In the light of current events I thought it would be nice to maybe help out our American friends and pass on some helpful ideas and tips on how to start or begin the road to recovery concerning the plague of gun violence currently gripping the USA. I am only interested in constructive ideas and please no bashing of their political system or people. I'll start off with a few ideas myself, and thanks for your ideas comments. Cheers

1. I would pass a federal law against Gun Shows, anyone who's ever been to one would understand.
2. I would serialise ammunition. Round casings could be quickly matched to a persons name.
3. I would change the way gun deaths are investigated as any death would be a federal investigation.

Those are only a few...

There are gun locks that are safe, easy, and effective. One company even came up with a "smart gun" that will only fire with the registered owner's finger print. Guess why it is not in use?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1): One company even came up with a "smart gun" that will only fire with the registered owner's finger print. Guess why it is not in use?

Because it is not reliable. It's proponents say it works 99% of the time. That means you have a 1% chance, if you are using your weapon in self defense (including as a police officer), that the gun will not recognize you and fail to operate. Think of the number of lawsuits that will result after people died because they could not defend themselves as they expected they could. The companies offering those devices will not stay in business long unless they can provide five-nine levels of reliability (that means 99.999% success rate).

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): 1. I would pass a federal law against Gun Shows, anyone who's ever been to one would understand.

Nothing wrong with gun shows, although I agree that their loophole on background checks should be removed.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): 2. I would serialise ammunition. Round casings could be quickly matched to a persons name.

Easily circumvented by criminals using revolvers rather than semi-autos. You can also fit casing capture devices to semi-auto pistols which cost a couple of bucks.

I read recently that New Jersey gave up on a similar idea - some 15-20 years ago they required every new gun supply a spent round to the state for entry into a ballistics database, theoretically so that a bullet from a crime scene could be matched up with one in the database. After many millions of dollars spent over 15 years or so, the system has not had even one single success. So the program has been scrapped.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): 3. I would change the way gun deaths are investigated as any death would be a federal investigation.

I believe that would require a constitutional amendment.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): I would pass a federal law against Gun Shows, anyone who's ever been to one would understand.

I don't think that is necessary, you may not like gun shows but many do and let them have that. I would probably find one cool even though I have no desire to fire guns or own them.

What you need is the a way to regulate private sales so you as a seller are ensuring you aren't selling the gun to someone that has a higher risk to do something violent with guns. Perhaps having the ATF at a gun show to authorize all sales and provide background checks is needed.

For any other private sales you as the seller have to be responsible to do your due diligence on selling a gun to another individual. We do this when we privately change ownership's of cars and homes and it should be done with guns to ensure that the buyer should be a gun owner. Failing to do this means the last registered owner has to explain why their gun was used in a crime and perhaps has liability for that crime. Gun trafficking is a big problem for a lot of gun crime and a lot of that can be accidental in a private sale. If a seller can face criminal liability if they sell it to a trafficker or a criminal then they may think twice about whom they sell to.

The 2nd amendment allows regulating arms anyways

Quote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Also some arms are limited to people anyways, cruise missiles and Gatling guns are technically arms and civilians can't legally buy those.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): I would serialise ammunition. Round casings could be quickly matched to a persons name.

A little more complicated to regulate but I do think every gun sold should have it's fire pattern (its fingerprint) saved a data-based so when ammo in a shooting is found we know what gun it was shot from and who owned it last.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): I would change the way gun deaths are investigated as any death would be a federal investigation.

I think most police departments have the resources to figure out everything they need to know when investigating gun deaths and can get access to federal resources if needed. Many gun crimes are easy to solve locally and the resources are there if it needs to escalate to higher departments of law enforcement.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): I am only interested in constructive ideas and please no bashing of their political system or people.

And yet you condescendingly dismiss our values and substitute your own? I have no interest what-so-ever in your proposed solutions. Not just because they wouldn't prevent gun crime, but because they represent offensive intrusions into our civil liberties.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Nothing wrong with gun shows, although I agree that their loophole on background checks should be removed.

Can we get passed the "gun show loophole" misnomer? A federally licensed dealer has to perform a background check just like they would at their store, when selling at a gun show. A private sale, between 2 individuals of the same state, doesn't require a background, as long as state law doesn't require one. I would be totally for a background check on all gun transactions, if you gave everyone free and easy access to the 4473 process and doing an eNICS check.


Personally, I think if you can't explain the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and want a "assault weapons" ban, you no longer have any credibility in the discussion.

