Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding

[XT]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Everyone is law-abiding! Until they are not.

That said, if the burden to provide evidence that you are law-abiding is so much that someone will break the law to circumvent them, then you’re not so law-abiding now are you?

The issue then becomes what an undue burden is. Burdens are okay, undue burdens are not.

I have yet to see any serious attempts at reforming the nation’s gun laws to put an undue burden on gun owners.

What sort of burden or undue burden are put on citizens for other products or services that can and do kill? If you use a gun in committing a crime you go to jail. You can and often are sued as well. That seems in line with, say, alcohol use. Tobacco is actually less of a burden, as I haven’t seen many cases where the smoker is blamed for the 2nd hand smoke deaths, though that’s probably a stretch to compare to alcohol or firearms, even though it kills more Americans than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol. Still, I think the burden there is on the manufacturer, who is often sued in these cases.

What sorts of burden do you think SHOULD be put on firearms owners, and what is the basis you are using? BTW, I think many firearms owns would disagree that they have burdens put on them already, especially depending on where you live and how your individual state or municipality handles gun control. There are many places where it’s a lot more difficult to get a gun than folks realize, and some where it’s impossible, from a practical perspective.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@XT

What sort of burden or undue burden are put on citizens for other products or services that can and do kill? If you use a gun in committing a crime you go to jail. You can and often are sued as well. That seems in line with, say, alcohol use. Tobacco is actually less of a burden, as I haven’t seen many cases where the smoker is blamed for the 2nd hand smoke deaths, though that’s probably a stretch to compare to alcohol or firearms, even though it kills more Americans than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol. Still, I think the burden there is on the manufacturer, who is often sued in these cases.

What sorts of burden do you think SHOULD be put on firearms owners, and what is the basis you are using? BTW, I think many firearms owns would disagree that they have burdens put on them already, especially depending on where you live and how your individual state or municipality handles gun control. There are many places where it’s a lot more difficult to get a gun than folks realize, and some where it’s impossible, from a practical perspective.

Waiting periods and more robust background checks that remove loopholes are two things that are often bandied about which cause the NRA to feel that the world is ending.

I personally would like to see more than those things that I still feel are not an undue burden, but we can start with those since most Americans - even gun owners - have no issues with those steps.

Beyond that, I don’t think it’s an undue burden expecting gun owners to:
[ul]
[li]Demonstrate they can be responsible. In much the same way drivers have to prove that they are responsible, gun owners should be able to show that they can operate a gun and also be aware of how to store it safely and legally.[/li][li]Limit the firepower of their weapons. One doesn’t need a bump stock to hunt; one certainly doesn’t need to make their gun an automatic weapon with 100 rounds in it to protect their home. It also means you may have to have ID when making purchases of large quantities of ammunition and it may also mean there are certain weapons you cannot legally own. We already check IDs for purchasing a single bottle of pseudoephedrine and we already ban machine guns so it’s hard to make the case complying with either would be an undue burden.[/li][li]Not be allowed guns at all if they have convictions for domestic violence or other violent crimes or restraining orders. They will also have to give up the right to own guns if mental health professionals feel that is best.[/ul]Finally, I don’t think having to pay more for a gun is an undue burden. I am not talking about taxes here, but smart gun technology:[/li][QUOTE]
Smart guns, whose embedded technology ensures only authorized users can fire them, have been around for nearly two decades, and a 2016 survey found that nearly 60% of Americans, if they were buying a new handgun, would be interested in a smart firearm. But due largely to political pressure from gun rights proponents and a lack of investment in their development, some of the most promising smart gun technology isn’t even for sale in the US, or is still only in prototype form.

Buzzfeed News
[/QUOTE]
The United States has constantly made regulations for automobiles to make them safer. All cars now have to have backup cameras, for example. This is a cost that goes to the consumer.

The same thing should be done with the gun industry. Force them to invest in smart gun technology to make guns safer. If that brings a higher cost of new guns or a cost to retrofit older guns, I’ll concede a huge cost might create an undue burden, but it doesn’t have to be huge necessarily.

[XT]

I don’t disagree with all of that, though it’s not what this OP is looking for. But I’ll point out that if you put higher burdens on gun owners wrt having them have to pay more it’s going to, from a practical perspective, skew gun ownership to wealthier citizens, or at least make it very difficult for poorer citizens to own a gun. Same goes for extra licensing. Often we are told that it’s too high of a burden for citizens to have to get voting ID after all. Gun ownership is a right, so you don’t want to make it so that only some citizens can participate, even though even now that is the case to a certain extent.

I will point out that we don’t put similar burdens on alcohol or alcohol consumption. Basically, if you are of age you can buy and use alcohol. This, despite the fact that more Americans are killed due to alcohol than firearms. Similarly, we don’t put those same burdens on tobacco use, again despite the fact that even second hand smoke deaths are more than firearms and nearly as many as alcohol abuse. And the later two aren’t protected rights.

