# Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2019, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925 "2019-10-17T21:42:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/61 "2019-10-19T11:25:20Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Laughably wrong? Did you read the entire paper? Your link goes directly to the England-Wales chart. Convenient for your argument. But, the [Scotland Chart](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/?page=5) shows something completely different. I should clarify, that what it shows is not “completely” different. There _is_ an overall decline in total suicides, but the effect is not the same as the England and Wales chart where the overall rate continues to drop, _despite_ the rise in Non-CO suicides. The reduction of CO suicides was so great, that the increase in Non-Co suicides did not compensate. But in Scotland, specifically from 1966 to 1968, the rise in Non-CO suicides completely negated the drop in CO Suicides. The overall rate remained at about 10 per 100,000. Additionally, the _overall_ rate seems to less affected by the reduction in CO suicides, and coincides more with the changes in the Non-CO rate. There was a noticeable temporary affect around 1963-1964, but after that, it seems the Non-CO rates began to compensate. The overall rate rises and falls as the Non-CO rate rises and falls, and despite another drastic decline in CO Suicides, the overall rate merely plateaus, then it falls again and rises in line with corresponding fall and rise in Non-CO rates. I’m almost motivated to find some charts showing the rates for the rest of the 1970s and beyond. Short term affect, or sustained reduction? Certainly this would be a good study to piggy back off of. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/62 "2019-10-19T12:02:34Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/?page=3) for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides. A quick search didn’t turn up a chart for the rest of the 1970s, but by 1981 the overall suicide rate was [14.7.](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2014registrations) So it does appear that after 1971, the overall suicide rate continued to rise, despite the complete removal of coal from domestic gas supplies by 1975 and the corresponding drastic reduction in CO Suicides as the gas supply changes began in the mid 1960s. By 1981, the suicide rate returned to previous levels. The chart you referenced showed a peak male suicide rate around 14 in 1963/64 and a female rate around 10. This was in England and Wales. For Scotland, it was about 12 for males and 6-7 for females. By 1981, the overall UK rate for males was 19.5 and for females, 10.6. According to your study, by 1975 the percentage of CO in domestic gas was practically zero. It dropped drastically from the early-mid 1960s and was zero by 1975. But the overall rate of suicides in the UK _rose_ from 1965 to 1981. That suggests the non-CO methods of suicides rose to compensate for the lack of CO availability, and continued to rise, resulting in an overall increase in not only total suicides, but in the rate per 100,000 as well. I believe that there will be a similar result if all guns were magically removed from the United States. Suicide rates might go down temporarily, but that’s it. The suicide issue is not a gun control issue. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/63 "2019-10-19T17:07:36Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Wow…just…wow. No difference between a ‘law abiding’ gun owner and a ‘criminal’. That’s…just unreal. It’s like saying there is no difference between a ‘law abiding’ black person and a ‘criminal’ black person. Seriously. No hyperbole. That’s really fucked up. Are you saying that there is some type of genetic marker that criminal persons carry that would allow us to identify them before they commit crimes ? Or that would allow us to prevent people who, in the future, will shoot their spouses out of the blue from buying guns ? I mean, by all means if you do have that sort of information, share with the class. It would tremendously simplify things. Unless your argument is that, in becoming (scare chord) criminals, people lose some fundamental part of their humanity or morph into something altogether Other ? Like, seriously, what, in your eyes, is the fundamental difference between a law abiding person and a criminal person beyond the fact that the latter have committed at least one crime ? > [@](#): > > As for the nut in Las Vegas, the difference was, just like with any other criminal, the person in question went from being law abiding to a criminal murderer. You probably don’t realize this, but people aren’t born criminals, they become criminals by doing criminal acts. You don’t target citizens, even non-gun citizens (:rolleyes:) BEFORE they do something criminal, you go after them after they become criminals. And do all that trial and lock em up stuff. The salient problem with that approach is that the dozens of people who were killed by the lone nut are still dead after the trial. It’s a bit of a bummer, that. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/64 "2019-10-19T17:16:07Z")
Oh, and you absolutely DO target citizens before they do something criminal. Such as, for example, require that they learn how to drive and prove they both know and obey traffic laws before they are allowed to drive a car. You also require their car to be within certain specific limitations and in good repair and insured. It would be bonkers to suggest that everyone should be allowed to drive, and drive whatever the fuck they damn well please, just sort it all out after they’ve caused a pileup because fuck red lights or their rocket car exploded while stuck in traffic, taking a dozen of other cars with them, wouldn’t it ? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/65 "2019-10-19T17:34:56Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The entire debate is utterly meaningless. There is no meaningful distinction between a “law abiding” gun owner and a “criminal” gun owner besides the fact that the latter has commited at least one crime. The nut who shot up Las Vegas was a law abiding gun owner, so was whatshisname who shot up the Aurora cinema while dressed as the Joker. As are the thousands of people who never did anything wrong and never broke the law until they shot their wives/husbands in the face. Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year. If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/66 "2019-10-19T17:51:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year. > > If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives. Who said it was an either/or ? That being said, don’t felons lose their guns rights in the US already ? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/67 "2019-10-19T17:56:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that in a risk based approach, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the 10000 handgun criminal killings a year. > > If we stopped criminals from shooting citizens, that would be a huge saving of lives. Also, terrorist deaths are a drop in the bucket, even if you only look at year 2001. And yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent trying to thwart them, not to mention a bunch of burdensome restrictions on citizens which may or may not be reasonable. Because we realize that while the total aggregate number of deaths is not necessarily high, the _context_ of those deaths is a lot more harmful and traumatic for the dying people and their survivors and the community as a whole than, say, ten thousand smokers slowly coughing away their cancerous lungs on a hospital bed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/68 "2019-10-19T18:27:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, or at least I’d prefer that _punishment_ take place after a crime has been committed, and that it fall on those who have committed it. Over in ATMB, there’s an active thread where LHoD is arguing against collective punishment. I’d prefer gun control efforts similarly not preemptively punish “the whole class” of gun owners for the bad acts of a few. If there were laws that had a minimal negative effect on law-abiding gun owners and a substantial effect on preventing crime, I’d certainly consider supporting it. > > harm, imposition, burden, inconvenience, cost, punishment, etc. are all fine. If you’d prefer to use a different word that gets that general point across, have at it. Do you consider drivers’ licenses and automobile registration undue burdens? They can be quite expensive. One can imagine laws where everyone can drive, no checks, until they cause damage to others. How about DUI laws? They criminalize a risk, since a person can be arrested before causing any harm. As for mental health, would you support an increase in taxes to provide decent mental health services, which we don’t have now? How many false positives would you accept - people not really at risk for doing harm who would be prevented from owning guns in order to reduce the number of people who are at risk from getting them. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/69 "2019-10-19T18:42:12Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Those are great goals. But the problem is that they end up clouded behind attempts to ban “assault weapons” and certain rifles, which statistically are involved in accidental shootings, criminal acts, suicides, and self-defense are far cry less than handguns. > And then there’s the desire to ban “high capacity magazines” which are irrelevant in accidental shootings, suicides, and home defense. And while they might be relevant in criminal activity, look at the statistics. On average, fewer than four rounds are fired in a criminal assault involving firearms. Only four rounds? So what does it matter if a magazine holds 30 rounds or 15 rounds or 10 rounds? > > Unfortunately, most gun control proposals do not focus on facts or statistics. And they don’t try to tailor the _control_ to the actual _mechanism of injury_. Instead, they go after things that are popular to attack, like assault weapons and magazines, because they probably don’t even care about getting a useful law passed. They probably just want to keep the dialogue going so that they can get votes and donations. I do not see how any of this has any relevance to my post. It sounds like you are just complaining about what other people do here. If any of that was actually addressed to me in response to my post, feel free to reiterate your points. > [@](#): > > Let’s start there. This is a good point, and something I think we’d all agree on preventing. What law can we propose to prevent this? Laws already exist that make it illegal to store a firearm where a child can access it. Laws exist, yes, but not universal laws. That I can see, only 11 states have any laws about firearm storage, and only one of those require it at all times. I am not doubting what you say, but I would like to see the law that you are referring to here. > [@](#): > > Yet, you’re right, there are still kids being harmed this way. How do we prevent it? Increase punishment? Probably not. That doesn’t seem to work with anything. Increase prosecutions? Maybe. It seems like a lot of the times, the family isn’t prosecuted. Perhaps it’s because someone feels _they’ve suffered enough_. How about this: Make these kinds of shootings strict liability crimes, like statutory rape. That way, the prosecution doesn’t have to waste time proving that the method of storing the firearm was unsafe. Rewrite the law, at the federal level, that states it is illegal for a child to possess, even temporarily, a firearm within a home or dwelling. This is a strict liability offense, punishable by 10 years in prison and or a fine of up to $250,000. Then, you make prosecution mandatory, and create a minimum sentencing guideline of no less than 3 years in federal prison. That was more or less my point. If you register your gun, you sign an affidavit that you are keeping your gun secure. This should make you strictly liable for any accidents that occur with it. I agree with the “they’ve suffered enough” part. Well, agree that it is used, not that I would allow it. You know who really suffered? The person injured or killed by your\* carelessness. Specifics as to punishment are details we can get into. But the underlined part there is a bit ambiguous. Who is breaking the law here, the child, or the adult who did not properly secure the gun? > [@](#): > > There’s not debate in court about weather the person took reasonable efforts to keep the gun out of the reach of the child or store it in a safe manner. The fact that a round was fired inside a home by a child, suggests–by itself–that the weapon was not stored safe _enough_, regardless of method. And the fact that the round was fired, means that the child possessed a firearm in a home, and therefore a crime has been committed. The owner of that firearm goes to prison. > > Maybe a law requiring proper storage to prevent theft? Kind of like the current law that requires proper storage to keep the firearm away from kids. So, not a draconian as the new law I proposed above, but create a law similar to our current one that says everyone must store firearms in a manner to prevent theft. The problem with that, is this would discourage people from _reporting_ the theft of their guns for fear of prosecution. So… I’ve got nothing. I think your overall gun control proposal mostly addresses this issue, though I’ll discuss it separately below. Once again, can you point me to the current law that you keep referring to? I have done a bit of a look about, and I’m not finding what it is that you are talking about. If I break into your home when you are not around, and I find your gun in your nightstand and take it, then you were negligent in