S/O Gun control

[3 ladybugs]

I am not a gun owner and I think in NJ it would be easier for my hubby to give birth then it would be for me to get a gun legally. :P That may just a guess on my part though. 

 

Why not have a licensing procedure for guns like we do for cars? You can't drive a car unless you do ___. So why not make it true for guns. I don't care if you want ____ gun. You get licensed for it and it is none of business. So make all guns legal but have classifications if you want to have something more powerful (like I can't drive a semi truck with my current driver's license). However have this on the state level for the most part. You want something really powerful, you are going to have to go through more training and testing and that may come from the federal level.

 

Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and other states like that, having a gun is vital to survival (because of wildlife). I get scared when I hear that people want more gun regulation because while that may be fine and good for NJ it isn't for those states!  

 

I also think Gun Free Zones are a joke. I remember when I moved to Boston and when I would walk into Cambridge, I would see a sign that said "This city is a domestic violence free zone." I am a recovered victim of domestic violence and this always made me laugh. Who is in favor of domestic violence? Shouldn't all areas be domestic violence free zones? What makes Cambridge special? I think "gun free zones" are saying that they are free of gun violence or at least want to be. However what it is doing is just the opposite. I have heard that these gun free zones are where most of the mass shootings have occurred recently. So get rid of them. No point to them. I don't think there is one area of this country where we want mass shootings. Can we agree as a country we are not wanting that? So don't put up a sign. It is just telling bad people where to go to be successful in their rampages. 

[Joanne]

Why is the recreational use of guns not normal, ok, and healthy?

 

Please read what I have actually written.

[ktgrok]

So it's not that I'm unwilling to address the concept of well regulated. It's just that I thought her proposed view if it mildly odd to me. I suppose if each state had it, that'd be interesting to see. Not the national guard, but the state guard so to speak? Hmm. I wonder how friendly the Feds would be to each state having and maintaining its own military without any federal say or interference? Just mostly thinking out loud rambling... Sorry.

 

I don't know if they'd like it, but I stand by the idea that it's what the 2nd ammendment is talking about. 

[Ms.Ivy]

In *America* perhaps. But that is not the case everywhere or even in all industrialized countries.

 

Again: the premise and assumption = gun culture.

I'm not talking about just officers on patrol.  Countries that don't have armed cops on the street certainly have some guns back at the station for "special circumstances."  Or if they need to, they can call in the military.  If America was a tiny island in the ocean that didn't share an open border with a country with worse gun problems than ours, maybe we could de-militarize the police.  But you'd still have the military behind the police, wouldn't you?  There's always a gun at the end of the line.  

[SpecialClassical]

I stand by it with regard to guns - due to the gun culture.

 

Your cut of my quote is not in context.

 

This conversation is an example. It is predictable and cliche. Limited "self" (US) awareness that the US is **different** when it comes to guns. Guns are part of our patriotism.

Goodness, I cut your quote because I was in a hurry, thus the ellipses indicating more text. The whole quote was right above and fully in context.

 

And I stand by my statement that your assessment of Americans' ability to discuss the subject. You just dismissed this discussion as predictable and cliche. Many people are having an honest discussion and were willing to look at causes and solutions to the problem. Your statements do not add to the encouragement of others to explore the topic. You continue to insult and it appears to others, although perhaps not intended, that you have a disdain for your fellow board members when it comes to their ability to intellectually discuss this matter.

[Tsuga]

 Because most people, when talking about gun control, want guns abolished, not just "controlled." 

 

That is not my experience, nor is it borne out in the evidence when we look at gun control legislation as proposed at the national, state or local level.

 

You'd think if any city could ban guns, it would be Seattle or Portland--not Chicago of all places. But we haven't. We legalized gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and have all kinds of social programs in place. The cities themselves, if not the states, could ban guns, if liberals wanted to ban guns. And actually the whole state could, too, because most people live in the cities.

 

I'll tell you why. It's that most liberals do not actually support banning guns. That's why no such propositions have been offered and none have passed.

 

However, we do have gun regulation.

[Amira]

I think the part you're missing is that when you say "we can regulate," you are saying "we can out-gun the bad guys."  The debate is about who the "we" is, and how big the "we" is.  At the end of the day, guns enforce law.  There's no way around that, except to un-invent the gun.  

 

ETA: sorry to "pick" on you.... I'm not really making an argument against gun tracking, registration, etc.  But I'm just pointing out that guns are fundamentally different that the other things you brought up (traffic and drugs, etc) and it DOES matter in this context if bad guys get them.  It really does have an impact.  Because most people, when talking about gun control, want guns abolished, not just "controlled."  And that's a big deal.  

 

I don't feel like you're picking on me at all. But I cannot agree that when I say that we (the government and US citizens) should regulate guns that I mean that we (the government and US citizens) can or should outgun the bad guys.  That hasn't been necessary in other places around the world and I don't think it has to be that way in the US.  There are many ways to regulate guns that don't just involve outgunning the bad guys and I don't understand why you insist that I am saying something that I do not believe.  

 

I also don't think that most people want guns abolished, or if they do, they realize that it's probably not possible at this time in the US.  We (the government and US citizens) are smart enough to figure out a middle ground that will irritate the fringes mightily but will make everyone safer.  What we have now is not safe.