-DiamondFlyer

[quote=DfwRevolution,reply=4][/quote

Hey can I ask you question? How much law enforcement experience and experience with fire arms do you have? I am very curious. And talk about being condescending, you didn't provide to this thread a single example of what I asked for. Have you googled what a HH-65 is yet? If you would please do so you may find out a little bit about me. I may even be more American then you, (depending on your age). I spent my entire carrier in the US Coast Guard. I spent my time doing SAR and LE, enforcement of Federal Laws you know. I am (was) weapons trained on multiple guns and the tactical use of them. After my retirement I was employed with the Austin Police Dept. (Yup I am a Texan)..... So please cut me some slack, if anyone is certainly qualified to criticise the critical issues facing the US I am.

Ok here's a amendment about Gun Shows, if you sell a weapon that weapon can't leave the gun show, It gets turned over to the police department for safe inspection and a serial assignment. The new owner then picks up such weapon from the police department after passing the required back ground checks.

The reason I say this because I use to visit gun shows on a regular basis. I can tell you there is a certain amount of dodgy dealings going on. Even in the parking lot I've seen men sell weapons out of the boot (trunk) of their car to a complete unknown, no back ground checks of any sort. There are just to many variables occurring which can't be policed or regulated.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 3): A little more complicated to regulate but I do think every gun sold should have it's fire pattern (its fingerprint) saved a data-based so when ammo in a shooting is found we know what gun it was shot from and who owned it last.

Like I explained before, that's been tried, and it did not work. It was Maryland, not New Jersey, as I claimed earlier.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-control-ballistic-fingerprints-p/

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):

You are correct, it's to easy to alter the "finger print" of any weapon. But I do believe a start of any sort is better then doing nothing. What law passed now nay not have an noticeable impact in the near term but in the long term it certainly would.

1. Background checks for all purchases or ownership transfers, without exception. Make it easier to do so that you don't necessarily have to get an FFL involved for in-person sales (they'd still likely have to be involved for internet sales), but insist on everybody getting one when they purchase a gun.

2. Ban open carry. The Constitution entitles you to keep and bear a gun for self-defense. It does not entitle you to parade around with your gun out to intimidate other people with. Have appropriate exceptions in the law so that you can have your gun out in the open while you're in transit to the gun range or to go hunting or whatever, but this practice of strolling around Walmart or into Chipotle with your gun because it makes you feel more powerful needs to stop. That's not the way a civilized society operates.

3. Allow research into gun violence to try and find ways of reducing it. This seems like a no-brainer, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it's still not legal.

And that's about it. I don't see the need for an assault weapons ban - I don't think they're that effective. I don't see a need to ban gun shows - keeping firearms is a completely legitimate hobby, and I don't want to prevent people from engaging in it responsibly. I'm not completely sold on magazine capacity limits, though I do think that the 7 round limit enacted by some states is definitely too small. I just want a way to stop gun trafficking and to fight back against the ever more prevalent idea that one's manliness is tied to the size of one's gun. That's a very harmful attitude to have, and there's no doubt in my mind that it has contributed to at least some of the mass shootings we've had of late.

-Mir

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): I believe that would require a constitutional amendment.

So would banning gun shows.

Quoting hh65man (Reply 7): in the parking lot I've seen men sell weapons out of the boot (trunk) of their car to a complete unknown, no back ground checks of any sort

...which can also happen in the parking lot of a convenience store, a back alley, etc. Trying to make gun shows illegal (which isn't even possible, legally) wouldn't stop under-the-table sales from occurring.

Try again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): It's proponents say it works 99% of the time. That means you have a 1% chance, if you are using your weapon in self defense (including as a police officer), that the gun will not recognize you and fail to operate

I'll take those odds over the probability that some stranger with a gun bought at a gun show decides they have had enough of Obama taking guns and baby parts and starts mowing strangers down because 'Murica and Second Amendment. That trumps my right to live.

The right to lifers who insist that every life is sacred are the same ones who insist that these random and lone wolf attacks are just the price we pay for the most important law: the Second Amendment.

They also claim to be Christian and claim the Constitution is based on the Bible.

So, tell us where in the Bible Jesus said we HAVE to carry guns at all times and that murder in the name of the Constitution is legal?

Welcome to Christian Sharia law.....

Quoting seb146 (Reply 13): I'll take those odds over the probability that some stranger with a gun bought at a gun show decides they have had enough of Obama taking guns and baby parts and starts mowing strangers down because 'Murica and Second Amendment. That trumps my right to live.

You would take those odds if you were a cop? Somehow I doubt it.

And in any case, it won't stop anything. Within a few weeks, hackers would have figured out how to "release" the lock, making the gun ready for anyone to fire. All you have to do is figure out a way to release a spring-loaded firing pin - a simple mechanical process.

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): 1. I would pass a federal law against Gun Shows, anyone who's ever been to one would understand.

This would be incredibly difficult to do, and would invoke all sorts of constitutional issues that (as you can see above) become very emotional. Gun shows currently cannot, and probably should not, be banned. However, they can be regulated in ways that makes them less likely to result in sale to buyers with criminal intent.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): I believe that would require a constitutional amendment.