securing it. I do think that you should face some penalty for that. If I go tot he effort of bringing in a crowbar or other means of breaking into your safe, you’ve done due diligence. Reporting those guns stolen will result in no prosecution, So, yeah, people may fear reporting their guns stolen, if they were not properly secured, but if they turn up later in connection with a crime, then you are going to be in even bigger trouble. My suggestion to someone in that situation: Go break open your gun safe with a crowbar, and then call the police. > [@](#): > > I think the suicide issue is not a gun issue. People who want to kill themselves are going to do it. We’re never going to solve that by focusing on guns, even if we had a magic button that removed every firearm from the country. To often people pride themselves on how they’ve reduced “suicides by firearm” but the actual rates and numbers of total suicides didn’t change a bit. We won’t stop it, not, but I do think that we would decrease it. Let’s say that we’ve come out with a new product for our convenience stores. You can buy a lottery ticket and a poison pill together. Would you favor legislation that would prohibit its sale? Would you buy the argument that focusing on poison pills will not solve suicide, and therefore, shouldn’t be addressed at all? We supposedly live in this great country, and we live at the best time for pretty much anyone to be alive. We should have a very low suicide rate. Guns allow a moment of despair or depression to become permanent. Most other forms of suicide require more planning and are less effective. I do think that mental health and social safety nets are the way to prevent suicide in general, but I also think that decreasing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, and therefore, decreasing the number of people who feel that they need a gun for self protection, will decrease the number of suicides done on impulse. > [@](#): > > I think you miss the point here. Firearms for self-defense are not only for use against an _armed_ attacker. They are for use against _any_ attacker capable and intent on committing a forceable felony against your person, causing great bodily harm or death. Firearms are the great equalizer. Not just for the “old lady” cliche, but any smaller, weaker person. Such people should not have to fear their attacker or fear for their safety. They should not have to wait for law enforcement to come rescue them. If the attacker is big and strong, or if the attacker has a knife or a bat (more popular for criminals than firearms, and causing more deaths than firearms by the way), then a person can and rightly should, use a firearm in self-defense. So, even if we had a magic button that took all firearms away from every criminal, this would not be a reason to limit law-abiding people from owning firearms for self-defense. Criminals can still be dangerous without having guns. Not sure that this is in response to what I said. I said absolutely nothing about limiting law abiding people from owning firearms for self defense. I said that if criminals were less likely to have guns, then law abiding people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self defense. Some still would, but the calculation would change for many. I specifically mentioned my circumstances, and that I do not feel the need for a gun for self defense, except against someone with a gun. The number of criminals that have guns has a direct bearing on whether or not I feel I need one. Against anyone not armed with a gun, my dogs will be a far greater deterrent and defense to me and my home than a gun will. To someone armed with a gun, my dogs just get killed attempting to defend me and my home. I also point out in the statement that you responded to about cops. Cops have a fear that the criminal has a gun, and so are much quicker to shoot than if criminals having guns is rare. > [@](#): > > First, I hate the idea of gun buybacks–at least, how they are currently done. And I don’t quite understand your proposed buyback program where the government pays someone for their stolen firearm? Why do you hate buybacks? Is it that they are mandatory? If so, then that has nothing to do with my proposal. If not, then what is it that you dislike about them? I’m not tied to the idea, but it seems that if you can get at least part of the value of your gun by reporting it stolen, then you will be encouraged to report your guns as stolen if you find them missing. > [@](#): > > As for the registry, the biggest hurdle in passing such a law involves the paranoia associated with the government having a list of firearms or firearm owners. I wonder if there would be some kind of way to use block-chain, crypto technology to keep a registry that allowed firearm transfers to be tracked, and only allowed transfer to authorized people, but without anyone able to pull up a complete list. Something like that would satisfy more opponents of registries (not all, but _more_). In my scenario, the paranoid can hold onto their guns. If they are that paranoid about the govt getting them, then they are probably not easy pickings for junkies either. I don’t understand the fascination with block-chain. If you want to keep the list secured, there are ways of doing that. I don’t think that block-chain would do what you are looking for here. What I would do, in my amateur knowledge of cryptography, if I wanted to keep the list from being used for data mining, would be to allow lookup by serial number, but not by name. So, you have a gun used in a crime, and you put in the serial number. It pops up with the last registered owner of the gun. If you put in a person’s name, then you get nothing. Some hashing and cryptography would be useful here, but I would let the experts sort that out. > [@](#): > > I think it is a great idea to have a system that readily identifies people who are legally allowed to purchase firearms versus those who are not. A universal background check, as it is being proposed, isn’t a terribly good system. It doesn’t address abuse of the system (people using it as a general background check service) or the costs associated with increasing the staffing and infrastructure to the NCIC, etc. Like I said, a CCW should be considered to be passing a background check. There should be other ways, as well, for those who want to purchase guns, but not carry them in public. > [@](#): > > I think something like Illinois’s FOID card might be the way to go. Anyone with a FOID card can legally buy firearms and ammunition. BUT, the card (and the list of card holders) should not be issued or maintained by the government. I’d propose allowing the NRA or the CMP to be the holders of the list. I see much more potential for abuse in having private entities holding onto such a list than the government. You would have to saddle them with quite a number of laws to make sure that they did not use it for their own profit. We are not