HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » What realistic and workab...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:37 AM

 

What realistic and workable gun safety regulations would you recommend?

What realistic and workable gun safety regulations would you recommend?

I would start with 100% background checks for ALL firearms purchases. No exception for "giving to relatives" (no, Mrs. Lanza you can't give sonny boy your AR-15 without him getting a background check)!

Followed by some licensing and liability insurance requirements.

144 replies, 9484 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 144 replies Author Time Post
Reply What realistic and workable gun safety regulations would you recommend? (Original post)
rdharma Feb 2013 OP
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #1
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #123
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #134
gejohnston Feb 2013 #136
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #137
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #139
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #144
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #138
gejohnston Feb 2013 #135
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #2
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #13
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #15
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #18
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #22
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #24
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #28
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #84
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #85
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #89
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #90
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #93
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #95
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #97
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #99
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #107
iiibbb Feb 2013 #117
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #118
iiibbb Feb 2013 #119
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #129
iiibbb Feb 2013 #131
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #132
iiibbb Feb 2013 #133
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #143
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2013 #127
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #130
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #73
Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2013 #76
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #83
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #96
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #98
Starboard Tack Feb 2013 #64
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #74
Dark n Stormy Knight Feb 2013 #77
Starboard Tack Feb 2013 #91
Warpy Feb 2013 #101
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #104
krispos42 Feb 2013 #140
Straw Man Feb 2013 #3
rdharma Feb 2013 #16
Straw Man Feb 2013 #41
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #4
ManiacJoe Feb 2013 #5
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #6
iiibbb Feb 2013 #9
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #11
iiibbb Feb 2013 #14
rdharma Feb 2013 #17
iiibbb Feb 2013 #26
guardian Feb 2013 #43
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #12
raidert05 Feb 2013 #32
gejohnston Feb 2013 #7
rdharma Feb 2013 #19
iiibbb Feb 2013 #27
rdharma Feb 2013 #30
iiibbb Feb 2013 #35
rdharma Feb 2013 #45
iiibbb Feb 2013 #53
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #120
dkf Feb 2013 #8
rdharma Feb 2013 #20
dkf Feb 2013 #48
rdharma Feb 2013 #46
iiibbb Feb 2013 #10
rdharma Feb 2013 #21
hack89 Feb 2013 #55
PuffedMica Feb 2013 #23
rdharma Feb 2013 #31
iiibbb Feb 2013 #37
rdharma Feb 2013 #38
iiibbb Feb 2013 #42
iiibbb Feb 2013 #44
rdharma Feb 2013 #49
iiibbb Feb 2013 #50
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #124
Walk away Feb 2013 #29
gejohnston Feb 2013 #34
Walk away Feb 2013 #75
gejohnston Feb 2013 #79
jeepnstein Feb 2013 #33
iiibbb Feb 2013 #36
rdharma Feb 2013 #40
jeepnstein Feb 2013 #52
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #125
slackmaster Feb 2013 #39
rdharma Feb 2013 #51
jmg257 Feb 2013 #47
KansDem Feb 2013 #54
jmg257 Feb 2013 #56
guardian Feb 2013 #57
rickford66 Feb 2013 #58
gejohnston Feb 2013 #59
rickford66 Feb 2013 #60
gejohnston Feb 2013 #61
rickford66 Feb 2013 #62
gejohnston Feb 2013 #63
rickford66 Feb 2013 #65
gejohnston Feb 2013 #67
rickford66 Feb 2013 #69
gejohnston Feb 2013 #71
rickford66 Feb 2013 #66
gejohnston Feb 2013 #68
rickford66 Feb 2013 #70
gejohnston Feb 2013 #72
rdharma Feb 2013 #82
gejohnston Feb 2013 #86
rickford66 Feb 2013 #87
gejohnston Feb 2013 #88
rickford66 Feb 2013 #100
rdharma Feb 2013 #110
rdharma Feb 2013 #92
gejohnston Feb 2013 #94
rdharma Feb 2013 #102
gejohnston Feb 2013 #103
rdharma Feb 2013 #105
gejohnston Feb 2013 #106
rdharma Feb 2013 #108
gejohnston Feb 2013 #109
rdharma Feb 2013 #111
gejohnston Feb 2013 #112
rdharma Feb 2013 #113
gejohnston Feb 2013 #114
rdharma Feb 2013 #115
gejohnston Feb 2013 #116
rdharma Feb 2013 #126
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #141
guardian Feb 2013 #142
2on2u Feb 2013 #78
gejohnston Feb 2013 #80
2on2u Feb 2013 #81
iiibbb Feb 2013 #122
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #121
iiibbb Feb 2013 #128

Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:40 AM

1. mandate that doctors report drug addicts and dangerously psychotic individuals to the BATFE.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:59 AM

123. And how would the 5th Amendment figure into your scheme?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #123)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:29 AM

134. 5th amendment. LOL.

 

we can assassinate American citizens without due process now. Reporting insane people and drug addicts to the BATFE to prevent them from obtaining firearms is hardly a government abuse of power at this point. To say nothing of the fact that we're walking all over second amendment rights for the greater good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #134)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:35 AM

136. this is what he was talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #136)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:32 AM

137. I am all about the fifth amendment in fact.

 

and would plead it in a heartbeat. I don't see how it applies to requiring doctors to report drug addicts and dangerously psychotic people to the BATFE so they can be placed on a "no buy" list. It seems like a very reasonable compromise that has a potential to do a lot of actual good. Requiring mandatory background checks while maintaining the prohibition on long gun registration seems like a fair compromise too and also seems like it has the potential to actually prevent a few psychopaths from acting on their psychotic impulses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #137)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:39 AM

139. So, doctors can (through their reports) effect an abrogation of 2A rights

and the individual affected has no recourse (due process) to prevent this abrogation? Would the individual have an ex post facto right to get his 2A rights back? (I understand those on "no-fly" lists have a difficult time just getting off such a list in order to enjoy the mere "privilege" of flying.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #139)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:17 PM

144. Federal law prohibits these people from possessing firearms, not the doctors.

 

and who better than medical professionals to pass such a medical judgement? There are mechanisms in place for appealing a finding of mental incompetence but, in most cases, it's pretty obvious that a person deemed mentally incompetent is, in fact, mentally incompetent. there are also mechanisms in place for establishing patterns of narcotic abuse. It would not be difficult to establish that a former narcotic abuser was actually a former abuser and not a current abuser-say, 3 consecutive drug screens administered randomly over a period of time. This seems like a very fair compromise which should appeal to both sides of this argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #134)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:23 AM

138. Well, I thought I'd go through the motions & ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #123)


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:47 AM

2. Magazine capacity limits would be my major one. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:19 AM

13. given that there already millions of high cap magazines in circulation

 

how do you propose we prevent Jared Lougner and Adam Lonza types from obtaining a few of them before they go out in their blaze of hellish glory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:39 AM

15. There are many therefore the answer is more? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:14 AM

18. I'll ask again.

 

Given that there are already countless millions of high capacity magazines in circulation, how do you propose we prevent Jared Lougner and Adam Lonza types from obtaining a few of them before they go out in their blaze of hellish glory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:16 AM

22. How about starting somewhere?

Instead of doing nothing? Banning manufacture and importation would be a first step. Would it stop someone from acquiring one of the existing clips? No. But it is a start in the right direction, rather than continuing down the wrong path. Arguments against doing anything because it won't fix the entire problem in one fell swoop are inane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:04 AM

24. I'm not arguing to do nothing, you are. A magazine ban will do nothing. It's political bullshit.

 

Restricted folks, specifically the mentally ill and drug addicts, both almost inevitably find themselves visiting hospital ERs more frequently than sane/non-addict people. Mandating that physicians and nurses, especially ER physicians report mentally ill people and chronic drug seeking addicts to the federal government so that they may be entered into the NICS database will actually prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands especially when coupled with mandatory background checks for private firearm sales.

In order to appease the gun rights folks on the universal background checks issue, the provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act which prohibits federal registration of long guns would have to be maintained. This would simply mean that once the background check was performed, all federal records of said check would be erased under penalty of law as is the current standard. It would further help us find common ground if the BATFE would grant NICS access to those citizens who lack an FFL but who wish to privately sell a firearm so they are not forced to sell their firearms through a FFL dealer who would certainly impose a mandatory fee for his services. Alternatively, the federal government could change the rules of the FFL such thatl FFL holders are mandated to perform the NICS check free of charge as part of possessing a FFL in the first place.

That's called actually doing something that actually saves lives as opposed to doing something that actually does nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:17 AM

25. OK, you just proposed nothing about large capacity magazines.

The topic at hand was magazines. You are leading me to believe that you are opposed to any legislation on them. I and another poster have suggested banning manufacture and importation, no where did either of us suggest that was the ONLY thing that needs to be done. Magazines are mechanical devices which have moving parts, they will eventually wear out. Why would you be opposed to a step down the road where they don't exist as PART of some sane gun regulations?

I suggest bringing up your other points as a reply to the OP, rather than somehow contriving them to be an argument against a completely separate idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:34 AM

28. So in your plan...

...would it be illegal to repair an existing mag?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:10 PM

84. Good point. We should include a ban on remanufacture as well.

Now we are making some progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:15 PM

85. So would that...

...be a yes or a no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #85)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:09 PM

89. I can only assume that remanufacture holds no meaning for you

So this one time, I'll do your research for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanufacturing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:24 PM

90. I'm happy to do some for you as well.

Follow the same link which you sent to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanufacturing
In the "Contents" block follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remanufacturing#Other_forms_of_product_recovery
...which is the next heading down from Remanufacturing.
Under Other forms of product recovery click the Repair link which discusses "...the process of bringing damaged components back to a functional condition."

This process is identified as being different from Remanufacturing. Many people skilled with hand tools would be able to repair some malfunctioning mags as easily as they might change a knob or lock on a door.

So would that be a yes or no to magazine repair?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #90)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:46 PM

93. They wouldn't if they were caught doing it.

It appears you are unable to understand your own suggestion. I agreed with it that repair should also be banned. Thanks for making the idea better,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #93)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:43 PM

95. Possibly I misspoke.

I neither believe repair should be banned nor do I think such a law is enforceable. I further suggest it's a waste of resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:52 PM

97. Tell that to the families of people murdered by someone using large capacity magazines

I think they might just disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #97)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:21 PM

99. Many folks have...

...glommed on to certain ideas as being solutions to problems for emotional reasons. I can respect their feelings as much as I can respect that a good friend of mine won't drive since having a bad accident. I'm not suggesting that I have a monopoly on the truth but I have some reasonable and logical ideas that don't need to be smothered with an entirely emotional platitude.

So have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #99)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:08 AM

107. I don't see anything emmotional in banning large capacity magazines.

They have no meaningful civilian purpose. I can understand the emotional attachment that people develop towards their weapons, but there is no non-military reason for their existence. So the emotion involved seems to be on the side of the fanatics unwilling to give up something that they have no use for.

Have a pleasant evening yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:18 AM

117. I have a meaningful use

 

but people discount it. So what does it mean when people blindly discount the reasons of others?

If these are mass killing devices only meant to slaughter people.... why do the cops need them?

For my own defense I've chosen nothing more sophisticated than a patrol officer, in quantity or quality.

I have 15 round magazines because I carry where I hunt, and there are feral dogs. I think it would be a burden to reload during a dog attack, by myself, miles from a road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #117)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:53 AM

118. Personally, I wouldn't care if you had a grenade launcher if you were miles from anyone else.

But there is no purpose in civilian life, around other people, for large capacity magazines.

LEOs are not civilians and are trained. Remember that little dustup in LA where the bank robbers had body armor and full auto weapons? What are you doing that you need to protect yourself from LEOs?

What does it say about people that can't make any concessions to prevent mass killings? Do you feel that there are not enough large capacity magazines already in existence to support your solo treks to where you fear mass dog attacks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #118)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:44 AM

119. Training

 

What training is required in your opinion? I've been trained to the requirement of one state.



http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_22414060/bart-shooting-victim-possibly-caught-crossfire-police-say
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/06/deadly-chase-in-cleveland-result-of-lack-of-control.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/24/civilians-hurt-in-nyc-gunfire-highlight-dangers/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/10/innocent-jogger-killed-in-oxnard-police-shootout.html


Personally I think the only training a civilian needs is to understand the law that applies to defensive use of weapons and the good sense to keep the gun in the holster unless it's needed; this is something people with carry permits have shown to be quite able to do.


