A Modest Proposal: The Firearms Commerce Act

[jhfenton]

My proposal, outlined below, would scrap the outdated NFA, tax-based regulation of "gangster" weapons. It would pre-empt restrictive state gun bans. It would continue to license firearms dealers and manufacturers very much as under current law. It would create a non-commercial federal firearms license that would permit ownership of automatic weapons and interstate purchase of firearms. The non-commercial license would not be required for any other purpose. Purchases from commercial federal firearms licensees would continue to be subject to an instant background check.

I believe this would keep the best of the current system, scrap the useless portions, protect the public as much as any law can, but not burden gun owners.

2004 Fenton Firearms Commerce Act

• Repeal the following legislation:

o 1934 National Firearms Act
o 1938 Federal Firearms Act
o 1968 Gun Control Act
o 1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
o 1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
o 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act
o 1990 Crime Control Act
o 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
o 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
o 1995 Gun-Free School Zones Act
o 1996 The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban

• Create a new Bureau of Firearms Commerce within Commerce Department to oversee FFLs

• Create a two-tier Federal Firearms License structure

o Tier 1: Commerce Federal Firearms Licensee

* Permits substantially similar to current FFL rules
* Renewal every two years
* Subject to annual inspections without cause

o Tier 2: Non-commercial Federal Firearms Licensee

* “Shall Issue,” subject only to background check
* Renewal every four years
* Minimal fee to cover costs
* NC FFLs cannot sell firearms as a business
* NC FFLs can receive and transport firearms in interstate commerce

• Create a multi-tier Federal license scheme for ammunition and firearms manufacturers

o Substantially similar to current rules for manufacturers

• Purchases from Tier 1 FFLs subject to instant background checks under system similar to NICS

o No retention of approved transactions by NICS beyond 24 hours
o Background check waived for Tier 2 FFLs

• No mail-order or cross state purchases except by Tier 1 or Tier 2 FFLs

• No purchase or ownership of automatic weapons except by Tier 2 FFLs

o All those with existing NFA weapons would be grandfathered and treated as if a Tier 2 FFL for purposes of pre-owned NFA weapons only

• No purchase or ownership of silencers or other NFA weapons except by Tier 2 FFLs

• Federal pre-emption of state and local firearms bans where inconsistent with federal law

o Constitutionally authorized by 2nd and 14th Amendments

[mac2]

1. They always hide something in their bills....

in the dead of night..by voice vote. The last Patriot Act didn't even have many there (what was that?).

Any fire arms bill might be the end of gun ownership for private citizens.

I think, private ownership is OK as long as they don't have a mental health record, criminal record, etc. Gun shows should have to wait for background checks for purchases etc.

I don't approve of automatic weapons for private use either...but let's face it,I don't trust those guys any longer with any bill.

[jhfenton]

8. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

This is a hypothetical bill outlined by me. There is nothing hidden in it.

Private in-state transactions should not be subject to federal regulation, including background checks.

[FeebMaster]

2. I can't support a system

that requires licenses for manufacturers and dealers or one that involves background checks for that matter.

[jhfenton]

4. I understand.

I can agree with you in theory, but, as you know, those are already in place and are not going away.

[FeebMaster]

5. All of the federal laws

are already in place and none of them are going anywhere.

[jhfenton]

10. I was trying...

to put something together that would be politically sellable to a sufficiently pro-gun Congress. Repealing all licensing of manufacturers and eliminating background checks on purchasers would never fly.

Granted, my bill's not going anywhere anytime soon either. :)

[FeebMaster]

11. Don't get me wrong.

It would probably be an improvement over what we currently have. But you'd need a hell of a pro-gun congress to get it done.

Why regulate silencers at all though? Just because they're currently regulated by NFA? Or for another reason? I've never really understood why they got shoved into the NFA at all, other than as a final insult. Maybe someone just didn't like the Maxim family.

[Frodo_Baggins]

61. Unfortunately (nt)

nt

[DavidMS]

3. Intresting Idea...

I have three problems with it.

Firstly... I believe records of background checks should be maintained on an individual for 30 days beyond the date of the last firearm purchase (as a means of combating firearms trafiking).

Secondly... Permit penalities for "non-technical" violations by Tier 1 FFL holders to include tempoary suspentions of licence (1 - 30 days). Also permiting a second "compliance check" inspection within 30 days of the initial inspection if serious technical violations occured.

Thirdly... I still see the need for a "domestic violence offender firearms ban," but see no reasion why it should be perminant. The reasion for this is that (as I understand it) before a domestic homicide, poliece are called at least once 90% of the time. There could be other legal interventions. And alwasy the "abuse proofing" of the hamed party. Also explicitly permiting rehabilated fellons to recieve NC FFLs as part of voting right restoration (say 7 years after release from state supervision).

[jhfenton]

6. Specifics

Firstly... I believe records of background checks should be maintained on an individual for 30 days beyond the date of the last firearm purchase (as a means of combating firearms trafiking).

Records would still be maintained by the commercial FFL as under current law for long periods. The goal, however, is to prevent the creation of a centralized database of firearms purchasers.

Secondly... Permit penalities for "non-technical" violations by Tier 1 FFL holders to include tempoary suspentions of licence (1 - 30 days). Also permiting a second "compliance check" inspection within 30 days of the initial inspection if serious technical violations occured.

