For Gun Control Advocates: What Are "Common Sense Gun Laws" and What Laws Would Go Too Far?

Great Debates
61

This is what I don’t understand. Who is a rabid anti-gun type? And I don’t mean to pick on you, there are several other gun advocates on this board who use the formulation that there are people out there that just want to get rid of guns, period.

I am not saying that no one like this exists, and I am not even saying for sure that no one influential like this exists, but I really don’t think that attributing these motives to anyone looking to regulate the availability of guns does the gun advocate side any favors. If I want to get gun violence down, and am looking at ways to do that, that doesn’ mean I am rabidly anti-gun, it doesn’t mean I hate guns, it doesn’t mean that I want to see all guns removed from society, it just means I want to see less gun violence, and am trying to engage with those who not only consider themselves experts in the field, but would be most impacted by any legislation, on ways of doing that.

I always see motives attributed to those who are looking at ways of reducing gun violence as “wanting to take all the guns”, or calling them things like rabid anti-gun types, but at the same time, if a gun control advocate said that a pro-gun position was “wanting to have more people murdered”, you would consider that to be a non-serious argument.

Can we at least agree to stop impugning motivations when there is no evidence for them? That does tend to cause divisions and make solving problems harder. It shuts down the debate every time, because now one side needs to defend their motives, not just their actions, and defending motives is hard when your opponent refuses to believe you.

I agree with the universal background check part, especially about it applying to private sales as well, but that’s a tough sale. I’ve suggested it myself (I think, or at least I was in a thread defending it), and the gun advocates say it’s pretty much a non-starter. It is not something that they would agree to. They want to be able to sell their gun to a friend or family member without the govt being involved, and there is no budging them on that issue.

Licensing and registration, great idea. We know who has guns, so if a gun turns up being used for a crime, we can ask the person who bought it from the FFL in the first place how a criminal got ahold of it. If it turns out that a bunch of criminals are turning up with guns from a particular individual, there’s a decent chance that that individual is breaking some laws involving straw.

Training is a great idea as well, though I wold start younger, and not just involve the gun owners. I’d start with kindergarten, “Gun Ed.” (Firearms identification, use and safety.), and teach all the kids on how to use a gun safely from that young an age. Teach them about guns and terminology, so that if they get into a discussion about gun availability, their argument is not summarily dismissed because they called a pistol a rifle. Pass out disabled guns for them to hold and mess with. Reinforce gun safety. If someone points their disabled gun at another kid or the teacher, severe verbal chastisement is in order. Maybe we can condition and socialize so that pointing a gun at someone else is just as revolting to them as shitting your pants in public. That may reduce accidental deaths a bit, from kids curious about dad’s gun that he keeps on the top shelf of the closet type incidents, and it may also reduce crime in people later in life, if they are conditioned not to point guns at people.

People never much like it when they get stuff taken away from them. For 20 years, if you had tried to take away my cigarettes… well, I don’t know how far I’d go, but it is not impossible that I’d elect a man like trump if he promised to stop you from taking my cigarettes. The last 5, I’ve been a bit less passionate about my vape, but I’d still be pretty pissed if it got taken away from me.

I see guns as a similar addiction. It’s hard to be rational about an addiction. It’s even harder to rationally give up an addiction. Even harder… listening to someone else try to make you give up your addiction.

So, while I think that most of those are good ideas that I would certainly get behind, I don’t see getting on board any of the people that currently care about their guns the way I do about nicotine.

[quote=“Falchion, post:59, topic:797971”]

I guess my thinking is that while suicide makes up 2/3 of firearm deaths, firearms are only used in 50% of suicides. I’m not going to try parse any statistics (because I’m not good at it), but if any material number of the attempted/accomplished suicides that are not done by gun transfer over, then the number of suicides may increase because guns are more effective. Given that economic conditions are often considered to be a significant driver in suicide attempts, if suicide turned out to be a good way to provide for your family, I worry about the incentives.

Maybe suicide would have a lower payout than homicide, but I do feel that gun owners should bear the burden of the cost to society that guns pose. I feel that there are many who committed suicide that would not have, had guns not been as convenient to acquire and use.

I’d say that maybe instead of a premium you pay yearly, maybe a tax on ammo and reloading supplies.

I dunno, on this, I’m just spitballing I haven’t though all that much on it, but it does seem to me that it is only fair that gun owners pay bear the some of burden to society that guns impose, as as it is now, it is non-gun owners who bear that burden.

Point is, then gun owners have an incentive to find ways of reducing their costs on payouts. I don’t have the answers on how to reduce gun violence, and I don’t have the authority to impose them if I did. It needs an incentive to gun owners in order to find a way.

62

Well, there ARE people who just want to get rid of all guns. On this board there are several. And there are people who are willing to do anything, to spin the data anyway, to pass legislature that they KNOW isn’t going to do anything more than being another step on the road to a total ban which is their goal. And they are willing to lie about that legislature and lie about their final intent in many cases.

