Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608

Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding


It's a common sentiment among gun owners, or at least activists for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that many gun control proposals are intentionally crafted to harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. In this thread, I'd like to discuss gun control proposals that do NOT harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. I suspect adhering to that guideline in an absolute sense would be difficult, so let's focus on proposals that maximize effectively reducing gun crime while minimizing the harm / imposition on law-abiding gun owners.

If you care, the genesis for this thread is this exchange I had with k9bfriender

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Guns are too easy to get ahold of by anyone, whether with noble or nefarious intent. If it is made just a tiny bit harder to get a gun, then it is the outlaws who will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... There are lots of gun control proposals in which law abiding citizens will "encounter the difficulties". If you've got some specific ones that you think do a good job of mitigating this issue (law abiding citizens being hassled / harassed / inconvenienced by gun control efforts), I'd be interested in hearing them (although perhaps that's a subject for a different thread. If I started one, would you make the effort to outline some such proposals there?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Maybe. I have no problem respectfully discussing ways of preventing gun violence, and keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal or irresponsible, while also ensuring that responsible law abiding people are able to keep guns for self defense or recreation. I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't already been said, and I'm not really made of time these days, but if you started such a thread, I'd do my best to put in my $0.02.
The goal of this thread was summarized nicely by Miller:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
... the point of gun control is to reduce the amount of gun violence in society, not to just be a dick to people who like guns.
So .... what are your ideas?
  #2  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:46 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,278
A certain amount of burden will always have to fall on the law-abiding, since we need to make sure that the "law-abiding" aren't funneling guns to criminals, even unintentionally. This means that once a gun has come legally into a gun-owner's possession, he has to start playing the part of the gatekeeper, whether he likes it or not.
  #3  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:32 PM
Llama Llogophile is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 50% chord point
Posts: 4,068
I fly airplanes for a living. A good case could be made that aviation is regulated more heavily than almost any other industry. Even more strictly in some ways than medicine - that from a doctor / pilot I know who has worked as a professional in both fields.

Do you know how many hoops a person has to jump through just to take a Cessna 150 around the patch on their first solo? And more to complete a Private Pilot's license? Not a commercial, not a jet type rating, just the Private Pilot.

Well, it's a lot. And it should be, despite the fact that a Cessna 150 and planes of its class are not very good weapons. But they can cause damage to people and property, thus many FAA personnel will tell you they're not in the business of protecting pilots, they are in the business of protecting the general public FROM pilots. Again, as it should be.

So if gun owners, people who want to possess actual weapons designed to cause death, have to deal with some regulations that they consider a hassle... I don't fucking care.

I used to be a more "reasonable" on this issue. I know how to shoot, and some of my family are gun owners. Now I say regulate the hell out of it.
  #4  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:32 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,618
The entire debate is utterly meaningless. There is no meaningful distinction between a "law abiding" gun owner and a "criminal" gun owner besides the fact that the latter has commited at least one crime. The nut who shot up Las Vegas was a law abiding gun owner, so was whatshisname who shot up the Aurora cinema while dressed as the Joker. As are the thousands of people who never did anything wrong and never broke the law until they shot their wives/husbands in the face.
  #5  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:43 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
As are the thousands of people who never did anything wrong and never broke the law until they shot their wives/husbands in the face.
Similar problem with 'red flag laws' and other such feel good measures. How often did a potential mass murderer actually show any overt signs of what they were planning?
  #6  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:46 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,712
Lengthening the time for a default proceed approval to buy a gun. Overwhelming the process takes minutes. For some the initial look has flags that trigger a need for further investigation but not an instant rejection. The government currently has three days to conduct that check. If the check isn't complete in that time the person is allowed to buy the gun. Whether or not the person actually buys the gun at that point isn't mandatory reporting from the gun dealer. The FBI is supposed to keep working the check for up to 90 days. If they find something they are supposed to inform the ATF who is supposed to follow up and repossess any gun sold based on the check. Extending the time before a default proceed could keep guns out of the hands of those that are actually prohibited. It would have small effect on most legal gun owners since most checks take minutes not days. Something as small as an extension to 5 business days or a calendar week could reduce default proceed sales to those legally disqualified from buying guns. Few legal gun owners would be tied up in the extra waiting period.

Reporting from states/territories of potentially disqualifying data can be spotty. Improving those state level systems can gun sales to people that already, by federal law, aren't allowed to buy them. Accurate reporting of personal protection/restraining orders is at a minimum something a lot of states need to fix. In theory, for the length of time those orders are in effect someone is disqualified from buying a gun. The information has to be reported in a timely fashion for it to matter.