The outline wasn't that specific. Investigatory inspections would undoubtedly be permitted for cause. The only limitation was the annual "without cause" inspection, as under current law. I would have no problem in principle with suspensions for "non-technical" (i.e., substantive) violations.

Thirdly... I still see the need for a "domestic violence offender firearms ban," but see no reasion why it should be perminant. The reasion for this is that (as I understand it) before a domestic homicide, poliece are called at least once 90% of the time. There could be other legal interventions. And alwasy the "abuse proofing" of the hamed party. Also explicitly permiting rehabilated fellons to recieve NC FFLs as part of voting right restoration (say 7 years after release from state supervision).

I don't disagree with you. I would have no problem with judges imposing firearms prohibitions as part of a domestic protection order or as a condition of probation. But once an order is lifted and a sentence is served, then a person's self-defense rights should be restored.

[Withergyld]

7. Would Collector of Curio and Relic Licenses....

automatically convert to Tier 2 licenses??

[jhfenton]

9. That makes sense.

They are similar, except that the new Tier 2 licenses would give you a lot more flexibility.

[Wickerman]

12. this is interesting

The largest problem I have with private ownership of any gun is the people who own them irresponsibly. I would like to see a bill such as yours craft in an exclusionary clause for folks who have demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibility of ownership.

Not having thought through it extensively, I would like folks who have left firearms in the reach of children and there is a legally documented case that they have done so, be ineligible for future ownership.

That's a rough thought - chew it up, abuse me, but I think you can find the point in there somewhere. We have way to many youth deaths from firearms and I would like to see that addressed in some manner. I believe that when the RKBA gang addresses problems like this more of the progressive crowd will be willing to listen.

[FeebMaster]

13. I'm not sure

what you mean by people who own them irresponsibly. There are laws against murder and robbery and the like that should deal with criminal misuse of firearms. As for leaving firearms in the reach of children how is a person even going to be caught unless something really terrible happens?

The problem with barring irresponsible owners from firearms ownership is that you need a list of people who are irresponsible. Then once you have this list you have to check everyone that buys a firearm against this list. As far as I'm concerned any check is more infringement than I'm willing to compromise on, but then I am a crazy extremist freak.

Also, how do you identify who is going to be irresponsible with a firearm before they ever buy one? It would seem that once they've gotten around to proving that they're irresponsible the damage is already done. Shouldn't this person, in that case, be dead or in jail or something?

[MrSandman]

14. No problem here for those who are negligient...

Make the law a result type thing. Any person whose firearm is allowed to fall into a prohibited person's possession...

I do not want the state prescribing how I store my weapons. Each to what works. If negligent-but not criminal-gun owners were held liable, instead of calling VPC to help them sue Mfg.'s for their poor choices, it would go a long way toward your goal.

I have children. I have firearms. They aren't always out of the reach of the children. I have taught them(the children, not the guns) since before age five about the seriousness of weapons. If children come to visit, precautions are taken. It is one of the very few rules my children have taken seriously. If my children will be unattended, precautions are taken. Ammo is stored separately.

How is this for beginning to address your concerns?

[Cicero]

15. Not in all cases, I hope...

"Any person whose firearm is allowed to fall into a prohibited person's possession..."

I had a cousin of mine whose gun safe was broken into. He had several long arms and pistols, all gone. We think the theives had been people he had actually invited over sometime earlier and had scoped the place out, cause they knew exactly where to go.

Now, if any of those guns ends up being used in a crime, I surely hope you are not suggesting that he be held liable in any way.

Later,

[MrSandman]

16. Through negligence...

A strict interpretation

[jhfenton]

17. I have no problems...

with penalties for people who negligently or recklessly allow their firearms to fall into "inappropriate" hands. But I also don't want specific rules, like so-called "safe storage" laws that tell me how to store my firearms.

However, if you leave a firearm laying out on the seat in an unlocked car, you were reckless. If you loan a firearm to a habitually intoxicated neighbor and he shoots someone while on a drunken binge, you were probably negligent. There should be consequences, as determined by a jury.

I fully expect, however, that my children once older will have limited access to firearms as they demonstrate respect and competency. Right now my son is 15 months old and my daughter hasn't been born yet (due June 25), so it's not an issue. I just keep everything in the safe except what I'm carrying that day. That I keep on my person.

I would also like to point out that there are very few "accidental" shootings of young children (under 10). Most shootings involving "children" are intentional and gang or drug-related, and involve older teens. Even with "accidental" shootings of young children, most involve irresponsible (usually drug-involved or with criminal records) adults who "accidentally" discharge a firearm.

In the long-run, ending the ill-conceived "War on Drugs" would help out a lot.

[jhfenton]

18. One other note...

I wouldn't expect that issues such as you raise would be addressed at the federal level, any more than they are now. Those issues would continue to be addressed at the state level, as would rules regarding concealed carry, etc. Even ill-conceived "safe storage" laws would be a matter of state regulation.

I'm a big fan of federalism, and don't want to go down the road of dictating to states how they structure their criminal code.

The only exception I'd make is to preempt state firearms bans. I don't believe it is appropriate for states to violate the 2nd Amendment in that fashion, and it is appropriate for the federal government, under the 14th Amendment, to prevent that violation.

Regulating the interestate commerce in the firearms industry is also reasonably within the powers delegate to the federal government. Regulating the private sale of a firearm within a state is not interestate commerce and would still be subject to state laws regarding such transactions. In other words, though I wouldn't be in favor of it, states could require background checks, etc., on private transactions.

