What do you consider "Sensible gun control"? (Read the post before responding)

[shadowrider]

Over the past week or so, there have been untold numbers of posts calling for more "sensible gun control", but very, very little in the way of substance.

Don't answer this post with emotional rants about keeping guns out of the hands of madmen. I and all other gun owners agree with that 100%. That begs the question, how do we PRE-EMPTIVELY determine who is, and who is not, ABOUT to go off?

Two guys, both are loners, both live alone, both are social outcasts, both smoke a little pot, both put up questionable rants against society on a social networking site. One becomes a homicidal maniac, the other sits on his porch and talks to himself (and answering) but is otherwise harmless.

HOW do we determine who the threat is? This requires some thought to put this into legislation that is effective and NON-INTRUSIVE to lawful gun owners rights.

Which of the 22,000 gun laws already on the books isn't enough and how many more are necessary to fix what is wrong with what's already there?

So, what are your "sensible gun control" regulations?

[Fumesucker]

1. IBTM..

:hi:

ETA: It occurred to me to wonder why, if you are incapable of following simple and well known rules on posting on a website, you are responsible enough to own a firearm?

[Trajan]

11. LOL ... Well said ....

Thanks ....

[mmonk]

2. Ask a police officer who is outgunned on the street and get back to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Few police are out gunned here in CA

We have the artificial magazine restriction (10 rounds) and many depts have class three weapons (fully automatic) weapons.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Police officers have access to firearms the public cannot buy...

Many precincts have the officers carrying shotguns in thier car (in addition to their sidearms) and some precincts even allow the officers to pack AR15 or M16 rifles in their trunks. Not to mention the mace, tasers, or body armor police can often be equipped with...

Can you cite examples or illustrate what you mean?

[mmonk]

8. You can check.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=police+officers+outgunned&cp=24&qe=cG9saWNlIG9mZmljZXJzIG91dGd1bm5lZA&qesig=EiOddnpguFgKJvzvazNDNA&pkc=AFgZ2tndVZ5JgaBPKZ_xH1D6Vr4EgG3Wn5EAfIM24dFDT3iM5URtxR_tsBdk-_49xeMEVROC5lwVntPqmXDAvcX9-groFAMwpA&pf=p&sclient=psy&rlz=1W1ADBF_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=police+officers+outgunned&pbx=1&fp=77a6fa40f303a0e3

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. I didn't see any axamples...

[PavePusher]

67. A brief perusal showed no instances where criminals had access...

to anything the police don't have.

The police have access to "assault weapons" and full-up assault rifles.

The police have nearly unrestriced access to full machine guns.

They have various grenades (smoke, gas, flash and explosive) and explosives.

They have armored vehicles with .50 caliber military heavy machine guns.


Please explain, in small words, how they are "out-gunned"?

[Taitertots]

10. Police Offices can buy NIB fully automatic weapons from the manufacturers

Anyone who claims the police are out gunned is a liar.

[mmonk]

36. The ability to buy them is different than every beat officer carrying one.

[bluestate10]

37. If police departments want officers carrying automatic rifles, departments would purchase them. nt

[PavePusher]

65. And since no-one is carrying them in public...

the officers are hardly "out-gunned".

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I haven't seen a police car without an AR-15 or similar in it

for a long time. Tide shifted after the North Hollywood shootout.

Interestingly, two heavily armed and armored individuals attacked the police with fully automatic weapons, and both perps caught some dead, no police were killed. (Though several were injured).

[Taitertots]

99. Yes, if they don't have them it is because they choose to make it that way

They are not out gunned, they are refusing to use the tools they are legally able to purchase.

[Recursion]

34. There were fewer cops killed ITLOD last year than any year since 1956

In fact, the entire last decade would have been a record low except for 9/11.

[notesdev]

56. Outgunned police?

You don't know what kind of hardware police have these days, do you? Some of them even have tanks.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I saw the Redmond PD tank getting new shoes at Les Schwab Tires one afternoon.

That was kinda cool to watch.


(Technically an APC, but still, a turretless tank in station wagon format)

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Look at you, falling for the media spin hook line and sinker.

They can only be 'outgunned' in the sense of maybe two people shooting at one officer, or if the officer just leaves all his firearms at home.

They have access to everything that I cannot legally purchase; not just in my state, but nationwide.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. What do you consider "reasonable regulations"?

Is there a point where you'd say "this xxxxx (weapon/accessory/device) is more than a person should be allowed to own or possess?

Just curious.

[Tejas]

22. Gun crimes beng punished with full terms.

The penal codes are there, now if the courts would only USE them.

[TheCowsCameHome]

55. I meant in terms of what a person should be allowed to legally own.

Do you (or anyone else here) believe there should be a limit?

If so, what would it be?

[Tejas]

86. My bad, was trying to

interject the idea that the tool isn't the problem, it's the users of that tool that have criminal intent that are the problem.

[NewMoonTherian]

106. This is something that interests me too.

Being about as pro-RKBA as anyone could be, I find this an extremely hard question to answer. I certainly feel that fully-automatics, SBR's, silencers, and large calibers should be accessible with a NICS check. Most everything beyond that, I haven't given enough thought, but I'd be eager to discuss making some of them more available. If you were wondering, no, I don't endorse deregulating nuclear devices.

[RSillsbee]

81. If it's on theT O &E for an 11 Bravo I want one NT

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Well can we start the discussion without injecting NRA propaganda ?

You write,
"Which of the 22,000 gun laws already on the books isn't enough and how many more are necessary to fix what is wrong with what's already there?"

22,000 gun laws? What does that mean exactly? How many of these laws actually apply specifically to who can or can't own a gun?

I will guess that there is no legislation that would satisfy a sliver of gun owners in regard to keeping weapons from mentally unbalanced people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. False as to fact

As the OP said no one wants the mentally unbalanced to have access to firearms

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. And how exactly would the OP know that?

I would offer that many gun owners would, in fact, be OK with the mentally unbalanced owning guns if the alternative was to curtail the convenience by which THEY could acquire guns. I think the public record and this OP demonstrate that mindset perfectly. The OP offers that it is important to include in this discussion the "intrusiveness" of any efforts to determine who is mentally unbalanced and should not own a gun. Right off the bat we get the OP wanting to weigh his convenience against the need to keep unbalanced individuals from owning guns.

[bluestate10]

44. The OP asked for a debate, not a flame.

I virulently disagree with some of the points that the OP made. I laid out my disagreement in a post, without questioning the OP's motives. If people that feel that gun ownership is a privilege, just like driving and should be regulated with national standards are going to push gun laws in the direction of sanity, we won't win debates by becoming emotional and shutting down the opposing side's viewpoint. As a matter of fact, we must analyze that viewpoint calmly and propose alternatives that the other side will at least consider.

[shadowrider]

46. You are exactly correct. Discussion is required,

Buy yourself a beer!

:toast:

[Vinnie From Indy]

52. Would that discussion also include the examination and explanation of facts

presented by all sides? I will grant you that the word "propaganda" in my post was a poor choice of words. Other than that, I feel comfortable with my query.

Cheers!

[AtheistCrusader]

89. The NRA helped write and pass the current federal laws

around adjudication of mental instability, and are as responsible as Brady is, for the National Instant Background Check law being passed.

The states need to uniformly feed mental health data into that system. I know of no serious gun owners that are opposed to any of this, and I don't even like the NRA.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Any you complian about so called propoganda?

HIPPA and other health privacy laws as well as lawsuits have strongly discouraged people from forcing the mentally ill to get treatment. Somehow you hold those in support of self defense gun ownership responsible for that.

[Buzz Clik]

16. His post didn't state as fact that anyone wants to grant the mentally unbalanced access to firearms

Rather, he said that some people will never be satisfied with any legislation that would result in restricting anyone's access to firearms. The differences is subtle but important. That fact has been demonstrated repeatedly, even on this thread.

[dsc]

40. but they are utterly unwilling to put up with any inconvenience

no matter how tiny to affect that goal. It is just like saying no one in Arizona wants to see medicaid patients die waiting for transplants but apparently they are unwilling to pay any money to affect that goal. You can't claim to want to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns with one face and then say but we are unwilling to have back round checks at gun shows, unwilling to have any waiting period to run back round checks, unwilling to have any registration of guns so that they can be tracked with the other face.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Yours is the definitive post on this thread. Nothing more needs to be said.

When someone who is opposed to gun legislation puts up the kind of comments we see in the opening post, it's a set up -- we cannot satisfy the author of the thread under any circumstances. This scenario repeats itself endless.

