What is sensible gun control, anyway?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Not a bad idea, although I can see that there would be a bureacratic requirement involved that would need tending to, as well as the necessity to account for differing physical abilities and skill levels.

Healthy young people are assigned to quick reaction and armed patrol units. The old and lame secure infrastructure, maintain communications, care for the wounded or displaced persons.

Quote:

Might be a great way to involve individuals in improving their own communities.

I notice that out at the range, there seem to be no social stratification. Everybody seems interested in everybody else's weapons and everybody enjoys sharing whatever lore they can about some of them.

Yeah, it does give everybody at least one thing in common about which they can talk.

In a natural disaster scenario, it is, of course, good to know who should be where in your neighborhood.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

I get it ... and it will not do anything to deter improper use of firearms. We take this approach right now in two ways. First, mandatory minimum sentences associated with illegal drugs. You know as well as I do how that's working. Second, in California, we have a three strikes law. It does nothing to deter career criminals and sweeps up petty crime in the process.

But I will tell you what it would accomplish: the cost of the penal system would skyrocket. The USA has the highest prison population (both in terms of absolute number and based on population size). In California, we spend more on prisons that on education.

No, draconian sentencing is not a useful element in gun control and the unintended consequences can really bite you in the butt.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

That was apparently not the "norm" (no fatalities).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582203.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/wo...hina.html?_r=0

I recently read somewhere that in China school stabbing sprees are an ongoing problem.

I'm fully aware that not all of these attacks are without fatalities, but did you actually read the two stories (and I can find others) in one the man killed 8 before bystanders managed to wrestle him to the ground. How many could he have killed had he had a gun? Could the by-standers have wrestled him to the ground had he been wielding a semi-automatic rifle? In the second, there were 28 stabbings, and no fatalies, serveral in serious condition though.

The simple fact is that knives and axes and machettes and the like, while dangerous and capable of killing in the wrong hands, are still less deadly than a gun in the wrong hands.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Chicago has VERY strict gun laws. No concealed weapons, no carrying guns in vehicles, nothing like that. And yet, the murder rate is astronomical!!

Please, explain that.

Easy. Assuming the murder rate is only driven by gun control laws is silly. The explanation is the inane war on drugs and the ineffective war on poverty. The result is a whole underbelly of society that really isn't part of the society. Without a community, people join gangs and fight turf wars. People kill over drug deals gone bad. People kill because, hey, why not, this life is the pits.

Surprise! () A high murder rate.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I get it ... and it will not do anything to deter improper use of firearms. We take this approach right now in two ways. First, mandatory minimum sentences associated with illegal drugs. You know as well as I do how that's working. Second, in California, we have a three strikes law. It does nothing to deter career criminals and sweeps up petty crime in the process.

But I will tell you what it would accomplish: the cost of the penal system would skyrocket. The USA has the highest prison population (both in terms of absolute number and based on population size). In California, we spend more on prisons that on education.

No, draconian sentencing is not a useful element in gun control and the unintended consequences can really bite you in the butt.

I have my own missgivings, but this is all blue-skying anyway.

If they made me the gun law czar, I'd try to weasel my way into decriminalization of drugs across the board too, thus ensuring my imminent removal, probably through a Dallas retirement lunch.

Believe me, had I posted this gun law revamp on a gun board, they'd run me out of town on a rail.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by BStrong

I have my own missgivings, but this is all blue-skying anyway.

If they made me the gun law czar, I'd try to weasel my way into decriminalization of drugs across the board too, thus ensuring my imminent removal, probably through a Dallas retirement lunch.

Believe me, had I posted this gun law revamp on a gun board, they'd run me out of town on a rail.

I got a sack of feathers here, but the cost of tar is off-putting.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions--and people want some feel-good legislation--and all feel-good legislation does, in this case, is turn people like myself and others here on this board into criminals--which is not always good for society.

[StankApe]

Something just occurred to me about one aspect of your suggestions Bstrong (and it's something I suggested earlier too) but am now second guessing.

I worry, that increased penalties on gun crimes to too high a level might end up resulting in more deaths in crimes that might have otherwise left witnesses alive.

