HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Approaching gun control f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:24 PM

Approaching gun control from another angle

This idea came up on another DU thread. The more I think about it the more I like it. How about you?

If you want a gun, I don’t really care. I care only that I don’t run into your gun in the hands of a criminal.

The idea takes “responsible gun owners” at their word. It defines responsible gun ownership: it requires only that they guarantee their guns are not used in the commission of crimes. It also strongly encourages gun registration.

Under the idea, the rules would be as follows:

..If you register your gun, and it is lost or stolen, and you report your gun lost or stolen, and your gun is subsequently used by someone in a crime, you are not penalized in any way.

..If you register your gun, and it is lost or stolen, and you DON’T report it lost or stolen, and it is used by someone committing a crime, you get a percentage of the sentence of the person who committed the crime. Say it’s five percent: so if your gun is used in a robbery, and the robber gets 10 years in jail, you get six months in jail.

..If you DON’T register your gun but it can be traced to your ownership, and it is used in the commission of a crime, the penalty is much higher, say twenty-five percent of the criminal’s sentence. So in the example, the robber gets 10 years, the gun owner gets 2.5 years in jail.

..If YOU are the criminal and you are using an unregistered gun, whatever your sentence is, it’s increased by 25%. So instead of 10 years, you now get 12.5 years.

These gun penalties would be mandatory.

Under this plan, we would not have to legislate anything about the number of guns owned, or what they look like or how they are secured. The gun owner would have the responsibility to work out how he guarantees that his guns are not used in criminal acts. If he doesn’t guarantee that, he goes to jail.

Under this plan, he’s not likely to lose track of his gun, or put it somewhere where it could be stolen. He’s also much more likely to register his gun, because if he doesn’t register it and it gets lost or stolen, he’s gambling on a jail sentence. If he does register it and he keeps track of it, he doesn’t have to worry.

We wouldn’t have to figure out how to close the gun-show loophole, because it wouldn’t matter. Gun owners would have plenty of incentive to register their guns without some agency spending our money to track them down.

A DUer in another conversation suggested that he would just report all his guns lost or stolen. But that problem is solved if you make a law that says: if you report your gun lost or stolen, and then you use it in self-defense, you go to jail. This makes the guns that are reported lost useless to you, if you are just a regular person owning a gun for self-defense or hunting.

How about that? We’ve done mandatory sentencing before, and for a lot less than providing the means to perform a criminal act.

106 replies, 5204 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 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply Approaching gun control from another angle (Original post)
Squinch Jan 2013 OP
2naSalit Jan 2013 #1
Squinch Jan 2013 #3
2naSalit Jan 2013 #6
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #2
Squinch Jan 2013 #4
2naSalit Jan 2013 #5
Squinch Jan 2013 #9
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #7
Squinch Jan 2013 #8
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #10
Squinch Jan 2013 #14
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #47
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #97
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #11
krispos42 Jan 2013 #12
Squinch Jan 2013 #18
krispos42 Jan 2013 #25
Squinch Jan 2013 #27
sarisataka Jan 2013 #13
Squinch Jan 2013 #21
sarisataka Jan 2013 #54
Squinch Jan 2013 #75
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #51
sarisataka Jan 2013 #57
Squinch Jan 2013 #76
baldguy Jan 2013 #15
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #16
Squinch Jan 2013 #24
Sgent Jan 2013 #103
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #17
jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
Squinch Jan 2013 #22
zombieklr Jan 2013 #19
Squinch Jan 2013 #23
jmg257 Jan 2013 #26
zombieklr Jan 2013 #28
jmg257 Jan 2013 #29
zombieklr Jan 2013 #33
Squinch Jan 2013 #35
michreject Jan 2013 #60
Squinch Jan 2013 #62
michreject Jan 2013 #66
jmg257 Jan 2013 #69
michreject Jan 2013 #72
jmg257 Jan 2013 #77
michreject Jan 2013 #90
jmg257 Jan 2013 #92
Squinch Jan 2013 #71
etherealtruth Jan 2013 #36
jmg257 Jan 2013 #49
Squinch Jan 2013 #73
Squinch Jan 2013 #30
jmg257 Jan 2013 #32
Scuba Jan 2013 #104
michreject Jan 2013 #31
Squinch Jan 2013 #34
Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2013 #40
michreject Jan 2013 #56
2naSalit Jan 2013 #79
Squinch Jan 2013 #84
2naSalit Jan 2013 #89
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #38
michreject Jan 2013 #52
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #37
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #39
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #94
Squinch Jan 2013 #43
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #95
graham4anything Jan 2013 #41
Squinch Jan 2013 #48
graham4anything Jan 2013 #50
michreject Jan 2013 #63
graham4anything Jan 2013 #99
2naSalit Jan 2013 #93
graham4anything Jan 2013 #100
Undismayed Jan 2013 #98
graham4anything Jan 2013 #101
rrneck Jan 2013 #42
Squinch Jan 2013 #45
rrneck Jan 2013 #53
jmg257 Jan 2013 #58
rrneck Jan 2013 #67
2naSalit Jan 2013 #91
rrneck Jan 2013 #96
Squinch Jan 2013 #61
rrneck Jan 2013 #64
Squinch Jan 2013 #70
rrneck Jan 2013 #74
Squinch Jan 2013 #83
rrneck Jan 2013 #88
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #44
Squinch Jan 2013 #46
jody Jan 2013 #55
bongbong Jan 2013 #59
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #65
BainsBane Jan 2013 #68
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #78
BainsBane Jan 2013 #81
liberal4us Jan 2013 #80
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #82
Squinch Jan 2013 #85
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #86
Squinch Jan 2013 #87
Decoy of Fenris Jan 2013 #102
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #105
riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #106

Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:30 PM

1. But

That makes too much sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:32 PM

3. Right? I can't think of the downside of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:51 PM

6. The only downside

is how the fearmongers will play it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

2. Something like that is going to have to be implemented.

It may convince some people to lock their firearms when not in use, and that in itself may prevent some crime.

But then we have incidents like the one in Webster NY where a woman purchased firearms legally then sold them to a felon, someone who was not legally permitted to own them, who then committed a despicable crime. How do you address that? She will do time. But the two firefighters are gone.

Illegal trafficking and undocumented sales need to be addressed as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:33 PM

4. Yes. It would make things slightly worse for the felons, and much worse for her, but it isn't

enough. However, the registration incentive may make it easier to track people who are buying to sell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:50 PM

5. Good points

I would suggest that all gun sales be recorded with IDs of both parties involved in the transaction. It would complete the trail of each firearm. I know that some guns aren't/weren't "considered" firearms, like muzzle-loaders. When I lived in IL they were considered "working replicas" and didn't fall under any requirements for registration... one of those can do some serious damage. Not only that, the powder was sold by the pound (you had to go to WI to get it though) and that's a lot of serious stuff that can be set off by static electricity. Not sure about other states since I haven't been involved with that scene since the 70s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:25 PM

9. Because more people would be incentivized to register, you would have more leeway to record

information about the transaction.

Under this plan, it wouldn't matter if the gun were an antique. If it can be shot, and it is used in the commission of the crime, the owner is in trouble. And we wouldn't have to legislate to include previously excluded guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:04 PM

7. I like the concept but think it needs a little more refinement.

 

If a responsible gun owner has a safe, it's entirely likely that they don't check up on them everyday or even often. I have a whole lot of things in my house that I know where they should be located and may not check on them for months (until I need the item later). In fact, I have an old model 1897 pump shotgun and model 1894 lever action rifle... they belonged to my father's grandfather. Being antiques, I have never used them but I keep them locked in a gun safe at home. Every few months, I see them if I access the safe. I don't actively keep track of them; I don't have to because I know right where they should be and that they are certainly secured from any incidental/casual access. If someone were to break into the gun safe and take them (closing the door of the safe upon leaving) then it could realistically be MONTHS before I knew they were missing.

I think there are a number of people that might have one gun sitting in a safe or perhaps other lesser used guns that they simply don't access often. I think penalizing someone for not knowing they had a firearm stolen is a pretty bad policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:22 PM

8. So all you need to do then is to check them more often. You must agree that it is not acceptable

that a gun could just walk out of your home and you wouldn't know about it for months. This would only require that you not let that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:35 PM

10. I think that's an unrealistic expectation.

 

I don't go in that safe often -and even then, it's usually only if I'm accessing some legal documents. . There is no reasonable expectation that they should be missing. If there's no reasonable expectation for them to be missing, how can it be reasonable to require someone to regularly make sure they are not? Is it negligence to fall victim to unreasonable circumstances?