[Wickerman]

19. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration that ya'll

gave my horribly articulated question. A poor excuse, but I was in a hurry and thought I would get back to this thread.

Here are the numbers that concern me:

These are from the CDC http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Violence-related (homicide or legal intervention)
Sex Number of
Deaths
Age 0-14
Males 228
Females 108
Total 336

Nearly one day - not too many unless you knew one of them.

0-19
Males 2,373
Females 352
Total 2,725

7.5 a day

---

Unintentional
0-14
Males 61
Females 11*
Total 72

A little over one a week

0-19
Males 163
Females 19*
Total 182

about three a week

---

Suicide
0-14
Males 69
Females 21
Total 90

1 or two a week

0-19
Males 812
Females 116
Total 928

About 18 a week

When I see the RKBAers address these absolutely needless numbers and offer up responsive solutions as strongly as they address their rights, whether they be entertainment, tradition, protection, what have you, then I will be in support of the unfettered RKBAs.

edit - fixed link on second edit changed some of my weekly assumptions - shouldn't do this while on the phone.

[jhfenton]

20. Numbers

I wasn't able to access the numbers, but I'll accept them as accurate. They seem in the ballpark.

Honestly, the only one of those numbers that jumps out at me is the violent deaths of those ages 15-19, subtracting the 0-14 numbers from the 0-19 numbers. That gives us 2,389 deaths of older teenagers. A few may have been "legal interventions," but I'm sure more than 95% were criminal homicides. The numbers for adults are unacceptably high too. The reality is that we have a crime problem, and we need to address the underlying causes of the crime. The crime, the murders would be there with or without the guns. There are other very effective ways to kill people. Besides which, getting rid of the guns is a practical impossibility, regardless of what laws you pass.

The accidental deaths and suicides are individually tragic, but the numbers don't represent a national emergency. The number of accidental deaths of juveniles involving guns are small compared to many other causes of accidental deaths of juveniles.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on education, but we shouldn't infringe on the rights of 80,000,000 gun owners because of a few irresponsible people. Besides which, I don't think there is a legislative solution. How many irresponsible people who "accidently" shoot children will care about "safe storage" laws in the first place. Plus, it is impossible to quantify how many people die because of "safe storage" laws, when they are unable to retrieve their firearms in time to defend themselves.

As for the suicides, I don't think that the number of suicides is at all related to the availability of guns. There are countless ways to commit suicide if one is that desperate. The suicide rate in Japan is many times that in the U.S., but almost none are with firearms.

[Wickerman]

22. Its easy to access the numbers

at the link simply click on the go button where it sez Data from 1999 and later. Then, you can select which type of fatality you want to investigate, break it out by age, by gender, etc. I'd rather go to the original source than rely on Brady or NRA.

HERE IS THE CORRECTED LINK: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Your statement, That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on education, but we shouldn't infringe on the rights of 80,000,000 gun owners because of a few irresponsible people. is where we differ, I see. I am not suggesting that we blanketedly infringe on gun owner's rights, but I would love to see half the energy devoted to elimination of those events that I see devoted to prevention of any sort of restriction to arms.

On the last point, I simply have to call straw man. Totally unrelated. Suicide in Japan is culturally much different. Youth suicides in Japan are substantially lower than the US, and one of the lower on the planet.
Deaths by suicide and self-inflicted injury per 100,000 aged 15-24, 1991-1993
Japan m 10.1 f 4.4
U S 21.9 3.8
http://www.unicef.org/pon96/insuicid.htm
SOURCE WHO, World Health Statistics Annual 1993 and 1994, 1994 and 1995.

There is an adult epidemic of adult suicide, brought on by a horrid economy and a society that believes that it is more honorable to take your life than shame your family with financial troubles.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/DK30Dh02.html

[jhfenton]

26. Suicide

I reject your straw man call. :)

No one disputes that Japan is culturally much different. My only point is that the suicide rate, regardless of age, is not correlated with firearms availability. There are simply too many other -- less painful! -- means of committing suicide. Take away all the firearms from teenagers in the U.S., and I doubt the suicide rate would budge.

As for preventing tragedies, I personally put a lot of effort into education. That's why I am an NRA-certified instructor in four disciplines. The main emphasis of the basic classes (pistol, rifle, or shotgun) is safety-related (e.g., how things work, what to do, what not to do, etc.).

[Wickerman]

27. which goes to my second point

Take away all the firearms from teenagers in the U.S., and I doubt the suicide rate would budge.

I dispute that, but not hardily. Most suicides are not impulsive, but can be detected or predicted prior to attempt.

Availability of a gun can expediate the fatal decision for those who make an impulsive decision to suicide. Given opportunity, through depression, drug use, familial trouble, an unsecured weapon makes it more likely an impulsive suicidal gesture will be fatal.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/focus/teensuicide/j25blacks.htm
"One of the factors is the easy availability of firearms, especially when suicide is — quote — impulsive behavior," said former Surgeon General David Satcher, now a visiting fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation. He was not involved with the study.

The study, which uses data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that suicide by gun among 15- to 19-year-old black males rose from 3.6 per 100,000 in 1979 to a peak of 13.9 per 100,000 in 1994. The rate for 1997, the most recent year studied, was down to 8.4 per 100,000.

