A logical and reasonable solution to gun violence in America

[Kelvin Mace]

Yes, I have a solution to propose.

I can tell you right now that the solution is NOT going to make everyone happy. It isn't perfect, but then there is no such thing as a perfect solution. It is, however, a solution that if you bother to actually think about it is the only solution which will actually make a difference in gun violence while preserving the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is not a solution that will work immediately, but it will work in the long run.

Some gun rights folks consider any restriction to their right to own a firearm as unacceptable. They need to grow up.

Some anti-gun folk consider any measure that doesn't ban guns outright as unacceptable. They need to grow up.

People are dying, and it is past time to fix this problem.

Gun owners need to understand that guns ARE the problem, specifically handguns. Anti-gun advocates need to understand that in this day and age of the Imperial Bush Dynasty, the possibility of needing weapons to protect ourself from a tyrannical government is no longer a far-fetched point of view.

So, how do we preserve our right to weapons we may need to protect ourself from a government that feels it is no longer bound by the Constitution, a government that feels it has the right to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>, to illegally torture people in order to extract confessions, and to spy on its citizens with impunity? At the same time, how do we remove guns that are unquestionably responsible for massive amounts of blood shed every day?

The problem is, of course, handguns. They need to be banned. Sorry this sentence just caused some people to begin shrieking at their computer, but there you are. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the word "arms" realistically meant rifles and shotguns. Pistols existed, but were mostly used for dueling and personal defense for the rich. Of course, pistols of the day weren't too damn useful for either of those tasks, and they damn sure didn't put any food on the table.

I propose that we draft and pass a Sane Firearms Act. The act will ban ALL firearms under thirty inches in length, PERIOD. Only police officers, federal agents and soldiers would be permitted to possess/carry any weapon smaller. The ban would also cover ammunition for such weapons.

A one year grace period would go into effect after the law was passed in which people would be able to turn in such weapons without penalty. People turning in such weapons would be entitled to a tax credit equal to the value of the gun. The tax credit would only be provided during the grace period. Weapons discovered or seized after the grace period would receive no credit.

Automatic weapons would be banned entirely, but semi-automatic weapons would still be permitted, including assault rifles.

After the grace period, anyone found with a banned weapon or ammunition in their possession would be sent to prison for ten years, no parole. In instances where banned firearms or ammunition were found (say, in the attic in grandpa's old footlocker), you would be required to immediately call the police and declare the weapon so it could be surrendered.

Now, will this eliminate all gun violence? No, it won't. But it will cut down on it as the sea of handguns dries up. While rifles, shotguns and assault rifles are certainly dangerous and do their share of killing, the vast majority of murders, assaults, suicides, and accidents involving children involve handguns.

Handguns are easy to conceal so they are they weapon of choice for robbery and murder. People wandering around with an AK-47 and bandoleers of 7.62mm ammo tend to be noticed. The whole "conceal/carry" issue is resolved once and for all. Want to wander the city armed? Well, sling arms, dude.

For those of you foaming at the mouth about a ban on handguns being the first step in a total ban, or being deprived of a means to defend yourself, grow the Hell up!

If the Bush administration or some other government tries for a total ban, I will be up there with you on the barricade, armed to the teeth. As to the best means to defend yourself, if you think a handgun is superior to an assault rifle for self-defense, I'll be happy to trade shots with you at 20 paces. You can have a Desert Eagle, I'll take an AR-15.

Folks, we can keep going the way we are going, or we can take a sane step toward reining in our gun fetish. We can also save some lives.

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/s9/index.php?/archives/1887-A-logical-and-reasonable-solution-to-gun-violence-in-America.html

[sandnsea]

1. They had AK-47's under Saddam

Didn't help.

Try again.

[Irreverend IX]

4. Actually, they didn't.

The had pistols and shotguns, but Saddam prohibited ownership of the really effective stuff. There were some areas that bucked his control, however. The people in Fallujah killed two of Saddam's appointed governors, after which he kind of adopted a hands-off approach for the region.

[sandnsea]

7. When guns are outlawed

only outlaws have guns. Right?

Saddam fell. They immediately had a whole lot more than pistols and shotguns.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. And they are using them on

each other and us.

Of course they also have no polices force, no law, and damned little hope.

Again, I am talking about this country, not Iraq. Solving Iraq's gun problem is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[sandnsea]

16. Not talking about now

I'm talking about your argument that we have to have guns to defend ourselves against tyranny. They had guns in Iraq. They didn't use them against Saddam.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. They did not have much in the way of assault rifles in numbers

until just before the invasion.

[sandnsea]

40. Way to miss the point

Even if you want to use Nabeshin's argument, they still had guns. It still didn't help them fight off the tyrant.

But, they did have more than rifles and shotguns. Particularly the Kurds in the north. We armed them. You think they didn't filter into Baghdad??

[Irreverend IX]

13. Saddam started handing out the AKs and RPGs shortly before the invasion...

In order to kickstart the insurgency. We basically forced him to arm his enemies. Ironically, he may have been overthrown by his own people if we had backed down and not invaded, but we'll never know now.

[sandnsea]

23. Clinton tried that

Internal assassination team and coup. Didn't work.

We needed to improve conditions in the north and south, so that they could squeeze Hussein out. We've got to stop with this glorifying of violence as the only solution. We don't need guns in this country to save us from tyranny, that's just ridiculous. Especially in spite of this band of hooligans in the white house, and nobody threatening them with guns anyway. Not that I'm advocating that, I think anarchy is bullshit. But the fact is still there, all this protection from tyranny stuff is just so much bullshit. It'll never happen.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. I am talking about this country

not Iraq.

[sandnsea]

9. Principle is the same

Guns do not provide any protection against tyranny. It's a false sense of security. What we need is a change of attitude about violence, but we will never get that as long as this phony gun debate continues.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. I take my solutions one step at a time.

If I can get this type of ban, that take a tens of millions of weapons out of circulation.

As I said, not a perfect solution, but I'm happy to hear alternatives.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. The debate isn't "phony"

The nation is drowning in firearms.

I certainly agree that our unhealthy obsession with violence is a major part of the problem, but you can understand that I want to take as many dangerous toys from the children as possible before we try to have THAT discussion. <g>

[sandnsea]

30. That part is true

The nation is drowning in firearms. We need tougher regulations on various guns, I agree. But we don't need semi-autos any more than we need handguns, although I think we need to tighten who they're sold to rather than banning them altogether. I just reject these nonsensical reasons that we "need" guns. Other than to hunt or if you live 30 miles from the sheriff - you don't NEED a gun in this country.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. And you and I could have a reasonable and intelligent

discussion about this. I agree with you, in fact.

However, we would still have to deal with those who will NOT have such a discussion and will not agree with us.

Better to get some weapons off the market, especially those that do the most damage, than to leave things as they are.

[sandnsea]

64. Dispense with myths

There is no way to come to reasonable gun laws with the unreasonable. They have their set of talking points and they will maneuver 50 different ways before they admit they're just spewing out the litany to keep from ever getting to the actual point - what is "responsible" to a gun owner. They'll never tell you. But every time we buy into one of their myths in order to try to be reasonable - we actually move away from the final goal - challenging the gun owner to define "responsible" law. Trigger locks, safes, finger print technology, bullet technology, limited registration lists, better background procedures, age, whatever - they will never give you a list of what's responsible.

[doc03]

44. The insurgents certainly are doing an effective

job of fighting the American tyranny in their country I would say.

[sandnsea]

53. With rockets

Are you suggesting we let people put rockets in the back of their pickups?

[Kelvin Mace]

69. If civil war were to come to this country

do you honestly think we wouldn't have them?

All those National Guard armories have more than just tents.

