Gun owners - would you support this compromise?

In the wake of the incident in Tuscon, I have come to believe (and I never thought I’d say this) that it needs to be harder for mentally unbalanced people to obtain guns, especially handguns. Right now in many states, anyone can go to a sporting goods store or gun store and purchase a firearm with only minimal paperwork. While this is convenient, it makes it too easy for an insane person planning to commit some kind of violence to obtain the guns. It also makes it too easy for someone with no idea what they’re doing (when it comes to gun safety) to obtain the gun.

What I would be in favor of is this. First of all: a gun safety test should be required. You have to take a test to drive a car, you should have to take one to get a gun. There should be two separate tests, one for rifles and one for handguns. The test would cover basic safety rules, as well as a very basic range test. This test could be taken at public or private shooting facilities and when completed, the individual would get a certification card and a confirmation of it on whatever digital field that BATFE-licensed retailers use when clearing someone for a gun purchase.

There is a lot of government potential for abuse of this kind of test making it too difficult to obtain the license: such as, making you drive five hours away to a range to take the test, or charging 200 dollars for it. This should not be allowed to happen. It should be required by federal law that these tests must be easily available (as easy as going to the local DMV) and cheap (15 dollars maybe.)

Second: I’d be in favor of mandatory background checks at gun shows. That’s right, the notorious “gun show loophole” they always talk about - yes, anyone can indeed go to a gun show and buy a gun in ten seconds with no paperwork or background check. I know, I’ve done it. I don’t see what’s wrong with requiring background checks at gun shows as long as they make it efficient to do, or else there would be absurdly long lines and it would be a huge pain in the ass for everyone. I’d be in favor of instituting some kind of rapid electronic system whereby all sellers at gun shows could easily (and at no cost) verify the background of the buyer on the spot. I am sure a way to do this electronically could be easily worked out.

Third: I don’t have a problem with there being a mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases. This could be 4 days, a week, or something like that. However, sometimes people really do need a pistol right away - what if someone is being stalked, threatened, or has an imminent need to make a trip to a particularly dangerous area of the state for some reason? These people shouldn’t have to be at risk because of the restriction, SO they should be able to go to the POLICE DEPARTMENT and get a waiver for the waiting period if they speak to an officer there who would listen to their situation and decide whether or not it’s appropriate. Again this should be a simple process, not a complicated one - it could be handled in 20 minutes. There aren’t enough people desperately needing handguns that police would be inundated with requests.

I’d agree to all of the above ON THE CONDITION THAT THE FOLLOWING ALSO HAPPEN:

  1. A complete and total repeal of all of the remnants of the “assault weapons ban”. This means no bullshit restrictions in states like California, New York, etc that you can’t own rifles with “barrel shrouds,” flash hiders, bayonet mounts, pistol grips, etc. This should be struck down at the federal level. Hardly anyone ever uses these weapons for anything criminal; they’re almost solely owned by hobbyists. The guns of choice for criminals are cheap handguns, not ARs and AKs and their many relatives. No more prohibitions on rifles that were once automatic but have been permanently converted to semi-automatic. In FRANCE you can buy an AK-47 converted from select fire to semi-only. You can’t do this in America because they have this law that if the rifle was ONCE automatic, it is ALWAYS automatic even if a gunsmith has permantly altered it to be semi-auto only. Do away with this ridiculous bullshit law.

  2. A complete and total repeal of the 1989 semi-automatic rifle import ban, a piece of protectionist bullshit on part of the Republican administration collaborating with gun makers like Smith and Wesson, but which has unbelievably remained in place for 30 years. This ban makes it almost impossible to import cheap semi-automatic rifles from other countries, and makes it mandatory that any rifle with foreign PARTS also has to have US-made parts. There are lots of incredible rifles from around the world that American shooters would love to own, but are prohibitively expensive because they’re insanely rare in America because of the damned import ban. A few examples: the SIG AMT/PE57, 550, genuine Russian made AK-47s and AK-74s (converted to semi-auto,) government surplus G3s and FALs (again converted to semi auto). If the import ban were struck down, thousands of them could be imported from Europe and could be had for a few hundred dollars instead of a few THOUSAND dollars.

OK? If those two concessions were made to the pro-gun side, I would be 100,000% fully on board with the first three gun control restrictions I listed.

Of course, it’s never, ever, ever going to happen. But I can daydream about it at least.

How would your restrictions have kept Loughner from buying a gun?

Maybe gun shops could have a psychiatrist in their employ. When you show up to claim your weapon after the waiting period, the shrink administers a mini-mental status test (MMPI or what have you). If you’re sane you get your gun. If you’re found mentally unstable no dice, unless you’ve brought another weapon with which to hold the shrink hostage until they give you the gun. Or the shop could hire that ex-Marine who plays a psychiatrist in the Geico ad. Even at his advanced age, he could probably handle most loonies until the cops arrive.

Only way I’d consider it is if, in addition to the 2 conditions you propose, the certification was also a permanent concealed carry permit good anywhere.

And even then, I’d likely reject it. The government has no business knowing if, much less how many, guns I may or may not own.

I should have added this. I think it’s a good idea.

While the Second Amendment gives a right to own firearms, and I would also argue to carry, I don’t think it provides a right to concealed carry - that is a state level decision.

I dont get your analogy.

  1. First of all, you dont need to take a test to get a car. Anyone with cash can buy a car. Cars are much easier to buy than guns.

  2. If you think the testing/licensing of drivers has ended motor vehicle deaths, then you have not been paying attention. 50,000 people are killed each year by cars, driven mostly by licensed/tested drivers.

  3. How do you stop a crazy person/criminal from stealing a gun?

  4. What currently is to stop a terrorist, or a crazy person, from buying a car today?

I’m a gun owner; I live, quite happily, with much more stringent requirements than your compromise.

In my home state of Iowa, we just passed legislation that set the same standards for receiving a concealed carry permit across all 99 counties. Sheriffs were notorious for doing exactly what you mentioned. Mandating tests that were only held annually without notice, rampant nepotism, cronyism, you name it. I see this sort of testing a huge step backwards. You of all people here know and understand that gun laws like these only affect the law abiding anyway. In the AZ case, the shooter’s circle of friends, family, and acquaintances all failed him and his victims, long before he bought his gun.

You are asking to make all private sales go through background checks. Those are the only sales at a gunshow that currently don’t require a NICS check. No dice.

As long as States can opt out by using their own background checks or other equivalencies, sure.

Both should be repealed without any other compromise. “AWs” are involved in less than 2% of all gun crimes.

To be fair, it is not as though the law-abiding are always law-abiding, and the criminal are always criminal. People move from one group to the other; after all, all criminals are law abiding at some point.

I’m 100% pro gun, but it seems like we are giving up an awful lot just for being able to buy “assault weapons” cheaper.

So you’re proposing all of this in the wake of that shooting (and right off the bat, that makes me extremely weary of any proposal - national policy should not be dictated by flukey media intensive incidents or we’d all have to get tracking chips installed in our kids every time some cute white girl gets kidnapped) but then propose a bunch of laws that as far as I can tell have nothing to do with that shooting.

How would a safety course stop crazies? You don’t think crazy/violent people could pass a safety check? If not, what else is the point of this proposal? Accidental gun deaths have been on the decline for a long ass time and were never a significant number to begin with compared to many common dangers. You’re potentially restricting gun ownership (you say that it would be easy and fair, but let’s see how that is after a few rounds of “compromises”) to prevent a tiny fraction of the deaths that occur in backyard swimming pools and with household poisons?

There’s no such thing as a gun show loophole. If you just want to ban private sales, why don’t you propose that? Does this relate to the Arizona shooting case specifically? Did the crazy get his gun through a private sale because he was declared mentally incompetant and couldn’t have done it through a licensed dealer?

In regards to the assault weapons ban (and import ban, which is just as stupid) - I don’t feel that we should need to make compromises to remove unambiguously stupid, unfair, and ineffective laws.

No, I would not agree to any of this. It is poorly thought out, would do nothing to achieve the stated goal, and would inevitably lead to additional restrictions.

By passing and enforcing responsible gun ownership laws. Gun owners should be held responsible for negligence if thay fail to secure their guns against theft. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you are guilty of negligence, and should be prosecuted. Unfortunately, many gun owners do not want laws that mandate responsible gun ownership.

Agree, but what these suggestions do is place more undeserved burden upon the “good guys” the overwhelming majority if whom might see a traffic ticket as their biggest infraction of the law. Criminals will still be able to get guns in spite of any of this legislation. That is the target to go after.

I can’t agree totally. Again, criminals were once law abiding people. Perhaps that means the law-abiding person in question wanted to commit a criminal act, deliberately sought to gain a gun through avoiding such laws and registrations, and managed to do so. Such a person wouldn’t be affected by such laws. But a law-abiding person who wanted to commit a crime and already had a weapon, gained through registered and otherwise red tape-ish means, is someone whose task is made harder, or whose arrest is made easier, by such laws. A law-abiding person who wants, in a moment of strong emotion, to shoot someone, but has no gun, may be forced by waiting periods or simply the length of going through legal means - after all, not everyone will know how to get a gun in another manner - to calm down.

My initial point was in response to you seeming to seperate people into two groups - the law-abiding, and the criminal. But it’s not so easy. Not every potential criminal is knowledgeable enough to get a gun by avoiding such laws. Not every “good guy” is always and ever going to remain a “good guy”. You can’t seperate the two, and say that the law affects us when it should be focusing on them when us and them can change rapidly.

Originally Posted by Argent Towers
First of all: a gun safety test should be required. You have to take a test to drive a car, you should have to take one to get a gun…

Originally Posted by Susanann
3. How do you stop a crazy person/criminal from stealing a gun?

Hmmm… Maybe… but we first should try out your proposed law with automobiles…and wives. If someone steals YOUR car and then uses it to rob a bank, or to run down someone, then YOU should be the one to go to prison?

If someone steals money from YOU and then buys drugs with that stolen money then YOU should go to prison ?

Sounds like the same kind of convoluted logic of putting a wife in prison for adultery if she was raped.

Until, and unless, we make ALL!!! robbery victims (and rape victims) go to prison, then nobody can take your very limited proposal seriously.
.

What’s a responsible way to secure a firearm? If I keep my house locked and don’t even have ammunition for the firearm in question is that not responsible enough?

I’d be for it under a few conditions, and one of them is getting rid of the waiting period.

  1. No waiting period (beyond the normal yellow sheet).
  2. repeal of the 1986 Hughes amendment (but keep the registry, this is a compromise)
  3. no firearm registration, just a firearm ownership license with permission to purchase as many of any allowed type of firearm as you like (separate allowances for rifles, pistols and revolvers).
  4. a basic safety test, and competency class, along with a non-stringent, court challengeable mental illness test. Non stringent meaning doesn’t reject for nebulous reasons (so race can’t be an issue, it must be “deferred for further evaluation” not “denied”)

You are operating under a delusion that you can tell when someone is mentally unbalanced. Also that the condition is a constant. Some people are pretty level and then go off. They could buy a gun when they are at the bottom of their symptoms and use it when they go off. Plenty of people go to mental health clinics for observation to determine whether they are unbalanced. Police take people in for observation and they are let out and later commit crimes.
You can not even get experts to decide when a person is nuts. It would be a mess.

Will criminals/terrorists/drugaddicts/murderers/massmurderers/robbers/rapists/gangmembers/illegalaliens…ALSO??? be required to get a firearms license and take a class?