The "Broad Brush"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

If anything, experience with recent legislation attempts has demonstrated that the key to progress in the area of gun-control is cooperation. Folks that address me with same tone and words they would use for Ted Nugent are not working for that progress. Those that suggest anyone in favor of expanded laws are "grabbers" are not working for progress.

There is a position between the extremes that will improve laws, save lives and protect freedom.

I favor UBCs. I'm not sure how best that could be enacted but I'd like to discuss what should and should not be part of those aspects considered.

[Duckhunter935]

1. I myself

favor a license that could be graduated to type of weapon, pistol, semi pistol, bolt rifle, semi rifle. background check and safety, operations test good for 4+ years. Renew same as drivers license but would include a quick background check. All would have to be limited in cost to not make it a "barrier" to ownership. Show card buy weapons and ammo, NO waiting period. All transfers would have be done at an FFL to verify card at no cost. Security of weapons would would also be required, most hand guns already come with locks and the same can be done for rifles.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I'll think on those.

[Eleanors38]

2. I agree. UBCs have been a staple topic in the "Gungeon" for yrs.

The approaches to achieve have bern several, but generally positive.

I will toss out a topic for a good UBC discussion: Why not open the current NICs system for Everyone, not just Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), to use? Haven't heard a good reason not to. It would be simple and quick to change the federal law, and may encourage states to enact intra-state NICS requirements, and not have to set up individual systems.

We are all human and have dreams for better.

[Duckhunter935]

3. I agree

that would be great thing, open up NICS. Internet makes it all possible.

[oldhippie]

4. Another place where the UBC discussion breaks down, ...

.... among both the pro and anti groups, is when it gets to the mental health background. This area is just so touchy to most that things break down quickly. A large group of people wants very rigorous mental health standard (like a complete psych eval before being able to buy a gun) and another equally large group is terrified of the potential for abuse that it could cause. Who, exactly, gets to decide whether someone is "mentally stable?" There are some that will say anyone who wants a weapon is crazy, and others that say restricting freedom is nuts. politicians have a hard time dealing with this, as does DU.

[Eleanors38]

5. A poster opined yesterday that no one should be forced

to undergo psyche evaluation to see if they were prone to flipping out & shooting up a school, but favored a massive scheme for psyche evaluations to own a gun.

Psychology and its terms are moral bludgeons thinly-veiled in academic talk.

[oldhippie]

8. Here's another perfect example .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4180195

[Eleanors38]

9. Gary Wills. What he would have done at Salem.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Mandatory mental evals...

...just seem like another non-starter.

[Duckhunter935]

6. agreed

It is always in the details. UBC polls at around 90 percent until you start putting in the details and then it falls quickly. Mental health is one part. What if I want to loan a rifle to my brother to hunt for a month? Loan a guy a weapon at the range? Some want a full background check to do just that.

[spin]

15. The mental health check requirement reminds me of the novel "Catch 22."

Say a law passes that requires a physiological evaluation before the purchase of a firearm. According to some "experts" only an insane person would wish to own a firearm so therefore asking for the evaluation would automatically disqualify a person from being permitted to buy one.

In passing I know a psychologist who told me that she felt it would be possible to determine if a person was dangerously insane in one short visit coupled with a test.

I personally feel we need to do more research on the meds that our doctors are passing out like candy for minor mental problems such as sleep disorders and feelings of stress. It seems that a high percentage of recent shooters were on such meds and many of these drugs are known to lead to suicidal thoughts especially when a person first starts taking them or when he/she steps.

[sir pball]

13. I think private sales, even BC'ed, are a bad idea tbh

No traceability. I think all sales should go through an FFL (for a statutorily-limited fee, say $15) and be recorded in the Bound Book. It gives a complete chain of custody to the last legal owner, which is a huge boon for law enforcement, without any of the boogeymen of direct registration - nobody in the Evil Federal Government can call up a list of who owns what, but a crime gun can be tracked to the last person who was qualified to own it (who's gonna have some 'splainin to do). Make a new class of FFL that's only allowed to mediate transactions and maintain records, but no physical inventory, and you've also created a cottage industry for people who want a little extra money or bored retirees or whatnot.

I also don't really mind an FOID card that isn't linked to specific firearms - I mean, if you have a CCW you're already announcing to The Man that you own guns, so there's no logical paranoia/privacy reason not to generalize it.

[Eleanors38]

16. The oppening up of NICS is an immediate step. I agree

that a more formal practice would probably be better, one whereby the records are not in Government hands unless by warrant.

In that note, wouldn't it be interesting to see how those who complain about NSA data mining (and I am among them) feel about including records of all guns owned & their owners?

[Duckhunter935]

7. please notice

that exactly none of those great people that are calling for discussion in GD are here having a civil discussion. They are more than welcome and I do hope they will get up the gumption to stop by and talk. The waters fine and so far no name calling.

The invite is out.............

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. True enough

But many have this group on ignore.

[rrneck]

14. It's hard to cooperate with fundamentalists. nt

[NYC_SKP]

17. Recommended.

More harm is done by insult than good. Progress that might have happened by finding consensus is never realized because of intolerance of any position that deviates from the extremist position of zealous gun rights "reformers".

K/R

[CreekDog]

18. i like how you call us "extremists"

when our positions are actually to the right of the average person in most social democracies.

[NYC_SKP]

19. What have the extremists accomplished? Nothing, except to have polarized the conversation.

Blocked finding common ground and presenting to legislators and the rest of the world a united front.

More harm than good, and very little good.

Good Democrats have lost their seats for making bad decisions, more pro-gun legislation has been passed than pro-safety.

We would probably be able to pass some meaningful reform if the Moms and the Bloombergs and the rest would put aside the appeal to emotions and, instead, appeal to reason.