Guns were used in 54 percent of all black suicides in that age group in 1979 and in 74 percent by 1997.

For whites in the same age group, the gun-related suicide rate was 9.7 per 100,000 in 1979, peaked at 13.6 per 100,000 in 1991 and dropped to 10.4 per 100,000 in 1997. Guns were used in 68 percent of all 1979 suicides in the age group and in 65 percent in 1997.



http://www.focusas.com/Suicide.html
This makes the consequences of an impulsive act much more lethal. Surprisingly, even when a child has made one attempt, parents often fail to remove guns from the home. If you have a gun in your home, you are 5 times more likely to have a suicide in your house than homes without a gun. (yes, i see this unsubstantitated.)

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/101799suicide-hearings.html
One recent study that looked at all people who legally bought handguns in California in 1991 found that their risk of gun suicides in the first week after purchase was more than 50 times higher than for the population of the state as a whole.

The risk of committing suicide with a gun remained at least twice as high for the handgun purchasers as for the general population of California during the next five years, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, who presented a paper on the study at a 1998 meeting of the American Public Health Association. Wintemute is an emergency room physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

[jimsteuben]

29. guns and suicides

"Availability of a gun can expediate the fatal decision for those who make an impulsive decision to suicide."

I agree. If you are determined to end your life, it is remarkably easy to point a weapon at your head and pull the trigger. I think that we can all agree that depressed teenages should not have access to firearms, but how would you codify that into law that would actually have a meaningful impact? The firearm and non-firearm rate of suicide among children age 15 and under was virtually unchanged in states that passed and maintained “safe storage” laws for four or more years. (J. Lott, “Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime Safe Storage Gun Laws”, Yale Law School, 2000)

Also, see Charles L. Rich et al., "Guns and Suicide: Possible Effects of Some Specific Legislation," American Journal of Psychiatry 147 (1990): 342, which found, based on empirical investigation, that in the absence of guns, suicidal individuals turn to other methods (e.g., leaping from great heights) so that any reduction in gun suicides is almost perfectly offset in an increase in suicide by other means.

[Wickerman]

31. 59% of suicides are with guns

(in the general pop.)

It is the 2nd most successful method (next to Carbon Dioxide), and ahead of hanging.

I offer the former SGoUS saying impulsivity is an issue and you counter with John Lott? Sorry, Lott has too much baggage and his studies have some tricky funding sources for me to belive a word he publishes. :P

[FeebMaster]

34. Well,

"It is the 2nd most successful method (next to Carbon Dioxide), and ahead of hanging. "

if done right it's quick and effective, if messy.

[jimsteuben]

35. mechanism of suicides

OK, forget Lott for a moment. I also cited Rich's article from a peer-reviewed journal, and your statement only buttresses my point.

" is the 2nd most successful method (next to Carbon Dioxide), and ahead of hanging."

If guns disappeared tomorrow from the face of the earth, suicidal people would switch to cars and ropes.

So what should we do? Allow the state to poke's its nose into your mental health history to find out if you have ever consulted a mental health care provider or received a prescription for Prozac?

---------------------------------------

And just for some comic relief....

(Five-day waiting period for buying ropes? Background checks for people buying cars?)



BTW, John Lott was never funded by the gun industry.

[MrSandman]

60. Your links indicate a greater problem than firearms...

Number of
Deaths Population Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
928 80,753,431 1.15 1.15
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Number of
Deaths Population Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
962 80,753,431 1.19 1.19

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

These are figures for 0-19 suicides. More youths are successful without firearms. Are the 962 who had guns in the home identified in the increased risk category? Even though they did not use guns?

I found this following your links. While adults must be held accountable for preventing their weapons Fromm falling into the hands of youth, the gun control industry must acknowledge this is more than a gun problem.

Of all "accidental" deaths, can one be be demonstrated to be non preventable by following the 4 rules, or preventing access to unsupervised/uneducated(in gun safety) children?
1 Every gun is loaded
2 Do not point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy
3 Do not place your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot
4 Be aware of your target and what is beyond.

These are so interlocking I have known people to forget on, even two, and no tragedy has befallen. It is not rocket science, but it is deadly serious. I feel as if I am paranoid and I handle at least one gun almost daily, often two, occasionally three. At these times I tell myself I am not paranoid, but extremely aware.

There are several items in this post, but as I will be out for a few days, I will chance this drive-by. I enjoy your challenges to me to think about these issues. And your information is so far from the propaganda usually heard, it takes a post or two to shift parameters.

Have a safe weekend.

S

[Withergyld]

21. Lunabush, the link is still not working, try this link

this is to the 2000 data in a pdf file
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_15TB18.pdf

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34): All races 1, both sexes
All 776
Under 1 year 1
1-4 years 18
5-9 years 18
10-14 years 49
15-19 years 107
20-24 years 95
25-29 years 74
30-34 years 57
35-39 years 75
40-44 years 78



And a link to the National Center for Health Statistics firearms mortality statistics page:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/firearms.htm
Around 2 people die every day due to accidental discharge of firearms. Any accidental firearm death is a tragedy. The big question is how to effectively combat this problem. Personally, I follow the "rules" of safe firearm handling and storage. I also teach my children the "rules" of safe firearm handling. There will always be individuals that will not follow the rules of safe storage and firearm handling., just as there are those the still choose not to wear a seat belt.

