Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Llamalandia]

Ah, so we get more restrictions, and a societal stigma built off of yours and others ignorance.

Fuck that.

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

Umm no. I think that changing the ways gun laws work such that they're are smarter restriction but no new net restrictions might be acceptable as I have myself proposed, basically let people own new full auto machines guns in exchange for expanded background checks. Sure the new checks would be more restrictive (is no more gun show loophole/private sale loophole with some caveats) but allowing people to own machine guns manufactured post 80's would be less restrictive than current law and thus such restrictions and new allowances would balance each other out thus no net restrictions. let me know what you think.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

Umm no. I think that changing the ways gun laws work such that they're are smarter restriction but no new net restrictions might be acceptable as I have myself proposed, basically let people own new full auto machines guns in exchange for expanded background checks. Sure the new checks would be more restrictive (is no more gun show loophole/private sale loophole with some caveats) but allowing people to own machine guns manufactured post 80's would be less restrictive than current law and thus such restrictions and new allowances would balance each other out thus no net restrictions. let me know what you think.

Good luck on getting that past the NRA. Also, guns bought at gun shows account for a tiny percentage of guns bought in the U.S. Closing the loophole would be a step, but a minor and largely ineffective one.

[Big Jim P]

Oh no, you might have to deal with further restrictions so that we can cut down on our horrific gun-related crime rate.

I'm sure that you'll find some way to survive.

Or you could carry out smart legislation that actually targets the problem instead of blanketing out guns. What pray tell do you suggest we do to stop gun violence?

Increase the penalties for gun crimes, eliminate plea bargaining and parole for gun crimes. Done.

[Big Jim P]

I went to Beijing China and there guns were illegal. But also another factor was that Chinese did not want guns, so in this case the law worked. Beijing china is a pretty safe place, even in the most sketchy places. The united states has the highest shooting rate in the world, violence thrives in our culture. And while I would like to just stop guns from existing that wouldn't happen in the usa. Because Americans are too obsessed and too irresponsible with their guns. While we could put laws into place restricting guns, people could just buy the illegally in black market. What we need to do is make violence a bad stigma. Some would say it already is, but yet again why do we still have the highest shooting rate? Its really two things. Making the laws restrictive of guns, AND putting in a mindset that guns are not necessary for the people, or the law for that matter.

With an esimated 300 million guns in 100 million hands, and only 30,000 gun-related deaths, I would hardly say Americans ore too irresponsible with their guns. The VAST majority are obviously not.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Or you could carry out smart legislation that actually targets the problem instead of blanketing out guns. What pray tell do you suggest we do to stop gun violence?

Increase the penalties for gun crimes, eliminate plea bargaining and parole for gun crimes. Done.

Increasing penalties, fine.

Eliminating plea bargaining would tie the hands of prosecutors, further overcrowd prisoners, and make it impossible to cut deals with smaller fish to go after bigger ones.

Ending parole would also further overcrowd prisons.

[Big Jim P]

Increase the penalties for gun crimes, eliminate plea bargaining and parole for gun crimes. Done.

Increasing penalties, fine.

Eliminating plea bargaining would tie the hands of prosecutors, further overcrowd prisoners, and make it impossible to cut deals with smaller fish to go after bigger ones.

Ending parole would also further overcrowd prisons.

And it would target the right people: Those who commit crimes with guns. To alleviate overcrowding, use alternative punishment for non-violent crimes.

[Sociobiology]

how about

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test,
a one afternoon class on firearms safety,
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

with this you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

But I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

That doesn't sound terrible by any means I would be concerned about the beauracratic expansion that would likely entail. I think it depends in part on the details, for instance would people already in possession of weapons be exempted or "grandfathered" after all I don't think little old ladies who want to sell guns or who happen to be widowed and their husbands guns in the attic should be required to have a permit to be in possession of or to sell or give away said guns.

loopholes defeat the purpose, I might see the possession grandfathering but to buy there can be no acceptions. For every little old lady to will have a dozen criminals using the same loophole. the background check is what lets you make sure it is a little old lady and not an convicted rapist.

Also Im not sure i can agree with the endorsement part of the system. I mean arguably full auto is less useful than semi auto in terms of control and shooting for mass casualties (yes there exists arguments In Terms of bull pup weapons but still). Even the army realized this that's why they use three round burst as that is the most effective in terms of actually killing people. Full auto is more used for supressive fire. It doesn't work like the movies where shooting from the hip spray and pray style takes out a few dozen bad guys.

what does this have to do with the endorsements?

I think perhaps the licensure system if maintain by a third party NGO might be acceptable provided it doesn't require that owners register what weapons they have.

no I wouldn't trust a non-government agency with this, at least politicians are answerable to the people.
no matter what they would be registering their weapons, if you have a record of every sale and transaction you have a record of who owns what.