With regards to the North Hollywood shootout (via Wiki).

Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.


Certainly you must agree that the police facing robbers in public armed with automatic weapons is an exceedingly rare event in this country. Surely, if such a rare event justifies patrol officers upgrading from 9mm pistols and shotguns to fully automatic assault rifles, the threat of home invasion, or that of an armed madman intent on shooting people in a mall, must allow a civilian like me to carry something as inadequate as a mere handgun with a high capacity magazine like those police did 15 years ago; that's all that I have, a handgun and a shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #119)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:22 PM

129. Do you understand the difference between you and every freaking numbnuts that wans to shoot up

a school? Not much, in the eyes of a retailer. You may very well be perfectly safe with a full auto weapon. But not everyone is and there is no way to distinguish you from the morons that are not safe. Until there is a way to weed out the wrong people, banning devices is the only way to start.

on edit: forgot to ask, how many times have you been attacked by feral dogs? What kind of place do you live in that you are in constant fear of home invasion?

A handgun that holds 15 rounds in an unextended clip, in my mind, is in a middle ground that makes all this stuff difficult. IMO, large capacity is 30, 50 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #129)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:02 PM

131. do you?

 

a school? Not much, in the eyes of a retailer. You may very well be perfectly safe with a full auto weapon. But not everyone is and there is no way to distinguish you from the morons that are not safe. Until there is a way to weed out the wrong people, banning devices is the only way to start.


Full auto? Who has full auto? I'm trying to find where we were talking about full auto. I thought we were talking about police having superior training?

on edit: forgot to ask, how many times have you been attacked by feral dogs? What kind of place do you live in that you are in constant fear of home invasion?


Zero thank goodness... doesn't mean they aren't there and haven't cause problems for people. Would you take a chance knowing they're there?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0821_030821_straydogs.html

A handgun that holds 15 rounds in an unextended clip, in my mind, is in a middle ground that makes all this stuff difficult. IMO, large capacity is 30, 50 rounds.


On this we are in agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #131)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:14 PM

132. I don't need to know. I'm not selling any firearms or accessories.

Very few people have full auto. You may very well be so skilled and responsible that you could be trusted with one. But a retailer has no way of knowing if you are, or if you are an asshole about to go out in a hail of bullets. I guess I didn't phrase that in a way that you could understand. In the absence of a way of knowing if a person is responsible or not, the only way to deal with objects that have proven to be a danger is to start to remove them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #132)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:45 PM

133. From post 107/117 to here

 

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not sure where you got that I want automatic weapons. You were talking about legitimate need for high capacity, and that police are trained. I offered an obscure, but legitimate need (and a real one for me) for a larger capacity than 7 or 10, and challenged the notion that any real training outside of knowing the law, and keeping a weapon holstered is required.

That if rare events like the North Hollywood shootout you brought up justify police arming themselves to the teeth, then similarly rare events justify my access to what can only be described as minimal police armament.

Now you act like I want automatic weapons.

No

With regards to dealers knowing my status. I've often said that first time purchases should get the same scrutiny as a concealment permit for a background check. Then you get a card and purchases for the next 5ish years only require a NCIS level check. Then you renew if you want to buy more.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #133)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:52 PM

143. Hmm, I never implied that you wanted them.

I said they you might be trustworthy enough to have one. Not sure how you twist that into my saying you want one. What you are failing to understand (or deliberately ignoring) is that there is currently no way for a dealer to know if you are prepping for a mass murder or you just enjoy shooting large amounts of ammo without reloading. Just trusting everyone isn't working, so that leads to trusting no one. If gun enthusiasts can't regulate themselves (proven way too many times) they need to be regulated by some form of the government. Period. End of story. Those are the facts and there is no way to twist that. \

Your personal merits do not matter a bit, because they are averaged with every asshole out there that would like to go out in a "blaze of glory". Like it or not they are on your side and you need to either deal with them or accept the restrictions that need to be placed on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 PM

127. I can accept that...

...you don't see emotion as the motivation for that ban. Can you accept that in the wake of disasters and tragedies, there is an emotional need to accomplish something meaningful to prevent them from recurring? There is also a rather real reasoned and logical reaction to those events. I think the pro-RKBA side tends to discount that line of reasoning too much.



To be fair, I think the logical course is to thoughtfully consider any proposed solutions and characterize them by employing reason. The motivation to "do something rather than nothing" really isn't based in logic. It's just grasping at straws.

As far as I'm concerned, bans on anything when issues of mental illness and the ridiculous "war on drugs" are not first addressed are non-starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #127)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 07:43 PM

130. Yes, I do see people who would knee jerk decisions.

I also see people who would drag out discussions endlessly in the hope that nothing gets done. I see people who would argue endlessly against partial solutions, incapable of accepting anything that does not instantly solve all the problems of the world in one soundbite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:26 PM

73. OK, so maybe in 100 years your plan MAY have an effect.

 

That ought to make us all so much safer. Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:08 PM

76. That is just ONE idea, and so what if it takes 100 years?

Not that I believe your prediction, but even so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:08 PM

83. In your plan, there's more and more large capacity magazines

Please elaborate on how that improves anything. We are breathlessly waiting your brilliant plan to make everyone safer by allowing more magazines to be put into circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:42 PM

96. actually, since you started talking about your plan, the number of large capacity magazines

 

in circulation has probably doubled. Good job. Better yet, your plan won't pass through the House of Republicans so you have thoroughly screwed the pooch on this one. again, good job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #96)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:03 PM

98. I'm sorry

I didn't see that your math skills were so challenged. Sorry for making a mockery of your silly arguments, I honestly thought I was dealing with a rational adult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:53 PM

64. How would your suggestions have changed the events at Sandy Hook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:35 PM

74. Banning magazines in the wake of Sandy Hook

 

is kind of like declaring war on Iraq in the wake of 9-11. It fails to address the real enemy and pretends that terrorism can magically be legislated away. Banning the genie once he's out of the bottle wouldn't have stopped anything either and the argument that it may eventually do something is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:10 PM

77. Poor analogy. We were not attacked by Iraq on 911. People have been attacked with

the magazines in question. Your defeatest attitude about banning them is cynical one way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:39 PM

91. So your suggestions wouldn't have changed anything, right?

I notice you argue the "genie out of the bottle" meme. Obviously, there should be no grandfathering of high capacity clips.
It is definitely time to sort out the difference between responsible gun owners and sociopath gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:16 AM

101. As a poster pointed out above, there are millions out there

and unless you want a totalitarian program of confiscation, they're here to stay, damn the manufacturers to a hell of their own making.