Those are the rabid anti-gun people. Comparable to the rabid pro-gun people who are willing to do the same sorts of things to achieve their goals. There are several of those on the board as well. I’m not going to comb through every thread to identify those people for you. If you haven’t seen either type then all I can say is you haven’t been paying attention either on this board or nationally. Sadly, those two types are what is driving this issue, the narrative and the discussion, which is why nothing ever gets done. Frankly, today, that plays into the pro-gun side more than the anti-gun side right now. Unfortunately, it’s the anti-gun side that put us where we are, IMHO through decades of slimy dog tactics. There is so much bad blood, hatred and distrust between the two groups and they are so rabidly opposed to each other at this point that I don’t see that changing until there is another sea change in our society and outlook…which, will probably put the anti-gun folks back on top, doing everything they can to take advantage of that, and setting the stage for yet another confrontation. We just spin our wheels getting no where.

I’m not impugning anyone’s motives, simply pointing out reality. There are people who want total and complete bans on all guns. There are people who just want to ban most guns or so heavily restrict them that only a few could have them. On the other side, there are people who want no restrictions on guns, no regulations and want them to be available to anyone without hassle or restraint. There are some who are good with a few restrictions but mainly to keep them out of the hands, in theory, of criminals or…well, don’t want to impugn motives so I’ll leave it at ‘well’. There are a bunch of people in the middle, falling somewhere along the spectrum.

You missed the point. If you HAD tried to take cigarettes away there would have been an uproar, and probably MORE people would want to smoke. That’s not what we did though, having failed miserably with trying that with alcohol (and continuing to fail wrt drugs). Tobacco is a good model for exactly what I’m talking about…change the attitude of the people over time and, eventually, they will stop wanting to fight so hard for whatever it is. You don’t have to snatch it from them…make them not really want it or change their attitude towards it and eventually the majority will voluntarily give it up.

How has the war on drugs worked out for us? How has making it illegal done for making people give up their addiction? From where I’m sitting, it’s done dick all except put a lot of people behind bars, costing our society a hell of a lot of pain, suffering, and money.

63

The rabid pro-gun folks are out there buying a lot of firearms, and rushed to buy the rapid fire mods post Vegas in case their is a ban.

The rabid anti-gun folks haven’t accomplished jack shit, and this shouldn’t be a point for debate. Rabid anti-gun camp have been proven to be failures at getting baby steps passed much less gun grabbing or a repeal (in full accordance with the US constitution) of the 2nd.

Net net result: YMMV

As for the insurance, some of the folks are picking nits and ignoring the broader implication. To wit, most firearm owners are self proclaimed “responsible” firearm owners. As an insurance advocate (with an analogy to automobile insurance but folks playing at home, this is an *analogy *not evidence so let’s not rathole on the analogy), I and Uncle Sugar are not trying to tell you how to secure your legally purchased, owned and register firearm in your home. That said, if your firearm becomes a “tragic accident” with a child, you *are *criminally and civilly responsible. No “pass” because it was an “tragedy”. Required to carry insurance in such an event with insurance company actuarials setting the rates. You get your firearm, and the rest of us get something more than good intentions that if your efforts fall short, there is a real cost and real way to pay for those costs.

Note: Suicides don’t get life insurance payouts. I don’t see the fear that the insurance companies won’t be able to get the same incentive suicide clause written in. That would moronic.

Firearm owners, responsible or otherwise, impose a societal cost. They are free riders in the US economic system, and are arguing for a pass. I think they should stop sucking at the government teat and start paying their freight. YMMV.

64

I’m sure changes or modifications to policies can be made, but the above isn’t generally true. It may vary state by state, but many carriers will have an “incontestable” clause. Something like, barring fraud, after 2 years the policy is incontestable, including incidents of suicide.

In any event, the insurance model for firearms also isn’t very applicable since crime and intentionalnacts are typically excluded. That leaves accidental death and injury, which are relatively infrequent events. In the example you have, where a child gets a hold of a firearm from a parent, how would the payout work I’d they impact themselves or other family members? And others?

Maybe you’re thinking more like a mandatory contribution to a fund, like a recycling charge. Depends on the details, but a type of surcharge for exercising constitutionally protected activity doesn’t strike me as viable, legally.

65

Others may be arguing for the some kind of pool. Not I.

I’m for pretty clean, user based insurance akin to auto insurance. Your firearm involved in a wounding or death, then there is insurance to cover the “defined” costs. Be it accidental death or injury, or justifiable self protection. If a non justifiable self protection would be covered, that would be up to the insurance company and policy provisions. Whether there is an “uninsured firearm” type coverage (akin to “uninsured motorists” that we all pay for now) is a separate debate (worth having).

Frankly, I am sickened every time a child accidently gets ahold of a gun and wounds/kills themselves, a peer or a parent. It *is *a tragedy but a preventable one. Rather than have the government tell firearm owners how to secure the firearm, put the onus on the firearm owner. And with such freedom, comes great responsibility. Such owners need insurance for the survivors, and need to face the legal repercussions should there be an accident.