I understand the purpose of the legislation (keeping legal guns legal and accounted for). But I'm not sure I agree with this particular method that not only punishes the knowingly negligent (which is 100% right on), but could ensnare someone who is an honest citizen and honestly did not know (nor have a reasonable expectation to know).

Perhaps phrase any law to punish those who have been proven beyond some threshold of doubt to have known a firearm was missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:01 PM

14. It's up to you how you do it. But you'd just have to be sure. If you think there is a possibility

that the guns would walk and you wouldn't know about it, you'd have to solve that problem yourself. If you didn't solve it appropriately and they were used in a crime, you would go to jail.

If they are honest citizens and they honestly didn't know, I would argue that they were not securing their firearms appropriately. And in so doing, they put someone else in danger.

I don't think we should water down the culpability factor. If you own a gun, you need to make sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:53 PM

47. Guns can be used to kill people. Is it enough just to handle them honestly?

Maybe more is necessary.

People don't assume their gun will go missing. That's understandable but it could be very dangerous. Think about the facts in the recent cases. The problem isn't how honest or responsible the gun owner is. Most are. The problem is how do you prevent the exceptional case when an irresponsible person gains access to a gun.

If you have a car, you are responsible for knowing where it is or for reporting its theft. Why should it be different with a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:32 PM

97. To some extent. Some people own a lot of firearms.

I know folks who have a half dozen safes that are full of firearms and ammunition. To have to conduct an inventory on a regular basis would be error prone and probably create opportunity for theft.

If guns are locked in secure safes bolted to the floor, or safes too heavy to move one need only look to see that the safes are there and locked.

But I do agree that not knowing about a firearm theft is ridiculous. When you choose to own a firearm you choose to take on the responsibility.

This is one damn good reason why making information on the location of firearms (like publishing it in a newspaper) is a very very bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:44 PM

11. I like it. Big K & R from me. This is creative thinking about gun control that I love to see nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:45 PM

12. What if...

...you don't register your gun, but notice one day that it's stolen and report it. The gun, later on, turns up as being used in a crime.


I'm assuming no penalty as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:06 PM

18. That's interesting. I'm not sure. We want to encourage registration so

we can track trafficking, etc. And this might encourage people to traffick unregistered guns and then report them stolen.

I think we'd need to say if it is one gun, OK, but then you have to register your remaining guns to qualify for the no penalty on any more than the first. For subsequent unregistered guns lost, there would be a penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:12 PM

25. Hmmmm... might work

Although I'm really not a fan of registration. I'd prefer universal background checks on all transfers.


It's pretty much univerally accepted on DU that we live in an oligarchy, for which law enforcement and the courts are their tools. I really don't want the 1‰ or the 1%'s lapdogs knowing what I own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:16 PM

27. If you are someone who is certain that you keep your guns from

being used to harm others and want to take the chance, you could choose to do that. But there would be a stiff penalty if you were wrong.

I don't have guns, but I don't think I'd take the chance if I did.

We can still keep our other stuff secret from them though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:48 PM

13. Intriguing

Encourage compliance without requiring it. Details regarding sales would have to be worked out.

I like it better than most plans put forth. It still leaves plenty of other gun issues to argue about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:08 PM

21. But you don't really have to work out the sales details. You buy the gun, you take on the

responsibility. Although the point of sale might be a valuable place to gather information about guns that are unregistered so they can be attributed if they need to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:05 PM

54. I am thinking something needs to happen at sale

for a person who has a registered gun and sells to someone who doesn't re-register. Some sort of proof of sale...

There would be ways to game the system but in the long term I believe most guns would end up on such a registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:38 PM

75. Yes. I think you are right. That would help with the problem of the non-registration on the

resale, because the seller would have a large incentive to get the proof of sale. You could stipulate that the proof of sale has to have contact information of the buyer, and some kind of official identification information like drivers license or electric bill or something. Some document like what you need when you register your kid for school. It could be that only the seller gets the information, but in case of a problem, it would make a follow-able trail to the current owner.

Good idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:00 PM

51. But if registration is not obligatory, won't responsible people register their guns and

irresponsible people simply take their chances.

Think of the huge numbers of people who take a chance and drive after they have been drinking.

Many people tend to be overly optimistic. The overly optimistic feel quite certain that dreadful things will not happen to them.

And then there are the risk-takers who just like to show off to themselves that they don't have to follow rules.

Do you think they would choose to register their guns?

I don't know whether discretionary registration assumes that people are wiser than they are.

If we didn't have to register our cars, would we do it? Would we pay the fee?

What surprises me is how many people drive without insurance on their car if they don't have to show proof of insurance when they register the car.

So, emotionally, I am liberal so I like the OP proposal. I like to think that everyone is responsible, but intellectually, I know better. So I doubt that it would work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:09 PM

57. Many on the fringe would

not register for bragging ability. There is also the issue that felons cannot be required to register. Mandatory sentences would alleviate this some. Keeping the registration costs low would also help bring people in to register. Maybe a one year grace period where it would be free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:40 PM

76. The grace period is a great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:01 PM

15. You're missing the point.

Gun owners want to have the right to be totally irresponsible. And they'll fight tooth-and-nail to maintain that right against all efforts to rationalize our gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:05 PM

16. This is prevented by our basic philosophy of criminal law

in a lot of different ways. (And for good reason)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:10 PM

24. Tell me what you mean. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:11 AM

103. I'm not sure how

we certainly have other strict liability which do not depend on mens rea. Things like many environmental and financial laws, DUI, statutory rape in many jurisdictions, child porn laws, etc. do not require criminal intent to be found guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:06 PM

17. Yeah...put more people in already crowded prisons. That's the ticket!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:08 PM

20. Not a lot of room in those morgues and cemetaries either. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:09 PM

22. We do it for marijuana. Seems like we could stop that and use those spaces for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:07 PM

19. So let me get this straight...

 

Say a criminal breaks into your house and steals the large pink sex toy from the unsecured shoebox under your bed. Later, said criminal uses the sex toy in the commission of a sex crime. Don't you think you should share some of the jail time?

By the way, gun safes are not 100% criminal proof. How does reporting a gun stolen make the public safer from the criminal who stole it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:10 PM

23. Seriously? You asked that question? You know a lot of people who have been killed by sex toys?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:12 PM

26. It makes the gun owner more responsible, reducing the likelyhood of it happening.

Not everyone keeps their guns in safes, maybe they would start.

As for those stolen anyway - someone steals your gun - you're not gonna report it? Why??

BTW- if you had registered your pink sex toy, you would not be liabel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #26)


Response to zombieklr (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:20 PM

29. Yep - its hopefully leading to NO ONE stealing your sex toys and using them in a crime...

By making you more responsible.
At the least make it less likely.

Thought that was obvious.

editL sheesh I hate typing on ipads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:28 PM

33. I am all for personal responsibility...

 

but I am getting a little tired of firearm phobic busybodies using the federal government to restrict my personal freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:34 PM

35. Your freedom to own a gun does not trump my freedom to be safe from your gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:17 PM

60. You feeling to pursue safety

does not trump my right to own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:21 PM

62. No one is saying you can't own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

66. I'm sorry but you statement confused me

I don't see how your right trumps my right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:30 PM

69. She reiterated you can still have a gun. What right were you losing again?

BTW - her right trumps your right when the decided sense of the public agrees with her. (and the govt can show compelling interest for cramping your careless life-style)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:32 PM

72. careless life-style?

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:40 PM

77. The goal is to offer registration and penalties in combinations as a way to

increase the responsibility of lawful gun owners.

While removing or avoiding ssome typical flaws typically associated with "reasonable" gun control.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORD IN THE OPs MOUTH, but that is what I meant...

sorry - the use of "your" was meant to show the purpose, and should not have been used as I should not be accusing of you specifically...unless of ocurse you are careless with your guns - then it does mean you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:09 PM

90. I try and not to be careless



I hate buying something only to lose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #90)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:11 PM

92. Whew - especially guns! That would certainly suck! Peace! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:31 PM

71. No one is saying you can't have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:34 PM

36. I am all for supporting new members that share Democratic ideas/ goals

I really question whether new members that post exclusively about their love of guns actually share those ideals and goals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:56 PM

49. Life is tough sometimes. And sometimes the good of the republic is more important

then a little personal inconvenience, especially when preventing selfish or careless irresponsibility that leads to more murder and crime for the rest of us.