What we can do is require liability insurance, reasonable on long guns that can actually be used for hunting (which lets out many semi autos) and simple hand guns like the police revolver. The insurance would go up as the lethality increased. Theft insurance would be separate and high enough to encourage owners to buy and use secure gun safes.

The other thing we need to do is tax ammo. If we want less of something, it needs to be taxed and I think we all want far fewer bullets flying around.

We need to try something different. As the firing range murder proved last week, having more "good guys" around and armed is not going to do anything at all to stop bad guys and people who snap with guns in their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:39 AM

104. It would merely be one cog in the mighty wheel of a comprehensive reform package. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:16 AM

140. I don't think so.

People that plan rampage murders pick confined areas full of people. They shoot until the cops show up, then either flee or try to kill themselves. In the amount of time between the first shot fired and the police showing up, the amount of dead and injured isn't really affected by such limits as magazine capacity.

Withholding transportation funding until the states get their mental-health records into NICS would be more effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:48 AM

3. Fair enough ...

I would start with 100% background checks for ALL firearms purchases. No exception for "giving to relatives" (no, Mrs. Lanza you can't give sonny boy your AR-15 without him getting a background check)!

... except that she didn't give him her AR -15; he murdered her and took it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:05 AM

16. "He murdered her and took it."

 

Hence, the need to adequately SECURE dangerous weapons in your possession, eh?

And even if you don't suspect that sonny boy will murder you to get at them, shouldn't you be responsible enough to make sure they are secure from potentional criminals gaining access to them?

Gee! I wonder why you picked that name "Straw Man" as your handle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:03 PM

41. Please don't put words in my mouth.

And please look up what a "straw man" is.

And even if you don't suspect that sonny boy will murder you to get at them, shouldn't you be responsible enough to make sure they are secure from potentional criminals gaining access to them?

Yes, you should. I never said you shouldn't. However, no storage is 100% secure. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:50 AM

4. I would add trigger locks need to ship with all firearms so hopefully we can cut down on the

child/teen playing with a gun only to kill themselves or someone else accidentally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:52 AM

5. Trigger locks are actually rather dangerous.

However, cable locks and the like are quite good and already ship with all(?) handguns. (Not sure if that is by law or not.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:55 AM

6. Oh? Do tell. You have my attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:06 AM

9. Trigger Locks

 

Usually permit a firearm to be loaded even when installed.

Improperly installed this can in some cases allow the firearm to be discharged in spite of the lock, or when the lock is removed.

Technically it violates the safety rules of never putting a finger(anything) inside the trigger guard unless you are ready to fire.

A cable lock can be installed to prevent loading and function, as well as provide a visual cue that the weapon is in a safe condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:12 AM

11. That makes sense. So the cable lock goes into the barrel preventing loading and ultimately

discharge altogether?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:21 AM

14. Or down the magazine well, on a rifle you'd need an awfully long cable

 

I also try not to run things down the barrel or across the crown.

On a revolver you can run it through the cylinders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:13 AM

17. Trigger locks or cable locks?

 

Good for little children. But how about teenagers and adults intent on mayhem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:26 AM

26. Find out who they are and lock them up...

 

...because they could shoot up a school
...because they could bomb a school
...because they could poison people
...because they could do just about anything and there's not a whole lot you can do to prevent mayhem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:12 PM

43. I think this is a more common way of using cable locks

 

Most people I know don't like putting foreign objects in the barrel.


or

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:15 AM

12. Thanks for the redirect. That does seem like a better system. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:10 AM

32. I would require

 

Manufacturer make firearms have integrated keyed trigger and slide locks on all models, I know taurus and bersa do once they are lock down the trigger assemblys are locked in place and so is the slide assembly, you can't fire them or load them and they have integrated firing pin blocks. Taurus even sends free cable locks for older firearms you just pay shipping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:00 AM

7. the problem I have with liability insurance

is that it is classist on its face, which is why I think the gun control lobby pushes it in the hopes that working class people would not be able to afford it. Since most "gun violence" is gang and drug related, it would do no good. There is a stronger correlation between wealth inequality and violent crime than anything else. The two most effective things are to close that gap and end the drug war. I also think there needs to be closer studies on spree killers and their "triggers" and how to recognize and treat them before it happens. Out of the ones I read about in different parts of the world at different times, they seem to fall in a pattern, a mixture of social isolation and sociopathy.

As far as "gun control" or "gun safety" laws, many of Obama's EOs came from the gun lobby, at least according to Richard Feldman. Most of them are good ideas, but none of them, in my not so humble opinion, would be as effective as the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:32 AM

19. the problem I have with liability insurance is that it is classist on its face

 

Well, then so is the requirement of automobile liability insurance!

But let's forget the liability insurance requirement. How about the registered owner of a weapon used in a crime receives the same punishment as the criminal who uses that weapon illegally? Would that make for some sensible gun owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:27 AM

27. So if I steal your car... and then use that car to abduct a child...

 

... you are to blame too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:53 AM

30. "So if I steal your car... and then use that car to abduct a child..."

 

iiibbb, you're going all "reductio ad absurdum" on me....... but I'll bite.

A car is not designed as a weapon....... but even so.....if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and it is used in the commission of a crime, .......then yes. You should be held responsible for your negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:29 AM

35. You're adding qualifiers....

 

... so what say you if my gun was secure in my safe, but is taken in a robbery; you implied I would be culpable.

