Skip to main content

OK, anyone following the latest knows that there is much ado about firearms laws and regulations in the United States. I believe that there are two major obstacles to having a rational discussion about firearms in the United States.

One obstacle is the resistance-at-all-costs mentality generated by the NRA, which speaks for all gun owners as much as Mitt Romney speaks for all Americans (which is to say, not so much as they like to believe).

Another major obstacle, I believe, are the relentless rhetorical attacks carried out against all gun owners as a package deal each time there is a shooting. These attacks are frequently carried out by well-meaning people who are outraged at the senseless tragedies that have unfolded. Many times these people admit their ignorance, hatred, or fear of firearms and cannot see that their blanket attacks alienate many gun owners who would actually be open to rational discussion.

I'm willing to try to change that. Right here, right now, where people watch and discuss openly; where rationality is a virtue. When Progressives can argue a fracking proponent to a dead stop by debating how many parts-per-million of fracking fluid it takes to fill a pristine aquifer with arsenic and selenium, I am proud. To later hear that same Progressive argue about firearms laws based on what they remembered watching the "Terminator" it makes me wonder what happened.  

Notice that I use the term "firearms laws" or "firearms regulations". I tend to eschew the term "gun control" for a couple of reasons. One, as a conceptual brand name, the term "gun control" is irreversibly tainted, and guaranteed to shut down most dialogue before it starts. Two, the term "gun control" to me also reveals part of the problem we have on focus-- the term implies the control of guns, to the exclusion of all other factors. When you blame an inanimate object for evil, you are engaging in a form of talisman fetishism every bit as baseless as anything that a gun owner might infer about his firearm as a magic talisman that will keep evil away.

So that said, where can we go? What we probably need to do is start looking at what we can start building with as a foundation.

That means... more below the Great Orange Curlicue.

Numbers:

There are estimates between 50 to 80 million gun owners in America (no exact numbers are tracked), owning an estimated 270 million firearms (again, no exact numbers are tracked).

To put that in perspective, bear in mind that during World War Two, there were approximately 16 million Americans serving in the United States military. So, even if you doubled the number of American soldiers serving in World War Two, you still would not be close to the low-end guesstimates for the number of gun owners in the country. If you tripled the number of military personnel serving in World War 2, you'd still fall short of the lowest estimate of gun owners in the country.

I point these numbers out to show you that firearms ownership is a very, very large demographic. There are millions upon tens of millions of civilian firearm owners who obey the law and are able to function normally in society. The mere presence or ownership of a gun does not turn a person into a drooling psychopath, or imply a tendency towards sociopathy. Issuing blanket insults about this massive demographic, most of which are not in the NRA, is a sure way to lose the argument before it even has a chance to start. And it makes everything the NRA says sound almost reasonable by comparison. Don't prove the NRA's rhetoric for them.

Since the 1980's there have been perhaps fifty or so mass-murder spree killings (a murderer killing 3 or more unrelated people in rapid succession using a high-power/high-capacity firearm). Someone else has to work the real math, but as nasty as these spree killings are, compared to the overall population of gun owners, the ratio of nutty maniac spree killers is something like 0.001% of the total population of "regular" gun owners. Statistically speaking, medical malpractice kills more people on a yearly basis. Bear in mind, I'm talking about mass-casualty spree killings, not day-to-day crimes. Calls for gun control (especially of "assault weapons" and "large-capacity magazines" tend to crop up only in the wake of spree killings-- and that makes sense, since generally these items don't tend to get used in a lot of crimes.

I give these numbers not to denigrate the lives of the victims, but to put the hue and cry into a perspective.

That said, obviously we need to do something to keep firearms from the hands of those who are drooling psychopaths.

So, here is Proposal #1:
The National Instant Check System (NICS) must be required by law at all firearm sales, including private sales between individuals.

To be honest, I myself thought the NICS check was required at all times at least between dealers and individuals. Apparently, there are some states that are not NICS compliant. And there is no excuse for it, either: if you have a cell phone, you can do a NICS check. And private sales are not required, the so-called "gun show loophole". So, make every sale a NICS sale.

Proposal #2:
Mental health records must be taken into account for all NICS sales. After the Virginia Tech massacre it was theorized that Seung-Hui Cho might have been held up by a mental health block on his attempted purchase. The world will never know if, but for a want of paperwork, this could have been avoided.

Privacy pundits worry that a random gun store owner will suddenly find out that you talk to the My Little Ponies and they tell you things about Christian Bale's shoes. No, your mental health records do not have to be a detailed account, they can in fact just be a "flag" that tells the gun store owner to deny the sale, reasons unknown, and hand the prospective buyer a form to question or challenge the denial. The gun store owner will not know if it is for legal trouble or lunacy.

A note on the TSA's No-Fly/Terrorist Watch List: the infamous TSA terrorist watch list is rife with error. Ted Kennedy (yes, that Ted Kennedy) was denied a flight because an Irish Republican Army terrorist was using his name as a nom-de-guerre. The Terrorist Watch List needs a lot of work. Besides, it is run by the TSA. The TSA has not caught a single terrorist; they have however managed to catch a number of colostomy bags, terrorize some toddlers, and "catch" three of my packed Leatherman tools. They're about as sharp as a big round ball, and until the Terrorist Watch List gets some attention, don't use it.

Proposal #3:
If you want to own a "militia rifle", then get militia training.

The civilian "assault rifles" actually are not true "assault rifles". It was a really, really stupid marketing move by firearm manufacturers to call their civilian firearms by the exact same name that the military used to classify an actual combat weapon. This has caused no end to headaches by a civilian populace who thinks they are one and the same, and it is one of the reasons why the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" was a miserable piece of legislation. It was based purely on cosmetics, ie, a gun that "looked scary" regardless of actual function.

I propose that civilian-made look-alikes of military weapons be classified as "militia weapons", as in "a well-regulated militia". These are typically semi-automatic firearms that fire one shot per trigger squeeze. People who seek to regulate firearms typically say that "only police and the military should be allowed to have such weapons", and it is a persuasive argument. Being in the US Army myself, I can say with some authority that police and soldiers are not made in clone vats on the planet Kamino-- the only thing separating us from "regular" folks is that we have been trained to operate our weapons safely and properly. And the nice thing about training, is that anyone can be trained.

Which segues nicely to Proposal #4:
Make training comprehensive and available, and then issue a license.

Licensing the person makes more sense than licensing the item. After all, it is the operator who decides the actions of the item, and who bears responsibility for its use. Once a person has a license for "militia weapons", they are proudly inducted into the militia, ready to defend America from anyone and anything. In order to stay qualified, they have to go to a range and shoot for qualification on a regular schedule. It could be a year, or every other year, or whatever-- it's open for debate.

Proposal #5: Classes of weapons.
There should be three classes of weapons: hunting rifles and shotguns, and the rare hunting pistol (they exist), and firearms specifically for target shooting that are useless for anything else (they exist). Those can be purchased and owned normally without special restrictions. Revolvers, pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action, trapdoor-breech, blackpowder, and break-open arms would be typical of this category.

In order to get a semi-automatic or "militia" pistol, you have to provide proof of training and get a license.

In order to get a "militia weapon", you have to also be trained and have a license (mentioned above). Like a driver's license, you can get a general militia license and have a "pistol endorsement" on it or something.

No, the cost to get training and licensing cannot have enormous fees or taxes on them.

Proposal #6: Training standards.
Training standards must be relevant and enforced. No "rubber-stamp" militia licensing. Training and qualifications must meet certain Federal minimums. The flipside: a gun license issued to such a responsible individual would be good in all 50 states, except in the usual places where forearms are not allowed (airports, courtrooms, schools, etc).

Training must be available to anyone and not made difficult by distance, unrealistic standards, or requiring an onerous amount of qualification shoots. Annual qualification shoots are typical for military and police; militia qualifications can be every other year. Failure to qualify means militia privileges are suspended until the range test can be passed.

Proposal #7:
Existing "milita weapons" and magazines over 10-round capacity get a "militia stamp" and their sale or transfer is subject to a transfer tax, like fully-automatic weapons, short-barrel weapons, or explosive devices are currently. However, since these weapons are not typically of the same capabilities of these other weapons, then the tax stamp would be more like $10 or $20 instead of the $200.00 required for the above-mentioned special devices. The militia stamp is more of a formality that helps track sale or transfer of the weapon or magazine.

Large-capacity magazines or drums of an unusual (or "novel") type, like 75-round drums, 100-round drums, or 50-round pistol magazines are also subject to a transfer tax, but something more like $40. Although these things are usually more trouble than they're worth and I think the joke is on anyone who buys them. High-capacity magazines of "novel or unusual size" have more tendency to jam, really.

Proposal #8: Mass purchases.
Sales of more than 1,000 rounds of any single type of ammo are simply recorded. If there is a sudden, unusual "spike" in sales to a person, an inquiry can be generated. Same with the sudden purchase of a mass of militia weapons, say, 3 or more in a one-month period.

Proposal #9:
People who want to see stronger firearms laws need to stop demonizing, stop issuing blanket insults or statements about the mental state of someone who enjoys shooting hobbies. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that, regardless of how you feel about what someone else "needs" or not, there is a recognized right to firearms in our society and that isn't going to go away. Righteous indignation is felt by all thinking and feeling people in the wake of these tragedies.

The key is rational discussion and pro-active laws that help without hindering rights-- even if those rights are things you yourself don't care for or find unsavory. Tens of millions of people enjoy firearms as a hobby without killing or hurting anyone.

In Conclusion--
Here are a few simple and basic proposals to discuss or cuss as seen fit. I'd love to get into more in-depth ideas, like make "militias" truly community-service minded organizations that help out with crowd control, search-and-rescue, doing welfare checks on neighborhood shut-ins, getting CPR classes, and so on. But that's more in-depth and has little to do with actual firearms laws.

This is obviously not set in stone; I am not an elected official and have no sweeping executive powers. But if a cohesive platform can be built from the germs of these ideas, then let's quit plugging away at nothing and talk seriously.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Proposal #2 is the one. (4+ / 0-)

    Cho, Loughner, Holmes and now this latest SOB in WI all showed symptoms of mental illness. They were not reported, they slipped through the cracks. The NRA folks all use a standard phrase, people should be allowed to buy whatever guns they want unless they are "adjudicated as mentally ill."
    Adjudicated ? That takes too long. If a military psychologist or a campus cop or anybody has a question, a red flag should be put in the data base; no guns for this one. A two week waiting period before delivery in order to do a thorough background check is not unreasonable.

    The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

    by Azazello on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 09:46:29 PM PDT

    •  Interesting. Anyone? (8+ / 0-)

      Sounds like a great way to arbitrarily deprive someone of their rights.  Might appeal to some, but so long as anyone can whisper an accusation of mental imbalance it's not going to go over well after decades of mistrust.

      Why do you think adjudication takes too long?  In Cho, Loughner, and Holmes cases, it never happened at all.  

      And why a two week long background check?  Why not invest in improving the instant check?

      •  Adjudication can be incredibly difficult (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, 43north

        and is thus almost useless as a disqualification.

        Far better to go through the DSM - line by line - and identify those mental disorders which should be a disqualification and require mental health professionals to report those diagnoses to NICS.  The mental health provider would also be required to report when treatment progress is sufficient to remove the name from the database.

        Perfect? No.  But far better than what we have at present.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 01:17:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't that what adjudication is? (0+ / 0-)
          •  Adjudication can only (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            43north

            come from a court after a hearing - not based solely on a diagnosis of a psychiatrist or other mental health practitioner.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:08:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's look at the relevant regulation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              43north

              27 C.F.R. § 478.11

              Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a >b?court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
              So not necessarily a court, though adjudication may have to end up there to ensure due process.  And of course you can't deprive a man his rights without the cooperation of some lawful authority.  The question is why is meeting such criteria an unbearable burden to the state?
        •  Another difficulty is that diagnoses are not (5+ / 0-)

          Stagnant things.  They move.  They get better, worse, different.  Many are cyclical like depression.  With medication and therapy depression and anxiety can be virtually eliminated.  No one can know for sure if it will last forever.  Someone may be suicidal once in their life or hundreds of times.  Drawing lines would be excruciatingly difficult for these issues.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:52:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Understood (5+ / 0-)

            but mental health professionals are best qualified to make the necessary judgments as to when disqualification should occur, and when it is safe to remove the disqualification.

            It is far from perfect, but better than what we have now which in many cases comes down to a gun store clerk when a prospective purchaser seems to be acting strangely.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:12:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  would it make some people less likely to seek (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Puddytat, happymisanthropy, 43north

              help for mental health issues? Laws always have unintended consequences. We need to make mental health services less stigmatized not more.  

              "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

              by Wisdumb on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:31:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree with you on that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north

                Additionally, mental health professionals might not want to be put in the position of determining whether or not someone can be licensed for firearms.  They might OK anyone for fear of a lawsuit.

                There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

                by Puddytat on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:25:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Or more to the point - disqualify everyone. (0+ / 0-)

                  Rather than be questioned on the 6pm news:  
                  "Doctor?  How did you, a licensed professional, allow this nutter to slip though the system and cause this much carnage?"

                  Of course, the answer or lack of answer will be used in a Board of Professional Review hearing, resulting in termination of hospital privileges and loss of license.

                  If lucky, the mental health practitioner will avoid criminal indictment, and merely suffer a massive civil suit.

                  His/her psychiatrist should be certain to preclude suicidal behaviour by a course of anti-psychotic drugs, psychotherapy, and adding the former Doctor's name to the NICS as a prohibited person.

      •  As I understand it (8+ / 0-)

        there WAS an adjudication in the case of Cho, but it was not entered into NICS as it should have been.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 03:47:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have you seen this ? (4+ / 0-)

        Holmes' shrink contacts cops. Pima College cops flagged Jared too.

        As for the waiting period, why do you have to take that gun home RIGHT NOW, TODAY !
        I've waited longer than 2 weeks to buy a handgun with a custom trigger. If somebody thinks they need that gun IMMEDIATELY, that's a clue right there.

        I'm tired of hearing that we can't do anything, that changes to the status quo are impossible for this or that reason. That's the same bullshit we are told about the class war, that we can't change tax law or banking regulations.
        Apologists always come up justifications for the current state of affairs, no matter how deplorable.

        The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

        by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:25:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Better question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Azazello

          Why do I have to wait?  You still haven't given any convincing reason for setting up this roadblock.  Just speculation.

          •  Better question still: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Puddytat

                 Why can't you wait ?

            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

            by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:47:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can wait. (0+ / 0-)

              I just don't have to.  You're the one proposing the inconvenience.  Only to polite to at least give a good reason for it.

              •  Don't lecture me on politeness ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Puddytat, jeff in nyc

                My reason, viz. to allow a complete background check, was given in my original comment. Did you even read it before posting your juvenile objection ? Here's another, do you imagine that a cartel straw-buyer would buy 7 Kalishnikovs at a whack if he were subject to a waiting period and a  background check ?
                I don't like your tone, expect no further replies.
                Good day.

                The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:23:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He can't legally. (0+ / 0-)

                  Unless your straw buyer is an FFL licensee authorized to trade in NFA restricted weapons.

                  I don't see how you proposing an arbitrary waiting period to perform some arbitrary background check amounts to a reason.

                •  But in the original 1994 ban, the (5+ / 0-)

                  waiting period was to allow time for a background check to be done... but the option to actually do the background check was left to local law enforcement. It wasn't mandatory.

                  That's why the NRA pushed NICS instead. An instant check that was done on the spot. The Brady group didn't have a reply to that.

                  Seriously, the only way a waiting period can be argued at all is on a first-time purchase. After that, it's just a way to mess with gun owners for no real reason.

                  •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                               

                    The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                    by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:42:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your point being..? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas
                      •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                                 

                        The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                        by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:47:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ohhh, you can post pretty pictures. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          How neat. Can you do a "My Little Pony"?

                          Better yet, can you get to a point?

                          •  You still don't get it ? (0+ / 0-)

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:57:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You post pictures of (0+ / 0-)

                            some dirtbags that might have been stopped if some of the things I'd proposed had been implemented. Both these guys had mental histories that might have made them ineligible to purchase firearms --if things had been done right. I want to tighten up the system that allowed these human colostomy bags to slip through.

                            So either you're putting up poster boys that prove my point, or ...? What. I can see you recc'ed this diary so you probably agree with some of what I'm saying. So where we headed, homes?

                          •  I recc'd your diary (0+ / 0-)

                            and gave you my thoughts in good faith. I told you I shoot. I liked some of your suggestions. Something's wrong in this country. Look at Pistol Pete up there, says we all just have to take our chances being shot by a psycho so people who want to buy guns won't be inconvenienced by a waiting period. A waiting period and a thorough background check are not radical proposals. This happens every time. Defenders of the status quo give us the same old tired bullshit about how no new laws are needed and nothing can be done.
                            Something must be done.
                            Peace.

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:19:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lot of people say they shoot. (0+ / 0-)

                            Never seen much evidence of it.

                            You keep making these vague references to thorough background checks and refusing to explain, first, why you can't achieve the same results with NICS, and second how this prevents anyone from simply tapping the secondary after market.

                            In fact, the only likely explanation for your continued refusal to justify the waiting period is that you're more interested in jamming up gun owners than preventing mass murders.  Clever, but not gonna fly.

                          •  Now you're calling me a liar ? (0+ / 0-)

                            What are you some kind of NRA shill ? You ain't even clever, just annoying.

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:11:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm a lifetime voting member, in fact. (0+ / 0-)

                            No secret there

                            Once again, you pass up the opportunity to justify the hoops you want me to jump through.  And you wonder why you can't get anything done.

                          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                                           

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:38:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you're an enabler. Take a bow. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your knee-jerk opposition to any form of firearms regulation is a big help to these guys.

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 08:33:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's a lie. (0+ / 0-)

                            There are 200 major state and federal laws.  And thousands of others regulating the industry, possession, use, etc.  I doubt I find more than ten or twenty percent of those onerous, and we haven't even discussed those in any detail.

                    •  OK, Azazello, I'll play along. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      Democrat Clarence Dupnik, the Pima County Sheriff who demanded a return to the AWB and Brady Bill waiting period.
                      The same Sheriff Dupnik who's Department is ultimately responsible for not taking an interest in Jared Loughner's year-plus of reported oddities.

                      His Department would be the exact local-LEO who we'd entrust with doing a comprehensive pre-sale, pre-licensing investigatory job, to prevent the likes of Loughner from accessing a firearm.

                      Personally?  Not impressed.

                      •  The Pima College campus police (0+ / 0-)

                        knew about Jared. I don't think the Pima County Sheriff's Office did. He was never reported. An adequate background check may very well have prevented that shooting. Do you think these killing sprees are unavoidable ? That there's nothing we can do and we just have to allow them to happen again and again and again ?
                        What's the matter with you ?

                        The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                        by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If people can't be assed to follow-up (0+ / 0-)

                          on reports of aberrant behaviour?
                          Then what exactly do you expect to find in a "background check"?

                          Campus PD said "oh well" is one version, the other has them reporting to the Pima S.O. and it went no where.

                          To the contrary of your "what's the matter with you?":

                          Each of these ticking bombs gave warning signs.
                          Signs that were classified:
                          We can't be bothered.
                          It's messy.
                          He/she won't cooperate.
                          It's not 'enough'.

                          Just ban the guns, and nothing bad will happen.
                          Other than perhaps, gasoline.

                          •  Please, no one is talking about banning guns. (0+ / 0-)

                            I own guns, I shoot. But we can't leave things the way they are, it's fucking insane. All I suggested was a waiting period and look at all the bullshit that brought. It is not unreasonable. A firearm should not be an impulse purchase, there should be some hoops you have to jump through in order to get one.

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:02:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                            Why can't it be an impulse purchase?  Seriously, what evidence do you have that impulse purchased firearms are in any way a statistically significant contributor to violence and accidents?

                            You people keep coming up with all these hoops you want others to jump through, but you can't link cleanly link one  to a single desirable policy outcome outside of your imaginations.

                          •  You got a suggestion ? (0+ / 0-)

                            Or are we just supposed to live with the current state of affairs ?

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:06:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have several, in fact. (0+ / 0-)

                            1. Exercise your Second Amendment rights.  Ultimately, you are the last line of defense.
                            2. National reciprocity. You should be free to defend yourself wherever you are.
                            3. Security zoning and inspection of public accommodations.  
                            4. Regular safety drills for the public.
                            5. Expanded lawful authority for civil commitment.
                            6. A national directory of prohibited persons that is reliably, easily and inexpensively--hell, free--to access by the public.

                          •  "6. A national directory of prohibited persons... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that is reliably, easily and inexpensively--hell, free--to access by the public."

                            This combined with a requirement that all private sales go through the free system without having to go through a FFL would close the so called private sale loophole. You get the sale ok from the Feds and keep a copy for say 5 years. You are probably keeping a record of the sale anyway for your own protection.

                            You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

                            by wishbone on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 07:32:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's no need for said requirement. (0+ / 0-)

                            The mere existence of the database would gravely hinder the argument that a transfer wasn't made negligibly if the recipient was a prohibited person.

                            Like we've said all along--there's plenty of law on the books.  Try using some of those before multiplying complexity and liabilities unnecessarily.

                          •  There is no law on the books that... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...requires a private citizen to check a gun buyers background before selling him a weapon. That's why a "loophole" exists. Those of us who support Second Amendment rights can't just say there is a law on the books when there obviously isn't. The database already exists but you have to be a FFL to access it. Open it up to all and require it to be used by all gun sellers.

                            You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

                            by wishbone on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 12:33:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let me get this straight. (0+ / 0-)

                            There's a loophole exists because a particular class of people don't have to perform a particular set of paperwork, even though said people are as liable as anyone else for negligently or criminally supplying certain items to proscribed persons?

                            That about sum it up?

                          •  That "particular class of people" you refer... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...to is everyone who does not hold a federal firearms license so its 99% plus of the population. A pretty big class wouldn't you say? How do those 99% know that the person they are selling a gun to is a "proscribed person" if they can't access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System? Please explain how this liability you think exists works if you have no access to the list of proscribed persons? Thanks.

                            You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

                            by wishbone on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 01:37:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So open up access. (0+ / 0-)

                            Problem solved.  We've been over this point before.

                            However, you're still hung up on this matter of mandatory background checks for every transfer.  In other words, you're perfectly fine with punishing squeaky clean buddies Jim and Bob for trading pistols simply because they didn't do any paperwork.  And you're doing so for no good reason, since they are exposed to the same liability as a licensed dealer who negligently or willfully sells to a proscribed person.

                            I don't think you're doing this just to be a pain in the ass to gun owners, but you should at least be able to recognize the flaw in your proposal by now.  And to know that continuing to defend it while ignoring these objections basically means that you are just trying to be a pain in the ass.

                          •  "In other words, you're perfectly fine with... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...with punishing squeaky clean buddies Jim and Bob for trading pistols simply because they didn't do any paperwork."

                            I traded guns with my son. We both did the minimal Illinois paperwork. It was easy, and of course no NICS check. Why should FFL holders do the check if 99% of the population don't have to? You keep saying everyone is exposed to the same liability as an FFL holder who flaunts the law, but that is bullshit and you know it. Spell out the penalties of a citizen unknowing selling a gun to someone who committed a felony twenty years ago. There aren't any and you know it. We have beaten this to death so have a good day.

                            You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

                            by wishbone on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The penalties are the same. (0+ / 0-)

                            A private citizen who unknowingly sells to a convicted felon has the same liability as an FFL who does the same thing.  Let's keep our apples and oranges straight, shall we?

                            So, if you didn't perform a background check on your son, think you should be jammed up with a felony case?

                          •  My point is... contrary to Lifetime Television® (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Azazello

                            I have yet to see a person, liquored-up, go into a gunshop with three of his drinking buddies and loudly proclaim:

                            "I've had it with the bitch... gimme that chrome-plated .357 magnum, an' a box a bullets."

                            So this "waiting period" - if there's nothing to be done but wait... wait... wait... and no one is going to take legal steps to interview folks known to the purchaser?

                            What, do we really accomplish?

                            "I legislated the waiting period..."

                            Hell, I paid-for, and drove-out with a car.  Same day.
                            Temp tags.  The dealership didn't even ask for my Drivers License.

                          •  It's not so much the waiting period (0+ / 0-)

                                 as the background check that such a period will make possible.

                            The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                            by Azazello on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:09:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, the actual issue is... (0+ / 0-)

                            and you've studiously avoided this:

                            I want a in-person interview of all your known associates, family members, workplace superiors and peers, prior to issuance of a permit to keep and bear arms.

                            Someone is going to say:  Gun?  I'm not in-favor of him/her having a gun... and that's good enough reason to block the permit.

                            Take my self-described bleeding heart liberal, the Democrats are too conservative, gay-bashing insurance agent.

                            He told me today:  

                            "If interviewed?  I'd say NO GUN for everyone, cops included."
                            No doubt: "We need more courageous persons like him"

                            I asked him about hunting:  "Eat fish... my boat partners have just brought some to Tom."

                            So it's part personal dislike (guns are so anti-surfer, dude) and a business decision.  Buy fish.  From me.

        •  The thing about waititng periods, is (0+ / 0-)

          they only make sense for the very first gun purchase. After that, the "crime of passion" rationale is removed-- the potential killer already has a gun. If he decides to run to the store to buy a new one, it's no longer a crime of passion, it's premeditated.

          •  Not even for first gun purchases... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Azazello, 43north

            The procession of events is as follows...

            You find your wife banging the mailman.
            You lose control of yourself in anger.
            You leave the area, remember to bring your wallet and grab your keys.
            You drive to the gun store.
            You pick out a gun.
            You tell the person behind the counter what you want.
            You fill out the federal form 4473.
            You wait while they phone in the NICS background check.
            You wait while they fill out their parts of the 4473.
            You wait while they pack up your purchase.
            You pay for your new gun at the register.
            Don't forget the ammo! Maybe you have to go back in for bullets.
            You drive home.
            You load an unfamiliar gun in the driveway. Glad you're still so lost in the passion of the moment!
            You walk back into your house and drill your cheatin' wife.

            What the fuck! How does THAT not count as enough time for the initial adrenaline dump to subside?

            Seriously, I've seen what I wanted in less than two minutes from when I walked into the gun store - I started out just walking in just to price check and stumbled on one hell of a deal that I wasn't going to pass up. And even then it STILL took more than half an hour before I was walking back out the door!

            Waiting periods are supposedly a "cool down" period. That cooling off is EASILY achieved by the laws that are on the books right now. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying through their teeth or is ignorant of the full implications of the words that they are using, and should be educated so they can quit the nonsense.

            •  The recent mass shootings (0+ / 0-)

              were not crimes of passion. They were the acts of lunatics who bought their guns weeks in advance, after they had hatched their schemes. Your argument misses the point.  

              The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

              by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:05:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  are you not the self-same person who posted... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Azazello, KVoimakas
                As for the waiting period, why do you have to take that gun home RIGHT NOW, TODAY !
                I've waited longer than 2 weeks to buy a handgun with a custom trigger.
                If somebody thinks they need that gun IMMEDIATELY, that's a clue right there.
                The AWB was in-response to the LIRR shooting, resulting in the death of future Congressional Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's husband, and severe injury to her son, Kevin.

                Of Colin Ferguson:

                Ferguson was known to have a volatile nature.

                Police detectives later said it appeared Ferguson had been planning the shooting for more than a week.  Chief Joseph Flynn of the Long Island Rail Road police said, "This was the work of a deranged, maniacal person who for a variety of reasons decided to explode."
                Actually, not so.  Try thinking about it for years... planning for months.

                Wikipedia:  (bold mine)

                In April 1993,[6] Ferguson moved to California in search of new career opportunities. He unsuccessfully applied for several jobs, including a car wash, where the manager laughed at him. Ferguson purchased a Ruger P-89 9mm pistol at a Turner's Outdoorsman in Long Beach for $400, after waiting the 15-day waiting period required under California's gun laws.[12][13] Ferguson presented himself as a California resident by providing a driver's license he received two months earlier, which had an address of the Long Beach motel where he stayed.[13] After Ferguson was robbed by two men, he started carrying the gun with him in a paper bag.[6] Ferguson moved back to New York City in May 1993 because, he told a friend, he did not like competing with immigrants and Hispanics for jobs.[5] Denis, his Flatbush landlord, said Ferguson appeared even more unstable upon his return, speaking in the third person about "some apocryphal-type doom scenario" that included black people rising up and striking down "their pompous rulers and oppressors".[6] Ferguson started taking five showers a day and could be heard by neighbors repeatedly chanting at night, "all the black people killing all the white people".[6] Denis became increasingly concerned about Ferguson's obsession with racism and apparent growing mental instability, and asked Ferguson to move out by the end of the month.[6]

                On December 7, 1993, Ferguson purchased a ticket for the 5:35 p.m. east-bound train at the Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. This train stopped at the Jamaica Station in Queens. Mr. Ferguson boarded the third car of the east-bound Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commuter train from Penn Station to Hicksville, along with more than 80 other passengers. Ferguson, who sat on the southwestern end of the car,[14] was carrying his handgun and a canvas bag filled with 160 rounds of ammunition.[7]

                Ferguson loaded 45 rounds into three magazines while commuters did their best not to maintain eye contact.
                When subdued, he had approximately 100 more still in his canvas bag.

                An African-American friend of mine opined:  

                You white people are crazy, I'd be slappin' that shit outta his hands.
                Let him shoot me with the 4 or 5 rounds he loaded... but no way I'm I lettin' him load-up his clips.
                Yes, he used the word 'clips' and not the correct "magazines".
                •  That reply was to a person who suggested (0+ / 0-)

                  that the current half-hour wait was enough. It ain't.
                  We have got to find a way to weed out the psychos.
                  A rigorous background check is a good start and that takes time.

                  The GOP ... Government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

                  by Azazello on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:14:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ferguson... PASSED IN CALIFORNIA. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Azazello, wishbone, KVoimakas

                    Illegally brought the gun to NYC... but that's not the issue.

                    Waiting period = FAIL.

                    Again,

                    "His actions are not criminal, can't do anything about it, thanks for your call"
                    IS the issue.

                    You're fixated on a 14 day wait?

                    When the next Ferguson happens, we'll change that to 30 days.
                    When the next Ferguson happens, we'll change that to 90 days.  120.  180.  1 year.

                    But... we WON'T actually change how we deal with reported aberrant behaviour.  THAT is messy.  

                    We'll put a 1 year wait in, a $200 license fee for "Assault Clips" and call it good.

                    Re-elect me, I passed this legislation.

    •  Point of fact, Cho and Holmes (7+ / 0-)

      were both reported. Then they slipped through the cracks, when the authorities they were reported to ... let it slip.

      •  Just this morning, WTOP had a report... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jan4insight

        ...indicating that the school psychologist did report Holmes to campus police.  Apparently, nothing was done about the information, either before or after he dropped out.


        Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

        by IndieGuy on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:22:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  #2 is a nonstarter for several reasons. (4+ / 0-)

      I would enforce it anyway because it would block some minuscule number of dangerous people, but the typical spree killer, pathological racist, or religious fanatic doesn't think there's anything wrong with themselves - it's the world's fault.  They will never seek treatment.

      Someone "acting funny" is not a basis for a mental health evaluation.  The majority of evals. Would turn up nothing.  The only people in a position to make this kind of determination are psychologists and psychiatrists with patients in therapy for a significant amount of time - months.  And then they'd be wrong too frequently.  Predicting future behavior is not done well by anyone.

      Then you run into serious and important privacy issues.  If it became a norm to report patients who talk about guns, there would be no more therapeutic relationships, no one would talk about guns, it would all go underground.  Mental health care availability should be MUCH easier to access.  Some few people might get treatment, another few might be pushed by family, it would become less of a stigma.

      I would like to hear something about carry permits.  This is the most salient point to me.  Most of the above is window dressing.  Although it is lovely, I mean lovely, to run into a gun person who is actually thoughtful and willing to discuss.  I'm grateful.  Anyway, carry permits.  I think they should be very very difficult to get like in Canada and Great Britain. I think the penalties for breaking carry regulations should be draconian.  The constitution says nothing about carrying guns wherever we go.

      Personally, I don't want some stranger thinking they can protect me.  The number of people who said Aurora could have been stopped by theater goers with guns was horrifying.  Even some here.  Any moron could see how much worse it could have been with more bullets flying around.  The fact is, everyone I've heard who has a gun seems to have an inflated view of their abilities.  There's a lot of braggadocio surrounding guns.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:48:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not argueing for current carry laws but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes

        an unintended consequence of the Florida carry law is that there are more people receiving training and being licensed then before the law was passed. I have heard that some of the training is crap - which is a huge problem. Here in north Florida the course for a concealed carry permit costs between $50 and $150. And like everything else in this world you get what you pay for. Many of the instructors are very good but some ain't. The course goes through cleaning, maintenance, proper handling, and  laws regarding carrying a firearm. Right now in Florida I would say our biggest problem is the Stand Your Ground law.

        One thing that encourages people to get a concealed carry permit is that if you have one you are not required to go through the 3 day waiting period for a handgun (actually 5 days - since the first day and the day you pick it up don't count).

        "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

        by Wisdumb on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:42:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am glad that someone is willing to discuss (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Joy of Fishes, Puddytat

      I come from a family that owned guns.  My parents did a very good job of instilling in us the concept that guns are not toys.   This was probably reinforced by the fact that dad helped me shoot one of his black powder rifles when I was six.  He held the rifle and me; and I pulled the trigger.  I will never forgot the respect and healthy fear it taught me to have around all firearms.  Despite this being the '70s, I was wearing ear protection and safety goggles. My dad knew that guns were a tool, but they are a tool that is used to kill and injure.  He has never pointed a weapon at another human being (unarmed or not).  

      My dad is a civil war skirmisher, but he has a owned a number of guns that he has traded and sold over the years.  My mom, who is no fan of guns, considers my dad to be one of the most responsible gun owners she has ever known; and both my parents have come into contact with a lot of other gun owners over the years.

      I like your points, and I like the gun specific training that you outline.  I don't think that annual refresher courses are out of line for the urbanites out there who want a gun for security, but don't do much shooting (practice or hunting).

      I do have one thing I think you might have missed, or maybe you didn't and I missed it. (no coffee yet this morning) If you are going to own guns, then also make sure that you have a safe way to store them.  I realize I can't stop people from keeping a loaded pistol in the night stand while you sleep, but for god's sake, in the morning unload the sucker and store it in a gun safe.

      I would also suggest implementing real penalties for anyone trying to go around the system you propose implementing.  Perhaps barring them from gun ownership after a set # of infractions.

    •  Convicted drunk drivers in Germany can't own a gun (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Puddytat

      My source a German gun owner.  He says it's because if you are convicted of drunk driving you do not make responsible decisions and therefore would be a danger to society if you owned a firearm..

  •  Something is missing from all of these proposals. (5+ / 0-)

    An argument connecting each one to some desirable policy outcome (reduced gun violence, injury, drying up the black aftermarket, etc.).  

    Otherwise, all we're talking about is a framework in search of a problem.

  •  Wouldn't Prop 4 make Prop 1 moot? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper

    if everyone were licensed, why wouldn't direct sales between licensees be kosher?

    Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 10:41:58 PM PDT

  •  Right up front I will give you enormous credit (7+ / 0-)

    for accepting the premise that our society needs to take positive action to end the mindless carnage.

    There is some way to go, however, because you still get caught in the old trap of wanting folk to quit branding gun owners as "all the same", yet you accept the outliers on the "gun control" side as typical of the breed.

    This is not a serious criticism, just a point I am making to demonstrate how difficult this is.

    Then we get to the nitty-gritty. The biggest criticism of your proposal is that "it will not work". I say that simply because that is the criticism that is always leveled at any proposals to control gun violence.

    This type of criticism is meant not to provoke a discussion about what will work, it is designed rather to shut the discussion down. It's very easy to say that a well-meaning proposal should be rejected "because it will not work", when you are freed of the responsibility to then suggest something that might.

    The implication there is that we are meant to simply accept the status quo, and more people will die.

    Well I, for one, do not accept that. I'm pleased that you don't either.

    The point here is that there is no single solution to solve America's gun crisis, and crisis it is. Yes, it is! What will solve the problem is an incremental series of steps. We have to start with solutions that, on their own, will not work, because there isn't a solution that will.

    What will work is a change of attitudes, and a gradual reduction in the supply of illegal guns currently floating around. Add to that a refusal to supply guns to those who will use them for illegal purposes (a longer term ambition), and you have the beginnings of a solution.

    What is more, with each incremental step the problem is marginally reduced.

    So I would accept your proposal, get it written down and passed into law. That would be the first step.

    Yeah, I hear them say, the thin end of the wedge!

    Correct, because the ambition is to make it ultimately possible for those who wish to own and use guns free to do so, but make it their responsibility that their guns never become illegal arms, and that we know where every last one of them is. I see no possible complaint about this, other than by those unwilling to help address the problem.

    I want licensing, registration, training. A limit on the type and amount of guns, ammunition and magazines (or clips). Mandatory reporting of theft, and penalties for those who were culpable if they didn't take reasonable steps to secure their guns.

    I want the law to reflect the seriousness, and great personal responsibility in this matter, and I want all decent gun owners to agree. It's not so hard.

    In return, their right to have and use firearms for lawful purposes should be made easy, with no expensive requirements.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 10:42:09 PM PDT

  •  This is very impressive. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Mom, Smoh, Puddytat

    Thanks for taking time to break it down.

  •  we. us. our. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Smoh, Puddytat

    whatever form discussion takes could benefit by revising proposals and comments to recognize that the result would be laws and regulations, and that at some time, any of us could cross from one position to the other, so the laws and regulations are, truly, ours.

    point of view: inclusive.

    thanks for your work.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:06:28 PM PDT

  •  Interesting list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, Joy of Fishes

    I have expressed support for your 1st proposal. Most shootings involve a gunman who could not legally possess a firearm. It would have to be a requirement for purchase and for the sale of a firearm. I think it could cut down straw purchasers too. This should be studied to see if it would be effective, I suspect it could be if properly written.

    Your 2nd proposal is very touchy. It gets into large issues of medical privacy that are currently causing the records to not be available. This area needs improvement, but privacy needs have to be addressed. How are records being turned over? I support the idea but would have to see any proposed law before I could say if I would support it or not.

    Proposals 3, 4,and 5 I take a rather dim view of, for the same reason you take a dim view of the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban." Either there is merit to that description or there isn't. Just based on news reports of crimes I don't think that definition has much merit (a very small percentage of crimes.) There may be a place for specific features to be restricted or prohibited on new firearms, based on these features being elements of criminal use, backed with data.

    The 6th proposal really gets into states laws. It would be very hard to get cooperation in the Senate to force all the states into one set of laws. Washington state is well below the national average rate of gun deaths and we have no license requirement to own a pistol or long arm. We have no training requirement to obtain a concealed pistol license (this is why most other states don't recognize a WA CPL.) We have fairly few restrictions on where a firearm can be carried.

    I am a little torn on the training requirements. I feel a written test on the law could be good. I was trained in the use of firearms by my father and grandfather and didn't need formal training to be safe. I later got college firearms training as a part of my criminal justice degree.

    Proposal 7 seems to really be a focus on watching the transfer on certain items (correct me if I understand it wrong.) There needs to be sound reason based on scientific study of crime before enacting extra restrictions on transfers of certain guns or gun parts. Scary looking isn't a good reason. Shown to be an element facilitating criminal activity is a good reason.

    Tracking the purchase of large amounts of ammo by those who are not dealers is may be a good idea (#8.) I would suggest raising the amount for 22LR rounds (and  some other common target rounds.) Reporting large ammo purchases might track hate groups better. I would like to see data first. This may prove to be a waste of money. I really don't know if there is any measurable correlation.

    More of number 9 would be very helpful. If I see the implied "gun owners are nuts" writing style and catch phrases I tend to either ignore the poster or perhaps give a little lip back. It won't lead to constructive dialog.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:07:38 PM PDT

    •  I left training somewhat ambiguous (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Joy of Fishes

      since there would be a lot of different ways to approach that. Idaho has a "shall-issue" policy to anyone who has police or military training, or taken a hunter's education course, and provided the person passes a background check. That's a pretty good bar to set, as a minimum.

      A written test on law would also be good, and I'd go so far as to say that the legality of civilian defensive firearm use (and penalties for screwing it up) would be taught in high-school civics classes, but that's just an idea.

      A written test that shows a comprehension of the legal issues, and a range test to demonstrate physical competency, would be the best way to go, I think.

  •  Not to be too much of a spammer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh

    but I posted this in my diary today, and still haven't gotten a response:

    Since Heller allows for reasonable regulation, I can't hear somebody advocating overturning Heller (or repealing the second amendment entirely) and believe that they want to stop with regulations and enforcement that Heller already allows.

    Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:09:38 PM PDT

    •  In your diary, I saw that and was going to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh

      mention an earlier diary I'd posted, "Firearms 101"... I touch on Heller but didn't go into proper detail, an omission I feel bad about now.

      But I think with Heller, a lot of gun owners can be more comfortable discussing firearms laws because, in the long run, the SC has affirmed definitively that the 2nd applies to individual rights and that firearm ownership is protected. Before, when it was ambiguous, gun owners were concerned that things like registration would lead to confiscation, which happened in the past in some locales. There was no basis of trust and there was no firm backstop as to how far regulations could go.

      Added to that was the older US vs. Miller decision, delineating that the 2nd applies specifically to weapons suitable for militia purposes, and I think we have a good combination to ensure rights.

  •  my "gentle" rewrite of your intro: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canis Aureus, Joy of Fishes

    OK, any one of us following the latest knows that there is much ado about firearms laws and regulations in the United States. I believe we have two major obstacles to having a rational discussion about firearms in the United States.

    One obstacle is the "resistance-at-all-costs" mentality generated by the NRA, which speaks for all gun owners, as much as Mitt Romney speaks for all Americans--which is to say, not so much as they like to believe.

    Another major obstacle we have are the relentless rhetorical attacks some of us carry out against all gun owners as a package deal each time there is a shooting. These attacks are frequently carried out by those of us who are well-meaning people but who are outraged at the senseless tragedies that have unfolded. Many times we admit our ignorance, hatred, or fear of firearms but we cannot see that our blanket attacks alienate many of us who are gun owners and who would actually be open to rational discussion.

    Let's be willing to try to change that. Right here, right now, where people watch and discuss openly; where rationality is a virtue. When we Progressives can argue a fracking proponent to a dead stop by debating how many parts-per-million of fracking fluid it takes to fill a pristine aquifer with arsenic and selenium, we are all proud--but to later hear these same Progressives debate about our firearms laws based on memories from watching the "Terminator," we wonder what happened.

    Notice that we choose the terms "firearms laws" or "firearms regulations." We should eschew the term "gun control" for a couple of reasons. One, as a conceptual brand name, the term "gun control" is irreversibly tainted, and guaranteed to shut down most dialogue before it starts: it's like a slur. Two, the term "gun control" reveals part of the problem we have with our focus--the term implies our control of guns, to the exclusion of all other factors. When we blame an inanimate object for evil, we are engaging in a form of talisman fetishism every bit as baseless as what our gun owners might infer about firearms as magic talismen that keep evil away.

    So that said, where can we go? What we probably need to do is start looking at what we can use to start building a foundation.

    That means... more below the Great Orange Curlicue.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:31:39 PM PDT

  •  Only 50 mass murders in the last 30 years? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, Smoh, Azazello

    Where did you get that number? That seems to be way low for random murders of 3+ people.

    The Brady campaign, using slightly different criteria, counts more than 20 a year:
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/...

    •  The words wholly shit come to mind when you look (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      semiot, Smoh

      At the real numbers....are we nuts or what!!!!!!!

    •  I believe there is a difference between (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      a 'mass murder', which is 3 or more people unrelated to the killer within a certain period of time (24 hours?) and a spree killer, in which the deaths all occur in a much more truncated time span, which is (as far as I know) never been delineated.

      So a guy who kills 3+ people, starting at 1:AM, another at 5:PM, and one more at 11:PM, is a 'mass murderer', while another guy who kills the same 3 people in the space of a few minutes is a "spree killer".

      But that's the part that makes life difficult: none of these are actual "set in stone" legal definitions, at least not within definitions of "spree killer", so the parameters are fuzzy. A legal scholar who knows more would be welcome to bring input.

      I'm sorry, but I don't entirely trust Brady Center stats any more than I trust NRA stats. Both have axes to grind and will skew stats to favor their own points of view. The Brady Center has, in the past, included people shot by police in the line of duty and firearm accidents as "murders by gun", for example; and included people up to 26 years old as "children killed by guns"; and included arguments between drug dealers that devolved into shoot-outs as "killed by friends or acquaintances with guns" in the past. The NRA does a lot of similar things in the other direction.  

      •  I think the intent here is to distinguish between (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Canis Aureus

        murders commited by career criminals, vs murders commited by a regular joes who just happened to have flipped out. Because clearly there are different approaches to tackling these two problems. The career criminal probably will not be deterred by gun control. Whereas the guy who decides to shoot up his work place- most likely could have been detered if it was made more difficult for him to get a gun.

        If this is the intent, then the Brady Campaign's count is far more accurate than the '50 over the last 30 years' cited in this diary. Remember- 'regular guys who flip out' generally do NOT go out and murder strangers. Most frequently they murder their own family. After that- their coworkers or classmates. If you really want to narrow it down to 'regular guy who flips out and murders completely unrelated strangers' then you are necessarily ignoring a lot of 'regular guys who flip out' incidences.

        And then there is the other category of 'regular guy' murders- the drunken bar brawl or the 'shooting outside a party' type of shooting. This is yet another category of shooting that is commonly commited by either regular guys, or petty criminals. These are shootings which need not occur, and most likely could have been prevented if the access to guns is curtailed.

  •  I'd address proposal #3 based on attributes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, Smoh, Azazello

    What specifically makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon?  Is it rate of fire, mobility, concealability, range, caliber, weight, length, magazine style, or some combination of factors?  Do we consider the M-1 Garand to be an assault rifle?  What about the Lahti L-39?  (Both are semi-automatic rifles that are so bulky and heavy as to be impractical for mass killing).

    What of the MAC-10?  In my view, this weapon is a detestable little beast, but I have to admit my Beretta Model 92 only differs from the MAC-10 in magazine capacity (15 rounds for the Beretta, 30 rounds for the MAC-10).  I also have to admit a bias against so-called "black guns".  If an AR-15 came nicely appointed with polished walnut grips and didn't have all the tactical crap hanging off it, would I see it differently than my Ruger Mini-14?

    If it were me, I'd want semi-auto long guns to be good hunting and target weapons, but I'd want them to be impractical to conceal.  To do this I'd add weight and length:  minimum 18" barrel, minimum 36" overall fixed length measured from shortest usable length (this means folding stocks get measured folded).  I'd want at least 6 lbs empty with no scope, but I'd allow higher capacities for longer, heavier weapons (the Lahti L-39 and the Browning BAR would both get passes because their size renders them impractical as much of anything other than curiosities.

    I'd limit semi-auto pistols to 15-round magazines and disallow anything that isn't practical for consistently hitting a 25-meter target using open sights.  Buh-bye, MAC-10.  I'd favor nice, big, bulky weapons like my Beretta (34 ounces) and frown on lighter weapons such as the Glock 17 (22 ounces).  Weapons with restricted magazine capacities, such as the 7-shot M-1911 would get a pass.

    Again, I'd focus less on magazine capacity and more on concealibility.  There isn't much point in restricting something like the Remington Model 742 because its overall size and 5-round capacity make it impractical for mass shootings.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by DaveinBremerton on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:19:29 AM PDT

    •  This is the kind of stuff that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh

      needs to be brought up, to avoid the mistakes of the 1994 AWB.

      It might be necessary to change a rifle's status if, say, a fixed buttstock is exchanged for a collapsible stock; and furthermore there would have to bve a recognized difference in a collapsible stock for concealability or one that is only for recoil absorption.

      There are some semi-automatic hunting rifles which would have to be addressed; I didn't think of them since I'm not a hunter. Next year's food prices due to this drought may convince me to look into that, though...

      •  I'd look at voluntary magazine restrictions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh

        My mini-14 with a 5-round magazine makes a good varmint gun, and a 10-round magazine is fine for target shooting.  Those should be acceptable since they limit the shooter's ability to inflict mayhem.  Just slap one big-ass tariff on anything larger than 15 rounds so it becomes economically difficult for someone to purchase a bunch of 20-round or 30-round magazines.

        A $500 magazine would give most average shooters pause, which knocks the hell out of the market for these devices.  Sure, they can buy one on the black market, but they'd never be able to use it in public.  Sans customers, there isn't any motive for building the things.

        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by DaveinBremerton on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 05:53:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But then, what to do... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaveinBremerton

          ...with the existing ones?

          Grandfather them in?  Buy back at market rates?  Simply confiscate...?

          Any of those options are problematic at best.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:23:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grandfather them (0+ / 0-)

            But disallow transferring them either through sales or inheritance.  Eventually you get people who can't rationally explain how they came to own them.  Provide an amnesty turn-in, and most of the inventory will take care of itself.

            "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

            by DaveinBremerton on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:38:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I can't understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaveinBremerton

      how you can own a mini-14 an be against ar-15. Rationally, they both shoot the exact same bullet at the exact same rate from magazines that are exactly the same size. An AR-15 even meets your size and weight requirements. (not all models)

      Are you really saying straight up that you don't like it because it's scarier looking than your gun?

      •  No, I'm saying a 5-round magazine is no big deal (0+ / 0-)

        A mini-14 with its factory 5-round magazine is not the same thing as an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine.  Unfortunatly, the AR-15 has that deep magazine well and it doesn't deal with something as small as a 5-round mag.  That is an unfortunate bit of design short-sightedness.

        I look at it like this:

        We shooters are a community, but for the last 30 years the community has increasingly favored the tactical shooting crowd and the rest of us are just supposed to shut up and go along.  I'm saying that's kind of a 1-way relationship.

        I don't need a 30 round magazine.  In fact, I can get along just fine with bolt rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers.  I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable with high capacity magazines, especially 30+ rounds.  50+ is a bridge too far.  I doubt I'm the only hunter who is beginning to feel like my support of the tactical community's equipment wants is not in my long-term 2A interests.  So it comes down to who needs whom more.

        I have no need for high capacity magazines.  I can do the math on what a sufficiently disgusted non-shooting public can do to my 2A rights, and I see no need for me to suffer the pendulum swing that will inevitably come if the shooting community doesn't church itself up.

        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by DaveinBremerton on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:55:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nice start... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, Smoh, Joy of Fishes, Puddytat

    and I thank you for this...

    I would add a few things:

    Proficiency training is weapon specific.  If you buy a weapon, you have to qualify with that weapon.  No more obtaining a license with a .22 plinker, and then going out and buying a .357 the next day.

    Training includes instruction on the laws relevant to firearms ownership and use - federal, state, and local.  I taught a couple of such courses way back when, and still shake my head at the misconceptions that people had about when they could use their weapons.

    Ownership carries legal responsibility for the storage and use of that weapon, with mandatory liability insurance required to ensure that resources exist to pay for the care of victims of negligent use or storage.

    Might be more as I think about your writing, but you have done a nice job.  I completely agree that we need to focus on who has the weapons, much more than what type of weapon or its capacity.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 01:27:38 AM PDT

    •  Bull. (0+ / 0-)

      22 is cheaper and not necessarily a different gun.

      Seen revolvers with swappable cylinders? Take the 357 cylinder off and toss on the .22 cylinder, same exact gun just different bullet sizes.

      Same with the ar15. The 'gun' is the part with the trigger. Take off
      the twenty two center fire caliber barrel section, put on
      the twenty two rim fire caliber barrel section...
      And it's the same bullet caliber either way. It's just, one of those is cheaper to practice and train and the other is more expensive. That becomes the 2nd Amendment version of a poll tax.

  •  The importance of replacing the NRA. (5+ / 0-)

    In addition to the practical implications of which capacity magazine, or classifications of semi automatic firearm types, or the specificity of mental health record usage in firearm purchase monitoring, there is a vital need for responsible national representation, to think anew, to act anew. The NRA has taken an untenable position. They have built a political wall around this issue that does not address the reality of modern mass murder by firearms. The NRA is not representing responsible gun owners by their political intransigence, they are risking a draconian reaction from an enraged society. Society, as our history shows, will legislate to protect itself. Responsible gun owners need a new national voice. Organize. Replace the fear mongering NRA.

  •  Thank you for some reasonable proposals! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SYWTSAR, semiot, Smoh, Joy of Fishes, Puddytat

    I especially like the stone-cold-obvious concept of mandatory instant background checks for all firearms sales. The current gigantic loopholes for private sales and gun show sales essentially permits anyone to buy lethal weapons, regardless of criminal record or mental health. How on earth can any sane individual be against this? Well, I'm always reminded by the perplexed comment of one of the owners of the largest gun shop in our region, after they were forced to close by plunging sales in the aftermath of instant background checks: "We never realized how many of our customers had criminal records". I believe that speaks for itself.

    mandatory 'militia' training for military style firearms also strikes me as entirely reasonable. If you want to own a weapon perfect for killing scores of people in a few moments, how can you object to a requirement for training?

    Proposal #2 however will be extremely problematic for a number of reasons. Mental health records in many states are considered different from routine health records. They are often privileged information requiring a court order to release, because of the sensitive/damaging nature of unauthorized release. ("Thomas Eagleton"? Need I say more?) And there are vast grey zones & nebulous areas. Are you going to deny someone firearms because of two weeks of counseling for anxiety 10 years ago? What will be your criteria? Who decides? And this won't capture many of the most dangerous threats. There are thousands of vicious perpetrators of domestic violence who are probably the biggest risk, but his won't trip them up unless there's documentation. And the very existence of such a trigger will drive much of this information underground, or lead wife-beaters to avoid any mental health care to make sure they'll have access to guns in the future.

    Just something to ponder.

    •  The mental health issue will be sticky, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      no doubt about that; and it would require input from the mental health community-- specialist knowledge I have no background in, so I feel unqualified to define what the parameters would be.

      I'd suppose a couple weeks of counseling would not be a disqualifier; but anything requiring prescription medication or institutionalization, especially if it has anything to do with an inability to discern reality, would be looked at as a possible factor.

  •  Thanks ca, for this much needed . . . (4+ / 0-)

    . . . discussion. I can tell from some of the comments that there are still some who who propose doing nothing since there's no single act that will accomplish everything that needs accomplished. That's kind of like saying when you're house is on fire that it's futile to turn off the natural gas supply because it won't put out the fire.

    I'm posting a similar, albiet smaller piece tonight at 7:30PM Eastern to try to keep this discussion going. Please consider stopping by and participating, as you have great ideas and they carry far more weight coming from an owner of firearms.

    I'm titling it "WATCH OUT! HE'S GOT A GUN diary", a bit of snark to lighten an otherwise serious problem. I would love to hear from you.


    -Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
    - Aristotle


    by rudyblues on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:01:56 AM PDT

  •  Number one sounds reasonable. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper, rockhound, Puddytat

    At least, as long as it's not prohibitively priced.

    Of course, there's the question of how to keep it from being used to invade the privacy of others.  How do you keep somebody from calling in to check out the guy his daughter is dating, or that funny-looking couple that just moved in down the street?

    The only way I see around that is to require all sales to go through a licensed dealer.

    Which, of course, brings us to enforcement.  How do you enforce such a requirement?  I have firearms that were legally purchased with no record whatsoever -- how do you keep me from selling one to my neighbor?

    You can't -- it becomes a toothless law that actually does nothing.  It sounds good, but in the long run, just becomes another pointless hurdle for those exercising an otherwise legal activity.

    As for the others...

    Well, you need to decide exactly what you mean by "millitia rifle," "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."  It's entirely too broad and subjective as it stands.

    Licensing simply isn't going to fly in this country, and anyone who seriously follows the debate knows this.

    Any purchase over 1,000 rounds of ammo recorded?  Why?  Meaningless paperwork -- it is not at all uncommon for people to buy a thousand or more rounds of ammo at one time.  Buying in bulk is cheaper.  That being the case, it is simply not a reliable indicator that someone is up to no good.

    In fact, short of strengthening the NICS system, I don't see any of these proposals being particularly useful for reducing violent crime.  Either they, or something very similar, has been tried before and had no effect, or there is simply no indication that it would do so.

    As with many proposals, these are aimed at the law-abiding, those people who very, very rarely commit crimes, rather than at those who do commit the vast majority of crimes -- career criminals.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:37:03 AM PDT

    •  That's why I wanted to start with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      some thoughts and ideas to be fleshed out as time went by. I knew the "mass ammo purchase" proposal would be met with some raised eyebrows, for example, but it might be worth a look. The parameters might be raised to 2,000 or so, or more, depending.

      But I think the two best proposals (and the ones that have the most chance at flying) are #1 and #2. The others are starting points. Guns in some recent shooting sprees have been purchased legally (or at least ostensibly legally), as were masses of ammo.

      •  Part of the problem... (0+ / 0-)

        ...with proposals such as keeping track of mass ammo purchases is that those making such proposals (not you, by this I mean legislators) usually don't take into account such simple facts as that a thousand, for instance, just isn't that much ammo.  At best guess, I've probably got three thousand rounds at the moment, if not more, for various guns.  That could easily go up significantly today, if I come across a good sale.

        And, even at higher numbers, you'll just end up with people buying 500 here, 500 there, etc.  We see the same with "doctor shopping," where people buy large quantities of prescription drugs.  

        Perhaps some sort of additional charge after the fact for people who have purchased large amounts of ammo, fully intending to use it illegally?  Just a thought that just struck me, that even I haven't considered fully.

        I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with fleshing out laws as time goes by.  By the time problems are found, they may well have already caused a lot of damage.

        Now, I do completely agree with you regarding strengthening the NICS system.  The reasonable protections provided by HIPAA are important to keep intact, but just requiring states to keep their information up to date and actually having some consequence for those who knowingly try to purchase firearms even though they are prohibited persons would be a big help, in my opinion.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:01:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't go along with you on #3, #4, or #5, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rockhound, Wisdumb, theatre goon

    not until the prohibitionists have no major political party to call home.

    I would not object to provisions #3 and #4 as applied to public carry.

    #5 is predicated on the assumption that these weapons present a special and real (as opposed to hypothetical) danger to the public  - claim not supported by gun crime statistics, however compelling the anecdotes - and is little more than a sop to the prohibitionists. Nor is it practical to stamp hundreds of millions of magazines and tens of millions of semi firearms, and any attempt to regulate them as such would backfire, practically and politically.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 04:50:05 AM PDT

    •  Throwing up your hands? (0+ / 0-)

      Nothing to be done?  Really.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:27:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper

        Pointing out realistic problems with the proposals.

        No one has said that there's nothing to be done, only questioning how effective some of the proposals given here would be.

        You seem to be re-writing what was actually stated into something that wasn't.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 07:26:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm rewriting nothing and find this (0+ / 0-)

          appraisal unnecessarily defensive.  If you notice, the "really" did not have a question mark, but a period.  That means that what came before it were real questions.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:32:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The solutions to chronic violence will not be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        found in ineffectively restricting their instrumentation.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:12:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm reccing the diary not because I agree with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, Puddytat

    many of the provisions proposed, but because it is an attempt at a rational discussion.

    The problem with any attempt to pass any of the above laws is it that by the time they come out of congress they won't be a couple of paragraphs or even pages they will be hundreds of pages with exemptions and amendments. The magazine tax is one - I can already see the "build your own magazine" ads. They will end up like the "assault" weapons ban - what remains today is 922 compliance which is the dumbest law ever. It simply requires that your AK 47 (or I should say my AK 47) or other type of foreign "assault" weapon  has a certain number of American parts - it has become simply protectionism legislation (don't get me wrong I'm all for protecting American jobs - just be honest about it). I would bet that not one in a thousand law enforcement officers can look at an "assault" weapon and tell if it is in compliance with 922r.

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

    by Wisdumb on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 06:54:11 AM PDT

  •  Good idea, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Puddytat

     Let replace the war on drugs with a war on illegal guns, and if we can't find enough illegal ones we can make them illegal by passing a law.  How many people are you willing to imprison or kill to carry out this little registration scheme, and what lengths will you willing to take it to when the inevitable crazies leak through to wreak more havoc.  The response will be to tighten the laws and close the loopholes.  This is way tyrannies are born.  Freedom is messy but I like it.

    •  But that's the thing-- I would try to (0+ / 0-)

      make them legal by putting them in a framework: one that is already gaining ground in a haphazard manner. Basically, "legitimize" the militia concept as a community-based organization again, and accept gun ownership as a responsibility of that.

      Whereas a ban, with confiscation, would be more akin to the failed war on drugs, IMO.

  •  Thank you for starting the discussion (0+ / 0-)

    I'm in favor of all the proposals you make.  We need a start, a discussion where we protect the rights of law abiding citizens to have firearms and protect society from those who shouldn't.  

    Someone in my recent sort of live blog on the Sikh Temple shooting in my area suggested that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance in the same way that car owners are.   I found that concept interesting and could possibly be fit into the discussion.  

    Gun owners, as a group, are generally reasonable and responsible.  They are educated on their use, safety, and safe storage.  The ones that aren't stick out like sore thumbs.  And then there are those who have firearms, but shouldn't.  

    I'm all for protecting the rights of citizens to have guns, but think that reasonable regulations are needed to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our new Wisconsin concealled carry law, with it's easy access to permit, has me worried.  It's bad enough dealing with someone with uncontrollable road rage at the height of rush hour traffic.  We don't need to add weapons to that mix.

    There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

    by Puddytat on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:38:13 PM PDT

    •  I'm curious about something. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      Wisconsin's shall issue carry law puts it in the bottom of the middle of the pack (right around the 1/3rd mark if memory serves) when it comes to ease of permitting. With 48 other states having some form of civilian concealed carry and MOST of those having shall issue or better, why do you think Wisconsin will be an aberration?

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 02:07:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's why I'm concerned (0+ / 0-)

        For the past 2 years I've seen extremism take hold in Wisconsin to a violent degree I never saw before in my normally intensively polite state.  Things got so bad on the RW side that recallers had to go out in groups rather than individually.

        While ignored by our media (of course) there were numerous attacks on recallers.  I was personally present when our own noise of rain was physically attacked, had a torn jacket, scrapes and bruises, and a demolished camera during a Walker recall signing event in Thiensville, Wisconsin.  And I could cite numerous other attacks on people and property by Walker supporters.

        Mixing concealled weapons in with people so volatile invites trouble.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 02:18:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotcha. (0+ / 0-)

          I attended some firearm training in Wausau. I stole my dad's car (not literally) and drove that to the training for 3 days.

          My dad, like me, is a Democrat though he doesn't understand the LGBT issues at all and he's more of a gun control fan than I am.

          So the car I drove had a big RECALL WALKER sticker on it. Funny how no one there (or at the gun show that weekend) gave me any shit for it.

          This story isn't meant to signify anything; it's just an anecdote.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 02:29:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site