For Gun Rights Advocates - Gun control you would support?

[XT]

I’d support closing the ‘gun show loophole’, requiring a license to own a gun and requiring people to purchase or sell all guns through a licensed dealer, going through the standard forms and background checks my dad always has to go through when he buys a gun at his favorite gun shop. While I think these controls would rankle a lot of gun owners and would be impediments to ownership, I don’t see how they contradict the 2nd, and I think that they would make the general public more calm about gun ownership. I don’t believe they would have much effect on crimes such as these random shootings, nor would I expect gun crime or violence to drop substantially faster than it already is dropping, but that doesn’t mean they would be worthless.

[Algher]

@Buck_Godot

Not to hijack, but the concern about the voter ID was that one side of the political spectrum got an advantage with the disenfranchisement of the other side, and that it may lead to additional expense over what should otherwise require no money. In the case of guns, there isn’t the same political interest in suppressing gun ownership among a particular minority. And purchasing a gun already requires an investment of capital, unless you want to claim that the 2nd amendment guarantees that the government provides a gun to anyone who wants one free of charge.

A lot of early gun control was passed to keep guns out of the hands of poor blacks. California first passed some of their open carry laws after Huey Newton showed up in Sacramento with his shotgun.

So, yes, licensing and permits can be an excellent way of ensuring that only the right people are able to exercise their Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[jasg]

@Stealth_Potato

Quite possible. I’m just saying that I consider licensing to be acceptable in principle, not that it would necessarily pass constitutional muster.

If the registration of ‘machine guns’ in the 1934 National Firearms Act has passed muster, why would registration or licensing fail constitutional muster for all firearms?

[JXJohns]

@XT

I’d support closing the ‘gun show loophole’, requiring a license to own a gun and requiring people to purchase or sell all guns through a licensed dealer, going through the standard forms and background checks my dad always has to go through when he buys a gun at his favorite gun shop. While I think these controls would rankle a lot of gun owners and would be impediments to ownership, I don’t see how they contradict the 2nd, and I think that they would make the general public more calm about gun ownership. I don’t believe they would have much effect on crimes such as these random shootings, nor would I expect gun crime or violence to drop substantially faster than it already is dropping, but that doesn’t mean they would be worthless.

Sounds good on paper, but how will it be enforced? IIRC only 40% of all transactions go through an FFL today. How would the Feds know if people were truly using FFLs to transfer weapons? I suggest that the only way to track those sales through FFLs is to also implement a registration system. I would bet that would more than just rankle gun owners.

[XT]

@JXJohns

Sounds good on paper, but how will it be enforced? IIRC only 40% of all transactions go through an FFL today. How would the Feds know if people were truly using FFLs to transfer weapons? I suggest that the only way to track those sales through FFLs is to also implement a registration system. I would bet that would more than just rankle gun owners.

You wouldn’t be able to, perfectly. A lot of things are sold under the table in quasi-legal (or, hell, totally illegal) ways. But it would be something. I don’t think it would lower gun crime, and certainly wouldn’t prevent or even lower the rate of mass shootings like the one that’s sparked all of this, but I don’t think that’s the only factor in all of this.

[YogSothoth]

@CJJ

I respect your position, but can you understand how this “give 'em an inch and they’ll take a mile” attitude could make some on the gun-control side think that you really aren’t in favor of these requirements?

This, IMO, seems to be the problem with the gun-control debate; the pro-gun side will happily talk about all sorts of possible gun restrictions (well, not NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who’s press conference today was a ridiculous side-show), but once these gain any kind of political traction there’s always some new reason why they won’t support it. It makes me think they really don’t see any problem here at all, but are just entertaining the debate in the hopes it will peter out once the media finds the next shiny object.

I’m anti-guns and this is what I believe the pro-gun side is. They talk big about safety, good regulation “no more laws on guns! just enforce the laws already existing (nevermind we’re all trying to overturn them)” but when push comes to shove, they always fall back on the same old excuses about the slippery slope. As far as I’m concerned, none of them are honest about it, their paranoia in owning a weapon fuels that belief and fear they live with daily, always concerned that “they” are out to get their guns. There is no reason to believe any of them, ever, until they put up and actually vote for gun control laws.

@John_Mace

I think the licensing requirement wouldn’t stand up in court. If you have a right to own a gun unless the licensing process is pro forma then it would seem to violate that right. And if it were pro forma what’s the point? Unless I’m missing something…

It should stand up in court. At least a court where at least 5 of its 9 members read the rest of the 2nd Amendment, the part about being well regulated and part of some militia. That’s why its laughable to me whenever the pro-gun side whine about regulations. You have the right to bear arms…with regulations. And if you cannot meet those regulations then you do NOT have the right to bear arms

[XT]

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I’m anti-guns and this is what I believe the pro-gun side is. They talk big about safety, good regulation “no more laws on guns! just enforce the laws already existing (nevermind we’re all trying to overturn them)” but when push comes to shove, they always fall back on the same old excuses about the slippery slope. As far as I’m concerned, none of them are honest about it, their paranoia in owning a weapon fuels that belief and fear they live with daily, always concerned that “they” are out to get their guns. There is no reason to believe any of them, ever, until they put up and actually vote for gun control laws.
[/QUOTE]

You say this as if gun owners and people with a pro-gun position are supposed to forget that until fairly recently there was a relentless drive by the anti-gun people to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment and their rights out of existence and ban everything and anything they could. I’d say that things like the AWB are pretty good evidence that the slippery slope DOES exist, and that the folks being dishonest were the gun grabbers in the past. But now, all that is supposed to be forgotten suddenly because now, it’s different? :dubious:

It should stand up in court. At least a court where at least 5 of its 9 members read the rest of the 2nd Amendment, the part about being well regulated and part of some militia. That’s why its laughable to me whenever the pro-gun side whine about regulations. You have the right to bear arms…with regulations. And if you cannot meet those regulations then you do NOT have the right to bear arms

Leaving aside the part about the 2nd which I disagree with, I actually agree with the first part here…I think it would stand up in court. Nothing says that you can’t regulate fire arms ownership and use…or that you can’t require a license.

[Zakalwe]

[quote=“Bone, post:1, topic:644757”]

[li]Magazine size limits – there are times larger magazines can aid in defense and really, there is no efficacy in limiting the size[/li][/QUOTE]
? If you can’t hit what you’re aiming at with 8-10 shots, then put the fucking gun down. You don’t know what you’re doing and will probably only hurt innocent people.

[rat_avatar]

@Zakalwe

? If you can’t hit what you’re aiming at with 8-10 shots, then put the fucking gun down. You don’t know what you’re doing and will probably only hurt innocent people.

Missing your target is a very serious concern but your post is a little unrealistic due to the adrenaline response.

This is why taking away peoples target shooting ammo is a very bad idea, the only way to maintain good accuracy during a adrenaline dump is to make sure you are using muscle memory.

You typically don’t have time to even shoot that many rounds if you are stuck in a highly unlikely and highly unfortunate event which forces you to use deadly force.

The main reasons why competitive shooters like large capacity magazines is that it allows them more practice time to work on accuracy between the physical interruption of reloading.

In a horrid spree shooter event their magazine capacity seems to to have little to do with their murder count. Look at Seung-Hui Cho as an example, he has the highest body count and only had 10 and 15 round magazines for his pistols.

I have already stated I am for giving private sales the right to do background checks and to “re-open” the “kitchen table gun dealer” hole which would allow low volume gun show dealers access to background checks.

But the mag size limit will do little to save lives.

[cckerberos]

Slippery slope arguments aren’t unreasonable when it comes to gun control because there is a vocal minority of gun control advocates who do indeed want to see all or virtually all guns banned. It’s the same reason you can’t blame pro-choice activists from opposing legislation on abortion that is not, by itself, restrictive.

I can agree with the 3 suggestions from Cory Booker mentioned above.

As far as other proposals go:
[ul]
[li] Mandatory training: I support it so long as its inexpensive and readily available, I guess. But I don’t think gun accidents are a significant concern in this country, so don’t expect it to have much of an effect. [/li][li] Magazine size limitations: Again, I don’t think these would have a large impact. But I guess I could support restrictions on the larger drum mags, etc. I wouldn’t support anything smaller than 15 rounds or so.[/li][li] Body armor restrictions: Oppose.[/li][li] Storage requirements: I guess I could support them for non-emergency use weapons or in households with children.[/li][li] Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms: Support.[/li][li] Ammunition purchase size restrictions: Oppose.[/li][li] Semi-auto ban: Oppose.[/li][li] “Assault weapon” ban: Oppose.[/li][/ul]

Honestly, I don’t see any of these proposals doing anything other than making a small dent in the numbers, though. Hell, almost all of the conversation in the wake of the Newtown shootings have concentrated on guns like the AR-15 when handguns are responsible for 75% of the deaths. No law seriously restricting access to handguns has any chance of passing, so good luck in having any real impact.

[PandaBear77]

1. No.

2. Wouldn’t work and besides, how would it be decided who gets a gun and who doesn’t? I’m on 2 antidepressants and ADHD meds – am I too “crazy” to own a gun? Says who? I’ve never had a psychiatric hospitalization and I’m painfully normal. And how fast would those who do the deciding be sued when someone actually crazy slips through the cracks and is allowed to buy a gun and then shoots up a Wal-Mart? (LOTS of mentally ill people don’t go to doctors in the first place.) I read medical records all day for a living – the number of mistakes I find in them are staggering. Many doctors can’t get their patients’ damn gender right in the notes (much less their medications, past medical history, etc.) and we’re gonna let medical records be the basis on which someone is allowed to buy a firearm?

3. I wouldn’t have a problem with this per se however the classes would have to be dirt cheap. I doubt it’d have any impact on gun deaths, though.

[JXJohns]

@cckerberos

Honestly, I don’t see any of these proposals doing anything other than making a small dent in the numbers, though. Hell, almost all of the conversation in the wake of the Newtown shootings have concentrated on guns like the AR-15 when handguns are responsible for 75% of the deaths. No law seriously restricting access to handguns has any chance of passing, so good luck in having any real impact.

It’s easy to try and ban assault weapons and big mags because they look scary. Per the US Justice Department, they have been responsible for 385deaths since 2004. The anti’s still want to go for them instead of pistols and non assault weapons that are causing the real problem. :dubious:

[Bone]

@JXJohns

Sounds good on paper, but how will it be enforced? IIRC only 40% of all transactions go through an FFL today. How would the Feds know if people were truly using FFLs to transfer weapons? I suggest that the only way to track those sales through FFLs is to also implement a registration system. I would bet that would more than just rankle gun owners.

This is how it functions currently in CA and all law abiding people follow the rules. Pistols are registered, long guns are not. Does it make sense? No - just like most of CA laws.

@Zakalwe

? If you can’t hit what you’re aiming at with 8-10 shots, then put the fucking gun down. You don’t know what you’re doing and will probably only hurt innocent people.

My go to home defense weapon isn’t stored with multiple magazines accessible. In CA, 10 round mag limit is the law, unless you possess pre-ban mags. Multiple mags takes up space, and I really don’t want to fumble around with extra magazines if I don’t have to. That being said, imagine 2-3 attackers. Police hit rate is somewhere near 20%. You can do the math if 10 is enough, but I really would rather have more ammunition than I need. And for law abiding folks, who really are the vast vast majority of gun owners, a 30 round mag or a 100 round mag wont make any difference in gun safety. That and the practice time on the range that rat avatar mentioned.

[Grumman]

I’d be fine with mandatory training. That is, I’d be fine with gun safety being taught in schools, the same way I’d support sex education being taught in schools.

[JXJohns]

@Grumman

I’d be fine with mandatory training. That is, I’d be fine with gun safety being taught in schools, the same way I’d support sex education being taught in schools.

Agree. To get my CCW, I had to attend mandatory training. It was a good time and I actually learned a few things. Pretty painless. I would add that a strengthened background check passed, combined with mandatory training passed would equal automatic approval for a concealed weapons permit. A decent trade off.

[Zakalwe]

@Bone

And for law abiding folks, who really are the vast vast majority of gun owners, a 30 round mag or a 100 round mag wont make any difference in gun safety. That and the practice time on the range that rat avatar mentioned.

We’re not really worried about law abiding folks, are we?

Interesting thing. Around here all ranges have a rule that you are not allowed to rest a loaded weapon. The few guys I know that take their ARs to the range either bring the smaller mags or only load 10 or so rounds into the big mags. Why? Because shooting 30 rounds without a pause is exhausting!

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Zakalwe

We’re not really worried about law abiding folks, are we?

What does that mean?

Adam Lanza (Newton shooter) was (as near as I can tell) a law abiding person.

Until he wasn’t.

[Whack-a-Mole]

To the OP I am NOT a gun rights advocate. Some (I think) reasonable restrictions that should be in place:

1. Close the gun show loophole

2. Require all transfers/sales of guns to go through someone with an FFL.

3. FFL runs a background check on all transfers/sales.

4. Mandatory waiting period on a sale/transfer (5-10 days seems reasonable…if you cannot wait 5 days to get your gun I suspect you are EXACTLY the sort of person who needs to wait 5 days to get a gun).

