Loudmouth--Read me!

[MarginOfError]

I'm just curious what your response would be to my favored forms of gun control, so I'm going to list the key ones. But I didn't want take up space in the other thread.

• Authorize the CDC to implement reporting requirements across the States for reporting gun-related accidents, injuries, and deaths. Make the data publicly available (after deidentification) and encourage peer-reviewed and open source research. I think we'd find that guns are both much more dangerous and much safer than we think they are (yeah, I really did just say that). But let's at least have the discussion be objective and evidence based.
  
• Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused when their firearms are not properly secured.
  
• Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused to innocents when they discharge their weapon at a target (ie, hold them accountable for non-target down range injuries).
  
• Require concealed carry (and perhaps open carry?) to pass a marksmanship test every 5 or 10 years.
  
• Discontinue the sale of semi automatic firearms that are not handguns (the classification of these would require some discussion, but as a starting point, a handgun may be anything where the distance from firing pin to the end of the barrell is less than 8 inches. That is, all new sales of non-handgun firearms must take some manual action to clear and reload the chamber (such as bolt action, pulling the hammer, pump action, or lever action).
  
• Discontinue the sale of ammo clips that hold more than 10-15 rounds of ammo for non-handgun firearms
  

From my standpoint, that's the best solution I can seem to get that balances public safety and personal ownership rights; and balances short term realities with long term goals.

What are your thoughts on those? (other may join in, but I'm not responding to crazy talk)

[beefche]

(other may join in, but I'm not responding to crazy talk)

Hahaha! Ummmm, you certainly aren't new to this site, so yeah, riiiggghhhtttt!

[Dravin]

Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused when their firearms are not properly secured.

What is properly secured? How are you handling transport? I can't put a multi-thousand dollar gun safe in the back of my car, what happens if my locked hard case is in the car because I'm traveling to a hunting spot and I'm carjacked? Or when I stop for gas and a bathroom break my car is stolen? Do you really want me to bring my gun with me into the gas station? What about when I'm actually out hunting? If an intruder threatens my life and I tell him how to open the safe am I liable? What type of liability are we talking about? Civil? Criminal? What sort of penalties in either case? Are there limitations on this? If a criminal shoots someone, sells the gun, and the next criminal shoots someone, do I have liability in both cases? Are you requiring the registration of firearms? This law provides an incentive to not report a firearm as stolen if one believes one can avoid having it conclusively tied back to them. Are you even thinking of theft when you say the above? Or simply, "Timmy finds Daddy's shotgun loaded under the bed and plays cops and robbers with Sally, shooting her."

I've thrown a lot of questions at you, and I can understand if you don't want to respond to them piecemeal. Just recognize that a short description might explain the goal of the law it doesn't begin to cover the execution of the law and execution matters a whole heck of a lot. So if you understandably don't want to go at my questions one by one would you mind fleshing out some more just what exactly you have in mind?

Discontinue the sale of semi automatic firearms that are not handguns (the classification of these would require some discussion, but as a starting point, a handgun may be anything where the distance from firing pin to the end of the barrell is less than 8 inches. That is, all new sales of non-handgun firearms must take some manual action to clear and reload the chamber (such as bolt action, pulling the hammer, pump action, or lever action).

Why exactly do you want to discontinue a hunting shotgun like the Mossberg 930 or varmint/plinking guns like a Ruger 10/22?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Dravin

[pam]

(other may join in, but I'm not responding to crazy talk)

I think you just broke your own rule.

[LittleWyvern]

What is properly secured? How are you handling transport? I can't put a multi-thousand dollar gun safe in the back of my car, what happens if my locked hard case is in the car because I'm traveling to a hunting spot and I'm carjacked? Or when I stop for gas and a bathroom break my car is stolen? Do you really want me to bring my gun with me into the gas station? What about when I'm actually out hunting? If an intruder threatens my life and I tell him how to open the safe am I liable? What type of liability are we talking about? Civil? Criminal? What sort of penalties in either case? Are there limitations on this? If a criminal shoots someone, sells the gun, and the next criminal shoots someone, do I have liability in both cases? Are you requiring the registration of firearms? This law provides an incentive to not report a firearm as stolen if one believes one can avoid having it conclusively tied back to them. Are you even thinking of theft when you say the above? Or simply, "Timmy finds Daddy's shotgun loaded under the bed and plays cops and robbers with Sally, shooting her."

All your questions have to do with acts of theft, and I don't think anybody believes that such a law should apply in questions of theft. I don't even think storage measures need to be the "multi-thousand dollar gun safe" ethier. I think the idea MoE is trying to describe is a sane dose of much needed personal responsibility in order to prevent gun accidents. A simple locked case as simple as a metal box with a key/combination lock could prevent many gun accidents, many of which involve children.