How about the registered owner of a weapon used in a crime receives the same punishment as the criminal who uses that weapon illegally? Would that make for some sensible gun owners?


I countered with a similar example of the car, but you're now saying that it applies only if you've failed to do a few meager things to secure the car.

So my query stands?

How about the registered owner of a car used in a child abduction and murder receives the same punishment as the criminal who uses that vehicle illegally? Would that make for some sensible car owners?

How about the registered owner of a car their teen used to drive while intoxicated and kill someone receives the same punishment as their teen who uses that vehicle? Would that make for some sensible car owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:42 PM

45. "I countered with a similar example of the car......"

 

First off....... a car is not designed as a weapon........ and your car example is just a "red herring". Or maybe it would better be classified as a "reductio ad absurdum".

What's next? Are you going to quote how many people are killed with hammers and kitchen knives and if I think those should also be licensed?

Besides...... I answered your question about the car and liability! Go back and read it. No editing on my part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:23 PM

53. I don't make silly arguments about hammers and knives...

 

You're arguing against an imaginary person who is the amalgam of ever person arguing against gun control. There is no need to do that.

You did not answer my question about the car. You stated that a gun owner should be charged for crimes committed with their guns, and by not mentioning qualifiers that context doesn't matter. I brought up the car using your same argument, and you added context.

You need to compare apples to apples; context to context.


A gun is a gun. It can be used for many things. I hunt and target shoot with mine; personal protection is on the list, but really fairly rare that I have a gun "at the ready for my defense". The only case I ever make for myself is that I am a law-abiding, sane, adult. A gun is the last resort in a spectrum of things you can do to defend yourself; don't rely on just a gun. There are circumstances that I might find myself where a gun is needed when the government cannot be there to serve as my protector. I have experienced these circumstances first hand several times. I was able to negotiate those circumstances without shooting anyone... but I still reserve the right afforded me to make this decision for myself.

With regards to gun control. I'm for any laws that have a mechanistic connection to preventing crime. If you can show me how banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs reduces crime or increase safety, I'll support a law. Most of the time that mechanism can't really be demonstrated. The most specific proposal that addresses the function of firearms is magazine capacity. I'm on the fence about magazine capacity; but I am skeptical how much an effect a magazine ban will have on actually preventing mass shootings because when a madman is faced with an unarmed crowd, it really doesn't matter what his magazine capacity is. Of course, we could ban semi-automatic rifles--- but I don't think that's feasible. Some gun control advocates say there is no justifiable reason to have a high capacity magazine; I dispute this. Where I hunt there are feral dogs. I carry a pistol with a high-capacity magazine because I don't want to muck around with reloading the gun if I am faced with a pack of dogs. I think it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for me to carry a gun with 15+1 rounds in it for this purpose.

Krispos articulates it better than me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108348

Life isn't perfect. My guns might, or might not let me down. Just as anyone's choice to go through life without guns might or might not let them down. Both are perfectly viable choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:13 AM

120. The problem I have with liability insurance

is that there is no liability. I'm not financially liable for the criminal acts of others, so what am I insuring? Unless the law imposes a financial liability on gun owners for the consequences of having their gun stolen, there is nothing to insure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:03 AM

8. Why don't we start with mental health and then ensure no guns in the vicinity?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:35 AM

20. Why don't we start with mental health and then ensure no guns in the vicinity?

 

Great idea! And HOW do you plan to implement it?

PS - I love tabby cats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:55 PM

48. I had an idea about gun sniffing dogs but it was shot down as illegal search and seizure.

 

And if that's the case then enforcement seems to be voluntary which then makes me wonder what the point is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:45 PM

46. "Why don't we start with mental health and then ensure no guns in the vicinity?"

 

I agree. Do you have a plan to realistically make that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:11 AM

10. How is liability insurance related to safety?

 

Teach gun safety in schools like sex education. Doesn't have to be how to shoot, just how to be safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:40 AM

21. How is liability insurance related to safety?

 

It's more related to RESPONSIBILITY.

But I like your idea of gun safety education in schools.

PS - Also like the Flying Spaghetti Monster avatar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:56 PM

55. So insurance will stop criminals, suicides and mass killers?

one group breaks laws, the second doesn't care about laws, and the third group are batshit crazy.

So explain to me how making me pay insurance will reduce gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:38 AM

23. Why don't we start by enforcing the gun laws we already have?

Adding more law will not improve the enforcement of laws that are not currently being enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PuffedMica (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:01 AM

31. "Adding more law will not improve the enforcement of laws ......"

 

Yup! I follow your "logic".

Murder is against the law........ but there are still murders committed. So why even have a law against murder? Right?!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:44 AM

37. In spite of it being illegal to buy a firearm if you fail your NICS check... and trying to buy one

 

as a felon is a crime.

Why is no one ever prospected when they fail their NICS check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:07 AM

38. "Why is no one ever prospected when they fail their NICS check?"

 

I don't know about "prospecting" felons who attempt to buy firearms. But I know that many felons have been arrested and prosecuted for attempting to purchase firearms illegally.

I'd suggest you do a google search before you post stuff that isn't so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:04 PM

42. damn you auto correct.. "prosecuted"..

 

prosecuted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:13 PM

44. Auto correct fail... but... maybe I should not have said "never"... maybe "rarely" would be better.

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales

Lying about one’s criminal history or background on the form to purchase guns is fairly common – and a federal offense – but hardly anyone is ever prosecuted. Among the 67,000 people who failed background checks conducted directly by the FBI in 2009, fewer than 70 ever faced criminal charges, a Justice Department-funded study published in April found. Justice officials cited a lack of resources.


So a criminal charge rate of 0.1 % statistically different from zero? I'm not sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:01 PM

49. Thanks for the link.......

 

....... and making my point for 100% background checks.

How many of those 67,000 were able to purchase the weapon they were trying to buy after failing the background check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #49)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:02 PM

50. I'm not refuting background checks... but it would also help if they actually enforced laws.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:26 AM

124. "100% background checks:" Can this be done at nat'l level given IC clause?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:40 AM

29. Just look to Canada. They are a realistic and workable country with...

realistic and sane gun laws. There are so many good examples of time tested gun laws around the world that it is actually stupid not to just adopt one.