Edit: oh yeah the sales records thing is pretty much a deal breaker for me. I mean some people inherit guns which they may want to sell or give away to friends, forcing 80 and 90 year old women to keep records or submit records of sales would be too onerous in my opinion.

again for every old lady you have a dozen gang members selling a gun on the street, requiring a check for ALL sales is the only way to close the loophole, I donlt care if it is a a little old lady she still can't sell a gun to a violent criminal.

It's also effectively a gun registry for all intents and purposes which is something I don't think too many gun enthusiasts could accept.

I would be willing to bet most support universal background checks.
nobody complains about the car registry.

I would think that having a list of permit holders should be sufficient for law enforcement purposes and I could see criminalizing selling intentionally to unlicensed persons.

if they have a list of all sales they already know who owns what, the registry happens no matter what, which is why I put limits on access to it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Increasing penalties, fine.

Eliminating plea bargaining would tie the hands of prosecutors, further overcrowd prisoners, and make it impossible to cut deals with smaller fish to go after bigger ones.

Ending parole would also further overcrowd prisons.

And it would target the right people: Those who commit crimes with guns. To alleviate overcrowding, use alternative punishment for non-violent crimes.

Nice, except that you haven't made up for taking away an important bargaining chip for prosecutors.

[Sociobiology]

Or you could carry out smart legislation that actually targets the problem instead of blanketing out guns. What pray tell do you suggest we do to stop gun violence?

Increase the penalties for gun crimes, eliminate plea bargaining and parole for gun crimes. Done.

so someone who wings a neighbor while firing at a burglar should be treated just the same as if he just shot randomly around his house and hit a bystander? Or do you not understand the point of plea bargains?

[Sociobiology]

Interesting, in which cases would you not allow the sale of a gun?

The current excluded groups (convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally defective), since my suggestion would utilize the same NICS background check system that FFLs are required by law to use.

you do realize that is going to cost exponentially more for gun owners than just a one time permit.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I think Frisivisia is used to the old system of "compromise", where gun rights advocates give up something, and get nothing in return.

You keep the right to play with your toys and feel like big men. Only not as many of them, and with some more restrictions so that the rest of us are in infinitesimally less fear of some madman walking into our schools, workplaces, and other public areas and killing us where we stand.

So again, gun control advocates do what they want, and in return we gun rights advocates get nothing. I'm going to pass on that.

I don't consider my firearms to be toys, and they don't make me feel like a big man. I own them for target shooting, although if I had a license and the inclination, a couple of them could be used for hunting (when the season(s) rolled around). If I felt the need, I could also use them for self/home protection.

[Llamalandia]

Well there we go making progress. How close to accepting it are you, and what modifications would you make to such a deal?

how about

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires; a background check with a mental health screening,
a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15 estimated),
a written test,
a one afternoon class on firearms safety,
and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder that would impair judgement, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card, similar to how it is done on a drivers licence.

buying a gun without the license would be treated the same as buying dynamite without a licence, it would involve either jail time or a steep fine along with confiscation of the weapon. I would leave the exact punishment up to a judges because I think extenuating circumstances do occur.

with this you could open up sales of various restricted firearms because more dangerous firearms (machine guns, foreign makes, various accessories, larger calipers) would require a more difficult screening process, much like the difficulty of getting a CDL license or a passenger transport licence, while at the same time making it easier for people who meet those qualification to buy the firearms in question.

But I would support a simple requirement for universal background checks instead.

One other issue I would point out (and I'm not trying to kill your proposal by any means I think it's not unreasonable but still) I would point out that presumably fake licenses like fake ideas kids use to buy booze or get into clubs all the time might also be used here. I mean really how hard would it be to either steal and alter someone's license or to make your own fake and then buy up all the guns you want? I'm not saying its an insurmountable issue but it seems like part of the advantage of background checks for each purchase is that there's a verification mechanism (though often it doesn't work anyway or only in a hit and miss manner because states don't always submit criminal convictions or mental illness adjudication into the system.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The current excluded groups (convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally defective), since my suggestion would utilize the same NICS background check system that FFLs are required by law to use.

you do realize that is going to cost exponentially more for gun owners than just a one time permit.

I haven't been talking about your suggestion, I've been talking about my suggestion of FREE access to NICS for non-FFL holders.

[Llamalandia]

Umm no. I think that changing the ways gun laws work such that they're are smarter restriction but no new net restrictions might be acceptable as I have myself proposed, basically let people own new full auto machines guns in exchange for expanded background checks. Sure the new checks would be more restrictive (is no more gun show loophole/private sale loophole with some caveats) but allowing people to own machine guns manufactured post 80's would be less restrictive than current law and thus such restrictions and new allowances would balance each other out thus no net restrictions. let me know what you think.

Good luck on getting that past the NRA. Also, guns bought at gun shows account for a tiny percentage of guns bought in the U.S. Closing the loophole would be a step, but a minor and largely ineffective one.

Well I mean that's not what we've been hearing from the major gun control advocates of late. I mean obviously they want more but that's the problem I the lack of compromise and good faith negotiation. If the pro gun side is going to give something up it ought to get something else in return.

[Vaque]

Our problem with gun control is: 1. We should have guns, especially in their pockets, holsters, or any sort of open-leg, arm container. To prevent gun violence, we require more on-foot or on-bicycle police officers, which we seem to barely have in any sort of country. Some may disagree by saying that we should prevent it all together, but I believe that's bogus by saying that rights must be allowed to peoples. If one has a gun, others must. If one doesn't, others shouldn't. -Vaque

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You keep the right to play with your toys and feel like big men. Only not as many of them, and with some more restrictions so that the rest of us are in infinitesimally less fear of some madman walking into our schools, workplaces, and other public areas and killing us where we stand.

So again, gun control advocates do what they want, and in return we gun rights advocates get nothing. I'm going to pass on that.

I don't consider my firearms to be toys, and they don't make me feel like a big man. I own them for target shooting, although if I had a license and the inclination, a couple of them could be used for hunting (when the season(s) rolled around). If I felt the need, I could also use them for self/home protection.

I'm not worried about you.

I'm worried about the guy who maybe isn't as responsible or as sane as you.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Good luck on getting that past the NRA. Also, guns bought at gun shows account for a tiny percentage of guns bought in the U.S. Closing the loophole would be a step, but a minor and largely ineffective one.

Well I mean that's not what we've been hearing from the major gun control advocates of late. I mean obviously they want more but that's the problem I the lack of compromise and good faith negotiation. If the pro gun side is going to give something up it ought to get something else in return.

Gun control advocates have been doing nothing but compromising since Columbine, and in turn, the NRA has only grown bolder and more arrogant.

[Llamalandia]

That doesn't sound terrible by any means I would be concerned about the beauracratic expansion that would likely entail. I think it depends in part on the details, for instance would people already in possession of weapons be exempted or "grandfathered" after all I don't think little old ladies who want to sell guns or who happen to be widowed and their husbands guns in the attic should be required to have a permit to be in possession of or to sell or give away said guns.

loopholes defeat the purpose, I might see the possession grandfathering but to buy there can be no acceptions. For every little old lady to will have a dozen criminals using the same loophole. the background check is what lets you make sure it is a little old lady and not an convicted rapist.

Also Im not sure i can agree with the endorsement part of the system. I mean arguably full auto is less useful than semi auto in terms of control and shooting for mass casualties (yes there exists arguments In Terms of bull pup weapons but still). Even the army realized this that's why they use three round burst as that is the most effective in terms of actually killing people. Full auto is more used for supressive fire. It doesn't work like the movies where shooting from the hip spray and pray style takes out a few dozen bad guys.

what does this have to do with the endorsements?

I think perhaps the licensure system if maintain by a third party NGO might be acceptable provided it doesn't require that owners register what weapons they have.

no I wouldn't trust a non-government agency with this, at least politicians are answerable to the people.
no matter what they would be registering their weapons, if you have a record of every sale and transaction you have a record of who owns what.

Edit: oh yeah the sales records thing is pretty much a deal breaker for me. I mean some people inherit guns which they may want to sell or give away to friends, forcing 80 and 90 year old women to keep records or submit records of sales would be too onerous in my opinion.

again for every old lady you have a dozen gang members selling a gun on the street, requiring a check for ALL sales is the only way to close the loophole, I donlt care if it is a a little old lady she still can't sell a gun to a violent criminal.

It's also effectively a gun registry for all intents and purposes which is something I don't think too many gun enthusiasts could accept.

I would be willing to bet most support universal background checks.
nobody complains about the car registry.

I would think that having a list of permit holders should be sufficient for law enforcement purposes and I could see criminalizing selling intentionally to unlicensed persons.

if they have a list of all sales they already know who owns what, the registry happens no matter what, which is why I put limits on access to it.

No I agree. I think that any buyer should have to have a permit. I'm fine with that. But a little old lady herself shouldn't need a permit to sell. That's what I'm suggesting. Anyone selling to an I permitted person would be still be subject to sanction. Essentially an old lady could for instance sell old hunting rifles or ww2 era weapons to anyone who had a permit (the advantage of the permit system being all she's have to do is ask to see the permit.) but expecting 80 and 90+ year olds to keep records just sell of give weapons to a trusted friend or family member is unreasonable to me.

