A hypothetical gun control proposal

[LTC8K6]

Her son was a 20-year old man. He wasn't "mentally ill", he had aspergers. There is a whole lot of conjecture associated with the mental condition of the shooter. It seems people just don't want to face the reality that random acts of violence are random.

In my opinion, blaming his mom for his heinous actions is wrong.

How do you do what he did and not be "mentally ill"?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

These simple "plans" ignore the many nuances of firearms and the controls already placed on them. For one, the overwhelming majority of crime in the US is committed with handguns. They already have more strict legislation on those. Criminals don't care. Before introducing more restrictions and regulation, important questions need to be answered, like "What is it trying to do?", "Are there similar existing laws already?".

Introduction of firearm licenses: The only purpose of this is to increase the cost to gun owners and make gun ownership prohibitively expensive and more of a pain in the ass. The same with "forced" insurance, mandatory trainings, etc. etc.

Mandatory Firearm Registration: I think anti-gun folks seriously think all firearm owners are idiots. I know Charlie Wilkes does, he can barely hold back the contempt seeping from his fingers. This is all in history. It doesn't work to help the citizen, it only helps the government when they want more power. Further, it doesn't work to reduce crime, as shown in Canada.

No one is being fooled. The overall goal of introduced regulations and restrictions is simply to reduce the amount of firearm owners in this country. It's a misguided attempt to reduce violence.

Good post. If there's going to be new legislation, let's make sure it isn't just feel-good emptiness, and that it's not already covered by existing law. Craft some gun control legislation, just not useless legislation that infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

 

[shawmutt]

How do you do what he did and not be "mentally ill"?

My emotional response is simply, "I don't know". I have a 4 and 5-year old and they are my everything. I grew up in the next town over from Sandy Hook. It's not an area where something like this is even imaginable.

However, the rational response is that many of the spree killers are not considered mentally ill. Soldiers are trained to be efficient killers--does the military make them mentally ill? Mentally ill people actually have more of a chance of being victims than offenders. http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm

What we are doing is what humans do. We demonize one characteristic and that is the source of all evil. It has now become trendy to blame mental illness and lack of care for these "sick people" as The Problem. What a vague, useless concept. What kind of mental illness are we talking about here exactly?

 

[DavidJames]

How do you do what he did and not be "mentally ill"?

This would be one of the few areas I can find common ground with gun people.

I agree with you, someone doing what he did can only be done, IMO, by a mentally ill person. I would also expand that to include many many more acts of murder, not just killing 27 people. For example, I would also contend that murder resulting from spontaneous acts of passion and escalated aggression suffer from, at least, temporary mental illness. For many of them, I suspect the act of murder was the first hint of any mental illness.

However, the really tough part is identifying who will commit such acts. At this point I'm not aware of any way to identify such people. To date, I've not read any suggestion that Adam Lanza exhibited any signs of mental illness that would have prevented him from obtaining guns himself when his age permitted.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't understand the fascination with the 5.56 AR-15 rifle.

A .30-06 round is more than twice as powerful, and is readily available in semi-auto rifles that were never banned, and are unlikely to be banned.

An AK-47 round pales in comparison to a .30-06 round. Why aren't we banning .30-06 rifles? A .30-06 round is very likely to go through a few people at maniac shooting distances.

A .22LR rimfire will kill people just as well in the hands of a maniac, and the rounds are much smaller, as are the magazines. One can easily conceal a dozen loaded .22 semi auto magazines in your pants pockets.

There's not even talk of banning guns that are just as capable, or more capable, of the Newtown massacre, as an AR-15.

 

[shawmutt]

I don't understand the fascination with the 5.56 AR-15 rifle.

A .30-06 round is more than twice as powerful, and is readily available in semi-auto rifles that were never banned, and are unlikely to be banned.

An AK-47 round pales in comparison to a .30-06 round. Why aren't we banning .30-06 rifles? A .30-06 round is very likely to go through a few people at maniac shooting distances.

A .22LR rimfire will kill people just as well in the hands of a maniac, and the rounds are much smaller, as are the magazines. One can easily conceal a dozen loaded .22 semi auto magazines in your pants pockets.

There's not even talk of banning guns that are just as capable, or more capable, of the Newtown massacre, as an AR-15.

