I'd like to try and see if there is possible agreement

[upaloopa]

by both sides of this gun debate on new legislation that has as it's intent the reduction of gun violence in this country.
I would ask that those who want to see guns eliminated from our society and those that believe there should be no legislation restricting gun rights stay out of this thread. Obviously there can be no agreement on those positions so it is a waste of good space to post them here I think.
For me I think we can agree that better background checks, tougher laws to prevent straw purchases and illegal purchases and a federal register would reduce gun violence. Also laws restricting gun ownership by domestic violence perps and severe mentally I'll patients is a good idea.
I think those ideas should be put in place soon and studies done by CDC and FBI to measure the effectiveness of them should be made public.
I think all of us, gun owners and non gun owners can agree that a reduction in gun violence in this country is something worth working together on.
I also think that we should end the war on drugs and decriminalize drug possession. We need to remove the incentive for gang violence and turf wars. Jobs bills would reduce poverty and with that we would see a reduction in domestic violence and suicides.
So let's both sides see if we can agree on measures to reduce gun violence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Most here would agree with your first two

third one would be more controversial because of what has happened in NOLA and California.

There also are some real practical issues and details that would have to be worked. Neither pols nor discussion groups are good at that, and with guns, the technical and the details matter. For example
- Do we really want to treat interfamily transfers (gifts, inheritance, loans...) the same as buying a new gun?
- The current background check system has inadequate throughput and is FFL specific. It needs to be opened up and improved.
- Federalizing the process should also be considered. It would end the patchwork of current laws. That would make it tighter in Wyoming and looser in California. Objections to that would come from all sides as well.

Criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill are already banned, though it varies somewhat state to state. The real issue is reporting. I have not seen any real opposition to that other than costs.

[jmg257]

3. Not to pick on this, as it just occured to me, but didn't Nancy Lanza give guns to Adam as gifts?

Didn't relatives try to shield the 2 murders n GA who shot the toddler in the face?

Maybe family members aren't the best judges of the character &/or potential dangers their relatives represent? Maybe they just aren't responsible enough themsleves?

Gifting may indeed be something needing some control.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Not clear if they were transfers or not

My daughters received some firearms as gifts when they were minors. They were all in my name and they used them only under supervision. When they moved out of the house I transferred them to them as adults in a manner required by law. Similarly with the Lanzas, its not clear if there were formal transfers or not, given his age, I suspect not.

Another item that would need to clarified is loaning. If I take someone out to the range and let them shoot something I own, should that require a check? I think not. Same with hunting guns while in the field. However, if they take it home with them etc, that is clearly some sort of transfer. An FOID approach would address much of this.

[jmg257]

5. The new bill about UBCs does take the loaning - 'temporary transfers' - into account.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf

[defacto7]

2. Honestly, I have always been for balance, negotiation, middle ground

But there is a phenomenon in America now that is probably unprecedented. It's a polarization of ideology that seems practically impossible to bridge. Let me make a terribly extreme analogy just for a point... put Gandhi and Stalin in the same room and ask them to find middle ground. There would be no middle ground between these two ideologies; it would never happen. But if you meshed the two mechanically... what do you end up with? Probably something between George Bush and Obama. I think we have tried to find middle ground on issues of race, violence, capitalism, environment, human rights, animal rights, you name it. The problem is, it is like finding middle ground where Grand Canyons of ideology exist.

I wish us all the best in finding the solutions to gun violence and the trauma and mental illness that both precipitates it and follows it. But there is a chasm of understanding between methods that is almost impossible to mesh and therefore reaching that goal of peace probably will not happen without great losses on one side. Only one side.