[Joanne]

Goodness, I cut your quote because I was in a hurry, thus the ellipses indicating more text. The whole quote was right above and fully in context.

 

And I stand by my statement that your assessment of Americans' ability to discuss the subject. You just dismissed this discussion as predictable and cliche. Many people are having an honest discussion and were willing to look at causes and solutions to the problem. Your statements do not add to the encouragement of others to explore the topic. You continue to insult and it appears to others, although perhaps not intended, that you have a disdain for your fellow board members when it comes to their ability to intellectually discuss this matter.

 

I have deep sadness and fear for the US and our inability to see into and past our gun culture enough to rein in the NRA, to be truly introspective regarding our gun history and paradigm and how our collective inability to do so = more death.

 

This board, populated by a majority of US citizens, reflects that.

[Sneezyone]

Haven't read all the replies yet. I would really, really like to see Congress lift the ban on gun data collection so that we could at least have accurate information with which to form policy. The stranglehold some groups have put on gov't and our inability to gather information about the sources and movement of black market weapons is a real barrier to progress.

[TechWife]

nm 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't know if they'd like it, but I stand by the idea that it's what the 2nd ammendment is talking about. 

 

I have never been convinced that the 2nd Amendment was solely intended for militias, as the state constitutions in the same era often specifically cited personal defense as a reason for the amendment as a reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Personal firearm ownership was common place at the time, and came in rather handy when forming militias to for the Revolution, so to me it seems unlikely that an intent to protect personal firearm ownership wasn't part of the 2nd.

 

With that said, none of that means that reasonable (and imo stronger) regulations would violate the 2nd.

[Joanne]

Haven't read all the replies yet. I would really, really like to see Congress lift the ban on gun data collection so that we could at least have accurate information with which to form policy. The stranglehold some groups have put on gov't and our inability to gather information about the sources and movement of black market weapons is a real barrier to progress.

 

Yes, please.

 

Real information is the starting point.

 

[Guest]

What is the media like in other countries? I wonder how much America's media obsession has to do with this problem? Don't most mass killers want their ne to go down in history?

[itsheresomewhere]

I am not a gun owner and I think in NJ it would be easier for my hubby to give birth then it would be for me to get a gun legally. :P That may just a guess on my part though.

 

Why not have a licensing procedure for guns like we do for cars? You can't drive a car unless you do ___. So why not make it true for guns. I don't care if you want ____ gun. You get licensed for it and it is none of business. So make all guns legal but have classifications if you want to have something more powerful (like I can't drive a semi truck with my current driver's license). However have this on the state level for the most part. You want something really powerful, you are going to have to go through more training and testing and that may come from the federal level.

 

Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and other states like that, having a gun is vital to survival (because of wildlife). I get scared when I hear that people want more gun regulation because while that may be fine and good for NJ it isn't for those states!

 

I also think Gun Free Zones are a joke. I remember when I moved to Boston and when I would walk into Cambridge, I would see a sign that said "This city is a domestic violence free zone." I am a recovered victim of domestic violence and this always made me laugh. Who is in favor of domestic violence? Shouldn't all areas be domestic violence free zones? What makes Cambridge special? I think "gun free zones" are saying that they are free of gun violence or at least want to be. However what it is doing is just the opposite. I have heard that these gun free zones are where most of the mass shootings have occurred recently. So get rid of them. No point to them. I don't think there is one area of this country where we want mass shootings. Can we agree as a country we are not wanting that? So don't put up a sign. It is just telling bad people where to go to be successful in their rampages.

It is much easier to give birth than to get a gun permit in NJ. But we do need to redo the laws on guns in NJ. The poor lady who died while waiting for a gun permit is a example of why.

[Laura Corin]

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.   

 

This page gives a lot of detail and these are the current rules:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, Firearm Certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.^[45] The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years.

 

My former boss has a shotgun certificate, and he not only has to fulfil the fitness conditions, but to specify where he is likely to shoot.  He's not limited to shooting in that place, but there has to be reasonable location available to him (not the back garden).

 

I think that there used to be a fair number of service revolvers unloaded in drawers, brought back from both World Wars.  They were just a curiosity in most cases.  I do think that there is a cultural difference here: there isn't a founding myth in Britain of ordinary people righting wrongs and forging new lives with guns, as the US has in the Wild West.  Guns just don't mean much in British culture.  Our stories of invasion and oppression predate pistols.

 

The tightening of laws came in reaction to mass killings in Hungerford (1987, street shooting) and Dunblane (1996, school shooting).  There was an amnesty, and many weapons were handed in.  There was such horror at these incidents that there was little objection to the new laws.  There was no ingrained cultural value to guns in the UK, so there was little to weigh against the deaths of innocent adults and children.

 

There was a later street shooting (Cumbria, 2010) but the laws weren't changed much after that - there was a recognition, I think, that laws can't prevent every last incident.

 

This section gives the firearms crime statistics; there are about fifty firearm deaths in England and Wales per year:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

 

What does all this feel like?  Because there are very few guns around, criminals don't carry them: the penalties for using a gun during a crime are very high, and criminals know that it's very likely that the person they are mugging/burglarising will be unarmed, so they just expect to run away if discovered.  There is a general lack of fear here: I feel no connection with the idea of carrying a gun for self-defence.

 

It's very hard to compare two country's crime figures, because of differences in reporting, but this article seems to have tried hard to get to definitions.  I don't know anything about the writer's background:

 

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

[Laura Corin]

What is the media like in other countries? I wonder how much America's media obsession has to do with this problem? Don't most mass killers want their ne to go down in history?

 

I promise you that the UK's tabloids can compete in nastiness with any in the world, and are just as likely to give publicity to someone who would be better forgotten.

[Ms.Ivy]

I don't feel like you're picking on me at all. But I cannot agree that when I say that we (the government and US citizens) should regulate guns that I mean that we (the government and US citizens) can or should outgun the bad guys.  That hasn't been necessary in other places around the world and I don't think it has to be that way in the US.  There are many ways to regulate guns that don't just involve outgunning the bad guys and I don't understand why you insist that I am saying something that I do not believe.  

 

I also don't think that most people want guns abolished, or if they do, they realize that it's probably not possible at this time in the US.  We (the government and US citizens) are smart enough to figure out a middle ground that will irritate the fringes mightily but will make everyone safer.  What we have now is not safe.

 

I'm talking about the monopoly of force by the state -- not that police officers have to walk around with guns all the time, but the idea that the government is whoever can exert the most force.  In our world, the most force we have is guns and bombs.  I agree that what we have now isn't safe, but I think the solutions are complicated, include cultural change over just legal bandaids, and that "safe" and "free" aren't always compatible.  

[Lb20inblue]

Honestly, just insure firearms. I think some of our issues would work itself out. If gun owners can't get behind idea, even though everyone is legally required to have car insurance, I'm not sure what can be done.

[Stacia]

Well, I'll go out on a limb & suggest a radical idea.... (Putting on my flame-proof suit too.)

 

So, from the FBI website, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is:

 

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

 

The NRA is the most influential lobbying organization in the US (according to wikipedia). Since the 1970s, they have actively lobbied against gun control laws of any type, lobbied for access to assault rifles & other high-powered, automatically shooting guns. I saw an article awhile ago where Wayne LaPierre said the NRA does not negotiate, period. No type of regulation for guns is acceptable, the NRA just won't discuss anything, won't cede anything, won't work to find a median solution. By pushing assault weapon access for the general public, are you helping promote acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law? Murder maybe? Does that make the NRA an accessory to the first bullet point on the FBI's list?

 

The second point talks about intimidating the civilian population or influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Through their stiff lobbying, excessive contributions to lawmakers (see stats here), are they working to coerce laws in their favor? Do some politicians feel intimidated into supporting the NRA's agenda because of donations, strong-arming, etc...? If so, that's a check for the second bullet point on the FBI list.

 

The third point is that it occurs in the territorial jurisdiction of the US. Since we're talking about laws & lobbying & media influence in the US, I think that meets the third criteria.

 

So, the suggestion is this -- how about the NRA, as it currently exists & lobbies, be declared a domestic terror organization? Once they (& their influence) are removed from the table, maybe everyone else that remains can begin to have rational discussion about what would constitute a 'well-regulated' militia &/or gun rights in the US.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Honestly, just insure firearms. I think some of our issues would work itself out. If gun owners can't get behind idea, even though everyone is legally required to have car insurance, I'm not sure what can be done.

 

I have a couple of issues with the insurance solution, or at least with the proposals I have seen.  From what I have read if a gun owner's firearm was stolen and used by another to commit a crime, the gun owner's insurance would be used to cover damages (and we essentially blaming the original gun owner for the crime.)

My problem with that is we would be expecting every gun owner to purchase insurance not for themselves but to also protect against damaged caused by the illegal acts of another.  If someone steals my car and then wrecks it into another, my insurance can only be used to pay for the damage to my vehicle (ie protect me personally from the bad acts of another) but it cannot be used to pay for the damages caused by the criminal against a third party.  Asking crime victims to cover damages caused by the criminal when he harms other parties goes against some basic principles of our system.

[Sneezyone]

If the question is what steps could be taken in the U.S. (and, full disclosure, I am NO fan of guns)...

 

1. I would like to see ATF get its teeth back. The ATF and FBI haven't had good data on the source of weapons used in crimes since we lost our collective minds in the 1980s. If I remember correctly, the last report from that time showed most guns used in crimes came from a handful of stores/suppliers nationwide. We need to know which guns are most likely to be used in the commission of a crime, which entities/sales agents are most likely to supply the guns used in crimes, how many guns are out there, and how/where they're concentrated. I don't care if the 'registry' is double blind but we need to be able to hold people/entities accountable for their safe-storage and we can't do that now. I'd also like to know how guns move from low-regulation to high-regulation areas.
2. I'd also like to see blanket product liability removed from gun manufacturers and 'law-abiding' owners. I think this would encourage the development of more advanced safety features and in-home safety measures.
3. I'd like to see mental health professionals (in schools and private settings) be required to report individuals in care to a no-buy list. For as long as someone is in care and some time afterward, they should not be allowed to purchase guns or have them in their possession. I also believe there should be a process to have names removed.