talking about a registration here, but whether or not someone has passed a background check. I have no idea why you think that the information that is currently being supplied by the govt being in the govt’s hands would be something to be afraid of. > [@](#): > > And specifically adding text to the Bill that forbids the federal or state government from ever asking to be provided with the list for any reason. I’d support a gun registry that also worked the same way. Let the NRA or CMP handle it. That way, they can’t complain about _the government_ having the information. And they can charge a fee for the service and the cards. > Registration is handled once per transaction and never expires. FOID cards are valid for 6 months. A person does not need a valid NRA-FOID card to possess a firearm or purchase ammunition (after all, the firearm registration will have his/her name on it). But if someone wants to buy a firearm or purchase some more ammunition, then their NRA-FOID card should be valid. Private sellers cannot transfer to someone without a valid NRA-FOID card. They can get transfer the firearm right away as long as the person’s NFOID is valid, and then they have like 10 days or something to report the transfer (online or by mail), and 30 to 90 days later, the new owner gets the registration. In the meantime, the bill of sale or something is enough. I don’t know, I’m just kind of thinking of this as I type. But I like where it’s headed… > What do you guys think? I think all of that is overly complicated, and is involving private entities that may not want to be involved, and doing so in such a way that those private entities are much more likely to abuse the information than the government, which is where they have to go to get that information in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/70 "2019-10-19T19:17:19Z")
Use a gun in a crime, lose your trigger finger. Sell a gun to someone missing a trigger finger, lose your entire hand. Now, starting from that position, let’s work our way back to something reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/71 "2019-10-19T19:27:14Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > … > Close the “boyfriend loophole.” Federal law prohibits gun sales to those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions involving a spouse, live in significant other, or someone you’ve had a child with. Have multiple DV convictions where you have assaulted non-resident partners or family members… here’s your gun! I’d argue those are one of the kinds of violent criminals that we should be keeping guns away from. Currently, we are not even trying to keep guns out of their hands. The issue with this and the Domestic violence rules is that it is kind of a Ex post facto law. Example in point: I had a friend who was a police sgt in a small city PD. Many years ago, long before the domestic violence ban was enacted, his wife divorced him (and he admitted his very long hours and OT was a primary cause, the fact his wife was cheating on him came from that likely). She, to make the settlement better, charged him with domestic abuse. No evidence, no calls to police before that, no ER visits, no bruises or anything. (But of course you can have abuse without any of that, i concede), however the timing was very suspicious. His lawyer got him a very sweet plea deal- no time, no fine, just attend a anger management class, plead no contest. So he took the deal to settle the divorce. Later the law was passed and he couldnt own a gun. If he had know that his career would have ended due to the plea, he would have fought it. Many more men did the same. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/72 "2019-10-19T19:35:48Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > They do inconvenience the law abiding though. FFL holders charge for the service. Something like grandpa has decided he’s too old to hunt and wants to give his guns with family history to various children and grandchildren is an example. That can be quite a bit of hassle and cost hundreds of dollars to do with universal background check requirements. One way to address those kinds of concerns are close relation exceptions; it’s not really a universal background check at that point. Trying to use technology to craft a system that let’s private parties get an answer from NICS without involving an FFL holder is another possible change. > That’s already covered by the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibited gun sales to those with some, but not all, misdemeanor DV convictions. Those convictions are career enders. It takes a conviction though. A lot of domestic violence, even that which produces arrest, doesn’t result in charges let alone conviction. Yes, I agree- better background checks, with a blood relation exclusion. If the IRS considers you a relative under their regs (so not cousins, etc) then you can pass but you have to keep paper on the transfer. Reasonable exclusion. Except that the Lautenberg Amendment included those with _past_ convictions. I would have the ATF define "dealer’ to get rid of the strawman dealers. After theft, they are the #1 way criminals get ahold of guns. Let us say if you sell more than 12 guns (curios and relics excluded, along with blackpowder, etc) a year you are a dealer. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/73 "2019-10-19T19:45:36Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > … > What do you mean _stronger_ laws? Straw purchases are already 100% illegal. The punishment is up to ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. What would you propose?.. Altho in general this is a well written and thought out post (it is very true that many who want to ban guns dont know anything about either the gun they wanna ban or the laws already in place, for example even Kamela Harris)- the ATF and other feds know there are a few hundred individuals who buy many, many guns at discounted retail, then turn around and sell them for a much higher price- often to criminals. This is a large source of guns for criminals. That can be fixed by defining who is and who is not a “gun dealer” . Say- anyone who sells more than 12 guns a year is a “dealer”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/74 "2019-10-19T19:48:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Despite the bit of well-poisoning about what the intentions are of those who wish to control firearms, I have to ask if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval? This information would give us a clue as to what you are looking for and/or steer us in the right direction. Better background checks, with a blood relative exclusion. Red flag laws with full due process. If the ACLU sez your red flag law is bad, then it is. Get rid of the professional straw man sellers. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/75 "2019-10-19T19:51:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What about the links I gave for laws regulating gun ownership for the mentally ill? Which(if any) of those listed do you favor, and would you support a more unified approach? If they meet approval by the ACLU with proper\* Due process,\* then great. Otherwise no. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/76 "2019-10-19T20:01:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … > The goal of us “gun grabbers” is simple. We want to see fewer people injured or killed due to the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms. The reason for this goal is that we want to see fewer people injured or killed as an overall goal. The reason for this is that we generally want people to be happier, healthier and more productive. > > Given the goals as stated, it would be extremely counterproductive to outright outlaw guns, and then go violently round them all up. It may reach the nominative goal of “getting the guns off the streets”, but it would not reach the goal of making people happier, healthier, and more productive. > > … > > I believe that most of these can be significantly improved simply by keeping track of our guns better. > > It’s an almost everyday occurrence that some toddler gets ahold of a gun and shoots themselves or another. And that’s the ones that make the news. The toddlers who don’t pull the trigger, or do but don’t hit anyone, are less likely to make it in the news. That means that there are far too many people out there using their couch cushions as a gun safe, which is a bad idea even when there are not children around. Not that adults are not capable of making fatal mistakes as well. > > Criminals also get these guns largely due to poor securing. You can buy a gun on the black market for far less than you can in a gun store, as long as you don’t mind knowing that it is stolen and was traded for drugs. Gun owners who do not take responsibility for securing their guns are a major part of this supply. > > As far as suicide goes, I do believe that suicide should be a right, but I would also be against selling Lotto ticket/poison pill combo packs at the convenience store. … I know that the suicide figure gets tossed by gun advocates in these debates, and often nefarious motives are attributed to those who bring it up, but I do see gun suicide as a problem that can be reduced. > > F… > > … > > … > > If a gun is stolen, you should report this to the police as soon as possible. If they are properly stored, then it will be very obvious that they are stolen, as your gun safe has been destroyed by the effort of getting it open. … I appreciate a risk based approach to gun control and reducing violent crime! Most states require gun locks or safes if you have kids in the house. This should be all states, I concur. You definition of “secure” seems to mean “gun safe”. These are expensive, make you a target for thieves and most importantly, make your gun useless for home defense. As long as your gun is secured when you have kids, that is all that shoudl be required. In the other GD thread about knives in GB, we have discussed guns and suicide. It was made clear by several cites from several posters that the link between gun availability and increased suicides is tenuous and not proven. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/77 "2019-10-19T20:07:19Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This would be laughably wrong, if dead people were something to laugh about. Check the chart [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/?page=3) for a study of how removing one kind of suicide method impacted overall suicides. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the USA, yet NO guns. > **[Gun laws of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia)** > > Gun laws in Australia are predominantly within the jurisdiction of Australian states and territories, with the importation of guns regulated by the federal government. In the last two decades of the 20th century, following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal government coordinated more restrictive firearms legislation with all state governments. > Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders ... \*In 1981 Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding stating where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that "whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them.[77] " Harding quoted a 1968 international analysis of twenty developed countries “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.”[78]…Multiple studies have been conducted by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH). In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[85]… …] In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggested that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide…A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of University of Melbourne and La Trobe University studied the data and concluded “the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”[65]…n 2009 a study published in the Journal of Sociology examined the rate of firearm suicide in Queensland. They found that “gun suicides are continuing to decrease in Queensland” and is “most likely as a function of ongoing gun controls”.[90] In 2009 another paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University also studied suicide in Queensland only. The said “No significant difference was found in the rate pre/post the introduction of the NFA in Queensland; however, a significant difference was found for Australian data, the quality of which is noticeably less satisfactory.”[91] A 2010 study by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh found the 1997 gun buyback scheme reduced firearm suicides by 74% while having no effect on non-firearm suicides or substitution of method.[92]\* I think that’s seven studies that said no reduction in suicides by the gun ban, with three that said there was a reduction. However, what does stand out is this a \*\*“1968 international analysis of twenty developed countries “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.”” \*\* [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html) _Summary: Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however, theoretical or logical arguments for believing firearms elevate suicide risk that are sufficiently compelling that individuals and policymakers might reasonably choose to assume that gun availability does increase the risk of suicide."_ That is so wishy washy that it could mean anything. .