[Wickerman]

23. thanks

I got mine fixed now - for some reason I cut and pasted the url to the database instead of the link to the database.

yep, the big problem is in combating the problem. When folks are irresponsible in their handling and storage and the lives of folks I know are affected, I want to see as much attention paid to education and modification to behaviors as I do to rights.

[Withergyld]

24. What about a program similar to sex-ed

What about a program similar to sex-ed, but on firearm safety as part of School curriculum. This may help to educate children about the danger of firearms. It could also reduce their curiosity. I think this could do a great deal to reduce these numbers. Parents would have the option for their children to not attend.

[jhfenton]

25. I agree, better education is the key.

And despite the anti-NRA propaganda, the NRA devotes the majority of its energy to educational endeavors, whether its adult firearms safety training, youth camps, Eddie Eagle, or many other programs.

[MrSandman]

28. These are valid concerns

If anyone under 14 yo obtains a weapon, the owner should be criminally culpable. A misdemeanor which carries with it the loss of gun rights. There are such misdemeanors now.

Suicide by males is, in my experience, correlated to their unwillingness to talk about their problems.

Gun ownership does increase the likelihood of suicide, but what about suicide attempts. I have had two patients nearly die on the way to the ER after an intentional OD. I had an elderly terminally ill patient die from suicide by gunshot. This is the only suicide by firearms I have encountered in my practice. I have had to have many committed due to edged weapons.

"I would love to see half the energy devoted to elimination of those events that I see devoted to prevention of any sort of restriction to arms." How about the energy devoted to limiting firearms availability.

Some of the facts I have been able to find about gun control not from Brady, VPC, NRA, GOA...

"Roughly one out of four offenders arrested within two-and-half years after a purchase attempt" If NICS has denied retail purchases, has it reduced crime? An open question as far as I can find.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

2001 Conviction Rates of Concealed Handgun License Holders




Offense Committed By Committed by
CCW Holder nonCCW
MURDER (Title 5, Chapter 19) 1 157
KIDNAPPING (Title 5, Chapter 20) 0 124
SEXUAL ASSAULT (Title 5, Chapter 21) 9 1,359

No blood in TX streets due to CCW
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

137 convictions in MI by CCW holders 6/02-7/03

No firefights here.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CCWAnnualReport_75775_7.pdf

I call gun control the ultimate straw man.

Thanks for you patience with a long rambling post.

[Wickerman]

30. Interesting stats

but I think it could be argued exactly opposite of what you intend. They show that permit holders are an incredibly well mannered group of folk. Its the bastards that aren't in some way regulated that appear to be committing all the crime. One could argue that more gun control would bring them in line, too. (but lets just let that stand for the sake of argument, ok - its hypothetical and hit on constantly, daily, often, whatever).

Look, I am not for gun control as is presently described. I am also not for completed any an all to have unfettered access to whatever weapon is garden variety available.

I've been reading this board for 6 months now and all I see are the same discussions - Gun grabbing vs. gun thugs. There has to be some common ground. There are serious issues to settle. I don't see the gun crowd accepting responsibility that their need for guns helps contribute the death toll of gun violence every year. Likewise, I don't see the control side recognizing that they need to accommodate the 2nd amendment practitioners. The polar opposite thing ain't working, in case no one has noticed.

The proposal put forth in this thread was interesting. I hope there is more serious discussion on the merits.

[FeebMaster]

33. There is no common ground

and there never will be.

"I don't see the gun crowd accepting responsibility that their need for guns helps contribute the death toll of gun violence every year."

That's like arguing that drug users are responsible for the death toll of the drug war. Interesting, considering a large portion (most?) of the gun crime in this country is a result of the drug war.

True accidents with guns are pretty rare and like most accidents they are unfortunate. Good luck getting rid of all of them though.

Suicides? If someone really wants to off themself they're going to find a way to do it. People have a right to life and as far as I'm concerned they have a right to end it, whether I agree with their reasons for checking out is irrelevant.

"Likewise, I don't see the control side recognizing that they need to accommodate the 2nd amendment practitioners."

It will never happen and why should it? They've come so far as it is. If the current crop of gun grabbers weren't so incompetent with all the whining about bayonet lugs and gun show loopholes maybe they could get things done and actually ban something. All the tools they need are already in place. Just bring more things under the control of the NFA then Reaganize them. Or get a really anti-gun president and pull a Bush. The pro-gun side lost the war 70 years ago, most of them just haven't realized it yet.

I don't know why people argue about gun control at all. It's not like anyone is ever going to be convinced one way or the other down here in the dungeon. Occasionally someone will change their opinion on gun control, but they usually work it out on their own. Just something to do, I guess.

[Wickerman]

39. So, folks like to get their blood pressure up?

yeah, I suppose you are right.

I will take exception on your right to suicide issue. On two fronts - 1st, as far as teens - they are really too young to have any idea of what thye want for their lives. The things that teens often suicide over are important to them but are so impulsive that they make a permanent decision over a fleeting event.

YOu may not disagree with someone's right in offing themselves but with a 75 to 80 percent succes rate you've got a lot of failures who will need critcal care for the remainder of their lives. They eventually become wards of the state and you and I pay for them. Something to chew on.

[FeebMaster]

43. There are plenty of effective ways

to kill yourself other than guns and there are plenty of people who manage to botch it with a gun. I've never really understood the impulsive argument with suicide. You could just as easily take a rope and hang yourself impulsively. There's not much changing your mind once you're swinging.

