***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

The Constitution of the United States of America represents the extremist position!?I'm glad you are not ashamed of hiding your real beliefs.

The Constitution does not represent the extremist position. Believing that removing private sales loopholes and banning high capacity magazines are violations of the Constitution, THAT represents the extremist position.

So it is your position that the second amendment DOES NOT protect magazines holding more than say, 10 rounds, correct?From the Heller Decision (this was the actual US Supreme Court):

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Now answer me this, are these 10+ round magazines "used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes"?Because, I gotta tell ya... there are a crap-ton of 10+ round magazines out there right now being used for lawful purposes.

On might even say they were exactly in common use for lawful purposes!

I am very confident that if Congress gathers up the nerve to ban high capacity magazines, the SC will not find that unconstitutional.

 

[tom22406]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

So basically a feel good story that does very little in the big picture if anything.How about our judicial system?Are we ok with that as well?

 

[Mello]

Along with Gabby Giffords, some very powerful voices are now coming out in favor of reasonable gun control measures. It would be hard for anyone to paint THIS guy as a member of the "liberal elite" or "Hollywood left":

http://www.huffingto..._n_2431063.html

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."

He's just as wrong, regardless of his political leaning and being in the military doesn't make his opinion any more qualified. I agree we need to look at the situation in America. The vast majority of homicides are by handguns. If you do nothing to them, nothing will change at a national level. If they want to stop gun violence at that level, you will have to basically ban all guns. And if people want to try to get an amendment passed to overturn the second, they are more than free too. It would cause a whole bunch of other problems, akin to our drug war, but it's the only thing that will have a meaningful effect. I'll fight them though because I believe peoples' freedom to purchase guns doesn't hurt enough people to justify this restriction in individual rights. And I'm certainly not going to go along with these "assault rifle" bans. That's just doing something so people can feel like they've done something.

Personally, I don't believe in banning assault rifles either. But your refusal to accept ANY reasonable gun restrictions, such as removing the private sales loophole or banning high capacity magazines, and your continual insistence on bringing up the Second Amendment every chance you get, represent to me your extremist position on this issue. So in response to the bolded, I have to say that some of this stuff will hopefully happen whether you go along with it or not. If we get a bill that removes the loophole and bans the magazines, then I think we should do it even if it bans some semi automatic weapons as well.

Then when it has no measurable effect other than burning money, what's next? I'll admit I have an extreme POV compared to others, but I think that's because most others aren't looking at the stats and addressing the real problems. They are being affected by a couple of high profile mass murders and trying to support doing something to make them feel better. I'm not a complete 2nd Amendment hardliner. If you can convince me of an idea that will significantly help things that isn't too restrictive to peoples' rights, I'll probably support it. I just don't think that can be done through token bans of things like high capacity magazines or private sales without a background check. I think those are complete wastes that will do nothing and I'm not willing to give up rights to make some people feel like they've helped the world when they haven't. The only way to have any significant affect on gun violence (without really addressing the societal and economic problems that really cause violence here) is to ban handguns and that will require repealing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[shader]

Don't worry, Obama's got this:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

 

[Guest]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

So basically a feel good story that does very little in the big picture if anything.How about our judicial system?Are we ok with that as well?

You seem to have taken the wrong left at Albuqurque.I have no idea on what you're trying to say here.

 

[tom22406]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

Another thing is our judicial system and a clear need to clamp down on the criminals we do catch and punish them to the fullest.We have laws already in place but time and time again we see and hear of these criminals either getting released back into society early to only go right back in after commiting another violent crime or getting a plea bargain deal to a much lesser sentence.

Seems to me that this is the easiest to fix but nobody is really even bringing it up.

Simply getting rid of the AR-15 and other guns that look mean will solve nothing.With the media pushing this blitz as hard as they can I just wish they would tell the whole story and not only a small part of the real problem and if we look at the numbers these "assault weapons" are a very small percentage of that.

For Matthias since he may have missed it

 

[Hoosier16]

And the private sales loophole, my only concern is how would it work/be enforced/etc.. I've already noted my displeasure with gun registration and how it has not worked nor cost as little as they expected in Canada.

Just FTR, a trained professional doesn't bother me. I don't think private citizens and/or school employees or students should be allowed CCW on public school grounds.

