Realistic and Agreeable Gun Control?

[Skorpius]

So as far as gun control goes, I've never really been able to know the opinions of gun owners on the issues, as most people I know are vocally anti-gun.

As an anti-authoritarian centrist, I've found the issue of gun control to be synonymous to other regulative social issues such as people who are against abortion, gay marriage, or pot on moral grounds...I've never been moved by any of these arguments, so whatever. I do know, however, that there tends to be a lot of misinformation with the gun control debate - lots of fudged statistics and specious conclusions of 'correlational' studies- yada yada yada...


After reading the following piece:
Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment

Dr. Kates, who aims to address and refute many anti-gun claims, makes an interesting suggestion for what he calls reasonable and realistic gun control:

"The ban on felons owning guns is undercut because millions of sales are between private persons where the sellers have no way of checking whether the buyer is a felon. The obvious way to deal with this would be to require everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners, who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it were enacted, would flout it en masse. More promising would be to have a criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for juveniles, felons and those with sanity records). Sale of a gun to a person without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun."

What do you all think?

 

[lizzie]

I don't support permits or registration at all. What we already have is intrusive and in conflict with the 2A.
As I also mentioned in another thread, a mental health exam is no guarantee that a gun owner will stay mentally stable his entire life, so I don't support that idea AT ALL.
And yes, I will oppose all anti-gunner attempts to infringe further on our 2A rights.

 

[dogtowner]

What do you all think?

Shall not be infringed

drivers permits last for years so not timely
some federal permit does nothing for private sales.

 

[Lutherf]

Most folks aren't criminals until they decide to commit a crime. If their first crime happens to be a gun crime that will be impossible to stop.

 

[Declan]

What do you all think?

It is not impossible as alleged as whether or not someone is a convicted felon is readily available already via the NCIC for law enforcement so the data exists.

Beyond that, I oppose private gun ownership.

 

[Jango]

I don't support permits or registration at all. What we already have is intrusive and in conflict with the 2A.
As I also mentioned in another thread, a mental health exam is no guarantee that a gun owner will stay mentally stable his entire life, so I don't support that idea AT ALL.
And yes, I will oppose all anti-gunner attempts to infringe further on our 2A rights.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

For me to trade liberty for safety the exchange must be greatly disproportionate. I am willing to exchange a little bit of liberty if it GREATLY increases my safety. I have yet to see any gun control proposals that meet that balance.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is not impossible as alleged as whether or not someone is a convicted felon is readily available already via the NCIC for law enforcement so the data exists.

Beyond that, I oppose private gun ownership.

I oppose the existence of anti gun extremists. they are a scourge to our freedom. people who think only the police should have a monopoly on legal firearms are on the side of criminals

 

[Thrilla]

So as far as gun control goes, I've never really been able to know the opinions of gun owners on the issues, as most people I know are vocally anti-gun.

As an anti-authoritarian centrist, I've found the issue of gun control to be synonymous to other regulative social issues such as people who are against abortion, gay marriage, or pot on moral grounds...I've never been moved by any of these arguments, so whatever. I do know, however, that there tends to be a lot of misinformation with the gun control debate - lots of fudged statistics and specious conclusions of 'correlational' studies- yada yada yada...


After reading the following piece:
Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment

Dr. Kates, who aims to address and refute many anti-gun claims, makes an interesting suggestion for what he calls reasonable and realistic gun control:

"The ban on felons owning guns is undercut because millions of sales are between private persons where the sellers have no way of checking whether the buyer is a felon. The obvious way to deal with this would be to require everyone who owns or wants to buy a gun to acquire a federal permit that would be available on proof that he/she was an adult without a felony record. But that is both politically and practically impossible. Gun owners, who are convinced that the anti-gun crusaders will eventually use permit records to confiscate all guns, would hysterically fight the law and, if it were enacted, would flout it en masse. More promising would be to have a criminal records check done with the driver's license. Every license issued would bear the notation "eligible to own firearms" (except, of course, for juveniles, felons and those with sanity records). Sale of a gun to a person without a driver's license bearing this notation would be a felony and also make the seller financially liable for any wrong the buyer did with the gun."

What do you all think?

well, to steal an argument from the anti-voter ID crowd.... you would be disproportionately affecting low income minorities, therefore, it's a racist policy.

as for my opinion on the matter....every single "idea" that has been floated thus far is pretty much doomed to failure...primarily due to a lack of understanding on the anti-gun part( they don't quite yet understand that laws aren't followed by the very people they say they want to effect).
these ideas don't piss off the criminal element... the laws don't even affect them.
they piss off law abiding gun owners.

the idea of making the seller liable for the future actions of a buyer is absurd.... I understand it's a way to get people to check for this notation on drivers licences, but ,at it's essence ,it's a thoroughly unjust notion... the only person liable for an individuals illegal action is that individual, not someone who may have sold him a gun 1 or 10 or 50 years ago.

additionally, you would be forcing the seller to keep records ( as a defense against future liability).. beings that a mere civilians word is not good enough for the courts, it will probably be in the form of a notarized bill of sale noting that proper credentials have been witnessed.

and then there's the matter of gifting and inheritance... obviously carve out would need to be made in such a law.. carve out that would, indeed, be exploited by the very people you are trying to keep guns away from... and the law-abiders would be again burdened with even more stupidity that has no chance of producing the desired results.

end result, you put in a lot of steps and trash, and we face the same environment we do now.... bad guys laugh at us and still get their guns.

I am of he belief that gun violence isn't a matter of policy, but of culture.... we have portions of our culture that utterly disrespect life and property.
until that culture changes, there no policy in the world that will help.
I'm also of the belief that this portion of our culture is not likely to change in hte foreseeable future, so we ought prepare ourselves..to include preparing to defend ourselves.

 

[Thom Paine]

It is not impossible as alleged as whether or not someone is a convicted felon is readily available already via the NCIC for law enforcement so the data exists.

Beyond that, I oppose private gun ownership.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, of course you do; you're such a Grinch. Being that Grinch, I personally am glad you feel that way and do not own a firearm.

Me, I support the 2nd A as written .... in case any Grinch becomes angry and decides to utilize such defense in an offensive manner.

Good eve to ya' D

Thom Paine

 

[Declan]

I oppose the existence of anti gun extremists. they are a scourge to our freedom. people who think only the police should have a monopoly on legal firearms are on the side of criminals

I am sure you will have a picture of Man Haron Monis in your fetish shrine to guns soon enough

 

[Skorpius]

well, to steal an argument from the anti-voter ID crowd.... you would be disproportionately affecting low income minorities, therefore, it's a racist policy.

as for my opinion on the matter....every single "idea" that has been floated thus far is pretty much doomed to failure...primarily due to a lack of understanding on the anti-gun part( they don't quite yet understand that laws aren't followed by the very people they say they want to effect).
these ideas don't piss off the criminal element... the laws don't even affect them.
they piss off law abiding gun owners.

the idea of making the seller liable for the future actions of a buyer is absurd.... I understand it's a way to get people to check for this notation on drivers licences, but ,at it's essence ,it's a thoroughly unjust notion... the only person liable for an individuals illegal action is that individual, not someone who may have sold him a gun 1 or 10 or 50 years ago.

additionally, you would be forcing the seller to keep records ( as a defense against future liability).. beings that a mere civilians word is not good enough for the courts, it will probably be in the form of a notarized bill of sale noting that proper credentials have been witnessed.

and then there's the matter of gifting and inheritance... obviously carve out would need to be made in such a law.. carve out that would, indeed, be exploited by the very people you are trying to keep guns away from... and the law-abiders would be again burdened with even more stupidity that has no chance of producing the desired results.

end result, you put in a lot of steps and trash, and we face the same environment we do now.... bad guys laugh at us and still get their guns.

I am of he belief that gun violence isn't a matter of policy, but of culture.... we have portions of our culture that utterly disrespect life and property.
until that culture changes, there no policy in the world that will help.
I'm also of the belief that this portion of our culture is not likely to change in hte foreseeable future, so we ought prepare ourselves..to include preparing to defend ourselves.

Good points.

Especially the bit about culture.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am sure you will have a picture of Man Haron Monis in your fetish shrine to guns soon enough

your gun hatred and your hatred of gun owners is really silly. I don't worship guns. I am a competitive shooter.

 

[Skorpius]

What about opinions on ammo control?

 

[TurtleDude]

What about opinions on ammo control?

same as gun control. prohibited by the 2A. its a stupid avenue gun banners have tried to use to get around the 2A

doesn't work.

 

[Skorpius]

same as gun control. prohibited by the 2A. its a stupid avenue gun banners have tried to use to get around the 2A

doesn't work.

So at this point, where exactly do we stand with our current laws that the pro-gun crowd feel is going too far?

 

[TurtleDude]

So at this point, where exactly do we stand with our current laws that the pro-gun crowd feel is going too far?

all federal gun control laws are based on an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause and violate the 2A, 9A and 10A

states have more leeway to control USE of firearms.

 

[LaMidRighter]

So at this point, where exactly do we stand with our current laws that the pro-gun crowd feel is going too far?

It's already gone too far, it's time to take away the stupid laws and regulations, which is why the very core of progressive gun control is due for a revisit.

 

[blaxshep]

So at this point, where exactly do we stand with our current laws that the pro-gun crowd feel is going too far?

Every law that violates the 2nd amendment, so all of them.

 

[LagerHead]

It is not impossible as alleged as whether or not someone is a convicted felon is readily available already via the NCIC for law enforcement so the data exists.

Beyond that, I oppose private gun ownership.

Why? Because you feel that only the government - the same government that shot was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge the shooting of a 12 year old boy in a park with a BB gun - is responsible enough to own guns?

So at this point, where exactly do we stand with our current laws that the pro-gun crowd feel is going too far?

Let me give you just one small example. Here in Tennessee state law allows concealed carry within parks, but city and county government can override that permission with a local ordinance. It creates a patchwork of laws such that, in on particular greenway in Knoxville, you can walk from one end to the other and be perfectly legal, then committing a crime, then perfectly legal again because the park is partly owned by city and county governments with different laws. Now wouldn't you agree that if I take one step this way I'm a criminal and if I take one step that way I'm a perfectly law-abiding citizen is going just a bit too far?

 

[Declan]

Why? Because you feel that only the government - the same government that shot was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge the shooting of a 12 year old boy in a park with a BB gun - is responsible enough to own guns?

I'll gladly support disarming the police as soon as we disarm the citizens. We can do it the very next day if you like.

 

[blaxshep]

I'll gladly support disarming the police as soon as we disarm the citizens. We can do it the very next day if you like.

That would be GREAT for criminals. Is this like affirmative action for criminals?

 

[TurtleDude]

That would be GREAT for criminals. Is this like affirmative action for criminals?

gun banners are generally pro criminal or at least overly sympathetic to criminals

 

[Thom Paine]

I'll gladly support disarming the police as soon as we disarm the citizens. We can do it the very next day if you like.

A rhetorical question:

After firearms, what's next ? Clubs, knives, sharp sticks, ball point pens ? All lethal instruments in someones hands.

Grist for the thought mill.

eace

Thom Paine

 

[LagerHead]

I'll gladly support disarming the police as soon as we disarm the citizens. We can do it the very next day if you like.

Absolutely. As soon as you identify a way to find the 300 million guns in this country, get them away from the citizens without the police killing anyone, and then prevent criminals from getting any more guns. Tell ya what: While you're coming up with that plan, I'm going to go out and shoot my AR-15. The scope needs to be zeroed anyway.