Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[caulfield12]

1) How did I in anyway advocate "gun grabbing?" I made a pretty simple point that when someone gets pissed off and sees red, if they have a gun, the damage is way worse than if they throw a punch. Do you believe that you should be able to carry in a bar? At the zoo? In a courthouse? At work? At the Cell? Do you believe there should be any restrictions to when and where people should be allowed to carry firearms?

 

2) Here's what I would do (note that there is no way the political will exists in this country to get any of this enacted). I would limit magazine size. I would make harsher punishments for unlawful possession. I would take a lot of the federal money that goes to the DEA and put it toward a war on illegal possession of firearms (targeting high crime areas like those referenced by Alpha earlier in the thread). I would restrict when and where people can carry. Driving to the firing range? Lock your gun in the trunk on the way there. Going to the grocery store? Leave it at home (locked preferably, but that's not a Pandora's Box I'm willing to open). I like the idea of a national registry like we have with cars. It would probably make it easier to legally shift title to guns (someone passes away who owned a number of guns, keep people off Craigslist to make the transaction to sell those). Would make it easier to report and track a stolen weapon. Nationalize licensing of guns. Make the test to pass a full day written and practical. Make people re-take every three years. I would have the feds institute a large scale by back program annually. You are done with your gun, don't want it anymore, get it off the street and let the feds melt it down.

 

None of the suggestions above infringe upon your ability to enjoy your gun. You get to take it to the range. You get to protect your crops and your livestock. You get the feeling of security that comes with having a gun in your nightstand. You don't, however, get to put my life at risk if I say the wrong thing at the barbershop or in line at the grocery store.

 

Do the things I listed above eliminate gun violence? No. But they are a step to making things safer, balancing the rights of gun owners with the needs of the rest of us.

 

 

Sounds like a pretty reasonable list.

 

You can also look at higher taxes for the bullets/ammo or guns, controlling the number of rounds one can buy every year, improving the nationalized database, some kind of test of proficiency/marksmanship (let's call it the equivalent of a written driver's license exam for those wanting a gun)...

 

Beyond that, you really have to touch on the mental health side of it.

 

A lot of these "mass killings" are planned out well in advance, with malice and forethought, but the pizza place shooting or the paintball shooting, it's about limiting access to guns, the ability to take one into a public place, keeping guns away from those people who are most likely to snap and solve disputes with a "shoot first, think later" perspective on conflict resolution.

[ptatc]

And what a solution it has been!

 

Clearly, there are no examples in the world of gun laws in other countries that has led to lower gun violence. We can only compare things to alcohol and drunk driving, which liberals wouldn't want to curb because they drink and are lazy. Meanwhile conservatives don't want to regulate law abiding citizens, except gays and women.

This why these discussions become meaningless. You don't have to make large sweeping generalizations to distract from meaningful discussion. No one implied there was any laziness or lack of effort in anything just a different opinion on what should be restricted and how to accomplish it.

[ptatc]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable list.

 

You can also look at higher taxes for the bullets/ammo or guns, controlling the number of rounds one can buy every year, improving the nationalized database, some kind of test of proficiency/marksmanship (let's call it the equivalent of a written driver's license exam for those wanting a gun)...

 

Beyond that, you really have to touch on the mental health side of it.

 

A lot of these "mass killings" are planned out well in advance, with malice and forethought, but the pizza place shooting or the paintball shooting, it's about limiting access to guns, the ability to take one into a public place, keeping guns away from those people who are most likely to snap and solve disputes with a "shoot first, think later" perspective on conflict resolution.

This is one I've never understood. Why would anyone want to take one into a public place? Growing up after a day of hunting we used to go a place to eat and people would have their shotguns in the place because they didn't go back to their vehicle. But just about every did it. But it's not like I would want to take one to a mall or anything.

[caulfield12]

This why these discussions become meaningless. You don't have to make large sweeping generalizations to distract from meaningful discussion. No one implied there was any laziness or lack of effort in anything just a different opinion on what should be restricted and how to accomplish it.

 

 

Which is why we've almost entirely lost the moderate wing of both parties, certainly where the majority of the country has been for the past 20-30 years, essentially moderate or fiscal conservatively but with more compassion for the poor and downtrodden than Mitt Romney was believed to possess (something like a mixture of Colin Powell and what "W" was perceived by many to be in 2000 when he was elected, with a dash of Clintonian post-1994 centrism thrown in).

 

It's pretty ironic that the poster here who tried to bridge both sides of the discussion was applauded and also derided for naivete and posturing/placating/being a politician.

[StrangeSox]

This why these discussions become meaningless. You don't have to make large sweeping generalizations to distract from meaningful discussion. No one implied there was any laziness or lack of effort in anything just a different opinion on what should be restricted and how to accomplish it.

I'm operating under the assumption, and bmags may be too, that duke is at least somewhat trolling here. This "the federal government would have crushed democracy by now but for our guns"rhetoric is markedly different from how duke has posted here in the past. I could be wrong and his views have changed or I've miss-remembered, though.

[ptatc]

I'm operating under the assumption, and bmags may be too, that duke is at least somewhat trolling here. This "the federal government would have crushed democracy by now but for our guns"rhetoric is markedly different from how duke has posted here in the past. I could be wrong and his views have changed or I've miss-remembered, though.

This could be true. However, if someone really wants to have a discussion on how to improve the situation, it really doesn't help to do the same thing.

[ptatc]

Which is why we've almost entirely lost the moderate wing of both parties, certainly where the majority of the country has been for the past 20-30 years, essentially moderate or fiscal conservatively but with more compassion for the poor and downtrodden than Mitt Romney was believed to possess (something like a mixture of Colin Powell and what "W" was perceived by many to be in 2000 when he was elected, with a dash of Clintonian post-1994 centrism thrown in).

 

It's pretty ironic that the poster here who tried to bridge both sides of the discussion was applauded and also derided for naivete and posturing/placating/being a politician.

I agree. That is one thing I've noticed in politics in general since the early 2000's. Everything needs to be one side or the other only and if you don't agree it's attacking the person not the policy. Personally, I'm more conservative economically and more liberal with education. I do however, think less government is better overall. Moderate is probably a good word.

 

Mostly, I want to get my post number up to 3,000 and am bored on break from courses with only research to keep me occupied).

Edited December 21, 2012 by ptatc

[BigSqwert]

Nope. Stricter regulation is not necessary.

[ptatc]

Nope. Stricter regulation is not necessary.

How would more strict regulations prevent him from stealing a gun? The guy broke the law to obtain it so any regulation would not have kept him from it. Maybe a more severe penalty for stealing a gun, like an automatic prison sentence but that's about it.

[BigSqwert]

How would more strict regulations prevent him from stealing a gun? The guy broke the law to obtain it so any regulation would not have kept him from it. Maybe a more severe penalty for stealing a gun, like an automatic prison sentence but that's about it.

Stricter regulations on gun dealers. They have virtually nothing to lose when they screw up. A slap on the wrist is typical when guns all of a sudden are missing from their inventory.

[StrangeSox]

I imagine bs's point is that it's yet another incident of a law-abiding citizen's gun falling into the wrong hands and that this gun shouldn't even be available for someone to steal in the first place.

 

Edit: xpost

Edited December 21, 2012 by StrangeSox

[ptatc]

Stricter regulations on gun dealers. They have virtually nothing to lose when they screw up. A slap on the wrist is typical when guns all of a sudden are missing from their inventory.

Such as?

[BigSqwert]

Such as?

Gun dealers who lose a gun pay a heavy fine for each missing gun. A missing/stolen gun used in a crime automatically gets the gun dealer to lose their business license plus a heavy fine.

[ptatc]

I imagine bs's point is that it's yet another incident of a law-abiding citizen's gun falling into the wrong hands and that this gun shouldn't even be available for someone to steal in the first place.

 

Edit: xpost

Again I don't think it is realistic to think that a total gun ban will happen. In my view as we've discussed it shouldn't.

[ptatc]

Gun dealers who lose a gun pay a heavy fine for each missing gun. A missing/stolen gun used in a crime automatically gets the gun dealer to lose their business license plus a heavy fine.

I like the first part. For the second part I would probably give them 1 chance to tighten up security before they lose the license. Unless it was an unreported missing/stolen than maybe a jail sentence should apply as well.

[Jake]

People keep talking about alcohol - - - several states have all liquor stores state-operated. This might help with gun sales?

[Texsox]

Isn't punishing someone for having something stolen punishing the victim?

[ptatc]

People keep talking about alcohol - - - several states have all liquor stores state-operated. This might help with gun sales?

We do live in Illinois. Who would trust more with with design of a program to control of weapons sale: a private citizen or a state employee? (this coming from a state employee)

 

In all honesty maybe it should be run by the State Police, they do run the FOID card system.

[ptatc]

Isn't punishing someone for having something stolen punishing the victim?

True but it may make them run a tighter ship. That is why I would give them a chance to improve security. It's like securing controlled substances in a medical clinic. There are major fines if some of them go missing and you can lose your license to practice medicine. I'm not sure about jail sentences though.

Edited December 21, 2012 by ptatc

[BigSqwert]

Isn't punishing someone for having something stolen punishing the victim?

 

If you're in the business of selling dangerous weapons and you can't secure them, then too bad if you get penalized. People's lives are at stake. I doubt those who'd risk stealing guns are stealing them to protect their chicken coop.

[ptatc]

If you're in the business of selling dangerous weapons and you can't secure them, then too bad if you get penalized. People's lives are at stake. I doubt those who'd risk stealing guns are stealing them to protect their chicken coop.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

[Texsox]

If you're in the business of selling dangerous weapons and you can't secure them, then too bad if you get penalized. People's lives are at stake. I doubt those who'd risk stealing guns are stealing them to protect their chicken coop.

 

Would you arrest the bank president if the bank gets robbed?

 

I believe there should be minimum security standards and reporting that should be required and a failure to conform would results in fines and/or jail time. But to arrest victims of crimes doesn't make sense. The laws should include what the dealer has control over, they have no control over criminals.

[caulfield12]

Would you arrest the bank president if the bank gets robbed?

 

I believe there should be minimum security standards and reporting that should be required and a failure to conform would results in fines and/or jail time. But to arrest victims of crimes doesn't make sense. The laws should include what the dealer has control over, they have no control over criminals.

 

 

Not sure that's an analogous situation.

 

Ultimately, a bank president's job is quite different from a gun dealer's.

 

How many times has missing money led directly to multiple deaths/homicides?

 

How many times has a stolen/missing/lost rifle or handgun led to fatalities?

 

You could argue that the principal of a school where there's a shooting should also be fired because the school wasn't safeguarded enough to prevent an attack, but nobody would agree with that decision.

[southsider2k5]

Not sure that's an analogous situation.

 

Ultimately, a bank president's job is quite different from a gun dealer's.

 

How many times has missing money led directly to multiple deaths/homicides?

 

How many times has a stolen/missing/lost rifle or handgun led to fatalities?

 

You could argue that the principal of a school where there's a shooting should also be fired because the school wasn't safeguarded enough to prevent an attack, but nobody would agree with that decision.

 

People don't get killed in bank robberies?

[StrangeSox]

People don't get killed by money stolen from banks