No-nonsense gun control in the US. It really does exist.

[DanTex]

You have probably never heard of it, but there is an active gun control law in the US which includes everything that is necessary to bring our gun violence rates in line with the rest of the civilized world. I'm talking about the National Firearms Act of 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The NFA deals with machine guns and some other weapons like short-barrel shotguns. Handguns were originally considered for inclusion in the NFA, but in one of the great policy blunders in US history, they were dropped. If not for this mistake, hundreds of thousands of American lives (and counting), possibly even a million or more, would have been saved between 1934 and today.

NFA is a serious and effective law, comparable to what you'd find in Western Europe. First, all NFA guns are registered. So when one is used in a crime, it is plainly obvious who is responsible. You can't buy an NFA gun and then give or sell it to your cousin, or to the shady guy down the street flying a confederate flag, without getting permission in advance from the ATF. If one is stolen, you have to report it. You can own an NFA gun, but you are responsible for it.

Also, buying an NFA gun requires an extensive background check. Not just a quick phone call to check if your name appears in a porous database. Buying an NFA gun means submitting photographs and fingerprints.

A lot of discussions about gun violence tend towards the conclusion "there's nothing we can do." This is totally incorrect. Not only is there something we can do, but the legal framework for it is already in place and working very well. All we would need to do is reclassify handguns and semi-automatic rifles (e.g. AR-15s) as NFA weapons, and the improvements would be dramatic. This wouldn't be a gun ban, it would simply be common sense regulation that allows people who want these weapons to own them, but requires that they take gun ownership seriously and responsibly.

Do we have the political will to do it? Probably not, at least not right now. But there definitely are answers.

[derby378]

1. Unconstitutional

I refer you to DC v. Heller for classification. Not the Brady Campaign soundbite, but the actual ruling.

[DanTex]

2. False. Of course, you never know how Scalia and the rest of the crazies will decide to re-interpret

the constitution in the future, but as of today, there aren't any constitutional impediments to requiring registration and background checks for handgun ownership.

[derby378]

6. Unless you are unaware of the requirements of the NFA...

...it's a bit disingenuous to say "It's only registration and a background check." My AK's serial number is registered with the government, and I had to go through a background check to get it, but that took all of five minutes because it's not an NFA weapon and because I'm not a felon, a wife beater, insane, or under the influence of drugs.

What you're talking about is a $200 tax stamp (which effectively doubles as a permit), fingerprinting, an interview with ATF agents, a signature from a sheriff or a judge, and a minimum 60-day waiting period. Just to own a revolver.

Again, unconstitutional.

[DanTex]

7. You and Scalia think it's unconstitutional, of course. But there isn't any precedent at the moment

that would make NFAing handguns unconstitutional. Buying a handgun in NYC is currently more difficult than buying an NFA gun in say Texas.

That could all change with the rogue right-wing court we have right now. Another reason it's so important to elect a Democratic president in 2016.

[derby378]

9. Is there any ulterior motive in trying to link me to Scalia?

This is US Constitution 101. Freedom of speech, freedom to marry, the right to a jury trial, separation of church and state, freedom from forced self-incrimination, and all that.

[DanTex]

12. You are echoing Scalia's beliefs on the second amendment. No ulterior motive, just a fact.

[derby378]

14. No, I'm echoing the Constitution's position on the Second Amendment, that's all

Not trying to put on airs or anything. If there's a problem with the Second Amendment, there's a process where it can be rewritten or repealed.

[DanTex]

18. No, you are echoing Scalia's opinion on Heller. In fact, you are reading more into Scalia's opinion

than what it actually says. It says nothing about registration or background checks.

And, as you are well aware, Heller was a 5-4 decision, and only the right-wingers on the court agree with your interpretation. The second amendment itself has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership outside the context of a militia. At least it didn't until the Scalia decision. That wasn't the only bad decision this right-wing court has made. They also declared that money is free speech. Hopefully we'll get some liberal justices on the court to reverse some of the damage.

[derby378]

21. The old cannard that "the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the people" will be gone soon enough

Besides, I can affirm that the Citizens United decision was a stinker just as much as Dred Scott was. The Supreme Court is not the same thing as the Constitution, and sometimes the justices get it wrong like they did in Bush v. Gore.

[DanTex]

22. I'm not aware of that canard. But I agree that the next SCOTUS will have some important decisions

to make. The current right-wing court has made a lot of poor decisions, beyond just Heller and Citizens United.

[rock]

67. I see a bit of debate between you and derby378 above

And feel I must at least make one comment. Without a SCOTUS ruling the constitution is just a bunch of words on paper. The Constitution must be interpreted to be meaningful. That means I'm agreeing with you, DanTex.

[theycallmetrinity]

10. Why should it more difficult for a person in NYC if he is a law abiding person?

That's what you should be questioning .

If the person is wealthy and connected in NYC not only is it easy
for him or her to buy a handgun , it's also easy to get a permit
to carry one concealed .

[DanTex]

13. That's a separate question, of course. I brought up NYC as a response to the constitutionality

question. NYC's laws aren't unconstitutional, and they are much stricter than NFA.

As to why should it be more difficult in NYC? Because people in NYC don't want a city crawling with handguns. Handgun proliferation in a densely populated city is a recipe for disaster. I live in NYC. Nobody I know here thinks it should be easier for people to own handguns.

[theycallmetrinity]

17. It shouldn't be easier nor should it be harder if it's being done legally

[DanTex]

19. "Being done legally" depends on what the laws are. In NYC the laws are very stringent.

That's the way that the people in NYC want them.

[derby378]

23. Are you sure?

You may be happy with those laws, but I remember the legislators rammed it through in the dead of night while everyone was asleep.

[DanTex]

24. We're talking about different laws here. But, yes, New Yorkers are happy with both.

People here, for the most part, value human life over guns.

But I was talking about NYCs handgun laws, not about the SAFE Act.

[derby378]

27. Duly noted - my bad

[treestar]

51. Seriously?

A law duly passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is the law. What a dumb excuse. Echoing that aashole whose so called rights trump our dead. Just insane.

[theycallmetrinity]

30. I don't know if that is the case

Should it really cost close to $400 for a permit to legally buy a handgun in NYC

[DanTex]

31. People in NYC think it should.

NYC is a large and diverse city, with many different kinds of people and many different opinions. But very few people here believe that we need more guns.

[theycallmetrinity]

37. I think maybe we are getting our wires crossed here

I'm not saying they want more guns but your proposal is to make it cost prohibitive for people
to buy guns who don't have a lot of money .

That attacks people of less means.

Do you see my point at all?

[DanTex]

39. $400 is not prohibitive. Also, people with less means suffer the most from gun violence and

have the most to gain from tight gun laws like the ones that NYC has in place. Wealthy neighborhoods don't pay the price for lax gun laws, it is the poorest neighborhoods that do.

[theycallmetrinity]

40. I then will agree to disagree with you on this point

[Recursion]

63. It's easier to buy beer in NH than in MA

Stuff like that happens

[ThoughtCriminal]

48. D.C. v. Heller did not overturn U.S. v. Miller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision


(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[derby378]

49. This is true, and for the following application

A short-barreled shotgun is a weapon suitable for militia use, but it is also an NFA weapon. If I want to own a short-barreled shotgun, I have to go the NFA route.

Miller, on the other hand, bought a standard shotgun and used a hacksaw to cut the barrel down below the NFA limit. Such a weapon is not considered a proper militia weapon as the barrel was clearly not constructed for short-barrel fire, thus posing a potential danger to the person firing the shotgun.

[Recursion]

62. Heller only prohibited outright bans like DC had

The court was pretty clear about that. Thomas's concurrence argued against Miller, but the majority did not.

[Sancho]

54. You do realize that the Supreme Court held against individual ownership 4 times...

and only one crazy SC that also brought us Bush/Gore, Citizen's United, etc. has created this mess. It could easily change again if we had a different court.

Please read history:

The Second Amendment: A Biography

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman-ebook/dp/B00GKKTYAG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434971799&sr=1-1&keywords=2nd+amendment

By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

[Recursion]

60. Miller, Heller, and McDonald all confirmed the NFA

And even allowed for stricter limitations. Just about the only red line they drew was an out and out de facto ban a la DC or Chicago,

[flamin lib]

3. YEAH! What you said!

Ban the sale, import or manufacture of any semi auto weapon with a removable magazine and we,re done.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Did you actually read the post, or just skim it?

"This wouldn't be a gun ban, it would simply be common sense regulation that allows people who want these weapons to own them, but requires that they take gun ownership seriously and responsibly."

[DanTex]

8. Well, I didn't say that. Banning isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries where handguns

aren't outright banned, but they still have gun violence in control. But they are much more tightly regulated, similar to what we currently have in place right here in the US for NFA guns.

[theycallmetrinity]

5. They would have to hire tens of thousands of more agents

to handle the paper work and every FFL would have to be a class 3 dealer

By doing this then manufacture of new automatics for sale will be legal if everything
is considered a class 3 NFA weapon

[DanTex]

11. Maybe, maybe not. But even if they did, it would be worth it.

Given that there are tens of thousands of gun deaths per year, hiring tens of thousands of new agents is definitely worth it. My guess is that if handguns went NFA, handgun sales would drop significantly, which would be a good thing, although it would also face huge political opposition from the NRA, who will do anything to keep up the profits of gun manufacturers.

[theycallmetrinity]

15. What you are proposing and it might be unintentional is

people who have more money will be the only ones to own guns.

[DanTex]

20. Not really. A decent gun already costs $300-$500. If you can afford that, you can also afford

to pay the $200 or so for the registration and background check. It's entirely reasonable, and makes sense given the harms to society associated with gun proliferation. But it's not like only millionaires will be able to afford it. What will really happen is only people who are serious, law abiding, and responsible will be the ones with guns.

And the important thing is that what I am proposing will save thousands of lives every year.

[theycallmetrinity]

26. The price will go up for the stamp if eveything is NFA

Maybe you know the history of the NFA tax stamp but
what it did was only allow rich people to buy NFA guns

$200 was a whole lot of money in 1934

[DanTex]

29. Perhaps, and I have no problem with that. The important thing is the tens of thousands of lives

at stake.

[theycallmetrinity]

32. I have a problem with it

Only people of means can buy a firearm.

You don't see any problem with that?

[DanTex]

34. Well, you already need "means" to buy a gun, if "means" means a few hundred dollars.

The NFA stamp tax doesn't change that in any meaningful way, just increases the cost a little.

But, like I said, what really matters is the tens of thousands of innocent lives at stake. The increased cost of guns is a small price to pay, and it is certainly justified as an externality, sort of like a gas tax which compensates for pollution.

[theycallmetrinity]

36. Not really

There are plenty of less fortunate people in this country than you or I where
a tax stamp of several hundred dollars is a lot of money but that used shotgun
is only $125.00 or less

Should the family that's wants to legally have some protection inside their home
have to struggle to come up with this tax ?

[DanTex]

38. Shotguns wouldn't be NFAed, so the cost of a shotgun wouldn't change.

If you want a Glock or an AR-15, then you need to register it and pay the stamp tax. Of course, Glocks and AR-15s cost more than used shotguns to begin with.

When you weight this against the thousands of lives saved, it's a no brainer.

[theycallmetrinity]

43. This could be the law of unintended consequences

I'm your neighbor just over the border.

What happened here was people who did register their assault weapons were able
to change them into assault weapons after the CT law.
No big deal but people who couldn't have collapsible stocks , threaded barrels for suppressors now
can.

If all AR's are NFA then we have about million more automatics on the street.

[DanTex]

44. Manufacture of new automatic weapons is already illegal. So is modifying a semi-auto

into an auto.

[theycallmetrinity]

45. Right but the NFA is to control automatics and suppressor tranfers

That's what the National Firearms Act was

If we classify all AR's as NFA then the 1986 law is void

My take is many AR owners would welcome this

[DanTex]

46. Well, then the new law would have to reinstate the 1986 ban on automatics.

Sure, if a law is written poorly, then it could have unintended consequences.

[theycallmetrinity]

47. Like I wrote it happened here with the assault weapon registry

The worst people to have in a room writing gun laws are people
who know nothing about guns.

That always seems to be the case though.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. Most giuns aren't all that cheap already.

Unless you're buying it from a guy in an alley (who has a vested interest in getting rid of it), you have to have a fair amount of cash already to buy a gun.

[Shamash]

25. When you add it all up

Direct contributions, advertising dollars, all of it, the NRA gets about 6% of its revenue from gun makers and gun dealers. At least according to figures compiled by third-party watchdog groups and gun control organizations like the Violence Policy Center.

So as a rough guess, they are 6% concerned about gun manufacturer's profits and 94% concerned about some other source of revenue. With 300 million guns in circulation in the US, every gun manufacturer in the world could disappear and they'd still have enough guns in circulation to stay in business until the sun burns out.

The NRA's lobbying budget is also on par with that of the American Dental Association. Their power is not the power of the NRA, it is that they are the loudest (if sometimes deranged) voice speaking for the what, 80 million? gun owners in the US.

It's a shame there is no other voice to represent the interests of these 80 million voters. Kind of a tragedy when you consider that at least 30% of that 80 million are Democrats. And here I was believing that Republicans were the tone-deaf experts at alienating voting blocs.

Practically speaking, exactly which candidate for 2016 is going to take a strong stand like you propose and effectively demand that those 80 million people from both parties vote for someone else? Because a stance like that certainly won't get gun owners to vote for that person.

[DanTex]

28. Well, if the NRA is as weak and poor as you say, then maybe there is hope after all.

They certainly don't speak for all 80 million people who own guns, because most of those people disagree with the NRA on policy. But they do represent the gun industry and a few million hard-core gun fanatics. And they have been a very effective force in ensuring that innocent Americans continue to be killed by the tens of thousands.

[Shamash]

33. Not as poor or weak as I say

It's not what I say. But if you wish to cast aspersions on the Violence Policy Center report on NRA funding sources, be my guest. The NRA lobbying budget is also public information. They are influential, but just one of the major brokering firms has a ton more revenue and bigger lobbying budget than the NRA. And there is only one NRA but lots of big brokering firms. That should give you an accurate perspective of political influence.

The point is, the NRA is the only voice speaking for gun owners, even if you are correct and they do not accurately represent them. Do you have an alternative for the majority of these 80 million who disagree with the NRA? No, you don't. You villify them at every turn and ensure that the NRA stays the only voice that speaks (or claims to speak) for them.

[DanTex]

35. No, I don't think they are poor and weak. I think they are a strong, very effective special

interest lobby, that represents the interests of the gun industry and of hardcore gun fanatics (which are often aligned). They are one of the most powerful negative forces in American politics, and their influence is one of, if not the primary, reason that we needlessly lose tens of thousands of lives to gun violence every year.

Like I said in the OP, I don't thing that the kinds of changes to gun policy that would save these lives are going to happen anytime soon. I'm just saying that there are solutions, fairly simple solutions, what's missing is the political will.

[Shamash]

41. Fair enough

And I'm saying the political will is not there because you have 80 million people who are highly unlikely to vote against their own interests, and since 30% of them are Democrats, politicians know which side their bread is buttered on. The Democratic Party could toss the anti-gun movement out on its tail and not fare any worse in elections, because everyone in the anti-gun movement would still vote Democratic anyway. The same cannot be said for gun rights supporters who are Democrats or moderates, as we witnessed in several elections in 2014.

The obvious proof of this is that the party platform explicitly says the Democratic Party thinks the 2nd A is an individual right and does not say anything close to the position you are holding. They are courting gun owner votes, not gun control votes.

[DanTex]

42. I disagree that all 80 million gun owners side with the NRA, and there is plenty of

polling data to support my opinion. Even gun registration, which is unspeakable in congress, polls pretty well. Most gun owners are not fanatics, and a lot of them actually care about gun violence. But the fanatics are the ones running the gun lobby.

I won't deny that gun control in this country is an uphill fight. Like I said in the OP, I don't think anything will happen on this issue for a long time. I'm also rather pessimistic about other issues like global warming, or income inequality, and so on. But, as a progressive, I am on the side of what is right, which is not always the same as what is politically expedient.

[Shamash]

50. Let's be clear on the definition of that

I am on the side of what is right, which is not always the same as what is politically expedient.

"Right" in your eyes is financially punitive (classist) coercion against total strangers who you are pre-judging based on fear and stereotypes rather than their qualities as individuals.

It is no different than saying you want to reduce voting fraud by requiring a $200 "voter stamp", fingerprinting and background check, and it would disproportionately affect the exact same people.

Before you deny this, let me point out the following that is more on-topic than voting: If you figure the likelihood per 100,000 African-American men that one of them will stab you to death this year, and the likelihood per 100,000 white men who own guns that one of them will shoot you to death this year, the former chance is larger than the latter.

So, if your "no-nonsense" proposal is sound, the it would mean that a $200 tax stamp, fingerprinting and background check to allow black men to own knives would be even more sound. By your standards of why such a thing should be done, of course.

For my part, I try very hard not to judge anyone based on a stereotype about them or use collective guilt as my basis for new laws or regulations. The aforementioned risk levels do not cause me to prejudge some simply because they are gun owners or have a different skin color. I especially try not to support coercive laws based on stereotypes, whether based on external appearance, belief system, things they do with their body, private consensual actions or choice of possessions. If as an individual they are not harming anyone (or intending to harm anyone), whether I agree or disagree with them is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to do what they are doing.

Which it seems to me is a demonstrably more progressive position than yours.

[DanTex]

53. Sorry, but a $200 registration to own a gun is not "classist".

It's funny, through all the sound and fury, no mention whatsoever of the 30,000 people who die every year from guns.

It's a matter of priorities. I would rather save tens of thousands of lives. You would rather save $200.

[DanTex]

57. That's a good point. I'm not advocating for that. I'm also not advocating a poll tax.

You see, guns, cars, and voting are three entirely different things. Complicated, I know.

I also don't support racially discriminatory laws, or any of the other absurd things that you might bring up that have utterly nothing to do with gun control.

I'm advocating for tighter gun laws that will save thousands of lives. And yes, as you point out, suicides are a big part of the problems with guns: a lot of research has been done finding that easy gun access increases suicide rates. So in addition to reducing homicides, it will also reduce suicides.

On one hand, guns can be tightly controlled, registered, and taxed, and we can have very low rates of gun violence. This is what happens in the rest of the civilized world. Oh the other hand, we can have the status quo. It's a question of whether we value guns or human lives more.

[Shamash]

61. Good!

I'm not advocating for racist or other coercive laws either. I am advocating for a consistently applied approach to risk and societal problems.

We kill a lot more of ourselves without guns as compared to other countries as well, so it would seem the problem is less about guns and more about us. I think if we work on the "us" problem we will be addressing the problem. Your approach seems to be addressing the results of the problem.

I'm not a 2A absolutist and I think there is plenty of room for improvement in our current gun laws (which I have stated elsewhere and consistently). But I will strongly oppose inconsistently applied measures and measures whose legal grounding can be used in a discriminatory fashion in the inevitable future where we are stuck with a conservative majority government for a while. A poll tax, even a small one, has been deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of requiring a payment to exercise a right, and it was used as a coercive tool against an unfavored demographic. A liberal/progressive government putting its stamp of approval on anything that smacks of the same is going to get my opposition if for no other reason than I don't trust that "gun" in the hands of conservatives.

And to (surprise) be contrarian, there is not much correlation between gun restrictions and gun crime. The correlation only holds if you cherry pick the countries involved. As a simple example, gun control advocates point to Canada as an improvement but not to Mexico's even stricter gun laws. When I point this out, people complain that Mexico's gun problems are not its laws, but US guns smuggled across the border.

A border we apparently do not have with Canada...

[DanTex]

64. Good. So now we can talk about gun control, which is a necessary public safety measure.

The problem in the US is most definitely about guns. We don't have higher rates of violent crime in general than other wealthy nations, things like assault and rape. We just have higher rates of homicide, due to the fact that gun crimes are much more lethal than other forms of crime.

It's really not very complicated. Sure, there are many other problems with society, but the reason we have so much more gun violence and homicide than places like Europe is because we have much looser gun laws. Of course, there are places like Mexico, large parts of which are a borderline lawless narco-state, but anywhere remotely comparable to the US has much tighter gun laws, and, as a result, much lower rates of gun violence.

And you are quite right that guns smuggled into Mexico from the US are fueling the drug violence there. Actually, many of the guns used in Canadian crimes are also smuggled in from the US, but of course Canada is vastly different from Mexico, so the impact of the smuggled guns isn't nearly as great.

[Shamash]

68. I seem to be missing your point

If the murder rate in the US by non-gun means is higher than in say Europe (and it is), then removing every gun from private possession would still leave us with a higher murder rate than Europe.

So I fail to see how the problem is more about guns than it is about people being willing to kill each other. Personally, I see no appeal in taking a position that is for all practical purposes "We're okay with murder, we just want you to have to put some effort into it.”

So, if we're going to talk about gun control, do you have any proposals that do not penalize the >99.9% of gun owners who are not a problem in hopes of doing something about the <.1% who are? "Stop & frisk" was not a very progressive idea, nor was Arizona's "papers please" law, so if you will pardon the pun, "shotgun" measures do not seem to be a progressive approach to gun violence or any other problem.

Since I have spent a lot of time grousing at your proposal, it is only fair I give you my stance so you can grouse about mine. For the short list, I am in favor of:

• improvement and increased enforcement of background check laws (if a felon walks into a gun store and tries to buy a gun...)
• training and knowing the laws relating to gun ownership and use as a permit requirement (driver's license analogy)
• national standards for permit requirements (if a driver's license lets you drive in any state...)
• incentives for safe/secure storage (decrease accidents)
• targeted enforcement of known offenders (see this and look at the results)

I admit that item number 2 does impose a time and financial cost on the purchase, so I am not completely blameless in the "assigning an additional cost" to the purchase problem, but if it is a one-time cost for a license, it is is not the more regressive "per gun" penalty.

It seems to me that all of these would be improvements that would save lives. And they are a lot more likely to be accepted by gun owners (i.e. voters).

And your point on Canada is worth noting. The lower murder rate (firearm and otherwise) is a cultural artifact. If you change the way people think and view each other as a society, you get the change you want automatically.

[DanTex]

69. Without gun murders, the US would not be an outlier in terms of homicide rates among wealthy nations

We would be higher than some, lower than others, maybe as you claim slightly higher than average, but that's not where the real statistically significant difference lies. What puts us off the chart is our rate of gun homicide.

The reason is simple. Crimes committed with guns are much more likely to result in someone being killed. Arguments that escalate turn deadly when guns are involved. Knife and fist wounds are much less likely to result in death. This is why gun control is so important. It makes it more difficult to kill someone, which results in a lot less people being killed. Sure, there would still be some murders, there are everywhere, just a lot less of them. And this isn't hypothetical, this is actually what happens in other countries with tight gun laws. They still have fights and assaults and robberies, but far fewer of those crimes result in someone getting killed.

Yes, it would be great if we could just have lax gun laws and also low homicide rates, but that ongoing experiment has failed completely. So it becomes a question of what do we value, easy access to guns, or saving human lives. We can't have both, there are tradeoffs, as there are with most any policy decision. On one hand, the NRA refuses to even consider slightly inconveniencing gun owners no matter how many lives would be saved. On the other hand, there are countries like Japan or the UK with outright bans on handguns. If forced to pick between the extremes, I would choose the UK or Japan model, simply because of the number of innocent lives involved. But I do believe that there is reasonable middle ground in places like Canada.

Most of what you propose are steps in the right direction, but they wouldn't have the same impact as putting handguns in NFA. As for national standards, I agree that there should be some national minimum standard, but of course cities like NYC need to be able to impose additional requirements due to the safety risks involved with people owning or carrying handguns in a densely populated metropolis. Owning a handgun in a building with 1000 other people is very different from owning one in a place where the next home is a half mile away.

Finally, on Canada, no, the lower murder rate is not a cultural artifact, or at least not primarily. They have very tight handgun laws, and we don't. That is the primary reason that they have much lower homicide rates than we do -- it's the gun homicides. And the same is true for every other wealthy nation. Mass proliferation of handguns is incompatible with low homicide rates. That doesn't mean that handguns need to be banned -- they aren't banned in Canada -- but it does mean that they need to be regulated along the lines of something like NFA.

[Shamash]

70. Disagree on a number of grounds

Example 1: The overall murder rate in Vermont is about the same as it is in the UK. On a per capita basis, Vermont has thirty times the gun ownership of the UK, allows all types of firearms and has no permits required for open or concealed carry (which includes in places like bars). The UK has complete bans on many types of firearms, requires permits for all of them and no open or concealed carry is allowed at all.

The only difference is that more people are murdering each other without guns in the UK.

Unfortunately, Vermont is not the US as a whole or we would have neither a gun violence problem nor gun control absolutists nor a big bad NRA. However, Vermont does let me reiterate the case that culture is more important than laws. Vermont has a firearm murder rate that is amazingly low and does this without any of the measures you think we need (or even the ones I mention) and with less restrictive gun laws than the country as a whole. So when it comes to which of legal restrictions or cultural change is more effective (and more progressive) in the long run...

Quod erat demonstrandum

Example 2: Canada had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect. England had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect. Australia had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect.

Example 3: We have gun crime figures for London from the turn of the 20th century and we also know what UK gun laws were. They were virtually non-existent. You had to pay a few shillings at a post office to buy a permit for a pistol, but that was it. The gun crime rate (all types) in London (a densely populated metropolis) at that time was less than it is today. At least if you accept the accuracy of figures published by the British Parliament.

Continuing to flog a "guns vs. lives" argument makes you look silly, because you have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any other "X vs. lives" argument and this puts up a big neon sign that says "I am completely unable to deal with this topic objectively". If you are going to adopt a set of principles to guide social policy and public health, you need to do so in a consistent manner. When I apply my set of general principles to same-sex marriage, racial issues, gender issues, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, reproductive rights, censorship and gun ownership...I come up with the same results for all of them regarding the rights, responsibilities and limits of the individual, society and government. You don't.

So if you want to discuss gun control and being progressive, get back in the elevator, hit the "up" button and let me know when you arrive at where I'm already at. For me, this is the end of the discussion. Good day.

[DanTex]

71. OK, one by one.

Re: Vermont.

Vermont is one of the most rural states in the nation. Everyone knows that population density is highly correlated with crime rate. Conversely, the UK has high population and many major cities. And yet, the UK still has a lower overall homicide rate than Vermont does (1.0 for UK vs 1.6 for Vermont), which shows just how significant the effect of guns is. Based on the demographics, Vermont should have a far lower homicide rate than the UK.

What's even more remarkable than that is the the City of London actually has a lower homicide rate than Vermont. And this is Vermont, a state that you cherry picked because it came closest statistically (and yet fell short) of the point you wanted to make. If you look at the US as a whole, you will find that London, a huge, diverse, densely populated city with gangs and crime and poverty and everything else, has a lower homicide rate than every single city in the US with a population of greater than 250,000. This is simply a staggering illustration of the drastic difference that tight gun laws make.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2840855

Re: Canada and England. The reason that they had lower homicide rates is that they managed to put in place effective gun laws before massive handgun proliferation occurred like what happened in the US. The situation in London 100 years ago is hardly relevant when discussion gun policy in wealthy modern nations. The simple fact is that the rest of the world decided some time back to adopt reasonable gun laws, and so they never arrived at the place where we are now. We could have done this too in 1934 with the NFA if only they had included handguns. If we had done that, hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved, and we would not be in the position we are in now where our homicide rates are far higher than in the rest of the world.

Re: "guns vs lives". Yes, that is the basic decision we face. It's not that I can't accept any other "X versus lives" argument: on the contrary, I believe that there are many factors that affect rates of gun violence and homicide. For example, like I said, being a rural state reduces the crime rate. But we're not going to be able to change the rurality of the nation. Gun control is something we can change.

The "consistency" argument you make is patently ludicrous. I also have a consistent set of principles that govern my beliefs, the only difference between you and I is that you place a lot more value on guns, whereas I place a lot more value on saving lives. My set of principles implies respect for same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, etc. It's not a question of consistency, it's a question of priorities.

[calimary]

16. Gee, all those new jobs, well, that would be terrible now, wouldn't it!

When I see items like this posted, I find myself wondering if we have some people in Congress who might want to try slipping this into the language of some CON bill that is definitely gonna get passed. Because it'd be done without a lot of attention, it might go through the Senate and then to the President's desk. It'd have to be in a bill that President Obama would be willing to sign.

If I were in Congress, that's how I'D do it. Figure out how to sneak something in there and not say one word to attract any attention to it. Might even speak out against the bill itself to throw some GOPers off. And then sit back and "watch 'em squeal!"

I'd be trying to do that with all sorts of issues.

[Lee-Lee]

52. Some clarification

The NFA doesn't require and "extensive" background check. In reality it is the se exact BG check that is done over the phone, it just take the BATFE Bureaucracy 1-3 months to process the paper form because they refuse to modernize.

However, the NFA is actually a tax law. Look it up and find out where in the U.S. Code it is found if you don't believe me. That is how it has,so far, passed Constitutional challenges. It's all really just about a $200 tax. It's perfectly legal to have a machine gun or silencer under Federal law, so long as you have paid the tax. It's possession of an untaxed one that is banned.

If you have ever wondered why there is a Federal agency for alcohol, tobacco and firearms- because it's all about the taxes, and that was part of the Teasury before they moved to the DHS.

Now- some reality about it.

The "registration" is badly broken. They have admitted in Congressional testimony their records are poor and they really don't know how many legally taxed guns are out there. They couldn't keep count when only dealing with a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of guns, so the chances of them getting it right with far more are poor. Canada's learned this with their recently scrapped gun registry too.

The NFA actually has a loophole a mile wide that lets one buy a machine gun with no background check. Remember when o mentioned that it was a tax law? Guess what- corporate personhood means an LLC, Corporation or trust can buy a machine gun. Can't run fingerprints or a background check on a paper entity, so no crack is done. Most collectors go this route because it means the paperwork goes faster and lets them add a spouse or adult kids to the corporation/trust and they can possess the items.

That was no accident at all. In 1934 when the law was passed they intended it to be that way. In those days the $200 tax was way too much for the common person to pay, but a corporation would and could- so they could keep the elites armed to keep the common folks in their place breaking strikes and protecting the banks.

So- the NFA is a poorly run system that has lost track of who owns machine guns, a tax law designed to tax certain weapons out of the hands of common folks but allow corporations and the rich to own them, and it allows in reality background checks to be bypassed by forming a trust- something as easily done as going online, printing a form and having a notary sign off.

And if you try and reform it you will dangerously affect a lot of other tax laws with the precedent, so it's become a tangled web of case law they don't know what to do about.

[DanTex]

55. Yes, in addition to NFAing handguns, they should also fix the corporation/LLC loophole.

But even if they didn't, it would still save thousands of lives, which is what really matters here.

You're also right that Canada's right-wing government scrapped their registry of long guns, but of course handguns are still tightly regulated there. So, we could follow their example, and switch to Canada-style handgun laws, that would work great also.

I'm just saying that we already have the machinery in place for an effective gun control law here in the US, all that would be required is reclassifying handguns and semi-autos under NFA. But obviously that's not the only way to do it.

[Recursion]

58. Funny, the RKBA group discusses the NFA all the time

And pretty universally in a positive light. It's rarely mentioned in GD gun discussions, in which most people seem to think that the AWB did what the NFA actually does.

[DanTex]

65. Hmm. The gungeon representatives who chimed in here don't seem very positive about NFA.

[Recursion]

66. His is definitely a minority position in the RKBA group

Mostly, like I said, there's just the frustration that advocates seem to think the AWB did what the NFA already does (ie, ban machine guns).