Oh, wait.

Yes, it does matter what the citizenry wants. If the current batch of politicians pass something the citizenry overwhelming does not want, they will be replaced over the next few elections and that law will be replaced.

improving mental health facilities across the county so they will be accessible and free for those seeking to use them.

proposal is a person who knows about firearms.

I want to see real gun control not feel good gun control.
That's what politicians do for their constituents.

We don't want a repeat of the 94 assault weapons ban fiasco

let people keep their guns but make them take a hit in the pocketbook. $20 for 500 rounds? ... disgusting.

Not the ultimate solution I would like to see but it would be a start.

and if passed how would you stop the black market?

ban gun shows.
background checks that include mental health screenings by professionals.
stop selling ammuntion online.

sales of guns and ammo at gun shows.

The problem arises when private sales happen at gun shows.

Gun shows should be dealer only.

Is that what you're asking about?

Black letter law

the sales of weapons out of pickups in the parking lots. Wholesale supplies distributed in cash transactions.
Enforcement of existing laws are most often non-existent at "gun shows".
In Colorado we have thousands of registered gun dealers and a handful of agents to inspect transactions.
Majority of crimes using guns are done with illegally obtained guns.
We need stronger enforcement and stiffer punishment for offenders.

All firearms sales, including private sellers, should have an NICS background check done before the sale and transfer. If I had my way, all transactions would go through an FFL dealer, no execptions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those dealers are criminals and some have had their license revoked and some have been
prosecuted.

For the most part though most gun dealers do follow the law.
And those that don't need to be dealt with .

should be increased to life in prison.

In fact I wouldn't care if we went barbaric on them.

But there are no proposals for increased regulation that gun nuts will support. We could have daily massacres and they would still be stuck in reverse unable to locate the clutch.

We can't change Nuts, but not all gun owners are nuts and the majority
at least in my humble opinion realize a change is needed.

they lose all civil rights, not just RKBA.

Today a convicted felon after serving their sentence may have their civil rights restore.

If that is done without exception, then that person has her/his RKBA restored.

It is supported by the majority of Americans, and it would actually make a difference. No, it won't pass the house right now, but that's not an excuse for not pushing for it.

Instead of cowering before the GOP/NRA and refusing to consider policies that Grover Norquist doesn't approve of, we as Dems should put up a fight and push for strong gun laws.

Also safe storage of all firearms in the home.

individuals currently used in most states?

Less people would be willing to buy a gun for someone else if their name would end up listed next to the gun in a registry. It would also prevent private transfers without background checks -- if you sell your gun to someone else, they have to be licensed, and you have to transfer the registration.

You are more extreme than the NRA!

It's hard (but not impossible) to get more extreme than the NRA...

Unless a firearm is home made there is a paper trail some where for all modern firearms sold.

ability to exercise a right that our Constitution obligates government to protect.

I believe there have been one or two cases in the US where a list of registered firearms was used to confiscate firearms.

That's the NRA and the hardcore pro-gun extremists. In polls, not only do most Americans support handgun registration, but even most gun owners. For example, here's a poll that finds 66% of Americans in favor of registrering all guns (not just handguns), along with 49% of gun owning households, with 48% of gun households opposed (question 28). It's also worth noting that only 6% is "strongly opposed" to a national gun registry, which means that, assuming you are "strongly" opposed, only 6% of the country is with you.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf

it doesn't matter much. We're never going to convince everyone. See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021998233

one proposal that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Proposals such as evaluating a person's mental ability before they are allowed to possess a firearm ignores the fact psychiatrists and psychologists disagree themselves on such things.

One need only watch those experts testify in a murder case for the prosecution and defense to conclude it's the person who performs best before the jury that wins.

On top of that, people who post on that issue are often long on invective and short on facts.