That said, I have no problem, in broad terms, with licenses or background checks. Limiting firepower, depending on what you mean by that, is already something that has restrictions on it, as does the action (i.e. we already have restrictions on automatic verse semi-automatic or other actions with lower rates of fire). All of these things put the burden on the law abiding citizens, and, frankly, put harder burdens on the less wealthy citizens than the richer ones, which is, IMHO, a bad thing.

What about what the OP is asking for? What burdens could we place on actual criminals wrt gun crime? I think those I mentioned are the low hanging fruit that are fairly obvious. Not sure what else you could do. Basically, a person is a law abiding citizen until they aren’t, and when they cross that line we then prosecute them. Would putting harsher or more focused sentencing specifically on gun abuse do more? I think there are examples from alcohol that say yes, they would. Also, there is the civil aspect…if one commits a crime using a gun then perhaps open up more avenues to civil suits. Of course, again, we actually DO already have some sentencing that is geared towards gun abuse committing a crime, just like we do for alcohol abuse, but perhaps we could do more on that score as well.

[QuickSilver]

@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.

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.

Okay, but you wouldn’t accuse countries where there is no constitutional right to bear arms of presumptively accusing all citizens of being ‘criminals’. You can’t legislate away criminal behavior. You can only punish it. But I don’t know why you need to make weapons easily available to those who would commit crimes. And I don’t see how not having a weapon is a burden on those who do not go on to commit crimes. Is quality of life improved if citizens are permitted to have weapons?

[XT]

@QuickSilver

Okay, but you wouldn’t accuse countries where there is no constitutional right to bear arms of presumptively accusing all citizens of being ‘criminals’. You can’t legislate away criminal behavior. You can only punish it. But I don’t know why you need to make weapons easily available to those who would commit crimes. And I don’t see how not having a weapon is a burden on those who do not go on to commit crimes. Is quality of life improved if citizens are permitted to have weapons?

No, obviously not. If you don’t have a right to keep and bear arms, or more to the point if it’s illegal or highly restrictive to do so and you do it anyway, well, sure…you are a criminal in that country. Certainly.

As for the rest, again, it depends on the country. In the US, citizens are used to having this right, and, at least to date, still want to have it. So ‘quality of life’ is, at least in the opinions of the majority of our citizens, better with those weapons than without them (or, at least having the CHOICE to have them or not is). Though it’s not really a quality of life thing, it’s a right, just like the other rights. Americans THINK their lives are better for the protected rights they have because that’s what we are used too. Other countries MMV…they get on fine (or not in many cases) without formal rights set down in a document.

[QuickSilver]

@XT

As for the rest, again, it depends on the country. In the US, citizens are used to having this right, and, at least to date, still want to have it. So ‘quality of life’ is, at least in the opinions of the majority of our citizens, better with those weapons than without them (or, at least having the CHOICE to have them or not is). Though it’s not really a quality of life thing, it’s a right, just like the other rights. Americans THINK their lives are better for the protected rights they have because that’s what we are used too. Other countries MMV…they get on fine (or not in many cases) without formal rights set down in a document.

But isn’t this is an argument from pleading for American exceptionalism? Either a right to bear arms is a universal human right or it is not. Notice that it’s a separate argument from right to life. The latter is something other countries do not contest, but also do not inextricably link to the right to bear arms.

[puddleglum]

@Slash1972

How about we implement the same laws as England, since apparently it is so hard for criminals to get guns there, they have resorted to using knives to commit crimes?

This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.

[QuickSilver]

@puddleglum

This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.

Are we then to conclude that the higher restrictions on guns makes the population more murderous?

[Stanislaus]

@puddleglum

This may backfire as murder rates in England and Wales are 50% higher now than they were before gun control laws were passed.

This is absolutely not true.

Gun control law passed: 1997
Murder rate in 1996: 11.4 per million
Murder rate in 2018: 12.4 per million
5 year average to 1996: 11.9 per million
5 year average to 2019: 10.1 per million

Who told you that, and who told them?

[Bear_Nenno]

It’s always strange to see people championing gun laws who are so ignorant of what the current laws actually are.

@Wesley_Clark

bans on those convicted of domestic violence or violent crimes (I think many/most mass shooters have a history of this). However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence

This is already a law. Persons convicted of domestic violence are banned from purchasing or owning firearms. That applies to misdemeanors as well.

stronger laws against straw purchases (possibly including gun registration so if a straw purchase is done, people can trace the guns buyer)

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?

@SamuelA

Having a gun is supposed to be a Constitutional right, like voting…The State better have convicted him of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt. (or forced him to plead to it, which is a far more common thing)

Misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence have prevented people from legally owning firearms since 1997.

[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]

[li]Not be allowed guns at all if they have convictions for domestic violence or other violent crimes or restraining orders. [/li][/quote]
All three of those things (provided the “other violent crimes” are felonies) are all current restrictions.

They will also have to give up the right to own guns if mental health professionals feel that is best.

This is already the law. A person cannot legally purchase or own a firearm if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority makes the determination that a person is a danger to himself or others; or if the person has ever been committed to a mental institution.
You’re proposing things that are already laws. These restrictions are already in place. The problem is that the current system of tracking and identifying these individuals is ineffective. Too often, these disqualifying events are not updated to the proper databases, or the databases don’t happen to exist at all. Some states have different reporting requirements, and different state systems don’t talk to each other or the federal systems… it’s a mess.
To effectively improve gun control, the country should start by actually developing systems allow the government to uphold and enforce the current laws. The laws you should be championing are the ones that support the government’s ability to enforce gun control, not more unenforceable laws that sound great but don’t really do anything. A central database of those determined to be mentally defective or previously committed to a mental institution would be a good first step.

Finally, I don’t think having to pay more for a gun is an undue burden. I am not talking about taxes here, but smart gun technology:The United States has constantly made regulations for automobiles to make them safer. All cars now have to have backup cameras, for example. This is a cost that goes to the consumer.

But how is a smart gun going to prevent anything? What kind of smart system to you propose that would prevent the owner of the firearm from using it to commit a crime? The only possible thing a smart gun could prevent is maybe an accidental shooting in which a child grabbed a gun off the table or something. We already have laws making it illegal to leave firearms where kids can grab them, and it’s already mandatory to sell every gun with a gun lock. I’ve yet to see a smart gun proposal that accomplished anything except complicating the firearm, and adding batteries to the list of things that can cause a firearm to improperly function.

[quoteThe same thing should be done with the gun industry. Force them to invest in smart gun technology to make guns safer. If that brings a higher cost of new guns or a cost to retrofit older guns, I’ll concede a huge cost might create an undue burden, but it doesn’t have to be huge necessarily.[/QUOTE]
Retrofit them with what? Make them safer from what? What kind of smart gun technology are you proposing?

[Bear_Nenno]

@Wesley_Clark

However there is the issue of lots of combat soldiers and police officers committing domestic violence

I forgot to add: there is no exemption for law enforcement or military. Anyone convicted of domestic violence, even misdemeanor convictions, cannot possess a firearm–even when on duty. Domestic violence convictions are a disqualifier for service. Current soldiers and police who are later convicted of DV cannot carry firearms. For police, they are fired immediately. For soldiers, the process takes a while, but their service will not continue for long.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

So … what are your ideas?

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.

[HurricaneDitka]

@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.

I already gave you a clue about what I’m looking for in this thread:

@HurricaneDitka

… let’s focus on proposals that maximize effectively reducing gun crime while minimizing the harm / imposition on law-abiding gun owners. …

My approval (or disapproval) of the proposals is irrelevant. There may be laws that don’t meet this criteria of which I approve or legislation that does meet this criteria of which I disapprove.

But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that’s already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that’s already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.

From this I gather you favor laws that take place after a crime has been committed, and oppose laws that might help prevent the crime from being committed in the first place?
edited to add: “Harm/Imposition” is a strange phrase to use. “Imposition” has to go a long ways to turn into actual “harm”.

[TriPolar]

@HurricaneDitka

But, in order to not leave you empty-handed, one example of a proposal that would minimize harm to law-abiding gun owners that’s already been alluded to in this thread is harsh(er) penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.

Where is that not done? Do you think the penalties need to be harsher than they are now? What penalty applied to those who use guns in the commission of a crime are too low now?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

From this I gather you favor laws that take place after a crime has been committed, and oppose laws that might help prevent the crime from being committed in the first place? …

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.

@Czarcasm

… edited to add: “Harm/Imposition” is a strange phrase to use. “Imposition” has to go a long ways to turn into actual “harm”.

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.

[HurricaneDitka]

@TriPolar

Where is that not done? Do you think the penalties need to be harsher than they are now? What penalty applied to those who use guns in the commission of a crime are too low now?

I think it is, generally, done now, at least to some degree. Czarcasm asked “if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval?” This was offered as an example of one law that I have seen that generally meets with my approval and minimizes the burden on law-abiding gun owners.

[TriPolar]

@HurricaneDitka

I think it is, generally, done now, at least to some degree. Czarcasm asked “if any laws(or proposals of laws) that you have seen to date have met with your approval?” This was offered as an example of one law that I have seen that generally meets with my approval and minimizes the burden on law-abiding gun owners.

So that one has been done to your satisfaction. You got anything else?

[HurricaneDitka]

@TriPolar

So that one has been done to your satisfaction. …

More or less, yes.

@TriPolar

… You got anything else?

Not off the top of my head. Hence, this thread.

[Cheesesteak]

I have two to suggest.

1. Universal background checks. All firearm purchases or transfers require background check, performed through a FFL holder for a nominal fee. No $100 charge to do a background check, maybe $20 + $5 per weapon transferred. Any FFL holder overcharging or otherwise making this service unavailable to the public loses their license.

2. Illegal weapon enforcement. Aggressively enforce the background check rule. Widespread sting operations to ferret out anyone willing to transfer a weapon illegally. Widespread buyback operations to remove unwanted or illegally owned weapons from the market.