my ideas for gun control

[pangloss]

I don't sell many guns, and when I do they almost always go through a FFL. I think that the only two that haven't are a G17 I sold to my dad and a G22 I sold to one of my best friends, whom I've known since 7th grade. Suffice to say that neither are prohibited persons. The idea of private sales to unknown buyers has always made me uncomfortable. At the same time, I think that universal background checks are a pathway to registration, and that's something I adamantly oppose. I've been trying to think of a non-intrusive way to reduce the frequency of private party sales to prohibited persons, and I've thought of two ideas.

1. Mandate that background checks be performed for buyers at gun shows. The organizer of the gun show would somehow have to facilitate the background check, likely for a small fee. The obvious flaw is that I could identify a gun I want to buy from a non-FFL in the gun show and then go make the transaction in the parking lot. Remember that the goal is not to completely prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but rather to simply reduce the frequency of that event. While I'm ideologically opposed to creating additional barriers to firearms ownership by law abiding people, the burden that implementing this idea would create strikes me as pretty minimal.

2. Private party sales can only be conducted between close family members or in cases when the buyer possess a concealed carry card. Sales may be legally conducted between individuals living in different states and every state must honor every other state's CCL. Problems with this idea are that several states now have constitutional carry, so people carrying via those laws would need a CCL for private party purchase. Another flaw is that basically you just have to trust people to obey the law, which is what we're doing now anyway so maybe that's not a problem. Lastly, there's the possibility that this could be a first step toward a national Firearms Owners ID, which is too close to a gun registry for my comfort. This one seems like a pretty big trade, and I'm not sure if it's an even trade. However, the goal is not to 100% to fix the problem--just reduce it.

I'm not sure if I'd be in favor of either of these if I had to vote on them. I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

[Drifting Fate]

Not to be rude, but slowly put down the beer and back away.

What you propose would stop nothing. A vibrant black market already exists and will continue to exist in prohibited items of all types.

What you propose is a direct violation of the Second Amendment - what does "... shall not be infringed." mean to you?

What you propose takes away the concept of private property - if you can't sell it how you see fit without the approval of the government you don't really own it.

What you propose finds gun owners guilty without due process and for crimes they did not commit - "transfers" of ownership occur thousands of time a year without criminal use or intent.

What you propose builds up to, and will lead to, gun registration which is the first step to confiscation, ALWAYS.

What you propose implies that inanimate objects somehow have fault in the actions of human beings.

What you propose is repugnant to all freedom loving individuals and I would encourage you to thoroughly think about the implications and effects of your actions not only now but generations down the road.

[Bergeron]

All of these ideas, to a greater or lesser degree, are terrible. No amount of laws can eliminate societal death and carnage, and all of these laws can make it that much harder to exercise your rights to weapons and defense.

The ignorant, the inexperienced, and the unaware don’t know what it’s like to live with firearms or to face a deadly situation, and politicians who crave control and disarmament leverage this unknowing by making the harmful appear reasonable. There are many reasons to avoid the banning of private firearms transfer, and we need to be vocal about the times that we’ve lent or been lended guns, about the times we’ve gave and been given guns, and the millions of legal private transfers that occur every year between the law-abiding.

Banning private transfers, or UBC as the grabbers might call it, is a huge slice of the gun rights cake to give away, and I would urge caution before tossing it out. At least make it a compromise, at least get back some large and useful concessions before leaving your right to acquire weapons to the whims of your government.

[Duke]

No.

I’m not a criminal. There are already plenty of rules for me to abide by.

[wvincent]

Umm, no thanks. I like my Constitutional rights just the way they are.
When your proposal fails, what are you willing to cede next? Just curious.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but it just seems like you are trying to give away the smallest pound of flesh possible, to appease those who want to infringe upon our rights. The simple fact is, the only appeasement that will suffice would be total disarmament of the law abiding populace, possibly even of law enforcement.

So..... just no.

[Duke]

Umm, no thanks. I like my Constitutional rights just the way they are.
When your proposal fails, what are you willing to cede next? Just curious.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but it just seems like you are trying to give away the smallest pound of flesh possible, to appease those who want to infringe upon our rights. The simple fact is, the only appeasement that will suffice would be total disarmament of the law abiding populace, possibly even of law enforcement.

So..... just no.

Exactly


It’s not a compromise when I get nothing in the deal.

You don’t need to appease anyone when you’re armed, you see.

[pangloss]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

[Darth_Uno]

The idea of private sales to unknown buyers has always made me uncomfortable. Then don’t sell to unknown buyers. Problem solved.