When your perceived personal needs diminish because you see the costs of having just about everyone else have the same unfettered accees to guns as you do, maybe you'll understand.

"When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others;"

And the right to keep and bear arms is NOT even a natural right...Just one secured so the states could maintain well-regulated Militias.


"... how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect.

edit: cool FF quotes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:32 PM

73. Yeah!!! That!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:21 PM

30. But it's hard to know who to register it with...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:23 PM

32. Yep - someone might want to come and confiscate it...ewwwww! ;) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zombieklr (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:20 AM

104. Lamest argument ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:21 PM

31. How will guns be traced to me if stolen?

For the sake of argument, I own 50 guns. There is no registration. Only the guns bought at a dealer is recorded. The rest have been bought cash and carry. I can sell them to whomever without needing a receipt or bill of sell.

The Government (state and Feds) are only aware of 20% of my ownership. What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:31 PM

34. Yes. So we're back at the individual in-state re-seller problem.

So help me out: are most guns that are re-sold this way originally bought through a dealer?

Am I right in my understanding that most guns are originally bought from a dealer but when they are re-sold by individuals to other individuals, the sale is not recorded anywhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:42 PM

40. Yes...

Just like selling your TV to your neighbor. You bought it at Best Buy, then sold it to your neighbor months/years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:08 PM

56. That only gets you to the original buyer

My oldest firearm is a 1911 made in 1918. It has probably had several dozen owners.

I have a S&W 2-1/2" M66 no dash. It was made in the early 70's. The original owner has been dead for years. There is no way to track down the owners.

No registration anywhere was required until GCA 68. Only a few states still have registration. There is over a 100 years of guns out there with no way of telling who owns what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:41 PM

79. thus my comment on all sales needing to be recorded.

Perhaps something like RFID chips in the handle or the active mechanism could be the way to go...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #79)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:54 PM

84. Or, we put this into the hands of the gun owner too. The original buyer

gets it from the dealer. If he sells it, he needs to get some kind of proof of sale from the next buyer with some kind of identifying information. He doesn't have to file that information with any official agency, but he needs to keep it. If there is a problem with the gun, he can show that he no longer owns it, but he can point to the next person on the ownership trail of the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #84)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:04 PM

89. That sounds doable...

a notary might be a good way to legitimize such a transaction. I can't think of why anyone should be in such a hurry to make such a purchase that they couldn't do that. I mean, it's not like someone goes to a gun sale with the intent of shooting something five minutes after looking over the gun to be purchased. If that is the case, there's something terribly amiss and the seller should decline the sale.

As long as both parties involved in the sale are recorded somehow, I think it would go a long way in keeping track of those items, that is, along with the afore mentioned elements of the proposed regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:39 PM

38. Couldn't that be remedied by an RFID chip, or VIN type number stamped into the metal

at the point of manufacture? At least you'd have a start on the ownership trail with it.

It wouldn't solve EVERYTHING but it would begin the process of finding the owner who last owned it.

I like Squinch's idea for its elegance and simplicity but this point is one problem that's a tangle....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:01 PM

52. It already has a serial number

That is unique to that weapon. Defacing it is a felony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:38 PM

37. So you have to go down to the police station, maybe take off work, & fill out a report?

If you have to take off work, a lot of people won't be able to. You don't get time off if you have a new job, some people don't get paid if they don't work (so it would cost them).

I don't know.

It doesn't get at all the millions of guns out in the public already, most of which aren't registered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:40 PM

39. Aren't police stations open 24 hours? (not snark, a genuine question...) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:23 PM

94. I had to go to police station long ago to pick out a pic in a linup of photos....

I could only go when a certain guy was there, which meant I had to take off work. I don't know how that works. If they take reports all the time or only during regular working hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:45 PM

43. Oh, come on. You lost a GUN! That's pretty serious!

You miss work for a flu. This is more serious. I'm surprised that the though of losing a gun would not be a catastrophe to the owner. Imagine how it would feel if you lost one, and it was used to kill someone.