[Butter]

Honestly, just insure firearms. I think some of our issues would work itself out. If gun owners can't get behind idea, even though everyone is legally required to have car insurance, I'm not sure what can be done.

 

I'm totally not opposed to insuring firearms, but even though it is legally required to have car insurance not everyone does.  There have to be uninsured motorist funds and I've heard of far too many people being in a crash and the person who hit them did not have insurance.  So, given that, I'm guessing some people wouldn't carry firearm insurance.

[Lb20inblue]

I have a couple of issues with the insurance solution, or at least with the proposals I have seen. From what I have read if a gun owner's firearm was stolen and used by another to commit a crime, the gun owner's insurance would be used to cover damages (and we essentially blaming the original gun owner for the crime.)

My problem with that is we would be expecting every gun owner to purchase insurance not for themselves but to also protect against damaged caused by the illegal acts of another. If someone steals my car and then wrecks it into another, my insurance can only be used to pay for the damage to my vehicle (ie protect me personally from the bad acts of another) but it cannot be used to pay for the damages caused by the criminal against a third party. Asking crime victims to cover damages caused by the criminal when he harms other parties goes against some basic principles of our system.

While I understand what your saying, I think we as a society need to first agree that we want to do this and then think about the specifics. Maybe if your gun is stolen, you should have to call cops and report the theft so that you aren't liable. Just a thought.

 

We need to start somewhere. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say nothing can be done.

[3 ladybugs]

I have a couple of issues with the insurance solution, or at least with the proposals I have seen.  From what I have read if a gun owner's firearm was stolen and used by another to commit a crime, the gun owner's insurance would be used to cover damages (and we essentially blaming the original gun owner for the crime.)

My problem with that is we would be expecting every gun owner to purchase insurance not for themselves but to also protect against damaged caused by the illegal acts of another.  If someone steals my car and then wrecks it into another, my insurance can only be used to pay for the damage to my vehicle (ie protect me personally from the bad acts of another) but it cannot be used to pay for the damages caused by the criminal against a third party.  Asking crime victims to cover damages caused by the criminal when he harms other parties goes against some basic principles of our system.

It is not always like that though. At least it wasn't 15 years ago when I got insurance on my car (DH handles that now). I was a live in nanny and I had to insure my car not only on me, but anyone who lived with me too. In this case the family I was employed by. When I told the insurance guy how insane this was to do, he told me that I could leave my keys out and one of them could take them and my car. Yeah, they really want to drive the car of their EMPLOYEE!! I didn't get it then any more then I do now. 

 

Guns have been used by other people in the household who were not the original owners of the gun. So in that way insurance does make sense. However if someone breaks in and steals a gun (or comes in from other means, like a relative comes to your house that may have a key and takes the gun) then I agree we shouldn't punish the victim of a crime like that. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, I'll go out on a limb & suggest a radical idea.... (Putting on my flame-proof suit too.)

 

So, from the FBI website, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is:

 

 

The NRA is the most influential lobbying organization in the US (according to wikipedia). Since the 1970s, they have actively lobbied against gun control laws of any type, lobbied for access to assault rifles & other high-powered, automatically shooting guns. I saw an article awhile ago where Wayne LaPierre said the NRA does not negotiate, period. No type of regulation for guns is acceptable, the NRA just won't discuss anything, won't cede anything, won't work to find a median solution. By pushing assault weapon access for the general public, are you helping promote acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law? Murder maybe? Does that make the NRA an accessory to the first bullet point on the FBI's list?

 

The second point talks about intimidating the civilian population or influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Through their stiff lobbying, excessive contributions to lawmakers (see stats here), are they working to coerce laws in their favor? Do some politicians feel intimidated into supporting the NRA's agenda because of donations, strong-arming, etc...? If so, that's a check for the second bullet point on the FBI list.

 

The third point is that it occurs in the territorial jurisdiction of the US. Since we're talking about laws & lobbying & media influence in the US, I think that meets the third criteria.

 

So, the suggestion is this -- how about the NRA, as it currently exists & lobbies, be declared a domestic terror organization? Once they (& their influence) are removed from the table, maybe everyone else that remains can begin to have rational discussion about what would constitute a 'well-regulated' militia &/or gun rights in the US.

 

No offense, but that would be an absurd abuse of domestic terrorism laws.  Also, the NRA fails to meet the criteria as they do not violate any state or federal laws that endanger human life.  The NRA is not breaking the law by promoting laws that some may feel lead to dangerous outcomes, as there is no law against doing so.  

 

Also, the first and second bullet point are related.  The acts in the first but be done with the intent of achieving the goals (ie intimidation) of the second.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It is not always like that though. At least it wasn't 15 years ago when I got insurance on my car (DH handles that now). I was a live in nanny and I had to insure my car not only on me, but anyone who lived with me too. In this case the family I was employed by. When I told the insurance guy how insane this was to do, he told me that I could leave my keys out and one of them could take them and my car. Yeah, they really want to drive the car of their EMPLOYEE!! I didn't get it then any more then I do now. 