Edit: as to the "car registry" first of all technically cars not used on public roads (eg a pickup one used on farm) theoretically doesn't need to be registered as its only used in private off road use. Secondly though there isn't a constitutional amendment which grantees the right to own a car. Plus a car is arguably more complicated and harder to master (though many get a license no regardless of how crappy their driving skills are ) than a gun. Plus no one has ever really expressed concern nor is there much reason to believe the govt ever would try and seize people's cars. I mean even if u lose your license you won't have your car seized by the govt. if I understand your system correctly if you lose your weapons permit, then your guns can be seized. That's a significant difference.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

loopholes defeat the purpose, I might see the possession grandfathering but to buy there can be no acceptions. For every little old lady to will have a dozen criminals using the same loophole. the background check is what lets you make sure it is a little old lady and not an convicted rapist.



what does this have to do with the endorsements?



no I wouldn't trust a non-government agency with this, at least politicians are answerable to the people.
no matter what they would be registering their weapons, if you have a record of every sale and transaction you have a record of who owns what.


again for every old lady you have a dozen gang members selling a gun on the street, requiring a check for ALL sales is the only way to close the loophole, I donlt care if it is a a little old lady she still can't sell a gun to a violent criminal.


I would be willing to bet most support universal background checks.
nobody complains about the car registry.


if they have a list of all sales they already know who owns what, the registry happens no matter what, which is why I put limits on access to it.

No I agree. I think that any buyer should have to have a permit. I'm fine with that. But a little old lady herself shouldn't need a permit to sell. That's what I'm suggesting. Anyone selling to an I permitted person would be still be subject to sanction. Essentially an old lady could for instance sell old hunting rifles or ww2 era weapons to anyone who had a permit (the advantage of the permit system being all she's have to do is ask to see the permit.) but expecting 80 and 90+ year olds to keep records just sell of give weapons to a trusted friend or family member is unreasonable to me.

And if that little old lady sells a gun to a con artist, or another criminal?

[Llamalandia]

No I agree. I think that any buyer should have to have a permit. I'm fine with that. But a little old lady herself shouldn't need a permit to sell. That's what I'm suggesting. Anyone selling to an I permitted person would be still be subject to sanction. Essentially an old lady could for instance sell old hunting rifles or ww2 era weapons to anyone who had a permit (the advantage of the permit system being all she's have to do is ask to see the permit.) but expecting 80 and 90+ year olds to keep records just sell of give weapons to a trusted friend or family member is unreasonable to me.

And if that little old lady sells a gun to a con artist, or another criminal?

Umm, that's the point of the permit system as proposed by sociobiology. I wouldn't have a problem going after anyone regardless of age (though prosecutorial discussion should still be exercised) who sells to a person without checking to see if the have a gun license as proposed by socio bio.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And if that little old lady sells a gun to a con artist, or another criminal?

Umm, that's the point of the permit system as proposed by sociobiology. I wouldn't have a problem going after anyone regardless of age (though prosecutorial discussion should still be exercised) who sells to a person without checking to see if the have a gun license as proposed by socio bio.

And what if that con artist or other criminal is a trusted family member?

[Llamalandia]

Well I mean that's not what we've been hearing from the major gun control advocates of late. I mean obviously they want more but that's the problem I the lack of compromise and good faith negotiation. If the pro gun side is going to give something up it ought to get something else in return.

Gun control advocates have been doing nothing but compromising since Columbine, and in turn, the NRA has only grown bolder and more arrogant.

Oh really how? What specifically do you mean? What examples are talking about? I don't think it's been some much of a compromise as much pro gun people have been having more electoral success than the gun control folks. Plus keep in mind that columbine happened during the federal awb. The awb had been one of the pinnacle crowning achievements of the gun control side and yet it did nothing to prevent one of the worst school shootings.

[Llamalandia]

Umm, that's the point of the permit system as proposed by sociobiology. I wouldn't have a problem going after anyone regardless of age (though prosecutorial discussion should still be exercised) who sells to a person without checking to see if the have a gun license as proposed by socio bio.

And what if that con artist or other criminal is a trusted family member?

Well if they don't have a license to buy a firearm then selling to them would be illegal.

[Chernoslavia]

The problem with finding common ground is that the gun-control faction offer up nothing in return for the pro-gun faction giving up their rights other than not enacting total ban in one fell swoop. Knowing that they cannot achieve that, they give nothing in return (thus making their calling it a "compromise" laughable at best) and attack the right to bear arms piecemeal.

As for your anecdote, I did not notice if you sourced it earlier (if so I apologize), so could you do so now?

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

But wont make America safer, that's the problem.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Gun control advocates have been doing nothing but compromising since Columbine, and in turn, the NRA has only grown bolder and more arrogant.

Oh really how? What specifically do you mean? What examples are talking about? I don't think it's been some much of a compromise as much pro gun people have been having more electoral success than the gun control folks. Plus keep in mind that columbine happened during the federal awb. The awb had been one of the pinnacle crowning achievements of the gun control side and yet it did nothing to prevent one of the worst school shootings.

Name a single major attempt to ban any classification of firearms following the flurry of post-Columbine legislation.