Gun Control Proposal

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The way the law is set up in the United States, it would be impossible pass such laws and difficult to enforce such laws.

It would be hard, but not impossible.

The number of people who would rather kill law enforcement officers coming to take their guns than surrender those guns peacefully is not negligiable.

Come visit my cousins. I'll drop you within five miles of their enclave and give you directions.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And the right of people to sell their guns to strangers on the internet is a constitutional right. So clearly trying to restrict that is crazy.

We've lost that "right" in Colorado and there seem to be no problems with it yet. As for inter-state transactions we are already federally required to use an FFL at both ends of the deal.

 

[HansMustermann]

Those with criminal intent, or the insane, or the politically-radicalized, or individuals who have "snapped" for one reason or another... Are notoriously not concerned with legalities.

I hear that a lot, but looking at the places where it is harder to get a gun legally, you'll find that most people tend NOT to:

A) want to escalate the risked punishment needlessly, nor
B) be criminal masterminds, when they do

The USA seems stuck into some fantasy alternate universe, where criminals are pretty much a cross between a Lex Luthor wannabe and Will E Coyote, and will do any inordinate amount of extra effort, for no other reason than to be even more of a Dick Dastardly type, so to speak.

You have to realize though, that most criminals aren't particularly smart about it, nor very industrious. If they were either, much less both, they'd be in management instead of crime. But really, does the guy robbing a 7/11 of a couple hundred bucks they had in the counter strike you as that kind of cunning and industrious mastermind?

The guy who snaps and shoots up the school, doesn't first spend years making contact with the Russian mafia smugglers, befriending them, and buying an AK-47 at inflated prices. In ALL cases I can remember, actually they used something they already had, or their parents had, or was trivial to get or improvise. (ANFO seems to be a recurring favourite.)

So basically I hope I can be unimpressed at the rethoric that if those didn't have trivial access to guns, somehow they'd be that determined and industrious as to get them anyway at all cost.

And, really, even in countries where access to weapons is easy (e.g., yes, the USA), you'll find that most people DON'T try to escalate their own punishment, barring idiotic laws that escalated it there already. If the option is between going to jail for a few months for whatever the guy was doing, or going to jail for life for shooting some cops, actually the vast majority DON'T pull a gun when a transaction turns out to be a sting. Real life accounts of DEA officers for example aren't anything like action movies.

Similarly, in countries where guns are hard to get legally, you'll find that actually most people DON'T upgrade a robbery with the added offense of illegally carrying a firearm.

I suppose the moral of the story is that caring about the law isn't a black and white thing. People aren't either 100% law abiding or 100% determined to break every law in the book.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hear that a lot, but looking at the places where it is harder to get a gun legally, you'll find that most people tend NOT to:

A) want to escalate the risked punishment needlessly, nor
B) be criminal masterminds, when they do

None of this argument is relevant to mass shooters, which is one of the primary problems this proposal was designed to address. If you're going to engage in a mass shooting, you really aren't going to care about a gun possession offense escalating your punishment. That's going to be maxed out already by the very nature of the crime you're going to commit, and in many cases won't even be relevant since many mass shooters don't intend to (and don't actually) survive.

 

[MikeG]

........Maybe the USA should try this?

Maybe they should try anything. Anything at all, other than carry on doing something which so clearly isn't working. They're very much looking like slow learners in this field at the moment.

 

[Horatius]

...convinced that they need handguns ... the handguns have to be immediately accessible to himself and his family.
... needs to have at least one handgun immediately accessible ...needs to defend themselves.

... a number of the dads with concealed carry permits did a sweep of the ground. .... but they felt it vital for the safety of their families.

And this, in a nutshell, is why any reasonable proposal for gun control in the US will founder - there are just too many people like The Don's family who, despite the lack of any reasonable grounds for thinking they are under constant threat, nevertheless seem to still believe they are under constant threat. The problem is not the number of guns so much as it is the perception that they really, truly NEED instant access to lethal firepower every waking moment of their lives.

Until the culture changes enough that these people are no longer a major voting block, nothing will change.

 

[Crossbow]

I have a proposal for a gun control law that might just satisfy enough people to make it viable.

While I am sure that you ideas are full of good intentions, however they are quite impractical.

Firstly I don't want to ban or limit ownership of guns. You can own as many guns of whatever type you can afford, BUT, these guns must be securely locked away at all times you are not using it (you can display them if the display case is sufficiently secure).

It will be quite difficult to enforce such a law.

The limits come in when it comes to carrying or transporting a gun. Carrying a gun has only one purpose: self-defense (for transporting a gun you will require a permit and it needs to be transported in a secure manner).

What if the gun is being sold?
Taken out for repairs?
Being brought home from the gun store?
Being given to someone as a present?

All of these actions will require transport of some sort or another.

Now as we know a gun is a force multiplier, which is especially useful for those members of society who are weaker than average. So for this reason the only people who will be allowed to carry a weapon will be: females, the elderly (65+) and the disabled.

The courts have long taken a dim view of discrimination, and I expect that they would do so in this case as well.

The majority of mass shootings are at the hands of able-bodied males under the age of 65, so it will remove the guns from the hands of those most likely to commit those kinds of crimes. The majority of criminals are also in this category so it will make it easier to arrest if they are illegally carrying.

Again, the courts have long taken a dim view of discrimination based on statistical data, and I expect that they would do so in this case as well.

And if someone does get their hands on a gun illegally all the good girls with a gun will be able to stop them.

Violence in theory is often quite different from violence in practice.

You're welcome america.

Ohhh! You are so sweet.

 

[Ladewig]

It would be hard, but not impossible.
Come visit my cousins. I'll drop you within five miles of their enclave and give you directions.

In general, one should read my posts in a snarky, antagonistic, sarcastic, impatient, condescending, caustic voice unless otherwise noted. This post is an "otherwise noted."

Would you describe the steps you see to the U.S. passing legislation encompassing some or all of Australia's gun laws?

 

[Ladewig]

What if the gun is being sold?
Taken out for repairs?
Being brought home from the gun store?
Being given to someone as a present?

All of these actions will require transport of some sort or another.

I think the OPer was trying to distinguish transporting, which would be done with with a lockbox, and carrying, which involves having a loaded weapon readily available on one's person. If so, then your examples are all classified as transporting and would require some locking device ( I don't know if the OPer would consider trigger locks or cables acceptable for transporting).

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In general, one should read my posts in a snarky, antagonistic, sarcastic, impatient, condescending, caustic voice unless otherwise noted. This post is an "otherwise noted."

Dead pan posts get serious replies. I can't keep you all sorted.

Would you describe the steps you see to the U.S. passing legislation encompassing some or all of Australia's gun laws?

Maybe an entire school system worth of children eradicated by a ban of 2nd Amendment adherents? Whatever it is there will be buckets of blood involved.

 

[Dinwar]

It will be quite difficult to enforce such a law.

It would require random inspections of personal homes, something that will NEVER fly.

What if the gun is being sold?
Taken out for repairs?
Being brought home from the gun store?
Being given to someone as a present?

All of these actions will require transport of some sort or another.

The real issue is defining "carrying or transporting". But in general, yes, I agree--there are numerous ways to run afoul of such laws without intending to.

The courts have long taken a dim view of discrimination, and I expect that they would do so in this case as well.

The error in this "logic" is simple: If you applied it consistently, we would end up treating all black males as criminals. The disgust you (hopefully) felt reading that sentance demonstrates the flaw in it (if you know why you felt disgust).

The rule is "innocent until proven guilty". That means that unless I've done something to warrant special treatment, I am to be treated the same under the law as anyone else. You can't ban me from certain activities because I MIGHT commit a crime.

The stupidity of such a proposition prevented me from responding to the OP, to be honest. I'm reasonably certain it's a joke, based on this.

As an aside, I really don't see why guns need to be locked while you're transporting them. I was taught--as were all my cohorts growing up (rural Ohio; we had specific rules to deal with the number of kids who took off from school for deer hunting)--that you transported guns unloaded. It's basic safety; accidents can happen, and I'd rather not get shot. You load the gun at the start of hunting, and unload it when you get back to the vehicle.

That's another thing that never gets brought up in these discussions: hunting. Everyone assumes "guns" means "weapons used to shoot humans". The reality is pretty different, from my experience (including LA, so it's not all rural). There are far more hunters than folks realize, and they are critically important (meaning if we remove them, people will die--look at car/deer collisions in the Northeast, or wild hogs in the South). Laws that interfere with hunting simply will not work. And hunting can involve any caliber of weapon. My grandpa used to hunt with a 20 gauge shotgun and a .22 pistol--the shotgun was his primary tool, but if the thing wasn't dead he'd use the pistol. Plus, feral dogs and the like aren't to be messed with, and having a backup weapon is a very, VERY good idea! Anyway, hunting needs to be considered seriously in any such proposition.

 

[Horatius]

While I am sure that you ideas are full of good intentions, however they are quite impractical.



It will be quite difficult to enforce such a law.



What if the gun is being sold?
Taken out for repairs?
Being brought home from the gun store?
Being given to someone as a present?

All of these actions will require transport of some sort or another.

This is, once again, an example of how Americans seem to believe that rules which have been successfully applied in other countries could not, for some reason, possibly work in the US.

The restrictions on transporting guns as suggested in the OP are, in fact, more liberal than the rules currently in place for transporting handguns here in Canada. Yet, despite that, there are a lot of Canadians who both own and shoot handguns without running afoul of the law. I've done it myself using a friend's firearms. Resistance to such rules seems to have more to do with a reluctance to implement them, rather than any actual problem with the rules.

As an aside, I really don't see why guns need to be locked while you're transporting them. I was taught--as were all my cohorts growing up (rural Ohio; we had specific rules to deal with the number of kids who took off from school for deer hunting)--that you transported guns unloaded. It's basic safety; accidents can happen, and I'd rather not get shot. You load the gun at the start of hunting, and unload it when you get back to the vehicle.

That's another thing that never gets brought up in these discussions: hunting. Everyone assumes "guns" means "weapons used to shoot humans". The reality is pretty different, from my experience (including LA, so it's not all rural). There are far more hunters than folks realize, and they are critically important (meaning if we remove them, people will die--look at car/deer collisions in the Northeast, or wild hogs in the South). Laws that interfere with hunting simply will not work. And hunting can involve any caliber of weapon. My grandpa used to hunt with a 20 gauge shotgun and a .22 pistol--the shotgun was his primary tool, but if the thing wasn't dead he'd use the pistol. Plus, feral dogs and the like aren't to be messed with, and having a backup weapon is a very, VERY good idea! Anyway, hunting needs to be considered seriously in any such proposition.

And this is another good example. Again, in Canada, it is handguns that are most closely regulated. For other guns, as would be used in the vast majority of hunting, the rules are more lax, but still successful in limiting gun violence. After all, it is handguns that are used in a large majority of gun-based murders, and as such, Canadians largely focus their regulation on those types of weapons.

Again, a perfectly reasonable and workable system, that's by and large effective, but again, rejected by Americans under the belief that it just couldn't work, for some reason.

 

[LTC8K6]

You are still stuck with the 2A to our Constitution.

Unless you reinterpret that, or repeal it, or rewrite it, you are going to have a tough time with much of any serious gun control in the USA.

This is why many of those rules and laws that work over there, won't fly here.

Not to mention the many states that specifically grant the right to carry arms to defend oneself and property.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

[Polaris]

Non-starter. Even leaving the 2nd Amendment aside, it requires that a certain portion of the population are not equal under the law based on age and gender.

 

[Aepervius]

Q: Do mass murderers feel at all constrained by laws?

No, but if gun are less available and easy to get, whether they feel constrained or not add another degree of difficulty where they can get caught in their nefarious plan. I doubt anybody said that *NO* massacre whatsoever would happen, as there were massacre even in gun controlled countries. The proposal is merely to divide the number of gun murder by a factor greater than 1, possibly after decades by factor equal or similar to western europe countries.

But I won't hold my breath, I think the gun debate is closed, finished, stopped forever, and baring a revolution, it will stay that way.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are still stuck with the 2A to our Constitution.

Unless you reinterpret that, or repeal it, or rewrite it, you are going to have a tough time with much of any serious gun control in the USA.

This is why many of those rules and laws that work over there, won't fly here.

Not to mention the many states that specifically grant the right to carry arms to defend oneself and property.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

And if we do change it, or get a rational interpretation of it, the radical gunners will go on the warpath. Those with the balls, that is. It will be very ugly, I believe. I know one home near here with a sign on the front door, "Welcome to Waco II".

 

[LTC8K6]

And if we do change it, or get a rational interpretation of it, the radical gunners will go on the warpath. Those with the balls, that is. It will be very ugly, I believe. I know one home near here with a sign on the front door, "Welcome to Waco II".

You could have all sorts of reactions to attempts to remove the right own guns/handguns.

From mild violence, to very bad violence/rioting, to states threatening to leave the union...

One other thing is that there really are not too many reliable records of who owns what guns.

One could simply hide them and deny possession. Most gun owners will likely do that rather than turn them over to be destroyed by the gov't.

Even if you could confiscate every gun you are certain about, using reliable purchase records, you'd still probably have ~100 million guns in public possession.

And very few criminals will be turning their guns over voluntarily.

I don't know what the general population's voluntary turn-in rate would be, but I would put a lot of money on low.

The argument would be that it would just take time. Eventually we'd be nearly gun free..

I'm not so sure we'd ever get close.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You could have all sorts of reactions to attempts to remove the right own guns/handguns.

From mild violence, to very bad violence/rioting, to states threatening to leave the union...

One other thing is that there really are not too many reliable records of who owns what guns.

One could simply hide them and deny possession. Most gun owners will likely do that rather than turn them over to be destroyed by the gov't.

Even if you could confiscate every gun you are certain about, using reliable purchase records, you'd still probably have ~100 million guns in public possession.

And very few criminals will be turning their guns over voluntarily.

I don't know what the general population's voluntary turn-in rate would be, but I would put a lot of money on low.

The argument would be that it would just take time. Eventually we'd be nearly gun free..

I'm not so sure we'd ever get close.

And all that over some folks' toys. It's just *********** sad.

 

[LTC8K6]

And all that over some folks' toys. It's just *********** sad.

Guns aren't toys, of course.

Not sure what you meant, but it was a strange way to put it.

I shoot as a hobby, but my guns still are not toys.

I started shooting handguns in about 1980 at age 12 or 13.

The only living things I have shot above plant life are some turtles a land owner asked me to shoot/thin out, as they had taken over his farm pond.

And that was within the last few years.

Prior to that, strictly paper and plinking.

I feel like an easy gun control target.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 2A doesn't necessarily protect my right to target shoot with firearms.

I don't have the "self defense" defense for owning guns.