think that a grandfather clause is more likely. A door-to-door collection is not something I think would happen either. Logistically, it's a nightmare and then you factor in the cost of doing so. A number of people would hand over their arms, but at a financial loss to themselves for owning something that was previously legal. Litigation would ensue, if only for 'just compensation'. There are also those people that would put up varying degrees of resistance and, sadly, follow the "from my cold, dead hand" philosophy. To mitigate cost and risk of door-to-door collections, it'd be more likely that collection centers would be set up and then, after some time, 'they'd' go to the residences of those that never turned in their wares at a collection point.
Regarding 'high capacity' magazines, one reason that I do not think that a grandfather clause is unlikely is that the means to track them all would be very time, labor, and cost ineffective and the safety return would be miniscule. If you consider how many retail outlets, large & small, there are between brick & mortar places and internet retailers & venues, there is a very good chance that a majority of high capacity magazines would never be traceable; especially if you consider 3rd party sales. Magazines are not serialized. It might be possible to go back through sales records but you would not get anyone that only paid cash. On top of that, if high capacity magazines broke or were otherwise in need of repair but were thrown away instead, how would one prove that the wasn't just lying about it and hiding it so they could keep it? Does this mean magazines should be serialized and discarded ones reported & turned in?
Regarding high capacity magazines, where does the line get drawn as to what constitutes the term "high capacity". I know 10 was been the # in the past, and is in CA, but it seems subjective. I have a Springfield handgun that came, from the factory, with two 13-round magazines. There is no higher capacity magazine sold for it. I would have to spend a fair deal of money to replace these in the event they flat out became illegal, in addition to the money I already lost on these. Is 13 really excessive compared to 10? If not, where does the line get drawn? A lot of the handguns I've seen come with 13 round magazines (clearly I'm not in CA). Maybe 13 is the new 10 as far as new legislation goes? Glocks are more notorious for having what are marketed as high capacity magazines (33-rounds). I'm not sure if other makes/models are the same. 33, to me, is excessive for a handgun. 100-round drum magazines for anything...definitely excessive.
This would also beg the question of what to do about tube extensions for shotguns. I think they come in additions of 1 to 5 shell extensions depending on model. Not sure since I don't really pay much attention to them.
It would be great is there was also a focus on personal responsibility. People that don't properly secure their firearms from theft and misuse should are people I take exception with. Likewise, any CoD/Halo/Battlefield/<insert video game here> moron that gets a firearm(s) 'just because' is likely not someone that should be purchasing one. How does one regulate that, though? People that buy a gun or rifle but never put in range time and learn to maintain their ware(s) are also people that should not own one. These people are at a higher risk of unintended discharge/accidents than responsible owners. Not saying that responsible owners are immune from accidents, but their accidents are less likely going to be from neglect. This is also why CC makes me nervous.
There is also the stupid factor that you just cannot remove from some people. An example of this is the guy that recently shot himself in Joliet, IL. From what I read, he was showing off his gun to his friends, pointed it to his head/face, pulled the trigger, and died. Supposedly, the safety malfunctioned. What is not clear is if he properly maintained his gun and/or if he had tried to modify it at some point. Those points aside, what the hell was he doing pointing a loaded gun to himself (much less anyone) and pulling the trigger?
In general, I think there's also a culture problem that goes much deeper than discussions of 2nd amendment rights and so on. There seems to be a lack of personal accountability and parenting in our country these days and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
An 'assault weapons' ban is likely going to happen. Like last time, manufacturers will tweak their models to work around the laws. This will also not stop deranged people from copycat'ing the beltway sniper attacks w/ non-"assault weapons".
Background checks for all firearms sales is a must. I am perfectly fine with requiring background checks for private party sales. I was very surprised this wasn't already the case. If that means a FFL has to be used, so be it (I would recommend a fixed, set fee, though, so FFLs don't take advantage of it).
Folding in more records of violent offenders and mentally unstable peoples is also a must. Why wasn't this already done long ago? Seems like common sense to me.
Regarding Socom's point about criminal prosecution, that is already in effect. A legal owner is liable if a firearm of they own is used in a crime even when the firearm is stolen. The only out to this is if the firearm is reported stolen. This is also why securing ones arms is a must and why any theft must be reported ASAP.