It is unlikely that we will ever see sane gun laws in this country because of the millions of gun obsessed squealing "2nd amendment" when you even suggest a degree of sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:25 AM

34. Parts of Canada's gun laws are quite sane and reasonable

Some provisions are stupid and unreasonable. There are parts you would find quite insane such as allowing 12 year olds to buy ammunition in a store, and allowing non violent felons to get a PAL. Oh yeah, they let internet purchases where the post office brings the gun to your door.

What is your definition of sanity? If it is simply stricter than the US, then all of the countries like Mexico and Costa Rica have higher murder rates than we do have sane gun laws.

If you define sane and realistic laws as laws that actually deters and lowers crime, there is little to no evidence any are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 05:57 PM

75. Ah, the usual, laughable comparison to Mexico or Costa Rica.

Logic for Gunions must be the same as math for Republicans. Do you really think you do yourself a favor making comparisons like that to normal people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:16 PM

79. how is it laughable?

it shows that wealth inequality is a larger factor than liberal gun laws. Neither of those countries have such laws. Mexico makes most of Europe look like Vermont in that regard. According to the Gini coefficient, we are closer to Mexico in that regard than Western Europe or Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

So how many fallacies do I see?
Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

So, do you have a valid point to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:20 AM

33. A few suggestions...

Open up NICS to private sellers. Make it's use mandatory in all cases but inheritance. I was going to also include "gifts" but that unfortunately would probably open us up to straw purchases.

Expand the CMP. It's the gold standard for safe sport shooting. They use service rifles and also make service rifles available to competitors.

Force the states to comply with supplying NICS data. This should include all involuntary admissions for mental health problems. There's a world of difference between someone seeking help for mild depression and being hospitalized for a serious mental health issue.

There should be a strict prohibition from a person with an involuntary mental health admission, or a convicted felon, from living in a residence where a firearm is present. It's mind blowing how many homes I've seen where the wife or son "owns" this or that firearm when a felon is present. I once went on a suicide in progress call where an individual with a history of attempts got his hands on his "grandpa's" shotgun. Upon further investigation it became clear it was the sole property of the person threatening suicide. He handed me the shotgun and told me to get it out of his sight. This was after he'd been hospitalized for a couple of attempts. Nice guy, but very troubled.

I'll add another observation. If an individual voluntarily goes in to seek help for, oh, let's say he's hearing voices. And those voices aren't going away without the help of a drug like Haldol, for instance. Being prescribed certain kinds of medications should trigger a NICS rejection. There should be a certain schedule of medications that would bar an individual from possessing or being in a home with firearms.

Would any of this prevent the next mentally ill middle to upper middle class spree shooter from going off? Maybe not. It would certainly cut down on it.

My next step would be the decriminalization of marijuana. If we cut off a revenue stream for the gangs it would cut down on the conflict in our cities. The more addictive street drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, and black-market pills? I'm still torn on that one. Marijuana is the big cash cow for most drug gangs.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 10:36 AM

36. I don't even use marijuana and I think it should be decriminalized/legalized.

 

If people had access to that... many people would never bother with hard drugs. Alcohol is worse imho.

Just no smoking it anywhere in public... it smells like sh*t.


With regards to the ban on those with mental health issues. As long as there is a process to remove yourself from the list if you meet certain requirements. It can't be like the no-fly list. I think that if you are ever adjudicated as mentally ill it should be a lot harder to get off the list than if you voluntarily seek help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:38 AM

40. "Make it's use (NICS background checks) mandatory in all cases but inheritance.

 

jeepnstein, I agree with most of what you said EXCEPT the part about inherited weapons being exempt from NICS checks.

I firmly believe that a 100% NICS requirement with NO loopholes should be required for the transfer of firearm ownership.

You sound like you've had some experience in law enforcement. That being so, I bet you have witnessed how "bat shit crazy" is often handed down within a family. I would not like to see a loophole allowing dangerous firearms to be handed down as well in this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:22 PM

52. Your best bet...

is to go after the "bat shit crazy" at the source rather than the offspring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:38 AM

125. Respectfully, "handed down" notions may be a problem regarding "bill of attainder" violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 11:14 AM

39. Tax rebate for purchase of a robust gun safe

 

Open up the National Instant Check System for use by people other than Class 01 federal firearms licensees.

Teach basic gun safety in public schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:18 PM

51. Teach basic gun safety in public schools.

 

I agree, slackmaster. And wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity for the NRA to help out in the schools? Wouldn't it be great to see the NRA return to their role as firearms safety educators and advocates like they used to be?

Oh, silly me! I forgot that the NRA would much rather dedicate their financial resources to their current functions as a political action committee for the Republican party and as a lobbying agency for the firearms manufacturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:50 PM

47. Here's a few....

Universal Background checks.
Registration.
Licensing, possibly to include mental evaluation before purchase.
Safe Storage.
Capacity & weapons-type bans re:purchase, possession, and tranfer.
Harsher mandatory penalties for violations.
Mandatory enforcement.
No special privileges based on type of employment or retirement.
Mandatory enforcement/penalties with regards to gang and drug-related crimes.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 01:38 PM

54. Licensing...

Would that be a one-time license or would the owner be required to renew, say every 3 or 5 years?

That way, if the owner's previous 3 (or 5) years are checked for a renewal and some kind of infraction surfaces, the license may not be renewed. Such infractions would be of a might include: disorderly conduct, child abuse, assault and battery, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:06 PM

56. I would say renewable. New York has enacted this now for AWs and handguns.

Maybe have an instant "license" check similiar to the NICS...dial in a number and get yay/nay on still OK.