The private sales loophole, I would love to be able to find a way to ensure that guns are only sold to legal owners. I don't see a way to do that without registration, but I'm staunchly against that.

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

 

[Mello]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

 

[Guest]

Another thing is our judicial system and a clear need to clamp down on the criminals we do catch and punish them to the fullest.We have laws already in place but time and time again we see and hear of these criminals either getting released back into society early to only go right back in after commiting another violent crime or getting a plea bargain deal to a much lesser sentence.

Seems to me that this is the easiest to fix but nobody is really even bringing it up.

For Matthias since he may have missed it

I hadn't read the few pages before this one.But if your solution is that we need to have more people spending more time in jail, it's not much of one. We already have, by far, the highest incarceration rates in the world. Imprisoning people represents a hammer-nail solution to something a more complex problem. Don't want to deal with someone? Throw them in a hole and forget about them; don't look at why they did what they did and how we can change that. At this point, California had to let people go because their prisons were past capacity. And all of this costs money. No, just saying we need to have more people in prison for longer times isn't much of a solution at all.

 

[Guest]

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

Ban semi-automatic weapons for private ownership and use.Done.

What concerns people isn't just that there's some crazy person out there who goes on a rampage; it's that they kill 10, 15, 20, or more people when they do it.

 

[Mello]

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

Ban semi-automatic weapons for private ownership and use.Done.

What concerns people isn't just that there's some crazy person out there who goes on a rampage; it's that they kill 10, 15, 20, or more people when they do it.

Doesn't that include just about every modern firearm? I'm pretty sure that will require the 2nd Amendment be repealed.

 

[tom22406]

Another thing is our judicial system and a clear need to clamp down on the criminals we do catch and punish them to the fullest.We have laws already in place but time and time again we see and hear of these criminals either getting released back into society early to only go right back in after commiting another violent crime or getting a plea bargain deal to a much lesser sentence.

Seems to me that this is the easiest to fix but nobody is really even bringing it up.

For Matthias since he may have missed it

I hadn't read the few pages before this one.But if your solution is that we need to have more people spending more time in jail, it's not much of one. We already have, by far, the highest incarceration rates in the world. Imprisoning people represents a hammer-nail solution to something a more complex problem. Don't want to deal with someone? Throw them in a hole and forget about them; don't look at why they did what they did and how we can change that. At this point, California had to let people go because their prisons were past capacity. And all of this costs money. No, just saying we need to have more people in prison for longer times isn't much of a solution at all.

I'm saying why isn't a solution to this problem part of the discussion?I certainly don't have the answers but I think we need to take a long hard look at this.

 

[Guest]

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

Ban semi-automatic weapons for private ownership and use.Done.

What concerns people isn't just that there's some crazy person out there who goes on a rampage; it's that they kill 10, 15, 20, or more people when they do it.

Doesn't that include just about every modern firearm? I'm pretty sure that will require the 2nd Amendment be repealed.

Lots of good laws are unconstitutional and lots of constitutional laws are bad./fatguy

 

[Mello]

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

Ban semi-automatic weapons for private ownership and use.Done.

What concerns people isn't just that there's some crazy person out there who goes on a rampage; it's that they kill 10, 15, 20, or more people when they do it.

Doesn't that include just about every modern firearm? I'm pretty sure that will require the 2nd Amendment be repealed.

Lots of good laws are unconstitutional and lots of constitutional laws are bad./fatguy

I agree, just not in this case. Arguing right/wrong, I just don't think around 15,000 deaths a year is worth banning almost all guns from hundreds of millions Americans and in the process turning many of them into criminals. That's a completely subjective determination that can't be proven though.

 

[Mello]

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

Ban semi-automatic weapons for private ownership and use.Done.

What concerns people isn't just that there's some crazy person out there who goes on a rampage; it's that they kill 10, 15, 20, or more people when they do it.

Doesn't that include just about every modern firearm? I'm pretty sure that will require the 2nd Amendment be repealed.

Lots of good laws are unconstitutional and lots of constitutional laws are bad./fatguy

I agree, just not in this case. Arguing right/wrong, I just don't think around 15,000 deaths a year (and not really even close to that many) is worth banning almost all guns from hundreds of millions Americans and in the process turning many of them into criminals. That's a completely subjective determination that can't be proven though.