5. Mandatory re-licensing to own a gun. Akin to re-licensing for a driver’s license. Person needs to pass a test and/or take a refresher class (open to opinions on this). Also open to opinions on how frequently that should happen (e.g. every four years).

6. More than anything the above needs to be a national law. It may well be that some places have all of the above or more (I do not really know) but it doesn’t help that places like Chicago have strong gun laws when you can take a quick trip to the suburbs a few miles away to buy a gun without those restrictions.

[pkbites]

@Algher

Requiring all firearms transfers to go to through the system.

What happens when my brother wants to borrow my shotgun to go hunting? Or the guy next to me at the range thinks my pistol is neat and would like to fire a few rounds through it? We have to pay fees and fill out bureaucratic paperwork for this bullshit?

Discuss these topics/scenarios:

**Waiting periods: **Joe goes into a gun store with his .357 and says he’d like to trade it in for a 9mm. The background check is instantaneous. What’s the waiting period for? A cooling off period? A cooling off period for what? Joe already owns a gun (the .357 he wants to trade). If he wanted a gun to kill someone today, he’d have used that .357. Waiting periods for people that already own guns are even more ridiculous than they are for everyone else.

Firearm registration/micro stamping: Bill legally buys a gun in phoenix. A month later it’s stolen in a burglary. After a year it’s used in a drive-by in Chicago. The microstamping on the shell casings left at the scene confirm it was Bills stolen gun that was used. HTF does that solve any crimes? It doesn’t identify who did it as Bill reported his gun stolen and was not in Chicago during the murder.

Magazine capacity restrictions: All mags over 10 rounds are rounded up and destroyed. You can still buy 10 round magazines. Fred buys 20 ten round magazines and takes his rifle to a park and guns down 200 kids. Yes he had to reload a few more times than if he had a 40 round mag. But seeing a semi-auto can be reloaded in under 3 seconds it doesn’t matter. He could have committed the same amount of carnage with 40 five round magazines.
**
Assault weapon ban:** Dan takes 2 old pump shot guns (6 rounds in the tube, one in the chamber) and a couple of boxes of slugs to Mama Mias Daycare. While he reloads one he has the other one next to him loaded in case anyone tries to disarm him.

Complete semi-auto ban: George takes a couple of 6 shot revolvers and a back pack full of loaded speed loaders. With some practice one can reload a revolver almost as fast as a semi-auto. Blam! Blam! Blam! 30 kids dead! But how is that so with no semi-auto weapon?

The gun control laws of 1934, 1968, 1986, The Brady Bill, the 1994 “Assault weap:rolleyes:ns” ban. They all were suppose to be the panacea for gun crime.

They weren’t.

And neither will any other laws. Refer to the definition of insanity. Lather, rinse, repeat!

[Whack-a-Mole]

@pkbites

Discuss these topics/scenarios:

This always seems to be the mantra of gun advocates. If any regulation cannot be shown to be 100% effective then they are worthless and merely serve to annoy nice and good gun owners.

None of the restrictions you list would be 100% effective. The issue is whether such restrictions would have a beneficial effect that lowered gun violence rates.

• If you cannot wait 5 days for a gun I submit you are exactly the sort of person who should wait 5 days for a gun. If you already have a gun then this is a hassle but is it really that onerous? What is it about having your gun NOW that is so critical to your happiness and well being?

• Microstamping is merely a tool. Sure you can come up with situations where it fails. So what? It is a tool to help get the bad guys. Sometimes it works, sometimes its doesn’t but it NEVER works if it doesn’t exist.

• Magazine capacity restrictions merely help slow someone down even if only a little bit. Someone is is intent on mayhem is served well by having them (must carry more magazines, must take time to reload although I realize a reload it pretty fast). Law abiding gun owners is it really an issue to reload? Do you need 30 shots in one go rather than 10?

• Assault weapon ban I agree seems to be bullshit. Near as I can tell it is a cosmetic ban. Politicians like it because it looks like that have done something but it amounts to a useless restriction.

• Semi auto ban would again slow someone down. A person MAY be practiced enough to be ALMOST as fast as someone with a semi-auto but how many bad guys work that hard to be so well trained? Some will I am sure but I doubt you average gang-banger will be as dedicated.