[Taitertots]

14. Block people adjudicated mentally unfit from buying guns

Continue the NFA system for automatics, SBRs, SBS, and AOWs.
Have an FBI instant background check when purchasing firearms.

Oh wait, we already do that. Continue doing what we do and expand mental health coverage, because that is the problem.

[Buzz Clik]

18. In this regard, the OP has a point.

If a person has not been diagnosed as unstable and is not seeking mental health care, then we cannot know that he/she is a ticking bomb.

[Taitertots]

21. That is the problem with considering people innocent until proven guilty

You don't get to punish people until they have actually done something wrong. We cannot know who is a ticking bomb, but we must assume people are not until they give us reasonable reason to believe they are.

To respond to this we must expand mental health availability through universal single payer health care.

[Buzz Clik]

24. I, too, want a single payer health care system, but it won't solve the problem.

But, it might help.

[Taitertots]

26. What problem? The non-existent gun problem

The problem is that we have no means to determine who is dangerously unstable.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Oh. I thought we were having a conversation.

You're just ranting. Carry on.

[Taitertots]

45. Rant? I'm just commenting on our focus being on two different problems

The problem is that we have no means to remove dangerous people from society. That dangerous people get guns is a symptom of the problem. The law already prevents dangerous mentally unfit people from buying guns. The solution is better mental health screening facilitated through Universal single payer health care. Universal Single payer can solve the problem.

[steve2470]

15. sincere question: If all the existing laws were consistently enforced, what would happen ?

Sincere question.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Hardcore advocates of the 2nd Amendment, when honest, will admit that they don't want them enforced.

It's just a talking point. Their goal is to have NO anti-firearm legislation passed and if passed to leave the laws unenforced.

[shadowrider]

47. Your post contributes nothing to the discussion

Of course we want current laws enforced. If they were, there would be no need for more (unenforced) laws to be put on the books.

[bluestate10]

54. I disagree.

The gun laws that you mentioned vary in uniformity. In my state, it is difficult for even me to get a gun. I am as plain vanilla as a person comes, with no criminal record and no mental problems. In many states, I could walk into a gun store and walk out with powerful guns that have no purpose other than killing people.

The issue is not whether a hunter wants to own rifles, shotguns and pistols, but whether that same hunter needs a high capacity glock, M16 or AK. My view is let the hunter have registered firerams that are used for hunting. If that hunter wants to shoot a high capacity glock, or AK, or assault rifle, the hunter should be required to go to licensed gun ranges where those guns are available for use under professional supervision, but not sold.

[PavePusher]

69. The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Neither are the State Constitution versions of it.


Did you post this under professional supervision? If not, shouldn't you have limited yourself to writing on a sheet of paper and posting it in the town square?

[RSillsbee]

83. registered firearms

Many gun owners (myself included) will not bend on that point registration is but a step away from confiscation.

[Buzz Clik]

74. Ok, then -- prove me wrong. Give me a piece of gun control legislation that you support.

If you support any control measures at all it will set you apart from the thousands who espouse that poster you have on your sig line.

[shadowrider]

75. I support all gun legislation already on the books. There is no need for more

If you have additional legislation you'd like to see, tell me what it is and I'll tell you whether or not I support it.

[Buzz Clik]

78. You support it all, yet you still equate gun control to Mao and Pol Pot?

Impossible.



Your opening post makes a reasonable point -- additional legislation is not needed nor would additional legislation be effective at finding potential murderers. You should have stuck to that premise and let the rest go.

[shadowrider]

79. Supporting gun legislation in the US has NOTHING to do with calling

Pol Pot and Mao gun controllers which they most certainly were.

And I believe the post you responded to echoed your end paragraph. We don't need more. We need to figure out HOW to identify the threat BEFORE they go off. Any suggestions on how that's to be done?

[PavePusher]

68. Cite to evidence? Or did you pull that from your colon? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

96. From my colon to your ear?

It's called personal experience.

Or, perhaps you would care to cite endless references to prove me wrong. Surely, you aren't just being argumentative.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. Most of us are convinced that if they were enforced no additional laws would be needed

and in fact some of the racist and classist legislation in place could be rolled back.

The national rules are (notionally):
- No criminals with guns
- No mentally ill with guns
- Federal background check for FFL purchases
Those are in place today and backed by gun owners. WHat other practical and effective means would you suggest?