Maybe, but the federal government has found ways to exercise power on the states beyond that which is explicitly authorised in other circumstances. More importantly, I doubt any benefit of making it a mandatory federal investigation. In the first place, depending on the circumstances federal law enforcement may already be involved. As to other cases, like another poster said, most states have the resources and are fully competent to manage these sorts of investigations. Still, hh65man, what you think this would do differently?

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): this practice of strolling around Walmart or into Chipotle with your gun because it makes you feel more powerful needs to stop. That's not the way a civilized society operates.

Sweet merciful crap. Where does this happen?

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 3. Allow research into gun violence to try and find ways of reducing it. This seems like a no-brainer, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it's still not legal.

Yes. 1,000 times yes. This ban astounds me, as does the fact that pretext for it is so weak. We are supposed to value open and informed discussion, not suppress it. What is puzzling (and demonstrative of the power of the NRA) is that the CDC routinely conducts detailed studies of other dangerous things that are also supported by influential trade organisations.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 13): I'll take those odds over the probability that some stranger with a gun bought at a gun show decides they have had enough of Obama taking guns and baby parts and starts mowing strangers down because 'Murica and Second Amendment.

This group might be unusually vocal about the second amendment, but they are not responsible for most gun violence. I do not lose any sleep for the risk that a second amendment activist will mow me down. In fact, probably the opposite. Gun crimes arising over drug deals, gang related issues, and inner city thefts are typically far less sensational, but far more frequent. They are far more concerning to me.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 15):

Without sounding overly alarming I can tell you standards between police departments state wide and city vary as much between a virgin and a prostitute. Even among some of the finest there are members of police departments who regularly barely pass their yearly quals. Look nothing is easy with this topic, and there are many who think the US is past the point of no return. It is time though to start making it extremely hard to opts in guns of any type. Also people need to be held more accountable for their weapon. I argue the right to bear arms all the time down here, but it's still basic common sense. I don't subscribe that by passing laws to make gun ownership more difficult for what ever reason is fringing upon some ones civil rights. As mentioned above I also can't stand the open carry law. How damn idiotic is that. As a crim I would know who to king hit to get a free and quick weapon.

Quoting hh65man (Reply 7): Ok here's a amendment about Gun Shows, if you sell a weapon that weapon can't leave the gun show, It gets turned over to the police department for safe inspection and a serial assignment.

Why make that a requirement for a dealer at a gun show, but not at his primary place of business? What makes it different? Gun shows are nothing more than hugely marked up gun dealers.

Quoting hh65man (Reply 7): Even in the parking lot I've seen men sell weapons out of the boot (trunk) of their car to a complete unknown, no back ground checks of any sort.

Which is completely legal, between two citizens of the same state, provided state law doesn't make it illegal. A private sale is a private sale.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 1. Background checks for all purchases or ownership transfers, without exception. Make it easier to do so that you don't necessarily have to get an FFL involved for in-person sales (they'd still likely have to be involved for internet sales), but insist on everybody getting one when they purchase a gun.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Open up the electronic NICS form to private sellers and allow us to do it on a private sale, and I'd have no problem with it. Force us to go to an FFL where they charge an ungodly amount of money to have a person fill out a piece of paper, and you can shove your private sale background checks down the drain.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 15): Sweet merciful crap. Where does this happen?

More places then you might imagine...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/0...un-group-no-more-rifles-in-target/

Quoting hh65man (Thread starter): In the light of current events I thought it would be nice to maybe help out our American friends and pass on some helpful ideas and tips on how to start or begin the road to recovery concerning the plague of gun violence currently gripping the USA.

The discussion starts with a false predicate; we do not have a "plague" of "gun violence."

That you hear more about "gun violence" does not mean that the rate of violent crime is increasing; it has, in fact, been steadily declining.

Interesting perspective here, from an articulate, informed and insightful commentator:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-bystandards-can-save-lives-in-ma/

Lets face it: there are far, far too many guns around in the US. That is the key problem that needs to be addressed. Too many guns create too many opportunities to use them. But a gun is no harmless hobby like building airplane models or collecting Breitling watches. Its the apparent obsession of possessing guns and the intellectually limited awareness of it that far too many US citizens have that needs to be addressed. Everything else is curing symptoms, not the disease.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 17): Open up the electronic NICS form to private sellers and allow us to do it on a private sale, and I'd have no problem with it.

If the person who's buying is in front of you, and you certify that you checked their ID and they are who they say they are, then I don't have a problem with no FFL involvement for the background check. If you're selling over the internet, then I do want a FFL involved to make sure that the person who presents the background check to you is the person who is actually receiving the gun.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 21): If the person who's buying is in front of you, and you certify that you checked their ID and they are who they say they are, then I don't have a problem with no FFL involvement for the background check. If you're selling over the internet, then I do want a FFL involved to make sure that the person who presents the background check to you is the person who is actually receiving the gun.