Licensing could also incorporate initial training, safety classes or whatnot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

57. How about this?

 

Private citizens should be allowed to have anything the civilian law enforcement agencies have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:43 PM

58. universal registration

All guns registered like automobiles. All transaction go through a DMV-type service which includes a background check. The LAST registered owner of a gun is responsible for ALL action taken with that gun except for theft. Theft would have to be reported within a reasonable time. This would prevent gun owners or dealers from selling or trading a gun to someone who wouldn't pass the background check AND would relieve the seller from liability if the new owner passed the background check. Thus the description "illegal weapon" is defined and a trail of ownership is archived. For those who worry that the government will use this information to take your guns away, nothing will change your deranged minds anyway, so sit at home with your loaded AR-15 etc and watch out for the MIB outside your door. Everyone keeps their guns and gun owners accept responsibility. Conservatives should welcome this simple solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 02:46 PM

59. it would provide jobs

I can say that about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:03 PM

60. Also

You can just forget about changing or adding any other new laws except registration and liability. Have the most dangerous, hair-trigger, high-capacity, automatic gun you want, BUT, the gun owners will HAVE to be responsible or they get prosecuted, just like they're always preaching about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #60)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:08 PM

61. and what about drug gangs?

and other felons who do most of the killing and most of the dying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:32 PM

62. well

How would they have gotten the guns? If they bought them "legally" with a background check there's not much any laws could do any good. If someone knowingly transfers ownership to them and the guns are identified, then the last registered owner gets prosecuted the same as the gang members. The only "legal" gun would be a registered gun. I don't know about you, but I'd never sell or transfer a gun to anyone else if registration is required. Perfect? No. Might it help? Yes. Would the fears of the gun nuts be reduced? Maybe for some. Maybe gun control advocates should try to pass a Constitutional Amendment stating that "a legally registered gun can never be taken from the legally registered owner".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 03:34 PM

63. depends, usually stolen

or purchased from addicted NYPD officers.
How do Mexican drug cartels get their machine guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:01 PM

65. well

I doubt if all guns used in crimes are stolen. And, if a gun is tracked from the time of manufacture and it is eventually identified in a crime, the last registered owner is prosecuted the same as the perpetrator. A gun reported as stolen would leave the last owner off the hook so to speak. I would assume that law enforcement would at least do a minimal amount of investigation to absolve that owner of any connection with a crime committed with that "stolen" gun. Not a perfect system. Vehicles get stolen and somehow get re-registered and sold. Mobsters get around the law. My idea would at least make a dent in the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:18 PM

67. not all

of course. In Australia, some are stolen. Some are smuggled and even locally made in illegal factories (a few years ago cops busted an underground factory making sub machine guns)

According the ATF, the plurality is "purchased on the street" or "friends and family", which may be stolen or just been sitting in the sock drawer for years.


My crack about NYPD
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/10/cops-admits-to-selling-nypd-guns-to-his-dealer.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:32 PM

69. someone is STILL the last legal owner

You go to them and prosecute. Give them a chance to plea if possible so they squeal on the next guy etc etc. You get eveyone in the trail. If a gun is smuggled in from out of the country I guess we're out of luck. The original manufaturer MIGHT co-operate if the guns are traceable by serial number. The US can always ban gun from uncooperative manufacturers. ..... You know what? Let's do nothing. Fuck it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:48 PM

71. I doubt they come straight from the manufacture

what we should is as I suggested above. Registration is theater and not much else. Gun law violations are almost never prosecuted on a state or federal level as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:05 PM

66. stolen guns?

Link to Frontline report.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

10% to 15% of guns used in crime are stolen. The majority come from straw buyers. Registration would nail those guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:27 PM

68. reported stolen

the national average time to crime is 11.2 years.

Part of the problem with straw buyers is not only a rare conviction rate, but also US attornies who don't want to mess with it (as best I can tell, that is one of the things that lead to FF, the local AUSA was a Bush appointee who was too busy looking for "voter fraud" even when the ATF brought overwhelming evidence). Another is the sentencing guidelines for straw purchasers. Under the Gun Control Act, one can get up to 10 years. They don't get anything near that.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2011-trace-data.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:35 PM

70. Why don't you go work for the NRA ?

Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 04:51 PM

72. couldn't get along with Ted.

these guys are more reasonable
http://www.independentfirearmowners.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:59 PM

82. The majority come from straw buyers. Registration would nail those guys.

 

As would 100% background checks.

Since private person to person sales don't currently require background checks, the straw dealer can simply claim that he was unaware that the person he was selling to could not legally purchase a firearm. INTENT (mens rea) is an element that must be proved to get a straw dealer convicted. That's why the current conviction levels are so pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:15 PM

86. registration might

leading up to FF, the ATF had intent on video tape. If someone gives you a bunch of cash outside, you go in and buy the guns and come out and give the guns to the guys who paid you, you got a good case unless the AUSA is too interested in hassling brown people for voting to bother.
purchaser, not dealer.

Since the ATF puts the average time to crime time at over 11 years, and the fact that there are millions of guns reported stolen (in 1995 National Crime Information Center had two million guns reported stolen in its database.)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Of course, the qualifier should be "out of the crime guns recovered" which may or may not reflect "all crime guns". I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I am there is more to the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #82)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:30 PM

87. how much clearer can I make this ?

IF YOU SELL OR TRANSFER A GUN , YOU MUST HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK AND PAPERWORK AT SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCY (LIKE THE DMV) TO HAVE THE GUN REGISTERED WITH THE NEW OWNER. IF YOU SKIP THIS STEP AND THE GUN IS SOLD OR TRANSFERED TO SOMEONE WITHOUT HAVING THE BACKGROUND CHECK, THE LAST OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CRIMES COMMITTED WITH THAT GUN. FORGET CURRENT LAW. THIS POST IS ABOUT REASONABLE SUGGESTIONS.WITH THIS TYPE OF REGULATION, NOT MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE STRAW DEALERS. IF A MURDER IS COMMITTED WITH THE STRAW DEALERS GUN AND THE BACKGROUND AND REGISTRATION STEPS WERE SKIPPED, THE STRAW DEALER IS ARRESTED FOR MURDER. HE CAN CLAIM ALL THE IGNORANCE HE WANTS, BUT HE WOULD BE THE LAST LEGAL OWNER AND HE IS AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE PERSON WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:37 PM

88. Like I said before

it would provide jobs, but not much else judging from other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:07 AM

100. sorry ... I was replying to 82

A quick read of 82 looked like he meant that straw buyers would still get off. I'm getting tired.