It's hard to look back on any individual event and say for sure that it would have been stopped. Arguably, for example, a mental health evaluation might have prevented the Gabby Giffords shooting, since that guy seemed pretty clearly having mental problems. But maybe not. What we can say, though, is that certain policies (e.g. licensing and registration of handguns) would reduce the number of people shot and killed every year.

On the other hand, I don't see any legitimate arguments against requiring licensing and registration for handguns. The fact that it won't prevent all gun violence is not a sound argument. Neither is "registration leads to confiscation".

a new law would balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for self-defense with society's right to defend itself as in this case.

no personal arsenal in the world will be big enough to stop them.
registration and a license to own a gun is a good start.
I own a handgun by the way.

Right now if a weapon is found in a crime.
The serial number is traced back to the manufacture.

Then the serial number is tracked back to the wholesaler that bought it.
Then it's tracked back to the dealer who bought it from the wholesaler and so on......

When a dealer sells the weapon the person fills out a 4473 and the dealer has to keep the copy for 20 years
or if the dealer goes out of business .All forms (4473's ) and his bound book is turned into BATF

There is always a paper trail to be followed unless the gun is stolen and then sold.

Making a central registry would make it easier for law enforcement to track down where a firearm came from.
Who's hands it went through , when the weapon changed hands etc....

People who complain that the government would know I own a gun are idiots.

Unless you bought the gun illegally there is a paper trail some where and enough investigation and plain
old foot work from an agent would uncover it .

the results of smoking.

No, I'm not going to suggest specifics. That's what we need a national conversation about. You know, the conversation that the NRA says cannot happen. Slippery slope and all that.

which is actually to low powered for lot of hunting..

A light-power, high-capacity weapon has more firepower than a slightly larger single-shot.

magazine size? caliber?

If citizens can't have access to NICS checks "all sales have to go through a dealer"

in addition with the millions of unregistered guns out there how would a ban work????

In my state no hand gun can be sold privately unless the person has a permit
and it goes through a dealer.

This stuff won't be done over night but having the President involved with governors would be a start.

We need all governors from all 50 states sit in a room in Washington with the President leading the conversation.

This is a national issue that needs to be addressed. And have the meeting televised.
My personal belief is right now more than ever "the majority of the country would support common sense gun control"

A small step,but perhaps a useful one...

I would rather have a 4473 filled out.

I know the outrage will be it will cost money for a private sale transfer ?

a requirement for secure, locked, separate storage for firearms and ammunition, say (if the guns in this Connecticut case had been locked in a gun safe, would the shooter have been able to access them? Perhaps not.)

It's very likely that the perp in this case would have had access to the guns even if they'd been in a safe.

He killed his mother anyway, what would have stopped him from threatening her to get access to the safe/

Of course this is all speculation anyway regarding this specific case.

Your suggestion would probably help in some cases. But people who think they need a gun to protect their castle would not support it. Therefore the NRA and all their congressional stooges would stop it.

and as far as sensible gun safety measures go it's probably a good start and about the most that can be hoped for in the present environment.

Maximum magazine capacity of six rounds. Handgun or rifle. Period. Anything larger=felony
Rifles locked way while transporting to range, hunting area, etc
No sales without background check. No exceptions
One week waiting period. No exceptions
Uniform gun laws across the nation strictly enforced

There is a start.
On another note....I am a gun owner with a CCW and if they decided that you were not allowed to carry a handgun on your person in public I would be OK with that.

what about a gun produced in one state and used in that state. no interstate commerce,the us cant do anuthing about it

6 round magazine limit- no chance of passage
background checks for all- reasonable
1 week waiting period- reasonable

It sounds drastic but that policy is already in effect for shotguns. When duck hunting you can only have three shells in your gun. That law hasw been in effect for more than half a century and NO ONE has ever questioned it or complained that Government was taking away their gun rights. The very same Law with the exact same reasoning could be applied to ALL guns except military models, and those would not be abailable to the average citizen...

Why not limit the number of rounds in a magazine? If you could limit it to 30 then you could limit it to 6 or 8. I don't see any legitimate reason the average person needs a larger magazine whether hunting, target shooting or defending your home.
Sure, it would be an inconvenience...so suck it up and deal. You and I both know you can change a magazine in 1 second. The whole point is to reduce the risk and change the dynamic that is causing more and more people to rush to own more weapons drive by fear.

To defend against the government is ridiculous..you would never hear the drone coming.

there are millions of large magazines out there. do you retroactivly ban them? that wont happen
ban future sales? that would work but it would be a long process to winnow down the number of magazines

if they leave the home it's a felony.
There is no perfect immediate solution but there needs to be a beginning to the process. Long or not.
I have a couple of 17 rounds mags myself. If I have to buy a smaller mag for going to the range then so be it.

New York, for instance, does not allow weapons that can fire more than 10 bullets before reloading to be owned by anyone not associated with law enforcement or the military. If the killer in CT had to stop to reload maybe someone could have stopped him.

Mandate proper security measures for civilian firearms and impose criminal penalties on persons who fail to properly secure their guns should those guns fall into criminal hands. Harsher if the guns are used to inflict harm. It might be necessary to subsidize this program so as not to present a barrier to the poor.


Expand the NICS database to include more mental health records (rather than just involuntary commitments and adjudications). This will require modification of the laws concerning the privacy of medical records, but that shouldn't be an issue. The content specifics would remain unavailable to people using the system to verify purchaser eligibility; the system would simply tell them "yes" or "no" to the prospective purchase (like it currently works).

"if those guns fall into criminal hands"

We are not talking about that. In none of the cases of mass shootings recently...not in Connecticut, not in Wisconsin, not Arizona...was the shooter a "criminal", nor was the shooter using illegally-obtained firearms. The focus on "acquisition of guns by criminals" is a red herring; it's disingenuous at best. None of the shooters in the mass shooting incidents was a "criminal" until they committed their crimes.

Yes, we ARE talking about that. This thread isn't about mass killings, specifically. It's about overall gun control ideas, and could thus be considered to be more about the vastly greater death toll from firearms illegally in the hands of criminals.

Before you accuse others of disingenuousness, consider actually reading the thread with due care.

because...why are we talking about broader gun control measures? Helpful hint: it's got nothing to do with illegally-obtained firearms used by persons with prior criminal records.

Not every gun control thread is about mass killings; try and get that into your head. The OP asked about reasonable gun control measures. Not "gun control measures to stop mass shootings." A lot of people have managed to let the emotions abate a bit and recognize that mass killings are a very small part of our nation's problem with gun violence. Consider becoming one of them.

Oh, and if you slander me again (that horseshit about being disingenuous), welcome to ignore. I have no patience with that kind of asshattery any more.

because...why are we even having this discussion, in the first place? Why now? Sure, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing, but that's not why we're discussing this; it's guns in the hands of people with no prior criminal convictions who go amok. And strictly speaking such killing sprees are probably more easily stopped by gun control measures than criminal use of weapons; criminals will have the connections, means and determination, in most cases, to obtain illegal firearms. Someone like Jared Loughner, or this Adam Lanza? Might not.

Sure, it might be the reason this thread is allowed to exist in GD, but the thread itself is clearly NOT just about mass shootings.

And you're going to pretend to be surprised by this? No one here is stupid enough to think one restriction is going to reduce all types of crime. Spare us the bullshit.

Might want to consider dispensing with the straw man arguments, while you're at it...

*sigh* Another entry on my ignore list...

and this post is more BS. look up insults and straw men, before you throw those terms around, because right now you are not making a lick of sense.

No one needs a weapon that can fire more than ten bullets before reloading and no one needs a weapon that fires 6 bullets per second.

which hasnt been used in a mass killing

What additional elements of a person's mental health records other than involuntary commitments and adjudications should, in your opinion, be a disqualifier?

I'm not a mental healthcare professional, so this is very much a layperson's viewpoint, but I think some candidates for denial might be diagnoses of psychopathy, paranoid schizophrenia, some of the more extreme forms of sociopathy, various forms of psychosis, and so forth. A psychiatrist would be able to suggest better, more specific examples, I'm sure.

we're mourning, not 'ranting' and 'raving'.

Greed is worship in America as a sign of success and we have Americans praying for the victims of greed.

Looking at our country in this hour of grieving and wondering when will this insanity ceased to exist.

The mother of the killer fortifying herself with weapons designed for war against our enemies and yet we question who is insane in America today.

We are currently engage in the longest war in American history with terrorists from Saudi Arabia who attacked us on 9/11 2001 with box cutters. On December 14, 2012 we have a extremely unstable 20-year-old extinguish the life of his mother on his path of insanity to extinguish the life of 26 individuals in a grammar school in Connecticut with weapons design for war.

Our leaders are currently debating the purse strings of America as most of America is grieving and praying. Greed is a bully and will continue to use all of its arsenals to silence the majority of Americans who want to divorce itself from this insanity of guns designed for killing our enemies in war sold in America. Who is insane that is the question?

They all have to be neon colored.

... Master of What's Possible?

claiming a ban on all guns is possible is unrealistic.

Your reading comprehension is spot on, except for one thing, you don't KNOW what is "actually possible" and repeating it ad nausium doesn't change that. There is a difference between your opinion and what is an actual fact.

People in this Nation once claimed that ending slavery was "impossible."

Adults are trying to talk. Almost everyone in this country is trying to figure this out. And thanks to the OP for trying.
Licensing and registration is already being done for hand guns. Mandatory guns safes are a good idea. Stronger penalties for gun crimes are a good idea. There are many good ideas but will it keep the criminals and lunatics from killing NO. Laws mean nothing to them laws are only for us.
Our society is sick and I think that is the root of the problem and it's all our fault every damn one of us.

I'll hate till the happens. The "root of the problem" is that every fucking yahoo, gun psycho has access to killing machines.

No one, I fucking repeat NO ONE appointed you OR the OP to decide what position the rest of us must take.

Get over yourselves.

him/her to the maximum years if convicted, require that time to be served non-concurrently with other sentences, and no probation for the sentence relating to firearm possession.

Today most convicted felons are allowed to serve sentences for gun possession concurrently with other sentences effectively negating the sentence for criminal use of a firearm.

guns and the murders that causes.

make and enforce laws so what non-government solutions do you propose?

You have a real problem with avoiding the issue of the thread with red herrings. Try to follow.

Laws do work and help. Limitations on the types and numbers of guns legally available for purchase would help. Background checks and waiting periods on ALL firearm purchases. Full registration on all guns owned would help. New laws imposing criminal or civil liability on gun owners if their weapon was used in a crime would help. Those types of laws would help reduce the number of guns and reduce the number of unsecured guns.

Here is the distinction, I'll make it simple for you (although I know will dismiss it, ignore it or toss out another red herring):

The reforms I mentioned and that have been discussed on DU help to secure guns and restrict the flow. It would encourage those those who are law abiding citizens to secure their guns. It would make access by those who intend to commit mass murder much harder.

Stricter sentencing laws are never a deterrent. Criminals don't weigh the potential time before committing crimes, usually.

you enforce your proposed laws without "sentencing"?

Sorry, re-read what I wrote. I don't think you are as dumb as you act. I think it is intentional ignorance on your part.

purchase would help. Background checks and waiting periods on ALL firearm purchases. Full registration on all guns owned would help. New laws imposing criminal or civil liability on gun owners if their weapon was used in a crime would help. Those types of laws would help reduce the number of guns and reduce the number of unsecured guns."

I ask again, how do you propose to enforce those laws without sentencing?

answer.

Until then goodbye.

Lanza was a criminal.

He stole the guns.

He illegally entered a school.

The school happened to be a designated gun free zone.

Lanza was less that twenty-one years old. In Connecticut a person has to be older than 21 to possess a hand gun.

Do I need to keep going?

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

You are making their point for them.

and he wasn't a criminal until he did this, anyway. And the fact remains that those guns were legally acquired (and, probably, not properly secured).

Several posters here are so hard over on their polemics that they are providing great fodder for their opposition.

There are ways to address and discuss this without the F-word in every post and "every gun owner has blood on their hands" hyperbole.

We need to LIMIT the size of these.

NRA talking point notwithstanding, having to change a clip will mean three seconds of not actively engaging in the hunt.

We need to focus in the mechanics of the weapon, not how gnarly they look.

It won't pass this congress, but certain full classes might have to no longer be sold to civilians, I am including semi automatic pistols. (The majority of murders are committed by pistols).

I know Saturday Night specials are pervasive, so here is the other sad point, anything we do on this front will take twenty years to be very noticeable.

Also we cannot expect just one thing to solve this health crisis...we may need face a fact, we need to have cultural changes. The media needs to start showing the bloody sheets. Hollywood should stop the very impressive moulage and some classes of movies, the theaters should be empty. The last one, I have little hope.


I forgot, gun shows have to be very regulated, get rid of the loophole.

No more Internet sales.

All this has to be federal or we're pissing in the wind.

Oh I know it won't pass, but those who wish to own infantry weapons most be required to drill with the guard once a month, that was the intent of the second amendment. So while it won't pass, stop giving people a pass...

Oh and one last thing, once the technology gets there, all guns in private hands have to be back fitted to smart technology, and foes without saying, licensing and registration.

I realize some of this, unicorns in the forest have a better chance of farting, sadly I think all of it. Our congress is damn scared of the NRA, more than Norquist actually.

Have the President call a national meeting for all governors.

I know we have a couple of crazy ones , what the hell is her name?

banning them will NEVER happen.
as to the gun show loophole it should be closed. I shouldnt be able to go to a gunshow and buy a gun,no questions asked.
as to internet sales do you mean private sales? i dont think that could pass. dealer sales over the internet involve a background check
i also think there should be a waiting period.

I said what should, not what would. So we need to design a mechanical solution that new guns do NOT accept anything longer that a 10 round magazine

It could be done.

There is already a waiting period in most states.

And Internet sales, all of it. It has to do with ease of stolen identities. Period.

Won't pass, precious lovers are safe from any common sense or not so common sense regulations. Our law makers fear the NRA more that Grover, and it's bipartisan.

pie in the sky dreams are one thing but wont have ANY impact. Reasonable,passable laws might

In this Congress, we both know this. Why I stated that none of this would pass...unicorns have a better chance of farting in the forest. I will still advocate for what I believe. And I will give a donation that I can ill afford to the Brady Campaign.

A law about the safe storage of guns might have a chance.

But the only way I can see to enforce it would be to punish people after their guns are stolen.

and stopping sales of multiple round clips would be difficult but not impossible.
WE must begin somewhere someday.

the law banned clips over 10 rounds.
i could easily carry 2 handguns and have a multitude of clips on me.it only takes seconds to drop an empty clip and reload if they were large enough caliber,say 40s/w or so i could do as much damage as was done in ct w/o a so called "assault weapon"
the vas majority of gun incidents in this country involve plain old handguns. massacres like in sandy hook attract the attention but the problem is handguns. until we figure out a way to control them we are just spinning out wheels

the AWB was poorly conceived legislation. And you're also right that "assault weapons," the current tragedy notwithstanding, are not used in crimes very often -- at least compared to a standard semi-automatic handgun.

I often think of how we removed Quaaludes from our midst as an example of the difficulty and inevitable success we can achieve when we desire and work hard enough to make the world a better place.
Nothing worth while is easy.