[sandnsea]

76. They're currently Regulated

So what does that have to do with any gun argument?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

82. What a bullshit, sexist, post. (nt)

[EstimatedProphet]

86. Here's another idea:

How about we actually put some effort into examining our society's problems, and work to fix them? How about we do something about the fearmongering from the government, the media, and the military-industrial complex that is profiting off of our panic? How about we quit trying to pretend that guns are some sort of mind-control devices, and admit that we have a society full of people that are at their breaking point and are so desperate that they will try to use a gun to fix their problems?

[Irreverend IX]

3. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in circulation...

You can be sure that the drug dealers and criminals won't turn theirs in. 10 years? Not such a big deal if you're plotting murder anyway.

There's no way openly carrying rifles will become acceptable, so banning concealed carry will render many people unable to protect themselves from attack when they're out of their homes. Remember, cops have no obligation to protect you.

Also, handguns are the weapon of choice for common criminals, but long guns can still be used for massacre-type killings, since the people who do those usually aren't concerned with stealth. Most of the kills at Columbine were done with shotguns, and the perp in that recent Salt Lake City shooting also used a shotgun. Shotguns often hold 6-9 shells, and there isn't much of a reloading vulnerability since you can pop more shells in quickly without removing a magazine.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Fine, make it 25 years

I'm easy.

By the way, that is ten years PER GUN.

Of course the criminals won't turn them in. This is not a solution to fix things TOMORROW, it is a solution to fix things gradually.

Conceal/carry is not stopping crime, so my proposal for people to sling up is not less effective.

Please point to where I said my solution would stop mass murder. I didn't. I said it would cut down on the murders, suicides and accidents occurring with handguns, i.e. the majority of them.

[Irreverend IX]

18. Not stopping crime?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

The millions of defensive gun uses per year would fall sharply if handguns were forbidden. If you want to start a "war on guns," expect similar results to the war on drugs. A huge black market and lots of violent crime connected to it. If you really want to cut down on gun killings, you should work to legalize drugs, since 85% of all US violent crime is tied to the drug trade.

And why would it cut down on suicides? Long guns are fine for suicides and often cheaper than handguns.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. I am 100% in favor of legalizing drugs

for all the reasons you cite.

I am not proposing a "war on guns", I am proposing a sane law to guarantee people the right to a firearm, while getting rid of a class of firearm that has little use outside of crime.

Outside of the police, I am HIGHLY skeptical of claims a "millions of defensive gun uses. Sorry.

[Irreverend IX]

50. If you're so skeptical...

Why don't you tell me why Kleck's study was invalid? It was the most comprehensive study of DGUs to date, and Kleck self-identifies as a liberal Democrat so don't go telling me he's a right-wing shill. The lowest DGU estimates are around 100,000 a year, which is still way more than the number of gun murders. If you want only cops to have access to easily portable handguns, you trust those thugs in blue a lot more than I do.

And while you're at it, tell me why a war on handguns won't end up exactly like the war on drugs.

[Mind_your_head]

8. You want 'people' like THIS to have all the guns.....

you're a *smart* one, you are! :eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

10. They have them now

My solution simply means fewer guns, especially dangerous ones used in most murders and suicides.

[Mind_your_head]

19. It could be argued that the argument you present is a 'fine' example of our 'dumbed-down' America

n/t

(I really want to say that you are a biased gas-bag, working for the neo-cons....but that might get me t-stoned, so this is only a "thought-bubble" that you can/can't see, see?)

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Excuse me,

but I am long time poster, and have been posting at my own blog even longer, and have been a hard core liberal and proud of it longer still.

Before you accuse people of being a "neo-con" you might try doing your homework.

I am simply trying to come up with a solution to very thorny problem. I am sorry this offends you.

[Mind_your_head]

84. Long time poster doesn't mean you're a "better" poster. eom

[Kelvin Mace]

89. I never claimed to be a better poster

I simply stated I had posted for a long time here, thus my history and my political views are easy to research.

You tried in your "oh-so-clever" way to dismiss my proposal as being the product of a neo-con, which I find damned insulting.