Close the "boyfriend loophole." Federal law prohibits gun sales to those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions involving a spouse, live in significant other, or someone you've had a child with. Have multiple DV convictions where you have assaulted non-resident partners or family members... here's your gun! I'd argue those are one of the kinds of violent criminals that we should be keeping guns away from. Currently, we are not even trying to keep guns out of their hands.

Last edited by DinoR; 10-17-2019 at 07:48 PM.
  #7  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:56 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,378
universal background checks shouldn't inconvenience the law abiding while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

bans on those convicted of domestic violence or violent crimes (I think many/most mass shooters have a history of this). However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence

stronger laws against straw purchases (possibly including gun registration so if a straw purchase is done, people can trace the guns buyer).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-17-2019 at 07:57 PM.
  #8  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:59 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Similar problem with 'red flag laws' and other such feel good measures. How often did a potential mass murderer actually show any overt signs of what they were planning?
https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fi...n-common.html/

Quote:
Mass shootings come with a lot of shock — and even close family or friends of the shooter often show surprise and outrage at the events. But Scientific American says after studying 119 cases of “lone-wolf” terrorists — that is, those who acted alone — over 60% of them actually told someone close to them of their plans. And over 80% of the cases found people around the mass shooter knew of their anger and resentment before the attack.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #9  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:02 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Close the "boyfriend loophole." Federal law prohibits gun sales to those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions involving a spouse, live in significant other, or someone you've had a child with. Have multiple DV convictions where you have assaulted non-resident partners or family members... here's your gun! I'd argue those are one of the kinds of violent criminals that we should be keeping guns away from. Currently, we are not even trying to keep guns out of their hands.
Having a gun is supposed to be a Constitutional right, like voting. Because I guess in the frontier days, being unarmed was basically like being crippled. If you didn't have a gun you couldn't scare off the indian raiders or stand up to cattle rustlers or the corrupt sheriff or whatever.

In the bad part of town, having a gun is the only thing scaring from breaking into your apartment and stealing your stuff, or robbing you on the street.

I don't know what percentage of America is still this way, but I'm just saying, in the world these people are living in, taking away a man's piece is a major infringement on his constitutional rights. The State better have convicted him of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt. (or forced him to plead to it, which is a far more common thing)
  #10  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:03 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Ok that's neat. But how often was this information made available to authorities before the attack? Most people aren't going to rat out a friend. Especially in today's world, where calling the police on someone is basically the same as attempting to kill them yourself.
  #11  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:07 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,802
I agree with Miller about the point of gun regulations, although I did not read the other thread. With regards to what such regulations might look like, I can only speculate. I think crafting such regulations would require collecting and analyzing data about who is buying guns and who is committing crimes with them. As such a good place to start would be with gun sellers collecting basic demographic information such as the buyer's name, birthday, and address, along with background checks to make sure the buyer is not a felon and also has no history of violent misdemeanors. The latter prohibition is not currently in place anywhere in the US AFAIK. I think someone with a history of violence, even if it isn't in the commission of a felony, should not own guns, unless the violence was in self defense. That's just a start, but I think it's a good one.
  #12  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:26 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So .... what are your ideas?
How about we implement the same laws as England, since apparently it is so hard for criminals to get guns there, they have resorted to using knives to commit crimes?
  #13  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:14 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok that's neat. But how often was this information made available to authorities before the attack? Most people aren't going to rat out a friend. Especially in today's world, where calling the police on someone is basically the same as attempting to kill them yourself.
However they are not yet criminals, so by HD's rule they would be allowed to have guns.
  #14  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:19 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,584
Dogs are required to have rabies shots and wear their rabies tags. But in over half of American cities, cops don't bust down doors in pre-dawn raids looking to see that your dogs are properly tagged.

The law in those municipalities is enforced in the obvious breach. If you commit some other violation of animal ordinance (say, letting your dog run free, or harboring a dangerous animal, or the like), then in the course of the investigation the animal control officer will check your dog's vaccination status. If you can't produce it, the penalties pile up.

The effect of this ordinance is that law-abiding dog owners undergo a moderate inconvenience that results in widespread safety. Law-violating dog owners are likely not getting their dogs vaccinated anyway, natch--but now there's an additional disincentive to being irresponsible.

So, yeah: let's require gun owners to have the same level of regulation as dog owners. Take some basic safety precautions and get licensed for it.

The bad owners won't do it, but they're the ones who will bear the brunt of law enforcement. Owners who are just negligent enough not to get licensed won't ever get dinged if they don't run afoul of law enforcement for other reasons.
  #15  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:21 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,556
There are so many problems with the proposal. First, criminals are not now allowed to own guns. Since they do, clearly it must be made more difficult for them to get guns, but that will make it more difficult for non-criminals to get guns, and so is not to be allowed.
Second, a criminal is a law breaker who has been caught and convicted. In the real world many lawbreakers have not been caught yet. Clearly they must be allowed to purchase guns.
Third, what defines a criminal. Armed robbery yes. Jaw walking? Drunk driving? Spousal abuse?
How will the average gun seller determine if a purchaser is a criminal? Scarlet C's on his shirt? How long must the law abiding gun purchaser be forced to wait until the seller can be sure he isn't a criminal, and is this an infringement on their rights? If it is, how many guns do you think should get through to criminals in order to protect those rights?
  #16  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:18 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I don't know what percentage of America is still this way, but I'm just saying, in the world these people are living in, taking away a man's piece is a major infringement on his constitutional rights. The State better have convicted him of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt. (or forced him to plead to it, which is a far more common thing)
That might be a political issue with passage. That is different than the question in the OP of what keeps the burden on the law abiding to a minimum.

I'm not sure it's nearly as big a hurdle to implementation as you think it is either. We already have federal law that bans people for life from buying guns based on misdemeanor DV convictions. The NRA has had concerns about and opposed specific implementations with regards to DV convictions and restraining orders being bars to gun purchases. Still there was a survey in 2013 that made the wiki article on the boyfriend loophole:
Quote:
The same survey indicates that 62% National Rifle Association (NRA) members also support policies which include preventing individuals convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun for 10 years.
Even just a more limited 10 year prohibition on purchases for a DV conviction would be a new gun control. It's an area where we could potentially see some real effects on gun homicide numbers. It would only affect convicted criminal not law abiding gun owners. While it's six year since the poll the majority of NRA members might still support that new gun control. This is literally an area where, carefully tailored, we might get an effective gun control with NRA support.
  #17  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:45 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
universal background checks shouldn't inconvenience the law abiding while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
They do inconvenience the law abiding though. FFL holders charge for the service. Something like grandpa has decided he's too old to hunt and wants to give his guns with family history to various children and grandchildren is an example. That can be quite a bit of hassle and cost hundreds of dollars to do with universal background check requirements. One way to address those kinds of concerns are close relation exceptions; it's not really a universal background check at that point. Trying to use technology to craft a system that let's private parties get an answer from NICS without involving an FFL holder is another possible change.

Quote:
However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence
That's already covered by the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibited gun sales to those with some, but not all, misdemeanor DV convictions. Those convictions are career enders. It takes a conviction though. A lot of domestic violence, even that which produces arrest, doesn't result in charges let alone conviction.
  #18  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:00 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The entire debate is utterly meaningless. There is no meaningful distinction between a "law abiding" gun owner and a "criminal" gun owner besides the fact that the latter has commited at least one crime. The nut who shot up Las Vegas was a law abiding gun owner, so was whatshisname who shot up the Aurora cinema while dressed as the Joker. As are the thousands of people who never did anything wrong and never broke the law until they shot their wives/husbands in the face.
Wow...just...wow. No difference between a 'law abiding' gun owner and a 'criminal'. That's...just unreal. It's like saying there is no difference between a 'law abiding' black person and a 'criminal' black person. Seriously. No hyperbole. That's really fucked up.

As for the nut in Las Vegas, the difference was, just like with any other criminal, the person in question went from being law abiding to a criminal murderer. You probably don't realize this, but people aren't born criminals, they become criminals by doing criminal acts. You don't target citizens, even non-gun citizens () BEFORE they do something criminal, you go after them after they become criminals. And do all that trial and lock em up stuff.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #19  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:11 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
As for the OP, I'd say that, as Llama Llogophile was getting at, a certainly amount of training and licensing might be worth looking at. IF it's not being used as a back door to prevent gun ownership. It's already the case if you want to carry concealed after all...there is a lot more involved than just going to the local sporting goods store and picking out a gun. I'm not sure how it would work in practice, and I doubt that either side would be thrilled with mandatory training and licenses....hell, not sure that would even pass muster, Constitutionally, though I think it might.

Barring that, other things I think that might make a small difference would be background checks prior to purchasing new guns. This is, again, something that is already being done in some cases, but not across the board.

None of this is really what the OP is asking about though, as all of these fall on the law abiding citizens, not criminals. To do that then I think you have to ramp things up wrt sentencing. Perhaps you craft laws that if you are convicted of a crime using a gun it's a mandatory <insert harsh sentence here>. If you use a gun in a murder then perhaps you are given a mandatory life sentence with no parole. A mass murder is a mandatory life in a supermax prison with the whole 23 hours a day inside and 1 hour a day of exercise and whatever else harsh stuff you want to toss on top. Or, I suppose you could go with the mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of a mass shooting.

I'm unsure if any of that will really help, but it might cut down on things a bit. Personally, I think instead of focusing on guns we should focus on the root causes. WHY is America so violent? I mean, taking guns out of the picture, the US has more knife murders per capita than most other western countries...hell, we have more of nearly every kind of murder than most countries have for every kind of murder. Is it the drug problem? Income disparity and poverty? We should look at that, instead of at one aspect where we are trying to fix the symptom but the underlying problem is still there.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #20  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:52 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,787
Everyone is law-abiding! Until they are not.

That said, if the burden to provide evidence that you are law-abiding is so much that someone will break the law to circumvent them, then you're not so law-abiding now are you?

The issue then becomes what an undue burden is. Burdens are okay, undue burdens are not.

I have yet to see any serious attempts at reforming the nation's gun laws to put an undue burden on gun owners.
  #21  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:00 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Everyone is law-abiding! Until they are not.

That said, if the burden to provide evidence that you are law-abiding is so much that someone will break the law to circumvent them, then you're not so law-abiding now are you?

The issue then becomes what an undue burden is. Burdens are okay, undue burdens are not.

I have yet to see any serious attempts at reforming the nation's gun laws to put an undue burden on gun owners.
What sort of burden or undue burden are put on citizens for other products or services that can and do kill? If you use a gun in committing a crime you go to jail. You can and often are sued as well. That seems in line with, say, alcohol use. Tobacco is actually less of a burden, as I haven't seen many cases where the smoker is blamed for the 2nd hand smoke deaths, though that's probably a stretch to compare to alcohol or firearms, even though it kills more Americans than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol. Still, I think the burden there is on the manufacturer, who is often sued in these cases.

What sorts of burden do you think SHOULD be put on firearms owners, and what is the basis you are using? BTW, I think many firearms owns would disagree that they have burdens put on them already, especially depending on where you live and how your individual state or municipality handles gun control. There are many places where it's a lot more difficult to get a gun than folks realize, and some where it's impossible, from a practical perspective.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 10-18-2019 at 09:02 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:27 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
What sort of burden or undue burden are put on citizens for other products or services that can and do kill? If you use a gun in committing a crime you go to jail. You can and often are sued as well. That seems in line with, say, alcohol use. Tobacco is actually less of a burden, as I haven't seen many cases where the smoker is blamed for the 2nd hand smoke deaths, though that's probably a stretch to compare to alcohol or firearms, even though it kills more Americans than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol. Still, I think the burden there is on the manufacturer, who is often sued in these cases.

What sorts of burden do you think SHOULD be put on firearms owners, and what is the basis you are using? BTW, I think many firearms owns would disagree that they have burdens put on them already, especially depending on where you live and how your individual state or municipality handles gun control. There are many places where it's a lot more difficult to get a gun than folks realize, and some where it's impossible, from a practical perspective.
Waiting periods and more robust background checks that remove loopholes are two things that are often bandied about which cause the NRA to feel that the world is ending.

I personally would like to see more than those things that I still feel are not an undue burden, but we can start with those since most Americans - even gun owners - have no issues with those steps.