\* Other relevant international evidence is reviewed in the essay on Australia’s experience banning certain firearms through its National Firearms Agreement. However, that law also does not provide strong evidence of a causal effect of gun prevalence on suicide risk. As we conclude later in the report, although there is some evidence that the 1996 agreement reduced firearm suicides in Australia, studies also found significant reductions in nonfirearm suicides at the same time, calling into question whether the reductions in firearm and nonfirearm suicides were caused by the new law or some other concurrent events._… \* Available empirical research does not provide strong causal evidence for the effects of gun prevalence on suicide risk._ ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/78 "2019-10-19T20:33:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Most states require gun locks or safes if you have kids in the house. This should be all states, I concur. Can you show me where you are seeing this? All I am seeing is the list of 11 states that have any laws at all about storage, and only a couple of them require it for kids. > [@](#): > > You definition of “secure” seems to mean “gun safe”. These are expensive, make you a target for thieves and most importantly, make your gun useless for home defense. As long as your gun is secured when you have kids, that is all that shoudl be required. Well, a safe, anyway. You can put your gun in my little safe that I use for storing my important documents. If you want something made for guns, then you would need a gun safe, but I only see that as an issue if you have a bunch of them, or have big ones. In any case, guns are expensive, a safe for them would be a small part of the ownership cost. I do not see how they make you a target for thieves. A thief wouldn’t know that you have one, and if they did, then they would avoid your house, as they would have a hard time getting them. Gun locks just keep the trigger from being pulled, they do not prevent the gun from being removed from the home, and there is no gun lock that I couldn’t defeat with unlimited time and a few tools from the hardware store. > [@](#): > > In the other GD thread about knives in GB, we have discussed guns and suicide. It was made clear by several cites from several posters that the link between gun availability and increased suicides is tenuous and not proven. I see that you have decided that you do not think that there is a link, but I think that it is very motivated cherry picking that leads you to that. It is impossible to “prove” a correlation, hell, smoking hasn’t been “proven” to cause cancer, unlike gun suicides, where you can certainly see that the gun was used for the suicide. Yes, some may have chosen to use a different method if a gun were not available, but you can clearly see that they chose the gun. Do you believe that all suicides are well planned and thought out, and that none are ever on impulse? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/79 "2019-10-19T20:49:17Z")
Red herring. All laws fall heavier on the law abiding. Criminals don’t obey laws. So we lock them up. That’s how it is supposed to work. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/80 "2019-10-19T21:14:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I do not see how any of this has any relevance to my post. It sounds like you are just complaining about what other people do here. If any of that was actually addressed to me in response to my post, feel free to reiterate your points. Yes, I am complaining about what other people do. You claimed to be articulating the position of many. I agree that your statement accurately represents the intentions of many people interested in gun control. What I am saying is that many of these people, despite their intentions, are pursuing legislation that won’t actually address their concerns. > [@](#): > > Laws exist, yes, but not universal laws. That I can see, only 11 states have any laws about firearm storage, and only one of those require it at all times I believe it’s closer to 27 states that have Child Access Protection laws, and a few of them (I’m mostly familiar with Florida) make it criminal for adults to not properly store their firearms. Yes, these are not universal laws, and I would definitely support a Federal Law similar to Florida’s. But I wouldn’t stop there. The point of my post was to make a universal law that is more effective than the current access prevention laws on the books. The point of this thread, I thought, was to share gun control proposals. The laws that exist are written with terms phrases like “in a location which a _reasonable person_ should believe that a minor can’t access the firearm” or “store the firearm in a such a way if one reasonable believes a minor might access it” etc. So, if a child gains access to a firearm and shoots his/her sibling on accident, the state has to argue the “reasonableness” of the storage. Also, in Florida, the law says that keeping a gun in a locked safe is reasonable enough. What I proposed was the believe that the mere fact a minor gained access to the firearm and discharged it should be enough proof that the storage method was _not adequate_. So I believe a universal, strict liability crime would be prudent. See Florida SS. 790.174 for the text of their statute. It’s also only a misdemeanor, while I proposed a Federal Law that should be a felony. > [@](#): > > That was more or less my point. If you register your gun, you sign an affidavit that you are keeping your gun secure. This should make you strictly liable for any accidents that occur with it. That isn’t what “strict liability” means. A strict liability offense is like with age of consent laws, it doesn’t matter if you reasonably thought the minor was of legal age, and it doesn’t matter if the minor had a fake ID, or that the minor lied, or whatever. It doesn’t matter if a _reasonable person_ would have thought the minor was old enough. Being a strict liability offense, the prosecution only has to prove that the sex occurred and that the victim was a minor. That’s it. In my proposed strict liability offense, the prosecutor would only have to prove that a firearm was discharged by a minor inside the home. That should be enough to prove that the storage method was inadequate. Yea, you had it in a safe, but your child knows the combination, or you leave the safe unlocked, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Your defense attorney doesn’t get to try and convince the jury that you _were_ responsible, but this little accident just happened. Also, I proposed mandatory prosecution and minimum sentencing. > [@](#): > > I agree with the “they’ve suffered enough” part. Well, agree that it is used, not that I would allow it. You know who really suffered? The person injured or killed by your\* carelessness. So we agree, then. This was exactly my point. > [@](#): > > Specifics as to punishment are details we can get into. But the underlined part there is a bit ambiguous. Who is breaking the law here, the child, or the adult who did not properly secure the gun? Was that really ambiguous? The _owners_ of the firearm. The adults. > [@](#): > > Once again, can you point me to the current law that you keep referring to? I have done a bit of a look about, and I’m not finding what it is that you are talking about. You do realize I am _proposing_ a new law, here. Right? The laws I am talking about are called “Child Access Prevention” laws, or CAP. You should be able to find plenty of them out there. And just from reading them, you should be able to tell all of mriad ways a prosecutor can have difficulty gaining a conviction due to the wording. You could also look up plenty of news articles where parents were not even charged, even in states with CAP laws, due in no small part to the fact that a conviction would be difficult, and the issue already stated about people sympathizing with the gun owners for losing their child. For the text of one specific CAP law, see the statute referenced above. > [@](#): > > If I break into your home when you are not around, and I find your gun in your nightstand and take it, then you were negligent in securing it. I do think that you should face some penalty for that. I agree. The only problem with that is the fact that people would not report their firearms stolen if that were the law. Now the criminal is running around with a gun that isn’t even reported as stolen because the original owner didn’t want to get himself in trouble. So that’s kind of where the idea hits a wall. For it to be imposed, then some kind of gun registry would need to exist. Because even if the gun wasn’t reported stolen, the gun would not be registered to that criminal, so the police can go back to the original owner and start asking questions. I realize that you also proposed a registry, and this would go hand-in-hand with that. I was just addressing the merits of such a law on its own, without the registry. I wasn’t attacking your proposal or anything. I was just saying that I do think there should be a unified federal law regarding storage of firearms. Right now, every gun has to be shipped with a lock. But the ATF has no requirement that they be used, and only some states require proper reasonable storage. > [@](#): > > If I go tot he effort of bringing in a crowbar or other means of breaking into your safe, you’ve done due diligence. Reporting those guns stolen will result in no prosecution… > So, yeah, people may fear reporting their guns stolen, if they were not properly secured, but if they turn up later in connection with a crime, then you are going to be in even bigger trouble But only if there is a registry. Otherwise, nobody is going to know that the weapon used in a crime was ever stolen in the first place, and would never know who the previous owner was. > [@](#): > > We won’t stop it, not, but I do think that we would decrease it. I don’t think it will decrease. At all. Maybe only temporarily, but then that would have been time we could have spent focused on a real solution. Looking at suicide rates in developed countries, there doesn’t seem to be anything that suggest countries with easier access to guns have a higher suicide rate. > [@](#): > > Let’s say that we’ve come out with a new product for our convenience stores. You can buy a lottery ticket and a poison pill together. Would you favor legislation that would prohibit its sale? Would you buy the argument that focusing on poison pills will not solve suicide, and therefore, shouldn’t be addressed at all? I don’t think it would reduce the suicide rate. As for my support for the legislation itself, I doubt I’d be against it. It’s an interesting question. I’m sure I’ll continue thinking about this one for a while. > [@](#): > > Not sure that this is in response to what I said. You said that you have no reason to shoot someone out of fear that they will shoot year if its rare for criminals to have a gun. My response was that if there is a big, strong, unarmed person trying to rob a weak old lady, or some large, violent, unarmed man trying to rape a smaller, weaker girl, then the fear of whether or not they might get shot is irrelevant. They are going to shoot for fear of being hurt or raped, not for fear of being shot. People own guns for protection against violent crime, not for protection against armed criminals. Armed criminals is just one subset of the total threat inspiring people to buy guns for protection. > [@](#): > > I said absolutely nothing about limiting law abiding people from owning firearms for self defense. I said that if criminals were less likely to have guns, then law abiding people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self defense. Some still would, but the calculation would change for many. Yea, it is in response to what you said. And you said it again just now. You think that people would not feel as great a need for a gun for self-defense if there were less criminals with guns. I disagree. I think there are enough threats out there, besides guns, that people would still want a gun for self-defense. Strong-arm robberies, those without any weapon at all, occur in greater number than armed robberies. And while I’m not sure how many of the 100,000 forcible rapes that occur each year in this country involve the use of a firearm, but I am confident only a small percentage do. > [@](#): > > I specifically mentioned my circumstances, and that I do not feel the need for a gun for self defense, except against someone with a gun. The number of criminals that have guns has a direct bearing on whether or not I feel I need one. Right. And that’s what I was referring to. _You_ feel that the number of criminals with guns has a bearing on whether you need one yourself. I am making the claim that most gun owners do not feel that way, and would choose to have a gun anyway for the reasons I stated. > [@](#): > > Against anyone not armed with a gun, my dogs will be a far greater deterrent and defense to me and my home than a gun will. To someone armed with a gun, my dogs just get killed attempting to defend me and my home. Not everyone even owns dogs. And not everyone only has a gun for _home_ defense. Like I said, I think you miss the point here. You’re equating your own situation and fears (or lack of fears) to everyone. I don’t think many people who own guns for self defense would be less likely to do so even if criminals were less likely to be armed with a gun. If criminals magically were prevented from using guns, they would just use more knives or some other weapon. People will still want to own a gun for protection from criminals whether those criminals have guns or not. > [@](#): > > I also point out in the statement that you responded to about cops. Cops have a fear that the criminal has a gun, and so are much quicker to shoot than if criminals having guns is rare. Oh, cops. You’re talking about people who shoot out of fear, despite not being victimized in any way? Like when a noncriminal is just reaching for his wallet and gets shot by a cop who (perhaps unreasonably) feared that the criminal was reaching for a gun? So you’re basically talking about unjustified shootings, where someone shot another person (not even a criminal necessarily, just some other person) out of fear that the person