I'm done commenting on guns. Nothing will get done. Mass killings will go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #100)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:41 AM

110. rick, non-fatal friendly fire

 

No harm, no foul! Stay with us, brother rick. Folks like us.......we need your passion! Aim it wisely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:42 PM

92. FORGET CURRENT LAW.

 

rick, you posted this response to me......but I think you meant it for another poster. I hope you aren't yelling at me because I agree with you 100%. I am for 100% background checks and would also favor some form of registration.

The current laws allowing private person to person sales without background checks should be stopped......... right now!

The gun nutters, who don't want 100% background checks, are spouting that the laws that already exist should be enforced. Well, the laws that currently exist CAN'T BE ENFORCED WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS.

It's no wonder that prosecutors don't want to deal with these cases........ They are almost guaranteed to lose the case because they must PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the straw dealer KNEW that the buyer was disqualified from purchasing a weapon. The straw dealer will simply deny he had any such knowledge ...... and he'll walk.

The majority of NRA members (the sane ones) are for 100% background checks. I just don't understand how the inmates took over the asylum at the NRA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #92)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:53 PM

94. not exactly

It's no wonder that prosecutors don't want to deal with these cases........ They are almost guaranteed to lose the case because they must PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the straw dealer KNEW that the buyer was disqualified from purchasing a weapon. The straw dealer will simply deny he had any such knowledge ...... and he'll walk.


According to ATF guidelines
The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case.

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/episode-4.html

the feds don't have to prove it was for a prohibited person, they only have to prove it wasn't a gift for a family member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #94)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:23 AM

102. Riiiiiight! Prove it!

 

"The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case."

From the FBI NICS site:

Q: Does an unlicensed person need an ATF Form 4473 to transfer a firearm?
No. ATF Form 4473 is required only for transfers by a licensee.



I rest my case!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #102)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:37 AM

103. leading up to FF

specifically, ATF had video of money and guns changing hands in the parking lot. Easy win. Instead of a DMV like system, why not a system similar to Canada's. Use your PAL numbers and change registration on the Firearms Centre's website. When you buy a gun online there, you type in your PAL number along with the payment and shipping info. Once the seller verifies the PAL number with the RCMP, the gun ships to your door. Once you get your gun, you go on the website to register it. A couple of provinces have their own registry. Of course "unrestricted" firearms no longer need registration.
That said, registration never seems to work as advertised. For that reason, I still regard it as theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #103)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:45 AM

105. Why not ATF Form 4473 and 100% background checks on all gun sales.

 

Looks like you're doing some serious backpeddling, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #105)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:57 AM

106. not at all, just if you are going to have a central registration, do it right

do it right. This business of taking the gun to the police station is out modeled and asinine. Since I have never opposed NICS for private sales, you are new so you wouldn't know that, it isn't backpeddling at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #106)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:20 AM

108. "I have never opposed NICS for private sales"

 

Oh, puhleese! All the reader has to do is scroll up to see your posts/replies!

Busted....... NRA TROLL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #108)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:28 AM

109. try the search function for all past posts.

and no, I was talking about registration. Try the search function.

and look up the word "troll" while you are at it.
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I said I opposed centralized registration which is different than having an FFL or the cops broker a private sale using NICS.
Nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:47 AM

111. OK... I'll play......

 

What do you have against "centralized registration"? Not the same as universal background checks...... but I'll play the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #111)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:02 AM

112. theater that costs money and doesn't work as

advertised. I would rather spend money and effort doing things that actually deals with the root problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #112)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 AM

113. The ROOT of the problem is responsible firearm ownership!

 

You were unaware that ATF Form 4473 weren't required for personal firearms sales. Pretty pathetic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #113)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:31 AM

114. actually I did

I fail to see where you get that. I suggest you read my posts closer.
the root of the problem is wealth inequality among other social problems which have nothing to do with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #112)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:34 AM

115. So speak!

 

I'm all ears!

But why are you telling me the causes have nothing to do with guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #115)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:42 AM

116. If you have read my posts as you claim, you would know

but the short answer is that there is a much stronger correlation between violence and wealth inequality than anything else. Since I doubt you are sincere about having an honest discussion instead of an ideological pissing match, I say good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #116)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:45 AM

126. Good night!

 

Yup! Time for beddy bye when you run out of straw man arguments and red herrings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:07 PM

141. I think you'll find that the vast majority of straw purchasers

are the girlfriends of guys who can't pass a background check. Nobody is ever going to go prosecute all the those girlfriends of criminals.

Canada used to have a universal registration system. They finally abandoned it after someone realized they had spent billions of dollars registering all these guns and solved zero crimes with the information. It sounds good, but in reality it's nothing but a big waste of time & money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #141)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:53 PM

142. But if you ask an antigunner they will say

 

yOU HavE tO Do SOMETHING! s-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g!

Does matter if it costs a shitload of money, doesn't work, violates the Constitution, and inconveniences a huge segment of the population. The antigunners can pat themselves on the back...that is what matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:12 PM

78. I recommend a cap on the end of a barrel, that lets the gasses out the sides.... but stops the

 

shell dead in its tracks. That cap, should only be removed at the gun range, in the field hunting or when shooting skeet. At all other times, when admiring one, polishing one, petting one, examining one blah blah the cap should be in place.

It could look like a silencer and it would probably stop a good percentage of accidental shootings. There would need to be a crumple material inside the cap to absorb the energy. This is prolly a crazy idea but there are a whole lot of accidental shootings, just ask anyone who frequents gun shows of late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:18 PM

80. just follow the safety rules

like making sure it is loaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:21 PM

81. This feller followed the safety rules.... made sure it was loaded and then the barrel

 

let go.... wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #81)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:22 AM

122. He's lucky someone wasn't killed or injured.

 

Barrel plug is a dumb idea.

If you're going to plug something, why not plug the other end so you can't load the thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2on2u (Reply #78)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:16 AM

121. Sounds like a recipe for a blown up gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:30 PM

128. backdoor gun control

 

suggesting highly suspect/dangerous solutions so that guns and gun owners will eventually be off the street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread