Simpler yet, every drivers license carries a checkbox, just like an organ donor permission flag. If you want to buy a gun, ask for a background check and get a new drivers license with a ‘can buy a gun’ permission flag. Optionally, leave the flag out of the license database but that would mean another background check on renewal.
I’m saying that crazy doesn’t mean stupid. A mass shooter might want to avoid places where there are armed people.
The sort of compromise being offered by gun control folks seem to be the sort of compromise that Republicans offer on cutting social safety net programs:
Cut the spending and we will leave you alone for a while before we come back for more cuts.
Similarly gun control folks seem to be offering a temporary hiatus from more efforts at gun control.
So give you most of what you want so that you will stop asking for all of what you want?
Yeah, you guys have been doing a bang up job so far. If you have the NRA on the run, why is everyone on your side accusing the NRA from being the government’s TRUE puppetmasters?
That’s probably right. Do you know how people get nominated? AFAICT, the executives choose the board rather than the other way around.
I think there is some disagreement about whether more gun control leads to the results you describe or just leads to more unarmed citizens.
You could pay the FFL fee and sell through an FFL.
The problem is that I don’t think the results you desire are achievable and you will be back after the next news story with even stricter gun control ideas until we have confiscated all the guns and even THEN we will still have gun violence.
Tell me what you think will solve the problem and be willing to admit that the problem cannot be solved to your satisfaction if you are not satisfied with the results. Otherwise you are saying “let me keep trying ideas that infringe on your rights until I get the results I want”
The challenge is when gun control advocates push for negotiations or compromises. Asking what is being offered in exchange is a way to highlight that the gun control side is not actually willing to compromise or negotiate. As long as proposals aren’t raping the English language by couching proposals in terms of negotiations or compromises, then there would be no challenge asking what is being offered.
I don’t think you give a shit about gun registration in and of itself. I think you want to make it as hard as possible for people to own guns, and ultimately ban guns. Do you? If not, please be specific about what your actual goals are, at a policy level. Saying you want to reduce firearm related death and injury is about as meaningful as saying puppies are super cute.
I’ve answered this question dozens of times, and I’ve come to believe that my answer doesn’t matter. In a month, or two months or a year, I say with great confidence, you will again accuse me of wanting to ban all guns, regardless of my answering it for you here. These discussions are in fact quite tedious because you folks aren’t looking for information or education.
I think that registration is a mechanism that will lead to such an outcome. It is in fact the only way to make sure that felons and the mentally ill do not have firearms.
I think background checks for all gun sales and transfers are another fundamental mechanism to lead to that outcome.
Since you insinuated yourself into a discussion, perhaps that is why you are struggling to understand. I am interested in taking steps that reduce the undesirable outcomes. If there are other steps that reduce the outcome, I want to pursue those outcomes to, BECAUSE THE END GOAL IS THE REDUCTION OF HARM.
How is that hard to grasp? It’s a bit like saying, in regards to auto safety, “We’ll let you have safety glass, or you can have seatbelts. Let’s make a deal.” Or, “You want people to have to register their cars? But we let you have mandatory insurance!”
An entirely worthy goal; there’s just doubt that what you propose will achieve that. And meanwhile the very attempt sets disturbing precedents.
“If we force people to wear seatbelts, this could lead to them being forceably strapped to other things as well!”
If there were people out there explicitly saying that the public can’t be trusted with the freedom to go outdoors unrestrained, yeah.
I didn’t accuse you of wanting to ban all guns. Wanting to ban any guns is sufficient to satisfy my criteria. But let’s ignore the lack of substantive response here, and go back to post 455 where you stated you were interested in that reduce firearms- related death and injury. This is quite vague, so I’d like to see how this plays out in reality. Based on how I understand your statement, you would support the Hearing Protection Act(HPA) by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05). Is that right?
That would reduce firearm related injury by allowing gun owners a means to reduce hearing loss.
Is the converse also true, that you would oppose gun laws that would not reduce firearm related death and injury? How far would that extend I wonder. Would there need to be evidence of specific reductions of firearm related injury or death before you’d support laws that have that goal, or is the goal alone sufficient in your mind?
And what level of reduction of firearm related injury and death would be your target? Is it zero?
Here’s the thing, CA already has background checks on all purchases and registration of firearms. We don’t seem to have a shortage of firearm related injury and death. But in addition to those laws, CA also makes it illegal for me to purchase a Gen 4 Glock 26 because it doesn’t possess micro stamp technology that doesn’t exist or have smartgun technology that doesn’t exist. Do you support that restriction? Trying to get to specifics on how far you extend the goal of reducing firearm related injury and death.
Do you think making it so I cannot purchase a Springfield Armory XD-45 bi-tone stainless steel/black handgun because the color is not approved reduces firearm related injury and death? Because if you do support that restriction, then the umbrella of reducing firearm related injury and death is so large it can cover pretty much any restriction and your adherence to that principle would seem more like a fig leaf to shield more restrictive intentions. So please, elaborate and be specific because saying you want to reduce firearm related injury and death is a great sentiment that I also fully support but that doesn’t seem to add clarity into the difference of opinion between us.
“People”? How many people? Can I base my views on what “people” say too?
Does the National Firearms Act of 1934 count as a gun ban? Would you like to overturn that, and make machine guns freely available? If so, I think you will have a harder time with public opinion than I would trying to ban handguns.
OK, with re. to firearms: Dianne Feinstein, Barak Obama, and Michael Bloomberg to name just three, are persons of power and influence on record as advocating a purge of firearms from society. And that’s just the top of the list; so yes, people do want to take our guns away, and it’s not paranoia.
Not quite, technically it only registers full-auto firearms. but the Hughes Amendment, literally snuck in in the middle of the night, closed the federal registry to new entries, abusing what was supposed to be a regulatory process to enact a de facto ban. In this case regulation meant “regulate down to zero”. And people wonder why gun owners constantly talk about slippery slopes.
So wrt full-auto firearms I personally would like to see a return to the status quo which was fine for 54 years.