[MarginOfError]

What is properly secured? How are you handling transport? I can't put a multi-thousand dollar gun safe in the back of my car, what happens if my locked hard case is in the car because I'm traveling to a hunting spot and I'm carjacked? Or when I stop for gas and a bathroom break my car is stolen? Do you really want me to bring my gun with me into the gas station? What about when I'm actually out hunting? If an intruder threatens my life and I tell him how to open the safe am I liable? What type of liability are we talking about? Civil? Criminal? What sort of penalties in either case? Are there limitations on this? If a criminal shoots someone, sells the gun, and the next criminal shoots someone, do I have liability in both cases? Are you requiring the registration of firearms? This law provides an incentive to not report a firearm as stolen if one believes one can avoid having it conclusively tied back to them. Are you even thinking of theft when you say the above? Or simply, "Timmy finds Daddy's shotgun loaded under the bed and plays cops and robbers with Sally, shooting her."

I've thrown a lot of questions at you, and I can understand if you don't want to respond to them piecemeal. Just recognize that a short description might explain the goal of the law it doesn't begin to cover the execution of the law and execution matters a whole heck of a lot. So if you understandably don't want to go at my questions one by one would you mind fleshing out some more just what exactly you have in mind?

We covered this a little in the Colorado school shooting thread. Rather than type it all out, you can read my response to Still_Small_Voice.

As for what constitutes 'properly secured,' in a locked cabinet would be enough for me. That's probably over 90% effective in deterring little minds. But leaving it in an unlocked night stand would not be sufficient. (note: that doesn't mean people should be prosecuted for leaving it in the night stand, but that they accept the liability for incidents that happen when left in the night stand)

Any kind of criminal acquisition of the firearm would eliminate the liability.

Are they criminal or civil charges? I don't know. Perhaps that should depend on the nature of the incident. If 16 year old Billy gets in a fight in school then goes home and picks up the gun in his dad's dresser to shoot the guy he fought with, perhaps that could be criminal. But when a 7 year old finds it, plays with it, and unintentionally shoots his playmate, that could be civil. But I don't have strong feelings either way.

Why exactly do you want to discontinue a hunting shotgun like the Mossberg 930 or varmint/plinking guns like a Ruger 10/22?

To give a serious answer, because I don't feel that semi automatic weapons are strictly necessary to the general population and removing them* has the potential to reduce the casualties involved in some of these mass shootings. Using Adam Lanza as an example, the guy never really had to re-aim his weapon between shots until his 30-round clip ran out. If he had to lower the weapon to clear and re-load the chamber and then take aim again, and change his clip every 10 rounds, he would have gotten far fewer shots off in the time it took police to respond. It's purely a matter of slowing down the worst offenders.

* I understand that this wouldn't have much effect in the immediate future as we are only talking about ending future sales. Any such weapons still in the population would remain in the population. But I suspect that over time, their availability would decrease as they became collectors items and some of the currently owned firearms fell into disrepair.

[MarginOfError]

I think you just broke your own rule.

They're my rules. I'm allowed to break them

[Dravin]

As for what constitutes 'properly secured,' in a locked cabinet would be enough for me. That's probably over 90% effective in deterring little minds. But leaving it in an unlocked night stand would not be sufficient. (note: that doesn't mean people should be prosecuted for leaving it in the night stand, but that they accept the liability for incidents that happen when left in the night stand)

Any kind of criminal acquisition of the firearm would eliminate the liability.

Okay, that clears things up a lot. Seems to me you want to treat firearms as an attractive nuisance, legally speaking.

Are they criminal or civil charges? I don't know. Perhaps that should depend on the nature of the incident. If 16 year old Billy gets in a fight in school then goes home and picks up the gun in his dad's dresser to shoot the guy he fought with, perhaps that could be criminal. But when a 7 year old finds it, plays with it, and unintentionally shoots his playmate, that could be civil. But I don't have strong feelings either way.

Why is the liability of the gun owner different in those two cases? I can understand why the liability of the person doing the shooting would differ, but why does the gun owner's? If we assume identical storage precautions in both circumstances isn't the negligence (or lack there of) the same?

To give a serious answer, because I don't feel that semi automatic weapons are strictly necessary to the general population and removing them* has the potential to reduce the casualties involved in some of these mass shootings. Using Adam Lanza as an example, the guy never really had to re-aim his weapon between shots until his 30-round clip ran out.

A Mossberg 930 has a 6 round capacity, you're going to have to fumble with reloading rather often. I'm having trouble comparing a Mossberg 930* and a Bushmaster with a 30-round magazine when it comes to RPM.

*The Ruger would be more comparable as you can get large capacity magazines for it, but if we're assuming the Ruger is in compliance with the capacity law then there are again issues with the comparison. I specifically focused on auto-loading as I personally could live with a capacity limitation.

If he had to lower the weapon to clear and re-load the chamber and then take aim again, and change his clip every 10 rounds, he would have gotten far fewer shots off in the time it took police to respond. It's purely a matter of slowing down the worst offenders.

Lower his weapon to work a bolt, lever, or pump? MOE? How much shooting have you done? It does interrupt the flow of shooting (thus why people who shoot at fast and/or small moving targets appreciate auto-loaders) but other than break action you don't have to lower the weapon to get the next round in the chamber. Reloading also slows you down but if you have a magazine fed weapon you don't have to lower the weapon, other loading systems slow you down more (how much depends on the loading system in particular).

Also why are you giving handguns a pass? I suspect it is because you see them as self-defense weapons and are making concessions concerning what you see their role as, but plenty of people keep a boom stick as a home defense weapon (usually not the same one for hunting, or they have different barrels, as you want a shorter barrel for home defense). If I'm perceiving you correctly, would you be willing to make concessions for defense designed shotguns to be allowed to be auto-loaders?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Dravin

[yjacket]

I think the idea MoE is trying to describe is a sane dose of much needed personal responsibility in order to prevent gun accidents.

Umm, I think there is already a law on the books for this:

involuntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter legal definition of involuntary manslaughter. involuntary manslaughter synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

We don't need another law restricting further rights; it's up to the DA to prosecute for involuntary manslaughter and up to the jury to convict for it.

[MarginOfError]

and while MoE is a reasonable chap

I thought I said no crazy talk.

[LittleWyvern]

Umm, I think there is already a law on the books for this:

involuntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter legal definition of involuntary manslaughter. involuntary manslaughter synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm supportive of such a law in order to prevent gun accidents from occuring in the first place. I agree with you that there's more than enough laws to prosecute such events after they occur, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

[Guest]

I'm supportive of such a law in order to prevent gun accidents from occuring in the first place. I agree with you that there's more than enough laws to prosecute such events after they occur, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

Punitive sentences are not merely to punish the criminal. It is mainly to discourage others from committing the crime.

[yjacket]

I'm supportive of such a law in order to prevent gun accidents from occuring in the first place. I agree with you that there's more than enough laws to prosecute such events after they occur, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

And there in lies the crux of the issue with individuals who want gun-control. You have hit the nail on the head.

Gun-control advocates want to use the power of the state to prevent accidents. So in an effort to prevent accidents, we pass laws that criminalize a type of behavior that in itself does absolutely 0 harm to anyone.

The issue becomes the following: who actually enforces all the laws to "prevent" bad things from happening? It means, larger, more obtrusive, more invasion, more costly government. It means more regulations, it means more regular citizens "policing" other citizens and then when they find out something is against a regulation filing a complaint to some bureaucratic entity.

So for example a law gets passed that when you buy a gun you have to certify (or purchase a safe). Of course now, the gun seller has to fill out and file paperwork to that effect, the buyer has to purchase an "approved" safe, the safe-maker has to build an "approved" safe. At some point you have to make sure the safe is installed correctly, someone has to file some paperwork to "certify" it is safe. And on and on and on.

So now in the effort to "prevent" accidents, an entire state apparatus has appeared, with inspectors, regulators, enforcers, etc. causing more time and energy to be wasted for everyone involved in the transaction. This entire apparatus is supported by tax dollars or deficit spending.

I'm sure MOE will think I'm "jumping the shark" here, but I guarantee the NSA isn't looking for individuals who have broken the law, they are looking at information to prevent incidents.

It is a fundamental difference in philosophy. For me law enforcement and police exist to capture and prosecute after a crime is committed. I acknowledge that bad things will happen and the best thing we can do is to prosecute those individuals who do bad things. For others, law enforcement exists to prevent crime and the best we can do is to enact as many laws as possible to prevent bad things from occurring.

Edited December 18, 2013 by yjacket

[Guest]

MoE's in black, mine in blue.

• Authorize the CDC to implement reporting requirements across the States for reporting gun-related accidents, injuries, and deaths. Make the data publicly available (after deidentification) and encourage peer-reviewed and open source research. I think we'd find that guns are both much more dangerous and much safer than we think they are (yeah, I really did just say that). But let's at least have the discussion be objective and evidence based.
  I can't appreciate this as a solution unless you expand this to state how this actually can be used to solve the problem. So I won't comment for now.
  
• Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused when their firearms are not properly secured.
  Agree. Isn't there a law on this already?
  
• Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused to innocents when they discharge their weapon at a target (ie, hold them accountable for non-target down range injuries).
  
• Require concealed carry (and perhaps open carry?) to pass a marksmanship test every 5 or 10 years.
  I don't agree with the first bullet. There are too many variables in a firefight. Just as an extreme example - in the movie The Negotiator, Kevin Spacey deliberately shot Samuel Jackson to catch the bad guy. I believe the 2nd bullet is sufficient for what you're looking for.
  
• Discontinue the sale of semi automatic firearms that are not handguns (the classification of these would require some discussion, but as a starting point, a handgun may be anything where the distance from firing pin to the end of the barrell is less than 8 inches. That is, all new sales of non-handgun firearms must take some manual action to clear and reload the chamber (such as bolt action, pulling the hammer, pump action, or lever action).
  I don't agree with this either. This is going to be a nightmare to codify. And a minor issue is the widening gap between military firepower and civilian firepower - not sure if this actually matters, it's just something that sits in the back of my mind after living through Martial Law.
  
• Discontinue the sale of ammo clips that hold more than 10-15 rounds of ammo for non-handgun firearms
  I don't agree with this either. It's like Rowe vs. Wade - putting an arbitrary number to law. Just like there's no rhyme or reason for the number 20 in the number of weeks a fetus is deemed viable, I don't see a rhyme or reason for the number 10-15 in the number of rounds deemed safer.
  

From my standpoint, that's the best solution I can seem to get that balances public safety and personal ownership rights; and balances short term realities with long term goals.

What are your thoughts on those? (other may join in, but I'm not responding to crazy talk).

My thoughts? You don't have a gun problem in the USA. You have a breakdown of society problem. Or in other words, you're barking at the wrong tree.

Edited December 18, 2013 by anatess

[Dravin]

I can't appreciate this as a solution unless you expand this to state how this actually can be used to solve the problem. So I won't comment for now.

His idea is it will allow us to see the issue more clearly. Once the issue is identified and quantified we can discuss solutions, or indeed if there is even a solution needed, much more intelligently.

P.S. I did significant editing of an earlier post, I kinda got lost in it and quite a few changes have taken place. Just a heads up to the peanut gallery.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Dravin

[yjacket]

Good stuff Anatess.

I have a lot of concerns with military firepower vs. civilian firepower. IMO if the police can use it, a private citizen can use it. If a situation like the Egyptian riots ever come to here, I don't want to be throwing rocks at the police!!

Supposedly the idea behind 10-15 rounds is someone can do less damage before reloading. However, if someone is really intent on doing damage, they will carry multiple weapons and magazines. Magazines can be modified to hold more than 10-15 rounds. For decent weapons, like a Glock it takes seconds to reload, it's not like it takes 30 seconds to reload.

In a real-world situation with a shooter and people having gone from white to black, individuals are not going to be able to react fast enough during a reload to make much of a difference. Most stories about how mass-shootings end are either the police cornered him and shot him, the shooter shot himself, or an armed citizen shot him. Limiting rounds is one of those things like going through body scanners, it makes people feel good but on a practical level it does nothing.

Guns in general are pretty simple a Glock 19 has 33 parts. You can now 3d print plastic guns.

You have a very good point at the end; we do have a breakdown of society problem.

[yjacket]

* I understand that this wouldn't have much effect in the immediate future as we are only talking about ending future sales. Any such weapons still in the population would remain in the population. But I suspect that over time, their availability would decrease as they became collectors items and some of the currently owned firearms fell into disrepair.

Nope, all it would do is cause gangs to have greater power. The economics of prohibition. Prices of such guns would skyrocket, which would cause a huge profit margin on the black-market. The huge profit margin would encourage bad guys to get into the gun-running business (I'm sure they already are to a certain extent). I much rather prefer having generally law-abiding firearm dealers selling semi-automatic weapons vs. gangs.

Do you think gangs would cease to have semi-automatic weapons if a law banned them?

[MarginOfError]

Okay, that clears things up a lot. Seems to me you want to treat firearms as an attractive nuance legally speaking.

Ummm...yeah?

Why is the liability of the gun owner different in those two cases? I can understand why the liability of the person doing the shooting would differ, but why does the gun owner's? If we assume identical storage precautions in both circumstances isn't the negligence (or lack there of) the same?

Like I said, I don't know. and I don't have strong feelings.

A Mossberg 930 has a 6 round capacity, you're going to have to fumble with reloading rather often. I'm having trouble comparing a Mossberg 930* and a Bushmaster with a 30-round magazine when it comes to RPM.

*The Ruger would be more comparable as you can get large capacity magazines for it, but if we're assuming the Ruger is in compliance with the capacity law then there are again issues with the comparison. I specifically focused on auto-loading as I personally could live with a capacity limitation.

The intent is to slow down the shooter. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I don't care much for laws that start delineating things on specific models (primarily because then all a gun manufacturer has to do to circumvent the law is rename the model). But if you base the law on the length of the barrell, there's really not much you can do to circumvent the law.

Lower his weapon to work a bolt, lever, or pump? MOE? How much shooting have you done? It does interrupt the flow of shooting (thus why people who shoot at fast and/or small moving targets appreciate auto-loaders) but other than break action you don't have to lower the weapon to get the next round in the chamber. Reloading also slows you down but if you have a magazine fed weapon you don't have to lower the weapon, other loading systems slow you down more (how much depends on the loading system in particular).

yeah, i have no doubt gun enthusiasts are more talented at handling the reloading than I am. But whatever action has to be done is certainly going to slow down the shooter, and that's the goal of that proposal. Pulling the gun to your shoulder and only having to squeeze the trigger and reorient from the kick is going to be a lot faster than having to move your hand off the trigger to reload the chamber.

Also why are you giving handguns a pass? I suspect it is because you see them as self-defense weapons and are making concessions concerning what you see their role as, but plenty of people keep a boom stick as a home defense weapon (usually not the same one for hunting, or they have different barrels, as you want a shorter barrel for home defense). If I'm perceiving you correctly, would you be willing to make concessions for defense designed shotguns to be allowed to be auto-loaders?

Yeah, that's it. It isn't perfect, and may seem contradictory. But we do have a Second Amendment, and we do need to respect it. And in self-defense situations, it helps to be able to squeeze of a few rounds quickly because if you're not an experienced marksman, you're probably not going to hit your target on the first pull.

Would I make concessions for defense designed shotguns? maybe. I don't know. I might if I felt like making the concession gained me a favorable response to some of my other ideas.

[MarginOfError]

Supposedly the idea behind 10-15 rounds is someone can do less damage before reloading. However, if someone is really intent on doing damage, they will carry multiple weapons and magazines. Magazines can be modified to hold more than 10-15 rounds. For decent weapons, like a Glock it takes seconds to reload, it's not like it takes 30 seconds to reload.

In a real-world situation with a shooter and people having gone from white to black, individuals are not going to be able to react fast enough during a reload to make much of a difference. Most stories about how mass-shootings end are either the police cornered him and shot him, the shooter shot himself, or an armed citizen shot him. Limiting rounds is one of those things like going through body scanners, it makes people feel good but on a practical level it does nothing.

Except if you limit rounds you actually do slow down the overall shooting speed, which actually does reduce the number or rounds fired before that police officer or armed citizen shows up. So on a practical level, it does do something.

[MarginOfError]

Nope, all it would do is cause gangs to have greater power. The economics of prohibition. Prices of such guns would skyrocket, which would cause a huge profit margin on the black-market. The huge profit margin would encourage bad guys to get into the gun-running business (I'm sure they already are to a certain extent). I much rather prefer having generally law-abiding firearm dealers selling semi-automatic weapons vs. gangs.

Do you think gangs would cease to have semi-automatic weapons if a law banned them?

How many school, mall, or theater, or otherwise public shootings have been carried out by gang members. The gangs are using these weapons in their street wars. The people that do these mass public shootings were law abiding citizens until they opened fire.

So would gangs see an increase in semi automatics in their stocks? In the short term, yes. I doubt that would last, however, because with no commercial market for them, gun manufacturers aren't going to produce as many of them, and so over time their availability to gangs and black market purchase will decrease as well.

If you're concerned about gang-on-civilian crime--when a street criminal approaches me with a semi-automatic black market weapon, I'm every bit as likely to hand over my wallet as if he were to approach me with a flint-lock pistol.

[NeuroTypical]

Cool! I've never been summoned to a thread before. Gives me the big head.

[*] Authorize the CDC to implement reporting requirements across the States for reporting gun-related accidents, injuries, and deaths. Make the data publicly available (after deidentification) and encourage peer-reviewed and open source research. I think we'd find that guns are both much more dangerous and much safer than we think they are (yeah, I really did just say that). But let's at least have the discussion be objective and evidence based.

I agree with everything you say here in principle. I would worry that agenda and spin and politics could wedge itself into the reporting requirements, and I can guarantee they'll all be present in the interpretation, but yes indeed, actually knowing what we're talking about would be a great first step.

[*] Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused when their firearms are not properly secured.

Problematic. I'm in favor of holding parents/guardians responsible when their minor children use their guns. But how do define, and how you gain consensus of what "properly secured" means? A gun for home protection must be accessible within seconds to be useful, which means mandating something be unloaded, or secured with trigger locks, or in a state of dis-assembly, or with ammo stored separately - any of those basically make a gun useless for home defense. I've heard all these definitions advanced by the peanut gallery.

Would "stored in a gun safe" be enough? What if the gun safe is a small 10 lb metal box by the bedside that can be defeated easily by a drill and a crowbar? That's fine for keeping the kids safe, but something easily stolen - such things are targeted by burglars.

Is there going to be some new govt bureaucracy created to license and inspect and certify someone's firearm setup? Again, folks have advocated such things.

How would such a liability law be enforced? Kid shoots himself with a gun, the owner claims it was in a gun safe. Was it really in a drawer? Did the kid have the combination? Was it stored safely, but the kid got it from it's place of safe storage and used it anyway?

I'm not sure I see a way to make such legislation valid and relevant.

[*] Hold firearm owners liable for injuries caused to innocents when they discharge their weapon at a target (ie, hold them accountable for non-target down range injuries).

I'm wondering if there aren't such laws on the books already. Civil lawsuits measure levels of negligence when awarding damages, don't they? Sounds like something which falls to state legislatures. I'm not really opposed to common sense legislation about this.

[*] Require concealed carry (and perhaps open carry?) to pass a marksmanship test every 5 or 10 years.

Well, whatever, but I have to ask what on earth you think this would accomplish? With the majority of gun injuries/deaths being suicides, firearms used in the commission of crimes, and maybe minor children accidents, who cares if permit holders can hit what they aim at? Another way to put it - what makes you think legal uses of firearms leading to unintentional negative consequences is a problem in the first place? I mean, I'm sold on your notion that good data might clarify this, but how many "permit holder accidentally shoots good guy behind bad guy" stories have you ever encountered? I don't think I've ever encountered a single one. Our efforts here are better spent on keeping kids from dying by pulling down tv's on top of themselves (Almost 100 deaths per year, if I remember the statistics correctly.)

[*] Discontinue the sale of semi automatic firearms that are not handguns (the classification of these would require some discussion, but as a starting point, a handgun may be anything where the distance from firing pin to the end of the barrell is less than 8 inches. That is, all new sales of non-handgun firearms must take some manual action to clear and reload the chamber (such as bolt action, pulling the hammer, pump action, or lever action).

Unconstitutional. Not to mention ineffective, as it would basically guarantee that bad guys will be better armed than good guys.

[*] Discontinue the sale of ammo clips that hold more than 10-15 rounds of ammo for non-handgun firearms

I have a lot of ready snark here. Statements like "yeah, because it worked so well last time?" Basically, it was tried already, and didn't work. The % of "banned" clips used in crimes did not go down.

Something I have come to grips with, which color my attitude towards solutions such as you propose:

Definition of law-abiding: Someone who obeys the laws.

Definition of lawbreaker: Someone who breaks the laws.

Logical conclusion: Pass as many clip bans and gun bans as you like. By definition, the good guys will disarm, and the bad guys will remain armed. Because, see, good guys obey laws and bad guys disobey laws. It's what they do. Someone who is going to shoot you, isn't going to care that it's illegal for them to have a certain capacity clip. These all seem utterly self-evident to me. It's illogical (borderline insanity) to expect any other result. Isn't it?

Thanks for the civil tone! I hope I'm responding in a similar tone.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vort]

If I'm picking sides, there is little doubt I'm coming down on the pro-firearms side of things -- this despite the fact that I'm more than a little afraid of guns and what they could do to my family, and having reared five children, two to adulthood, I have never taken any of them shooting even a single time. I am not sure any of them have ever even seen my rifle (an SKS that I have never fired). But I value my God-given rights as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America, one of which is the right to both possess and carry weapons. I have not been able to determine how far this applies or what reasonable limits there are, but my default is to support the God-given right.

But I must speak against the "Prohibition black market" logic used by some to argue that legalized firearms are much better than pushing them underground. By this logic, we should not make possession of anything illegal. Enriched Plutonium-239? If you make it illegal, it will just go underground! Much better to keep everything above-board! Ebola virus? Anti-aircraft artillery? Heat-seeking missiles? Don't tread on me, bub!

It is no coincidence that this is the same argument used by pro-abortionists, arguing that no lives will be spared by "infringing" on the "right" to kill your unborn child; rather, every last one of those women who would have gotten a "safe" abortion will instead run into the back alley and have some shadowy doctor-like figure stick a coat hanger into their uterus. This argument is not merely openly dishonest, it is stupid, and will be believed only by those who (a) are stupid and/or (b) already support unrestricted abortion access.

This is the same argument that has been used to great success in my lifetime to undo bans on street drugs such as marijuana. In fact, I think it's safe to say that pretty much any time a group wants to deregulate or legalize a previously regulated and/or illegal substance or action, one of the arguments that will be trotted out to snare the foolish masses and the 1/3 of the voting population with an IQ of less than 90 is this very one: "Everyone is already using/smoking/doing it, so making it legal will just make it easier to control/regulate/help out with."

This is true with the original Prohibition argument too, by the way. From what I understand, during Prohibition the overall instances of violent crime dropped throughout the country, with statistically limited exceptions in certain urban areas, and instances of more petty alcohol-fueled crimes dropped drastically. As unpopular as Prohibition was among certain segments of the US population, it was apparently quite effective -- or at least, so I have been told by people I trust.

[MarginOfError]

Cool! I've never been summoned to a thread before. Gives me the big head.

I agree with everything you say here in principle. I would worry that agenda and spin and politics could wedge itself into the reporting requirements, and I can guarantee they'll all be present in the interpretation, but yes indeed, actually knowing what we're talking about would be a great first step.

There's no doubt that biases would be present in the report. Hence the need for peer review.

Problematic. I'm in favor of holding parents/guardians responsible when their minor children use their guns. But how do define, and how you gain consensus of what "properly secured" means? A gun for home protection must be accessible within seconds to be useful, which means mandating something be unloaded, or secured with trigger locks, or in a state of dis-assembly, or with ammo stored separately - any of those basically make a gun useless for home defense. I've heard all these definitions advanced by the peanut gallery.

Would "stored in a gun safe" be enough? What if the gun safe is a small 10 lb metal box by the bedside that can be defeated easily by a drill and a crowbar? That's fine for keeping the kids safe, but something easily stolen - such things are targeted by burglars.

"on your person in a holster" is properly secured as far as I'm concerned. But, for example, you don't leave it unattended in a room where the little ones can get to it.

Is there going to be some new govt bureaucracy created to license and inspect and certify someone's firearm setup? Again, folks have advocated such things.

And I object to those who advocate such nonsense. In my mind, if an individual wants to keep his pistol on the table with the basket where he keeps his keys, he has every right to. But he also accepts the liability for damages done by that firearm when it is that accessible.

How would such a liability law be enforced? Kid shoots himself with a gun, the owner claims it was in a gun safe. Was it really in a drawer? Did the kid have the combination? Was it stored safely, but the kid got it from it's place of safe storage and used it anyway?

I'm not sure I see a way to make such legislation valid and relevant.

I think this is where judges and juries come into play.

Well, whatever, but I have to ask what on earth you think this would accomplish? With the majority of gun injuries/deaths being suicides, firearms used in the commission of crimes, and maybe minor children accidents, who cares if permit holders can hit what they aim at? Another way to put it - what makes you think legal uses of firearms leading to unintentional negative consequences is a problem in the first place? I mean, I'm sold on your notion that good data might clarify this, but how many "permit holder accidentally shoots good guy behind bad guy" stories have you ever encountered? I don't think I've ever encountered a single one. Our efforts here are better spent on keeping kids from dying by pulling down tv's on top of themselves (Almost 100 deaths per year, if I remember the statistics correctly.)

Mostly, I think it would accomplish education. Maybe I'm just afraid of a minority of gun owners who go buy a gun because it makes them feel safe but don't really know much about it. But, in the absence of hard data, that may be an overreaching assumption.

Unconstitutional. Not to mention ineffective, as it would basically guarantee that bad guys will be better armed than good guys.

I disagree with your claim that it is unconstitutional. DC v Heller ruled that the right to bear arms "is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." I think restricting semi automatics in this way would fall within that ruling.

I have a lot of ready snark here. Statements like "yeah, because it worked so well last time?" Basically, it was tried already, and didn't work. The % of "banned" clips used in crimes did not go down.

Something I have come to grips with, which color my attitude towards solutions such as you propose:

Definition of law-abiding: Someone who obeys the laws.

Definition of lawbreaker: Someone who breaks the laws.

Logical conclusion: Pass as many clip bans and gun bans as you like. By definition, the good guys will disarm, and the bad guys will remain armed. It's how the words are defined. It's illogical (borderline insanity) to expect any other result. Isn't it?

Thanks for the civil tone! I hope I'm responding in a similar tone.

Please note that my suggestions did not outright ban said clips. I suggested prohibiting future sales. I know that's a small distinction, but whatever is already out there should remain legal. While I acknowledge that this may result in black market sales to criminals, I don't believe most criminals are interested in using these against the general population. I expect most of these would be used in gang wars or between competing cartels. Without a market for domestic sales, however, manufacturers simply wouldn't produce as many of them and they would eventually start to fall out of circulation. Thus, this suggestion would have little short term effect, but could have a noticeable effect over the course of the next generation.

[yjacket]

But I must speak against the "Prohibition black market" logic used by some [snip]

There is so much wrong with what followed after that I'm not sure where to begin; especially when things jump the shark by mentioning ebola virus, etc. We go from guns to ebola to abortion. . . okay whatever floats your boat.

The big issue is that very, very few people understand what laws are supposed to do. Laws have gone from local societies and protecting life, liberty, property to I want a law that bans xyz because I think it's wrong and my way of life is better than your way of life.

This is the same argument that has been used to great success in my lifetime to undo bans on street drugs such as marijuana. In fact, I think it's safe to say that pretty much any time a group wants to deregulate or legalize a previously regulated and/or illegal substance or action, one of the arguments that will be trotted out to snare the foolish masses and the 1/3 of the voting population with an IQ of less than 90 is this very one: "Everyone is already using/smoking/doing it, so making it legal will just make it easier to control/regulate/help out with."

And this speaks to my point above. The premise being I believe smoking marijuana to be wrong, therefore it must be criminalized.

As far as prohibition goes, respectfully you do not know what you are talking about. I'm sure you have heard of Al Capone and speakeasies? There are many documents of scholarly research done on the affects of prohibition.

http://www.johndclare.net/America5_Poholek.htm

Violence and the U.S. prohibitions of drugs and alcohol

"This paper examines the relation between prohibitions and violence, using the historical behavior of the homicide rate in the United States. The results document that increases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibition have been associated with increases in the homicide rate, and auxiliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide. Controlling for other potential determinants of the homicide rate does not alter the conclusion that drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the U.S. over much of the past 100 years."

The whole border war exploding with Mexico right now is because of drug prohibition. Instead of prosecuting real criminals, my local county's jail is 80% full of drug offenders (straight from one of the judge's mouth).

Drug prohibition makes it more profitable for criminal enterprises to succeed. What is a major factor in why so many urban kids join gangs, because besides having a family they can make a heck of a lot more money dealing drugs than working at the QuickiMart.

I used to be 100% for drug criminalization and prohibition; my morality hasn't changed (it's probably gotten stronger), but I understand economics and human behavior a heck of a lot better now. And simply put, it doesn't work; all it does is make a lot of criminals out of people who need a lot of help.

Education is the key to these societal wide problems such as gun violence and drugs, not laws.

Edited December 18, 2013 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

Ummm...yeah?

I think Dravin meant "attractive nuisance".

The intent is to slow down the shooter. You have to draw a line somewhere, . . .

Well, here's the crazy paranoid slippery-slope conservative in me coming out, but . . . if you draw a line knowing full well that it isn't going to do anything, then it stands to reason that you're really drawing the line because you're planning to move it later.

Re liability: I think there's already civil liability for improperly securing handguns. But frankly, savvy people with few assets don't really need to fear getting sued because most judgments for negligence-based torts are dischargeable through bankruptcy--file a Chapter 7 and you can walk away from the entire mess. Make civil liability for firearms-based torts non-dischargeable in bankruptcy--like, say, intentional torts are (assault, battery, DUI, etc)--and we might be getting somewhere; but even then I would favor that more as a concession to the victims and their families, than for any deterrence value.

I'm kind of ambivalent about the idea of penalties--either civil or criminal--as deterrents. I've stood with drunk drivers as they've watched their permanently-disabled victims testify at sentencing hearings. I've seen criminals hug their mothers goodbye as they go off to jail. The sheer horror brought by a full understanding of what it is that you've actually done, is already one heckuva deterrent. Piling restitution to that horror and heartbreak and misery is one thing; but a hefty financial penalty on top of that? I should probably go read some Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to steel my right-wing, tough-on-crime principles, but right now I'm having a hard time seeing the point of it all.

Frankly, I think the best way to stop school shooters--or any kind of mass shooting--is to make sure that there are resources on site to take the shooter down ASAP. That, IMHO, involves some combination of school resource officers and the presence of additional concealed carriers. Here in Utah, permit holders can carry concealed even on school campuses. After Sandy Hook I asked in my daughter's school office and was told that "several" teachers routinely carry. I hope to heaven that no psychopath with a gun ever sets foot on my daughter's campus. But I take comfort in knowing that if it happens, the casualties will probably be in the single digits rather than in the dozens or hundreds.

I am more or less resigned to the idea that we can't do much more than we've already done to keep guns out of the hands of crazies without giving additional power to empire-building bureaucrats who (on the whole, and over time) I frankly hold less trustworthy than the rest of my local, state, and national community. By my calculations you'd need a Sandy Hook per day for about forty two hundred years to match one Josef Stalin. That's a Sandy Hook a day beginning during the reign of King David of Israel, down through today and continuing on for another thousand years.

Heartless as it seems, I see the status quo as an acceptable risk--even when my own children are involved.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Just_A_Guy