Since you are apparently unable to formulate a logical argument against my views, you decided that ad hominem attacks were the way to go, you then follow up by altering the attack to something I never claimed, i.e. that I was a better poster.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

[ComerPerro]

14. the idea of personal armories to protect yourself from the government is a RW libertarian myth

that should have been debunked, refuted, and laughed out of public discourse long ago.

I got news for anyone who thinks their militia, led by cousin Frank, with all of ten members and forty guns, can actually fight off a government force hell bent on wiping you out:

Its not happening.

Have you seen what happens to people who fight against the US Armed Forces?

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Agreed

But since this is a RW bugbear that refuses to go away, it has to be dealt with. I've dealt with it.

Again, my proposal outlaws the most dangerous firearms. It won't stop death from occurring, but it would make a sizable dent in the number of people dying every year.

[ComerPerro]

17. aw man, you mean you want to talk about your topic in the thread you started? LOL. Ok...

I like your proposal. It seems like a nice place to compromise. But one problem I forsee is the usual anti-gun-control argument: That these measures you propose will only punish those who follow the law, but won't stop the criminals who shouldn't have guns.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. I think ten years in prison,

no parole PER GUN us plenty of punishment for criminals who break the law.

[ComerPerro]

27. Well, yeah, but I think that would get defeated in debate, or if not,

overturned after the first year.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Well, as it does not violate the Constitution

which does NOT say what kind of arms, I don't see how it would be overturned.

[ComerPerro]

33. I think a lot of people would get themselves arrested in protest

The NRA yells "from my cold dead hands" for a reason, you know.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. I think that after the first batch or three,

they would get the message.

As I said I expect the proposal will not please every one. NRA types the least, since they think the least.

[ComerPerro]

39. I'll leave it at that. Just wanted to throw a few Devil's Advocate points out there

at least you're trying to offer some discussion to this problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Hey, I am all for discussion

When people stop talking in this country, they sometimes start shooting.

<sad smile>

[ComerPerro]

55. well, just talking doesn't make for good TV and movies

not that I don't, myself, enjoy a good violent action movie...

[roamer65]

21. You mean I can't fight off the black helicopters...

with a Glock???:sarcasm:

My world is falling apart...LOL.

[ComerPerro]

22. LOL, sadly, no.

[piedmont]

35. No, it's a gun-o-phobe strawman.

"Have you seen what happens to people who fight against the US Armed Forces?"

Yes, they win if they fight asymetrical wars.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Agreed

A lesson we are learning in Iraq.

[ComerPerro]

42. so you honestly and sincerely believe 100 rednecks could wipe out an organized US Military force?

[Kelvin Mace]

45. No, But I believe

100 ex-soldiers with assault rifles would cause grief to 20 times that many National Guard/Reserve types.

Remember, a lot of Vietnam/Gulf War I/and Iraqi War vets out there. They know what the hell they are doing.

[ComerPerro]

47. Yeah but so do current soldiers. I really don't see 100 people taking out 2000 soldiers, short

of using IEDs, suicide bombing, etc.

Point is, though, no matter how many they take out, those freedom fighters are still dead.

[JVS]

57. So people can't choose to fight unless their odds look good?

[ComerPerro]

61. you can fight back all you want, but the guns aren't going to help.

[JVS]

70. You can say that, but often things work out

In 1980's Yugoslavia, who'd have thought that in a decade the country would be split up by guerilla groups. We think of the military as this unbeatable machine, but shit happens.

[Dunedain]

77. Are they helping Muqtada al-Sadr? n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

59. I didn't say "take out"

I said "cause grief". Unlike folks in Iraq, I would have no desire to engage in suicide tactics until such time as the circs were that dire. Also, the lesson we all learned in Vietnam and forgot in Iraq is that wounding an enemy is far more effective than killing him.

It isn't 3300+ dead soldiers causing man-power shortages in Iraq, it is the 20,000+ wounded.