had a firearm? In that case, I think I agree with you. Those situations would likely go way down if criminals were not likely to be armed with guns. > [@](#): > > Why do you hate buybacks? Is it that they are mandatory? I’ve never seen a mandatory buyback. It’s always random, law abiding citizens turning in guns that were collecting rust in a basement somewhere. Arguably, some of those guns could have ended up stolen and used in a crime. Statistically, the number of guns _removed from the street_ is miniscule. It is such a waste of effort and money to hold a gun buy back. But they seem to make people feel good, like something is actually getting done. I personally just don’t see the point in buy back programs. > [@](#): > > If so, then that has nothing to do with my proposal. If not, then what is it that you dislike about them? It has nothing to do with your proposal. I specifically was talking about how they are currently done. I’m talking about current buy backs that occur every so often. I think, more than anything else, they’re just a feel good PR stunt. The police department looks like they’re doing something to prevent gun violence or accidental gun deaths or something. > [@](#): > > I’m not tied to the idea, but it seems that if you can get at least part of the value of your gun by reporting it stolen, then you will be encouraged to report your guns as stolen if you find them missing. I see. Maybe. Regarding your proposal, I’d rather we force those people to report stolen guns than encourage them through payment. They should get insurance if they want compensation for it. > [@](#): > > In my scenario, the paranoid can hold onto their guns. If they are that paranoid about the govt getting them, then they are probably not easy pickings for junkies either. My point was that a proposal that includes mandatory gun registration will never get off the ground. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand the fascination with block-chain. If you want to keep the list secured, there are ways of doing that. I don’t think that block-chain would do what you are looking for here. Not just secured, but anonymous. The question is how to have an anonymous list that allows the ability of looking up a specific firearm to see who the owner is. There are too many people who are against the government having a list of firearm owners. The NRA is specifically against it. It doesn’t matter how secure the list is. If the government has the ability to instantly know where all of the guns are, then the security of the list is irrelevant. If the point of this thread is to attempt to make proposals that have a chance at actually passing, then a gun registry that is accessible by the government isn’t one of them. But…. To get any use out of the registry, the government would need the ability to look up individual firearms to check for lawful ownership. [quote[What I would do, in my amateur knowledge of cryptography, if I wanted to keep the list from being used for data mining, would be to allow lookup by serial number, but not by name. So, you have a gun used in a crime, and you put in the serial number. It pops up with the last registered owner of the gun. If you put in a person’s name, then you get nothing. Some hashing and cryptography would be useful here, but I would let the experts sort that out.[/quote] My concern is that the government could just enter entire serial number sequences from all the major manufactures and produce a list. What I was thinking was a system where the government enters both the name of the person AND the firearm serial number and the return value is only TRUE or FALSE. The gun is either registered to that person legally, or it is not. For a stolen gun, it’s easy to know the owner. Run the serial number, and the gun comes back stolen, and the original owner is known because that’s part of the report. But when someone happens to be stopped for whatever reason, and that person has a gun, the police will run the serial number to see if it is properly registered to that person. I think a list that allows the cops to do this, but prevents the government from maintain a list of gun owners would work. > [@](#): > > Like I said, a CCW should be considered to be passing a background check. There should be other ways, as well, for those who want to purchase guns, but not carry them in public. CCWs are valid for 7 years in Florida, and who knows how long in other states. Plus, many states don’t even offer them. The chance of a person committing a felony in that 7 years is too great to use the CCW as a valid substitution for a background check. > [@](#): > > I see much more potential for abuse in having private entities holding onto such a list than the government. You would have to saddle them with quite a number of laws to make sure that they did not use it for their own profit. Agreed. I think it has a much higher likelihood of being passed, though. > [@](#): > > We are not talking about a registration here, but whether or not someone has passed a background check. Why are we not talking about a registration? That’s exactly what I was talking about? Do I need to limit my conversation to only things that you want to talk about? I am allowed to respond to your ideas and to expound and expand them with ideas of my own. > [@](#): > > I have no idea why you think that the information that is currently being supplied by the govt being in the govt’s hands would be something to be afraid of. The federal government has no list of who owns what firearms or even who owns _any_ firearms, except those firearms on the NFA Registry (machineguns and such). > [@](#): > > I think all of that is overly complicated, and is involving private entities that may not want to be involved, and doing so in such a way that those private entities are much more likely to abuse the information than the government, which is where they have to go to get that information in the first place. We’re talking about a gun registry as well as a registry identifying people who are buying guns. I don’t think you fully understand the very passionate aversion to having a federal firearms registry, or allowing the government to have a list of firearm owners. I assure you it is real. And it is strong. My idea for the FOID card was to allow private sellers and buyers to be able to ensure that the person they are selling the firearm to is legally able to do it. I am trying to come up with a solution that will acceptably prevents such a thing from being used by the government to identify people who own guns. I’m also trying to make it _more_ convenient than other proposals of just using the NCIC (and paying an extra fee) every single time. I think FOID cards aren’t a bad idea. However, if the FOID cards are issued by the federal government, then the federal government now has a list of every gun owner. That’s why I proposed a work around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925.md?page=5)