Beyond that, I don't think it's an undue burden expecting gun owners to:
  • Demonstrate they can be responsible. In much the same way drivers have to prove that they are responsible, gun owners should be able to show that they can operate a gun and also be aware of how to store it safely and legally.
  • Limit the firepower of their weapons. One doesn't need a bump stock to hunt; one certainly doesn't need to make their gun an automatic weapon with 100 rounds in it to protect their home. It also means you may have to have ID when making purchases of large quantities of ammunition and it may also mean there are certain weapons you cannot legally own. We already check IDs for purchasing a single bottle of pseudoephedrine and we already ban machine guns so it's hard to make the case complying with either would be an undue burden.
  • Not be allowed guns at all if they have convictions for domestic violence or other violent crimes or restraining orders. They will also have to give up the right to own guns if mental health professionals feel that is best.
Finally, I don't think having to pay more for a gun is an undue burden. I am not talking about taxes here, but smart gun technology:
Quote:
Smart guns, whose embedded technology ensures only authorized users can fire them, have been around for nearly two decades, and a 2016 survey found that nearly 60% of Americans, if they were buying a new handgun, would be interested in a smart firearm. But due largely to political pressure from gun rights proponents and a lack of investment in their development, some of the most promising smart gun technology isn't even for sale in the US, or is still only in prototype form.

Buzzfeed News
The United States has constantly made regulations for automobiles to make them safer. All cars now have to have backup cameras, for example. This is a cost that goes to the consumer.

The same thing should be done with the gun industry. Force them to invest in smart gun technology to make guns safer. If that brings a higher cost of new guns or a cost to retrofit older guns, I'll concede a huge cost might create an undue burden, but it doesn't have to be huge necessarily.

Last edited by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear; 10-18-2019 at 09:28 AM.
  #23  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:56 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
I don't disagree with all of that, though it's not what this OP is looking for. But I'll point out that if you put higher burdens on gun owners wrt having them have to pay more it's going to, from a practical perspective, skew gun ownership to wealthier citizens, or at least make it very difficult for poorer citizens to own a gun. Same goes for extra licensing. Often we are told that it's too high of a burden for citizens to have to get voting ID after all. Gun ownership is a right, so you don't want to make it so that only some citizens can participate, even though even now that is the case to a certain extent.

I will point out that we don't put similar burdens on alcohol or alcohol consumption. Basically, if you are of age you can buy and use alcohol. This, despite the fact that more Americans are killed due to alcohol than firearms. Similarly, we don't put those same burdens on tobacco use, again despite the fact that even second hand smoke deaths are more than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol abuse. And the later two aren't protected rights.

That said, I have no problem, in broad terms, with licenses or background checks. Limiting firepower, depending on what you mean by that, is already something that has restrictions on it, as does the action (i.e. we already have restrictions on automatic verse semi-automatic or other actions with lower rates of fire). All of these things put the burden on the law abiding citizens, and, frankly, put harder burdens on the less wealthy citizens than the richer ones, which is, IMHO, a bad thing.

What about what the OP is asking for? What burdens could we place on actual criminals wrt gun crime? I think those I mentioned are the low hanging fruit that are fairly obvious. Not sure what else you could do. Basically, a person is a law abiding citizen until they aren't, and when they cross that line we then prosecute them. Would putting harsher or more focused sentencing specifically on gun abuse do more? I think there are examples from alcohol that say yes, they would. Also, there is the civil aspect...if one commits a crime using a gun then perhaps open up more avenues to civil suits. Of course, again, we actually DO already have some sentencing that is geared towards gun abuse committing a crime, just like we do for alcohol abuse, but perhaps we could do more on that score as well.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #24  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:33 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Wow...just...wow. No difference between a 'law abiding' gun owner and a 'criminal'. That's...just unreal. It's like saying there is no difference between a 'law abiding' black person and a 'criminal' black person. Seriously. No hyperbole. That's really fucked up.

As for the nut in Las Vegas, the difference was, just like with any other criminal, the person in question went from being law abiding to a criminal murderer. You probably don't realize this, but people aren't born criminals, they become criminals by doing criminal acts. You don't target citizens, even non-gun citizens () BEFORE they do something criminal, you go after them after they become criminals. And do all that trial and lock em up stuff.
Okay, but you wouldn't accuse countries where there is no constitutional right to bear arms of presumptively accusing all citizens of being 'criminals'. You can't legislate away criminal behavior. You can only punish it. But I don't know why you need to make weapons easily available to those who would commit crimes. And I don't see how not having a weapon is a burden on those who do not go on to commit crimes. Is quality of life improved if citizens are permitted to have weapons?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #25  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:44 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Okay, but you wouldn't accuse countries where there is no constitutional right to bear arms of presumptively accusing all citizens of being 'criminals'. You can't legislate away criminal behavior. You can only punish it. But I don't know why you need to make weapons easily available to those who would commit crimes. And I don't see how not having a weapon is a burden on those who do not go on to commit crimes. Is quality of life improved if citizens are permitted to have weapons?
No, obviously not. If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, or more to the point if it's illegal or highly restrictive to do so and you do it anyway, well, sure...you are a criminal in that country. Certainly.

