GUNS!!!

Not cannons
Not artillery
Not booby traps
Not bombs
Not Chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons
Not 16" Naval batteries

GUNS!!!

To be more specific, weapons which fire one of more non-explosive projectiles per round, that are capable of being operated by a single person (not a crew-serve weapon system).

Be specific, don't be coy about your beliefs, let us know so we can skip the usual bull**** of trying to determine where you are coming from. Tell us what should be totally illegal and what is okay, what restrictions should be placed on what type weapons, and be prepared to back up your statements.

We need control on the number of threads dealing with this topic.

gun control thread control

define "need based"

i do not own a firearm outside of a bb gun my children and i shoot cans and bottles with.
I am a former expert marksman.
I do not support more restrictive gun control than what we have now.
I have lived in a country where just having a live round and no firearm was a crime. The bad guys still had guns tho.
People need to understand that its just a tool and that a nut could and probably would find another way to kill people.

I agree. What will "need based" mean ITT?

You submit an application to the state/county demonstrating your need to own a weapon, the state/county then determines if your specific need warrants granting you a permit to own the weapon.

Basically, your local or state jurisdiction has the right to forbid you from owning a weapon if they choose to. Like most things, the specific need threshold would vary dramatically from state to state.

ETA: Sorry there isn't a specific answer, but the "need based" thing pretty subjective. It's used currently to determine concealed carry permits in "may issue" jurisdictions. Regardless, if you choose the restricted option, it means you need the governments permission to own that weapon, and they will have a detailed registry of all gun owners.

That's what I assumed you meant. Just wanted clarification posted.

To follow up, it's important to highlight this:

We really need Gullanian, BurningSquirrel and NMcNasty to post...

The vote of restricted for handguns, but illegal for hunting rifles is different. BS is from Europe though, so he probably hasn't been subjected to the American meme that handguns are pure unadulterated evil.

I will say that if you're actually worried about safety, BS's logical thought process is better than most in favor of gun restrictions.

This. The debate is over, gun control proponents lost. There's "debate" but there's no serious threat right now, despite what the NRA will tell you since they need to keep feeding their outdated and oversized organization.

You need to define what an "assault weapon" is.

why the hell cant i see who voted for what?

will somebody help my dumb ass please?

Mmmk I will excerpt the basic argument I was making with Double BJ and NeBlis from the other thread:

FWIW I'm not particularly anti-gun or anything in the sense that I don't believe government intervention is a very effective way to solve the various problems guns pose. But I think pro-gun types run into two basic problems: One is that they find themselves advocating the absurd position that a wealth of guns is better for society as a whole, and the other is that they place a very high value into the utility gun owners receive from ownership in order to pretend it balances out the downsides when it doesn't always do so.