 

Guns have been used by other people in the household who were not the original owners of the gun. So in that way insurance does make sense. However if someone breaks in and steals a gun (or comes in from other means, like a relative comes to your house that may have a key and takes the gun) then I agree we shouldn't punish the victim of a crime like that. 

 

Nothing you posted has anything to do with what I posted.  Insurance companies make the entire household be insured to help prevent the "didn't have explicit permission to use the car defense" when someone else wrecks the car.  It does not change the fact that if you report a car as stolen and it is used to cause damage, then you are not held to be responsible.

 

As I stated, the insurance proposals I have read included coverage for being the victim of a criminal act, which I don't believe would survive challenges in court.

[Stacia]

No offense, but that would be an absurd abuse of domestic terrorism laws.  Also, the NRA fails to meet the criteria as they do not violate any state or federal laws that endanger human life.  The NRA is not breaking the law by promoting laws that some may feel lead to dangerous outcomes, as there is no law against doing so.  

 

Also, the first and second bullet point are related.  The acts in the first but be done with the intent of achieving the goals (ie intimidation) of the second.

 

I know. I said it was a radical idea. I was using it as an example to stretch the boundaries of thinking. I also did not say they were breaking the laws but perhaps being an accessory to laws being broken.

 

I do think it would be helpful if the NRA were not a part of the equation in determining gun direction in the US. Without their very strong influence, it would be interesting to see what could actually be accomplished & what the discussion would be.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

While I understand what your saying, I think we as a society need to first agree that we want to do this and then think about the specifics. Maybe if your gun is stolen, you should have to call cops and report the theft so that you aren't liable. Just a thought.

 

We need to start somewhere. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say nothing can be done.

 

I just see it creating a new insurance industry and not actually addressing the issue of gun availability. 

[Pam in CT]

CT did pass legislation after Newtown/Sandy Hook.  

 

The process of getting it through was naturally difficult (I did a post over on the other thread, about how houses of worship and libraries across the state held town meeting-type discussion venues), because here like everywhere across the nation there are a wide range of views.

 

That a bill was passed was at least in part due to hunters' (lot of deer, here) willingness to say: assault weapons aren't used for hunting.  

 

What ended up passing (a ban on new assault weapons and tighter background checks) was more limited than the Sandy Hook parent group hoped for (there had been provisions requiring gun use training for a permit, and requirements for securing firearms if children or persons with a documented mental illness lived in the house).

 

And the bill has been challenged in court as unconstitutional (so far, upheld, but it's still burbling through the system).

 

And, of course, it's a small state: we all realize that pretty much anywhere you are in the state, you can drive in any direction for 40 minutes and you'll be in a different state.  

 

 

But having seen our process I truly believe there is common ground.  Most gun owners believe in gun safety and gun responsibility.  Few "liberals" are looking to ban all guns outright.  Just about all parents care about kids' safety.

[Stacia]

Since we're just brainstorming here...

 

If you're ambidextrous, you could then conceivably hold & shoot two guns at once. So, how about starting out with a limitation of only two guns allowed per gun owner?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know. I said it was a radical idea. I was using it as an example to stretch the boundaries of thinking. I also did not say they were breaking the laws but perhaps being an accessory to laws being broken.

 

I do think it would be helpful if the NRA were not a part of the equation in determining gun direction in the US. Without their very strong influence, it would be interesting to see what could actually be accomplished & what the discussion would be.

 

To be an accessory to murder you would need to be a direct accomplice and have knowledge of the crime.  I don't believe we want to start trying to create laws that can be used against those working within the legal process to change laws.

 

I personally think it would be helpful to remove special interests lobbyists as a whole and remove money from politics as much as possible.  We could accomplish much of where you are going with this by repealing our current campaign finance laws, writing a new amendment that corrects Citizens United, and moving to public financing of campaigns.

[Pam in CT]

Since we're just brainstorming here...

 

If you're ambidextrous, you could then conceivably hold & shoot two guns at once. So, how about starting out with a limitation of only two guns allowed per gun owner?

 

I miss GIFs.  'Cuz I know you'd be able to find one, of some white hatted hero hauling into some saloon, pulling up one in each hand to save the day!

[poppy]

I'm totally not opposed to insuring firearms, but even though it is legally required to have car insurance not everyone does.  There have to be uninsured motorist funds and I've heard of far too many people being in a crash and the person who hit them did not have insurance.  So, given that, I'm guessing some people wouldn't carry firearm insurance.

 

There are always "some people" for any regulation.  So what?  It's a start.

 

The idea that any possible change will be a failure is something the gun lobby deeply wants us to believe, but that doesn't mean it's actually relevant to this conversation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

CT did pass legislation after Newtown/Sandy Hook.  

 

The process of getting it through was naturally difficult (I did a post over on the other thread, about how houses of worship and libraries across the state held town meeting-type discussion venues), because here like everywhere across the nation there are a wide range of views.

 

That a bill was passed was at least in part due to hunters' (lot of deer, here) willingness to say: assault weapons aren't used for hunting.  