Again, this is NOT the government mandating how to secure a firearm, but unleashing full force of the law/significant penalties/guaranteed victim compensation if the owner falls short in their responsibility. Falling short of securing your fire arm (aka child or other innocent is killed), is both a tragedy and a legal responsibility.

Just so you know where I come from. I was raised by a WW2 and Korean War combat veteran with hunting rifles in the house when I grew up. Some of the most memorable experiences I’ve ever had is going out to the country and completely and inexcusably irresponsibly blowing off as many rounds as possible whilst slamming an inordinate amount of beer (and of course shooting the bottles every way from Sunday). Hella fun. :smiley: I also happen to have a somewhat functioning child on the autism spectrum. The only way I can guarantee there will NOT be a firearm accident in my very safe, yuppy suburb, is to not have a firearm in my house.

66

That’s cool, nobody knows everything about everything.

The problem isn’t so much new sales moving forward, the main problem is mostly caused by semi automatic rifles being 100 years old now. Even the venerable AR-15 was first designed and proto-typed in 1958. There are lots and LOTS of SAR’s in circulation, ranging from wooden looking classical hunting rifles to super scary looking warfare rifles, but they’re all functionally the same. Self loading, one trigger, one pull, one bullet. So, the challenge really, is not so much to regulate new sales but rather, how to get all the existing firearms out of circulation.

The Australian compulsory buyback experience showed two things… it was hellishly expensive at roughly $400 million AUD for 320,000 SAR’s and it’s estimated roughly 10% were never handed in regardless. My neighbor, for example, happily admits he still has two 5.56mm SAR’s in his home.

67

If a child gets a hold of a firearm and kills themself, how does the payout work?

68

Here’s an example.

And another.

And another. (Note the 2nd paragraph.)

And another. (Note the 4th paragraph.)

69

Why is a child’s death from a firearm any more sickening than a child’s being run over by a car? Drowning in a bath tub? Beaten to death by their parent/legal guardian?

All the above come in way ahead of firearm deaths in the leading causes of death for children.

Collective accountability/collective punishment? Really?!

Tell me this isn’t a sick fucking joke. Please.

70

The reality is that no “common sense” restrictions will prevent the LV shooting, nor will they make a dent in the other tens of thousands of deaths that occur every year.

The only one that comes close without being a complete ban is to ban semi-automatic rifles, and highly restrict handguns.

Anything short of that and you’re not actually solving a problem, you’re just putting up window dressing.

71

It’s because we need motor vehicles, bathtubs, and parents. We don’t need guns, they’re optional.

If I asked a genie to get rid of all the (non-military) guns in our country, the biggest fallout would be the closing of gun stores. If I got rid all the motor vehicles, 100 million people would be dead in a month as our economy grinds to a halt. Let’s not pollute the debate with nonsense about how Liberals don’t care enough about dead people as long as they’re not killed by guns.

72

You’re wrong, flat out wrong. Feral pests require huge amounts of culling. And criminals would obtain guns, just like they do in the United Kingdom. All those terrorist shootings in Paris in November 2015? None of those guns were available for sale in France, they were all smuggled in. What evidence can you provide that says the United States would be any less susceptible to illegal smuggling? Your premise, quite frankly, is based on a fantasy.

73

If the firearm came form the kid’s household, obviously, the parents and family would get nothing. I’d say, it should be paid out into a fund to educate children on gun safety. Of course, situations like this are bit complicated.

According to that article, “According to Everytown for Gun Safety, there have been at least 215 unintentional shootings by children this year.” Isn’t that a stat that we could be proud of doing something about?

74

So “The odds that smuggling may happen” is your rationale for why you make laws?

Why is the fact that criminals can obtain guns illegally relevant to whether we should have laws restricting ownership?

The only answer is that you see yourself in a shootout with a criminal, and dispensing justice. Without your piece you are insufficiently armed. (In the situation, but also maybe just generally?)

Who is living in a fantasy?

75

Altho the NRA does give such a course and in CA at least you have to have such a course to get a hunting license (and the NRA does not oppose this at all), some jurisdictions would try having said course available only on alternate Febuary 29ths, if that falls on a weekday, registration must be done 1 year in advance, cost is $5000.

Altho that sounds far fetched, getting a concealed weapon permit in many counties of CA is about that hard. Basically you cant unless you are a celebrity or donate heavily to politcal campaigns.

You can’t do that with bullets and guns already have them.

76

Automobile* owners* do not need insurance. You only need insurance if you drive your car on public roadways.

77

This is not true, That study was biased and faulty.

Yes, the number of criminals *killed *in self defense is low. There is no good number for number of criminal *scared off *by showing a gun, but anecdotally that number seems to be very high.

78

Pretty much handguns were banned in DC, before Heller.
Indeed suicides can get Life insurance pay outs, but only if the policy has been in effect at least a year.

79

Citation, please.

You’re claiming “going door-to-door,” not raids on speakeasies or on a home for which a tip has been received, remember.

80

France and the UK both have far less shootings than the US.