LogFAQs > #896143826

foolm0r0n posted...

Umbreon posted...

Though I feel foolmo is using the Perfect Solution fallacy.

There's a difference between an imperfect solution and something that literally has no effect at best and actually correlates with worse results at worse. Are you saying that you DO care about a solution that actually helps? Not just one that makes you feel better?

Yes, I care about a solution that actually helps.

Granted I do agree that an outright ban on all guns would be highly impractical at best, it would still probably beat the current strategy of "do absolutely nothing".

As for what I'd personally do...

Any and all guns purchased by you will be registered to your name. If a crime happens with a gun under your name, it's on your head to explain.

Mandatory training. Too many idiots killing other people in accidental shootings, very few of which would happen if people knew what they were doing. People will be required to retake training once per year. Those who don't will have their licence revoked.

Limits on how many guns an owner can have, as well as ammo they can purchase. No man needs 20 guns. If you're buying enough ammo to take down a small army, that should be a red flag.

No loopholes on background checks. There's currently something about a "Three business days" rule that allows sellers to give someone a gun if their background check isn't complete by then? That makes no sense to me. Why have the background check at all if you're just going to ignore it if it "takes too long". It should take as long as it needs to take.

Additionally you would be required to have a licence to sell a gun to someone.

I'm sure there are flaws to these suggestions I'm not looking at, and I'm not certain if all of them are constitutional.

There's also the "never happening" possibility of amending the 2nd amendment.
---

http://i.imgur.com/gOGzcN4.gif