A proposal for gun control

[Absolute]

@This_Just_In_2

However, myself and the society I live in is directly impacted by the existence of your sport or hobby. This school in Connecticut had security measures installed, as do other schools across the country. This was paid by taxpayers like myself to protect kids because the gun sport exists. Besides the incalculable cost of the lost lives, taxpayers also pay for many other costs including the police/fire/counseling many are going to need. In addition to this I need to live in fear that my 2 or 5 years old will be the next victim of some deranged guy who gets his hands on a gun that is readily available so people can continue the gun hobby/sport.

Well, I understand what you’re saying. The problem is that your fear is totally irrational. This kind of random gun violence is so rare as to be completely negligible compared to almost any other everyday risk. There are maybe 10 of these incidents per year, and a few hundred people are killed, in a country of 300,000,000. Yes, they are tragic. But they are statistically insignificant. So you are essentially asking us to give up our property, our hobby, and our constitutional right simply to make you feel better about your irrational fear, without having any significant effect on anyone’s safety.

The school security measures were installed to prevent child abductions, not mass shootings. As evidenced by the fact that anyone can simply shoot through the glass and walk in. Children go missing at the rate of 800,000 per year, over 2,000 per day. Over 250,000 of these are abductions. Do you realize how much gigantically larger that risk is to your child than random gun violence?

Cite: http://us.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810

[Little_Nemo]

800,000 missing children a year? That number seems unlikely. There are only about 70,000,000 people under the age of eighteen in the country. If over one percent of the children in America go missing each year, that means one out of every five children would go missing before reaching the age of eighteen.

And the number of homicides each year is higher than a “few hundred”. There were 16,799 homicides in 2009 in the United States, of which 11,493 were classified as firearm homicides. CDC statistics

[Absolute]

@Little_Nemo

800,000 missing children a year? That number seems unlikely. There are only about 70,000,000 people under the age of eighteen in the country. If over one percent of the children in America go missing each year, that means one out of every five children would go missing before reaching the age of eighteen.

And the number of homicides each year is higher than a “few hundred”. There were 16,799 homicides in 2009 in the United States, of which 11,493 were classified as firearm homicides. CDC statistics

Homicides in general are very different from the random mass shootings by deranged individuals that This Just In is living in fear of.

As for the cite, well, I don’t know. I suppose it’s possible that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has padded their numbers to drum up some more donations.

[doorhinge]

@Bibliovore

That’s an entirely separate issue and it doesn’t answer the question. Would these measures reduce gun crime or not? Hunters can still hunt, plinkers can still plink, law-abiding homeowners can still defend their homes. What’s wrong with that?

You’re in favor of turning a huge number of law-abiding, voting, citizens into criminals. The politicians who have proposed such draconian laws in the past usually get unelected.

Your suggested measures don’t address the actual reason why someone is committing a crime. You only want to discuss limiting the tools they chose to use.

Maybe you should consider “over all crime rates” or “violent crime” instead of focusing on “gun” crime.

[DrDeth]

@Bibliovore

Let’s set aside the question of political feasibility for a moment and focus on the question. If these restrictions were effectively and consistently enforced, would they significantly reduce gun crime or not?

Why do private citizens need handguns at all? If you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, then fine, bear arms - own as many long guns as you want. But did the Framers say that anyone has the unassailable right to a handgun?

First of all, I don’t give a rats ass about a reduction in “gun crime”. What I want is a reduction in VIOLENT crime (if criminals turn to chainsaws or bombs, it doest really help). And, there is no solid evidence that gun control laws have any significant effect on **violent crime. **

So, since this is a Right given to us by the Founders, I am loath to give it up just to make gun-a-phones feel safer.

Well, for example, i worked my way thru college as a armed security guard. Even tho I was State licensed, I was a “private citizen”. Would you not say that I needed a handgun while on duty?

And, yes, the Framers did not specify what exactly they meant by Firearms, but SCOTUS has decided that handguns were included in the 2nd Ad.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Bibliovore

So here’s my proposal for controlling guns in America:

[ol]
[li]No semi-autos. Period.[/li][li]No handguns. Period.[/li][li]No detachable magazines - integral magazines only.[/li][li]Integral magazines for any NEWLY-produced guns to be limited to a capacity of 6 rounds maximum.[/li][li]No silencers/suppressors - I can’t think of a single legitimate reason anyone needs these outside the military. Get caught making a homemade version and you do jail time.[/li][/ol]

Here’s why it wouldn’t work:

1. Handguns were given specific protection by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.
2. Semi-automatic handguns were also given specific protection when DC tried to circumvent the elimination of their ban by saying they would only register revolvers.
3. Silencers/suppressors are already heavily regulated, and to get one you have to self-identify yourself to the BATFE. That’s not an answer. It’s not even a problem.

So, here’s my question:

When are you guys going to propose something that a) might in fact accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence, and b) is plausible given the legal status of firearms in this country? The most frustrating thing to me, bar none, is that you guys are using this as carte blanche to propose anything and everything you can think of without even considering the effect that it will have. Virtually all of the proposals I have seen will accomplish nothing except to make you think that you’ve accomplished something.

Now, since I’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll give you MY proposals:

1. All firearm purchases are subject to a background check. All of them. No exceptions.

2. All firearms must be registered through permissive process that does not allow the local government authorities an opinion on the matter. Further, the list must only be accessible to law enforcement in the event of the commission of a crime.

3. Going along with that, a firearm owner must report a stolen weapon as soon as possible, allowing for the possibility that they may be unable to report something they simply don’t know about.

4. HIPAA must be repealed insofar as mental health history must be accessed during the NICS check. If you are unable or unwilling to allow that access you will be denied a firearm.

5. In order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you must pass a test that is modest in scope, offered freely, and is not cost prohibitive. It should not be a thousand questions, given once a year for 15 minutes 500 miles away, or cost $1000.

6. Any crime committed with your firearms will result in you being charged with a crime as well. If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them.

That’s far more proactive than impossible pipe dreams like banning handguns and cosmetic, feel-good silliness like the re-enacted Assault Weapons Ban. Show me the meat, don’t distract me with the sizzle.

[doorhinge]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

…2) All firearms must be registered through permissive process that does not allow the local government authorities an opinion on the matter. Further, the list must only be accessible to law enforcement in the event of the commission of a crime.

6. Any crime committed with your firearms will result in you being charged with a crime as well. If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them.

All mass confiscations begin with registration. An anti-gun government can’t confiscate firearms if they don’t know where they are.

Why should you be charged with a crime if you haven’t commited a crime? If the government can charge you because your property was stolen and used to commit a crime, then you had better start chaining your car to the biggest oak tree you can find and hope you hear the thieves start their chainsaw.

[Maastricht]

@Bibliovore

Create an amnesty where people turn them in in exchange for cash. After the amnesty expires, all remaining guns not fitting these restrictions are deemed illegal. Anyone found in possession of one faces stiff penalties and jail time. All guns turned in during the amnesty are destroyed.

Good idea, except it doesn’t deal with the scenario of “grandpa died and now we found this gun under his matress/stowed away in the attic, now what do we do with it” scenario.

[Maastricht]

@Absolute

Well, I understand what you’re saying. The problem is that your fear is totally irrational. This kind of random gun violence is so rare as to be completely negligible compared to almost any other everyday risk. There are maybe 10 of these incidents per year, and a few hundred people are killed, in a country of 300,000,000. Yes, they are tragic. But they are statistically insignificant. So you are essentially asking us to give up our property, our hobby, and our constitutional right simply to make you feel better about your irrational fear, without having any significant effect on anyone’s safety.

The school security measures were installed to prevent child abductions, not mass shootings. As evidenced by the fact that anyone can simply shoot through the glass and walk in. Children go missing at the rate of 800,000 per year, over 2,000 per day. Over 250,000 of these are abductions. Do you realize how much gigantically larger that risk is to your child than random gun violence?

Cite: http://us.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810

@Little_Nemo

800,000 missing children a year? That number seems unlikely. There are only about 70,000,000 people under the age of eighteen in the country. If over one percent of the children in America go missing each year, that means one out of every five children would go missing before reaching the age of eighteen.

And the number of homicides each year is higher than a “few hundred”. There were 16,799 homicides in 2009 in the United States, of which 11,493 were classified as firearm homicides. CDC statistics

@Absolute

As for the cite, well, I don’t know. I suppose it’s possible that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has padded their numbers to drum up some more donations.

If you read your cite, you’d see that the number is grossly exaggerated. They define "missing"as:

A child can become missing because of a variety of circumstances, such as running away, being abducted, or
being delayed by a mishap on the way home. Even simple misunderstandings about schedules and miscommunications about plans and activities can cause a child to be missing

So that is where that number comes from. The number of “non-family abduction” from home and schools together is 33,000 cases a year.

Nonfamily Abduction
A nonfamily abduction occurs when a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains a child for at least 1 hour in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without
lawful authority or parental permission; or when a child who is younger than 15 years old or is mentally incompetent, without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained by or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently

So of those “33.000 cases of abduction” all but a few percent end in a worried parent and a living kid. Compare that to the listed number of 11,493 firearm homicides, and it is easy to see that if I were a parent in the US, I’d have more to fear for my childs life from fire arms then from abductions. (and even more from swimming pools, but that is another story)

[Mangetout]

It won’t work, in general, because the thing that would prevent gun crime would be to take away the last few guns, not the first few.

[running_coach]

@Maastricht

So of those “33.000 cases of abduction” all but a few percent end in a worried parent and a living kid. Compare that to the listed number of 11,493 firearm homicides, and it is easy to see that if I were a parent in the US, I’d have more to fear for my childs life from fire arms then from abductions. (and even more from swimming pools, but that is another story)

A large majority (60-80% I’ve seen quoted) is criminal on criminal shootings. Another portion would be temper driven.

[Stealth_Potato]

@DMark

So - I think banning hand guns and automatic rifles seems like a rather simple request.

Simple, yes. Reasonable, not so much.

Aside from the facts that handguns are some of the most practical for self-defense and that automatic rifles are more or less exactly what the second amendment protects per U.S. v. Miller, there are millions and millions of these things out there already whose owners aren’t interested in giving them up – and the vast majority of them are respectable law-abiding folks. Heck, I have an AR-15 or three that might be tragically lost in insured boating accidents should their continued possession, regrettably, become unlawful.

I think you’d get a lot more traction, and probably some pretty good results, with simply trying to raise the bar for acquiring handguns. They’re by far the most deadly, and it’s a lot easier to argue that only competent, trained persons willing to subject themselves to a bit of legal scrutiny should be able to possess them. I’m only too happy to agree myself that there are lots of people who really shouldn’t have handguns, and increasing the cost of entry would eventually reduce their ubiquity without really prohibiting anyone from getting one, so long as the abide the aforementioned scrutiny.

Of course, you’d have to be proactive and understand that it may take a while to see results, as a lot of the handguns used in crimes are already possessed illegally.

Unfortunately, even with more moderated proposals like this you run into political difficulties. Many gun owners will still fight tooth and nail, just because of the probability that reasonable restrictions will segue into unreasonable ones. Look at what happened with the Hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA, for example. Posts like Eliahna’s earlier in this thread even suggest it – start with licensing, then ramp up the fee until no one can afford it. If gun rights advocates didn’t have to fear an active extremist minority who want to see all guns confiscated from absolutely everybody, they’d be much more amenable to reasonable proposals aimed at balancing their rights against the public safety.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@doorhinge

All mass confiscations begin with registration. An anti-gun government can’t confiscate firearms if they don’t know where they are.

Why should you be charged with a crime if you haven’t commited a crime? If the government can charge you because your property was stolen and used to commit a crime, then you had better start chaining your car to the biggest oak tree you can find and hope you hear the thieves start their chainsaw.

I hear what you’re saying, and I’ve made those arguments before, but things have changed. I haven’t seen things like this since the early 1990s when the gun control movement was in its heyday. We have to give them something.

Post-Heller/McDonald, that is much easier to abide because there are now legitimate legal assurances that they can’t come around and confiscate weapons. Now it will quite literally require a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment to make that happen. Given that, I’m reservedly okay with it. Ask me again tomorrow. Incidentally, they already know. I know they’re not supposed to know, but they do. A PA state trooper gave me the rundown of everything I had one day, much to my chagrin.

As far as the “stolen guns” argument goes, we have to put some more responsibility on the owners. We just have to. I don’t know about you, but if one of my guns went missing I’d report it right away. There should be a presumption of innocence, they should have to prove that a failure to report was intentional and not just that someone took your stuff and you didn’t know, but firearms cannot just up and walk away with no report. A “stolen” and unreported weapon looks a lot like a straw purchase.

[foolsguinea]

@basset_hound

By all means, let’s put more folks in prison for non-violent crimes. That’s worked out so nicely in the past.

You want to compromise with him, because the alternative is people like me.

I would happily outlaw any weapon that uses gunpowder to fire a heavy metal projectile, and have the penalty for possession be death.

OK, I’m not typical. But the rate of firearm ownership is really low in some of the most densely populated states in the country. It is politically possible to take them all away.

[Stealth_Potato]

@foolsguinea

I would happily outlaw any weapon that uses gunpowder to fire a heavy metal projectile, and have the penalty for possession be death.

An exaggeration, I’m sure, or else you’re not thinking through the likely consequences of condemning to death a very large group of well-armed people. :dubious:

[furdmort]

@Bibliovore

Why do you need a handgun or a detachable magazine for home defense? Wouldn’t a pump-action shotgun with 6,7 or 8 shells be more than adequate?

So far as I know, shotguns are already limited to 3 shells (two in magazine, on in the chamber) in the US. My father had a old shotgun with a plug the magazine to limit it to from the original 5. Wikipedia agrees with what my father told me, but I don’t know which Federal law to point you at.