[piedmont]

48. Do you think I don't know a strawman when I see one?

[ComerPerro]

51. Its a gun-nut strawman, not mine

after all, the reason for a well-regulated militia is to defend house and home from the government, is it not?

[piedmont]

56. There are many reasons for having an armed militia.

That is one of them. Governments killed 180 million of their own people in the 20th century. Don't you think those people would have liked to have been able to fight back?

[ComerPerro]

62. Many of them did fight back. And most of them would be dead anyway

[piedmont]

81. Oh, well, in that case, let's give up all hope of fighting back.

Those people were poorly armed. Americans wouldn't be.

[marions ghost]

88. you don't seem to realize

that all the guns you can possibly store up are irrelevant. They may make you feel "safer" from an intrusive government, but that is largely a romantic illusion.

The real loss of freedoms in this country is taking place without using such primitive weapons.

[piedmont]

91. Soap box, vote box, jury box, ammo box are all tools useful for preserving liberty

I don't throw out useful tools.

[marions ghost]

92. and how is using "ammo box"

going to give you any liberty? How is it that you are going to deal with high tech invasions of your rights with something as low tech as "ammo."

All it amounts to is a delusion about safety, like my rope hammock supports my delusion about leisure time.

It's one thing to say you need protection from a burgler, but seriously delusional to think you're "preserving liberty." These are different times.

[piedmont]

95. It's the means of last resort. It's for once-every-other-century circumstances.

The weapons that American citizens possess are not an active defense in ordinary circumstances. They may provide some passive prevention of government trampling the people, but that's all. The other tools I mentioned are to be used as often as possible-- speak out, vote, and prosecute through the legal system when possible. If you don't use those, of course the power of government can be abused. But when all else fails, a disarmed populace is completely at the mercy of a regime that has concentrated power.

[JVS]

41. Let me guess: They're able to make the occupation of their country a pain in the ass?

[ComerPerro]

46. Well, for one, the insurgents are striking in repeated waves.

Secondly, just about every insurgent who goes up against the US dies. They may take out one or two or three soldiers, but they die. And a small domestic militia against the US Army has no chance.

Also, consider that a government that has no problems with ordering troops to fire on it's own citizens would show very little restraint using bombs and explosives against them.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. You are assuming

that those same soldiers are going to be perfectly fine with attacking their own fellow citizens, neighbors, friends and family. It's one thing to shoot foreigners who dress funny and don't speak English, something else entirely to start shooting your own people.

[ComerPerro]

65. Then why would people even need to protect themselves from their government?

[Kelvin Mace]

71. Becuase you always have to have

Plan B.

[Possumpoint]

20. Sorry

Don't agree. Also, I think in a few cases rifles and handguns use the same ammo.

[Kelvin Mace]

25. Only in the case of the .22 (I believe)

and I'm willing to work around that.

[piedmont]

32. "Saddam is killing his own people-- we need to fix this problem."

Many "solutions" offered to fix problems are worse than the problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. I don't see how taking tens of millions of handguns out of

circulation could possibly make things worse than they already are. But again, this is a proposal and I am open to discussion.

[piedmont]

60. You'd be taking them away from the LAW-ABIDING.

The criminals will still have them. By the way, handguns are easy to make, too.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. No one is stopping criminals from turning in their guns

After the grace period, all it will do is get them more time in jail.

[piedmont]

73. Yep, criminals are suddenly going to start following the law.

not.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Never said they were

just that they have the opportunity.

Criminals get arrested all the time. Each gun found means ten years, no parole.

Pretty soon, word gets around.

Again, if you expect a perfect solution to this problem, I don't have one. I have offered something other than "leave things as they are" and "ban guns completely", which has been pretty much the rule for the last few decades. Yes, laws have been passed, but all have contained loopholes which have pretty much preserved the status quo.

[piedmont]

80. I applaud you for offering a solution, but I don't think it's better than the problem.

Criminals would still possess useful weapons that law-abiding citizens wouldn't. And these weapons can be made in small shops, so they wouldn't eventually dwindle away either.

[-..__...]