 

[tom22406]

Don't worry, Obama's got this:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

I wonder what Alex Jones thinks of this since he speaks for all gun owners now

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Don't worry, Obama's got this:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

So executive order to classify all semiautomatic weapons as Title II weapons?

 

[[icon]]

Don't worry, Obama's got this:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

 

[timschochet]

And the private sales loophole, my only concern is how would it work/be enforced/etc.. I've already noted my displeasure with gun registration and how it has not worked nor cost as little as they expected in Canada.

Just FTR, a trained professional doesn't bother me. I don't think private citizens and/or school employees or students should be allowed CCW on public school grounds.

The private sales loophole, I would love to be able to find a way to ensure that guns are only sold to legal owners. I don't see a way to do that without registration, but I'm staunchly against that.

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

Based on what you've written, this seems reasonable to me. I am in favor of registration, but I'd be willing to accept this as a compromise.

 

[Guest]

I agree, just not in this case. Arguing right/wrong, I just don't think around 15,000 deaths a year (and not really even close to that many) is worth banning almost all guns from hundreds of millions Americans and in the process turning many of them into criminals. That's a completely subjective determination that can't be proven though.

Why is it that everyone represents all these gun owners as being responsible, law-abiding "good guys" but the second someone proposes some restriction that they don't like there's this fallback stance of, "You're just going to make criminals out of these people"? Are they only law-abiding right now because they don't mind the laws they're supposed to follow?

 

[smotherhook]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Exactly right. However, there are reasonable measures to try to stop both kinds of gun violence. Eliminating high capacity magazines should help with the mass shootings. Closing the private sales loophole should help with gang violence.

wrong and wrong

 

[Hoosier16]

And the private sales loophole, my only concern is how would it work/be enforced/etc.. I've already noted my displeasure with gun registration and how it has not worked nor cost as little as they expected in Canada.

Just FTR, a trained professional doesn't bother me. I don't think private citizens and/or school employees or students should be allowed CCW on public school grounds.

The private sales loophole, I would love to be able to find a way to ensure that guns are only sold to legal owners. I don't see a way to do that without registration, but I'm staunchly against that.

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

Based on what you've written, this seems reasonable to me. I am in favor of registration, but I'd be willing to accept this as a compromise.

The problem with registration is very few would comply. Then, when they go to sell their gun, they can only sell their unregistered gun without a background check. So you get very few background checks done on private sales.

 

[jonessed]

Don't worry, Obama's got this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet.Biden is hilarious

 

[timschochet]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

 

[Cookiemonster]

And the private sales loophole, my only concern is how would it work/be enforced/etc.. I've already noted my displeasure with gun registration and how it has not worked nor cost as little as they expected in Canada.

Just FTR, a trained professional doesn't bother me. I don't think private citizens and/or school employees or students should be allowed CCW on public school grounds.

The private sales loophole, I would love to be able to find a way to ensure that guns are only sold to legal owners. I don't see a way to do that without registration, but I'm staunchly against that.

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.

So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

I don't know that it could be possible without a registration database. Without a database of gun owners, how do you get back to original owners to follow the trail? I can guarantee that a huge number of gun owners will be unwilling to be listed in a database for fear of the potential for future confiscation. There is also no way to prevent somebody from selling a gun to anybody they want without going through an FFL. The only way to accomplish this idea of limiting private gun sales without background checks I can see is requiring total registration, and that is completely off the table for me and for about 80 million guns in the hands of about 10 million gun owners in my estimation. Those 10 million probably donate quite a bit of money to the NRA-ILA for legal defense of their rights and political voice. Gonna be tough.Every private seller could keep a reciept/B.O.S. approved by an FFL for a period of time as a trail to follow if a gun was found to be possessed illegally. It would incur a cost of about $25 per transaction, and many will squawk about that, but I would be happy to "purchase" insurance of each sale of my guns for $25 in the case that it ended up in the hands of a felon or used in a crime. A FFL transaction record to say, "I don't have it anymore. I sold it to John Doe. See, here is the record." I would prefer it be in the $10-15 range to keep it affordable, but I don't know the cost for the FFLs to process the background check. Here in Kali it's $25.

But again, how do you get back to the original owner in order to follow the trail without registration? If there were a way to keep track of the original owner that was forever off-limits for the authorities/politicians/military to get ahold of blanket list, but only single inquiries on a gun's serial # in possession of police for the investigation of a crime, I might be OK with it. Maybe the gun manufacturer keeps the record of original sale or something? I wouldn't know where to start with this policy for the 300 million + guns already in circulation. You could start by the registration already on file with individual states being turned over to manufacturers, I guess. The important part of establishing any kind of registration is to keep the master list out of the government's hands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

 

[Guest]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

 

[Mello]

I agree, just not in this case. Arguing right/wrong, I just don't think around 15,000 deaths a year (and not really even close to that many) is worth banning almost all guns from hundreds of millions Americans and in the process turning many of them into criminals. That's a completely subjective determination that can't be proven though.

Why is it that everyone represents all these gun owners as being responsible, law-abiding "good guys" but the second someone proposes some restriction that they don't like there's this fallback stance of, "You're just going to make criminals out of these people"? Are they only law-abiding right now because they don't mind the laws they're supposed to follow?

Yes. Most people speed when it's safe and yet are otherwise law abiding. A large part of our population has used drugs and yet are fine otherwise. I'm sure there are many more examples.

 

[Slingblade]

You would think gun lovers could find people less insane than Alex Jones or Ted Nugent to be their spokespersons.

We don't want them to be. Morgan picked Jones so he didn't even have to debate the guy.Let him spout off his crackpot conspiracy theories, and then use the fallacy claim that all gun owners are like that.

 

[Guest]

you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Re: your sig, 1865 down?

 

[FlapJacks]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

who's going to stop him?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

 

[timschochet]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

 

[Mello]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

1) So you've reduced the rights of everyone for a couple of people. Seems excessive.2) I'd really love to know how many homicides were committed by prior felons who then used that loophole to acquire their guns. Honestly. I'm guessing we're talking less than 100 a year. If I'm wrong, and that's much higher, I might change my opinion.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

Despite the fact that I'm in favor of points #2 and #3 here, I might have a real problem if they're done through executive order rather than through the legislative process. I'd have to think about that some more, but it would trouble me quite a bit.

 

[timschochet]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

1) So you've reduced the rights of everyone for a couple of people. Seems excessive.2) I'd really love to know how many homicides were committed by prior felons who then used that loophole to acquire their guns. Honestly. I'm guessing we're talking less than 100 a year. If I'm wrong, and that's much higher, I might change my opinion.

1) I don't consider high capacity magazines a "right". If I did, I would have a different atittude.2) There's no way to know the answer to your question, because right now no records are kept of private sales. I think you underestimate the number rather greatly, but how can I argue that without any evidence?

 

[Guest]

I do love the loony tune nature of gun owners."Us owning guns keeps government tyranny at bay except for the one time when half the country went into revolution with their guns against military technology that's 150 years old and failed miserably."

 

[smotherhook]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

1) So you've reduced the rights of everyone for a couple of people. Seems excessive.2) I'd really love to know how many homicides were committed by prior felons who then used that loophole to acquire their guns. Honestly. I'm guessing we're talking less than 100 a year. If I'm wrong, and that's much higher, I might change my opinion.

1) I don't consider high capacity magazines a "right". If I did, I would have a different atittude.2) There's no way to know the answer to your question, because right now no records are kept of private sales. I think you underestimate the number rather greatly, but how can I argue that without any evidence?

so, do you consider low capacity magazines a right? makes about as much sense as a 6 pack is okay but a 30 pack isnt

 

[shader]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

It doesn't matter. If he issues any executive order there will be angry people everywhere.

 

[tom22406]

Now imagine if Bush had tried what Biden is talking about.....

 

[jonessed]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

1) So you've reduced the rights of everyone for a couple of people. Seems excessive.2) I'd really love to know how many homicides were committed by prior felons who then used that loophole to acquire their guns. Honestly. I'm guessing we're talking less than 100 a year. If I'm wrong, and that's much higher, I might change my opinion.

1) I don't consider high capacity magazines a "right". If I did, I would have a different atittude.2) There's no way to know the answer to your question, because right now no records are kept of private sales. I think you underestimate the number rather greatly, but how can I argue that without any evidence?

so, do you consider low capacity magazines a right? makes about as much sense as a 6 pack medium soda is okay but a 30 pack large soda isn't

 

[timschochet]

I still feel as though this discussion needs to be focused more on where the real problems are and not where only a small percentage of these crimes take place.My feeling is that the mass shootings are completely random and are so few that they are taking away from where the real problems persist and nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

The easy place to start is the inner-cities where the highest volume of crime and murder take place but the problem is a few of these places have already tried the handgun ban(and failed really bad at stopping anything)so are we giving up in these areas and don't care what happens to those people?

I have no real solution for any of that but I think a good start would be to try and clean those areas up as best we can and watch the crime rate drop even further.

What does "clean those areas up" mean exactly? Legalizing drugs might go a long way towards reducing violent crime.

Totally agree on the drugs part.I also would start with the kids in those areas as well and give them a better education and learning environment.Start programs to reward them and give them some hope for the future.The list can go on and on and I have no quick fix or answer but I also am not willing to just give up on them.Just feels to me if this country wants to make a real change in this gun violence that would be a great place to start.

Yeah, but trying to fix the problems of the inner cities can be incredibly expensive and any improvement is likely to be slow and arduous. The public doesn't have the patience for it.

And to be brutually honest about things, the public doesn't care that much if one drug dealer shoots and kills another drug dealer in the ghetto. What they do care about is the idea that someone who should be on their meds gets loopy, grabs a few guns, and shoots up their spouse/son/daughter in a public place.That's why the, "Oh, only 3.5% of murders in the US are from rifles. This is so stooooopid!!!" misses the boat. People aren't trying to prevent all gun murders. They're trying to prevent a very specific type of gun murder. They're trying to prevent mass casualties at places where people they know may be hanging out.

Nothing that's I've seen proposed significantly reduces the risk that someone will decide to grab some guns and shoot peoples' loved ones in public. High capacity magazine ban - about nothing. Maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't. Private sale loopholes won't stop anyone without a criminal history nor stops anyone from taking someone else's guns to do what they want. Maybe doing requiring a mental health check of every person who purchases a gun might help somewhat, but that's too much to ask of hundreds of millions of people to protect a handful.

You keep making these arguments, and IMO they're not correct. Here's why:1. You acknowledge that with a high capacity magazine ban, "maybe the 13th or 14th person to get shot doesn't." Yet you dismiss this as "about nothing." Well, I think it's pretty significant. In the case of Loughner, it may very well have saved someone's life. Limiting the magazine to 10 bullets might save someone's life long before #13 or #14, but even accepting you're argument, it's STILL worth it. That's one person less dead, and that's enough for me to have this law.

2. Regarding the private sales loophole- you say it won't stop anyone without a criminal history. But it WILL stop those with a criminal history, and that's plenty in itself. As I've repeated several times, right now it takes only one dishonest person to complete an illegal sale: the buyer. There are plenty of honest sellers out there who don't mean to sell their guns to felons, but they do anyhow because no background check is done, and the seller simply lies that he is not a felon. If we eliminate this loophole, then instead of one dishonest person in each of these transactions, there will have to be TWO dishonest people, because the seller will have be willing to break the law as well. While this won't eliminate illegal sales, it will make them much rarer than they are now. And that WILL have an impact on crime. To me, this logic is quite simple and I have yet to hear a refutation of it.

So I reject your premise: I don't think that either of these measures are negligible. I think both of them would matter a great deal.

1) So you've reduced the rights of everyone for a couple of people. Seems excessive.2) I'd really love to know how many homicides were committed by prior felons who then used that loophole to acquire their guns. Honestly. I'm guessing we're talking less than 100 a year. If I'm wrong, and that's much higher, I might change my opinion.

1) I don't consider high capacity magazines a "right". If I did, I would have a different atittude.2) There's no way to know the answer to your question, because right now no records are kept of private sales. I think you underestimate the number rather greatly, but how can I argue that without any evidence?

so, do you consider low capacity magazines a right? makes about as much sense as a 6 pack is okay but a 30 pack isnt

Good question. While the 2nd Amendment protects one's right to have SOME kind of magazine, I don't believe that it prohibits the state from being able to place reasonable restrictions upon that right: hence the words, "well-regulated."

 

[Cookiemonster]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

1) It has happened, here in our own country, several times. It was not long ago that it happened here in our state of Kalifornia.2) We seem to be finding some middle ground with a card, or my suggestion of a note on your state ID/DL that says you can (I like the can not and make the can not's pay for the notation). About my post above though, how is that followed up or enforced without some kind of registration.3) It would be acceptable to me if we can do it without a government controlled/held registration list. See previous post again.

 

[Guest]

Now imagine if Bush had tried what Biden is talking about.....

Executive orders?They kept the warrantless wiretapping thing humming along for years, authorized torture of captured prisoners, and assassinations of suspected terrorists.But ZOMG!!! Obama's going to make me register a gun!!!Fwiw, I'm not sure where the executive power gets exactly circumscribed on this question. But it's naive to suggest the above.

 

[jamny]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

1) It has happened, here in our own country, several times. It was not long ago that it happened here in our state of Kalifornia.2) We seem to be finding some middle ground with a card, or my suggestion of a note on your state ID/DL that says you can (I like the can not and make the can not's pay for the notation). About my post above though, how is that followed up or enforced without some kind of registration.3) It would be acceptable to me if we can do it without a government controlled/held registration list. See previous post again.

yeah, what would be the difference between having a card and being in a database. I'm sure the card would have some kind of ID#

 

[tom22406]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

Despite the fact that I'm in favor of points #2 and #3 here, I might have a real problem if they're done through executive order rather than through the legislative process. I'd have to think about that some more, but it would trouble me quite a bit.

I would hope it would outrage you

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

Sounds good in theory but straw purchasers largely negate the "good" it will do.

 

[Cookiemonster]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

Despite the fact that I'm in favor of points #2 and #3 here, I might have a real problem if they're done through executive order rather than through the legislative process. I'd have to think about that some more, but it would trouble me quite a bit.

I would hope it would outrage you

It would not outrage me, because I don't hold that the provisions I stated are constitutional rights. It would, however, bother me, because I don't understand the scope of executive action.

 

[Hoosier16]

And the private sales loophole, my only concern is how would it work/be enforced/etc.. I've already noted my displeasure with gun registration and how it has not worked nor cost as little as they expected in Canada.

Just FTR, a trained professional doesn't bother me. I don't think private citizens and/or school employees or students should be allowed CCW on public school grounds.

The private sales loophole, I would love to be able to find a way to ensure that guns are only sold to legal owners. I don't see a way to do that without registration, but I'm staunchly against that.

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.

So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

I don't know that it could be possible without a registration database. Without a database of gun owners, how do you get back to original owners to follow the trail? I can guarantee that a huge number of gun owners will be unwilling to be listed in a database for fear of the potential for future confiscation.

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

There is also no way to prevent somebody from selling a gun to anybody they want without going through an FFL. The only way to accomplish this idea of limiting private gun sales without background checks I can see is requiring total registration, and that is completely off the table for me and for about 80 million guns in the hands of about 10 million gun owners in my estimation. Those 10 million probably donate quite a bit of money to the NRA-ILA for legal defense of their rights and political voice. Gonna be tough.

Agree. Even with registration, you would need total compliance, even from the criminals. That's not going to happen but it shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent some of the guns from getting there. Non-criminals would likely comply with going through an FFL and that would make it harder for the criminal.

Every private seller could keep a reciept/B.O.S. approved by an FFL for a period of time as a trail to follow if a gun was found to be possessed illegally. It would incur a cost of about $25 per transaction, and many will squawk about that, but I would be happy to "purchase" insurance of each sale of my guns for $25 in the case that it ended up in the hands of a felon or used in a crime. A FFL transaction record to say, "I don't have it anymore. I sold it to John Doe. See, here is the record." I would prefer it be in the $10-15 range to keep it affordable, but I don't know the cost for the FFLs to process the background check. Here in Kali it's $25.

I think we agree here.

But again, how do you get back to the original owner in order to follow the trail without registration? If there were a way to keep track of the original owner that was forever off-limits for the authorities/politicians/military to get ahold of blanket list, but only single inquiries on a gun's serial # in possession of police for the investigation of a crime, I might be OK with it. Maybe the gun manufacturer keeps the record of original sale or something? I wouldn't know where to start with this policy for the 300 million + guns already in circulation. You could start by the registration already on file with individual states being turned over to manufacturers, I guess. The important part of establishing any kind of registration is to keep the master list out of the government's hands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Yes, I think. The police would have to start with the manufacturer. That would lead to the original FFL, which would lead to the 1st owner, and so on. Each request would be separate. There is no way to take care of the 300 million already out there, but nothing being suggested takes care of that, not even registration (because nobody will comply). This at least takes care of any transfers going forward.