Skip to main content

AR-15 silhouette
A policy brief on gun violence was released today by The Center for American Progress, the Washington, D.C.-based progressive research and advocacy group headed by Neera Tanden. The brief, "Preventing Gun Violence in Our Nation," includes detailed recommendations written by Tanden, Winnie Stachelberg, Arkadi Gerney and Danielle Baussan. They cover both legislative proposals and executive orders. The gun-violence task force presided over by Vice President Joe Biden will release its recommendations Tuesday.

The recommendations fall into three major categories: better background checks; taking "military-grade weapons" off the streets; and "better data, better coordination and better enforcement" of existing laws. Some of them have become well known in the debate over new restrictions that began after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was gravely wounded and others murdered or injured in Tucson in January 2011 and intensified after the Aurora, Colorado, theater murders last summer and the slaughter of first-graders and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, last month. Others are new or take a fresh approach to old proposals.

How many of these could gain presidential or congressional approval is anybody's guess at the moment. A ban on "military-grade" weapons, for instance, would clearly meet stiff resistance in the House and, quite possibly, the Senate even though several polls, including the latest by the Washington Post and ABC News, show a majority of Americans favor such a ban. Improved background checks have a better chance, not least because these have broad popular support among the majority of gun-owners as well as other Americans.

In the condensed version of the recommendations below, I have added a • to mark proposals for legislative action and a ° for proposed executive orders:

A background check for every gun sale [...]

Input all necessary records into the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Requiring that all gun sales be predicated on a criminal background check is an effective means of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals—but only if the
background check system itself functions properly. Since the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act was passed in 1993 to mandate all licensed gun dealers perform background checks, the FBI has conducted more than 150 million background checks in
connection with gun sales, blocking gun transfers in more than 1.7 million instances. But for the system to work better, states must provide the federal government with the
names of all the individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms for inclusion in
the nationwide database.

Though this seems like a common-sense action, states have been slow to provide these
records, particularly regarding individuals barred from owning guns due to mental illness. Ten states have failed to provide any mental health records to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, and 18 others have submitted fewer than 100
records since the creation of the system in 1999. [...]

Prevent convicted stalkers from acquiring guns [...]

Close the “terror gap”
Nothing in the current law prevents known or suspected terrorists from clearing a background check and purchasing guns. And some of them are doing just that [...]

° Penalize states that fail to provide records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [...]

° Ensure that federal agencies provide required records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [...]

° Perform background checks on employees of federally licensed dealers during the course of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives audit inspections [...]

Reregulate assault weapons
These military-style assault weapons should be banned from sale in the United States in the manner proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who plans to introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of militarystyle assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Alternatively, the administration might consider legislation to require licensing and transfer restrictions on new and existing assault rifles, similar to the scheme currently in place for machine guns and other Class III firearms.This action would reduce access to such militarygrade weapons by felons, the Mexican drug cartels, and mentally deranged individuals.

Ban high-capacity gun magazines [...]

° Require broader reporting of multiple sales of assault rifles [...]

Strip riders from the administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget and all future budgets that restrict gun data collection and sharing
[This would repeal the so-called Tiahrt Amendments that restrict the collection and use of gun-related data] [...]

Treat gun trafficking as a serious crime [...]

° Begin the process of the FBI absorbing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
In recent years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has become a
beleaguered agency that is unable to adequately fulfill its mission to oversee and enforce
federal firearms laws. For reasons such as lack of funding, limitations on its activities
included in appropriations riders, and a leadership vacuum, the bureau is simply incapable
of functioning properly as a standalone agency in its current state. These problems undermine the bureau’s ability to combat gun crime and illegal trafficking. Also undermined is the morale of roughly 2,500 bureau agents who risk their lives daily to make the United States safer. These agents deserve to work in an agency that matches their own tenacity [...]

Despite the continuing claims of the National Rifle Association, other gun lobbies, hate-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and whack jobs like James Yeager, there's not one word in CAP's recommendations about registering guns, licensing owners or any mass confiscation of firearms, including those for which future sales would be banned.

That doesn't, however, mean that these proposals, if they happen to match what the vice president announces Tuesday, won't be fought fang and claw by NRA and congressional Republicans.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 02:51 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Here's a thought: (37+ / 0-)
    ...71,000 people were found to have lied on their background checks in 2009 – but the Obama Justice Department only prosecuted 77 of them. This should be an area where the NRA and the Obama administration could find agreement
    Picked that up in the Guardian the other day.



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:02:16 PM PST

  •  I like most of it (13+ / 0-)

    Regulating so-called "assault weapons" and restricting magazine size will (again) have no significant effect on crime.
    The rest of the items I support wholeheartedly.

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:10:15 PM PST

  •  A couple of questions (10+ / 0-)

    But, first, thanks for the excellent summary separating legislative for executive actions.

    On this executive action:

    ° Penalize states that fail to provide records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [...]
    That is most of the US states, right? That do not comply?

    I looked up the suggested "penalty":

    The president should issue an executive order directly to the attorney general to withhold federal Justice Assistance Grant funding from any state that fails to submit a plan—and act on the plan—for facilitating the transfer of these records to the FBI.
    What is that? Who would that hurt?



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:17:47 PM PST

    •  An example from the past was... (16+ / 0-)

      ...Virginia, which had failed to provide records regarding people whose mental health was such that they were considered to dangerous to own a gun.

      Since 1999, 19 states (including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland and Maine) have, according to the NYT, "submitted fewer than 100 records and Rhode Island has submitted none, according to federal data compiled by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That suggests that millions of names are missing from the federal database, gun control advocates and law enforcement officials say."

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:31:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If most people knew the situation you describe, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, jessical

        and understood how that compromises the background checks that are widely supported, I think closing that loophole with states would be very popular.

        The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

        by Words In Action on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:29:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What are the inclusion criteria? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        Commitment?  As someone with more than a few friends who can sign those papers (suspect you know a few too), a danger to self or others is often the minimum bar which must be met for a three day observation period.  I suspect involuntary commitment is the bar, but cannot confirm.  It does not bother me that someone can't get a gun, whether it is for jaywalking or a past commitment or something quite awful.  But the consequences of being on a list created to keep the bad people from killing our children?  If you can't buy a gun, if you're that dangerous, then maybe you can't go to school here.  Certainly, you can't work here.  And we're not too sure about having you for a neighbor.  Only some of those would come to pass, but certainly more than the intent, shy some level of safeguards more durable  than the sense of security and the expedient use of information resources by those in power.  

        It feels to me that our society is finding more and more ways to narrow the filter of good and bad people.  I know that is something that happens in every era and country and century.  And maybe I'm just too sensitive to it, because I live with one foot in the normal world and one foot in the queer funky edge, and that's my friends we're talkin' about.  But I find the database reporting requirements scary and all too in keeping with a trend of fewer and fewer people left among the "good".

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:05:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Varies from state to state... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, cany, jessical

          ...but the three-day, mandated observation period in California will get you on the list that is sent to the Feds. Under California law, it will also get you barred from owning a firearm for five years. (This can be appealed.)

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:26:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Much of it looks reasonable. (11+ / 0-)

    The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine "bans" are, of course, worthless -- we saw that the last time we had one.  There was no measurable impact on crime.  Why keep trying something that we know won't work?

    I can't really get behind all of this one, either:

    • Close the “terror gap”
    Nothing in the current law prevents known or suspected terrorists from clearing a background check and purchasing guns.
    If they are "suspected," then they have not been convicted of anything.  Until they are, there's a reason that can clear the background check -- they are not terrorists, or even criminals, in the eyes of the law.

    If they are known or suspected to be involved in terrorism, then why haven't they been arrested or more further investigated?

    Aside from all that, though, I've long been a proponent of much of the rest of these proposals, such as:

    • Input all necessary records into the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    ° Penalize states that fail to provide records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [...]
    ° Ensure that federal agencies provide required records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [...]
    • Treat gun trafficking as a serious crime [...]
    ° Begin the process of the FBI absorbing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
    Of course, the specific language of any of these proposals could make a huge difference in whether they should be supported.  

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

    by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:20:35 PM PST

    •  In the case of this one: (16+ / 0-)
      The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine "bans" are, of course, worthless -- we saw that the last time we had one.  There was no measurable impact on crime.
      I don't think it's about general crime reduction.

      I think it has to do with enabling massacres.

      Just sayin' -- I believe that is the intent of the suggestion.

      • Treat gun trafficking as a serious crime [...]
      So.... I take it that gun trafficking is not a serious crime in the US? Wow. In most nations, it's a capital crime.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:30:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it is a serious crime... (8+ / 0-)

        ...depending on the exact definition used of "gun trafficking."

        For instance, straw purchases (those in which a person buys firearms for someone who cannot pass the background check) are a serious crime, but those prosecuted are often allowed to plea bargain down to a lesser offense.

        That's just one example, of course -- specifics would be necessary to discuss it in depth.

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

        by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:35:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see. That makes sense. (5+ / 0-)

          I ran across a recent document that showed that five gun stores in the US sold a huge percentage of guns used in crimes in the US.

          Can't find it right now. That info is highly restricted and protected.

          Did find the top three from 2000, though:

          Chuck’s Guns Riverdale, IL 2370 crimes
          Don’s Guns & Galleries, Inc. Indianapolis, IN 2294 crimes
          Badger Outdoors, Inc. West Milwaukee, WI 1906 crimes



          Denial is a drug.

          by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:03:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I've seen that one. (6+ / 0-)

            They should be investigated and, if found to be in violation of the law, prosecuted to the fullest extent of that law.

            I would consider that to fall well within the idea of treating gun-trafficking as a serious crime, and could actually be done now under existing law.

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

            by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:05:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  WAPO recented did an article (7+ / 0-)

              ...on the five hottest stores, with this intro:

              A decade ago, politicians and the press routinely reported on gun stores across the nation that had the most traces for firearms recovered by police. In 2003, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress passed a law that hid from public view the government database that contained the gun tracing information.
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              I know this is something RKBA could sink their teeth in.



              Denial is a drug.

              by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:09:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And, this month from ABC (6+ / 0-)
                More than half of the firearms traced in crimes come from just 1 percent of the nation's licensed gun stores, but federal agents rarely check to make sure these stores are complying with gun laws, a new study finds.

                According to data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, approximately 1 percent of the nation's gun stores are the source of 57 percent of the firearms traced to crimes. It took the Washington-based lobbyist group Americans for Gun Safety six years and three lawsuits to get the names of the gun stores that sell a disproportionate number of the guns traced to crimes.

                http://abcnews.go.com/...

                WTF is up with that?



                Denial is a drug.

                by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:13:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I wish I could answer your question... (4+ / 0-)
                  WTF is up with that?
                  I'm not a big fan of the BATFE, so I really like the suggestion of having the FBI absorb that agency.

                  It would seem to me to be extremely easy to actually investigate these dealers to see if they are following the law.  Why it has not been done, I can't say.

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

                  by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:17:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and have those stores been a cooperating (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, annecros

                    source for BATF stings which may or may not have inflated their numbers. But probably not by a lot is so...however,e has been some ongoing BATF effort here it could been a much more widespread source of guns countrywide with nasty implications.  I sure hope that wasn't the case.

                    And how would we know that anyway, the BATF isn't going to tell us, it was only the sad incident in Arizona that revealed that it was I think the Arizona store that was the conduit for the Fed sting.

                    This machine kills Fascists.

                    by KenBee on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:15:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Which suggests to me that the gun store owners (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WakeUpNeo, Laconic Lib

                  don't give a damn.

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                  by cany on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:21:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  If you think that a gun ban will prevent massacres (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, annecros, FrankRose

        think again.  If you take away the guns, those who are hell bent on committing mass murder will simply use something else, like a form of improvised explosive device, just like Timothy McVeigh.  

        From a practical standpoint the bans are a worthless feel good measures.  To best ensure real progress they should be stricken from any sort of proposed legislation.  Their inclusion is only going to solidify the opposition.  It is time for people to make a decision.  Do you want real reform or do you want to try to extract a pound of flesh from people who did not do anything wrong at a price that could mean that the Democrat party is excluded from Congress for more than a decade like last time?  Chances are you can't have both.

        •  Funny, gun availability restrictions work (7+ / 0-)

          in the rest of the world.

          I guess American mass killers are more examples of American exceptionalism.

          •  There's a case to be made (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl

            ...that Americans and the American culture produce more natural born criminals and crazies per capita -- by far -- than any other culture on earth.

            Perhaps that is the point he is making.



            Denial is a drug.

            by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:22:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Prague needs tighter gun controls (0+ / 0-)
              •  He didn't buy them in Prague (3+ / 0-)
                The Czech disappointment led him to procure his weapons through legal channels.[34] He decided to obtain a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol legally in Norway, noting that he had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and two guns (a Benelli Nova 12 gauge Pump-action shotgun and a .308 Bolt-action rifle) already for seven years", and that obtaining the guns legally should therefore not be a problem.[30]

                Upon returning to Norway, Breivik obtained a legal permit for a .223-caliber Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine, ostensibly for the purpose of hunting deer. He bought it in late 2010 for €1,400 ($2000). He wanted to purchase a 7.62x39mm Ruger Mini-30 semi-automatic carbine, but gun laws in Norway may have prevented Breivik from obtaining it.

                Getting a permit for the pistol proved more difficult, as he had to demonstrate regular attendance at a sport shooting club.[32] He also bought 10 30-round magazines for the rifle from a United States supplier, and 6 magazines for the pistol (including 4 30-round magazines) in Norway. From November 2010 to January 2011 he went through 15 training sessions at the Oslo Pistol Club, and by mid-January his application to purchase a Glock pistol was approved.[35][36]

          •  Other countries that initiated gun bans never had (0+ / 0-)

            88 guns per 100 people of their population.  We have a little over 300 million in population today and 310 million firearms in civilian hands.  For example, we have 120 times as many guns in this country as Australia had in its borders at the time of the ban.

            Our country has always had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the others who initiated bans did not. Thus, they had a populace who didn't expect it in the sense of a civil right and had never had the history of gun ownership as this country does....nor a populace who felt as strongly as they do here about gun rights.

            Lastly, the other countries that initiated bans already had in place, for long period of time,  very strict gun ownership laws and so a total ban or partial ban would not and did not cause the outrage nor shock factor that would happen if the same was tried here.

            It would be political poison for any member of Congress to advocate for a repeal of the 2A in a serious way....the buy back here for 310 million weapons would cost our government astronomical amounts of money, that we don't have, and a buy back programs would fail on multiple levels as the populace wouldn't abide by it.  

        •  We don't know either way (0+ / 0-)

          It depends on whether they're motivated enough to pull an Osaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/...). AFAIK nobody's studied them closely enough to answer that question.

    •  No assault weapons/magazine ban will work... (9+ / 0-)

      ...unless it includes collection (confiscation or mandatory buy back) of existing firearms and magazines in the proscribed category. The 1994 ban grandfathered in not only the assault weapons already in private hands or in companies' inventory but not yet sold, plus high-capacity magazines if they had been manufactured before the ban took place. There were enough of those—millions of them— in inventory to allow sales of such magazines right up until the ban expired in 2004 and new ones became legal.

      If there are even just three million AR-15s and similar assault weapons in private hands—some sources say there were 1.5 million in 1994—buying them back would be an expensive prospect (if such legislation could be passed, which is doubtful).

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:44:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If we require the weapons themselves to be (9+ / 0-)

        registered in order to get the benefit of a grandfather clause, then prohibit transfer without a Federal tax stamp similar to the way we treat machine guns, we'd at least start to get a handle on the situation.

        Then we institute a voluntary buy-back and start "draining the swamp".

        Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

        by JesseCW on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:54:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A longshot, at best, to get passed. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, Pluto, noway2, Dogs are fuzzy

          Making semi-automatic rifles be registered similarly to automatic weapons?  An excellent way to get liberal and moderate gun-owners on the side of the NRA.

          And, even at that, of limited actual value (which is starting to veer off-topic, in my opinion -- so I won't get into it here).

          It's not going to happen, so why waste political capitol on something that just won't ever become law?  

          In fact, I believe it would hurt Democrats electorally overall, so let's try these other measures first, which have a reasonable chance of actually becoming law, and have shown some effectiveness in combating crime.

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

          by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:00:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am a liberal (9+ / 0-)

            gun owner and nothing could get me on the side of the NRA.

            I would have zero problems with gun registration, and I doubt that I am the only liberal/moderate that thinks so.

            But I don't presume to speak for them either.

            Almost 10 year old Daughter: "Boys are pretty good, but daughters have sentimental value." Me: "I don't think that phrase means what you think it does." Daughter: "None of them do, Mom. More's the pity. Words have to be flexible in today's world."

            by left rev on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:13:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't buy this: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, JesseCW, Laconic Lib
            Making semi-automatic rifles be registered similarly to automatic weapons?  An excellent way to get liberal and moderate gun-owners on the side of the NRA.
            Sure, the NRA has worked really hard to convince politicians that any gun control legislation is political poison, but in light of recent events, I seriously doubt that's now the case, assuming it ever really was.

            If "liberal and moderate gun owners" have a problem with just registering their semi-automatic rifles, then I question whether they are indeed either liberal or moderate.  People register their cars and motorcycles.  Registration is hardly onerous.  

            As far as these measures having to show "some effectiveness in combatting crime," I'm not clear on what you mean.  The purpose of these measures is to make it more difficult for people to use extremely powerful firearms in mass killings.  If your test is whether they'll prevent, say, the average armed robbery, then I think you misunderstand what this is supposed to be about.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:24:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You'll find liberals right on this site... (5+ / 0-)

              ...who strongly oppose the idea of registration, for a variety of reasons (which are probably outside the scope of this particular discussion and rather off-topic).

              If that makes you question whether or not they are truly liberal probably won't bother them overmuch.

              It certainly doesn't bother me.

              I disagree with you -- that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether you're a "real" liberal.

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

              by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:30:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmmm (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade, Laconic Lib

                In a diary discussing various gun control proposals, one of which deals with registration, you are unwilling to explain the basis for opposing registration because you claim it's "off-topic."  I think you have an unduly restrictive view of what the topic is.

                Whether people are bothered or not is hardly the point.  Those who oppose a simple thing like registering extremely deadly weapons can hardly be said to have "moderate" views on gun control.  As I said, registration is anything but burdensome, particularly given the nature of the weapons we're talking about.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:41:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  5 years ago, a different bunch had most Democrats (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, Laconic Lib, dnta

              in Federal Office convinced that supporting equal access to marriage was a electoral suicide.

              Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

              by JesseCW on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:34:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, I recall that. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, Laconic Lib

                Teh gayz were political poison, too.  Somehow that turned out not to be true.  

                I personally find it hard to believe that something as vanilla as requiring the registration of semi-automatic weapons is going to drive anyone into the arms of the NRA, at least not anyone who wasn't headed there anyway.  God knows that Americans are required to register things that are a lot less dangerous than guns, and we've somehow managed to preserve the Republic.  

                I frankly think this is nothing more than desperate concern trolling by "gun rights" advocates.  They see the tide of public opinion turning in the wake of our most recent horrific massacres, and they're frantically trying to come up with arguments to justify inaction.  Obviously, I don't count them out.  America has a shockingly high tolerance for violent gun deaths, and they may well be able to stop even minimal regulatory reform.  After all, what's 20 dead children, right?

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:23:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that it is not only a longshot, but that (0+ / 0-)

            it's simply impossible under this Congress.

            The world probably isn't ending in the next 24 months.  We can discuss proposals that we can't pass next Tuesday.

            If we want to make any serious changes (and this isn't just about weapons) we have to start fighting the longer term battles.

            We also have to get over the fantasy that firearm regulation has ever cost us anything serious electorally.

            It's a massive confusion of correlation and causation.

            Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

            by JesseCW on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:29:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I still think we may see (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        ...high-capacity legislation proposed.

        No assault weapons/magazine ban will work unless it includes collection (confiscation or mandatory buy back) of existing firearms and magazines in the proscribed category.
        It might even pass (without buy back).

        But the political objective is to soothe Americans. Calm them down. Distract them. Whether it works or not in massacre prevention... well, as you say.... a buy back is key (and highly unlikely IMO).



        Denial is a drug.

        by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:23:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since it is the manufacturers and dealers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        who made all the money from the sales in the first place (often at highly inflated prices in sales generated by the panic that they themselves caused), why not just have the CPSC declare them unsafe products and order a recall?

        The ban on CPSC's oversight of firearms would have to be repealed, but I think the public could get behind it as the other alternatives for funding a buy-back program put the onus on taxpayers or legal firearm owners (through a tax and ammo excise tax).

        I think it far more appropriate to make those who made the money in the first place be the ones to fund the removal of these weapons from circulation.

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

        by Wayward Wind on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:51:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  then why haven't they been arrested or more furthe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      because they are too busy preparing the 50,000 annual reports on ''terra''.... that no one reads

      Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:42:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bans on military style weapons and big mags- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, JesseCW, Pluto

    Does that mean having everybody turn them in (or agencies going to get them, as required), or just freezing them in place with current owners and no sales to new owners?

    The statement about suggested legislation requiring licensing and transfer restrictions on existing assault weapons seems a bit ambiguous about that, but the Feinstein bill seems a bit more clear, it would grandfather in existing owners, wouldn't it?

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:40:21 PM PST

  •  I see one and only one item on the list (8+ / 0-)

    I would have any problem with.

    Close the “terror gap”
    Nothing in the current law prevents known or suspected terrorists from clearing a background check and purchasing guns. And some of them are doing just that [...]
    "Suspected Terrorist" is a worthless catch all a person can easily be dumped into for political reasons.  We've seen the No Fly List games.

    If they mean persons currently under indictment on charges involving terrorism, then no one should have problem with that.

    If they mean people who donated to the Red Crescent for disaster relief in "the wrong country" ten years ago, or a system in which one can't contest such status, then it's a problem.

    Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

    by JesseCW on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:44:22 PM PST

  •  that this even need be stated... (3+ / 0-)
    Prevent convicted stalkers from acquiring guns
    and getting rid of atf also is a particularly good move, because it has a long history of shocking and bloody failures. no doubt there are plenty of superb and honorable atf agents, and they shouldn't be tainted by association.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:15:49 PM PST

  •  This is framed (0+ / 0-)

    as gun violence. Actually, it's gun murder.

    •  At least 55,000 firearm injuries... (3+ / 0-)

      ...from firearm violence (not suicide or accidents). So it is about more than murder.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:58:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And how much of this is caused by criminal (3+ / 0-)

        activity?  I am willing to hazard a guess that it is an extremely large amount.  Take for example the statistics from the Texas Dept of Corrections that show that 2% of the population has a concealed carry permit, yet commits only 0.2% of the crimes, most of which were carrying a gun into a prohibited place, followed by simple (non gun) assault.

        Yet for some reason so many people are calling to punish the honest, law abiding gun owner and they wonder why they have such still opposition with hundreds of thousands of people willing to spend money on political lobbying firms simply to work against any legislation.  Folks, it is time to get the priorities straight.  Most of what is proposed is working along the right lines.  The silly bans do not.

        •  You would be wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo, Laconic Lib
          In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

          This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).



          Denial is a drug.

          by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:34:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And what else are we missing? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, cany
          Firearms, youth homicide, and public health

          Abstract

          Homicide is seven times as common among U.S. non-Hispanic Black as among non-Hispanic White youth ages 15 to 24 years. In 83% of these youth homicides, the murder weapon is a firearm. Yet, for more than a decade, the national public health position on youth violence has been largely silent about the role of firearms, and tools used by public health professionals to reduce harm from other potential hazards have been unusable where guns are concerned. This deprives already underserved populations from the full benefits public health agencies might be able to deliver. In part, political prohibitions against research about direct measures of firearm control and the absence of valid public health surveillance are responsible. More refined epidemiologic theories as well as traditional public health methods are needed if the U.S. aims to reduce disparate Black-White youth homicide rates.

          ---

          Citation    
          Levine RS, Goldzweig I, Kilbourne B, Juarez P. J. Health Care Poor Underserved 2012; 23(1): 7-19.

          Copyright    
           (Copyright © 2012, Johns Hopkins University Press)

          DOI    
          10.1353/hpu.2012.0015

          PMID   
           22643459

          (emphasis added)

          Firearms, youth homicide, and public health

          •  Atleast part of what your are missing (0+ / 0-)

            is the realization that there is more to this than the gun.  First, someone under 21 years old is not allowed to purchase a handgun, and under 18 is not allowed to purchase a long gun.  Since the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with handguns, we can put the focus there.  That being the case, most of the 15-24 year olds (about 2/3 if the distribution is even) aren't allowed to go into stores and buy.  Undoubtedly they are not.  Instead they are either getting them on the street or using proxies to purchase for them.  In the case of the former, no law is going to help.  The latter is one of the areas where we could focus.  

            At Pluto, no my statement was not wrong.  Those who bother to go through the legal process to obtain and own guns properly commit far less crime than the population as a whole.   With respect to suicide, again, no law is going to do away with the thoughts or the action.  If you take away guns, something else will be used.  You will have only trampled on peoples rights for naught.  

            And yes, let's be clear, unlike  places Australia, UK, and Canada, in the USA it is a right.  If you don't think it should be, if the control control population can garner enough support then the constitution can be changed,  There is a process for it.  Until such time, talk of bans approaches the point of being unconstitutional.

    •  there's a diarist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo, Laconic Lib

      who publishes a list of each weeks shooting incidences lot's of gun injuries and shooting that are not fatal. It's a real eyeopener as to our societies madness as far as guns and shooting each other goes.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Its a decent start, anyway. (6+ / 0-)

    But I would have liked to see something about mandatory training/certification for all gun owners. Responsible gun owners already train and maintain their proficiency.

    No idea how to make that happen, but I think it would go a ways towards cutting down the accidental deaths and injuries from firearms if everyone who wants to own them knows how to safely use and store them.

    Almost 10 year old Daughter: "Boys are pretty good, but daughters have sentimental value." Me: "I don't think that phrase means what you think it does." Daughter: "None of them do, Mom. More's the pity. Words have to be flexible in today's world."

    by left rev on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:16:39 PM PST

  •  Is this for real? You would think elementary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    school childrens lives would be worth a little more investment to keep them alive and well.  That is the Goal isnt it? or is the goal to act like a caring society just enough so those who mourn dont complain about their children being slaughtered?

  •  I listen to progressive talk radio when I drive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Laconic Lib

    and a lot of people have been calling in about their guns. Most of them try to sound reasonable but they really sound loony. The scary thing is that they are completely unaware of how crazy their paranoid ramblings are.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:44:04 PM PST

  •  I would hope at some point the gun holder would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    become the gun controller.  

    I can't control their guns, only they can control their guns.  Why should society take up the slack for their oopsies?

    Please sign my petition to bring a novel interpretation of the word keep in the 2nd amendment into the discussion.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:47:02 PM PST

  •  2 more they forgot (0+ / 0-)

    1. Encourage as much local legislation on gun control as possible.. a piece of the pie is better then no pie idea.
    2. Encourage bullets be sold at police stations or thry state run stores... again, a city, county or state initiative.

    By doing as much as possible at the local levels while pursuing Federal options, you start chipping away at not only the problem of guns, but you start so many wildfires around the country the NRA has expand exponentially more money to put down " the rebellions".

    Sooner or later some gun "hacker" will invent a super glue bootlegged bullet that gets sold in fake boxes that when fired ruin the guts of the gun and trigger.. gooey glue in the barrel... a gun virus. Game changer.

    •  Actually, what would work better (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, Pluto

      would be to require purchasing of ammunition to require a carry or purchase permit much like it is required to have one to purchase a handgun.  I am not saying that this wouldn't meet fierce opposition, which it would, nor am I sure of how much effect it would have as making or rather reloading your own ammunition is not difficult.

    •  I'm with you on 1. Not sure about 2. And no, (0+ / 0-)

      it's not safe for bullets be hacked--there may be a risk of backfire, explosion and harm to those close to gun owner. Would the hypothetical hacker seek to avoid dropping hacked ammo on law enforcement or state or federal agents?

      I have a simple suggestion regarding bullets.  Add background checks for each sale of ammunition.  

      As for local municipalities having some control, allowing for zoning preventing the sales or any trades of weapons and/or ammunition within X miles of schools, hospitals, stadiums, beaches, parks, any place selling alcohol, and other areas where high concentrations of people may gather.  Property zoned for gun sales could have a much higher tax rate  to help fund the local law enforcement and emergency rooms.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:34:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are still relying on a law being able to do (0+ / 0-)

        something it can not.  Allowing ammo sales only in certain places, if implemented, will only affect (inconvenience) the citizens who are not going to be the problem anyway.  Those who will, those who use guns to commit crimes will simply use black markets.  Legislation doesn't make nasty things go away.  It drives them underground and makes them harder to control.

  •  We need to go after Hip-Hop. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OMwordTHRUdaFOG

    We need to go after Hip-Hop (for one)
    And the pornography of violence...
    We lost the war on guns a long, long time ago...

    Love Me, I'm a Liberal!

    by simplesiemon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:52:21 PM PST

  •  Nothing about bullets ... again. (0+ / 0-)

    Ok, the large magazine thing is a perennial favorite in what can we do to control gun violence push, but there is again virtually nothing about ammunition.  Is there something wrong about requiring background checks, a license or large taxes to purchase bullets?  It's another point of control and one that takes advantage and benefits from a short, and possibly manipulable, shelf-life.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:52:34 PM PST

    •  Whatever (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, Meteor Blades

      gave you the impression that bullets have a short shelf life?

      •  Shorter than guns is what I meant. (0+ / 0-)

        Guns last much longer than gun powder or bullets.  The fact that ammo "turnsover" more rapidly than guns led the late Senator Moynihan to suggest that ammo be taxed at a high rate to reduce its sale.  

        Also, I believe it is possible - and I'm speculating here - that gun powder could be made to have an even shorter shelf-life through the magic of chemistry, which would exert even more control their purchase.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:28:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How about if someone makes a youtube threatening (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, randomfacts, Laconic Lib

    to kill people -- how about if that person couldn't own a gun legally.

    What a concept.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:53:42 PM PST

    •  How about if they belong to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      ...a wackadoodle organization like the Doomsday Preppers -- to which Adam Lanza's mother belonged -- hence the guns and training her son to shoot?

      You know -- in case he was home alone when the blah people showed up on a food riot.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:42:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish they'd done more to target gun homicide (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, KenBee

    twenty five miles from me there are homicide rates probably twenty or thirty times what they are around me. Plenty of zombie kilers around locally with scary black guns and other assorted useless items but we have little crime. Twenty five miles away a lot of people get shot and quite a few of them die.

    I get it that people are upset and angry and that we don't don't really need to ready ourselves for world war three, but I don't see how any of this is going to stop people in city centers from getting killed. Their lives are valuable too.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:53:58 PM PST

  •  A simple solution (0+ / 0-)

    Ban all weapons.  Make every gun owner turn over their guns, or face jail time if they fail to comply.  With no guns in the hands of civilians there can be no gun violence, which will also lower crime rates of robbery and other violent crimes.  I.e. rape, drugs, car jacking etc...

    •  You can't be serious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      This is not gun violence?:

      http://gawker.com/...

    •  Perhaps you've never heard the line that goes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, theatre goon

      if all weapons were to suddenly disappear, people would pick up rocks and sticks.  This is what cavemen did and I am sure they had plenty of rape and murder.

      Not to mention, will millions upon millions of guns already in the hands of criminals, not to mention those that exist outside of the country, which would quickly be smuggled in, the idea that you can make something go away with a ban just doesn't work.  Look at the prohibition on alcohol, or the so called "war on drugs".  Both are dismal failures.  

      As much as we would like to, you can't ban evil thoughts, which are at the root of the problem.  Nor can you legislate morality.

    •  Sober up... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, KenBee, DavidMS, noway2, theatre goon

      As H. L. Mencken said, "every complicated complex problem has a simple easy solution...that's wrong."

      Seems these fantasies about making guns magically go away come from folks who must live in, say, Manhattan, which has a terribly repressive [profiling-based] "stop and frisk" program to shake people down (especially young black males) for weapons. Efffectively criminalizing gun ownership there. The effects of having 10,000 police officers on those few miles of streets gets cast as some success for weapons restrictions. Maybe it's community policing equal to the probable threat--with so many people, you need a lot of police, and no need for weapons. As to these harrassed citizen's rights, is that part of the equation?

      Here in the rural south, we don't have many "police." Whether it's city cops, county sheriff's deputies, or a few state troopers or state game wardens (with equal powers to state troopers), they aren't hanging out waiting for your cell call. You protection is yours to consider--always has been, still is.

      You can call 911 all you want, if you get a cell signal, but you won't get a timely police response in much of the region. This real world fact makes reading a lot of these 'just ban all the guns' magic wishes give pause about how many folks are either living in worlds where they're never without cell coverage and some government employee to come to their rescue, or they can entirely appropriate their protection to others without concern for themselves or their family.

      If you live in a world where you have to be able to protect yourself, or your farm animals, you don't say silly things like "ban all the guns". You do support universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, mandatory reporting of theft/loss. You don't waste time with parsing which model or caliber of magazine should/shouldn't be listed this way or that--you probably know they're all lethal.

      A speed loader with an old revolver is just a few seconds behind a 33-round stacked Glock magazine in loading/unloading a lot of rounds. Focus on getting the crazies under control, not the hardware. Guns won't be going away in our armed USA, and a new fake "assault weapons ban" won't do anything to make these crazies less dangerous if they are intent on harming the innocent.

    •  This is America. Guns R US. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo, randomfacts, KenBee

      Meanwhile, at the 2012 Olympics, the South Koreans won nearly all the medals for shooting competitions.

      Making this news item particularly ironic:

      Strict Gun Control Laws in South Korea

      SEOUL, South Korea — When news of frequent shooting incidents comes out of the United States, Koreans let out a small sigh of relief for living in a place where gun ownership is strictly illegal.

      Military service for Korean men is mandatory, but that is probably the only time a regular civilian will have a chance to hold a gun.

      In South Korea, only government-authorized personnel could own or carry guns. After taking a physical exam, permits are handed out to very limited number of people: Body guards of the president or foreign heads of states, firearm workers at industrial mining or construction sites, certified hunters or Olympic athlete shooters.

      When a citizen is caught selling or buying guns – produced in Korea for export purpose only – penalty is up to 10 years in prison or up to $18,000 in fines. Even possessing a toy gun ‘that resembles a real gun’ is strictly prohibited.

      http://abcnews.go.com/...



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:51:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What About Ammunition? (0+ / 0-)

    You shouldn't be able to buy ammunition unless you possess a current permit to own a gun.

  •  do the police really want (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, noway2

    to do without semiautomatic weapons?  Or does "off the streets" really mean "they're for Just Us?"

    "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:09:51 PM PST

    •  Oh no, (3+ / 0-)

      they'll keep their weapons. So will the military.

      The only people with guns in the neighborhood will be "body cavity" searching cops that like to pull over young women and a couple of guys with PTSD fresh from Afghanistan.

      Because that will keep us safe, ya know. It's for the kids.

      Oh yeah, and the pepper spray cop, he'll get a semi auto as well. Standard issue.

      /snark

  •  A background check for every gun sale (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Pluto, noway2, theatre goon

    So wait.  You expect, me to sell my gun to my neighbor by, what?  Going to the local gun shop where I am sure there will be a fee to use his computer.  Will never work.

  •  Registering guns, licensing owners... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    those would be good, too.

    In the process of licensing an owner, a simple test to ensure they know gun safety and can physically shoot the purchased weapon wouldn't hurt (might turn up something not caught in the background check?)

    Perhaps the license should also indicate whether or not the owner is legally required to wear glasses to use the weapon...

    How about a psychological stability, misanthropy test?

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:17:25 PM PST

  •  A different thought on Gun Control (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessical, Laconic Lib

    Requiring guns to be insured in case of illegal use could be more effective in ensuring public safety than any other form of politically acceptable gun regulation.   At the same time gun rights advocates should find the ability to chose an insurance company less intrusive than government regulation.  We require all automobiles to be insured.  If each gun death cost an insurance company say one million dollars they would require very substantial premiums for the kinds of guns designed to kill the roughly 30,000 people who die each year from firearms in the USA.

    While many of our impulses are to make illegal the kind of assault weapon used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, often market based solutions are more effective.  Adam Lanza could not pass the background check but he simply took his mother’s guns.  She passed the background check.  We don’t prevent someone from having a car if someone in their family has a bad driving record, because the law can’t really stop people from exercising a right because of the problems of someone else they know.  But insurance does go up for the whole family when a teenage son gets a license.   Gun manufacturers made weapons very similar to Lanza’s while we had an assault weapons ban in place.  The differences between weapons can be made subtle enough to get past the legalistic wording of a ban.  But insurance companies charge premiums based on individual model of car so premiums can be charged based on those subtleties.

    Each death deprives us of a precious soul, but it also hurts the economy.  Statistically an insurance company can assess the likelihood that a new weapon when it is sold will be used to kill someone.  There is no reason the purchaser should not pay for the probable cost of their purchase to society just as we insist cars have insurance.  The presence of guns in my neighbor’s house and the possibility they may be stolen increases the costs of police protection in my town.  Why should the gun owner get a free ride and not have to pay for their expenses to the country?

    Administering such a system is easy.  A gun should be insured when bought for it’s lifetime.  If there is no obvious estate to pay, the insurance company should pay the town or state the victim lived in.   An insurance company can chose to charge on an annual basis plus sell theft insurance.    To lower the cost of theft insurance they will probably insist the owner take common sense precautions to prevent theft.  The nation’s stockpile of existing weapons will diminish over time if it becomes illegal to purchase ammunition for a gun without insurance or for that matter to use one in a firing range or to have one repaired.  Gun barrels can be marked so that if they are recovered after being used for a crime the insurance company will be billed for the crime.  There could be a standard schedule for the hurt done by a gun, starting with one million dollars for a death.  Thieves, or for that matter owners, have no incentive to remove the marks as the insurance company is the one that pays, so permanent marks on the gun are not difficult to make.  The cost of a rifle designed for hunting should be quite affordable as those are not usually used in crimes, but weapons designed for hunting people will cost much more.

    Any gun control legislation should include a requirement that guns be insured as one of it’s predominant features.  

  •   Close the “terror gap” (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    how many people are on this list
    are there really millions of
     al qaeda sympathizers in this country
      Is there any way to get off, once on
    AKA ... Due Process

    Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:26:36 PM PST

  •  Liability for "straw" sales (5+ / 0-)

    I would suggest two other measures:

    1. Very tough co-conspirator liability for anyone who acts as a "straw" buyer to enable someone who is barred from buying guns to get them. (This is being tested in the case of that guy who shot up the firefighters after he set fire to his house.)

    2. Liability for gun dealers/sellers who have knowledge of facts indicating that the person signing for the gun is a straw buyer, and fail to investigate further. Having the straw sign a statement saying "Yeah, it's really gonna be my gun" is meaningless, when the real owner is standing over her/him. If the straw's companion is a person barred from owning guns, there should be a presumption that it's a straw purchase.

    Yes, people can still figure out ways around this, but at least let's make it harder.

    And 3. If you are the supplier of a gun illegally (street sales, whatever), and it gets used to kill someone or attempt, you are also liable on an aiding and abetting charge.

  •  Legal requirement for a certified gun safe. (0+ / 0-)

    $5,000 fine and minimum 30 days for getting caught owning guns without one.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:36:01 PM PST

  •  Data Sources (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessical

    So long as courts punch out protective orders without any regard, garbage in and garbage out.  Currently I have a protection order against me that has no basis in fact and will result in some folks losing their jobs and perhaps even spending some time in our private 'country clubs'.  

    Under state law where I live, applying for a gun permit while under protective order is a felony.  I would like to point out that I do not own a gun, never had, but for some out of state judge to accuse me of stalking someone while in the hospital, is outrageous.  Of course they have comments from my psychiatrist, even though I have never seen one and the source of that data has a document they generated that says I am not a threat to myself or others (Blue Cross).  Of course they lawyered up the day of the 'mistake' and will make no comment until a thorough investigation that will take at least 45 days.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    BTW  This action will cost me $10k in lawyer retainers, but there is a chance that the 'evildoers' will get to pay.

  •  No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Laconic Lib

    I would support an outright ban on most all sorts of firearms, with an enormously restrictive permit system only a few qualify for -- to spite the fact I have owned a gun without qualms (though I do not now).   I've lived in enough places with such heavy duty laws to feel it makes no difference at all on quality of life, liberty, or anything important.

    But the mental health database seems like a really bad idea, on almost every level.  It will discourage treatment and it seems inevitable that it will be used for many many purposes beyond its intent.  Doesn't our society have enough ways to label and dump the unworthy?  

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:52:43 PM PST

    •  A gun ban is probably the only way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical

      ...to get around the mental health database.

      The mental health thing is being pushed by all sides -- for different reasons -- but mostly to keep gun ownership legal and skirt liability issues.

      It seems to me, however, that would open up a big window to the insanity plea.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:02:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it would work that way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        Insanity is a specific legal thing, and this a broad protective database established to specific behavioral and institutional criteria.  I doubt they'd be compared in the same sentence, though IANAL.  

        I heard the incoming APA president speak largely against it on NPR the other night.  Strictly on the ethical and civil liberties concerns it presents.  he didn't even get into how it changes the role of mental health providers, depending on how that database is used.

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:09:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  convicted stalkers? how about court orders (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    restraining orders from stalking and domestic violence issues? seems that might help some before the problem becomes one of convicted, way before.

    I would have no problem judicially removing someone's 2a rights temporarily as long as it's not like the no fly list, a serious problem that is a claim from 2a supporters and many others that should be fixed. Court order should include the removal from the BATF list at an appropriate time with all parties heard from.

    But that still is going to go wrong as well, an insane violent criminal was just let out on a Cruz waiver, his accuser/witness was not notified, first she heard, there he was, he killed her and another woman in his escape. Great system.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:11:34 PM PST

  •  I don't feel comfortable with this at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon
    Close the “terror gap”
    Nothing in the current law prevents known or suspected terrorists from clearing a background check and purchasing guns. And some of them are doing just that [...]
    Since when do we support restricting the actions of people based on nothing more than suspicion of wrongdoing?

    That could get really ugly if accepted.

  •  the simplest way to regulate firearms (0+ / 0-)

    is an operational test, ala a driving test: make the potential permit owner take apart and reassemble the firearm, then give him or her two shots to hit a 12" target 40 feet away - you miss, no permit. I like to remind NRA members that the NRA helped to write the first gin control lawson this country, and the NRA's original purpose was to teach firearm safety and improve marksmanship.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:58:24 PM PST

  •  For those of you who may be interested (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    here is an op ed piece which probably sums up the Canadian perspective on your gun debate as well as anything I've read.  

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/...

  •  Licensing (0+ / 0-)

    Cars and guns are two potentially lethal kinds of machinery. I think that anyone who owns any kind of gun ought to have to register it; and anyone who operates one should be licensed.  I'm perfectly willing to let gun registration and shooter licensing be done on the state level, so long as there is also a national data base. I don't see how this interferes with second amendment rights.

  •  Here's my opinion... (0+ / 0-)

    I feel that the background checks would work better than bans on assault rifles in stopping murders. Of course laws like this won't matter to criminals because, well, they are criminals. They break the law and the best thing we can do to stop that is to put them in jail. The "suggested terrorist" part of the "close the terror gap" suggestion doesn't really sit well with me though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site