 

What ended up passing (a ban on new assault weapons and tighter background checks) was more limited than the Sandy Hook parent group hoped for (there had been provisions requiring gun use training for a permit, and requirements for securing firearms if children or persons with a documented mental illness lived in the house).

 

And the bill has been challenged in court as unconstitutional (so far, upheld, but it's still burbling through the system).

 

And, of course, it's a small state: we all realize that pretty much anywhere you are in the state, you can drive in any direction for 40 minutes and you'll be in a different state.  

 

 

But having seen our process I truly believe there is common ground.  Most gun owners believe in gun safety and gun responsibility.  Few "liberals" are looking to ban all guns outright.  Just about all parents care about kids' safety.

 

I do think that while it is piecemeal, and slow, there is a greater chance of success in looking to reform gin control laws at the state level than there is nationally. 

 

 

[Word Nerd]

I do think that while it is piecemeal, and slow, there is a greater chance of success in looking to reform gin control laws at the state level than there is nationally. 

 

 

 

Hey! Don't touch my gin!

[SKL]

I'm not talking about people who use guns for illegal purposes. That is not the group I would refer to when talking about "gun culture". They have purely criminal culture. I agree that that is not what I at least would define as gun culture.

 

I'm talking about the hunting/collecting/shooting gun culture. In some sub-circles, this has a "self-defense" element latched on to it, presumably because self-defense is how the lobbyists justify protecting all gun rights at all costs, since that's the only thing mentioned in the Constitution.

 

The reason it's a gun culture and not a knife culture is because the culture centers around guns; guns are a major if not THE major way they exercise their hobbies, and the way that a gun is a symbol of that overall lifestyle. Knives, on the other hand, are only one of many tools most people use to cook, and many people use knives just once or twice a week. It would be more accurate to talk about the "mealtime culture" or "fast food culture" depending on the family. The symbol is the food, not the knife.

 

Again, the gun owners I know don't use guns as a "symbol of their overall lifestyle," any more than they would use books or knitting needles or pots and pans if they enjoyed those pastimes.  Maybe there is a small subset of gun owners who do this, but the implication is that the majority of gun owners are like that, and it just isnt' true.  There are many many gun owners all around you who you wouldn't even know have guns, because they do not in fact wear it on their sleeve.  In fact that would be dumb, since it would increase the chance of a criminal trying to steal their guns.

 

[TechWife]

Here is some brainstorming. 

 

Please note that I am not a gun owner nor am I overly versed in various gun control laws or terminology, so this might sound weird to some of you, I have no idea. 

 

Could there be graduated licensing where guns are concerned? 

 

-This might involve classifying the different types of guns into tiers based on criteria that include difficulty of managing the weapon, the intended use of the weapon (hunting vs. self defense, for example) and the manner in which the gun operates (single bullet, multiple shot clips, magazines, etc.). 

 

- Potential owners would have to complete basic safety courses and attain a basic level of proficiency before they would be allowed to purchase a basic hunting rifle or basic handgun (one intended for self defense). They would also have to prove ownership of a gun safe or similar device that would enable them to secure the gun. 

 

- Owners  would have to log a certain amount of practice with their basic gun, demonstrate improved proficiency and pass periodic basic safety exams to renew their license, say every five years, as with a driver's license.

 

- Hours could be logged at state-certified gun ranges, proficiency exams could be administered there or at the state level as with driver's licenses. Gun owners obtain their licenses from the state, not the gun shop or other seller. 

 

- Owners would have to log a longer amount of practice with their basic gun, continue to demonstrate proficiency with a basic firearm, pass advanced safety exams, take a course in advance firearms and attain a basic level of proficiency in managing a more advanced firearm before purchasing that firearm. 

 

- Require more in-depth background checks, including personal references and a health certificate signed by an MD (these are currently required of airplane pilots) to allow purchase of higher tier guns. The background check & health certificate must be completed each time the license is renewed. 

 

-Tie gun sales to a license number. Only that person can use that gun legally. Gun ranges could provide/rent guns for those who need a weapon to practice with, with the gun remaining at the range. 

 

- institute limits on the purchase of ammunition. I'm not sure what a "reasonable" limit would be, but I'm sure something could be figured out. This would make it more difficult for people to stockpile ammunition. This is already done with many medications, both prescription and over counter and keeping track of this shouldn't be any more difficult than that. It's basic counting and recording. 

 

-Require gun owners to carry liability insurance and personal injury insurance and allow the  insurers to set rates based upon the risk, with weapons beyond the basic classification requiring larger premiums. 

 

- The government would not have to confiscate guns that have already been sold. Instead, it would be implemented "from this time forward." Any existing licenses could be considered sufficient for the basic tier, but if someone wants to purchase a more advanced weapon they need to go through all the steps, even if they currently own or previously owned a weapon classified in the higher tier. Any existing licenses could be considered expired five years after the law goes into effect. 

 

- Concealed carry can be taken into account. For example, someone could have a "Tier 1" license, allowing them to have a basic handgun, or they could pass additional exams and have a "Tier 1C" license that allows them to conceal carry that same handgun. The same would go for the other tiers. 