It's not the 5.56 round, it's the evil black gun. It's quite simple:

Evil:

Acceptable to some, but still semi-auto. Most that aren't rabid anti-gun would accept this as a hunting rifle.

Eviler:

Black, oh my! Has some stuff that looks "tactical". Penis comments start about this point.

Most Evilest:

Emotions boil over as folks wonder "why do you need this"???

All of these rifles are .22 semi-automatics manufactured by Ruger. The top 2 are the same exact model. They all function the same way, shoot the same way, and accept removeable magazines. It's the looks that start the comments about manliness and testosterone.

 

[Nessie]

Elsewhere meaning in other countries?

Evidence please.

The UK. The register meant that it was known which gun owners had the guns which were being banned after Hungerford and then Dumblane and so they were the ones called upon to hand in their guns.

 

[R.Mackey]

Here's what I came up with on 18 Dec:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8856009&postcount=25

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

[...]

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

I could get behind this.

I think your legal definition of "a design originally manufactured as F/A" will be difficult to pin down, but that's a detail.

Regarding safes, for the benefit of others (you already know this) California already has a storage requirement. Either you buy a trigger lock or you affirm that you have a safe, effectively meaning a storage system with a UL RSC or better certification. It's not going to stop every thief, obviously, but it's a good place to start if we're looking for workable standards.

Personally I'm OK with registration, teaching/training requirements (and I'll even help teach!), thorough background checks and all. But I want some guarantee that this isn't a step towards incremental and total disarmament -- if we redraw the line here, here it stays.

And, if I jump through all those hoops for you, I want a belt-fed. You may as well. You'd be astounded at how dangerous I can be with a single-shot .22. If all those steps don't make me safe, to an acceptable degree of statistical certainty, then you'd better just lock me up now if you dare.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't understand the fascination with the 5.56 AR-15 rifle.

VERY modular system. There are many AR-15's in calibers other than 5.56 NATO, and similar rifles in just about every caliber there is. I've even seen a similar rifle chambered in .300 Win Mag.

5.56 is a good round. Punches paper very well to 600 meters which is more room than most shooters have, and more capability than most shooters can match.

It's half the price of .30'06, at least until the recent panic.

But your point is well taken. A proposal for new restrictions floated on these boards would have taken my AR-15, even my auto .22LR, but left me my military bolt action .30'06 rifle, which I can and have shot effectively to 1000 meters.

 

[paiute]

And if you want to push the militia bit, then an alternative, valid interpretation of the second amendment would require you to be a member of a "well-regulated militia" in order to own a firearm, not just a citizen. However, the courts have ruled differently, that anyone can own a firearm but that such ownership should be well-regulated. I'll take the second option, thanks.

That's the problem. 'The courts' have ruled such and such. The Second Amendment is clear enough, and future courts would have just as much if not more justification to cite it when striking down all regulation of arms not directly related to regulating a militia.

 

[Nessie]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

1. Introduction of firearm licenses

Citizens would be able to apply for a license to own firearms starting from 2014. To be successful in their application, applicants would have to pass an accredited course in gun safety, use and maintenance.

The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

2. Mandatory firearm registration

As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

Citizens would be able to contact police to turn in unregistered weapons at any time without facing charges.
​

So, what does everyone think? Too harsh, too lax, or something else altogether?

If you've got an alternative proposal of your own to present, this is the thread to post it in.

I fear the horse has already bolted from the stable and such proposals are going to be as effective as Canute trying to keep the tide back.

There are 270 million guns estimated in the USA with 88.8 per 100 people and an estimated 70 to 80 million adults owning at least one gun. The National Instant Criminal Background Check system alone has received nearly 17 million requests in 2012 to November and 156.5 million since it was set up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us

My suggestion would be to go all out to get increased enforcement and full punishment of criminals and dealers who break the law with guns using the laws already there.

Considering the USA's finances that would be doable right now with a minimum of cost. The police and ATF would be tasked with concentrating on guns for a while to get up and running. Yes those sent to prison will cost over the long term, but there is not a huge up front cost and it can be off set by not jailing people for minor drugs offences or under three and you are out when their third is a minor offence.

 

[shawmutt]

VERY modular system. There are many AR-15's in calibers other than 5.56 NATO, and similar rifles in just about every caliber there is. I've even seen a similar rifle chambered in .300 Win Mag.

5.56 is a good round. Punches paper very well to 600 meters which is more room than most shooters have, and more capability than most shooters can match.

It's half the price of .30'06, at least until the recent panic.

But your point is well taken. A proposal for new restrictions floated on these boards would have taken my AR-15, even my auto .22LR, but left me my military bolt action .30'06 rifle, which I can and have shot effectively to 1000 meters.

I was thinking he meant the anti-gunner fascination

 

[Nessie]

It's not the 5.56 round, it's the evil black gun. It's quite simple:

........

Banning any type of gun is also a waste of time, energy and money when there are so many in the USA.

I started in these gun debates as I know a lot about UK gun laws and control and I thought apply the UK system in the USA and you have the solution.

I was wrong, there are too many guns, gun owners and too much resistance by the lawful gun owners to anything that affects them to do the UK system.

The one and only thing left is to get the guns of the criminals and nuts as everyone agrees on that. I really believe that that is the issue all should concentrate on as there is a consensus to get action done.

 

[LTC8K6]

VERY modular system. There are many AR-15's in calibers other than 5.56 NATO, and similar rifles in just about every caliber there is. I've even seen a similar rifle chambered in .300 Win Mag.

5.56 is a good round. Punches paper very well to 600 meters which is more room than most shooters have, and more capability than most shooters can match.

It's half the price of .30'06, at least until the recent panic.

But your point is well taken. A proposal for new restrictions floated on these boards would have taken my AR-15, even my auto .22LR, but left me my military bolt action .30'06 rifle, which I can and have shot effectively to 1000 meters.

I meant the fascination with banning it and demonizing it...

I love the AR-15, and I carried an M16A1 and then an A2.

I don't currently own an AR-15, but I do shoot one now and then.

 

[Sabretooth]

My suggestion would be to go all out to get increased enforcement and full punishment of criminals and dealers who break the law with guns using the laws already there.

That's the best idea you've proposed in all these threads. I'm actually behind you on this.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not the 5.56 round, it's the evil black gun. It's quite simple:

Evil: [qimg]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ANgLy0NHkQk/UOHNR2tM-6I/AAAAAAAABlo/DvbNctdq5no/s400/1022.jpg[/qimg]

Acceptable to some, but still semi-auto. Most that aren't rabid anti-gun would accept this as a hunting rifle.

Eviler: [qimg]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MGJZVdRffJM/UOHNSCjYlHI/AAAAAAAABlw/alz5rq3JXx4/s400/1261.jpg[/qimg]

Black, oh my! Has some stuff that looks "tactical". Penis comments start about this point.

Most Evilest: [qimg]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-FcoAW-Mcqy8/UOHPtL9vnpI/AAAAAAAABmc/edUJY3GJ-iM/s400/ru_SR_22.jpg[/qimg]

Emotions boil over as folks wonder "why do you need this"???

All of these rifles are .22 semi-automatics manufactured by Ruger. The top 2 are the same exact model. They all function the same way, shoot the same way, and accept removeable magazines. It's the looks that start the comments about manliness and testosterone.

Your point it? If they are all the same, why complain about banning the ones that "look" evil?

 

[Ranb]

1. Introduction of firearm licenses
The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).​

It would not pass at the federal level. Firearm possession is an individual right and if you license that activity, it is no longer a right but a privilege. I understand carrying permits, but a possession permit is no good.

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

This may be a good idea.

2. Mandatory firearm registration
As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

This sounds okay until the lists are used to confiscate firearms at the whim of the local governments.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

It should never be a criminal offense for a law abiding healthy person to possess a firearm.

Ranb​

 

[Nessie]

That's the best idea you've proposed in all these threads. I'm actually behind you on this.

Pragmatism in action!

 

[tyr_13]

Your point it? If they are all the same, why complain about banning the ones that "look" evil?

Because some people care about actually reducing gun crime through useful legislation and policies as opposed to appearing to address gun crime though meaningless feel-good legislation and policies that only make it a pain in the ass for recreational shooters.

 

[Sabretooth]

Your point it? If they are all the same, why complain about banning the ones that "look" evil?

Because banning something based on cosmetics is ignorant.

It's like banning all Corvette's because they look like they go too fast.