It doesn't get rid of the unregistered guns out there, but it strongly incentivizes the owners to get them registered. So it reduces the unregistered guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:25 PM

95. You physically can't go to work, if you have the flu. Missing work is serious. Getting less pay is

serious.

Just sayin'. That's a reality. If it costs people a cut in their paycheck or lost time at work or makes a boss mad, some people just won't do it, or won't be able to do it. They'll phone it in, but that's not filling out a report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:42 PM

41. Criminals aren't the problem. Citizens who have legal guns then shoot children are the problems

 

why are people so worried about street crime, when this is not the problem at hand.
Street crime in NYC is at the lowest level ever, homicides are down to the lowest ever

The problem is regular people with legal guns doing mass killings

getting guns off the street would stop 100% of all mass killings accessed from a street if new security methods put in place

the above would stop ZERO mass killings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:54 PM

48. But if guns were better secured, who knows what might be prevented?

If the lady in Newtown thought that she would go to jail if something happened with her son and guns, she very well might have worked a litte harder to keep them from him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:56 PM

50. If guns were not allowed in the street, problem solved. If no guns in street-why would anyone need

 

one in the street?

Keep 100% in the house, zero tolerance for the street
and problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:23 PM

63. So some mass murderer will not kill anyone

because it's illegal to take his gun out of the house?

Is that what your saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michreject (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:08 PM

99. yeah, he would be attended to if the prior conditions were served to

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:13 PM

93. Are you forgetting Chicago? The new street violence gun fatality capitol?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:51 AM

100. Chicago is a great city. NYC had problems too, now they are the safest in the world.

 

Getting rid of the gun in the street would take care of all street crime with guns.

I would walk down a Chicago street at 3am without feeling scared.
Used to by necessity in the stereotypical 70s take the NYC subway every late night, and not once was I bothered by anyone.
Because it is just a myth

(remember that asshole, Bernie Geetz who shot unarmed kids in the train because he probably was so paranoid that someone was after him.(like it seems most gun people are, fearing 24/7/365 someone is after them. Better chance at being hit by lightning 10 times.
Thought he was Charles Bronson, except that was just a movie and not real life.

However, go to a red state, and i wouldn't even want to drive with NY or NJ plates without being scared some gun idiot would End of Easy Rider me.(and i have had episodes in the past that prove that out).
Least friendly people in the world.

the myth of 'y'all come back" is an utter lie.

But get the gun out of the street, and there are no problems with guns in the street.
It's really quite simple.

And Chicago is a great town, my kinda of town as Sinatra sang(c).
and Chicago is a great word
Candidates who are from the Chicago way know how to win.
1960 proved it. 2008 proved it. 2012 proved it.

Some of the best people live in Chicago
and Ernie Banks is in Chicago, and anyday is a great day to play two as he used to say
though now they don't play two anymore, but Chicago is just as great as ever.

only thing bad about Chicago was Jimmy Qualls.

Wish people would stop slurring it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:44 PM

98. How would making the carrying of weapons stop mass killings?

 

"New security methods" - Sounds suspiciously like advocating for a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Undismayed (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:08 AM

101. I don't want Zimmy's or Paul Blarts protecting me. The National Guard would be fine

 

Zimmy shot a man in Florida, just to watch him die.
He probably got off on it.

Thank God for the Al Sharpton's of the world bringing the case to national attention.
I marvel at his greatness daily.

Mr. Martin might have cured cancer had he been allowed to lead a life and not been shot by some 2 bit punk vigillante who thrilled to kill and be judge jury executioner all in one on an innocent person not bothering anyone
and certainly not a danger to zimmy the coward
being that zimmy the coward was told to back off, therefore no personal harm was in his way.

(I wonder what people would have said had Mr. Martin had a legal gun on him and a permit to carry such, and he killed Zimmy as Mr. Martin's life was in mortal danger and he would have a right to do such).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:44 PM

42. If you have a gun and register it

and five people in the household have access to it, do they all share the penalty? How will you find out who is at fault? How will you prosecute them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:47 PM

45. The owner of the gun is the only one at fault. If you buy a gun and 5 other people

have access to it, and they are not responsible enough for you to depend on them not to cost you a jail term, you'd need to keep the gun out of their hands.

