You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #97: One change I'd like to see [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
97. One change I'd like to see
is the NICS system opened up for private sales. I'd also be ok with it then being required that the seller of the firearm retain evidence (i.e. a receipt of some sort indicating time/date and a simple YES or NO result and the identity of the subject), and being held accountable for what the other party does with the firearm if they do not have a documented "YES" result. This doesn't resolve the issues with what appears on background checks (it needs to be a priority for states or whoever to get the necessary info into the system), but it does at least allow private individuals the opportunity- and an incentive- to find out who they're selling to.
This idea has been tossed around here by others long before I was aware of it, and I think it would be a very valuable change in the system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC