Are the arms reducing measures proposd by demandaplan.org indeed "common sense"?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I did a search but didn’t see this anywhere.

In response to the Newtown killing spree, celebrities have come up with demandaplan.org, an appeal to the US government to pass what they call “common sense measures”:

The website www.demandaplan.org has a petition, and a link to a vid of celebs demanding measure. The clip features Beyonce, Chris Rock, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Silverman among others.

So what do Dopers think? Are these indeed measures a majority of US voters can agree on?

2

Agree on? I doubt it. Do anything even if passed? No way.

3

When you appeal to the government to pass a law that already exists, you lose some credibility. Straw purchases are already a federal felony for everyone involved.

(Asking for better enforcement of existing laws would be reasonable - while I think the ATF already runs sting operations for this, I don’t know how many.)

4

Criminal background checks are already federally required for all licensed firearms dealers; the problem lies in the average citizen who can legally (in most states) sell their firearms in a private transaction to another citizen. They can’t knowingly sell to a disqualified person, but in a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!” way, there’s no way to prove that they may have knowingly did.

We had an AWB, and Columbine happened anyway. There’s tens, if not hundreds of millions of these guns and magazines already in circulation. How do Demand Plan propose to remove these from circulation? Confiscations and siezures?

As PatriotGrrrl points out it is already a federal crime to knowingly straw purchase. The BATF in recent years has had some success in cracking down on and shutting down retail/gun store outlets that have consistently had their wares turn up at crime scenes.

5

Oh, so celebrities are squawking now.

  • We already have NICS for all purchases, no matter the type of firearm (though I think muzzleloaders are exempt.) Could it be expanded/improved to prevent purchases by people who shouldn’t have them? If so, sure, I’m on board with that. I’d even be on-board with private sales having to be brokered/NICSed by a registered FFL (this would close the so-called “gun show loophole,” which can more accurately be called the “private sale loophole.”)
  • I want a definition of “assault weapon” that isn’t a lazy parroting of what the gov’t said was an “assault weapon” in 1994.
  • Trafficking and straw purchasing are already PMITA felonies.
6

So, if these rules are either already legally in place and mostly un-en forceble, what does that make this campaign?

Woefully uninformed?

Or a clever ploy to channel the emotions after the latest murder into an campaign that won’t attack the pro-gun side?

7

False dilemma. Setting my utter disgust for celebrities aside, it’s probably more a well-meaning campaign to try to do something to prevent another catastrophe like this. They may be ill-informed, but I don’t think it’s anything more than never wanting to see this happen again.

8

Moved MPSIMS --> IMHO.

9

I vote well-intentioned but ill-informed as to some aspects of the issue (as mentioned, the “private individual sale” loophole does need tightening). Heck, even lawmakers themselves are notorious for every so often proposing redundant legislation on a “don’t just sit there, do SOMETHING” fit (and good heavens do they take it personally when you point that out), when they should be calling for improved enforcement .

10

That’s the “gun show loophole”, right?

I am not sure how the Demand Plan people think it could happen, but to me it seems that most who legally collect those weapons are still interested in being legal. How about at least making it a legal requirement to have those weapons securely stored (in some above and beyond manner). Maybe make possession of the magazines illegal. Couple with a modest buyback as they lose their appeal if you can’t take them out and use them ever. No of course it won’t eliminate the risk, some (I think only few) current legal gun owners will ignore the law and become criminals, and the lowering of the numbers will be both gradual and incomplete, but reasonable approaches are about risk reduction, not elimination.

This is not aimed at you ExTank but at some others in these debates - how about instead of pointing out how those who do not know guns well but are afraid of some of them (and pushed over an edge after this latest event) are ignorant, you constructively propose what could lower risks in a reasonable way without imposing undue restrictions on the vast majority of sane and law abiding gun owners and collectors? No, armed school guards and pistol packing principals is not a serious response.

Yes, the visceral response to this event has led to huge fear reaction in many parents, disproportionate to the risk that each of their children actually faces of being victimized in a mass shooting by a crazy person. Just like parents are disproportionately fearful of the sexual predator hiding in the bushes. (But will let the extra kid ride unbuckled every so often.) Nevertheless the response needs to address those fears, not magnify them. And those fears cannot be ignored.