If you buy the gun, you become responsible for what happens with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:05 PM

53. So a husband buys a gun for home defense

because he has a job that takes him out of town and the gun is stolen, does he go to jail or his wife?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:09 PM

58. Seems he does. If he didn't register it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

67. I stipulated that he did register it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:10 PM

91. All the more incentive to keep it in a safe place

and have his wife's name on the registration...? Or maybe like an insurance policy scenario? Similar to letting your wife drive your car. Would you let anyone not on your ins. policy or covered somehow drive your car? If it got stolen and your wife was the only one home and was aware of the theft, would she not report it stolen? I can imagine that such a law would function in much the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #91)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:25 PM

96. If I may be forgiven for reposting something...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022148418

"Closing the gunshow loophole" is supposed to stop straw purchases for people who should not own guns. So in actuality, you're not regulating guns, but relationships. A straw purchaser is just somebody who knows somebody. Sales from FFL's are regulated relationships between a dealer and a customer. They occur in a brick and mortar facility and the dealer has to record every firearms transaction he makes in a "bound book". That facility and that book have to be available to the BATF for examination. Chain of custody has to be documented for any registration scheme to work. That documentation has to bring with it penalties and the possibility of prosecution in court for it to mean anything.

Do you think you could walk into a gun store and borrow a gun? Do you think the owner will ever give you one as a gift? Not likely. You don't have that kind of relationship with him. Outside the confines of that store, the range of human relationships is beyond anything that should or could be regulated by the government. If you husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/buddy/date/cousin/acquaintance wants to loan/give you a gun, and you make a cash donation right back to him earmarked for his favorite charity, there really isn't much way for the government to regulate that. I don't see how it can be done anyway, even if the political will were there to do it.

If you want to regulate private transfers of firearms, you will have to use something like the FFL licencing and regulation system for private individuals. That means you will have to turn every gun owner in the United States (about eighty million of them) into firearms dealers with all the rights, responsibilities and liabilities that go along with it. And their homes will be the brick and mortar facilities that will have to be opened to inspection by the ATF. Do you really think people will sit still for that? Do you think our political opponents will ignore the opportunity to tell them about the ramifications of that legislation?

Regulation assumes enforcement. I don't know of any way to enforce the regulation of firearms transfers between private individuals that is not a burdensome intrusion on thier privacy or simply impossible for the agency tasked to implement and enforce that regulation.


You really can't make one person responsible for the actions of another. It's already against the law to steal other people's stuff. I guess you could require insurance, but I doubt the policy will include an insurance agent that will intervene when the gun is used illegally. So requiring insurance will be a boon for the insurance industry, but it won't do squat for whoever winds up on the wrong end of the bullet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:19 PM

61. He would. So he'd have to decide whether to take that chance or

register his gun so it wouldn't send him to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

64. How would you prove he was at fault?

Does that really sound fair to you? Holding somebody responsible for the actions of another?

What if the wife didn't know the gun was stolen? How would you prosecute that? How would you prove it?

And more importantly, how do you think you would ever in a million years get a law like that passed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:31 PM

70. If he were the owner of the gun, and he registered it, there would be no problem.

When he comes home from being out of town, he checks on the gun, and if it's gone, he reports it. He can choose not to do that, but then he runs the risk of paying the price for being an irresponsible gun owner. If the wife didn't know the wife was stolen, then when he checks, he will see that it was. Checking on the gun doesn't really seem like a very difficult thing to do.

What's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #70)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:36 PM

74. What's the problem?

Oh, I dunno. Justice and stuff. If the owner showed due diligence in registering and storing the gun (itself a legislative and regulatory impossibility) you really can't throw the guy in jail for doing what he was supposed to do. It kinda ain't fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:50 PM

83. But what is due diligence? I'm trying to say that due diligence has to be sufficient

to keep the gun from being used in a crime. Otherwise, it really isn't due diligence. I just don't see it as unjust to say that you need to make sure your gun is not used to commit a crime.