Criminal commits a gas station robbery, knows that if he's caught he does 10 yrs for the gun, and 25 years for the robbery, kills witnesses to avoid getting caught.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Easy. Assuming the murder rate is only driven by gun control laws is silly. The explanation is the inane war on drugs and the ineffective war on poverty. The result is a whole underbelly of society that really isn't part of the society. Without a community, people join gangs and fight turf wars. People kill over drug deals gone bad. People kill because, hey, why not, this life is the pits.

Surprise! () A high murder rate.

Pretty much that. The data shows that if you excluded the minorities that typically are most effected by drugs and poverty that the deadly assault rates for the rest of the population are both very close to flat and are more than a full 1 per 100,000 less. If you go by region the south is the most likely place for them to occur, another place where drugs and poverty is prevalent.

Shootings like New Town and Aurora are outliers and don't even make a dent in the overall statistics unless you really start to narrow them down, at which point they become ineffective rational excuses for expanding gun controls across the board. They do make great appeals to emotion though.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by StankApe

Something just occurred to me about one aspect of your suggestions Bstrong (and it's something I suggested earlier too) but am now second guessing.

I worry, that increased penalties on gun crimes to too high a level might end up resulting in more deaths in crimes that might have otherwise left witnesses alive.

Criminal commits a gas station robbery, knows that if he's caught he does 10 yrs for the gun, and 25 years for the robbery, kills witnesses to avoid getting caught.

That's a real concern, but there's only so many guys doing the stereotyped 211's because people have learned it's easier to walk into a bank (and safer) with a note than taking your chances with somebody who might be armed.

One of the stated concerns of LE when states started passing Shall-Issue was that actors would roll in shooting to counteract citizens carrying concealed.

Never happened.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

SG, can you cite your source for the hilited portion?

Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family

Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. So be my guest and deny the facts from all the reliable medical sources. I'm not going to bother with this argument since deniers are never going to look at the actual data.

I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Here's the other issue. If you have more lakes, the chances of drowning are higher. Of course. The chances of suffering from frostbite is higher in places like North Dakota, than say Florida. Imagine that.....

But, please explain Chicago. I've asked a few different people, a few different times, and as far as I have seen, nobody's been able to explain it.

Chicago has VERY strict gun laws. No concealed weapons, no carrying guns in vehicles, nothing like that. And yet, the murder rate is astronomical!!

Please, explain that.

The problem with any local gun regulations, be they city, county or state is that anyone can just go buy their guns elsewhere and take them to the place the guns are banned. To be effective a ban has to be federal.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family

Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. So be my guest and deny the facts from all the reliable medical sources. I'm not going to bother with this argument since deniers are never going to look at the actual data.

I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources.



The problem with any local gun regulations, be they city, county or state is that anyone can just go buy their guns elsewhere and take them to the place the guns are banned. To be effective a ban has to be federal.

Not legally they can't. There is already a federal law on the books (FOPA 1986) the requires an individual to follow the laws of their state of residence wrt firearms purchase or sale while in another state (or local as applicable) Example - a resident of California can not purchase a firearm from an out-of-state FFL dealer or individual directly, even if they were in compliance with the state laws in that local.

The two Supremme Court cases Heller and Mcdonald have put the fork in any chance of a blanket federal ban on firearms in common use.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

Take your pick: from the Google search for: gun in home more likely to kill family

Naturally there are many deniers in the mix. So be my guest and deny the facts from all the reliable medical sources. I'm not going to bother with this argument since deniers are never going to look at the actual data.

I will come right out and admit my bias. I consider the CDC and other medical data collection sources to be more reliable than gun apologist web sources

I looked at the data, and as noted above, once you remove the suicide by gun count from the statistics, it's no longer true. As far as assaults with weapons, or accidental shootings, more people get shoot by guns they don't own. Since these thread isn't about self-inflicted wounds, including suicides is not entirely honest.

[sgtbaker]

I have a hard time formulating an opinion about gun control when I know so little about gun laws. With 17 threads spawned by the Newton shooting, already, I am not going to start another one but I am not sure where it belongs; I hope I am not derailing.

It has always been my understanding that to purchase a hand gun from a dealer, there is a waiting period and a background check, the details of the requirements will vary from state to state. Is this correct? In order to be able to carry your handgun, you must pass additional tests (I am not sure about the requirements) and some states have an outright ban on carrying. Is this correct? It is to my understanding, though, that buying rifles and shotguns are easier, as in, no background check, no license. Is this correct?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I have a hard time formulating an opinion about gun control when I know so little about gun laws. With 17 threads spawned by the Newton shooting, already, I am not going to start another one but I am not sure where it belongs; I hope I am not derailing.

It has always been my understanding that to purchase a hand gun from a dealer, there is a waiting period and a background check, the details of the requirements will vary from state to state. Is this correct? In order to be able to carry your handgun, you must pass additional tests (I am not sure about the requirements) and some states have an outright ban on carrying. Is this correct? It is to my understanding, though, that buying rifles and shotguns are easier, as in, no background check, no license. Is this correct?

State laws do vary, some states adhere to basic federal law wrt purchase, other states (like California) go far beyond the basics.

Laws pertaining to concealed or open carry are all state generated statutes - there is no federal statute addressing the carrying of firearms, although there are fed. laws pertaining to the shipment of firearms including the rules pertaining to traveling by air with firearm(s)

In general, a purchase of a handun under federal law requires the purchaser to be 21 or over, not in the prohibited class of individuals (felon, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, user of or addicted to drugs, habitual drunard, dishonerable discharged, under a restraining order, illegal alien, etc) the buyer must fill out a federal form (4473) and have government issued photo ID.

The individual purchaser is then run through a federal NICS background check at point of sale, with either an OK, denied or pending results - the pending class usually means that the records searched are incomplete, and the purchaser can provide their SSN# to narrow the search and then pass or be denied based on the background check.
In most states, that's it - the individual either leaves with their purchase or is denied.

Some states go much farther, California requiring a second proof of residency beyond the DL or ID card, all handguns are registered with the state at point of sale (DROS form Dealers Record of Sale) and there is a "Safe Gun Roster" that lists "Safe" handguns lawful for California sale by licensed dealers - individuals possessing "unsafe" handguns are allowed to sell same as individuals, but licensed (FFL - Federal Firearms Licensee) dealers are barred from selling those handguns from inventory - interestingly, law enforcement officers are exempt from this regulation.

In addition, there is a ten day (240 hours down to the exact second, I kid you not) waiting period, also applied to long guns.

Under federal law, no background check is required for long guns. Minimum age is 18 for purchase and possession.

California requires the same background check and ten day WP- and all long guns will be registered at point of sale as are handguns starting in 2013.

[Nessie]

It matters not one jot what gun controls are or are not introduced in the USA. There are too many guns out there to be able to control them and too many gun owners who will resist control.

USA culture is the cause of the high rate of homicides and number of mass shootings and that is not going to change any time soon, if at all.

[Dcdrac]

Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.

still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by BStrong

State laws do vary, some states adhere to basic federal law wrt purchase, other states (like California) go far beyond the basics.

Laws pertaining to concealed or open carry are all state generated statutes - there is no federal statute addressing the carrying of firearms, although there are fed. laws pertaining to the shipment of firearms including the rules pertaining to traveling by air with firearm(s)

In general, a purchase of a handun under federal law requires the purchaser to be 21 or over, not in the prohibited class of individuals (felon, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, user of or addicted to drugs, habitual drunard, dishonerable discharged, under a restraining order, illegal alien, etc) the buyer must fill out a federal form (4473) and have government issued photo ID.

The individual purchaser is then run through a federal NICS background check at point of sale, with either an OK, denied or pending results - the pending class usually means that the records searched are incomplete, and the purchaser can provide their SSN# to narrow the search and then pass or be denied based on the background check.
In most states, that's it - the individual either leaves with their purchase or is denied.

Am I misunderstanding that? I am reading that as in they leave with their purchase, if they pass, on the same day of application.

Quote:

Some states go much farther, California requiring a second proof of residency beyond the DL or ID card, all handguns are registered with the state at point of sale (DROS form Dealers Record of Sale) and there is a "Safe Gun Roster" that lists "Safe" handguns lawful for California sale by licensed dealers - individuals possessing "unsafe" handguns are allowed to sell same as individuals, but licensed (FFL - Federal Firearms Licensee) dealers are barred from selling those handguns from inventory - interestingly, law enforcement officers are exempt from this regulation.

In addition, there is a ten day (240 hours down to the exact second, I kid you not) waiting period, also applied to long guns.

Under federal law, no background check is required for long guns. Minimum age is 18 for purchase and possession.

California requires the same background check and ten day WP- and all long guns will be registered at point of sale as are handguns starting in 2013

What is the logic behind less strict regulations of long guns sales? Is it simply because they are harder to hide? Are they considered less lethal?

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.

still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it.

Define "powerful".

The rifle used in the tragedy is definitely on the lower end of the energy scale available in rifles.

As it is, more "powerful" rifles already cost more, and their ammunition cost more as well.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Almo

For me, good gun control would treat them in the same manner as cars. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ostensibly the car regulations are for safety, so why shouldn't guns have the same kind of restriction? People can get cars if they want them, they should be able to get guns if they want them. But not without going through some paperwork.

That's parallel to what I, a gun owner, have been arguing for years. However, before we can proceed we need to be clear about how difficult it is to own a firearm in the first place. You have to be 21 to own a handgun in the U.S.; this is a reasonable law. Buying one in my state takes five days without a license, and a couple of hours even with one.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Seriously? This data is gun facts 101.

That's the problem. This entire debate is allowed to occur when one side is given free license to mislead, misinterpret, and obscure.

Take suicides out of your data set and see what happens.

In addition it must be noted that a gun does not have to KILL an intruder to protect a family from being KILLED.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.

still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it.

I don't know if I think charging more is a good deterant, anyway. It has been my experience that enthusiests are so because they are willing to cut corners in any other area to attain that which they are enthusiastic about.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Making ownership of guns taxaeable with an incrementing scale according to how the powerful they are the more powerful and capable they are the highter the tax you pay.

still have the right to bear arms jsut expect to pay more for it.

Is there any objective rationale for that suggestion?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Is there any objective rationale for that suggestion?

I don't think so. It is just one of the many suggestions coming forward as people know something needs to be done, but they also know nothing can be done.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by BStrong

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

I'd have to go with this....this is my opinion also. Excellent.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Am I misunderstanding that? I am reading that as in they leave with their purchase, if they pass, on the same day of application.



What is the logic behind less strict regulations of long guns sales? Is it simply because they are harder to hide? Are they considered less lethal?

#1 yes - in most states there is no waiting period after the purchaser passes NICS.

#2 -Complicated. Long guns + hacksaw = concealable, but the general idea is that "sportsman" use of firearms is less problematic, and the cardinal rule of gun control real politic is "Don't piss off the Duckhunters!" because some keen waterfowlers can write out a 100K $ check to your opponent next election cycle if you do so.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It matters not one jot what gun controls are or are not introduced in the USA. There are too many guns out there to be able to control them and too many gun owners who will resist control.

On the contrary, there are many controls in place, and millions of gun owners take the responsibility to abide by the legal requirements. The gun controls are such that several seemingly benign activities we choose to participate in present a greater risk of injury or death than guns, gun owners, or gun oriented activities. But when someone tries to point out the greater risks we all accept every moment of our lives, to put the gun issue in some kind of broader perspective, gun opponents are often quick and certain to reject objective reality in favor of clinging to a subjective fear.

When I buy a handgun I have to wait three days after the purchase before I can take the gun home. That's so I don't buy a gun in a fit of rage and go kill my neighbor because his dog pees in my garden. Cooling off period, you know. But even if I go to the gun store to pick up a gun I bought three days ago, have the gun in my hand, ready to carry it out of there legally, a gun that I could use to shoot my neighbor, I can't buy another gun right then and there and take it home, too. I have to wait three days to pick up that other gun, even though I clearly could use the one I am taking home today. Silly? Sure. We do it because there are people who are so scared of guns that the regulation, silly as it is, gives them some peace of mind.

There's an issue here that the gun opponents seem reluctant to address. At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear? We already have regulations that accommodate their fear but have little objective rationale. For example, the idea of banning "assault weapons" is specifically designed to assuage the fear of people who don't understand guns, the machinery itself, the existing regulations, or the social dynamics that might put them at risk. The term "assault weapon" is intentionally loaded to work on the fearful.

So at what point along the way do we just accept that some people will be scared and we shouldn't have to coddle them any further? When we have regulations which are not based on objective reality but are put in place to make the fearful comfy? We're already there. The overwhelming majority of gun owners, although many may grumble at having to treat adult human beings like scared little kids, do abide by the rules and accept them as they stand. How far beyond that should we go?

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Snip...
It's CRIME CONTROL, not GUN CONTROL we need.

This is it.
Too much crime causes too many people to be nervous and keep a gun in the house to counter their fear of being attacked. This causes there to be too many accidents.

Violent crime by itself is a problem and is too high. If you have less violent crime, you will automatically have less violent crime with guns involved.


What causes so much violent crime? Too many people with in a bad situation who don't see a better way out. Poor, broke, no job, no chance of getting a job= turn criminal and take what you need (or want) or sell illegal drugs 'cause there's mucho bucks to be made doing that. Drugs are illegal, selling them is illegal. The criminals run it all, and their first thought is to just take out the competition via murder.

End the *********** useless war on drugs because it has turned into a war in the streets.

Improve the economy so people can get work.

Provide job training to people who need it.

Provide financial support to people who need it.

Provide medical care to people who need it.

Get people off the street and into a decent life.

Get the crazies some help.


Once you've done all that and you still think there's too many gun deaths we can talk about removing guns from the hands of the citizens

[Voodoosix]

why not treat them as we do cars?

must posses valid gun owners license, like a drivers license- pass test (written and range) plus extensive background check (id like to see psych eval too).

mandatory gun liability insurance (price commensurate with owner's qualifications, exp, and type of and number of guns)

yearly reg fee (like a license plate) for each gun owned.

huge fines penalties for possessing non reg/ins guns, severe punishment for using gun while a committing a crime (and for not filing transfer of ownership paperwork or not reporting a gun as stolen in a reasonable amount of time). if a gun reg to you is used by someone else to commit a crime you are responsible/liable as well.




hell we can fix the economy while were at it


(ps. im a gun owner)

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

On the contrary, there are many controls in place, and millions of gun owners take the responsibility to abide by the legal requirements.

Which is not contrary to what I said

Quote:

The gun controls are such that several seemingly benign activities we choose to participate in present a greater risk of injury or death than guns, gun owners, or gun oriented activities. But when someone tries to point out the greater risks we all accept every moment of our lives, to put the gun issue in some kind of broader perspective, gun opponents are often quick and certain to reject objective reality in favor of clinging to a subjective fear.

When I buy a handgun I have to wait three days after the purchase before I can take the gun home. That's so I don't buy a gun in a fit of rage and go kill my neighbor because his dog pees in my garden. Cooling off period, you know. But even if I go to the gun store to pick up a gun I bought three days ago, have the gun in my hand, ready to carry it out of there legally, a gun that I could use to shoot my neighbor, I can't buy another gun right then and there and take it home, too. I have to wait three days to pick up that other gun, even though I clearly could use the one I am taking home today. Silly? Sure. We do it because there are people who are so scared of guns that the regulation, silly as it is, gives them some peace of mind.

There's an issue here that the gun opponents seem reluctant to address. At what point should the scared people be expected to take responsibility for their own fear? We already have regulations that accommodate their fear but have little objective rationale. For example, the idea of banning "assault weapons" is specifically designed to assuage the fear of people who don't understand guns, the machinery itself, the existing regulations, or the social dynamics that might put them at risk. The term "assault weapon" is intentionally loaded to work on the fearful.

So at what point along the way do we just accept that some people will be scared and we shouldn't have to coddle them any further? When we have regulations which are not based on objective reality but are put in place to make the fearful comfy? We're already there. The overwhelming majority of gun owners, although many may grumble at having to treat adult human beings like scared little kids, do abide by the rules and accept them as they stand. How far beyond that should we go?

Who is more scared, the person who does not feel the need for a gun to defend them self or the person who does feel the need for a gun to defend them self? I say the latter, it the gun owners who are scared, they are the ones behaving like little kids seeing bogeymen in the night.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by BStrong

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do:

[...]

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns...

A week ago I'd have disagreed with you on machine guns. Over the past few days I have done some googling, and a little other research. Now I am a little more knowledgeable, and would agree with all of your suggestions.

Seems like a reasonable set of regs to me.

Why anyone might want to own a machine gun remains beyond me. given proper training/storage etc if an individual has a good reason to own one though I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to own one.

I do still like the idea of magazine capacity restrictions, though if there are good reasons not to have them then perhaps I'm wrong there.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by SezMe

But I will tell you what it would accomplish: the cost of the penal system would skyrocket. The USA has the highest prison population (both in terms of absolute number and based on population size). In California, we spend more on prisons that on education.

If you stopped putting people in prison for minor drug offences there might be a little more room

I'm watching with interest what happens in WA and CO. (that's a whole different thread though)

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Voodoosix

why not treat them as we do cars?

must posses valid gun owners license, like a drivers license- pass test (written and range) plus extensive background check (id like to see psych eval too).

mandatory gun liability insurance (price commensurate with owner's qualifications, exp, and type of and number of guns)

yearly reg fee (like a license plate) for each gun owned.

huge fines penalties for possessing non reg/ins guns, severe punishment for using gun while a committing a crime (and for not filing transfer of ownership paperwork or not reporting a gun as stolen in a reasonable amount of time). if a gun reg to you is used by someone else to commit a crime you are responsible/liable as well.




hell we can fix the economy while were at it


(ps. im a gun owner)

What you're suggesting is a defacto gun ban on the poor. Since the right to keep and bear arms is in the bill of rights, your suggestion necessitates an amendment to the 2nd.

Most of your ideas are already being enforced in Boston. It's really expensive.

[Voodoosix]

how poor is "poor"? we have a house hold income of about $35,000 and we own pay for all the fees on 2 cars (pp tax, city decal, inspection, reg and ins) annually.

im failing to see the problem for anyone other than those who think they need a lot of guns.

[Lithrael]

Rock! Thanks for some excellent posts, folks.

BStrong's ideas seem to have a lot of traction here, besides the punitive sentencing for gun crime part. I'll agree that such things tend not to work as intended. In general, it seems like punitive anything - sentencing, fines, etc.. aren't an effective way to go for guns as far as actual results. Again, I like the idea of treating guns like vehicles, though with how common it is for someone to own a whole collection, having to keep up individual registration, especially on a yearly basis, sounds like too much of a PITA unless you could find a way to make it extremely painless. We certainly seem to currently have many fees that are unsensibly high, and more red tape than actually does any good. A well thought out licence/registration scheme that replaced all that mess should be a vast improvement.

I'm not interested in 'assault' weapon bans, auto/semiauto bans, etc... It seems clear such bans, at least in the US, are not useful as far as keeping anyone safer.

I like the idea of an actual community militia... Maybe you could do it like community service; you could participate in the militia meet in exchange for a waiver of your licensing fees for the year, or something. That would a) make it so you don't have to do it if you REALLY don't want to and b) make it less painful for those with little disposable income.

Originally Posted by rwguinn

The problem with all the stuff proposed has one big problem.
By definition, criminals disregard any law the feel like disregarding.

Please, I'm trying to talk about what would encourage gun safety, not what would stop gun crime. This is not a 'how to make your life difficult if you like guns' thread. This is a 'how much do you gun owners trust everyone else who wants to be a gun owner' thread.

I honestly can't figure out how you go from

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Trust me-when you teach Hunter Ed, as I did for several years in Colorado, you meet and try to teach a number of folks who you do not want to be in the field with.

to

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Having to take a test before you can purchase or possess is another feel-good idea that does not a damn thing to address the problem.

in the same breath? You say there are gun owners who don't know what they're doing to the point you wouldn't want to be around them, AND you think some kind of gun class as a requirement of ownership is a stupid and unhelpful idea?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

That's the problem. This entire debate is allowed to occur when one side is given free license to mislead, misinterpret, and obscure.

Take suicides out of your data set and see what happens.

In addition it must be noted that a gun does not have to KILL an intruder to protect a family from being KILLED.

How much more dangerous than, say, the UK is the U.S. ?

We don't have guns available for home defence and yet the number of people killed in break-ins is very small indeed.

edited to add.....

In 2010 there were 45 murders that happened during a burglary or robbery, source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...office-figures

Scaling for the size of country, eliminating all such murders (and remember this includes robberies not just home burglaries) would reduce the U.S. death toll by around 230, less than half the number of people killed accidentally.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Not legally they can't.

If dealers can sell then half the equation is out of law enforcement's hands.

If people can legally buy and the only law they are breaking is moving that gun illegally, that is a different threshold for people. If they have to go to the black market to buy, that is a different threshold and many many fewer people cross that threshold.

Originally Posted by BStrong

The two Supremme Court cases Heller and Mcdonald have put the fork in any chance of a blanket federal ban on firearms in common use.

I don't agree with your interpretation.

[uke2se]

How many crimes are averted each year by gun wielding citizens - excluding cops of course?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Rock! Thanks for some excellent posts, folks.

BStrong's ideas seem to have a lot of traction here, besides the punitive sentencing for gun crime part. I'll agree that such things tend not to work as intended. In general, it seems like punitive anything - sentencing, fines, etc.. aren't an effective way to go for guns as far as actual results. Again, I like the idea of treating guns like vehicles, though with how common it is for someone to own a whole collection, having to keep up individual registration, especially on a yearly basis, sounds like too much of a PITA unless you could find a way to make it extremely painless. We certainly seem to currently have many fees that are unsensibly high, and more red tape than actually does any good. A well thought out licence/registration scheme that replaced all that mess should be a vast improvement.

I'm not interested in 'assault' weapon bans, auto/semiauto bans, etc... It seems clear such bans, at least in the US, are not useful as far as keeping anyone safer.

I like the idea of an actual community militia... Maybe you could do it like community service; you could participate in the militia meet in exchange for a waiver of your licensing fees for the year, or something. That would a) make it so you don't have to do it if you REALLY don't want to and b) make it less painful for those with little disposable income.



Please, I'm trying to talk about what would encourage gun safety, not what would stop gun crime. This is not a 'how to make your life difficult if you like guns' thread. This is a 'how much do you gun owners trust everyone else who wants to be a gun owner' thread.

I honestly can't figure out how you go from to in the same breath? You say there are gun owners who don't know what they're doing to the point you wouldn't want to be around them, AND you think some kind of gun class as a requirement of ownership is a stupid and unhelpful idea?

When you're not allowed to flunk an individual who passes a written test (standardized) and doesn't have an accident at the range test (not to mention many people can pass a test and still not know what the hell they're actually doing), you get that attitude.
But, on your other points, there are some very good programs on firearm safety, including the NRA's, for kids of all ages, which teach respect and reality of firearms. They work. But they are not allowed in schools. And most people are too afraid of guns to allow their kids to go to these programs/classes--the oft-stated reason is that it 'encourages gun use"...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I looked at the data, and as noted above, once you remove the suicide by gun count from the statistics, it's no longer true. As far as assaults with weapons, or accidental shootings, more people get shoot by guns they don't own. Since these thread isn't about self-inflicted wounds, including suicides is not entirely honest.

There are plenty of conflicting ways to manipulate the stats out there. You can find whatever you want to support your preferred outcome.

Reliable medical sources of data all say people are more likely to be killed by their own guns when there is a gun in the house. The depressed teen who kills himself with his parent's gun is just as dead as the kid killed in the shooting on the high school football field. The battered spouse is just as dead when a gun is easily within reach in the heat of the moment.

Another way to interpret your version is people don't need guns, there aren't that many strangers with guns breaking in their houses to kill them.

I work and am educated in the medical field. In medicine you weigh risk vs benefit and only in some circumstances, some neighborhoods, is it safer to own a gun than to not own one.


On a personal level, I had a boyfriend that was into guns. While moving from one house to another, our un-occupied house was burgled and they got one of his guns. We also think we came home while he was there because we found an empty beer bottle from our fridge in the backyard.

So we likely came home when a possibly intoxicated burglar was in our house with my boyfriend's loaded gun in the burglar's hands.

Yes yes, anyone can rationalize, that wouldn't happen to them, they are more careful with their guns, yadda yadda. The data shows even careful people make human mistakes.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Who is more scared, the person who does not feel the need for a gun to defend them self or the person who does feel the need for a gun to defend them self? I say the latter, it the gun owners who are scared, they are the ones behaving like little kids seeing bogeymen in the night.

It might help you avoid such severe misunderstandings if you'd read the entire discussion.