Would you vote for the proposed proposition?: Assumptions, there are pros and cons for gun rights. pros: Self-defense, hunting, provides the citizens more relative power versus the state. cons: Modern weapons in modern high density environments results in significant death counts. Solution: This proposition would regulate firearms based on the number of people in a standardized environment they can kill in a standardized 2 minute period. Department of firearms will test every firearm in the market to make sure it is probable that it could kill fewer than 10 people in five minutes. All existing nonconforming weapons will need to be confiscated to make this measure in anyway effective.
It's the US. Your last statement is guaranteed impossible to happen. Confiscating anything bought legally ain't flying.
It required a civil war. Do you think one is worth it this time? Seems counter productive to achieve less gun violence.
We should ask people to state when they post if they have passport, read constitution and know anything about the history of the US
Molon Labe
BUT MY FREEDOM!
Your utopian Venezuela is a shithole
By definition
It’s centrist but very naive and impossible to implement. Nice try though
Sounds precisely what Australia ended up doing. No semiautomatic weapons without a specialized permit. Only one mass shooting since 1996 as a result. Seems to have worked. How is the OPs proposal centrist, but mentioning Aus is instantly not centrist?
Well, you can also argue that there is no correlation between gun laws and fatalities across all counties. Have you looked at the data ?? Seriously I hope you are a hi engineer or Something and not our data science guy :)
Shall not be infringed. Amend the Constitution or GTFO
Confiscation is not a centrist solution. A centrist solution would be to enforce existing laws, rather than propose more that only impact lawful citizens engaged in lawful activity.
I agreed to my proposal is not realistic to be implemented. But that’s kind of the point you got to acknowledge the new refs that don’t address the half billion fire arms are already here are probably going to be meaningless in terms of changing outcomes
My idea, somewhat similar, is to ban private ownership of anything but manual-action weapons. Pump-action, lever-action, manual revolvers, all ok - anything where the action is cycled without physical input? Nope. If you think you need to fire your weapon faster than your hands can move, you're delusional. And if you think the whole "depose a tyrannical government" thing is reasonable, that's bullshit too. The legality of our weaponry in an armed insurrection against the government is a non-issue. Besides, we'll be building bombs and cheap chemical weapons at that point.
I think if a wild animal is charging at me my aim under pressure is not good enough without the multiple rapid shots you get with a semi. Hard to hit a moving Target and may require multiple hits to stop the attack.
Why do you even need to kill the animal? You really just need to scare it away, which should be easily achieved with a single shot even if you miss.
Absolutely not. 👎
Why do you need a weapon that can kill more than 10 people within 5 minutes?
Explain how such a gun would work and I will tell you why I need something else.