HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Beating the NRA: Gun Lice...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:03 PM

Beating the NRA: Gun License Requirements , not Gun Control

We really need to try to do something with this shoting. If I were the President I would focus on Gun License Requirements , not Gun Control. These are the reasons why.

1. It works politically. The NRA always says that "the person kills, not the gun. Fine, let's go after the gun. To own a gun you should have psychological exams, background checks, and gun safety. Also, there should be a felony for someone else to use a licensed gun owners guns in a crime. That person should be held liable.

Also, make a yearly requirmdnt that firearm owners to submit to proficiency test, inventory, and mental health checks.



2. This might be more effective then simply banning any type of gun. There are always loop holes, etc

3. It works with laws that the Gun lobby has already pushed for concealed carry.

The gun lobby is strong. They have to be beat.

18 replies, 1223 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Beating the NRA: Gun License Requirements , not Gun Control (Original post)
BrentWil Dec 2012 OP
BrentWil Dec 2012 #1
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #5
BrentWil Dec 2012 #17
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #2
BrentWil Dec 2012 #4
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #3
BrentWil Dec 2012 #6
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #10
BrentWil Dec 2012 #16
rDigital Dec 2012 #7
BrentWil Dec 2012 #8
rDigital Dec 2012 #9
BrentWil Dec 2012 #11
rDigital Dec 2012 #13
BrentWil Dec 2012 #14
Kaleva Dec 2012 #12
BrentWil Dec 2012 #15
BrentWil Dec 2012 #18

Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:30 PM

1. I would also note...

That the problem is guns in general, not really the type here. A lot is carnage can be done with any type of weapon. We have to make gun ownership more then simply a "right". It also has to be an obligation to not cause harm to the society with the weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:47 PM

5. +1

Wholehearted agreement...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:41 PM

17. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:39 PM

2. Mixed minds on some of this

What other enumerated rights do you have to have a doctor approval, training, and testing to exercise?

That said, as a firearms instructor, training is key to safety and I regularly see people scare the hell out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:46 PM

4. The 2nd amendment says "arms"

Textually that means nuclear weapons. However we put sane restrictions on those. We should put sane restrictions on these, which means limiting who can own them with a strong license requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:46 PM

3. Shooter and CCW permit holder here, and I agree with licensing.

I'd insist (as a dyed-in-the-wool leftist) that any such system not act as a de facto barrier to poor people making the "do I want a gun" decision, but I think that's something that can be dealt with. I strongly advocate requiring reasonable security precautions with firearms; if a criminal obtains your weapon because you failed to properly secure it, that should be a serious offense. I also like the idea of basic firearms safety requirements as a condition of issuance of a license. Gun safely isn't complicated (it can be taught to grade-schoolers), so it's not as if such a requirement costitutes a big burden.

The sticking point might be psychological evaluation. It's an inexact science and our country's mental healthcare infrastructure is already a national embarrassment. Still, this might be do-able...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:08 PM

6. I imagine the baseline psychological test would be rather simplistic...

But a reporting system and a better system for when there is concern may be the path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:29 PM

10. Good point.

And yes, a better way to identify and help people with mental heath problems is desperately needed. Our mental healthcare system is a shambles. No disrespect to the people who work in it...the problem is that it's ignored and grossly underfunded (while med/surg gobbles up trillions...).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:49 PM

16. No you are right.

It's a difficult problem to get ahold of now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:13 PM

7. 4th Amendment. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:15 PM

8. The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right

Anymore then free speech is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:25 PM

9. No, 4th Amendment, not the 2nd. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:33 PM

11. Search and seizure? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:40 PM

13. You got it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:46 PM

14. Okay. Why is that important here? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:33 PM

12. In the gungeon, I've argued for similiar requirements.

That before anyone can buy a gun or even ammo, one must first pass an approved safety couse and go thru a background check. They'll then be issued an permit which they have to show before being able to buy a gun or ammo, even from a private seller. The permit would have a limited life span and to renew, the person would again have to attend a safety course and go thru another background check. If the person is found guilty of a certain crime, they could be ordered to surrender their permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:48 PM

15. Something like that is the most effective means to attach this...

Both politically and in effectiveness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:13 PM

18. Bump... Just because this scheme might work NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread