# Gun owners - would you support this compromise? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127 "2011-01-27T00:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/101 "2011-01-28T05:26:20Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Let’s look at what works and what doesn’t. And we’re going to lean on some other Amendments rather than just the 2nd, OK? > > - Most felons are repeat offenders. I’m having trouble finding the stats for a cite; I found this old cite for Washington State, 2005: ([http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult\_Recidivism\_CY04.pdf](http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf)) which claims among other things murder has a 35% felony recidivism rate, felony assault 56%, felony robbery 57%, and manslaughter 57%. So let’s stop and focus on this - I’ll wager in most of these cases a weapon, most likely a gun was involved. A gun which, FWIW, was illegal for the felon to have in the first place. > > Now we could just extend first-felony sentences to keep them all in jail, but just throwing people in prison to get rid of them is just sweeping the problem under the rug, and isn’t a Conservative thing to do. So I think what we need is a combination of: > > - Much more intense monitoring of these people once they’re out and about. GPS tracking, cameras in their apartments and houses, and funding for parole officers to do their work. And prison sentences for absentee parole officers, because by slacking off, they hurt other people’s lives. When parole is over, the surveillance vanishes. > - Longer probation periods with zero tolerance for backsliding into violence. > - Job training which does more than just train them to be janitors. Create incentives for business to hire these ex-felons too, to break the cycle of poverty. > - General education to improve their lives overall. > - More funding for “boot camps” which have a proven program for reducing recidivism. > - On that note, end the blacklist for military enlistment for first-time non-violent felony offenders. > - Borrow an option from what made Australia great - transportation. Meaning, some of the problem is these felons get out and return to the same old hood, same gangs, same old. Give them parole on the condition they sign up for a “new identity” program, in a State far, far away, to really give them a fresh start. This would be offered to first-time offenders only. > > Conservatism is about taking broken people and fixing them. Let’s try fixing some people, and maybe some of the gun problem will fix itself. Got my vote. ---
**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:** [January 28, 2011, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/102 "2011-01-28T05:35:53Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > If you’re going to make a gun owner criminally responsible for having a 1,000-lbm gun safe broken into, then you’d better be including cops and government officials in that basket. Like this case, where Homeland Security officers lost 243 firearms: [http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearm-accessories/firearms-storage/articles/2006236-Report-claims-officers-lost-243-Homeland-Security-guns/](http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearm-accessories/firearms-storage/articles/2006236-Report-claims-officers-lost-243-Homeland-Security-guns/) Yes. No exceptions. I would also prosecute the military if they allowed weapons to fall into the hands of criminals. > [@](#): > > I assume you are calling for felony convictions for these folks, should their guns be used in a crime, right? After all, what more solemn responsibility do the police and law enforcement have? I haven’t decided whether gun negligence should be a felony or misdemeanor, with the exception for guns acquired by children that hurt themselves or others. That is definitely a felony with mandatory jail time for the gun owner. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/103 "2011-01-28T05:39:12Z")
I fail to see why the lives of children should be higher priority than the lives of adults. Negligence is negligence. ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/104 "2011-01-28T05:45:29Z")
Keeping a loaded gun in my sock drawer is irresponsible? Where should I keep it exactly, in my basement locked in a safe? If some tweeker is hard up for a fix and decides to break into my house in the middle of the night while I’m sleeping, a locked up gun or an unloaded gun isn’t going to do me any good. I guess I could always cuss him out or maybe try to talk some reason into him instead. I don’t have any kids living here, it’s just me and my cat, and my cat isn’t nearly smart enough to figure out how to shoot a gun. Oh and where I live (Franklin County, MO.) this is no exaggeration about the meth heads. This county is one of the largest producers of meth in the country. Look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/105 "2011-01-28T06:06:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Got my vote. Shame I don’t have my own political party. “Which way to America”, as the poet says? ---
**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:** [January 28, 2011, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/106 "2011-01-28T06:07:23Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#): > > Oh and where I live (Franklin County, MO.) this is no exaggeration about the meth heads. This county is one of the largest producers of meth in the country. Look it up. Then I would suggest that keeping a loaded gun in your nightstand isn’t very bright idea either. If they break into your house when you _aren’t_ there, where is the first place they are going to look for a gun? In safer neighborhoods, it might not be that risky. It’s up to the gun owner; do you feel lucky? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/107 "2011-01-28T06:42:20Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > Well for a bit of a different view let’s hear from the Aussie. > > I grew up in a hunting and sport shooting family. We skied biathlons and also went deer shooting, got a few ducks etc etc over the years. I had my junior permit at 12 and full license since I was 18. > > Yes any guns I own have to be registered and I have to keep my licence current. > > I could if I so desired get a handgun for target shooting, there really is no other reason in Australia you would want one. > > My semi auto went years ago but I still have enough to satisfy my noise making habits. > > Most Australians support tough laws and conditions on guns and gun owners, much in the same way we do for car drivers etc. > > Australia has tougher gun laws and I am glad that we do. It’s always amusing when the “Compromises” that pop up in the Gun Debate threads on the boards usually involve something pretty similar to Australian gun laws, isn’t it? The thing is, the shooting culture in Australia is, as you note, based exclusively around target shooting, hunting, and historic arms collecting- whereas, in the US, it seems “Self-Defence” (ostensibly) comes at the top of the list, followed by “Hunting” at No. 2. They’re not interested in what “Foreigners” have to say on the subject, basically. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/108 "2011-01-28T07:05:12Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > …They’re not interested in what “Foreigners” have to say on the subject, basically. Not really. We US gun owners often see attacks on our rights and realize that there are many who would love nothing more that to see those rights look something similar to the way that yours have become. I’m sure that some put up a fight in your homeland at one time but it was too little too late. I like my AK’s, my AR’s and my semi auto pistols without barrel length or caliber restrictions or registration or licensing. My guns, just like yours were, are not a threat to anyone and don’t need to be locked up at the local club. The fact that people thousands of miles away in another country are content with what they now have as opposed to what they have lost, baffles me. I’m glad that you are happy. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/109 "2011-01-28T07:40:52Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Now we could just extend first-felony sentences to keep them all in jail, but just throwing people in prison to get rid of them is just sweeping the problem under the rug, and isn’t a Conservative thing to do. So I think what we need is a combination of: > > - Much more intense monitoring of these people once they’re out and about. GPS tracking, cameras in their apartments and houses, and funding for parole officers to do their work. And prison sentences for absentee parole officers, because by slacking off, they hurt other people’s lives. When parole is over, the surveillance vanishes. > - Longer probation periods with zero tolerance for backsliding into violence. > - Job training which does more than just train them to be janitors. Create incentives for business to hire these ex-felons too, to break the cycle of poverty. > - General education to improve their lives overall. > - More funding for “boot camps” which have a proven program for reducing recidivism. > - On that note, end the blacklist for military enlistment for first-time non-violent felony offenders. > - Borrow an option from what made Australia great - transportation. Meaning, some of the problem is these felons get out and return to the same old hood, same gangs, same old. Give them parole on the condition they sign up for a “new identity” program, in a State far, far away, to really give them a fresh start. This would be offered to first-time offenders only. I’d vote for all of those, but I don’t think they’d do much. Any change of the prison system without a major change to drugs laws just won’t do much I don’t think. But that’s a whole different topic really. > [@sisu](#): > > Most Australians support tough laws and conditions on guns and gun owners, much in the same way we do for car drivers etc. I’m sure that will be very important the day that most Australians can vote in US elections. Until then, Australians opinions aren’t really all that relevant to US laws. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/110 "2011-01-28T11:31:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’m not dropping it. If I get mugged, nobody else is endangered. If I fail to secure my weapons, other people get hurt. I would go so far as to make it a felony if a child gets a hold of a gun and hurts himself or others. Jailtime. I am not kidding, either. So all I have to do to fix certain issues in politics is break into Glenn Beck’s house, grab his gun, and shoot a kid? Wow. That’s like saving the world in one easy step! ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/111 "2011-01-28T11:33:05Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Just for the record I am not and never intended to try to convince _other_ gun owners that the compromise I have hypothesized is the best course of action or that _you_ all need to support it. I am just saying that _I_ would be willing to deal with the restrictions I mentioned _in exchange for_ the complete removal of the draconian rifle laws. You didn’t answer my question about ‘private sale’ ‘private gift’ situations. I may have overlooked it, but it does matter in regards to your ‘closing the gun show loophole’ situation. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/112 "2011-01-28T12:06:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Do believe any accountability for “responsible gun ownership”? I’m all for holding the person responsible who actually is responsible. If a person negligently leaves his gun where someone can steal it, then the superseding criminal act of the theft of the gun makes his negligence no longer the proximate cause of the harm. In other words, the thief’s fault for stealing, and then using the gun is so much greater in comparison that you no longer consider the gun owner’s minor fault for leaving it where it could be stolen. But you go one further than that. You wouldn’t even create any type of standard that a gun owner could follow to avoid liability. At a minimum, we should at least set a standard of what a reasonably prudent gun owner would do to secure his gun, and if he follows that, then he is off of the hook. Strict liability is absurd. Would you propose it for other constitutional protections? If I write an article critical of Obama and some nutcase reads it and tries to kill him, am I strictly liable under your theory? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/113 "2011-01-28T12:54:32Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Nationwide shall issue Concealed Carry with the compromise being that those who wish to do so submit to annual mandatory training and shooting proficiency tests. That would make anyone caught carrying without being issues a Federal permit guilty of a Federal offense. Mandatory sentences of course follow. What is the constitutional basis for creating a federal crime here? Or pissing all over the power of states to deny concealed carry? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/114 "2011-01-28T12:54:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If you put “gun” and “compromise” in the title, the three things guaranteed to show up are “slippery slope”, “just admit that y’all _really_ want to ban all guns” and, of course, “HITLER!!” and the fourth thing is somebody who whines about it without actually contributing anything that makes a point. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/115 "2011-01-28T13:49:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > What is the constitutional basis for creating a federal crime here? Or pissing all over the power of states to deny concealed carry? Precedent has already been set since 1934 with the way NFA weapons are treated. Break those rules by owning an illegal machine gun or DD and you have committed a federal crime. The suggestion is in the spirit of compromise, and hypothetical anyway. Relax. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/116 "2011-01-28T14:18:47Z")
> [@godix](#): > > A large problem with the whole registry idea is that many people will do whatever they can to bypass it on the principle of the government should not know who owns guns and it’s the first step to confiscating guns. Slippery slope? Sure. However, given things like post-Katrina, it’s also a legitimate concern. > > So I’d like to toss in a protection of the registration list should only be accessed two times. First when purchasing/selling a firearm, in which case the registration needs updated obviously. Secondly, law enforcement can access it, but only for investigating a crime involving a specific weapon, in which case they can only get the information on that specific weapon. > > Until cries of ‘Katrina!’ can be answered with “a government official who tried that again would spend X years in jail”, those yelling slippery slope actually have a valid point. I’d support those measures. I have no issue with keeping registration information private, I only want it to be available so that we have a legitimate record of responsibility to refer to. After a certain grace period there should be no excuse to be in possession of an unregistered, or illegally classed weapon if you are stopped by police. Since I would support deregulation and automatic issuance of concealed carry in exchange, only those unable to acquire a license or those trying to dodge the law would do so. Either way they should be heavily punished. with time, it should help make the numbers of firearms in criminal hands much smaller. As to liability in general, **FearItself** , I think you are going way too far without demonstrating a solid rationale for your position. While I agree that guns are a unique piece of property, (both legally and physically) I cannot see how making an owner totally liable for stolen property washes. There is no real way to completely secure any piece of property from a sufficiently determined thief. You can cut into a safe, and bash those little table side boxes with a sledgehammer until the welds fail. Securing firearms is primarily done for two reasons: To prevent a thief from stealing _valuable_ property, and to prevent accidents. The danger aspect is really secondary despite the loud protests of many in the gun enthusiast crowd. Gun safes and trigger locks are measures to prevent children and drunks from making poor choices. I propose a compromise that owners are held strictly liable unless they report the weapon missing to the police. It is the unreported thefts, and the lack of a chain of custody in certain sale types that are helping the supply to criminals. **ExTank** , I’m one of those chuckleheads. I live alone with my wife. We rarely entertain, and never have kids over. I’ve got one revolver. Even if I was to secure it in a lockbox, the thief would certainly steal the entire box. I’m not seeing how that makes one irresponsible. Now if we were to entertain frequently, or have children I’d certainly secure it better to keep them safe. As is, I see no logical reason to limit the functionality of the weapon I keep for home defense. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/117 "2011-01-28T14:59:52Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Precedent has already been set since 1934 with the way NFA weapons are treated. Break those rules by owning an illegal machine gun or DD and you have committed a federal crime. > > The suggestion is in the spirit of compromise, and hypothetical anyway. Relax. Right - but you have failed to show the federal government has the right to force a state to allowed concealed carry. Such a right is far from inherent in the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/118 "2011-01-28T15:11:18Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Right - but you have failed to show the federal government has the right to force a state to allowed concealed carry. Such a right is far from inherent in the Second Amendment. I was replying to another poster regarding compromise ideas. I have no desire to argue the finer points. My suggest forces mandatory training and testing which is what so many cry for. Take it for what it’s worth. Frankly, I agree with Ex-Tank in that “compromise” has earned gun owners absolutely nothing positive for the last 76 years. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/119 "2011-01-28T15:14:28Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Frankly, I agree with Ex-Tank in that “compromise” has earned gun owners absolutely nothing positive for the last 76 years. And **Fear Itself** is a good example of how anti-gun people will never be satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127/120 "2011-01-28T15:49:01Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Frankly, I agree with Ex-Tank in that “compromise” has earned gun owners absolutely nothing positive for the last 76 years. I’m sure you have a greater knowledge of these things than me, so is there a possibility that compromise might have otherwise been replaced by a total loss on the side of gun owners? I mean, even a terrible compromise, followed by further compromises, might be better than no compromise at all. I honestly don’t know whether that’s the situation, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-owners-would-you-support-this-compromise/569127.md?page=7)