43. Well...

anytime someone interjects "grow the Hell up!" into a debate it makes me think the person is an immature (uneducated),asshole (tricky how that works... but it works :smoke:).

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Well,

sorry you feel that way, as that was not my intention. I am a little cranky listening to all the unhelpful chatter when people have died.

Perhaps I should re-word it in the future

[-..__...]

83. No...

perhaps you should settle down, give it a few days to think about it, and "re-word" your entire proposal?

[karlrschneider]

54. Your proposal has merit idealistically but it simply is not possible.

Americans, or at least a sufficient number of them, won't stand for it. You only need to look at the failed precedents:
The "war on drugs", "prohibition", or the latest greatest "war on terror." The best way to create a market for something is to make it illegal. That's not an opposition of the goal, it's an admission of fact. Utopia is a charming concept but it's ONLY a concept.

[Kelvin Mace]

74. I am not proprosing

a "war on drugs" nor a prohibition against guns. I am simply saying you are welcome to this class of guns, and they are well suited for defending home and hearth against criminals and rogue attorneys general. This class of guns however, help the criminals and are a danger to heath and home.

Kind of like legalizing drugs, but making it illegal for anyone to make or use bad drugs. :)

[doc03]

58. What is logical and reasonable to you is

not for a lot of others. I have a shotgun right here I could saw off and carry in gym bag to the mall. Just how many people could I get if I had a box of buckshot and a pump or semi-auto in a crowded place? I guarantee you I could get 10 times more than with a 9MM Glock.

[-..__...]

68. You "need to grow up"!

:rofl:

[Kelvin Mace]

75. Uh, again

I didn't say it would solve all problems. Just get a lot of guns that do the most harm out of circulation.

[doc03]

67. You want another Republican President in 08

put gun control in our platform. Look at the map of red states, the gun control record of some in the Democratic Party is a major reason they are red and will stay red.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. Cool

Let's just leave things as they are. It's working so well.

[Blue_Tires]

85. ttt nt

[Thothmes]

87. Neither logical or reasonable

Using your constitutional argument that pistols were rare and not covered by the second amendment, I can proclaim that since radio, television and the internet were not in existance in the late 18th century that they are not covered by the 1st amendment. Both would be equally valid folowing your logic.

I currently own a couple of hand guns and have owned them for decades. The were purchased in accordance with both federal and state laws. To now proscribe their ownership is an ex post facto law. Therefore is illegal on its face value. See Article I section 9 of the Constitution.

With Millions of hand guns in private ownership it is not a reasonable to task the Federal Government to pursue the confiscation of handguns from private homes. Unless you are recommending that we supend the IVth and Vth amendments to the Constitution to do so.

Banning hand guns will be as equally successful as the prohibition of Alcohol was and the war on drugs is. As long as there are people who want the product, their will be people out there willing to sell it to them.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. Sorry, it is NOT an ex post facto law

The law I propose states that once the law is enacted, a one year grace period is in effect in which the hand guns may be turned in, after which, that class of firearm becomes illegal.

No where do I state the Federal government may "confiscate weapons from people's homes". If a proscribed weapon is found in the course of a normal police activities (answering a break in, for example), the police may act.

I have not banned guns, I have banned a class of guns, something that is already done. I have simply broadened existing bans to one whole class, in exchange for expressly permitting another class of guns. Thus comparisons to the "war on drugs" is an invalid comparison. If the government legalized marijuana while outlawing heroin, you would have a point. Even then, I would be in favor of such a law, since it would explicitly legalize one class of drugs, reducing violence over that class.

[Sapere aude]

93. Please check out this sight, http://www.sassnet.com/ These guns you would ban

yet they are for fun or sport only. Your law is ridiculous because you don't know a damn thing about gun ownership.

You need to grow up!

[porphyrian]

94. Here's the biggest problem with your solution:

"Only police officers, federal agents and soldiers would be permitted to possess/carry any weapon smaller."

If they're available at all, bad guys will have them.