Unless someone goes about doing it half-assedly, like overdosing on sleeping pills then calling an ambulance or cutting themselves and not getting it done, they're going to succeed regardless of their method.

As for people who end up needing critical care for the rest of their lives, not all of those 20-25% (I'm surprised it's that high) end up needing critical care their whole lives. What can you do though? It's not like you can predict who is going to try to commit suicide in the future and fail. Are you going to restrict the rights of and hassle a million people for every one that might be saved if they could be stopped somehow from getting a gun?

Really, when it comes down to it, paying for the longterm care of failed suicides has nothing to do with the method that was attempted. Are attempted suicides by drugs a drug issue? Are attempted suicides by hanging a hanging issue or a rope issue? What makes guns special?

I'm sure a solution can be found, if necessary, that has nothing at all to do with the method of attempted suicide. You could simply have the state not pay for the long term care of attempted suicides. I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to live that could put that money to good use.

[Wickerman]

45. What makes guns special?

uh, that we are talking about them?

"You could simply have the state not pay for the long term care of attempted suicides."

Really? THAT'S progressive. I don't like what you did, so my value judgement is that you are left to rot in your own filth and die of starvation.

[FeebMaster]

46. I just don't see it as a gun issue.

I see it as a suicide issue.

As for not paying for long term care, they made the choice to die and they botched it. What does my value judgment have to do with anything? Anyway, it was just a suggestion, I'm sure there are other solutions that could be agreeable to everyone.

[Wickerman]

47. Well, I have offered answer

to your statements in other posts in this thread - I'd rather you read them and state your disagreement rather have to retype my statements to infinity.

So, what would you do with them - those who don't die in botched suicide attempts, yet are horribly disabled? You propose not carign for them - what happens to them? By proposing not to care for them you are making a value judegment.

[FeebMaster]

48. I don't have a suggestion.

What's done with them now? Is it such a massive issue as to require regulation of the methods they used to attempt suicide? Is the cost of caring for them so astronomical that we can't afford to fight the War on Terror or War on Drugs? I don't know what should be done with them and frankly I don't care. I'm more concerned about people who want to live specifically those that want to live free.

[Wickerman]

50. In itself, no

it isn't a massive issue. Its just one of many, many issues that RKBAers might consider addressing as they complain that the Demos won't adopt their stance on weapons. The problem exists, whether you want to aknowledge it or not.

Look at the numbers below, from the previously referenced CDC study. There are a myriad of issues that need to be addressed in some constructive manner from the RKBAers rather than saying its not your care or concern. Until those issues are addressed, the majority of folks who want gun restrictions are out of your camp and ARE your problem.

I'm more concerned about people who want to live specifically those that want to live free.

With freedon comes responsibility and that responsibility requires finding solutions to the problems below.

Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 --- an average of 79 per day---16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.

"An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4).

Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million (5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually (6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year."

[FeebMaster]

51. Alright.

16,586 people chose to end their lives. More power to them.

10,801 people were homicides. How many killed as a direct result of the War on Drugs? How many disarmed while criminals buy their guns in an unregulated market? How were you planning on stopping any of them?

776 unintentional. In other words suicides characterized as accidents for various reasons and actual accidents mixed in. So basically you've got at most 2 deadly accidents with guns a day. How many guns are in this country? How many gun owners? It's a shame some people died but how exactly are a couple of deaths a day a problem that requires violating the rights of millions?

Estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the US: $2.3 billion. How much of that paid for by the government and how much paid for privately? How much a one time medical bill versus long term care? $2.3 billion? That's nothing, the feds have spent that much on the war on drugs already this year.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
(before the link nazis get all itchy I just plugged drug war clock into a search engine to find it. I have no idea what the site is all about, although I'd assume it has something to do with people who disagree with the War on Drugs. I'd seen it before and thought it was entertaining)


I find the estimates of firearms transactions somewhat entertaining. How exactly are they coming up with the numbers for the secondhand market? A number of states (most) don't track that sort of thing. You just go buy a gun, maybe they check your ID to make sure you're old enough. No mention on how many get smuggled into the country every year either. They say 9.5 million transactions a year. They mention stolen guns so maybe that's supposed to include illegal transactions too? Right. 9.5 million? Sounds laughably low to me.

[Wickerman]

53. thanks

so only 2 people died a day? You negate the 10, nearly 11K a year that die of homicides? Cool.

That does it - you've solved the problem! I am converted!

You ask ME how I am going to solve the problem - how I am gong to stop them? Not my problem - you're the one who wants weapons freely available with no restrictions. You already know the answer on the opposite side - ban all weapons.

All I am saying is the RKBA crowd would do better to try to solve some of the problems rather than fight for unfettered access. It IS your problem - the majority of the public is content to take the weapons away.

[jhfenton]

55. "Ban all weapons"

You ask ME how I am going to solve the problem - how I am gong to stop them? Not my problem - you're the one who wants weapons freely available with no restrictions. You already know the answer on the opposite side - ban all weapons.

All I am saying is the RKBA crowd would do better to try to solve some of the problems rather than fight for unfettered access. It IS your problem - the majority of the public is content to take the weapons away.

Actually, the majority of the public supports the 2nd Amendment and believes in the private ownership of firearms. (See the recent Zogby poll: Zogby American Values Survey.) And the burden of proof is always on those who want to restrict liberty.

Besides which, banning all weapons has been tried. It doesn't work. That is our point. Real criminals care nothing about your laws. All it does is create a black market and drive the trade underground.

It would also turn otherwise law-abiding Americans into criminals. I and many others would never comply with a broad firearm ban, any more than I would comply with a ban on free speech.

[Wickerman]

58. Zogby?

:puke: Other polls on this forum, commissioned by the DLC - that I am too lazy to track down, show opposite numbers. Perhaps it has something to do with how Zogby frames his polls?

the main thrust of the poll series is do you agree with the moral compass of Clinton, with questions framed in that context.

I give this poll series extra Clenis points in that it actually lays the blame of the decline of Western Civilization firmly at the on the flesh of Clinton's Penis.

"That polarization today has been enhanced by Gore, Clinton and Dean in their insistence that rather than coming together after the election and supporting President Bush they insist that the 2000 election was stolen – a statement with which 38% of the American public agrees. Dean also used the Iraq war as a means of demonizing Bush. The result polarized voters and allowed him to go from dead last among the major Democratic contenders to front-runner. The Clintons used their eight years of the presidency polarizing four, if not six, of the socio-economic precincts we’ve identified leaving Democrats with an impossible political situation for which they still seem to be paying a price.

Two questions we asked in this poll relate to the Florida 2000 election and how committed Americans are to the values espoused by the Clintons.


Clinton Values

“Do you agree or disagree with the political, economic and social values espoused by former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton?”

Nationwide, 40% of the electorate supports Clinton values while 51% oppose them. But we see vast differences in the red states and the blue states. By a margin of 56% to 34% the red states oppose those values and in the blue states they are opposed to those values by 46% to 44%.

snip--
America believes by a margin of 55% to 38% that George W. Bush legitimately elected President of the United States but 38% of the public has been polarized on this issue.

[FeebMaster]

56. Sorry,

"so only 2 people died a day? You negate the 10, nearly 11K a year that die of homicides? Cool.

That does it - you've solved the problem! I am converted!"

I meant 2 people a day died in accidents, sorry I wasn't more clear. Two a day died from accidents while the rest died due to the choices people made.

There are lots of murders and that's unfortunate. I've given my recommendation for stopping as many of them as possible. End the War on Drugs. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

"You ask ME how I am going to solve the problem - how I am gong to stop them? Not my problem - you're the one who wants weapons freely available with no restrictions. You already know the answer on the opposite side - ban all weapons."

My questions were all rhetorical. I don't care what you think the problems are or what you want to do to stop them. It's not like either of us can do anything about any of it anyway. We're just talking on a message board. Like I said before, no one is going to be convinced one way or another by talking here. If they do end up changing their minds, they'll do it on their own.

"All I am saying is the RKBA crowd would do better to try to solve some of the problems rather than fight for unfettered access. It IS your problem - the majority of the public is content to take the weapons away."

Yeah, well, a majority of the public is largely comprised of morons. A majority of the public doesn't bother to vote. How can the RKBA crowd, most of whom are more than willing to compromise their rights away and have no interest in fighting for unfettered access to firearms, try and solve anything? There is no gun problem in this country. There's a crime problem and a government problem. Maybe if the anti-gun side could acknowledge this we could get somewhere.

Maybe if the people in both parties who actually have a clue, not to mention all the people who don't even vote, the ones with half a clue at least, would wake up and realize that neither party is particularly interested in gun rights or any other rights for that matter, we could get somewhere. But, like I said, most people are morons. So, for the time being, it looks like we're stuck with people crying about guns and drugs and gay marriage and terror and whatever else happens to be the flavor of the moment (Mel Gibson's new movie looks quite popular up in GD).

[Columbia]

54. Homicide trends in the US from DOJ

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm

____________________

Seems to me we have more of a gang problem than anything else with the WOD probably as the largest contributing factor to the gang problem.

[jhfenton]

52. Personal responsbility

It's not a value judgment to insist on personal responsibility, and it's not a value judgment to expect that people accept the natural consequences of their actions. Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for the consequences of an attempted suicide?

[Wickerman]

57. and what would you, living in a civil society

do with them after the fact?

[Frodo_Baggins]

62. Life imprisonment

No parole.
Full isolation.

[Wickerman]

63. Sarcasm or not

that reply offers increased cost over nursing care. The question was, oh screw it, you convinced me. So simple, so elegant. Punish folks with mental health issues, allow everyone else unfettered access to lethal weapons. Brilliance.

[jimsteuben]

36. responsibility for violence

"I don't see the gun crowd accepting responsibility that their need for guns helps contribute the death toll of gun violence every year."

How could my need for guns possibly contribute to the death toll? I do not commit crimes of violence. Fortunately I have never needed to draw a firearm, but I could use force in self-defense as a last resort. I reject the notion that my ownership of firearms contributes in any way to violent crime in America.

[Wickerman]

40. As we in this country insist on RKBA

no background checks, no register, no gun show checks and proliferation of firearms, no one can see that enables availability for guns in the criminal element?

[FeebMaster]

44. It doesn't.

Background checks and registration aren't going to stop anyone from getting a gun. They simply shift the purchases from legal dealers to another unregulated market.

[jimsteuben]

59. the criminal market

You mean guns leaking out of the legal market into the hands of professional criminals? Why are these criminals allowed to roam free anyway?

Why do young urban black males have a homicide rate almost 1,000% higher than their rural counterparts? See Lois Fingerhut et al. "Firearm and Nonfirearm Homicde Among Person 15 Through 19 Years of Age," Journal of the American medical Association 267 (1992). By and large, guns are easier to obtain in rural areas. Gun ownership is more prevalent in rural areas.

Why does Denmark with its very strict gun laws have a murder rate that is almost four times higher than Switzerland's and more than four times higher than Israel's?

Gun ownership by responsible adults is not the cause of the social problems associated with guns. I as a legal gun owner am not responsible *at all* for the violence - whether intentional or accidental - committed by others. I as a legal car driver am not responsible *at all* for the 48,000 highway deaths each year. I didn't do it.

[MrSandman]

37. What are some effeective tools?

The stats are provided merely as contrast to the perceptions by some of CCW.
Of 200+ million there must be some.

I would support any proportional measure which does not invoke prior restraint. It is my belief that neither I nor the state has the right to prior restraint without documenting its effectiveness, e.g., my personal beliefs of, say abortion, are irrelevant to public policy that I might advocate.

Education has been mentioned. If I did not believe that I need to spend so much effort defending my RKBA, resources could be diverted. We, as a society, are unable to decide on a strategy for sex ed. How will we deal with gun safety.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf

Mental health. Guns don't cause suicide. One of the studies of the effectiveness of waiting periods showed the only significant change was a decrease in firearms suicides in the 55+ demographic. It didn't address the change, if any, in total suicides.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

I continue to believe that stricter accountability will have a deterrent effect on gun violence in adolescents. If the lack of effectiveness of gun control was not touted as the need for stricter control, there might be a middle. I didn't even vote for Vermont carry in my own poll.

Some thug, heh?;-)

[Wickerman]

41. thanks

I appreciate that someone will approach this with some middle ground tact. I will add, though, that you should be careful in you interpretation of the CDC study. What it is saying is that the existing studies it looked at in its meta-analysis were wither so flawed or so divergent in design and parameters that no results could be drawn.

from the article---
Although firearms-related* injuries in the United States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available (1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 --- an average of 79 per day---16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent.

An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery) committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s, rates of firearms-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 other high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994, the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion (4).

Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million (5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually (6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year.

--snip--

In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

This is a critical period for focused research on the effectiveness of firearms laws in reducing violence in the United States. International comparisons indicate that the United States is an outlier among developed, industrialized nations in rates of firearms violence (2). Widespread public concern exists about criminal firearms violence, firearms violence among youth, and other forms of firearms violence, and popular support for many firearms laws is evident (34,35). Although the Task Force's systematic review of the existing literature on firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of these laws in preventing violence, research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury. Evaluation should include not only the laws reviewed here, but the broad array of other federal, state, and local laws.

[MrSandman]

49. I am sorry for not arguing...

I realize the inability=ties too draw conclusions have so much to do with study designs.

Too often, the researches on both sides seem to attempt to make the data fit the conclusions.

We need studies which demonstrate effectiveness. I could find studies from both sides which purport to do this. I remain unconvinced.

Better classification of victimization would be helpful.(robbery, intimate partner abuse, etc.)
I do not feel the need to keep my weapon locked and loaded 24/7. That being said, there are ways that weapons can be secured but allow nearly immediate access. Prosecute those who fail(I am stuck on that one).

The argument that more guns=more violence is belied by the decline of firearms mortality in an era of increasing numbers of available weapons. The causes need reviewed.

Rather than Dr.s being automatically concerned with availability of guns, how about information on the ways to minimize the risk to patients who own guns? This would require a broader approach--Terminally ill patients would be treated differently than those with a Mild Depressive D/O.

Yes the CDC survey determined that the research is suspect in methods and conclusions, both pro and con.

When a state like California registers a class of weapons for public safety and uses that list to confiscate said weapons, the paranoia of the RKBA side is fueled. Moderation is required on both sides.

[jimsteuben]

32. homicides

"When I see the RKBAers address these absolutely needless numbers and offer up responsive solutions as strongly as they address their rights, whether they be entertainment, tradition, protection, what have you, then I will be in support of the unfettered RKBAs."

OK, I'll bite, but understand that I do not advocate "unfettered RKBAs." I support the right of law-abiding adults to peacefully own and responsibly use firearms for sport, hunting, and self-defense.

So there were 2,725 murders of people 19 years and younger. By contrast, three times as many people 19 and younger died in motor vehicle accidents, and yet car owners are not demonized and challenged to "offer up responsive solutions as strongly as they address their rights" to climb behind the wheel of a car.

But let's talk about the homicides. The number cited does not tell us how many were killed by a person wielding a firearm.

We know from studies published in peer-reviewed criminological journals (NOT medical journals) that 80 percent of homicides in D.C. are drug-related, with almost all of those spawned by the black market. See Gary Kleck and Don Kates, _Armed_, (Prometheus: 2001). So here is what I propose: end the drug war. Medicalize the problem of substance abuse. Decriminalize the possession and sale of hemp, coca and opium. This single step will do more to reduce the problem of violent crime than anything else.

[Wickerman]

38. I'm all for ending the drug war

thanks for making a postive suggestion

[lcordero]

42. I support all of the repeals but...

I do not support the creation of any new agencies. I feel that new agencies are created for the purpose of breaking a taxpayer's back.