[notesdev]

57. The universe would implode

at least, that's what you'd figure based on the EXTREME aversion of law enforcement to actually enforce the law.

[Overseas]

17. The ban on assault weapons and 30-round booster ammunition that was allowed to expire

in 2004 would be a start at lessening the impact of disturbed right wingers set off by the hours and hours of broadcast violent rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

But many politicians felt intimidated by the power of the NRA back in 2004 and let that ban expire.

Now that we're in the age of Citizens' United and anonymous millions in campaign cash to defeat them in the next election, who will have the courage to reinstate that ban?

Sensible gun owners acknowledge that they don't need 30-round booster ammunition to hunt or protect themselves. I would hope that those responsible NRA members could get the leadership of the NRA to commit to sensible restrictions like that.

[Tejas]

27. "booster ammunition" - 2 or 3 stage? Can you hit sattellites with it?

I'd like a box of your best booster ammunition and toss in some of those heat-seeking bullets.....oh, and a shoulder thing, I'd prefer one that goes up.


:rofl:

[X_Digger]

28. There was no appreciable difference in the percentage of such magazines used in crime 94-04

What demonstrable, verifiable benefit can be derived from the previous ban?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Hard to take a post serious when it contains only scare words and no facts

- 2nd amendment is not about hunting
- Standard magazine capacity for modern handguns is 13-18
- Standard magazine capacity for modern rifles is 30
- The national a local assault weapons bans are ineffective
- What are called assault weapons are not assault weapons
- The laws today are pretty good, they just need to be followed

[scarletwoman]

20. My 2 cents: I'd prefer to restrict the supply side rather than the demand side.

I don't think restrictions on the buying of guns will ever be viable. I would like to see restrictions on the manufacturing of guns and ammunition.

I agree with those who insist that placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens' ability to purchase guns and ammo will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Therefore, it seems to me that the only way to even the odds is to choke off the flow of weaponry at its source: the manufacturers.

Make it illegal to manufacture anything for purchase by the general public beyond some basic models of handguns suitable for self-defense, period. Leave the manufacture of legitimate hunting rifles and shotguns alone, as well as the manufacture of specific weaponry for exclusive use by the police and military, under extremely tight controls.

The problem is the unrestricted tide of leathal weaponry flooding the market, therefore easily making its way to all sorts of unsavory characters -- like American gangs and the drug cartels in Mexico. If such weaponry weren't allowed on the market in the first place it would go a long way to increase the safety of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

sw

[shadowrider]

25. THAT is a thought out post. I don't agree it would ever work

since any legislation enacted here would not impact the manufacture or sale of weapons from an outside (the USA) source.

But your answer is thoughtful and devoid of insults. Thanks!

[scarletwoman]

35. Thank you. As for foreign manufacturers, we do have the ability to restrict all sorts of imports.

Not 100% foolproof, of course, but nothing's ever perfect.

[hack89]

59. Don't we also restrict the import of cocaine and heroin?

yet criminals don't seem to have any problem getting and selling either product. Do you really think it would be hard to smuggle guns and ammo into America?

[scarletwoman]

76. Actually I do. Gun factories aren't underground and illegal, they operate in full view.

The governments of other countries would have an interest in imposing the same restrictions on what gun manufacturers produce -- for example, Europe already has many more restrictions on gun ownership than we do.

I'm not saying that choking off supply would solve everything, but it would be a start.

[shadowrider]

77. Let me respectfully correct your statement

Gun factories aren't underground and illegal, they operate in full view so far, but once a choking of LEGAL supply is obtained, it won't take them long to go underground.

There, fixed it.

[Maine_Nurse]

82. Absolutely correct

I could make a functional and safe firearm in an afternoon just with my basic tools and access to a home depot. Give me a week of after work time (and $300 to buy a drill press and bits which I don't own) and I could whip up a Sterling submachine gun pretty easily.

[hack89]

85. Corrupt countries like Russia can and will provide all the guns we would want

guns and ammo are made everywhere on the planet - the machinery and expertise is simple and widespread. Just like drugs, an illicit gun factory protected by bribes to politicians would be a mint to organized crime.

[X_Digger]

31. Restrict the supply for US Mfgs, and others will fill the demand.

Much like criminals in the UK getting firearms, or US consumers getting currently illegal substances- as long as demand is up, supply will fill it.

[sharesunited]

64. The pernicious and diabolical Heller affirming Miller is its holding that

2nd Amendment protection extends to weapons "in popular use."

That is a one-way descent into hell since it incentivizes all the pro-gun stakeholders to proliferate products with more and more lethality.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. Bet you say the same thing about other decisions affirming rights and liberties

[sharesunited]

98. Wrong. The 2A is playing with dynamite.

All your other rights and liberties get snuffed out in seconds with extreme prejudice.

[PavePusher]

70. Except for the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

And neither are any of the State Constitution versions.

So your proposal would not pass current legal review.

You'll need to amend the Constitution, and I don't see that happening, fortunately.

[Maine_Nurse]

80. No way to work

It is pretty easy to manufacture both firearms and ammunition, even with nothing more than a basic home workshop, let alone for anyone with access to basic machinists tools and knowledge. You can't restrict charcoal, pipe, and metal, just won't work. One of my former customers who raced stock cars locally and did his own auto work had about $1500 in tools (most purchased used and at auctions) that are used to weld frames and machine some engine parts. He built a really nice bolt action .50 BMG rifle from scratch in very little time. Making a semi or full for that caliber takes a bit more engineering knowledge, but it would have been pretty simple for this mechanic to fab up a Sterling sub-machine gun if he desired. They are pretty simple machines. You simply can't restrict charcoal, steel, and tools.

The people that keep the world going round (plumbers, welders, machinists, mechanics, etc), have all the skills, knowledge, and tools to start making automatic weapons, just like farmers or even everyday home gardeners could easily convert to growing coca, poppies, and cannabis.

There will always be people to make weapons no matter what you do, then you have criminals having access to this stuff and you end up forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to violate laws in order to protect themselves.

[jody]

23. For over a decade, I've participated in DU discussions on this topic. I have not read a single post

that recognized the responsibility of each individual to defend them self and proposed a "sensible gun control" law with a 100% guarantee that government would never use it to disarm law-abiding citizens.

PA (1776) got it right in their first constitution, VT copied Pa's constitution in 1777.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Of all the states, Pennsylvania was the first to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and state as a “natural, inherent and inalienable rights”.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

62. And for the ostensible "purpose" of going to war with the government.

What utter nonsense.

Been there, done that. It was called the Civil War.

Never again.

[PavePusher]

71. So, you have historical fact and evidence to refute his presentation...

of Constitutional and legal history?

Bring it on, please.

[grahamhgreen]

60. Very interesting - thanks for the info.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

30. Why the infamous right-wing graphic in your signature?

And why do people come to DU just to flood the guns forum?

Just wondering.

[bluestate10]

33. You make a number of salient points.

I do not have a criminal record, nor have I ever been near getting one. I would be a prime candidate for getting a gun under the strictest gun laws, even if I planned to murder someone with it.

But, statistically, people like me are not people that are going to kill other human beings with guns, unless legally given that option as a member of the military or police.

Now to tackle some of the issues that you raised. Yes, there are a lot of gun laws on books, but those laws are a hodge-podge of regulation that apply in some jurisdictions and not in others. What is needed is a well thought out, well crafted national standard that applies to all jurisdictions.

I differ with you point that legislation should be non-intrusive. Legislation has to have some element of intrusion in it to be effective. If I want to buy a gun, I should have to wait for a month or two and talk to my local police about why I feel that I need a gun. The police should be required to research a national registry to determine whether I have been convicted of a crime or had documented mental problems, and even whether I have just gotten divorced and am potentially pissed at my former wife. And once granted a gun permit, my name should go into a national registry with the identification numbers for the gun. Having to go through what I had to go through to get a gun, I would be more aware about keeping it out of the hands of people that could kill innocents with it. The requirements that I go through to get a gun in my state should be the same that a person in Mississippi has to go through and the investigation and seriousness of the investigation into why I need a gun by police in my town should be the same standards that cops for the Mississippi gun applicant faces.

If a person feels that they urgently need a gun for protection, they should be allowed to request expedited approval and police protection until they have the gun and bullets in hand. The procedure for getting that expedited approval and protection should also be a national standardized procedure that all police agencies follow.

Congrats for posting this OP. Debate on gun ownership should happen without vitriol, I think you post adhered to that goal, even as I firmly disagree with you on some critical aspects of gun ownership requests.

[shadowrider]

41. And I truly appreciate the thoughtful response. n/t

[Maine_Nurse]

53. Oh God no...

"What is needed is a well thought out, well crafted national standard that applies to all jurisdictions"

This I disagree with strongly. What NYC or Chicago might think they need for firearms laws are certainly not applicable to my state (although I subscribe to the thought that the only people that comply with their inner-city laws are the ones that you'd want to allow to own firearms anyway). There are some issues that are best dealt with nationally such as the NICS check database, however as heavily armed as Maine is and as little restrictions as we have on firearms, we are near the bottom of the list on firearms crimes and deaths, as are NH and Vermont, two other "local" states with very permissive firearms laws and very high rates of ownership, yet low rates of crime. What fits us probably doesn't fit you and vice versa.

You're portion about "police protection" is also laughable in many areas. I live about 45 minutes from a police response in an emergency (also 30-45 minutes from an EMT response in an emergency). There IS not police protection to be had, only after the fact investigation.

It really does come down to enforcement of current laws, especially in the larger metropolitan areas. As an example, you have criminals that commit felonies, yet because your courts are so over-burdened the prosecutors offices make it a matter of practice to offer misdemeanor convictions in exchange for guilty pleas to speed things along and avoid prolonged prosecution. This results in many people who would otherwise then be prohibited from firearms ownership getting off the hook in that aspect. I understand why this is done, but it essentially short circuits existing firearms laws. Somehow this needs to be changed.

[PavePusher]

73. Sorry, my self-defense requirements are not subject to...

government review and approval. The government is not delegated the power to "approve" of my Civil Rights. If you want that to change, you will need to amend the Constitution, and I really don't think you'll get that kind of change without a pretty destructive civil war.

If "expedited approval" takes longer than 5 seconds, it's too long.

Also, your proposal almost guarantees that the people who receive "permission" to be armed will not be well trained. And isn't that one of the more common complaints from the pro-restriction crowd?

[cowcommander]

39. The only truly effective means of reducing gun crime would be to repeal the 2nd Amendment

All these half-assed measures at banning hicap mags, assault rifles or barrel shrouds are pointless. This is the question everyone here on DU must ultimately ask themselves - what do you consider the 2nd Amendment to be? A failsafe measure to combat government tyranny if need be, or an obsolete relic of a violent era of our past?

In the end, there is no in-between. You must choose - you must be be prepared to accept that no matter how many restrictions, licenses and laws you put in place to prevent guns from killing innocent people, there will always BE someone who is going to get killed.

Or you can choose the most extreme measure of all - complete, TOTAL gun control by repealing the 2nd Amendment and only allowing police and the military to possess guns, combined with a rigourous and unrelenting enforcement of such a restriction to end gun violence for good.

That's how this whole gun debate in America is inevitably going to culminate in. It's time to choose what side you belong to.

[shadowrider]

42. That response is an emotional rant devoid of any suggestions

As to how we determine who, and who will not, become a mass-murderer.

[cowcommander]

51. There isn't one, the best we can do is improve mental health care for Americans

And that ultimately ties in to the universal health care debate, which is a another whole can of worms.

[shadowrider]

61. That is a much better answer than simply eradicating the 2nd which isn't going to happen

and it's a point with which I fully agree.

The question is, how do we do that without infringing on the 2nd?

That's like trying to figure out who is going to be a chronic drunk driver when they first get their license and punishing all car owners because of the actions of one.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

43. One man's absolutes are not everyone's absolutes.

That is the nature of religion, whether it be a god or purpose.

[X_Digger]

48. The problem, as I see it..

Is that in 1968, when the original Gun Control Act drew the line in the sand as to 'prohibited persons', having someone involuntarily committed was a much easier, and more common occurrence.

No, I wouldn't suggest making it easier again- we know that a majority of those with mental illness are not and never will be a danger to themselves or others.

So the question becomes, how do we identify those that are truly dangerous, how do we restrict their rights with due process, and how do we enforce those restrictions.

I don't have any easy answers. It's a complex problem with no clear-cut answers. That's why knee-jerk responses irk me.

[shadowrider]

50. Your third para is exactly what I'm asking

And have received some good responses. But before we talk about confiscation, restriction, banning, etc., how do we identify and stop dangerous individuals BEFORE they go off? That's the question.

[Uben]

49. I believe current regulations are sensible....

...although I see no need for fully automatic weapons or extended ammo clips. Given that, we've gone about as far as I want us to go on regulation. Crazy people are not limited to guns to kill, quite the contrary, they can use knives, explosives, cars, fire, poison, and booby traps, and they do. There are many ways to kill and it's left to the imagination to figure out which one best suits their purpose. Guns catch most of the publlicity, it seems, because of all the methods, it seems to be the easiest to regulate. Chemicals and explosives are regulated, but are easily obtained illegally, just as guns are. I could easily get my hands on enough primer cord to blow up a car or severely damage a home or building because the regulation focuses on the sale of such materials and not so much on the enforcement of storage of said materials.

We cannot regulate enough to keep killers from killing. There are just too many means to do so. So, we are relegated to using education and innovation to make gun ownership safer so they aren't used irresponsibly.

I own guns, a lot of them. They were gifts or inherited. They are all stored safely and securely. To be honest, I have never fired some of them, and other than a shotgun I use as an agent for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., I haven't fired any of them in over twenty years! So why do I have them? Most were inherited from my dad who was an avid hunter, and the rest were gifts from him. Some have been passed down over generations and are valuable antiques. They are part of my heritage and will continue to be passed on to my descendants. By keeping them, I know they will not fall into irresponsible hands. I have them willed to my nephew, who is the only male in the next generation of my family. He is a Texas state trooper who already owns as many as I do and I know will keep them responsibly.

[notesdev]

58. Here's how you tell

if someone has had multiple encounters with the police and death threats and other disturbing behavior reported from multiple sources, and that person's behavior rises above the level necessary to actually arrest them... they're fucking loony and need to be in an asylum.

The Loughner case is a good example of what happens when law enforcement doesn't follow the law.

There is NO regulation that can work when the regulators abdicate their responsibilities! That happens to be exactly why we are in this financial crisis as well, by the way. This isn't specific to firearms, across our whole society rules are only enforced against those who have no power or influence.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

63. I am generally against gun control, however,

I am starting to wonder if most of the people who have guns are defending principals that i don't believe in....

[shadowrider]

66. Define those principLES please. Only then can I tell you whether or not

I'll defend them.

[grahamhgreen]

102. I mean

the teabaggers.

More war.
No Medicare for All.
Tax cuts for the rich.
"Free trade."

Etc....

[shadowrider]

103. The Democrats had the White House, the Senate and the House

for 2 years and they had the House and Senate for the 2 years preceeding that, and you're mad at teaparty members for more war, no medicare, tax cuts etc.?

Why haven't Democrats done anything about those issues? Are you upset with the right people?

This is not a defense of the tea party, rather, I see things as they are.

We had the chance to change things and didn't.

[Katya Mullethov]

72. Less

This very week we have seen ships of state point their bows toward freedom .
Despite their keels being stained with the gore of a million chum lines set out by a single gibbering gibbon of a man .
A flag burning tea partier , yes , the whole world heard that , several times . I have little doubt that in short order ,
festively painted flag burning tea party/nra souvenir penis gourds and cannibal forks will be turning up in tourist traps
on the Solomon Frikin' Islands . It is on its face , and in the end , despotic ,desperate ,doomed .

But the restoration of freedom , that is real CHANGE , in fact I would go so far as to call that right there ..... "art" .
And unlike the recent exhibit of a riot gear clad female cop takin' a squat -- "Petra" ,
they didn't have to put a fig leaf on it !!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/od_afp/germanyartpoliceoffbeat_20110113170953
vs
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1680&bih=863&tbs=isch:1&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&q=Marcel%20Walldorf%20petra


In the immortal words of my little sister .
Nananaaa nana NAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !

[Still a Democrat]

84. Jared Laughner is a gun owner, like you

"Don't answer this post with emotional rants about keeping guns out of the hands of madmen. I and all other gun owners agree with that 100%."

So no, not all gun owners agree.

That's part of the problem - the notion that being a gun owner is synonymous with being responsible and reasonable. Clearly it is not.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Not any more he isn't.

That ship has sailed. Privilidge, and likely his life, are going to be revoked.


(Not interested in a death penalty debate, I oppose it, just commenting on things as they are)

[shadowrider]

100. Jared Laughner cannot in any way, shape or form be described as sane

Yes, he WAS a gun owner, but he was also a madman.

What part of "we agree guns be kept out of the hands of madmen" is difficult to understand?

[Still a Democrat]

104. You said 100% of gun owners agree - but "gun owner" is not synonymous with responsible or reasonable

though many try to pass it off as such. That was my point.

[shadowrider]

108. "gun owner" is not synonymous with responsible or reasonable

Agreed. How do we sort out those that aren't responsible or reasonable without infringing on rights. That's the point of the OP.

[burrfoot]

97. One change I'd like to see

is the NICS system opened up for private sales. I'd also be ok with it then being required that the seller of the firearm retain evidence (i.e. a receipt of some sort indicating time/date and a simple YES or NO result and the identity of the subject), and being held accountable for what the other party does with the firearm if they do not have a documented "YES" result. This doesn't resolve the issues with what appears on background checks (it needs to be a priority for states or whoever to get the necessary info into the system), but it does at least allow private individuals the opportunity- and an incentive- to find out who they're selling to.
This idea has been tossed around here by others long before I was aware of it, and I think it would be a very valuable change in the system.

Of course, enforcing existing laws is also huge- in fact, I believe it's the lynch pin that all the rest of this issue relies upon. People speed because speed limits are laws that aren't (and can't be) enforced all the time. People ignore gun laws continuously because they are not enforced either- but it's even worse because we DO have the opportunity to do so and we don't. Who teaches people that it's ok to ignore the current laws? Our own judicial system does. Over and over and over again.

Want a ban on those 30 round mags, C mags for civilians, any other "super" hi cap devices? Fine. I don't see any legal justification for it, or any real need for it, but if that's what it takes to move the discussion and action around responsible gun ownership forward, go nuts. Personally, I'm ok with the 17 rounds my GLOCK holds. With the stats of "gunfights" being, essentially, 3 rounds within 3 yards within 3 seconds, I'm nearly certain that I'll either be safe or dead before I get to round 17. And if I decide someday that I need more (or use/carry a gun with a smaller magazine), I'll...wait for it...have another loaded mag.

The "assault weapon" ban was stupid. I honestly believe that people who are for it either 1) are uneducated about it or misunderstand what it did; or 2) have an ulterior motive / blatantly emotional response to the issue.

We can't un-invent the gun, and we can't enforce a ban on their import, which makes eliminating them a practical impossibility. And although it's trite and cliche, it is entirely true that, given the above fact, further restrictions on the type of firearm that can be legally owned will only ensure that law abiding people don't have them and give an advantage to those very criminals who are most likely to use them against law abiding citizens.

I think we (that being the community of people who debate this issue) get easily sidetracked because this is a very emotional issue. There is lunacy on both sides, and anger, and stupidity, and vitriol, and name calling, and just plain obnoxiousness. I think there are a few central tenants that those who support gun ownership can stick to:

1) More guns may not equal less crime. However, it is demonstrably true that more guns do not equal MORE crime, which is really the relevant concern.

2) Comparisons to the laws of other countries are useless. They are not in our situation. For better or worse, they have made the laws that they see fit. Equally, we will NEVER be in the same situation as ANY other country. We need to decide our laws based on our circumstances. In our country we have a shitload of guns. They are durable goods, so they're not going away any time soon. We can't seal our borders, so they are NEVER completely going away. Given that, let's try to base our laws on what we've got here.

3) Killings, like in Tuscon, are tragic. They are horrendous. They are evil. They are NOT common, and they are becoming LESS common every year, no matter how much media coverage they get that tries to convince people otherwise.

4) Dead is no less dead because it was a bullet than because it was a car, pool, horse, or what have you. As with EVERY potentially dangerous object/item/facet of life, it's valuable for us to continually strive for safety and responsibility, but as we're all just flawed-ass human fucking beings, it's never going to be perfect.

The only way a useful debate will move forward in a meaningful way is for both sides to put their emotions to the....uh...side....and try to remain objective. The above point represent my personal attempt to do so :)


This kind of rambled. Just some thoughts about what I, personally, would be ok with in terms of gun controls and laws, and the whole debate. As always, YMMV.

:toast:

[shadowrider]

101. A thoughtful response. Thank you for your reasoning and civility n/t