And Illinois already requires all gun show transfers to go through an FFL. Has it saved any lives? I guess we’ll never know, but probably not.

[wvincent]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.

[the Schwartz]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

To you, I offer this frequently used quote:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Your hypothetical is a false choice because those whom you seek to appease will never settle for one part of the goal they seek; the total disarmament of the citizenry and the dismantling of the Bill of Rights starting with the 2nd Amendment. There is no appeasing those whose only goal is your elimination.

What you propose is a fool's errand.

[pangloss]

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.

How, specifically? Aside from increasing prosecutions for lying on 4473 forms, what would you suggest? Increased prosecutions of felons in possession of a firearm? Something else?

[wvincent]

How, specifically? Aside from increasing prosecutions for lying on 4473 forms, what would you suggest? Increased prosecutions of felons in possession of a firearm? Something else?

Many times the felon in possession is the first to get bargained down or tossed. So why don't we go after that in earnest?

But you've missed my point. We already have enough guns laws on the books.

The root cause of this recent spate of shootings isn't the lack of gun laws. How many of the recent shootem' up assholes could have legally purchased a firearm? As far as I can tell, all but the last one.

So, it's not a gun or a lack of law's problem, it's a people problem. And that is waaaaaay out of my lane.
And I shall have the right and the ability to defend myself from these fucking misfits.

Iv'e said it before, and I will say it again, I am truly, truly sorry for the families of these victims suffering. It breaks my heart to see and hear it. BUT, all those dead bodies, even the children, DON'T trump my God given rights, endowed upon me by my Creator.

[Duke]

How, specifically? Aside from increasing prosecutions for lying on 4473 forms, what would you suggest? Increased prosecutions of felons in possession of a firearm? Something else?

How exactly do you enforce background checks in private?

Listen. People decide their own level of involvement in lawful society.

I drove 49 mph over the posted speed limit today. I know the consequences and the risks and I don’t care. I’m going to what I’m going to do.

The chance of getting caught and then punished to the fullest degree of the law are low.

Now imagine how much harder it is to get one to consider the law if they already have little to lose and a low chance
Of being found out.

[Crow Hunter]

I saw an good quote today on a Twitter feed about their "idea" of gun control.

It was paraphrasing:

We don't want to ban guns or take away your guns. We just want to make sure you don't have the wrong kind of guns, too many guns or too much ammunition. But we don't want to take any guns away.

This wasn't a jest post. This was a serious post by someone trying to allay someone else's fears about "gun control".

They really don't understand anything about guns, they don't want to know anything about them, they just want to "feel safe" which to them means, NO GUNS.

Unfortunately any concession will just result in them wanting another and another until all "assault weapons, fully semi auto, assault shotgun, sawed off shotguns, sniper rifles, Saturday Night Specials, combat handguns, police weapons, cop killer bullets, armor piercing ammo, lead ammo, hollow point bullets, Black Talons, Street Sweepers" and anything else that sounds even remotely dangerous or has ever been used in a movie, TV show or documentary taken off the streets.

Then, they will find something else like knives, baseball bats, crowbars, glass bottles, or something else to be afraid of and expect that to be banned.

All this while eating/drinking/smoking/driving/taking/doing things that will have several orders of magnitude greater chance of harming them multiple times over and complaining any time anything is done that might even raise the price on those things.

[Sero Sed Serio]

If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

For too long we have allowed “compromise” to be defined as “We’ll give you one, so you don’t take two.” Most of the proposed “commonsense” gun laws have no rational basis whatsoever—“assault weapons” used in a minuscule percentage of shootings, no pretense at justifying 10 round magazine restrictions vs. 12 or 15 or 20 or whatever, etc. ANY proposal for additional laws should demand 1) a strict scrutiny justification as to how the law will achieve its stated goals while still causing the minimal infringement on a Constitutional right second to only that of free speech, assembly, press, etc., and 2) legitimate compromises that will advance the interests of law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

If the gun control crowd is willing to bring both of these to the table, I’d be willing to listen. Otherwise, the only thing acquiescence gets us is a short period of time before they’re back, demanding more. No thanks, or more succinctly, fuck that.

[Greg]

Compromise nothing. Enforce the existing laws.

[JRB]

I don't sell many guns, and when I do they almost always go through a FFL.......

.....I'm not sure if I'd be in favor of either of these if I had to vote on them. I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

I think lawful behavior that makes you uncomfortable, because of what someone *might* do is an absolutely terrible basis for changes in law or policy.

If you don't want to sell privately, don't sell guns privately. It's your decision to do that or not, that's this weird thing called freedom.

You're falling for the 'DO SOMETHING!!1!!!one!!!!' fallacy. Keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons will only occur if:

-We magically remove or with overwhelming force from the state remove every privately owned firearm in the country (not likely)

-We magically remove or with overwhelming force from the state remove everyone's hands. Easier than collecting all the guns, but even the most die-hard lefty likes their hands (no pun intended)

[Cypher]

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.

Make Project Exile the law from coast to coast


https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=413


Program Goals
Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).

Program Activities
Essentially functioning as a sentence enhancement program, Project Exile targeted felons who were caught carrying firearms (i.e., felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm [FIP]) and prosecuted them in federal courts where they received harsher sentences, no option of bail, and no potential for early release. Prior to Project Exile, FIP cases could be processed in state courts. Through increasing the expected penalty for firearm-related offenses, Project Exile sought to deter both firearm carrying and criminal use. Additionally, through sentencing more violent offenders to longer prison sentences, the program sought to reduce crime through incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005; Arends 2013).

In addition to incapacitating offenders, the program sought to deter would-be offenders. To make the public aware of the sentence enhancements surrounding firearms, a broad “outreach” campaign was implemented using media outlets. The public campaign was implemented to increase community involvement and to send a message of zero-tolerance for firearm offenses. The goal of the message was to indicate a “swift and certain” federal penalty for firearm offenses. Advertised in both electronic and print media outlets, the campaign was featured on city buses and business cards displaying a specific message: “an illegal gun will get you five years in federal prison” (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).

[Kyle Reese]

Make Project Exile the law from coast to coast


https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=413Agreed, 100%. I doubt that we'd ever see that, though.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Cypher]

Agreed, 100%. I doubt that we'd ever see that, though.

Of course we won't. Because it would actually work and they wouldn't be able to push their gun control agenda

[Casual Friday]

I don't sell many guns, and when I do they almost always go through a FFL. I think that the only two that haven't are a G17 I sold to my dad and a G22 I sold to one of my best friends, whom I've known since 7th grade. Suffice to say that neither are prohibited persons. The idea of private sales to unknown buyers has always made me uncomfortable. At the same time, I think that universal background checks are a pathway to registration, and that's something I adamantly oppose. I've been trying to think of a non-intrusive way to reduce the frequency of private party sales to prohibited persons, and I've thought of two ideas.

1. Mandate that background checks be performed for buyers at gun shows. The organizer of the gun show would somehow have to facilitate the background check, likely for a small fee. The obvious flaw is that I could identify a gun I want to buy from a non-FFL in the gun show and then go make the transaction in the parking lot. Remember that the goal is not to completely prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but rather to simply reduce the frequency of that event. While I'm ideologically opposed to creating additional barriers to firearms ownership by law abiding people, the burden that implementing this idea would create strikes me as pretty minimal.

2. Private party sales can only be conducted between close family members or in cases when the buyer possess a concealed carry card. Sales may be legally conducted between individuals living in different states and every state must honor every other state's CCL. Problems with this idea are that several states now have constitutional carry, so people carrying via those laws would need a CCL for private party purchase. Another flaw is that basically you just have to trust people to obey the law, which is what we're doing now anyway so maybe that's not a problem. Lastly, there's the possibility that this could be a first step toward a national Firearms Owners ID, which is too close to a gun registry for my comfort. This one seems like a pretty big trade, and I'm not sure if it's an even trade. However, the goal is not to 100% to fix the problem--just reduce it.

I'm not sure if I'd be in favor of either of these if I had to vote on them. I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

Your ideas are fucking horrible and are just watered down versions of the same nonsense that Beto, Bernie, and Kamala are spewing.

It isn't my responsibility to stop/reduce mass shootings, violence, or *gasp* the voluntary sale of a firearm between two people without government involvement by giving up my individual rights.

[Grey]

Can't believe we actually have this thread on this forum...

[TGS]

2. Private party sales can only be conducted between close family members or in cases when the buyer possess a concealed carry card. Sales may be legally conducted between individuals living in different states and every state must honor every other state's CCL. Problems with this idea are that several states now have constitutional carry, so people carrying via those laws would need a CCL for private party purchase. Another flaw is that basically you just have to trust people to obey the law, which is what we're doing now anyway so maybe that's not a problem. Lastly, there's the possibility that this could be a first step toward a national Firearms Owners ID, which is too close to a gun registry for my comfort. This one seems like a pretty big trade, and I'm not sure if it's an even trade. However, the goal is not to 100% to fix the problem--just reduce it.

I'm not sure if I'd be in favor of either of these if I had to vote on them. I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

This private party transfer rule has existed in New Jersey for about 60 years (in addition to purchasing permits for each pistol and a Firearms Purchaser ID card), and there's no shortage of guns being exchanged by prohibited persons. NJ has consistently lead the nation in violent crime in many of its decayed industrial cities, and I can't think for the life of me how this law has done anything to help.

It's solidly in the realm of the good-idea fairy.

[JohnO]

Can't believe we actually have this thread on this forum...

Exactly! I started comments multiple times and pulled back.

We don't need gun control. We need people control!

Unfortunately common sense, morality, decency and respect for life can not be legislated. People really need to stop looking to government for a solution.

[the Schwartz]

Can't believe we actually have this thread on this forum...

I can. Amongst our number here, there seem to be several who, regardless of what the 2A says, seek to "appease" those whose sole agenda is the obliteration of those rights (ranging from CC/OC, firearms ownership, etc.).

If one lesson can be taken from the prior (Obama) administration and the never-ending calls for increased restrictions on our rights by the Dems (guns, fossil fuels, red meat, plastic straws, etc are all bad and must be taken from the American populace), it is that it is not possible to reach accord through negotiation or capitulation with an adversary whose sole objective is your destruction.

In this "cultural war", we already have those who view partial surrender (appeasement) as "the road to victory". Unfortunately, the road (to Democrat/Liberal victory) is a slippery slope paved with bricks made from every compromise we offer them.

[GardoneVT]

I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

So be it.

Your ideas as submitted are proven by history ,science, math and human behavior to be ineffective and harmful to the commerce, liberty & public safety of the United States.

[GardoneVT]

Can't believe we actually have this thread on this forum...

I can. There is nothing more durable than a bad idea.

[corneileous]

Compromise nothing. Enforce the existing laws.

Enforce the redundant magazine capacity laws? Background checks for ammo? Requiring permission slips in the other states that don’t allow their residents to freely exercise their 2nd amendment rights?? Not allowing the sales of handguns unless you’re in the state you reside in? Gun free zones still being able to flourish? Well, I guess that one doesn’t really count as that falls under private property rights... but uh, not allowing guns in schools? Just to name a couple.

I’m not saying you do or don’t support any of these and even if you do, I’m not holding it against you, I just felt it relevant to point out that these are some of the “existing laws” that we currently have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[corneileous]

Sure, a background check being made at a gun show for example, might keep a gun purchase from happening to somebody who shouldn’t have a gun but then again, if a place is going to make you do a background check, then who’s to say that person who knows they’re not going to pass one is going to even go there to begin with? That in my opinion is what it seems to me that a lot of these gun-grabbing idiots don’t really understand is that bad guys for the most part don’t buy guns legally. Sure, there’s people out there for example who are dumb enough to go take a drug screen for a job and even though they know they’re not going to pass it, they still take it anyway but that’s not really the same thing here. I was just using that as an example to help prove my point. If bad guys know they can’t buy a gun somewhere because of the background check there not even gonna bother going to that place. That’s why background checks are so worthless and redundant because criminals don’t go the legal route. And just like with the recent Walmart shooter in El Paso, the Las Vegas shooter and I believe the person who shot up the Orlando nightclub, if I heard correctly- now correct me if I’m wrong but if those people didn’t have a record prior, what good is a background check going to do if there’s nothing for a background check to find? It does nothing to keep a person who doesn’t have a record from generating one after they’ve already legally purchased guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Greg]

Enforce the redundant magazine capacity laws? Background checks for ammo? Requiring permission slips in the other states that don’t allow their residents to freely exercise their 2nd amendment rights?? Not allowing the sales of handguns unless you’re in the state you reside in? Gun free zones still being able to flourish? Well, I guess that one doesn’t really count as that falls under private property rights... but uh, not allowing guns in schools? Just to name a couple.

I’m not saying you do or don’t support any of these and even if you do, I’m not holding it against you, I just felt it relevant to point out that these are some of the “existing laws” that we currently have.


Since the OP's 1st post proposed laws that would cover all US gun owners (hence Federal) that is what I'm referring to when I say "enforce existing laws".

Rolling back many of the onerous Federal laws would be preferable but I don't see that happening in the current climate. Refusing to compromise or yield is the best we can hope for until a more favorable set of elected officials is in place (and has the will to carry out that which they promise).

Citizens of the states that have stupid and pointless laws such as magazine capacity limitations will have to slug out those fights.

[ralph]

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.

Or how about a new set of rules that could be applied nationwide

If you’re a prohibited person and get caught with a firearm in your possession, automatic 10 years in prison with no parole. No plea bargaining, nothing, you get loaded on the bus, and back to the joint you go.

If you commit a crime with that firearm, automatic 30 years without parole.

Injure someone while committing a crime with a firearm, automatic life sentence without parole.

Kill someone while committing a crime with a firearm, and there’s no doubt about your guilt, automatic expedited death penalty, to be carried out within 1 year of sentencing.

The only downside I can see is you’ll need to build more prison space, and you’ll probably have to fire up OL’ sparky a little more often.

[Gater]

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.



This has probably been posted here before, but worth a read. I don't agree with much of what he says, but the point is that even coming from his viewpoint he sees what they are pushing is nonsensical.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gun-violence-in-dc-is-treated-as-a-normal-part-of-life-that-needs-to-change/2019/08/23/ac30d87c-c4f5-11e9-b72f-b31dfaa77212_story.html

Cliff notes, if you won't read that far:

"Last year, the District of Columbia Sentencing Commission voted to decrease sentences for felons convicted of illegally possessing a gun in the District and to reduce the impact of prior felon-in-possession convictions on any future sentence an offender might incur. That’s right: decrease and reduce."

[GardoneVT]

Or how about a new set of rules that could be applied nationwide

If you’re a prohibited person and get caught with a firearm in your possession, automatic 10 years in prison with no parole. No plea bargaining, nothing, you get loaded on the bus, and back to the joint you go.

If you commit a crime with that firearm, automatic 30 years without parole.

Injure someone while committing a crime with a firearm, automatic life sentence without parole.

Kill someone while committing a crime with a firearm, and there’s no doubt about your guilt, automatic expedited death penalty, to be carried out within 1 year of sentencing.

The only downside I can see is you’ll need to build more prison space, and you’ll probably have to fire up OL’ sparky a little more often.

How about NO gun related laws. Period. Zero.

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense. If an individual is keen to commit armed robbery/murder/ etc, a two year punishment for skipping a background check is irrelevant. Economics (among other disciplines) already proves out that bad guys will get guns- they have little difficulty in the UK or Australia, where civil arms ownership is heavily regulated. It would be little different here. Instead of Ray Ray sending his girlfriend in to buy a gun at a dealer, he’ll get one from his pals or some underground connection. Regardless of what any state or the Federal capitol does, “Ray Ray” is gonna get his gat.

Background check and other gun regulations merely inhibit commerce and lawful ownership. For some politicians (Leland Yee comes to mind), this is in fact the objective. Others are merely as confused as the OP. But the bottom line is gun laws are like the Mayan calendar- a totem of an irrelevant culture , fit only for display in museums as an exhibit of ancient mysticism.

[ralph]

How about NO gun related laws. Period. Zero.

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense. If an individual is keen to commit armed robbery/murder/ etc, a two year punishment for skipping a background check is irrelevant. Economics (among other disciplines) already proves out that bad guys will get guns- they have little difficulty in the UK or Australia, where civil arms ownership is heavily regulated. It would be little different here. Instead of Ray Ray sending his girlfriend in to buy a gun at a dealer, he’ll get one from his pals or some underground connection. Regardless of what any state or the Federal capitol does, “Ray Ray” is gonna get his gat.

Background check and other gun regulations merely inhibit commerce and lawful ownership. For some politicians (Leland Yee comes to mind), this is in fact the objective. Others are merely as confused as the OP. But the bottom line is gun laws are like the Mayan calendar- a totem of an irrelevant culture , fit only for display in museums as an exhibit of ancient mysticism.

Deleted

[BehindBlueI's]

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense.

Not even remotely true.

[ssb]

I suppose my question is: is there anything that can be presented that would have a positive impact on the mass shooting issue that would not trample 2A/4A/due process rights? My fear is that without a realistic proposal, the gun culture will be the sacrificial lamb to the large group of folks who - rather than being vehemently anti-gun - simply don't care about gun rights all that much.

I don't think "speedy, certain execution" sells well to people who more often than not deliberately plan to die during their rampages. I also don't think the gun-ambivalent public particularly cares what we do on the back end to these shooters, as they want the shootings themselves to end.

[Cypher]

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense.

So if I get cited for criminal tresspass in Walmart with a gun it's a capital offense?

[Cypher]

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense.

So if I get cited for criminal tresspass in Walmart with a gun it's a capital offense?


I suppose my question is: is there anything that can be presented that would have a positive impact on the mass shooting issue that would not trample 2A/4A/due process rights? My fear is that without a realistic proposal, the gun culture will be the sacrificial lamb to the large group of folks who - rather than being vehemently anti-gun - simply don't care about gun rights all that much.

I don't think "speedy, certain execution" sells well to people who more often than not deliberately plan to die during their rampages. I also don't think the gun-ambivalent public particularly cares what we do on the back end to these shooters, as they want the shootings themselves to end.

Mass shootings account for a very small portion of homocides committed with a gun every year. Something like 80% of murders committed with a gun are committed by people with a prior felony record. As I mentioned up thread if they would reinstate Project Exile and start prosecuting EVERY SINGLE felon they catch with a gun the number of murders committed with guns would plummet.

[WobblyPossum]

Count me in for the nationwide Project Exile idea. That’s probably the only idea I’ve heard that would actually affect violent crime.

[ssb]

So if I get cited for criminal tresspass in Walmart with a gun it's a capital offense?



Mass shootings account for a very small portion of homocides committed with a gun every year. Something like 80% of murders committed with a gun are committed by people with a prior felony record. As I mentioned up thread if they would reinstate Project Exile and start prosecuting EVERY SINGLE felon they catch with a gun the number of murders committed with guns would plummet.

I agree with you. Killings with long guns, and especially those that meet the definition of "mass shooting," are quite rare.

That doesn't address the fact that Suzy Doesn'tGiveAShitAboutYourRKBA is a) sick and tired of wondering whether her kids are going to get shot at school given the wall-to-wall coverage which exaggerates the frequency of these tragedies and b) willing to vote in a way which will have dramatic consequences for our rights and sees our side as having no credible alternative solution.

[Cypher]

I agree with you. Killings with long guns, and especially those that meet the definition of "mass shooting," are quite rare.

That doesn't address the fact that Suzy Doesn'tGiveAShitAboutYourRKBA is a) sick and tired of wondering whether her kids are going to get shot at school given the wall-to-wall coverage which exaggerates the frequency of these tragedies and b) willing to vote in a way which will have dramatic consequences for our rights and sees our side as having no credible alternative solution.

I posted this in another place but it's just as applicable here

The biggest mistake the pro Second Amendment side makes is believing that any compromise is possible with the antis.

I'm sorry if this sounds like conspiracy theory insanity but they want nothing less than total civilian disarmament. Maybe not the rank-and-file maybe not the soccer moms posting on Facebook but the people behind the movement the people who are funding the movement want you disarmed.

So it doesn't matter what we compromise on or what we concede, they want all of our guns and we need to quit pretending that's not the goal. And in my opinion we need to adopt a not one inch policy.

[ssb]

I posted this in another place but it's just as applicable here

The biggest mistake the pro Second Amendment side makes is believing that any compromise is possible with the antis.

I'm sorry if this sounds like conspiracy theory insanity but they want nothing less than total civilian disarmament. Maybe not the rank-and-file maybe not the soccer moms posting on Facebook but the people behind the movement the people who are funding the movement want you disarmed.

So it doesn't matter what we compromise on or what we concede, they want all of our guns and we need to quit pretending that's not the goal. And in my opinion we need to adopt a not one inch policy.

I agree that "compromising" - in the form of AWBs, UBCs, etc. - has gotten us nowhere. The downward spirals that are Washington and Oregon are two pertinent examples. I disagree that "not one inch" will sustain us over the long term. In my view, unless we have a credible policy alternative, we'll simply continue the slide into social leprosy that we're on. In case you didn't notice, Wal Mart now treats us as if we're damaged goods that are bad for their bottom line. Wal Mart.

You still haven't answered my question, which was: is there any policy that can be proposed which will have a positive effect on the mass shooting problem while also not trampling on our rights?

My question was not "which guns can we agree to ban to get Everytown For Gun Safety to go away?" and should not be interpreted as such.

[Cypher]

You still haven't answered my question, which was: is there any policy that can be proposed which will have a positive effect on the mass shooting problem while also not trampling on our rights?

You might as well ask "Is there a policy that will stop random lightning strikes?" There's not a policy in the world that's going to stop random maniacs from committing random acts of violence.

Are you aware that more people are beaten to death with bare hands than die in mass shootings every year?

Mass shootings aren't the problem.

[Drang]

42267
These "ideas" aren't working in places where they use them now, what makes you think doing them even harder will magically make all the bad people stop being bad?

Also:

The fundamental problem with gun statues is the fact any crime one commits with a firearm is already a capital offense.
I don't think "capital offense" means what you think it means.

[ssb]

Mass shootings aren't the problem.

They are absolutely a problem because every single one of them that occurs adds to the momentum that is currently building against my right to armed self-defense. Dismiss that at your (and my) peril.

By the way, you can skip the condescension: I'm well aware that there weren't actually 9000 mass shootings last year and I'm also well aware that FBI UCR data shows about 3-400 homicides per year committed with rifles.

[Cypher]

They are absolutely a problem because every single one of them that occurs adds to the momentum that is currently building against my right to armed self-defense. Dismiss that at your (and my) peril.

And that goes back to what I said earlier. If you could wave a magic wand and make mass shootings stop completely the other side still wants you disarmed. There is nothing that you were going to say that is going to appease them.

The best that you can do is to (for lack of a better term) win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters so that they see that scary black guns aren't the problem.

Listen, and understand! That Grabber is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely. will. not. stop. until you are disarmed.

[ssb]

And that goes back to what I said earlier. If you could wave a magic wand and make mass shootings stop completely the other side still wants you disarmed. There is nothing that you were going to say that is going to appease them.

The best that you can do is 2 for lack of a better term win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters so that they see that scary black guns aren't the problem.

Listen, and understand! That Grabber is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely. will. not. stop. until you are disarmed.

Once more, for the cheap seats...

Addressing the problem of mass shootings does not necessarily equate to mandatory buybacks of black rifles and normal magazines, giving up HIPPA protection to buy a gun, making it a felony to borrow my dad's gun for a hunting trip, or really even engaging "The Grabber." You'll note that I've not once proposed appeasing "The Grabber," nor did I limit my question to gun control measures. You have shown us on the doll where Dianne Feinstein touched you. Now that that part's out of the way, if you believe that nothing can be done to address mass shootings without trampling on our rights, I suppose all you have to do is say so.

I don't care what Kamala Harris thinks, because there will always be a Kamala Harris. She's not convincing me and I'm not convincing her - our positions are solidified. I do, however, care about the herd of ambivalent people Kamala Harris may well convince to back her anti-self defense policies. Thus the question.

[Cypher]

Once more, for the cheap seats...

Addressing the problem of mass shootings does not necessarily equate to mandatory buybacks of black rifles and normal magazines, giving up HIPPA protection to buy a gun, making it a felony to borrow my dad's gun for a hunting trip, or really even engaging "The Grabber." You'll note that I've not once proposed appeasing "The Grabber," nor did I limit my question to gun control measures. You have shown us on the doll where Dianne Feinstein touched you. Now that that part's out of the way, if you believe that nothing can be done to address mass shootings without trampling on our rights, I suppose all you have to do is say so.

I don't care what Kamala Harris thinks, because there will always be a Kamala Harris. She's not convincing me and I'm not convincing her - our positions are solidified. I do, however, care about the herd of ambivalent people Kamala Harris may well convince to back her anti-self defense policies. Thus the question.

Am I speaking Chinese? There. Is. No. Answer. For. Your. Question.

Crazy people do crazy people shit. Short of walking crazy people up nothing you do is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy people shit. Capish?


So that's your answer, lock crazy people up

[JRB]

They are absolutely a problem because every single one of them that occurs adds to the momentum that is currently building against my right to armed self-defense. Dismiss that at your (and my) peril.

By the way, you can skip the condescension: I'm well aware that there weren't actually 9000 mass shootings last year and I'm also well aware that FBI UCR data shows about 3-400 homicides per year committed with rifles.

We're absolutely not dismissive of that building momentum. The problem is that momentum has built up because of a combination of the media circuses, and their relentless, unreasonable, loud, 'fuck you I want more of your cake' approach to politics in general including anti-2A stuff.

Being unreasonable is the whole reason they've made this 'progress' against us. We keep pretending they're reasonable, or there's a way to reason with them, or a negotiation strategy, or something painless we can put in front of the band saw instead of something we care about - and it simply does not fucking exist.

Pretending it does only delays any effective response.

[Cypher]

But going back to what I said earlier, if we start putting violent criminal offenders in jail and leaving them there the overall homicide rate will go down.

That is a concrete result that we can point to and say we've made progress in this area overall gun violence is decreasing. We can also offer definitive proof that the real problem isn't guns it's violent criminal REPEAT offenders

[willie]

In years past I assisted a friend sell firearms at gun shows. He attended and worked about 20 gun shows per year and did so for 25 years. During this time he sold a very large number of rifles, handguns, and shotguns. He did not have an FFl. He asked no questions and would sell a firearm to any person that appeared to meet the age requirement. I have no doubt that my friend sold many guns to felons, gang members, and perhaps mentally incompetent individuals. The second amendment was not his concern. Making money was. Countless other gun show vendors practiced the same business model. I did not care either. Looking back, I realize that I was a willing participant in an irresponsible activity. Should the 1000's of individuals buying my friend's guns have been required to undergo background checks? How many felons and other unqualified people would have been denied? These types of questions require careful thought. I do not know the answer. The original poster expressed honest opinions and voiced personal concerns. I regret that some replies were worded harshly. If I had solutions to the problems facing us, I already would have stated them. We have intelligent men and women on the forum. Let's not stifle dialogue. Instead let's collaborate to reach a consensus that we can forward to congress members.

I agree wholeheartedly that we must fight tooth and nail to preserve our rights. I will repeat myself and say that I don't have answers. Right now we need to figure out what the questions are.

[JRB]

... Right now we need to figure out what the questions are.

The first two questions we need to ask:

Why have we divorced criminals from any responsibility for their actions?
If a felon tries to buy a gun he's committing a crime. If he buys a gun he's committing a crime. That's his actions and his responsibilities and he should pay the piper.
The sage wisdom that we cannot prevent everything should NOT have been allowed to swell into this cancer of assumed non-responsibility for these assholes actions.
Your friend, and you, bear no responsibility for the felonious actions of those people, if he was lied to and indeed sold a gun to a prohibited person, that's on the felon! Sadly the laws in many areas would see it differently and I cannot for the life of me figure out why they'd go after a gun seller and not the asshole with murder in his heart.
The reality is that if not your friend selling, it would have been some other way, some other person. Nothing stops a killer except being killed. The left just keeps pretending that denying millions of lawful people the means will magically prevent motivated killers from killing. That narrative needs to be attacked head-on.

Second, why the hell have we allowed ourselves to be manipulated to the same table, where we inevitably give up our rights one little piece at a time, when instead our 'negotiation' should be spearheading effective, efficient, and serious enforcement of the existing laws?

Laws without effective enforcement mean nothing to criminals but mean everything to the lawful.
If they're just trying to disarm us fully, we need to shift that narrative to make them honest about their intentions, and make the terrible outcomes of those goals very clear.

Yet we're happy to stick our fingers in front of the band saw over and over again, hoping they only choose to cut a little bit more off. Fuck that. And fuck anyone that accepts that as reasonable, or negotiation, because it emphatically is not.

[Darth_Uno]

But going back to what I said earlier, if we start putting violent criminal offenders in jail and leaving them there the overall homicide rate will go down.

That is a concrete result that we can point to and say we've made progress in this area overall gun violence is decreasing. We can also offer definitive proof that the real problem isn't guns it's violent criminal REPEAT offenders

Don’t we own a bigass island we can just ship them off to? All violent felons get a one way ticket on the first offense.

That would also allow you to study just how much of an impact removing them from the population would have on overall crime and “gun crime”.

[ssb]

We're absolutely not dismissive of that building momentum. The problem is that momentum has built up because of a combination of the media circuses, and their relentless, unreasonable, loud, 'fuck you I want more of your cake' approach to politics in general including anti-2A stuff.

Being unreasonable is the whole reason they've made this 'progress' against us. We keep pretending they're reasonable, or there's a way to reason with them, or a negotiation strategy, or something painless we can put in front of the band saw instead of something we care about - and it simply does not fucking exist.

Pretending it does only delays any effective response.

And so the effective response is...? Get up on TV, state that it isn't "the gun's" fault, point to mental health issues and failures to enforce existing laws, call the other side unreasonable and note their ulterior anti-gun motives, and hopefully ride out the mass shooting news cycle until it dies down?

Seems to be working splendidly thus far at the state level, as it will - I'm sure - in the 2020 legislative races. To his credit, Mitch McConnell has been pretty much the only thing that has managed to stop a lot of this at the federal level this past decade. He won't be around forever, and neither will all those procedural barriers in the Senate he's helped burn.

While ya'll keep sticking to this winning strategy, I'll be over here watching major CC companies, banks, and UPS/FedEx allow themselves to be convinced we hurt their bottom line more than we help it. That's the next step, mind you, regardless of what McConnell manages to block this fall.

[OlongJohnson]

Don’t we own a bigass island we can just ship them off to? All violent felons get a one way ticket on the first offense.

That would also allow you to study just how much of an impact removing them from the population would have on overall crime and “gun crime”.

We know how that ends. The violent felons' great grandchildren sell 30 percent of their guns back to the government for pennies on the dollar and the rest go into hiding.