You’re correct about the storage, doesn’t matter what kind of weapon it is, if it’s locked away where people can’t get it, it can’t be used.
As far as what to do with all the existing weapons, I’d suggest that the licencing and registration elements are enforced on existing weapons, with an amnesty period during which people have time to either get a licence and register their guns, or hand them in (buy back).
After a defined period (12 months? longer?) if they’ve done neither, their possession becomes illegal and if they happen to be caught with them, significant fines and/or Jail.
For the record, mine is “won’t work there”. I’m English, I fully support and cherish our very strict gun laws, but I don’t think you can just copy and paste them to the USA and expect good outcomes.
To have a meaningful impact on gun crimes, you need to remove the last few guns - which is what the UK laws strive to do.
Before you even get anywhere close to that in the USA, you’d need to remove the first few guns, which is difficult, unpopular, and won’t make a difference to gun crime.
In order to have any hope of chipping away at the number of guns in the wrong hands, you need to have removed nearly all guns from all hands - which again, is a slightly more realistic goal for the UK laws than it could ever be in America.
It varies state by state. Michigan requires registration of handguns (including CO2/air pellet pistols.) You go to the local police dept (or county sheriff if you don’t live in an incorporated city,) fill out a purchase application, wait overnight for approval, and go back to get the purchase record. This applies whether its a private sale or a sale by a dealer. There was some talk of passing legislation to ease this, but that’s obviously notgonnahappen.com.
Even without nationwide registration, I’d wager it wouldn’t be too hard to track down a large number of them. Each sale by a licensed dealer has to be recorded on a Form 4473. Dealer keeps those records on hand until they exit the business, at which time they’re turned in to the ATF. an audit of current FFL holders would lead to a large percentage of the original purchaser of a hell of a lot of guns.
I’m an Aussie and i agree that you can’t copy and paste english or Australian laws into America, the culture is different and there is no chance in hell you’ll ever totally remove guns from the USA, the culture is too entrenched.
That’s why I suggested starting with control. Licencing, registration and storage laws. People can still have guns legally, just with oversight. Get that working you restrict the movement. Next you restrict what kind are available. I do not understand in what universe people think walking around the streets carrying a loaded handgun is in anyway normal. That’s warzone stuff or cowboy and injun movie stuff. And no self respecting hunter needs a semi automatic rifle.
The problem is solvable without removing guns from society, but it will take time and patience.
Maybe, but I’m not sure it’s a cake that can now be un-baked. At least not without anticipating an increase of unpleasant outcomes before any benefits are ever realised.
For all we know at this point, the guns WERE locked in a safe. Perhaps the murderer knew the combination; his mother seems not to have realized how disturbed he was, and may have mistakenly trusted him with that information. Or perhaps he broke into the safe. Gun safes aren’t completely impregnable.
This is a good example of a cultural difference. I in turn don’t understand why you’re so freaked out by lawful citizens legally carrying handguns. They generally have to pass both background checks and tests in order to do so (this varies by state), and crime statistics show no change when legal carry is allowed. Law-abiding people just don’t abuse the carry laws. So why does it freak you out so?
To me, it sounds like banning sports cars because they can be driven too fast. Unless there’s data showing that sports car drivers in aggregate speed more and break more traffic laws than other drivers, the ban’s a pointless restriction of freedom.
But then I’m an American and you’re an Australian. Different cultures do see things differently, and there’s not usually a single ‘correct’ view, just a different set of values and a differing weighing of tradeoffs.
I disagree with this. I think it’s possible to have a meaningful impact on gun crimes here in the United States by confiscating guns from known felons, cracking down HARD on straw-man purchasers, and mandating that guns be stored in safes so they’re not trivially easy to steal (with legal penalties for failure to do so, and for failure to promptly report a theft). Criminal sentencing can also be harsher if a gun was used in the commission of a crime as opposed to another weapon. Those things would make a meaningful difference, especially over time, without overly restricting law-abiding citizens (although they wouldn’t reduce gun crimes to zero).
I do think she should have done more - in her situation, I wouldn’t have stored the guns in the house. But I don’t think she has the same legal culpability as the parents of an underage shooter do. At 20, a person is fully responsible for his actions, criminal or otherwise.
I guess that might make a some sort of difference, but with an enormous pool of other guns in more or less free circulation, taking a few away from the bad guys isn’t going to stop them simply acquiring replacements, is it?
You are still missing the fundamental point. Many Americans don’t WANT to restrict the kinds that are available. We live in a *democracy *where people are allowed to vote on what they want, and so that does represent quite a big sticking point.
Concealed carry requires licensing and training in almost every state. Also, every purchase is recorded and a criminal warrant check is conducted. Further, the Supreme Court has already shot down mandatory storage laws. The fundamental purpose of owning a gun is self-defense, and storage prevents it from being used for that purpose.
You don’t live in America. In some parts of America, this is extremely normal. If I am law-abiding and will only use my gun in the defense of human life, why would you want to restrict my ability to carry one? The criminals will carry a gun whether it is illegal or not. And once again, in a free democracy we are allowed to vote on what we think “normal” should be.
Why are you making this assumption? Hunting is not relevant. I keep semiautomatic rifles so that I can kill human beings. If the police are absent or ineffective, or the government descends into tyranny and must be overthrown, I want the biggest damn gun I can get my hands on. The ability to overthrow a tyrannical government is one of the fundamental reasons behind owning a gun… and also why the government does not get to know where our guns are.
This is why we say America is “free,” because human beings can make their own decisions and resist unjust authority… like people are doing in Libya and Syria.
Maybe we should focus on preventing shootings instead of punishing those of us who have committed no crime.
He is, but I think you picked the wrong one. What he’s not getting is how important the concept of freedom is to Americans, to the point that it trumps many other moral considerations. Stephen Frye once said that this was something that he found very different about America, that they saw freedom as a moral concept, and not just a methodology to produce a more moral outcome.
I don’t think he thinks that gun owners want registration. I think he just thinks that there are enough people who would realize that, even though it’s undesirable, it’s the right thing to do. He’s not counting on the people who think the freedom to own a gun being a moral issue on par with the moral issue of preventing gun violence.
I think this is part of the fundamental disconnect in the whole America vs everyone else discussion. I don’t live in a culture where I expect to need to overthrow the goverment by violence and I don’t ever wake up in the morning with the expectation that I may possibly need to kill someone today.
The biggest impression that I got reading about Britain’s gun ban was the fast reaction to a tragedy. One disturbed person’s actions cost an entire nation their rights of ownership in only 18 months.
We’re seeing the same attitude here. Obama wants recommendations from VP Biden’s group next month. Theres no way any meaningful thought will go into this problem. Thankfully we have the 2nd amendment but I’m bracing myself for whatever restrictions they throw together.
You know, there’s been a *bit *more than just one shooting incident- this latest one is just, by far, the most visible. And we had another one just a few months ago. Hell, there was one today during the NRA press conference! At what point is it acceptable to say, “Hang on, maybe we’ve got a problem here?”