[Saraya]

You all and your petty useless arguments. acting in the name of altruism only to peddle your political agendas.

Do you not realize life will be life and death will be death?
The cards your dealt are not exchangeable and often the house wins.

As far as I’m concerned there shouldn’t be any background checks. You simply need a photo ID, maybe passport/birth certificate something to prove whom you are - primarily a citizen of the United States - you can even be a ten time convicted criminal, you still have a right to bare arms.

There also shouldn’t be restrictions on the types of firearms available. If you want to own a fully operational gatling gun, be our guest. You want incendiary ammunition, be our guest.

Society is the problem. Fix society and ‘gun issues’ among many others will decline. How do you fix society? Start by checking your moral compass, rather than continuing to let big government be the moral police for you.
Drop the use welfare state programs to ‘raise’ people, where they learn to take and never to give.
This is an all or nothing situation - there is no middle ground.
There is no evidence that gun restrictions have ever reduced violent crime.
There is significant evidence that gun ownership by law abiding citizens HAS decreased violent crime.

Accept it, deal with it and better yet move to Europe - they’re always looking for more crazies.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Instead of outright bans, why not do something like require all new purchases of handguns and “assault” rifles be fitted with fingerprint/DNA scanners so that only the owner of the firearm can actually fire it? The shooter in Connecticut stole the guns from his mother. I know this technology exists. Yes, it will drive up the cost of a gun by a few to several hundred dollars but that in and of itself would be helpful. I suspect that gun owners of means are less likely to commit violent crimes with their weapons. And you keep or make more rigorous the protocols in place already for background checks, etc.

[Bibliovore]

For the record, I’m not American, so changes to your gun control laws will have absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. But I like guns. I’ve used them, am familiar with them, I’ve had to carry one in an active warzone and I believe people should be able to own and use some kinds of guns responsibly. However I can’t help but shake my head in utter disbelief at the attitudes some Americans have about their guns.

One poster upthread said “hey, we only have about 10 such massacres a year, at a cost of a few hundred lives.”

And you’re ok with this? Seriously?

To the people who say that the deaths of these children are statistically insignificant - are you shitting me? You’re prepared to hand-wave away thousands of preventable deaths because you like handguns and “that’s just the price people pay for our freedoms”?

What the ACTUAL fuck?!

To the people that say “killers gonna kill, no matter what”, does that mean that any attempt to reduce these needless deaths is pointless and futile? That you shouldn’t bother trying? How about making it harder for people to kill?

To the people that say “Freedom and security are mutually exclusive” I’d say NO SHIT? Yes, you have to give up some of your freedom to help improve the level of safety in society, that’s called being a responsible member of society! No-one’s telling you to live in a totalitarian regime, but for god’s sake give up some of your guns!

To the people that say “gun restrictions have never reduced violent gun crime”, I’d say you obviously need to go further. If your previous restrictions were toothless, pointless and ineffectual, then stop pussy-footing around and do it properly. Screw pistol-grips. Reduce the number of actual damn guns.

Yet another poster said that owning guns is a Right given to him by the Founders (note the use of capital letters there). To that I’d say that the 2nd Amendment isn’t holy scripture. It’s not an unalterable law of the universe that’s coded into your very DNA. The 2nd Amendment is a document written by well-meaning but fallible, normal men a long time ago who ate, slept and made mistakes just as you do. It might have been right for their time, but the US of today is demonstrably a different place. Times change, needs change, society changes. Why the hell wouldn’t you change something that doesn’t work for you any more?

Are the anti gun-control crowd honestly happy with the status quo? Are the thousands upon thousands of deaths per year seriously a price you’re prepared to pay for your “right” to own a gun. It’s as simple as hell - reduce the actual number of guns! But whenever anyone suggests that, gun owners scream “Aw HELL naw!” and try to suggest changes to the paperwork instead.

Just reduce the number of damn guns! You’re all killing yourselves with them but you’re determined to hang onto them no matter what the cost. Jesus H jumping criminy Christ, do you not see what a bloody, tragic, unholy and avoidable mess you’ve become?

If you don’t make a serious, significant change, the killings are just going to keep happening and you’ll just keep shrugging your shoulders and saying “Well, what’re ya gonna do? Guess that’s just the price of freedom!”

[kayaker]

@furdmort

So far as I know, shotguns are already limited to 3 shells (two in magazine, on in the chamber) in the US. My father had a old shotgun with a plug the magazine to limit it to from the original 5. Wikipedia agrees with what my father told me, but I don’t know which Federal law to point you at.

I’ve heard that plug called a “duck plug”. In certain states, doing certain kinds of hunting, you are limited by the Game Commission on how many shells you can have in the gun.

For a home protection weapon, you just remove the plug.