Absolutely. An internet sale, is, by definition, not a private sale, and has to be conducted through an FFL, just like it is now. The hassle with buying from an online gun shop, finding a local FFL to do the transfer and getting all the paperwork sent from your local dealer to the seller is a pain in the ass, so I generally avoid online sales, unless it's the only method to get the firearm I want. From what I've heard, the latest iteration of the online NICS check has new option where the transaction type is selected, and it is private sale.

Quoting na (Reply 20): Lets face it: there are far, far too many guns around in the US.

So who do you propose to take them? The FBI and ATF, which are so well known for dealing with potentially hostile situations? The military (which is sworn to protect and uphold the very constitution you are trying to destroy).

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 22): So who do you propose to take them? The FBI and ATF, which are so well known for dealing with potentially hostile situations? The military (which is sworn to protect and uphold the very constitution you are trying to destroy).

The gun law is NOT the constitution. Its an old and overcome minor part of it. Times are changing, you cant hold on to things which may have made sense long time ago and which are now again and again reason to serious concern.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23):

Oh, great. Another one who thinks that life is a Western movie where people should have shoot-outs on a regular basis to settle issues. Probably never been shot at, either.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Because it is not reliable. It's proponents say it works 99% of the time. That means you have a 1% chance, if you are using your weapon in self defense (including as a police officer), that the gun will not recognize you and fail to operate. Think of the number of lawsuits that will result after people died because they could not defend themselves as they expected they could.

The odds of this are so small that it's negligible. A 1% chance of failure in a case that very rarely seen anyway. Say that out of 1000 shooting events, only 10% were from people using a gun for self defense rather than for recreation or for criminal activity. That means that of those 100 cases, only 1 person died because their gun didn't activate properly. Compare that to the possibly hundreds more injured or killed in the non-self defense cases.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): You would take those odds if you were a cop? Somehow I doubt it.

Which is why you can issue special guns for cops. If we can have civilian and military versions of stuff, I'm sure we can have civilian versions of guns and militarized versions as well (lite for cops and full for army).

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26): The odds of this are so small that it's negligible.

The 1% number comes from the people pushing the technology. Others say as high as 10-20%, or even higher when taking into account a rapid draw when a threat is perceived very suddenly and you don't provide the grip sensor a proper print.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26): Say that out of 1000 shooting events, only 10% were from people using a gun for self defense rather than for recreation or for criminal activity. That means that of those 100 cases, only 1 person died because their gun didn't activate properly. Compare that to the possibly hundreds more injured or killed in the non-self defense cases.

Two points: First, where do you get your stats? We know the large majority of gun use in self defense is not reported, especially when the person decided that he did not actually need to fire the weapon - I've been personally in that situation. But had I decided to pull the trigger, I damned well would not want to simply hear an error beep.

Secondly, you are assuming that this technology will somehow prevent gun use by bad guys. I guarantee you that within weeks of introduction, hackers will be able to unlock the guns, and any criminal will be able to have his stolen gun unlocked, either electronically or mechanically. Remember, a gun is a very simple mechanical mechanism - it's not that hard to jury-rig a way to ensure that the hammer strikes the pin. I think all this technology will do is be a minor inconvenience to criminals, and potentially fatal inconvenience to law-abiding people who do not take steps to disable the technology.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26): Which is why you can issue special guns for cops. If we can have civilian and military versions of stuff, I'm sure we can have civilian versions of guns and militarized versions as well (lite for cops and full for army).

We already have that - Only military can have proper assault rifles (i.e. full-auto capability). Not that it means much - as I said a firearm is a simple mechanical device and can be modified by anyone with a simple machine shop. I have a friend who's hobby is making his own guns (rifles and pistols) from scratch (He's an ex-marine and now a cop). It's not that hard.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27): Two points: First, where do you get your stats? We know the large majority of gun use in self defense is not reported, especially when the person decided that he did not actually need to fire the weapon - I've been personally in that situation. But had I decided to pull the trigger, I damned well would not want to simply hear an error beep.

I don't have numbers with me. I'm just using hypothetical numbers here. If lots of people used guns to successfully defend themselves I think we would have known by now, yet besides cops and other law enforcements (on duty and off duty, whether justified or not) these cases are rarely reported, if ever. So to use pretty round numbers and put the situation into a broader perspective, I made up the 10% mark. It would mean that out of those 100 cases of self defense (10% of 1000...the hypothetical numbers) 99 successfully defended themselves. Only 1 person failed to defend themselves and ended up injured or death; compare that to the other hypothetical 900 cases where the shooters reached at least one victim.

It's essentially to illustrate the trade-off: I think everyone would much rather have that 1% of self defense fail than open season for anyone with anything anytime anywhere.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23): The more arms in hands of citizenry, the more resistance nut jobs will face.

Where were they yesterday, and at all the other mass shootings, where are all the armed people fighting back ????

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27): . I guarantee you that within weeks of introduction, hackers will be able to unlock the guns, and any criminal will be able to have his stolen gun unlocked,

And by "hackers" you mean the NRA. The NRA must arm the bad guys in order to sell more guns to the "good guys". For christ sakes we have a No Fly List because we're worried these people will harm civilians, but hallelujah praise the lord the NRA wants them to buy guns

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ution-on-gun-legislation/76714608/

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27): We know the large majority of gun use in self defense is not reported, especially when the person decided that he did not actually need to fire the weapon

That's been shown to be primarily nonsense and wishful thinking, in most cases stemming from a poorly conducted survey of a handful of people 30+ years ago

[Edited 2015-12-03 15:58:29]

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30): And by "hackers" you mean the NRA. The NRA must arm the bad guys in order to sell more guns to the "good guys". For christ sakes we have a No Fly List because we're worried these people will harm civilians, but hallelujah praise the lord the NRA wants them to buy guns

Have you bothered to check to see how many mass-shooters were members of the NRA? I'd venture a guess and say "Extremely few", if any.

By the way, did you know that one of the main purposes of the NRA, was to train in self defense black people - especially former slaves - in the south from roving gangs of KKK and other racists? It's not so much fun to go out for a beer and a lynching when your victims can shoot back.

By the way, I am not a member of the NRA because I find them too absolutist. But I find people like you who attempt to vilify them through exaguration, even accusing them of wanting criminals to be armed, sickening. You just have to HATE people who disagree with you.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23): I would expand open carry. The more arms in hands of citizenry, the more resistance nut jobs will face.

Anybody not clearly identifying himself as a policeman in such a scenario will be quickly gunned down by his fellow citizens.

And you say, okay, then let's issue identification badges or something like that?

Terrorists will make use of them. Quickly.

And not to forget that anybody needs to learn combat tactics in order to put his gun to a good use. One school shooter (in Erfurt, Germany) managed to kill 17 people with his Glock 17, including an armed policeman. In Winnenden, also in Germany, one killed 15 people with a Beretta 92. That's not an AR-15 like in the Sandy Hook or San Bernardino massacres.

Just imagine this scenario: Somebody is openly carrying his gun. An attacker wants to shoot up the group. He lurks around, his gun concealed, and then first picks off those who have a gun.

Concealed carry would also be a disaster. I propose this scenario: First, a terrorist shoots around. Law-abiding citizens then draw their concealed weapons, kill the terrorist. Then, three or five terrorists, after blending in with scared people, draw their guns and kill those "heroes", and go on finishing off the unarmed people.

These guys know each other so that they don't accidentally shoot each other. Superior tactics will beat those Sunday heroes.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 29): Where were they yesterday, and at all the other mass shootings, where are all the armed people fighting back ????

Yes. THIS.


David

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): Have you bothered to check to see how many mass-shooters were members of the NRA? I'd venture a guess and say "Extremely few", if any.

Where do all these shooters get their guns? Angels? They've mostly been legally purchased. The republicans/NRA are *literally* arming the terrorists.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): You just have to HATE people who disagree with you.

What else do you call an organization that has facilitated hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths? Especially an organization that seems to have a lot of overlap with people who call themselves "pro life". I don't think there's a word in the English language to describe that level hypocrisy and delusion.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): one of the main purposes of the NRA, was

Key word here: WAS. They no longer do that. Now, they want as many guns in as many places as possible.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): I find people like you who attempt to vilify them through exaguration, even accusing them of wanting criminals to be armed, sickening.

Pro-lifers seem to be the same people who deny there is a gun problem and insist that nothing be done about mass shootings and ease of gun purchases.

Any time a group of people is gunned down, the NRA and their supporters are the first to rush to judgement. A lone wolf, legally purchased guns, so let's just pray more.

How is that working out for you?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): But I find people like you who attempt to vilify them through exaguration, even accusing them of wanting criminals to be armed, sickening.

Why? They DO want criminals to be armed so that people are afraid and buy more guns. It's not rocket surgery. Multiple high-ranking executives from firearms manufacturers and firearms sales outlets have said that mass shootings are good for their business. (1)

The NRA is probably the most visible pro-terror organization that is permitted to exist, leaving aside the GOP as a whole. I mean, there are Islamist clerics telling Jihadis in the US to go out and buy firearms because they're so easy to buy.

Terror attacks and mass shooting help support the idea that everyone should be armed because you might stop a terrorist. If people felt safe in their homes, offices, and communities, they wouldn't need to buy guns, now would they?

(1)https://theintercept.com/2015/12/03/mass-shooting-wall-st/

[Edited 2015-12-03 17:57:13]

Mir, Thank you and the very few others for being a civil voice when arguing for gun control. Added to RR list. That is the main reason that gun control goes no where in the US is simply because the pro-gun control side simply cannot help but call those on the pro gun side of arming criminals and wanting people to die, then expecting that they should work with you after you call them murderers. Once we finally agree that both sides want what is best for society and what separates us is just philosophies on how to obtain it, is when we can truly discuss and come up with middle ground solutions to help stem the tide.

Now as a pretty pro gun person I would like to reply to your points

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 1. Background checks for all purchases or ownership transfers, without exception. Make it easier to do so that you don't necessarily have to get an FFL involved for in-person sales (they'd still likely have to be involved for internet sales), but insist on everybody getting one when they purchase a gun.

100% agree, There is no reason that this should not be the standard.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 2. Ban open carry. The Constitution entitles you to keep and bear a gun for self-defense. It does not entitle you to parade around with your gun out to intimidate other people with. Have appropriate exceptions in the law so that you can have your gun out in the open while you're in transit to the gun range or to go hunting or whatever, but this practice of strolling around Walmart or into Chipotle with your gun because it makes you feel more powerful needs to stop. That's not the way a civilized society operates.

While I 100% understand because I have the exact same thoughts when I see someone open carrying a large pistol. I really don't see it as an issue because the guy with the 1/4" dick is no more or less dangerous whether he is open carrying or concealed it. It is the 2 time Felon that will almost always have that gun concealed that we really should focus on. Put simply it is a Feel Good move that does nothing to solve actual gun violence.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): 3. Allow research into gun violence to try and find ways of reducing it. This seems like a no-brainer, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it's still not legal.

If that is True then 100% agree, but this seems like one of those too good to be true fact that really oversimplifies or misrepresents what it acutally going on in order to be a great "fact" from probably an extreme anti-gun group. The reason I say this is researching and publishing results seem to be very much a first amendment type issue, and especially in such on such a hot topic like this would gather alot of support from groups to have it overturned on such grounds. Now if it more some agency is stonewalling researchers data that might be relevant, then that's another issue completely and I would agree in looking at it closer and changing in favor of transparency.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): And that's about it. I don't see the need for an assault weapons ban - I don't think they're that effective. I don't see a need to ban gun shows - keeping firearms is a completely legitimate hobby, and I don't want to prevent people from engaging in it responsibly. I'm not completely sold on magazine capacity limits, though I do think that the 7 round limit enacted by some states is definitely too small. I just want a way to stop gun trafficking and to fight back against the ever more prevalent idea that one's manliness is tied to the size of one's gun. That's a very harmful attitude to have, and there's no doubt in my mind that it has contributed to at least some of the mass shootings we've had of late. -Mir

pretty much agree. Only thing I would argue you on is the last statement because its an argument based on the same type of logic that people use in the FPS video games or extreme types of music, and that they cause teen violence. Stats have shown that it's actually the opposite. To quote Penn from P&T: Bullshit video games "Fake violence up, Real violence down". Now I'm all for researching the topic because knowledge is always good but I think its good to remember that correlation =/= causation because if you are willing to harm and kill for no reason, your pretty F****d in the head already.

[Edited 2015-12-03 18:06:22]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 27): Not that it means much - as I said a firearm is a simple mechanical device and can be modified by anyone with a simple machine shop. I have a friend who's hobby is making his own guns (rifles and pistols) from scratch (He's an ex-marine and now a cop). It's not that hard.

Exactly. Swap the bolt carrier and the sear and you can make an AR full auto. Hell there are guys making Kalashnikov copies on equipment Gunga Din hauled up the Hundu Kush during the British rule. There is a guy that filed a M1911 by hand, no power tools, just to prove he could do it.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30): For christ sakes we have a No Fly List because we're worried these people will harm civilians, but hallelujah praise the lord the NRA wants them to buy guns

The problem is that the no fly list is full of people who aren't terrorists. Hell Ted Kennedy was on the list for a while. Plus people have no way to contest their placement on the list (unless you were the lion of the senate and vote on the TSA's budget). People shouldn't lose a civil right because they told a sex predator at TSA that five minutes was long enough for them to feel up their junk.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 32): I propose this scenario: First, a terrorist shoots around. Law-abiding citizens then draw their concealed weapons, kill the terrorist. Then, three or five terrorists, after blending in with scared people, draw their guns and kill those "heroes", and go on finishing off the unarmed people.

And then the aliens could land and take over the world. This scenario is comedy of the absurd.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): Why? They DO want criminals to be armed so that people are afraid and buy more guns.

That would be hilarious if you didn't actually believe that.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37): That would be hilarious if you didn't actually believe that.

I cited it with quotes.

You think Australia is a fascist nation. Which one of us has an altered view of reality?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26): The odds of this are so small that it's negligible. A 1% chance of failure in a case that very rarely seen anyway. Say that out of 1000 shooting events, only 10% were from people using a gun for self defense rather than for recreation or for criminal activity. That means that of those 100 cases, only 1 person died because their gun didn't activate properly. Compare that to the possibly hundreds more injured or killed in the non-self defense cases.

Here's just a couple of problems with the "smart gun" technology.
1. How rugged is the mechanism. Guns are often out in foul weather.
2. What if the defender has to use his weak hand to shoot the gun? The fingerprints wouldn't match the programmed ones.
3. What if the owner is struggling with an assailant? He couldn't hand the gun to their spouse, since it wouldn't fire.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 39): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26): The odds of this are so small that it's negligible. A 1% chance of failure in a case that very rarely seen anyway. Say that out of 1000 shooting events, only 10% were from people using a gun for self defense rather than for recreation or for criminal activity. That means that of those 100 cases, only 1 person died because their gun didn't activate properly. Compare that to the possibly hundreds more injured or killed in the non-self defense cases. Here's just a couple of problems with the "smart gun" technology. 1. How rugged is the mechanism. Guns are often out in foul weather. 2. What if the defender has to use his weak hand to shoot the gun? The fingerprints wouldn't match the programmed ones. 3. What if the owner is struggling with an assailant? He couldn't hand the gun to their spouse, since it wouldn't fire.

4. How do I wear gloves while shooting it? It is rabbit and ptarmigan season here and it was also 15 degrees out. It was below 0 earlier in the week. You got to keep those fingers warm to stave off frostbite.

The gun laws, related politics, our Federal structure, history and culture in the USA are very unique mix for a 1st world country. We created a culture here of where individuals could own guns, for food hunting and protection, not the 'crown'. That is near impossible to change here and few politicians dear to move to more restrictions.

I would say that an important change in law and enforcement, would be to go after the straw buyer in-state and interstate trade, especially from the Southern and Western USA states with looser State gun purchase laws to the more strict ones in the Northeastern states, upper Midwest states and California. A high percentage of guns used in crimes in NYC for example are found to be illegally owned and were bought legally in NC or other states for a nice profit for the buyers and transporters.
Another area I would like to see changes are 'gun show' sales. One could look at and reserve a gun at a store but the final checks and pick up only from an actual store.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): The Constitution entitles you to keep and bear a gun for self-defense.

No. Not for self-defense. For a militia. There is a huge difference. Where in the Constitution does it say self defense? My copy of the Constitution says "A well regulated militia..."

Quoting seb146 (Reply 42): Quoting Mir (Reply 10): The Constitution entitles you to keep and bear a gun for self-defense. No. Not for self-defense. For a militia. There is a huge difference. Where in the Constitution does it say self defense? My copy of the Constitution says "A well regulated militia..."

Actually the USSC has confirmed that there is an individual right to own firearms.....

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37): The problem is that the no fly list is full of people who aren't terrorists. Hell Ted Kennedy was on the list for a while. Plus people have no way to contest their placement on the list (unless you were the lion of the senate and vote on the TSA's budget). People shouldn't lose a civil right because they told a sex predator at TSA that five minutes was long enough for them to feel up their junk.

So civil rights only matter when the Republicans are arming potential terrorists, not when they're put on said list. Got it.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 37): That would be hilarious if you didn't actually believe that.

Who armed the criminals? Lemme guess. Obama? Muzlimz? Who made it easier for criminals to get guns than terrorists could ever dream of? The American terrorists that are the NRA.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 43): Actually the USSC has confirmed that there is an individual right to own firearms.....

They've also said the same about abortion, and how is the pro life (LOLOL) GOP respecting that decision hrrmmmm?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 44): So civil rights only matter when the Republicans are arming potential terrorists

Actually it Obama that let all the arms we gave the Iraqi's fall into ISIS hands. And come to think about it, Fast and Furious was under Obama's watch too.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 44): The American terrorists that are the NRA.

BullS---


Your anti-civil rights propaganda is getting quite tiring.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 45): Actually it Obama that let all the arms we gave the Iraqi's fall into ISIS hands. And come to think about it, Fast and Furious was under Obama's watch too.

Well the terrorists at the NRA should be pleased, more clients for their gun manufacturer pay masters.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 45): Your anti-civil rights propaganda is getting quite tiring.

Your selective application of civil rights is not convincing anyone.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35): The NRA is probably the most visible pro-terror organization that is permitted to exist, leaving aside the GOP as a whole.

  

Doc, you know I respect the hell out of you, but these are probably the most irresponsible comments I've ever seen you make here.

Pro-terror? Really?

You're better than this.

My thoughts on the issue... no offense to a lot of the well intentioned people in this thread, but doing some research on guns and having casual conversations with gun owners would come up with much better proposals. And to the gun owners: stop being difficult. I used to be in the super pro gun mentality, we all know the US has a problem and we are so intent in lazily finding excuses for why it won't work or use deceptive/dumb reasoning to sink any idea.

What I do think would work:

Safe storage (helps prevent access by kids and helps reduce them from making their way to the black market.) This is a no brainer in being a responsible gun owner but I can't tell you how many people I know that don't have their guns locked up

Background checks for all--duh. Require it for private sales. Won't stop everything but no one is talking about stopping 100% of gun deaths, and something that doesn't stop everything isn't just a bad measure

Require gun safety classes--again, should be the responsible thing. Hardly anyone does it, and trust me, many people need it based of what you see

Psych evals--again, won't stop everything, would stop some. I wouldn't require this for everything, just the more capable weapons. A lot of my proposals would be dependent on what you are buying, from a black powder gun (pretty ineffective) to a semi auto rifle that can take large magazines

Gun registry--I know, the dreaded R word. This is where the paranoia really kicks in unfortunately. I think the benefits are pretty evident. I'd put measures in place to combat it from being public knowledge or for excessive harassment by law enforcement


Dumb/questionable ideas:

Banning bulk ammo purchases. People ask "who needs 10,000 rounds of ammo?" Not mass shooters, the ammo carried by them is usually lower than any ammo ban would be. I doubt anyone is talking about banning a 100 round box (which can be shot really quickly at the range) but that is more than enough for a mass shooter. This would only punish people that want to save money and do nothing to stop mass shooters

Biometric handguns--I think it's a dumb idea or many reasons but I'd have to look into it more. Guns are actually pretty simple devices and I doubt you could make a gun that is completely reliant on some piece you could replace. And what about a day at the range? Do you have to reprogram it every time or add a shooter? I don't know, it just sounds like one of those "awesome idea bro" things that won't work

Ban gun shows--seriously? What will that do?

Serializing ammo--again, guns are low tech, so is ammo. How do you serialize a piece of brass? Will you just be able to scratch it out? Not that that's a deal breaker, but what about reloading ammo? Can I just go to the range, grab some brass, reload it, shoot up some folks, and then condemn Jim Bob for murder because I used his brass?

Banning guns based on looks--this is what I was talking about, people, educate yourselves on guns. While I get mad at gun owners who correct people on the term "assault weapon" (I get it, it's technically incorrect but we are well beyond the point where anyone cares and the term took on a new meaning, it's just a distraction to correct,) some people go off on automatic weapons or how the military uses X or Y when legal automatics are extremely hard to get, automatic is much different than semi auto, and the military only uses weapons that look like their civilian counterparts.


Anyway, I doubt anyone is gonna read this entire post, so:

tl;dr for gun owners: I've been there, I own an SKS, AK-74, and many other guns, stop with the mental gymnastics, there is obviously a problem in the US, stop using lazy answers you can easily defeat, in your head, using a tiny bit of Devil's Advocate

tl;dr for the other side (not all of you though): get educated on guns. Good intent is often not enough. Your proposals can often suck really hard because of the lack of grasping of some of the simplest of concepts. It is often so bad it goes beyond the "well, you get where I'm trying to go." No, sometimes it's just way too far off the mark

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Require gun safety classes--again, should be the responsible thing. Hardly anyone does it, and trust me, many people need it based of what you see

They used to have them but when they got into that "Gun Free School Zone" kick back during the Clinton Administration most of them where forced to close, along with after school shooting and biathlon teams.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): This is where the paranoia really kicks in unfortunately.

It's not paranoia if they are really after you. I will have to look for a couple stories but in Buffalo they have the cops runnign though the obituaries looking up deceased registered gun owners and then raiding the deceased home's and seizing (i call it stealing) the firearms registered with no intent to return them to the estate.

In Canada the RCMP broke into the homes of registered firearm owners in an town evacuated due to flooding and then "Seized" (STOLE) firearms out of those homes.

Similar things have happened in California when some of the gun bans were made more draconian and American.

I've got an appointment to run to, but I will put up links to those stories later.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48): Serializing ammo--again, guns are low tech, so is ammo. How do you serialize a piece of brass? Will you just be able to scratch it out? Not that that's a deal breaker, but what about reloading ammo? Can I just go to the range, grab some brass, reload it, shoot up some folks, and then condemn Jim Bob for murder because I used his brass?

It is almost as stupid of an idea of the time they wanted to put different colors of plastic chips in gunpowder to make it traceable. The only thing that would have done is gotten people killed as the plastic microchips separate into layers in the cartridge as it is handled.

I'm blanking on what state just dumped it's firearm cartridge database because they spent god knows how much money on it and it never solved one crime.