 

- If someone chooses not to renew their license or does not qualify for renewal, they would be required to present their guns for buyback within five or ten days of their current license expiration date. The place of surrender could, perhaps be a police station, or a certified gun range. Weapons seized during the commission of a crime would not be eligible for buyback, no matter who owns them. 

 

- For those gun owners who fail to renew their license, whether by choice or because they could not qualify, who do not surrender their weapon within the prescribed amount of time, a confiscate order would be issued and carried out by the ATF. This order would include a search warrant for the primary residence of the license holder if they fail to turn the weapon over at this time. If, at this time, either the licensed person or the weapon cannot be found, then the confiscate order automatically turns into an arrest warrant and the person is arrested or pursued as a fugitive. Weapons confiscated in this manner are not eligible for buyback. Computer programs would have to be written to track the licenses and the ATF would have to expand. Neither of these is insurmountable. 

 

There are a lot of things that would have to be done to implement anything like this. Honestly, I see a lot of potential for increased jobs in both the government and private sectors and increased licensing revenue for the state. Both the government and the private sector will have greater expenses, but they can be taken into account when pricing the licenses and the weapons. The cost can go up with the associated risk as well - the higher the danger, the higher the cost. 

 

Under this system, people who want a more powerful weapon would have to prove that they can both manage it and that they are not high-risk for misuse of that weapon (hopefully). The system would be set up to deter casual gun ownership. People would have to be willing to spend money, time and effort. Yes, grant programs could be developed for "those who qualify financially." I have no idea how such a grant program could be structured, but my first instinct is to say they should be funded privately, but I have no idea how that would play out, I just haven't fleshed that idea out. 

 

None of this solves the problem that criminals break laws and there will still be a black market for weapons and people will still do bad, horrible things.  ETA: But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

 

My problem with that is we would be expecting every gun owner to purchase insurance not for themselves but to also protect against damaged caused by the illegal acts of another. 

 

I don't have a problem with this. If your gun is stolen, report it stolen to both the police and the insurance company to be relieved of liability. If you can't control your gun an an everyday scenario, whatever that might mean, then you have no business owning one. Handle it appropriately, keep it secured when you aren't using it. If you are irresponsible enough not to secure your gun, you should have to pay for damage caused by the someone who uses your weapon illegally. If you secure your gun and it is stolen anyway, well, then, that's what the insurance is for. It becomes part of the cost of owning the weapon. 

[SKL]

I said that the gun culture is unhealthy - and so deeply entrenched and institutionalized that we don't see it or its effects accurately.

 

The gun culture is such that the *premise* is that recreational of guns use is normal, ok, and healthy.

 

Well you have yet to explain what is wrong with the premise that recreational use of guns is normal, ok, and healthy.

 

I mean, I don't and won't have a pool, but I don't go around declaring that there is this sick "pool culture" that is dangerous and sad because its premise is that recreational use of water is normal, OK, and healthy.  Even though we all know pools have been involved in many tragic deaths, I still don't think the USA is doomed because of this scary pool culture that I don't personally understand or participate in.  Well, the fact is that I am willing to accept that pool owners might not actually be sick, sad, disgusting people and that pools might actually be associated with good clean fun more than with death and destruction.

 

But yeah, trying to have an intelligent discussion is a challenge.

 

[poppy]

Well you have yet to explain what is wrong with the premise that recreational use of guns is normal, ok, and healthy.

 

I mean, I don't and won't have a pool, but I don't go around declaring that there is this sick "pool culture" that is dangerous and sad because its premise is that recreational use of water is normal, OK, and healthy.  Even though we all know pools have been involved in many tragic deaths, I still don't think the USA is doomed because of this scary pool culture that I don't personally understand or participate in.  Well, the fact is that I am willing to accept that pool owners might not actually be sick, sad, disgusting people and that pools might actually be associated with good clean fun more than with death and destruction.

 

But yeah, trying to have an intelligent discussion is a challenge.

 

 

If the US was the only nation with dozens of pool deaths annually, perhaps we should examine the dangers  of "pool culture". Until then, stop changing the subject.

 

I do not think recreational gun is not normal, ok or healthy.   I think always of Adam Lanza's mother.  She wanted a gun for fun.  Now all those little kids are dead in a matter of seconds. Very simple point A to point B.   Easy access to firearms causes massive problems. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't have a problem with this. If your gun is stolen, report it stolen to both the police and the insurance company to be relieved of liability. If you can't control your gun an an everyday scenario, whatever that might mean, then you have no business owning one. Handle it appropriately, keep it secured when you aren't using it. If you are irresponsible enough not to secure your gun, you should have to pay for damage caused by the someone who uses your weapon illegally. If you secure your gun and it is stolen anyway, well, then, that's what the insurance is for. It becomes part of the cost of owning the weapon.

You may not have an issue with it but our court system will.

[Chess Dad]

You may not have an issue with it but our court system will.

 

This makes a good point.  The point is about the courts.

 

My 20 plus years of Law Enforcement has taught me that the courts are broke.  The criminal has more rights than the victim in many cases.  I have seen many domestic violence cases (for example) were the perp is given a slap on the hand.  Many more DUI cases were the person is arrested 4,5 or sometimes 6 times before jail time is given.  This varies in different states but here in Kentucky the law is more and more lax.  Politicians, Lawyers, County/City budgets, judges wanting to get re-elected, all play in the reason our justice system is in serious need of a coming to Jesus moment...lol.  The only answer I have is the same as I wrote before...I serious infusion of morals into our society.

 

The courts let people out of jail faster than police officers can finish the reports in many cases.  very sad, but true.

 

It has been several years now, maybe 10 or so, but I remember arresting a person for DUI (Driving under the influence of Alcohol) and he was clearly drunk.  He blow well over the legal limit.  I was called because he had hit a pole.  I arrested the person, and as I was completing the paperwork the person was walking out of the jail.  Someone bailed him out..lol.  So I went back to his car and waited down the street.  Guess where he went?  yep, back to his car!  As he drove away, I pulled him over a 2nd time, within 2 hours and arrested him a 2nd time for DUI.  He was still well over the legal limit.  crazy.  When it went to court he complained and the judge dropped the 2nd DUI and merged the two charges.  I was not happy, but that's our court system. 

 

:patriot:

[TechWife]

You may not have an issue with it but our court system will.

 

Not necessarily.

 

The court system doesn't have an issue with many things it probably should and does have an issue with many things it probably shouldn't. The Supreme Court rules in favor of a lot of what I think are good ideas and of what I think are bad ideas. They also rule against what I think are good ideas as well as  what I think are bad ones. They are also not always consistent across cases with rulings. They are fallible people, just like I am.

 

The fact that a good idea might be challenged is not a reason to not try it in the first place. The system is set up for checks and balances, let it work, however imperfect it may be. 

[SemiSweet]

I think the part you're missing is that when you say "we can regulate," you are saying "we can out-gun the bad guys." The debate is about who the "we" is, and how big the "we" is. At the end of the day, guns enforce law. There's no way around that, except to un-invent the gun.

 

ETA: sorry to "pick" on you.... I'm not really making an argument against gun tracking, registration, etc. But I'm just pointing out that guns are fundamentally different that the other things you brought up (traffic and drugs, etc) and it DOES matter in this context if bad guys get them. It really does have an impact. Because most people, when talking about gun control, want guns abolished, not just "controlled." And that's a big deal.

I am as liberal as they come and have many, many liberal friends and family and not ONE single person I know and not one single politician I know of wants guns abolished. That is a fear tactic employed by the NRA and their political cronies.

[Jasperstone]

I think it goes way farther than gun control. Gun control alone will do nothing mainly because so many mass shootings are done with illegally obtained weapons so clearly laws didn't help there. There's a deeper problem with our society in that people will commit a mass shooting, murdering innocent people for who knows what twisted reason. To too many people, other humans aren't quite human.

We have one of the tightest gun controls and still have shootings. Just had one yesterday!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not necessarily.

 

The court system doesn't have an issue with many things it probably should and does have an issue with many things it probably shouldn't. The Supreme Court rules in favor of a lot of what I think are good ideas and of what I think are bad ideas. They also rule against what I think are good ideas as well as what I think are bad ones. They are also not always consistent across cases with rulings. They are fallible people, just like I am.

 

The fact that a good idea might be challenged is not a reason to not try it in the first place. The system is set up for checks and balances, let it work, however imperfect it may be.

Some things are fairly straight forward and there is no sense in fighting for legislation that doesn't address the bulk of the issue and is unlikely to survive court challenges.

[Spy Car]

We have one of the tightest gun controls and still have shootings. Just had one yesterday!

 

This year in the United States we've averaged more than one mass shooting (defined as shootings where at least four people are shot, including the gunman) every day of the year.

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am as liberal as they come and have many, many liberal friends and family and not ONE single person I know and not one single politician I know of wants guns abolished. That is a fear tactic employed by the NRA and their political cronies.

Correct. I honestly know a few people who would support either a ban or something close to it, but to me they are no different than the outliers on other issues.

[SKL]

I do not think recreational gun is not normal, ok or healthy.   I think always of Adam Lanza's mother.  She wanted a gun for fun.  Now all those little kids are dead in a matter of seconds. Very simple point A to point B.   Easy access to firearms causes massive problems. 

 

Very sad, yes, but what about all the people who got a gun for fun and nobody got hurt?  You make it sound like every gun in a home is going to lead to a mass shooting of little kids.  If that were the case, the population of USA would be zero already.

 

Every traffic death can be traced back to the fact that the car owner bought the car for good reasons.  Same with pool deaths and a lot of other deaths.  Gun murders are a little different in that someone had to get an evil intention and act on it.  Logically it makes more sense to trace the murder back to the moment that person formed the intent to murder, not the moment an unsuspecting gun owner purchased the gun for recreational purposes.

 

I'd be in favor of a law requiring people to lock their guns so no unauthorized person could use them.  That would still not prevent every tragedy, but it would prevent many.  Would Adam Lanza have still been able to kill, maybe.  Would he have been able to kill without even having a gun, maybe.

[Murphy101]

I don't know if they'd like it, but I stand by the idea that it's what the 2nd ammendment is talking about.

I'm not arguing it with you either. I happen to 90% agree with you. :)