As for the rest, again, it depends on the country. In the US, citizens are used to having this right, and, at least to date, still want to have it. So 'quality of life' is, at least in the opinions of the majority of our citizens, better with those weapons than without them (or, at least having the CHOICE to have them or not is). Though it's not really a quality of life thing, it's a right, just like the other rights. Americans THINK their lives are better for the protected rights they have because that's what we are used too. Other countries MMV...they get on fine (or not in many cases) without formal rights set down in a document.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 10-18-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #26  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:52 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
As for the rest, again, it depends on the country. In the US, citizens are used to having this right, and, at least to date, still want to have it. So 'quality of life' is, at least in the opinions of the majority of our citizens, better with those weapons than without them (or, at least having the CHOICE to have them or not is). Though it's not really a quality of life thing, it's a right, just like the other rights. Americans THINK their lives are better for the protected rights they have because that's what we are used too. Other countries MMV...they get on fine (or not in many cases) without formal rights set down in a document.
But isn't this is an argument from pleading for American exceptionalism? Either a right to bear arms is a universal human right or it is not. Notice that it's a separate argument from right to life. The latter is something other countries do not contest, but also do not inextricably link to the right to bear arms.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #27  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:54 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How about we implement the same laws as England, since apparently it is so hard for criminals to get guns there, they have resorted to using knives to commit crimes?
This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.
  #28  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:02 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.
Are we then to conclude that the higher restrictions on guns makes the population more murderous?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #29  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:07 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.
This is absolutely not true.

Gun control law passed: 1997
Murder rate in 1996: 11.4 per million
Murder rate in 2018: 12.4 per million
5 year average to 1996: 11.9 per million
5 year average to 2019: 10.1 per million

Who told you that, and who told them?
  #30  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:18 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,018
It’s always strange to see people championing gun laws who are so ignorant of what the current laws actually are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
bans on those convicted of domestic violence or violent crimes (I think many/most mass shooters have a history of this). However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence
This is already a law. Persons convicted of domestic violence are banned from purchasing or owning firearms. That applies to misdemeanors as well.
Quote:
stronger laws against straw purchases (possibly including gun registration so if a straw purchase is done, people can trace the guns buyer)
What do you mean stronger laws? Straw purchases are already 100% illegal. The punishment is up to ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. What would you propose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Having a gun is supposed to be a Constitutional right, like voting…The State better have convicted him of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt. (or forced him to plead to it, which is a far more common thing)
Misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence have prevented people from legally owning firearms since 1997.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear
[*]Not be allowed guns at all if they have convictions for domestic violence or other violent crimes or restraining orders.
All three of those things (provided the “other violent crimes” are felonies) are all current restrictions.
Quote:
They will also have to give up the right to own guns if mental health professionals feel that is best.
This is already the law. A person cannot legally purchase or own a firearm if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority makes the determination that a person is a danger to himself or others; or if the person has ever been committed to a mental institution.
You’re proposing things that are already laws. These restrictions are already in place. The problem is that the current system of tracking and identifying these individuals is ineffective. Too often, these disqualifying events are not updated to the proper databases, or the databases don’t happen to exist at all. Some states have different reporting requirements, and different state systems don’t talk to each other or the federal systems… it’s a mess.
To effectively improve gun control, the country should start by actually developing systems allow the government to uphold and enforce the current laws. The laws you should be championing are the ones that support the government’s ability to enforce gun control, not more unenforceable laws that sound great but don’t really do anything. A central database of those determined to be mentally defective or previously committed to a mental institution would be a good first step.

Quote:
Finally, I don't think having to pay more for a gun is an undue burden. I am not talking about taxes here, but smart gun technology:The United States has constantly made regulations for automobiles to make them safer. All cars now have to have backup cameras, for example. This is a cost that goes to the consumer.
But how is a smart gun going to prevent anything? What kind of smart system to you propose that would prevent the owner of the firearm from using it to commit a crime? The only possible thing a smart gun could prevent is maybe an accidental shooting in which a child grabbed a gun off the table or something. We already have laws making it illegal to leave firearms where kids can grab them, and it’s already mandatory to sell every gun with a gun lock. I’ve yet to see a smart gun proposal that accomplished anything except complicating the firearm, and adding batteries to the list of things that can cause a firearm to improperly function.
[quoteThe same thing should be done with the gun industry. Force them to invest in smart gun technology to make guns safer. If that brings a higher cost of new guns or a cost to retrofit older guns, I'll concede a huge cost might create an undue burden, but it doesn't have to be huge necessarily.[/QUOTE]Retrofit them with what? Make them safer from what? What kind of smart gun technology are you proposing?
  #31  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:55 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence
I forgot to add: there is no exemption for law enforcement or military. Anyone convicted of domestic violence, even misdemeanor convictions, cannot possess a firearm--even when on duty. Domestic violence convictions are a disqualifier for service. Current soldiers and police who are later convicted of DV cannot carry firearms. For police, they are fired immediately. For soldiers, the process takes a while, but their service will not continue for long.
  #32  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:05 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So .... what are your ideas?
Despite the bit of well-poisoning about what the intentions are of those who wish to control firearms, I have to ask if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval? This information would give us a clue as to what you are looking for and/or steer us in the right direction.
  #33  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Despite the bit of well-poisoning about what the intentions are of those who wish to control firearms, I have to ask if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval? This information would give us a clue as to what you are looking for and/or steer us in the right direction.
I already gave you a clue about what I'm looking for in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... let's focus on proposals that maximize effectively reducing gun crime while minimizing the harm / imposition on law-abiding gun owners. ...
My approval (or disapproval) of the proposals is irrelevant. There may be laws that don't meet this criteria of which I approve or legislation that does meet this criteria of which I disapprove.

But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that's already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-18-2019 at 12:43 PM.
  #34  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:53 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that's already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.
From this I gather you favor laws that take place after a crime has been committed, and oppose laws that might help prevent the crime from being committed in the first place?
edited to add: "Harm/Imposition" is a strange phrase to use. "Imposition" has to go a long ways to turn into actual "harm".

Last edited by Czarcasm; 10-18-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #35  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:07 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that's already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.
Where is that not done? Do you think the penalties need to be harsher than they are now? What penalty applied to those who use guns in the commission of a crime are too low now?
  #36  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From this I gather you favor laws that take place after a crime has been committed, and oppose laws that might help prevent the crime from being committed in the first place? ...
Yes, or at least I'd prefer that punishment take place after a crime has been committed, and that it fall on those who have committed it. Over in ATMB, there's an active thread where LHoD is arguing against collective punishment. I'd prefer gun control efforts similarly not preemptively punish "the whole class" of gun owners for the bad acts of a few. If there were laws that had a minimal negative effect on law-abiding gun owners and a substantial effect on preventing crime, I'd certainly consider supporting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
... edited to add: "Harm/Imposition" is a strange phrase to use. "Imposition" has to go a long ways to turn into actual "harm".
harm, imposition, burden, inconvenience, cost, punishment, etc. are all fine. If you'd prefer to use a different word that gets that general point across, have at it.
  #37  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Where is that not done? Do you think the penalties need to be harsher than they are now? What penalty applied to those who use guns in the commission of a crime are too low now?
I think it is, generally, done now, at least to some degree. Czarcasm asked "if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval?" This was offered as an example of one law that I have seen that generally meets with my approval and minimizes the burden on law-abiding gun owners.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-18-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #38  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:18 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it is, generally, done now, at least to some degree. Czarcasm asked "if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval?" This was offered as an example of one law that I have seen that generally meets with my approval and minimizes the burden on law-abiding gun owners.
So that one has been done to your satisfaction. You got anything else?
  #39  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
So that one has been done to your satisfaction. ...
More or less, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
... You got anything else?
Not off the top of my head. Hence, this thread.
  #40  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:23 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,688
I have two to suggest.

1) Universal background checks. All firearm purchases or transfers require background check, performed through a FFL holder for a nominal fee. No $100 charge to do a background check, maybe $20 + $5 per weapon transferred. Any FFL holder overcharging or otherwise making this service unavailable to the public loses their license.

2) Illegal weapon enforcement. Aggressively enforce the background check rule. Widespread sting operations to ferret out anyone willing to transfer a weapon illegally. Widespread buyback operations to remove unwanted or illegally owned weapons from the market.
  #41  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Here is a state-by-state listing of laws stating weapons restrictions when it comes to the mentally ill. If you look at states like Alabama
Quote:
No person of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.
it is easy to note the extreme vagueness(How unsound a mind, and who makes the determination) and compare it places like The District of Columbia
Quote:
No registration certificate shall be issued to any person or organization unless it is determined that such person:
Has not, within the 5-year period preceding the application, been acquitted of any criminal charge by reason of insanity or has not been adjudicated a chronic alcoholic by any court, unless the person possesses a medical certification indicated that the applicant has recovered from such insanity or alcoholic condition and is capable of safe and responsible possession of a firearm; and
Has not, within the 5-year period preceding the application, ben voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution, unless the person possesses a medical certification that the applicant has recovered from whatever malady prompted such commitment.
, then note the dozens of variations among the rest: it is a hodgepodge of little-understood laws, that need to be consolidated, clarified and enforced.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 10-18-2019 at 01:26 PM.
  #42  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:26 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
harm, imposition, burden, inconvenience, cost, punishment, etc. are all fine. If you'd prefer to use a different word that gets that general point across, have at it.
Those aren't synonyms, so a "general point" that includes any/all of those words is impossible.
  #43  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Those aren't synonyms, so a "general point" that includes any/all of those words is impossible.
They're all negative effects. Is that a generic enough descriptor for you?
  #44  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:37 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They're all negative effects. Is that a generic enough descriptor for you?
Does the "negative effect" of gun laws such as those in Canada or the UK rise to a significant level of harm? If so, what is the demonstrable level of harm to individuals and/or population?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #45  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:22 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But isn't this is an argument from pleading for American exceptionalism? Either a right to bear arms is a universal human right or it is not. Notice that it's a separate argument from right to life. The latter is something other countries do not contest, but also do not inextricably link to the right to bear arms.
Are you asking me that pointing out that the US does some things much differently than other countries is 'pleading for American exceptionalism', well...I guess. I am not making any sort of case that the right to bear arms (I always love the imagery of a dude in a bear arm cloak or something ) is some universal human right. Clearly, it's not, in that clearly many countries don't allow most citizens to have firearms or any other type in some cases. Perhaps others are arguing that, but I'm not. You asked me earlier what people in other countries who don't allow for gun ownership but do so anyway are, and I said their are criminals, because in their country it's illegal. This isn't talking about 'American exceptionalism' so much as reality...different countries have different rules, laws, norms and mores.

I'm really not sure what you are getting at. Just like I don't live in those other countries and have no say in what they do or don't do, folks who live in other countries clearly don't live here either, so their view on this subject is, perhaps academically interesting but of no real concern, to me at least. They don't live here. They don't vote here. They don't pay taxes here. And they don't really get a say in how we do what we do. You, being an American (presumably), do, even if we disagree on this or other things. I don't accept some sort of international standard or norm wrt gun law....or knife law...or tobacco law....or alcohol law...or even large double cheese burger, trough sized coke and extra fries law. Sure, there are some minimum standards we should abide by, but the bar on that is VERY low. Just check out some of the shit the CCP does to the Chinese people sometime to see how low that bar is.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #46  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Does the "negative effect" of gun laws such as those in Canada or the UK rise to a significant level of harm? ...
For purposes of this thread, yes.
  #47  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:34 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For purposes of this thread, yes.
And as to the second part?...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #48  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
And as to the second part?...
If you're asking for commentary / discussion on Canada and/or the UK's gun laws in this thread, it's not really the right place for that. If there's some specific policy they've implemented that you think merits consideration, given the guidelines in the OP, please propose it. The "demonstrable level of harm" would depend on the specifics of the proposal. If ammunition normally costs $0.30 per round and your proposal raises the price to $0.33, multiplied over the billions of rounds of ammunition purchased each year by law-abiding gun owners, it's a significant cost. If it used to take people buying guns an average of 30 minutes to complete the transaction, and your proposal would now make it take 90, that extra hour of time, again multiplied across the tens of millions of gun purchases each year, is a fairly substantial imposition on law-abiding gun owners' time. If previously gun owners could choose between any of 1,000 different models of guns, and your proposal would limit that choice to 500 or 100, that's a significant negative effect on gun owners. Do those examples clarify the concept sufficiently for you?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-18-2019 at 02:44 PM.
  #49  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:52 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,609
Since the phrase "gun control" itself seems to have a negative impact with some gun owners, I can't see how any proposed laws involving actual gun control can pass muster.
  #50  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:03 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post

Not off the top of my head. Hence, this thread.
I suppose you could reduce fees, but this isn't really about money is it? To keep guns out of the criminals, psychotics, and children requires honest upright citizens to have to do some paperwork.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017