We just need some more civility and understanding within the debate.

Is that the change after the latest massacre? "Well, how about if we just don't insult and snark quite as much...!?"

bathroom humor, memes, and hysterics to get our point across.

But, your point is fair. I think we could all tone down the rhetoric and discuss viable solutions.

Have had a few time outs for insults

Not firearms owners either

Rather than shooting down (pun intended) every suggestion anyone comes up with.

Tired of burying citizens killed by firearms.

Is not of the mass murdering type, I would like a law of committing a crime with a gun a federal crime. It would come with a mandatory prison term.

Chicago had over 50 shootings last weekend alone. I can guarantee that most of the perpetrators have had run ins with the law before. Why are they on the street now?
Many here have expressed a fear of going to the mall because of the fear of a mass murder, just imagine being a single mother afraid to leave her apartment.

Although this won't do anything for the mass murders that dominate the media, it would work wonders to reduce gun violence.

You asked for suggestions, here's one.

I would extend it to say that if a felon is found in possession of a firearm, it is a mandatory minimum of twenty years.

Thank you.

Surprisingly, a few even support reasonable first steps -- universal background checks, gun show restrictions, etc.

But it's like they don't feel they're allowed to say any of that until they call you a "gun grabber" first, or embrace the usual snarky callousness after each new massacre.

UBCs with exemptions for family, modifications to the NFA and GCA, and national concealed carry.

You or anyone else is free to counter offer - I assume that is how these things work on the hill.

for the sake of discussing solutions. If not, fine. But I don't want to hear folks say that the pro-rights side isn't willing to discuss potential compromises.

But there is no working with pro-gun, pro-proliferation lobbies on any of this. Surely you must realize that.

Times, please read them, they are in many threads here.

Still, it's a good point, and I think it could be part of the solution.

The real problem is there is no one solution. The congress (insert laugh here) needs to come up with a comprehensive plan that includes, but not limited to:

1. Medical/mental competence for ownership
2. Limited firing capacity for any weapon
3. Stricter licensing and waiting periods
4. Prosecution and incarceration of perpetrators of crimes using weapons, properly licensed or not
5. Prosecution and incarceration of owners who lose control of their weapons—as in parents who don't secure their weapons from children
6. Reversing Citizens United, which among other things, would limit or eliminate NRA's (and others') influence over Congress
7. Required education in the use of firearms as part of the licensing procedure

That's just a start.

1.

The complete opposite of compromise.

Or, to put it another way. Fingers in ones ears, "La! La! La! La! La! I can't hear you!"

To solve this unarguable national problem, one has to first pull ones digits out of ones aural canals.

Then, people can discuss things rationally.

Let's start there and move forward.

Thank you for an opportunity to chime in on the subject.

2 no's 1 maybe and 5 yes.
That's pretty good compromise in anybody's book, except in yours.

Ban large cartridge cases, or whatever the gun lovers call them. Let's start there.

Assault weapons ban. Let's start there. Nobody needs those for anything but mayhem and mass death. Or at least, licensed and closely monitored for those who are collectors, however none that are full automatic.

Gun trade in program, like Australia. Turn in a gun, you get a reward. It gets melted down. It is voluntary, of course. We need to take some of these weapons off the streets.

If your gun is used by your kid to shoot somebody, you go to jail! In other words, mandatory safety measures for gun owners. If your home has guns and there are children there, the guns have to be locked up. The extent to which they aren't is the gun owner's legal responsibility for the damage done. That goes for any similar family situation.

These are pretty simple. Along with gun ownership comes a rather huge responsibility. The extent to which gun owners cannot, or will not, respond to these issues is the extent that they do not deserve to have a legal right to own a firearm. This is in spite of the second amendment.

A great many of us are sick and fucking tired of the lame assed excuses of why a well regulated militia cannot be regulated.

Rifles account for less than 4% of all firearm deaths, how would banning them be beneficial?
The vast majority of firearm deaths are done by handguns, not rifles.
Large cap mags? How would banning them lower the firearm death rate? And how would you remove from circulation the millions upon millions of hi cap mags already in existence?

A voluntary gun buy back is feasible, no problem there, if some one wants to trade in their firearm for a gift card, voucher, that's their business.

I absolutely agree with locking up your firearms when not in use, that's a no brainer.

Some points.

What use are automatics -- note: I specifically did not write semi-automatic? Automatic firearms should be outright outlawed. Semi-automatics, probably not so. My father owned a semi-auto 22 cal Mosberg. He was a dead shot with it. The varmints on our land did not stand a chance against him.

However, he did not need a 30 shot magazine, let alone a 100 shot. And any hunter would tell you that if you have to shoot more than once or twice you are not doing it right.

Likewise, protection against home invasion. For that, I would imagine buckshot would be much more effective than a 30 shot magazine, let alone an 100. And shotguns are entirely legal. That said, few of us ever lock our doors, even when we leave the house for town.

I live in a very rural area. Many of my neighbors and friends are avid hunters and have multiple firearms. I have no problem with that. Although I own no firearms myself, there are times I wish I had a 22 cal for varmints, which come along occasionally. On the other hand, those encounters I've had over the past several years didn't cause much trouble. The last couple were porcupines, which I found to be quite cute. No, I did not pet them. I shooed them away, gently. They departed on their own accord.

However, we also have wild hogs and cougars around here. And coyotes, but one only hears them, never see them. But sometimes a gun could be handy here, especially during wild turkey season. Yummy! But I myself could not do that.

However, as I said, many of my friends and neighbors do hunt. And I would not deprive them of that, especially since they do so because things are still quite economically depressed here. A rifle or two can put food on the table.

I hope you understand my position.

As always.

I live in a very rural area also, my lovely wife and I own a small farm outside of Flagstaff, AZ, beautiful area, cold as hell during the winter, but I wouldn't trade it for any big city.

Like you, most of my friends are avid hunters and we will donate what we don't eat to the local homeless shelter in Flagstaff.
Our farm provides most of our food, we grow fruits, veggies, our free range chickens provide us with delicious eggs, etc.

I have an AR-15 with a 30 round mag that's great for killing predators that try to take our livestock, predators like coyotes, bobcats and the occasional cougar, but only if they're actively going after our animals, if they're just passing through, they get a free pass to go on about their way.

I do understand and respect your position, even if I disagree with some of those positions.
BTW, auto weapons are in fact few and far between, the 1986 NFA banned new auto firearms from being sold to the general public, those still in circulation by being grandfathered in, are strictly regulated by the ATF, they can still be bought if an owner wants to sell one, but you'll need thousands of dollars for the purchase, and an up your keester background check by the ATF/FBI and a 200.00 tax stamp and a lot of patience waiting for the ok from the feds.

A civil conversation is so much better and I thank you for this, it's refreshing.

The infamous North Hollywood shootout of 1997 is the lone exception.

No automatic weapon is ever required for any reason.

And your so-called exemplar is not an outlier, it is a symptom.

There are no arguments for fully automatic firearms that survive any rational argument. None whatsoever! And high capacity magazines are useless, other than to kill a lot of humans quickly.

Where does one draw the line?

That is the question on firearms. Is a bazooka too big? Or a thermonuclear bomb? Okay, clearly those are above the line. However, someplace between a pen knife and a hydrogen bomb there is a line above which US citizens do not have second amendment rights.

The political argument is where that line resides.

Let us start there. That there exists a line above which citizens do not have the right to own weaponry.

They are highly regulated and usually cost tens of thousands of dollars. Bazookas are also legal to own and are regulated like full auto rifles. Neither are used in crime. I am quite sure that thermonuclear weapons are not covered by NFA.

My only reason for my initial response is because hyperbole about weapons does not help keep a rational discussion going.

By the way, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine in .223 makes an excellent gun for killing ferel pigs. In fact, it is the preferre weapon by most.

Do you mean other than mass murder???

And whatever use do they serve?

Jeez! How can any rational person argue that such a thing has any other purpose?

And then I would ask... Where is the need for such things? Certainly it cannot be personal protection. Or hunting.

For Christ sakes. More weapons serve neither purposes.

But it is a simple, undisputable fact that automatic weapons are almost never, ever used in crimes of any sort. As a poster above pointed out, the last criminal use of an automatic weapon in the US that I'm aware of is the North Hollywood shootout that occurred 18 years ago. I personally don't care if there is a complete ban on automatic weapons because they are prohibitively expensive to purchase but banning automatic weapons will have zero impact on crime because those types of weapons aren't used to commit crimes - including mass shootings - in the first place.

Semi-automatic means a bullet comes out every time one pulls the trigger, as long as there are cartridges in the magazine. No cocking the weapon is required once the first bullet is fired.

Fully automatic means, if one holds the trigger depressed bullets will continue to be fired until one either releases the trigger or the magazine empties, which ever comes first.

Why would anybody define the terms differently except to obfuscate the issue?

The question is why do citizens need such firepower?

Somewhere between a thermonuclear weapon and a butter knife is a line above which weapons should not be legal for the public to own, regardless of the second amendment.

Reasonable people can agree where to set that line.

I set it below automatic weapons. Others may disagree, but I would hope that they would have a better justification than that no mass shootings have occurred using them.

My best to you.

"Do you mean other than mass murder???"

Why do citizens need such firepower?

They don't. Automatic weapons are collector's items and some people enjoy shooting them. They are heavily regulated and are not used in crime. You are focusing on an area of guns that is not causing any problems. You attentions would be better served elsewhere such as UBCs.

But I feel strongly that such weaponry should be tightly regulated. Again, I consider such things above that line, regardless of their use.

I understand that you disagree.

You apparently are unaware of what it takes to own a full auto firearm. First of all, most of them cost $15,000 and go up from there. They are rare and expensive. An extensive background check is required. The gun is registered with the ATF and require a license to own them. The license has to be renewed. There is a $200 tax that has to be paid. These guns ARE tightly regulated and are not used in crime.

Those are reasonable and appropriate regulations.

I confess that I am a non-gun-owner, and undoubtedly am a bit ignorant of gun laws, except those that hit the headlines.

However, I am still for tighter regulations because it is rather obvious that something is not working as things are.

Thank you for your informative response.

in the next congress. It's an election year, so I don't know. If the bill can be kept clean of an AWB, it might pass.

You do mean a two way compromise, I hope.

What are you willing to compromise on?

Let's start there and move forward.

And those noes have to be addressed. They are part of the problem, the unwillingness to even discuss certain elements as part of the solution.

And I think registration is an absolute must. Some people have suggested treating gun licensing like car licensing. I don't think that's a bad idea, including requiring insurance for each weapon and renewing the license at regular intervals. After all, we have to support insurance companies.

And as part of "that's just a start," let's see what we can do to eliminate poverty. A good part of this unprecedented violence is desperation and a "nothing left to lose" attitude. As I mentioned, this needs to be a comprehensive plan.

that's pretty good compromise.
I absolutely agree that poverty needs to be addressed, a lot of the violence is directly related to the desperation of poverty.

And again, I vehemently disagree with registration, the govt has no business, nor right to know what firearms I own, and the ACLU agrees with that.
Insurance? No insurance is going to pay out for the criminal use of a firearm, that's just the way it is.

That proves to me you are nuts!

What you really think the governments going to do with your registration information?

Another party you exposed which is great,

it's just my belief that the govt has no business knowing what firearms I own.
So, is the ACLU being paranoid also? They oppose registration also.

That would be just about every semi auto firearm in existence today and the SCOTUS would almost certainly strike it down as an unconstitutional poll tax on an enumerated right.

of firearm violence.

Ban interstate end-sales of guns. So if you are a gun dealer in Indiana, you can't sell to a non-dealer who has a Illinois address.

If a non-dealer wants to sell to someone in another state, then they'll need a dealer in each state to do the transfer.

That way each state's gun laws can actually do something instead of requiring a short drive to circumvent.

Handguns cannot be sold inter-state under any conditions between FFLs and non-FFLs. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) can be sold between FFLs and non-dealers from different states, but the laws of both states must be followed subject to compliance audit by ATF via review of the 4473s on file. Despite the law, most FFLs will refuse to sell long guns to out of state non-dealers directly if the customer's state is perceived as having restrictive or complex laws.

Under no circumstances can residents of two differing states engage in private sales...that is also illegal for both long guns and handguns.

Thanks

An Illinois resident can't drive across the border and buy a firearm from a dealer in Indiana.
If a resident from Il. wants to buy a firearm from a dealer in Indiana, it has to be shipped to an FFL dealer in IL where the background check has to be performed.

Guns don't vote
The OP is more obfuscation a habit with gun owners.

In rural area (I am from the south) this is the issue that could throw the election to the GOP.

It's so offensive, you just cannot comprehend.

To people for whom guns are a normal part of daily living, similar to growing up and getting a driver's license, the "ban guns" rhetoric is toxic.

The OP is right, but on DU, his truth will not get a hearing.

Outside of the Twin Cities, most Democrats have to be pro-RKBA in order to get elected, even in rural northern Minnesota which is a Democratic stronghold.

who doesn't want to take everyone's guns away as being in the gun camp. I suspect many here do categorize it that way.

But one thing I will never do for historical reasons is tell some black man in GA that he isn't allowed to own a gun because it makes some rich white idiot elsewhere nervous. I hate to put it this baldly, but there's a lot of closeted racism and classism evident here.

My reaction (other than deep sorrow and shock at the latest incident, which is shared by all) is that some people here are working as GOP strategists. If that is not their intent, then I'd like to broaden their perspective.

I'm looking at the last election returns. I'm thinking of people that I know and respect, and how they react to something like this.

And the thing is, I know why they react that way. They have their reasons.

If you hunt to eat, if you have a business and have been robbed, if you have a house with kids in it and there have been home invasions nearby, if you are a farmer and you shoot the hogs or the deer that get into your fields and could destroy half a harvest, if you've ever shot a rattlesnake or cottonmouth curled up on your front step or by the kids swing set, if you've ever had to deal with getting into your car with a seven foot gator blocking the way - some of the rhetoric on DU is literally bizarrely insane.

I utterly understand that what is appropriate in a rural place may not be appropriate in an urban setting. I do get that. But still it flames my innards when I see Mayor Bloomberg escorted by highly armed bodyguards effectively claiming that some old black man in his house shouldn't have that protection. When Mayor Bloomberg drops the armed escort, then he can preach to that old guy. Not before, in my book.

There's a whole lot of blind spots here, and they are by no means just on the gun side. A lot of people here think that "they" shouldn't have firearms. "Those people."

We cannot let the Democratic party become the party of elitism, and we are dangerously close.

a black family's residence with respect. You politely called for "Mr.________" from the lawn before the house, then stated your business (lose animal, tree down across the lane, etc.). This was neighborliness, but also we knew that the goddam Jim Crow laws referencing guns was as tightly sealed as a screen door in a submarine. And few begrudged posession of guns by blacks, and we knew why.

On another tangent, most controllers and the MSM are much more comfortable talking about school shootings because the perpetrators are usually white, which for superficial social criticism is a cheap & easy bogie to talk about. But it does NOTHING for looking at violence in our society in a comprehensive manner; it only cheapens lives.

you should have no trouble with people discussing gun safety laws. This is not the time to tone it down. This is the time to speak up loud and clear.

That is sad

I didn't call anybody a gun humping troll. That would have been an insult.

If You read any of these many threads, they are full of them. Let's have a civil conversation, like you said we should.

Such as claiming that bicycles are more dangerous than guns.

any firearm...

Though I must admit, it's been about 6 years since my last ER visit from a serious bike crash. Figure I'll drown from the kayak way before any firearm accident.

you are probably right. Excellent post.

A) Random man rides his bike down a public street

B) Random man walks down a public street with an AR-15 strapped to him.




Are you telling me that the public reaction to seeing that ought to be no different?

Always willing to add a smart ass quip about how much you know about your guns and repeat every little NRA mantra on the book while claiming not to represent their interests.

Funny thing is, that's just about all you do here on DU. Very rarely do you participate on here on anything unrelated to guns, which is very odd.

But unlike others, you've managed to remain sub-radar all these years and I guess that involves a certain degree of twisted, demented skill. So a tip of the hat to you, I suppose.

So any-who, so that I may not offend your gun-loving nomenclatures, I'll continue and wait for an answer:




A) Random man rides his bike down a public street

B) Random man walks down a public street with an AR-15 slung around him.

Are you telling me that the public reaction to seeing that ought to be no different?