You are defining his responsibility in terms of the current laws. I am suggesting we need to define it differently. It needs to be the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure the gun is not used criminally.

If he registered and stored the gun, and then checked it when he got home from his trip and found that it was missing, and he reported it, he would not have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:03 PM

88. What is due dilligence?

Hell, I dunno, you're the one making the proposals. How are you going to compel him to perform a weapons check every time he walks in the house?

Man buys gun. Man registers gun. Man keeps gun for a month. Man sells gun to killer. Man reports gun lost.

Prove he sold it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:47 PM

44. There are several problems with that proposal although I think it is a big step in a good direction.

1) It assumes that the gun owner is rational and will see the benefits and risks in deciding whether to register his/her gun or not. I don't think we can assume that gun owners are that rational although the majority of them probably are. In particular, serial killers and people who massacre strangers probably are not rational and will not respond to the threat of prison.

2) It needs an insurance component. A gun owner should be required to indemnify, pay damages especially for medical care and the inability to work in the future, to anyone injured with a gun he/she owns. After all, liability insurance is required for homes or cars. If someone is injured on your property, you can under certain circumstances be liable for the damages caused. That general principle should apply to gun ownership. And it shouldn't require a lawsuit in every case.

3) I have read here that guns can be changed so that they cannot be traced. I don't know whether that is true. So it would be helpful to know about that for sure.

4) There probably isn't any way to avoid mandatory registration of guns and trace guns. Or is there? I need more information about this. This question also relates to the problem inherent in trying to trace guns if they aren't registered or maybe even if they are.

I think the OP is a starting point but has lots of problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:51 PM

46. Agreed that it isn't complete. I don't know much about guns or how the various sales of guns work.

Except, believe it or not, what I've learned from other DUers!

I like the idea of insurance, but I think it could be kept separate from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:08 PM

55. Consider mandatory charge of using a firearm to commit a crime and sequential, not concurrent,

 

sentences for each charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:12 PM

59. Your idea could be good if you added mandatory liability insurance

 

Since it seems the framework would already be there with the registration and all.

Mandatory liablity insurance if you own a gun that would cover damages and lawsuits arising from use of your gun, both legal & illegal.

You need to have a monetary incentive for all those "responsible" gun owners to actually be responsible (and not just mouth the words). The cost of the insurance would do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

65. Something like that is already codified in law

Not fully mind you, but this is why you should always report a stolen gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:24 PM

68. the gun industry makes money selling to criminals

which is why the NRA opposes universal registration and has successfully prohibited databases of guns. The purpose is to protect criminals because they generate profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:41 PM

78. See now this I agree with. I believe there's a monetary incentive behind the NRA's adamant positions

about gun registration.

And while I have no idea if its criminality they're protecting, its certainly something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:49 PM

81. Well, it's profits

And they want to protect wherever they come from. Criminals are major gun users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:44 PM

80. Great Idea... Check out this example

 

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:50 PM

82. Fail

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:56 PM

85. Well gosh. I'm convinced. Thanks for your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:02 PM

86. How about any potential resales happen at the local police station, DMV, bank or other "certifying"

institution?

Private re-sale seems to be the sticking point. If you sold your gun to your neighbor, you had a certificate provided by some local authority to notarize it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:02 PM

87. Folks, I'm going to bed, but thank you so much for taking the time to

read and give your comments. I think this problem is solvable if we put our collective heads together.


I'll check back tomorrow afternoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:44 AM

102. Not bad. Not bad at all.

This exemplifies what "gun control" should really be about; personal responsibility while respecting of the second amendment. While I cannot say your measures would reduce firearm crime directly, they would serve as an incentive to practice proper firearm security.

Obviously, some details would need to be ironed out (extenuating circumstances), but as a rough concept, I think you've made great strides in the right direction. A solid start.

ON EDIT: Also, do you think you could cross-post this into the RKBA forum? While I see a few RKBA folks here, I'm curious as to what the Gungeon as a whole would think of it. If anyone could find a flaw in it, it'd be us Gungeoneers, and I think it merits further critical discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:35 AM

105. am kick for more exposure nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:10 PM

106. In light of even more gun violence today (and the rest of days), I re-propose this idea (and thread)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread