General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat could be done differently about gun control that would actually work?
To be blunt, over the last 20 or so years most of the now-extant gun control .orgs have been about as effective
as pissing on a forest fire in terms of acheiving their stated goals (there have been a few that went under-
anyone remember The American Hunters and Shooters Association?)
It's gonna take more than wasting electrons agreeing with those who already agree with you to motivate the masses off
their asses
So I'll ask those reading this:
In your own words, what do you think ought to be done differently?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Squinch
(50,956 posts)would find a way to effectively regulate guns.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Best answer!
dhol82
(9,353 posts)it would have a bigger impact!
Squinch
(50,956 posts)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... masses of them so the lone stupid winger minded bastard would think twice about screwing with them
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)The NRA is courting people of color and women into their ranks.
Squinch
(50,956 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)...NRA propaganda than ever before.
African Americans, latinos, and women are under-tapped markets and converting them to progun stances would erode Democratic party support for gun control.
Squinch
(50,956 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)republicans accept the idea.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... guns one month and it increased to 30 the next month they'd say it was 300 % increase.
The NRA is trying to impress the 2nd amendment isn't a whites only law, it is
Squinch
(50,956 posts)black men, but god help the one who actually carries that gun.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If so, what is you opinion of the following groups?
https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/
https://www.facebook.com/AfricanAmericanGunClub/
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... KGOP and their white supremacist leader in the White House.
Their patronizing welcomes don't work like that
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)This is some divisive shit you’re posting. And ignores all statistics out there.
JI7
(89,252 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)their "courting."
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Black men,Moslem citizens ,gay men,any Hispanic men Unite! Get your gun permit now"!
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)them when the raining three quarters go for their own guns.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)Make it extremely difficult for persons of color to get a gun. Meanwhile they'd grandfather in all the white men who had guns.
I'm quite cynical about this.
dlk
(11,569 posts)Weapons of war don't belong in the hands of civilians.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)that gun control is impossible - though it has been successful everywhere else in the world.
Just like you always do.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)How well have they worked in the real political world?
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)for continuing to endorse the mindset that makes ours such a special country in the world when it comes to this issue.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 16, 2018, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)
But that's okay- I'm used to dealing with members of 'amen choruses' who don't
like it a bit when someone dares suggest that theirs might not be the entirety of The Truth,
The Light, and The Way-- IOW, the "EVERYTHING our way or no way at all" school of
gun control advocacy.
Going on five years ago, I had it out with the same crowd in this rather long thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022697225
Best comment, IMO:
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)So far, it looks like gun control advocates couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery.
Treachery on the part of the NRA is a given. Ineptitude on the part of gun control
advocates need not be so.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)After the buyback grace period has elapsed, a mandatory 20 year prison sentence for possession will be enforced.
The extremely lucrative buyback will get most of them off the streets. Even the gangbangers and militia members will turn theirs in at that price (after they buy a whole bunch of them). The draconian prison sentence will keep those not turned in hidden away, buried in the ground, not shooting up school children.
It won't be cheap. The '94 ban helped turned the AR-15 into the most popular rifle in America. Today, over five million Americans own at least one.
And those are just the ones accounted for. Receivers can be had for $35. They can be produced on 3D printers.
So buy them back and send people to prison for owning them.
A law will need to be passed.
Good luck!
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....80 million US guns X $100,000...
That's 8 trillion dollars.
And there does not seem to be a big correlation between number of guns Vs homicide rate.
If there was the US would have the highest homicide rate on the planet, instead of being almost 100 countries down the list.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)So 357,000,000 X $100,000 is more money then the US has to spend.
Kustom
(4 posts)I think the actual number is closer to 300-400 million of these weapons of war, and that is just the known registered ones. Which kinda skews the model...
How do we stop the madness??? Australia did it...
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Every state has the right to define what their militia is, who can have guns, what are the requirments, etc.
There is no conflict with the 2nd amendment at the state level.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)and the court decided that the 2nd Amendment did protect an individual's right to keep and bear some arms, at least in the home.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 15, 2018, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)
and according to the dissent, misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment, as do most gunners trying to rationalize their sick habit.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)But my main point, and it is one that you acknowledge, the federal 2nd Amendment is relevant to state laws.
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)Just another example of judicial activism from conservative justices hypocritically decrying judicial activism. Original intent my ass.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That battle was lost a long time ago. There is not widespread support for strict gun control in America.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Why do you need semi-auto rifles and pistols? Why do you support and promote guns?
onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)
MontanaMama
(23,322 posts)My kid’s right to not get shot at school should come before someone’s right to own an AR15.
onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)I’m tired of the fear parents feel when their kids leave home everyday. I will not rest until their right to own those war weapons is revoked.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Have you ever persuaded anyone to actually answer one of your 'altar calls', and destroy their guns?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)organization (NRA) to advance your sick gun love.
I don't have to persuade you -- or any other gun-fancier -- that your gun habits are a detriment to society. First, you should know that, and actually care. Second, the law will eventually take care of it.
I personally don't care if you have a reasonable gun or two at home for defense, and if you are in the 6% who hunted in the past 12 months, to hunt. I do care about the kinds and numbers of weapons you think you need. And, I don't believe any citizen should walk around with a gun or two strapped to their body, except in rare cases.
And I care about the killing and this kind of junk -- AND YOU SHOULD TOO.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)but gunners gotta have their priorities.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)nothing else matters.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)missingm
(56 posts)For school shootings and the like, more conditions for limiting gun ownership, and perhaps the type of gun you can buy. These AR style rifles just make mass shootings too easy.
MiniMe
(21,717 posts)Some of these mass shooters wouldn't pass a background check
Yupster
(14,308 posts)My guess is the percentage of families with guns is probably about as low as it's ever been today.
Also, guns like AR 15's are not new. They've been around for decades.
So why all these mass shootings now?
Is it social media that's the difference? Broken families?
What's different?
When I was a kid (I'm old) you could see 11 year olds carrying rifles. They just didn't shoot people.
Or did they? Maybe there were a lot of shootings and we just didn't hear about them.
I don't know.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)For whatever reason, we are a country that acts like they are scared shitless all the time.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)What a fucking joke that is. We're a bunch of frightened rabbits.
DBoon
(22,370 posts)Guns aren't used for hunting or for actual self defense.
They are a projection of aggressive masculinity, a way of evening scores and resisting perceived slights.
Guns are now marketed to exactly the folks who shouldn't have them - paranoiacs with anger management issues.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Hmm.
From 2012:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obsessively-yours/201212/newtown-shootings-caution-about-violence-and-ssris?amp
navigation
Lennard J Davis
Obsessively Yours
Newtown Shootings: A Caution About Violence and SSRIs
SSRIs rank high in the top ten drugs that cause violence
Posted Dec 20, 2012
As the debate moves forward about how to keep events like the shooting in Newtown from happening, the inevitable topic that comes up is how to best detect and treat young people with mental illness.
Many of our politicians have opined on this subject, sometimes as a way of deflecting from the issue of gun control. While it is obvious that better screening and treatment of troubled adolescents can be of enormous benefit, we also have to exercise caution.
The reason for the note of caution is that when a typical young person is diagnosed with depression and/or a host of anti-social conditions, the standard treatment offered is SSRI’s [Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors] also known as Prozac-like drugs. There has recently been a great deal of debate about the effectiveness of such medications.
But more relevant to the discussion, is that these very drugs we hope can treat mental illness are at the same time drugs that cause violent behavior including suicide and aggression toward others. In fact, SSRI’s are the leading drugs in a recent list compiled of the Top Ten Drugs that cause violent behavior.
From 2015:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/851480
Swedish researchers examined data from more than 850,000 individuals and found that SSRI use was linked to a 43% increased risk for violent crime among people aged 15 to 24 years. The association was not significant in older individuals.
I gave SSRIs as an example, but people are on many other medicines nowadays for chronic disease, mental or physical. Statins are now prescribed en masse to lower cholesterol. Low cholesterol is associated with higher rates of suicide and homicide.
From 2000:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11104842/
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)I see what you're doing.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Squinch
(50,956 posts)this is your MO, that you do this every time a dozen or a few dozen people are slaughtered for no reason.
I forgot that your space on the gun nut bingo game is "There is nothing that can be done. These slaughters cannot be stopped. Don't even think about trying."
And always before the bodies are even cold.
It's really disgusting.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and try to think of something that *might* work
An 'amen chorus' among those already agreeing about gun control has done
and will do jack shit in the face of the NRA's treachery, bribery, racism, and treason
Squinch
(50,956 posts)
It's a lot more than two minutes.
I know you live for these moments, though, and wont mind anything the sane people are saying .
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The dominant form of "gun control activism" these days consists of clicking
Hating on the NRA and/or those who disagree with you is easy. Retail politics is hard.
I've always wondered if Michael Bloomberg is running some genius level false flag ops
with his various 'advocacy' orgs. He persuaded hundreds of thousands of people
to believe that merely clicking on "Like" and getting bussed to a rally on his dime
was an effective way of making change.
The disinterested reader will note that most of that went away when Bloomberg's interest
strayed. All that support turned out to be as shallow as Donald Trump's intellect...
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)Make all guns illegal. Without exception. Give people six months to turn them in.
Then conduct house to house searches. Any guns found result in a mandatory 90 days in jail per gun. No exceptions. After the first year the penalty goes up.
For those who hunt: They go to an armory of some sort, check out the gun and a specific amount of ammunition. They return the gun and unused ammunition at the end of each hunting day.
Meanwhile, if a gun is found by a child in the household and is used to shoot another person, the parents get a mandatory life sentence without parole. And every single year on the anniversary of the shooting stories are released about the lost life/lives, and the parents get to say how very, very sorry they are. But they still don't ever get parole.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....and if the goal is to prevent deaths i am pretty sure this fascist house to house search you propose (but I am guessing don't want to help do yourself) will end in a lot more deaths and shootouts then we have now.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)people say Nope, can't be done.
So I guess murdering children is totally acceptable. Or toddlers killing other toddlers. Every time THAT happens people say the parents shouldn't be punished, they've suffered enough. To which I say, no, make an example of them. Especially make an example with the anniversary stories.
The thing is, we need to start somewhere, only the gun apologists all wring their hands and say we can't. I just wish that those who most support the current gun "laws" would be the only ones to suffer from them, but unfortunately that doesn't ever seem to happen.
And it's only going to get worse as unlicensed concealed carry and open carry spread.
Oh, and once the house to house searching is all over (and that can be done by those Good Guys with a Gun) we'll all be better off.
If things remain status quo, then why do we even bother to report the latest massacre? It's just, Oh, yawn, another day in the Land of the Free.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)...or is unconstitutional.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And as far as your
"
T)that can be done by those Good Guys with a Gun" -there's a term that describes that mindset:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)
Reading that, I found another:
Online posturing is easy. Effective retail politics is hard.
longship
(40,416 posts)Isn't that what this entire thread is about?
That's why I won't dignify your OP by providing you with a response to your deliberately contrived question.
I will ridicule it, however.
MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Especially the house to house searches. Sounds fascist. And a 4th Amendment violation. Or maybe you were joking.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)You may be willing to live in a nation with house-to-house searches being a normal function of government. I am not.
I sincerely wish we didn’t live our lives floating on a sea of guns, but there is such a thing as overreach.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)Federal registration federal licensing and certification/recertification. No military grade weapons for civilians. Limit the magazine capacity. Require liability insurance covering hospitalization and funeral costs.
Failure to certify=suspended license. Failure to register= revoked license. Only licensed dealers. No resale without registration.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
mac56
(17,571 posts)who asks for possible solutions to a problem, then methodically shoots them down (pun intended) one by one.
That name is "prick."
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What's been tried hasn't worked, and repeat of the same probably won't either.
Remember what one of the definitions of insanity is...
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)First - it is going to take HONEST dialog among all concerned, disconnected with funding pressure.
Once that impossibility is breached -
It will take a revision of the second amendment to bring it to what is appropriate for the current environment
it will take an honest discussion between gun supporters and opponents, reaching agreement on which guns are appropriate for which uses - and, which are utterly over the top and unnecessary. So - handguns for self defense for those who wish them, rifles for hunters for those that feel they need them.
It will take patience and openness and understanding from those who are antigun - either due to geography, culture or philosophy - to accept that there are legit reasons for owning them.
It will take a total sea change of the gun industry and politicians who will have to modify their methods of selling, revenue expectations, and filling the coffers. In other words, there will have to be acceptance that human life - well being - has to come before money.
It will take an effort of law enforcement to create extremely severe penalties for owning any guns or equipment that do not fit into the above.
It will take an influx of spending into mental health care for those who are inclined to use violence
In other words - too complex for our too political, polarized times.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I wish I could say that I feel you're overly pessimistic, but I can't...
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Handguns are already used in 95% or so of firearm homicides, I don't think getting rid of rifles won't move the number of dead at all.
In my opinion 50 dead kids of color in Chicago who die in separate locations by handguns are not less tragic then 50 dead white kids killed in one location by a rifle either. But one is a lot more rare.
DBoon
(22,370 posts)Once upon a time in the recent past, smoking cigarettes was considered a sophisticated adult habit. It was glamorized in film and popular culture, and "4 out of 5 doctors recommend Camel cigarettes".
Gradually (and with the opposition of tobacco companies) smoking was known to cause a number of deadly illnesses, causing premature death and disability. Slowly smoking became less cool, and in many circles became a dirty disgusting habit.
Smoking was viewed not as glamorous but as a hazardous vice.
Cigarettes were not outlawed outright, but advertising was restricted, legal places to smoke became restricted, and most importantly the culture shifted.
It wasn't any single law that reduced smoking - it was a culture shift that in turn created many small impediments that signaled this was a vice to be discouraged.
Something similar needs to happen with firearms, particularly the very deadly firearms with no purpose other than mass murder.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)DBoon
(22,370 posts)It just makes you a sad junkie with anger management problems
LeftInTX
(25,384 posts)She can't snuggle up with a guy carrying an AR15, so she passes him up for a bare chested hunk.
This is workable....
Have PSAs about gun safety...
It won't trample on 2nd Amendment
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)We need to reduce the number of guns in this country. That could be done on a volunteer basis if people were shunned for owning guns.
We need to stop passing our gun culture on to successive generations.
Those things do not require new laws . They require us reaching a tipping point where we will begin to say being a part of the gun culture and not against it is being co responsible for every act of gun violence.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If not, give it a try and tell us if it works.
You approach might have some merit...
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
samir.g
(835 posts)Dry up the source before starting in on the mountain of existing guns.
Also go after the sources of ammunition and components.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)But I don't see that happening. And the current source will last for 100+ years as guns are pretty durable if lightly cared for.
KT2000
(20,584 posts)explained that the law that expired after 10 year, limiting the number of magazines to 10, showed results. The guns confiscated mostly had the 10. The law was allowed to expire.
The 2nd amendment does not guarantee all guns to all people. Who needs an AR-15 type weapon? No one.
Set an age limit - and make parents responsible for their underage children who harm others with weapons. We do that with cars.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They're happy to tell all and sundry that there's no need for stuff like:
Health care
Uncontaminated food in sufficient quantity
Free access to abortion
Equal treatment under the law
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)Get rid of politicians who have profited from aligning with the NRA.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)Politicians are being paid to hinder laws that would protect people.
How about cap political donations from the NRA to $100 annually?
Squinch
(50,956 posts)what his true purpose is in asking the question.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)..what that is- and just how you came to know about it.
And here I'd thought my purpose was to generate ideas for gun control that are actually politically doable.
I can't wait to hear what I'm really after
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)a change to sink in. PSAs turned smoking from a glamorous affectation, to a dirty, filthy habit, but that took many years. It is possible to change prevailing cultural attitudes but it would have to be a well coordinated plan on multiple fronts to be effective.
Freelancer
(2,107 posts)Allow people to keep as many unlicensed guns as they like, but only if they're significantly disabled.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to any state.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Your proposal would be dangerously close to the poll taxes of decades past, which the courts struck down.
Freelancer
(2,107 posts)I don't know how this proposal would compare to a poll tax. It just seems like an approach that enough people with crossed arms on both sides could grudgingly abide by. It has the virtue of being easily depicted as the end of the world by the pro gun crowd, and the zero gun crowd at the same time, which, to my way of thinking, places it in the zone of what's feasible.
PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)Change in social attitude is a must.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Owners must have guns registered and insured. Anyone not having one registered and insured gets the gun taken away until it is registered and get cited for the initial violation. In addition, like driving, people wanting a gun should have to prove proficiency before being allowed to register and own a gun.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)*A driver's license is good in all states, and you can drive your car anywhere
*You don't need to get the approval of the local popo before you buy a car or get a license
Make the tests uniform, and I'd go along with it
MontanaMama
(23,322 posts)suggestions to address this problem and you do nothing but shoot them down...pardon the pun. Seems disingenuous and it also appears that a lot of folks here have got your number.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 15, 2018, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)
the church.
The NRA is a despicable, demonstrably criminal organization and the 'same old, same old' approach
hasn't worked against them. Most all of those I've replied to have mooted the same old answers
to the same old problems.
Magical thinking doesn't work
StuckInTexas
(66 posts)I know it is extremely distasteful, but I feel like this is something average Americans need to be shocked into. The overwhelming majority of our firearms are in the hands of a very tiny percentage. The rest of Americans either just don't really put much thought into the issue because it's difficult, or are just convinced nothing can be done about it. I honestly think statistics and pictures of victims as they alive are not enough. American views on the Vietnam War only changed when they saw the carnage, live, in color, every night. I honestly think that needs to happen with mass shootings. Scenes from the mass shootings, blood, internal organs and all. It would have to be something the average American can no longer ignore. Associate guns with the carnage they leave behind. Massive online counter postings on social media, specifically targeting the NRA, and linking them to not just allowing the deaths of our children, but to actively encouraging and celebrating when children are slaughtered wholesale with the guns and ammo the received obscene profits from. We have to make the brand of gun ownership and worship so toxic, that only the nutters remain.
Full disclosure, I was a gun hobbyist for several years. I've owned many AR15's and long guns like them. I currently do not own, and will probably never own another firearm again. Sandy Hook was the first time I took an honest look at our gun culture, and where I was in it. Do I think the above paragraph is possible? Not likely, but not completely out of the question either. I personally am self reflective in nature, but I think some people just need to have the issue, especially a difficult one, forced.
StuckInTexas
(66 posts)I left out the most important aspect of this. Cold, hard cash. The NRA is a machine. We, and I mean the left specifically, need to pony up at least a quarter of a billion annually to counter the lies, manipulation, and corruption of the NRA. This is not impossible, we just really need a political leader with ties to big money to make this the absolute number one agenda.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Oh, and if any gun-totin' MAGAs start talking about Christianity, tell them that Wayne La Pierre worships Moloch and should be burned at the stake for heresy.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)...into campaign donations for American candidates, some $30 million of it in 2016.
Tell me, do you think there are any violations of state or federal laws in there? Money laundering might do it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)...and even if states created the legislation, it would take a while to enforce it - but it would help immediately.
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
For those who want to argue legality, please reference: The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)And a serious response to the OP. I am surprised the OP has not commented yet.
With your permission, I'd like to copy and repost a lot of these ideas.
And while I don't claim to be an expert in 2nd amendment law, I have read a great deal about it. There is nothing in here that should not pass constitutional mustard. Someone might argue that together the rules are in-effect a ban because they so increase the cost that it puts gun ownership out of the reach of most. I would be willing to have that legal argument.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)as far as I know, all the ideas would be legal if a state wanted to enforce them. Many states have carry permits now...and this license would not require a "national database" nor would it ban a particular gun.
The reference at the bottom of the note on the 2nd Amendment is an excellent read. I got it on Amazon (Kindle).
Dale Neiburg
(698 posts)Allow ownership of guns more or less as at present, but require that (as with automobiles) suitable insurance is required. Some people will certainly have uninsured guns, and as long as they keep it quiet and don't get caught, they'll get away with it. But anyone caught with an uninsured gun is committing a felony, will do time, and is then prohibited from owning any guns.
This also a "republican" plan, in that it privatizes first-level enforcement. The insurance companies want to show a profit. If people have too many guns, or if the companies have to pay out for too many illegal uses, everyone's rates go up. Now legit gun owners have a vested interest in keeping the house clean.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It shows how much of the debate on gun control is just people throwing out idea without any though about it.
First, what would it accomplish? Insurance doesn’t cover intentional criminal acts. So it would cover accidents, but not crimes.
If I have an accident in my car and kill someone my insurance will pay. If I intentionally run them down it doesn’t. If someone falls down my stairs at home the homeowners insurance pays, if I push them down the stairs it doesn’t. If my car is stolen my insurance doesn’t pay out of the thief kills someone with it.
The number of guns a person owns isn’t indicative of a likelihood to be violent with them, in fact mosh gun violence is done by people with only one or two and your collectors or enthusiasts that everyone here likes to attack as the problem are less likely to ever misuse a firearm.
Firearms liability insurance is cheap now, when it’s not mandatory. Make it mandatory and costs plummet even more.
And lastly, you mentioned insurance companies making money. The largest group that offers that insurance now is the NRA selling it to emerge through affiliates. You will be helping someone make money alright- the NRA will get stinking rich. And members get a discount so if you want to swell their ranks 10x with people mad they are being made to buy insurance when they are not criminals and also make all those people buy more stuff from them then mandatory insurance is for you.
The NRA would absolutely love for you to push that idea. It won’t help one single bit with crime or violence, but it will make them a lot richer and more powerful.
phylny
(8,380 posts)Insurance can cover what the law says it can cover. You need to insure your guns because victims of bullets should not have to pay for hospitalization and funeral expenses because some idiot decides to terrorize others.
So, make insurance and registration mandatory, and the insurance covers all gun usage. Or you can't have guns.
I'm sick and tired of gun owners who don't step up to the plate to come up with solutions to this carnage. I'm not responsible for this death and destruction. Gun owners are responsible.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Then the insurance won’t exist or would be so expensive to be prohibitive.
And if either of those is true then the courts would throw the law out as an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of a right. Hell, they throw out voter ID laws based on the cost of getting an ID, so if you mandate something far higher in cost they will certainly toss it.
phylny
(8,380 posts)I'm okay with that. Maybe the NRA can write some policies. Someone needs to cover the medical, therapeutic, and funeral expenses of the general public as they are assaulted by gun-owning people using their guns and bullets.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)phylny
(8,380 posts)that doesn't include arming the cafeteria lady. I'm all ears.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But they involve focusing on the root causes of these events and not the items used, because those are solutions that will be more effective.
If you want to reduce gun violence, focus on simply reducing violence. Reduce the root causes. Better fund mental health care. Have more balanced and total approaches to spotting the warning signs and interventions that work.
Because if you target the violence and it’s causes and the people prone to it, you reduce it. If you just target the guns you leave a violent person out there just the same, who will simply choose another tool.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)yet still the current situation leaves innocent people paying for your responsible ownership. Yep it would become prohibitive for many and I am sure most have no problem with that. Over time the insurance companies would identify the higher risk factors and that data would be extremely valuable in addressing what you propose.
As it stands now our tracking of gun data is pathetic at best. It is past time to stop preventing actions to work towards identifying actual risk patterns and legislating accordingly. With the insurance companies looking after their bottom lines I guarentee they would track that data down with a vengeance.
If you fall in the low risk category ie "responsible gun owner" the cost should not be that high. if you don't well you shouldn't have a gun anyway. As far as it being unconstitutional the second amendment provides for a "well regulated malitia. I don't think requiring insurance would breach that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But guess what- the kind of people who intentionally break the law and harm people with guns don’t care about the laws against murder and assault and they certainly don’t care about the laws about insurance.
The very people who need to have this insurance for your idea to work are the ones who, guess what, don’t give two shits about any law saying they have to buy it. They won’t have it.
Ever deal with a habitual drunk driver? You can revoke their license, take away their tags, impound their cars- they will keep doing it. They don’t care if the law says they need insurance.
80% of all gun deaths outside of suicide are drug/gang related. They don’t care about any insurance law.
The guy who is going to shoot up a school? Do you think he’s going to care about if his insurance is current? Hello no, if anything those types would intentionally cancel it- if they ever had it- right before just to increase the harm they do.
It’s a law that wobt change anything to any measurable degree but will make the NRA way, way richer and more powerful.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)if they don't buy the insurance then the guns could be confiscated when found. It doesn't solve anything in the short term but long term it would have an effect just as when forced car insurance was put into place. Yes people still drive without it but when caught actions can be taken. As it stands now there is nothing that can be done when it comes to guns.
With your habitual drunk scenario at some point that person ends up serving time.
It's not a solution to end gun violence it is a start to curb it. We know for a fact a huge portion of gun deaths start with domestic violence for example. Those people are not all drug gangs. Many of them consider themselves "responsible gun owners" right up to the second they kill someone. Those people are high risk gun owners forcing insurance on them probably would not stop many from owning a gun anyway but it would stop some and some is good enough for me. It is a start.
This argument that it has to be the perfect solution to end all violence is ridiculous. We will never end all violence no matter what we do that said we should continue to work towards reducing it wherever possible.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Like I said- the first effect it will have is to piss off millions of gun owners who vote.
Since the NRA is the only organization in a position to offer that insurance now and the most recognized name those pissed off people will end up joining to get the discounted rates.
Now you have millions of people who are pissed at being treated like presumed criminals, who now have joined the NRA, who are paying not just membership dues but also buying an ongoing product from them.
If you want to turn gun owners who are swing voters or lukewarm democrat voters who don’t see gun control as an issue they vote on to ones who care about it and vote on it, ensuring we lose swing districts and states for a decade or more then this is a good plan for you.
And your “good start” won’t have any measurable effect on crime.
So all in all- the NRA would love you to push this through.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)"Support for a law requiring a police permit before purchasing a firearm was between 69-75% in 1972-
1988 with no clear trend before moving up from 73.5% in 1988 to a peak of 81.9% in 1998 (Table 6).
Support remained at 78-81% during 1989-2008 before slipping to a low of 71.7% in 2014, the lowest
level since 1987."
The majority of people in the united states want action on gun control and have for decades. The idea they would all be suddenly pissed off if something was done is specious more founded in personal bias than actual fact.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What's more important to you?
To be told that you're doing the right thing, or doing the right thing?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)you?
That's not good enough.
"Support for a law requiring a police permit before purchasing a firearm was between 69-75% in 1972-
1988 with no clear trend before moving up from 73.5% in 1988 to a peak of 81.9% in 1998 (Table 6).
Support remained at 78-81% during 1989-2008 before slipping to a low of 71.7% in 2014, the lowest
level since 1987."
The vast majority of america wants some form of gun control and has for decades.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You seem to have given up tiliting at that windmill, anyway.
For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with mandatory permits as long as
the permitting process follows due process of law. Even Tony Scalia said so
in Heller
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and again because you deem it so does not make it so. People didn't want mandated car insurance either yet here we are and it is not going away.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)But by all means keep pushing for mandatory insurance- if the the NRA, some sort of
'National Gun Owners Association' will be quite happy to co-brand with it and reap the
resulting profits...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)misjudging the risk would lead to financial ruin for them. I could care less if the NRA makes money in order to do so they would have to price people out of the market or go broke.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What we'll end up with is the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, redux:
The law will do exactly what it says on the tin, but it won't do what those who
passed it hoped it would do.
And that's *if* the Supremes don't toss it..
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and I am not convinced the assault weapons ban did not work. School shooting have exploded since the ban was lifted. while they remained fairly consistent under it. It was rescinded in 04 and you can see the numbers either stayed consistent or dropped while after 2004 they start a steady increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States#21st_century
The 10th: 62 shootings (90 (2), 91 (6), 92 (5), 93 (9), 94 (10), 95 (4), 96 (7), 97 (6), 98 (7), 99 (6)).
During the 1st decade there were 60 (2000 (5 shootings), 2001 (5), 02 (7), 03 (4), 05 (5), 06 (11), 07 (5), 08 (11), 09 (7))
During the 2010's (incl. February 14, 2018) there were 143 shootings (during 2010, 11 shootings, 2011 (7), 12 (11), 13 (26), 14 (36), 15 (21), 16 (15), 17 (9), 18 (7)).
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The NRA sells the insurance now.
It’s amazingly cheap. A years coverage costs less than most people pay a month for auto coverage.
They are not going to go broke if you force around 1/3 of the nation to join them and buy more insurance from them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)phylny
(8,380 posts)mental health care in our country. But not once growing up and going to school did I worry about some gun nut killing me or my classmates. Killing my children. I wonder what has changed between now and then? Could it be that people back then didn't have the number of guns or the firepower that they do now?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And in fact in many areas it was even routine for kids to have them in their cars at high school during hunting season.
“Firepower” wasn’t really different. There were still lots of surplus M-1 carbines that had 15 and 30rf magazines.
And even if that was the only difference you would have seen the shooting just with other guns. Nobody only decides to do something like this because they got a certain style of gun, nobody holds off from it just becuse they don’t have a certain style of gun.
No, much has changed. But that isn’t it, or we would have seen the same kind of violence then. If the answer is the kind of gun then thy would mean somehow that mere existence of them was turning people to do this, and inanimate objects can’t do that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
phylny
(8,380 posts)shoot multiple rounds to ensure those who use guns are able to slaughter more people?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Colt first offered the AR-15 for civilian sales in 1964, as an example.
And then there were no FFLs you got it by nail without so much as an ID check.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Give a tax exemption to those who use the gun range. 6 free bullets to those who hunt.
Easy.
Of course, hunting this day and age is done on 4-wheelers with off-road SUVs and a gang of 20 guys go around obliterating the prey while the elderly baby boomers sit in the trucks drinking beer...
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Guns are very durable and long lived and there are hundreds of millions of them in private hands.
Heavily restrict and control the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of centerfire pistol and rifle ammunition. Ban altogether the manufacture of 9mm pistol ammunition. Also ban the sale of .223 rifle ammunition, except for the military and police. Switch the police and military to new calibers of firearms not available to the public.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is you desired end state fewer people who die from misuse of firearms as a primary goal? Or is it the limitation or elimination of firearms from ownership as the primary goal with hopes that by doing that you reduce deaths and injuries as well?
Most people here responding are responding with ideas aimed only at reducing access or ability to own firearms with the assumption that it will achieve the reduced death and injury.
However, that doesn’t mean that it’s the best way to achieve that.
Now, if your primary aim is to reduce acccess to firearms with hope that you will get everything else you want, then there are a lot of answers here for you. But if so admit that your main goal isn’t to reduce injury or death but to use that as a means to an end to accomplish something else.
If your main goal is to reduce death and injury then you need to look at what measures will mostl likely make that happen given the best use of resources and people that we have. So that means targeted solutions that primarily affect the people most likely to misuse firearms and act in a violent fashion of any kind insead of laws that will the vast majority of time only affect people not likely to ever misuse a firearm.
And when you look at those answers you will find that the most effective use of finite resources very rarely has anything to do with guns, and far more to do with systems that focus on the causes of violence in society and how to reduce them, how to spot them and intervene, and how to act to reduce the desire of people to commit violence against others.
The same ideas thrown around here that were before that wouldn’t change this one but when it comes to gun control. But had there been systems in place that intervened with this person and other violent people before they reached this state you would have fought the real problem.
If you just focus on guns at best you have left a violent person willing to do this in society with the same desire to harm others and maybe you have limited his ability to harm- but in truth there are many ways to harm and he wouldn’t have just changed his plans if he couldn’t get one specific means. He would have just used fire or explosives or run a truck over people or any other of an endless list.
But if you focused on interventions that would have first hopefully stopped conditions that lead to the desire to be violent or when that failed identifying his issues and intervention well before if reached this point then you have actually removed the person from being a risk to society.
So, to that end, if the answer you really want to reduce gun violence you need to not focus on gen word gun, but focus on the word violence. Attack the causes of the violence and work on interventions that reduce it. Gun control should be secondary becuse most of the enforcement focus and money spent on it will not even be on people who would have ever done something like this, so it’s putting effort into the wrong place.
Efforts like-
Poverty reduction. Most non-suicide firearms deaths are drug and hand related. Eliminate the need for gangs to fill a need for the people who join them and this is a good start.
Much better mental health screening and interventions- the signs seemed to be all there with this latest shooter between multiple school expulsions and lots of behavioral issues. Had there been people doing more than just kicking him out of school and washing their hands of the problem there would have been both interventions that may have prevented this and an identification of his issues so he could have been put into NICS as a prohibited person.
Much better follow up by authorities- once again, the signs were all there that he was violent and had been expelled. And he was making tons of posts that were showing he was intent on violence. But nobody was looking. Had people been looking and seen this once again an intervention could have happened, from getting him mental health care he needed to a restraining order that would have meant the removal of his firearms.
Those kinds of things and more like them are what are your best chance at the greatest reduction in deaths by misuse of firearms- or deaths by violent acts overall.
Not much else would. All the things being thrown out here like firearms licensing or insurance or the like are either totally unworkable plans when you look at the logistics or ones that wouldn’t have had any real effect any of this. And for what effect they would have the same money and effort spent on other actions like I outline above would have a far greater impact.
yardwork
(61,654 posts)I know many self-righteous people who voted against Hillary and other Democratic candidates because they believed a lot of lies spread by the NRA.
We need an organization in opposition to the NRA that makes people feel ashamed because of what guns do to this country's children.
MontanaMama
(23,322 posts)this morning. It was Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD) that brought attention and shame to driving under the influence. It took a while but public opionion shifted and the laws changed. Moms Demand Action is a group trying to move in the same direction. There’s no ONE silver bullet to slay this beast but it is one thing some us can do. I’m joining today.
yardwork
(61,654 posts)KTM
(1,823 posts)for American mass shooting victims. Do the Mobile Memorial version as well.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Australia passed extensive gun control measures that I think most of us in favor of gun control approve of. At the time it was passed, over 90% of the Australian people favored it's passage.
As things currently stand in this country, I'd guess that it would be optimistic to say that even 30% of Americans would support Australia-style gun control.
We need to get that 30% much closer to 90%. Until we do that, any talk of bans, federal licenses, reinterpreting the 2cnd, and stuff like that is at best wishful thinking, and at worst, even contributing to people's resistance to gun control.
maxrandb
(15,334 posts)But the gun must be stored at a licensed gun range and is only available for use while confined to that gun range.
Then, send the coordinates of those gun ranges to a Navy Carrier Air Wing!!!!!!
LonePirate
(13,426 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. Outlaw all privately owned firearms, with the following exceptions: antique weapons, hunting-rifles.
2. Mandatory minimum jail-time when a gun was used during a crime.
3. National database of all gun-owners and all guns. Every single gun not in that database is per definition illegal.
4. Rigorous background-checks for gun-licenses.
phylny
(8,380 posts)Gun owners have proven they are incapable of ensuring private citizens aren't caught up in their ammunition and fetish. So, you lose the right and privilege to own a gun without restrictions. Just like we have to take off our shoes at the airport and submit to body checks by the TSA, just like former over-the-counter medication is now regulated, just like alcohol is regulated. Too bad. Gun owners are responsible for mass carnage. I would be out of my mind with grief and anger if someone I knew was murdered like those poor kids and teachers yesterday. Or if my child or grandchild was pulverized in Sandy Hook, so much that body pieces were blown away.
OU65802
(35 posts)Any more than it’s all stock brokers responsibly to ensure other stock brokers don’t inside trade.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)OU65802
(35 posts)Started murdering people I cannot be held accountable what they do.
phylny
(8,380 posts)to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens, then they don't deserve to have guns.
OU65802
(35 posts)If not thousands of infringing so don’t give me that bs we haven’t budged an inch. Gun control as our side sees it has not worked and something else must be tried. We simply can’t go on sending our children into a barrel to be killed by people that do not obey the laws
phylny
(8,380 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)What is different today from when you were growing up?
The guns have always been there. In fact 50 years ago, probably a greater percentage of people had guns and more kids had guns. There were fewer gun laws back then and yet there weren't school shootings.
So old DU'ers, speak up. What's different today than from when you were growing up.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)repubs play with words all the time.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)Just doing ANYTHING would be better than what we're doing now. If you have a criminal record, you should not be able to own a gun, period. And you should go to jail if you get caught with one.
Yeah, I know there's that 2nd Amendment. Well, then, let's get really sticky about it and say that unless you're in the National Guard or Reserves, you don't get to own anything other than a shotgun or hunting rifle.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)at least in Fla
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)And sweep away the NRA - there is legal cause now that we know they are a Putin money laundering organization.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Why don't you tell us your ideas about how to end the epidemic of mass shootings we are seeing? Lets see your ideas.
That's my challenge to you. You like to write about firearms issues. So, put your mind to work and come up with some ideas. Put them out there for us to discuss.
I can't wait.
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to non-firearms dealers, while providing a 'safe-harbor' provision for sellers that use it.
Prosecute and jail those who don't use it, or use it fraudulently
3) (and most importantly in my mind) Start up and nourish a GROUND UP gun control advocacy .org,
the ones started by foundations and dilettante plutocrats have done little and tend to fall apart
when their patrons lose interest.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Nibbling around the edges with picayune laws and a toothless call to arms is the weakest sauce offered on this thread.
You continue to dismiss reasonable gun control measures because they've "failed before". Some haven't (the Assault Weapons Ban) and some wouldn't have (magazine limitations), but all have one thing in common - they've either been overturned by the gunners in Congress or the gunners have never allowed them to see the light of day. And even if they had truly "failed", there's no reason not to amend and attempt them again.
I agree with the others on this thread who are suggesting that you're merely here for an argument, and would add that your defeatism (or that which you've portrayed) is a factor contributing to the problem. It's not at all helpful. I'm guessing that's intentional.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...at least for those of us who don't value the struggle more than the reason for the struggle.
kcr
(15,317 posts)Otherwise, we wait for a political wave to drive incrimental change because that's how things work in our deadlocked two party system. That's the sad reality. This same system gives rural conservatives more proportional power with their vote so the wave would have to be a big one.
Fluke a Snooker
(404 posts)That would work faster.
kcr
(15,317 posts)I just think our two-party tug-of-war deadlock is the reason meaningful change rarely happens, and then Americans get frustrated and discouraged by the lack of change. This fosters either voter apathy or joining fringe movements like the tea party. Political will tends to move in waves and cycles and knowing when to build a movement on a crest of such waves can help, but short of overhaul it's really hard to push sweeping measures though such a system. Most change in the US happens incrementally.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It seems it is slowly happening. Many of our younger people winning elections are speaking out.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And other, state-based actions.
Require registration, background checks, and insurance. Not for intentional acts, but as recourse for the thousands killed or wounded accidentally every year. It would cheap and constitutional, and all theee of these things could win on state ballots.
Raise the age to purchase or own any gun to 21. If you’re not old enough to drink and are still in high school, you shouldn’t be allowed to buy a machine gun. Would save lives and heartbreak, and could pass on a ballot initiative.
Require all new firearms sold or imported to a state to be barcoded in addition to serially numbered. With the aforementioned registration, any cop or firearms dealer would be able to scan it with their phone. Is this the real owner? Is it insured? Where did the mass shooters weapons come from?
Most importantly, we have to keep caring and screaming and phone calling NEXT week and not just for the first three days after an NRA-sponsored slaughter of the lambs. Don’t just hound your Republican congressperson, either. Either make them be on sanity’s side or, if they agree, make them try and do something
d_r
(6,907 posts)but if we held the people who supplied the guns to the crimes committed by them then people would be less likely to sell at gun shows and so on. If your kid has access to fire arms and shoots people then you would be tried for murder would make people more responsible for allowing access. Well, probably not.
hunter
(38,318 posts)... and work your way up.
Slavery used to be Constitutional.
Racism used to be acceptable.
Cars didn't have seat belts.
Smoking in grocery stores was normal.
Drunk drivers didn't lose their licenses.
etc.
I remember cops wouldn't arrest or even ticket white drunk drivers, and restaurants were full of smoke, especially diners. I remember people smoking in the produce section of the grocery store and stamping their butts out on the floor.
Cigarette smoking, drunk driving, and gun fetishes are very similar. All are deadly.
meadowlander
(4,399 posts)and permanently revoke their right to make campaign contributions as punishment.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You know there'd be a 'National Gun Owners Association' popping up in short order, starring the
same motley crew...
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)not just for emergencies, but for weekly sessions to figure out what the hell is going on in their heads and to learn a bit of behavior modification/self discipline. That would be for starters.
Meditation classes taught to all children beginning in kindergarten and going through high school and maybe even university degree level.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)OU65802
(35 posts)None that would have stopped this shooting barring banning guns altogether. I really would like to see us stop suggesting all kinds of things that wouldn’t have stopped the current shooting. Really the top discussion when these things happen is what would stop this shooting. This monster passed a background check and purchased this military weapon legally.
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)A well regulated system of ownership as described in post 81 might very well have prevented him from getting hold of a gun.
Saying he "passed a background check" is what I have heard the republicans say as an excuse not to reform our gun laws. our current "background check" is a joke.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...with extra Stasi-esque goodness in parts 2 and 10
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)If you don't want to burden yourself with YET ANOTHER response besides calling the poster names, by all means, please post a link to where you have previously addressed his points.
Or don't. Your actions will demonstrate clearly whether you are looking for a real debate or just trolling.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They can, of course, respond to me (or not) as they see fit. If they do, I will respond (or not) as I see fit.
You are free (as are all DUers) to alert on any posts.
I don't do pompous demands from self-appointed thread monitors.
Good day
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)Your true motives have been made abundantly clear.
tenderfoot
(8,437 posts)Oh wait.... "Australia isn't as large as the US, it'll never work."
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)You can't have any background of violent acts. You can't buy and AK15!!!!!
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)You should respond to Post 81.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hueymahl
(2,498 posts)Prove you are not a gun nut troll and give a reasoned response. You started this thread.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...but I'll go ahead and humor you.
To paraphrase what I said in post#211 to someone who thought some of my proposals were weak sauce...
Laws that don't get enacted save no one. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all,
at least for those of us who don't value the struggle over than the reason for the struggle.
...and repost #215 above in its entirety as it pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:
You seem to have ...overlooked... my several gun control proposals in this very thread
But that's okay- I'm used to dealing with members of 'amen choruses' who don't
like it a bit when someone dares suggest that theirs might not be the entirety of The Truth,
The Light, and The Way-- IOW, the "EVERYTHING our way or no way at all" school of
gun control advocacy.
Going on five years ago, I had it out with the same crowd in this rather long thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10022697225
Best comment, IMO:
hueymahl
(2,498 posts)And I am certainly not part of the AMEN CHORUS, despite your attempt to marginalize my arguments with a cute nickname (which is a favorite tactic of a certain orange president, in case you have not noticed).
And I have not seen any real gun control proposals from you in this very thread. Quite to the contrary, you have consistently shot down proposals with snark and condescending dismissal.
Finally, your offhand dismissal of a serious proposal (post 81) exposes, to me at least, your true intent with regard to this thread.
There are some people who would rather wait 100 years to get lifesaving legislation passed than be forced to compromise their own Kwik-Dri Perma-Bond notions
That is a trite dismissal of Post 81 by creating a strawman. No one is saying you have to get everything you want or nothing. Each of the points in the proposal can be advocated for on an incremental basis.
You sir, by your actions in this post, are exposing yourself and your true intentions and motivations. Seeking reasonable gun regulation, or even a real debate about it, is not one of them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hueymahl
(2,498 posts)Thanks for the clarification as to your true motives.
shanny
(6,709 posts)
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)And not by having them train with White Supremacists.
Real weed-out-the-crazies training, 2 weekends a year, as a condition of semi-automatic weapon possession. Ladies too.
Regulation of the Militia is IN THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
rock
(13,218 posts)Don't allow the NRA to bribe our politicians. 
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)dlk
(11,569 posts)After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted strict gun control laws. They haven't had a mass shooting since. There are still gun owners in Australia, the government didn't take everyone's guns. There's plenty we can do. First, is to reframe the debate from the false "all or nothing" choice the NRA perpetuates.
Stinky The Clown
(67,808 posts)
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)As the law is written right now, I cannot take delivery of a firearm without going to a licensed dealer, filling out a form and waiting for a background check.
But I can buy a 40-foot container of ammunition from the iPad I am writing this on.
Something’s wrong with that picture.
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)
Kustom Spam deleted by MIR Team
Response to Kustom (Reply #224)
Kustom Spam deleted by MIR Team
Response to Kustom (Reply #235)
Kustom Spam deleted by MIR Team
usr1987
(2 posts)I have to say he is quite right. I also agree as a gun owner that AR or AK and most semi autos should not be the norm. I own a revolver, shotgun and bolt action. Used to have an AK and is overkill unless in combat for over penetration. But I agree as he states the criminals follow no laws.
rzemanfl
(29,565 posts)Enjoy your time on DU.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)And pass constitutional muster. After that any incremental change is a bonus and a lot better than just doing nothing.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)dchill
(38,505 posts)Federal background checks for ALL weapon purchases.
Oh, and limit the amount of ammo allowed to be bought and owned.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Gun controllers could offer legislation the NRA wants to get some effective gun control.
brush
(53,792 posts)a mass shooting since then.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Namely, compromise.
Are we willing to tell law-abiding, sane people that they absolutely can have their hunting rifles and shotguns, and their handguns if they pass "extreme vetting" background checks and safety training, in order to get rid of the AR-15's and other semi-automatics? You won't get any loosening of their grip on the weapons that are not generally a part of mass shootings unless you can convince them that there's not a slippery slope somewhere.
The only way to do that would be to rewrite the Second Amendment in such a way that it allows for self-defense, target practice, and also states what weapons will be banned. If there is no compromise, then we are left with the status quo until opinion changes. And I've been alive long enough to know that the anti-gun campaigns that started after the JFK murder have been largely ineffective in moving enough public sentiment.
