Finding common ground

[kudzu22]

Once again we find ourselves in the midst of the gun debate, firmly dug in along familiar trench lines. One side wanting bans and registration and the other not giving an inch of ground. I wonder if we can move the battle lines to new ground? DU is full of creative and intelligent people of good conscience. I'm curious if anyone has any new ideas. What reforms would you propose if you could not ban anything and could not institute a national registry? What measures would do the most good in preventing tragedies like Sandy Hook?

I invite proposals from both sides of this debate.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I would redistribute wealth and create rich supportive public benefit programs.

Jobs, infrastructure, arts, health care, emotional care, housing.

There's more than enough wealth at the top to do ALL the things we want to do.

And, if we did these things, there would be less crime, fewer gangs, less hopelessness, and more support for people on the verge of committing gun violence.

How's that?

[kudzu22]

2. Well, it's a start

I agree that a lot of violence is committed over economic issues, there are other motives for violence as well. I don't think the spree killers are spurred by economic inequality.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I think the general malaise in our country since Reagan contributes to these events.

The general sense of hopelessness and "why even bother?" is not helpful to our collective and individual souls.

If we could begin to celebrate arts, philanthropy, public works, etc., and promote goodness and charity over greed, I think it would impact all classes of people.

[Robb]

3. Illustrative, actually.

Fantastic plan, and would do the job of ending gun violence every bit as well as the magical disappearance of all firearms in the US.

But since you can't do your plan any more than I can snap my fingers and make guns vanish, I think we'd better not take any incremental steps to end poverty or fix health care. It's clearly a fool's errand.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I see what you did there. =:^)

I hope you know that I'm on the record here as being in support of expanding California's gun legislation approach to all 50 states.

That would be a big increment!

[sylvi]

7. Incremental steps to reduce violence by wealth redistribution

Incremental steps to reduce violence through wealth redistribution, jobs, ending the drug war and providing better mental and physical health care increase freedom. Incremental steps to disarm law abiding citizens decreases freedom.

Just as incremental steps to reduce the threat of terrorism through forming better relations with sovereign nations instead of exploitation and empire building increases freedom, as opposed to pissing on the Constitution in the name of security and building a police state which reduces freedom.

In both cases, two different approaches towards the same end. One uses government in a true progressive manner, the other uses it as a bludgeon.

[Robb]

9. As long as right-wing ideologues characterize incremental steps as

"pissing on the Constitution," you're going to continue to see nothing but contempt from the rest of us.

[sylvi]

10. I don't know or care about "right-wing ideologues".

But as for me, I can live with contempt. I refuse to live a life sheepishly giving up basic rights, incrementally or otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, disarming a citizenry to leave at the tender mercies of the criminal element, the police state and potential tyranny is one of the most regressive acts a government can commit, and the self-styled "progressive" authoritarians among the people who are their enablers are anything but progressive

[Robb]

12. Someone so uninterested in common ground or compromise

...will find themselves, quite rightly, without a seat at the table. The fringe might define the debate, but they are unfailingly excluded from it.

[sylvi]

16. Since the thousands of gun laws that already exist in this nation

bear testimony to the question of whether or not gun owners compromise, I think that point is moot. That horse left the barn decades ago. I think you'll find most pro-RKBA folks here amenable to even more things like expanded availability of NICS checks, closer scrutiny of FFL holders and their practices, tougher sentences for criminals and the like. But not the kind of incremental restrictions aimed at doing away with wide swaths of firearms to the point that the intent of the 2nd Amendment framers becomes a sad joke.

What are you willing to compromise? Allow handguns only, locked up in an armory and checked out under supervision for range shooting? .22 cal. single-shot rifles only? One revolver locked up at all times for home defense? That's a few examples of the "compromise" I've heard from the anti-2nd Amendment crowd around. That's not including, of course, the total banners.

The RKBA is what guarantees that "seat at the table" for all Americans, not the good will of the power elite.

[iiibbb]

15. What else do you expect from gun fetishists who only want children to die?

or so I have been told.

[sylvi]

17. Anyone who believes or states that me or any of the pro-RKBA

Anyone who believes or states that me or any of the pro-RKBA in this forum "want children to die" can shove said beliefs or statements, dipped in turpentine and rolled in broken glass, up their ass sideways.

or so I've been told.

[Eleanors38]

13. Jesus! This sounds like the Democratic Party approach! 40+ years ago. nt

[Pullo]

6. End the "war on drugs"

It is the one thing we could do that would lead to the greatest reduction in gun violence in this country, even on this continent.

A good start would be the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

[krispos42]

8. The ban as proposed is ineffective. It's legislation designed to give the appearance of...

..."doing something" rather than actually doing something.

The concept of an "assault weapon" and an appropriate ban on them is understandably tempting while at the same time being very arbitrary and ineffective as a crime-fighting policy.

I understand that many people are disturbed that there are Americans who routinely think of effective ways to kill people. That there are Americans who take it as a matter of course carrying a gun with the intention of using it to kill somebody. That people routinely read books and magazines on how to kill people. That people go to ranges and training camps to learn how to kill people more effectively. That they conduct academic studies on caliber and bullet weight and type of gun and accessories and such so they can kill people.

Of course, these people are doing it because they are thinking about self-defense. At least, generally. A few people are of course running around in the woods waiting for western civilization to fall, memorizing "The Turner Diaries" and stockpiling ammunition and toilet paper.

And really, a lot of the popular talk seem to be about cracking down on people that think that way.

Trying to define "assault weapon" is really targeting people that want to own guns optimized for self-defense, because guns optimized for self defense are also optimized for offensive attacks. It's pretty much 100% overlap. I can't think of any guns that would be effective for self-defense that would not also be effective of an offense.

Except that what defines an "assault weapon" is arbitrary. Feinstein's proposed 2013 ban would still allow semi-automatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines to be sold, both new and used. And I don't really think people think that if the Newtown Fuckwad had used a rifle without a protruding pistol grip, lives would have been saved, yet her ban is being touted as a solution to something.

Guns are almost always the tools of violence, not the underlying cause. The underlying causes of violence are things like revenge and love and money and property and drugs and hate and dominance and witness removal and other such things. Weapons, including guns, are used to perform these acts.

Of course, guns are generally the best tools for self-defense. Shooting skills are largely independent of age and strength, and the range of gun far exceeds a blunt or edged weapon. But again, this makes them also effective for offensive purposes.

So the answer to reducing gun violence is to reduce ALL violence. How do we do that?

Ending the war on drugs and socializing our prisons would be a major first step. Our prisons twist people into destructive patterns. Our prisons become social networks for criminals to make contacts, and universities for them to learn how to become better criminals. And the private prison industry advocates for increasingly higher penalties for increasingly minor crimes, and more things being illegal.

Freeing people from the unhappiness of being chained to jobs they can't leave because of employer-provided health insurance would also improve things. Happier people are less likely to kill their families, after all. So, Medicare for all, independent of employment, from conception to grave, would also reduce violence.

Ditto for higher education, whether it be a regular college or a trade school. If people can simply pursue what pleases them by getting the appropriate degree, whether it be electrician or surgeon, then, again, they'll be happier with their career, make more money, and reduce domestic strife.


In other words, if we simply pursue our progressive agenda on drugs, prison, education, and health insurance, we will get lower violence rates... far sooner and far more effectively than banning secondary features like pistol grips.

Same thing with

[Eleanors38]

11. I welcome this invitation. Thanks for the opportunity...

First, we have to define what kind of societal problem we want to ameliorate. Example: Lower crime/homicide rates, or lower the number of mass-shooting incidents. These 2 problems are not necessarily addressed by any one proposed solution.

As for crime/homicide rates, I propose:
1) Increased prison time for those illegally in possession of guns;
2) Increased prison time for felons in possession of guns;
3) Increased prison time for those illegally in possession of guns while committing crimes (Chicago is finally waking up to this);
4) Increased prison time for those brandishing/firing guns while committing crimes;
5) Better "diversion" programs for those committing non-violent crimes (drugs, simple theft, etc.) which provide better alternatives to continuing down a path of ever-more-serious crime. Example: Austin, TX, is using such a plan in an open-air drug mart area;
6) Experiment: Fund programs for FFLs to have video of every gun transaction to discourage "straw" purchases. Such videos available to LEO only upon meeting Fourth Amendment requirements;
7) For gun-controllers: Start campaigns to enact NICS-type requirements in the respective states; this could include gun shows;
8) Also at state levels, develop a firearms owner i.d. (perhaps through B.G. tests at time of driver's license application/renewal).

For mass shootings at schools:
1) Federally-funded program to allow LOCAL option for improving school security, to include hardening school entry points, improved and hardened classroom environments, hiring LEO, funding for qualified school personnel to carry concealed. I personally do not favor Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) plan to call up the national guard, but that is an option.
2) Increase fed funding for fast, thorough NICS test: Judge adjudicates mental incompetence, it's on NICS-type bases immediately.
Judge sentences a felon, it's on NICS-type bases immediately. (This can aid in reducing crime/homicide rates in general.)

Just some ideas worth pursuing. The notion of "universal b.g. checks" has been discussed for many years in DU's gun group.

[kudzu22]

14. I like your list

I don't think any hard-core gunner could argue with any of those on a rational basis. I'd also add:

1. Make NICS available for private sellers on a voluntary basis. Nobody wants to sell a gun to a criminal -- I'd wager 95% or more of private sellers would use it if it were a website.

2. Increased funding to mental health research, especially focusing on psychoactive drugs that seem to be increasingly prevalent in our society. Not many people mention it, but many of the spree killers were on some form of antidepressant. I understand the drug makers wanting to avoid a connection, but I think it's something that needs to be looked at. Were there any mass shootings before these drugs came into common use for children and adolescents? It may be impossible to predict with any reliability who might "snap" but it's something we can add in to the background checks.

[Eleanors38]

18. I like your list as well; you are right about #1. Importantly, if there was a SERIOUS dialogue...

about guns, national campaigns might be effective to make universal b.g. tests the right choice. The end result would be to localize and reduce the number of illegal sales/purchases by criminals. I don't know what is happening in Austin, TX., but for the year 2011 the most frequently-used weapon in homicide was a "knife/sharp-edged instrument." That would may make some progress.

I, too, am disturbed by what passes for anti-depressants and psychoactive drugs. I am not at all reassured by the fine-print reading of side-effects when watching their damned T.V. ads. I stick with aspirin and Green Cross/Green Shield.

[Jenoch]

19. A "firearms owner ID"

might be getting little to close to gun registration. Instead of registering guns, it is registering owners. Would this "firearms owner ID" include a list of firearms owned by the person holding such an ID?

[kudzu22]

20. I think the ID is better than a gun registry

It could be a good thing for both sides. With a Federal FOID, one could buy any weapon from anyone without needing a background check, since the FOID is proof of legitimacy. We could eliminate a lot of stupid and pointless weapons transfer laws, allow purchases across state lines without a FFL, etc. I think a lot of gun owners would get behind that idea, *IF* it were implemented in such a way that it is less hassle than current laws. Now, what are the chances that would happen?

[Jenoch]

21. In Minnesota,

we need a "permit to purchase" to buy handguns and 'assault weapons' from FFLs. Approval from local law enforcement is needed to receive the permit. As long as there is no record of what guns are possessed by whom, I might be ok with it.

[kudzu22]

22. I would add that approval should be automatic if one meets certain criteria

We don't need local sheriffs playing favorites or profiling against certain groups.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Absolutely. "May issue" is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[av8r1998]

24. The problem with a Federal FOID

Is standards.
If you issue it, it becomes nation wide.
NY will complain it is too "easy" to get guns.
Alaska will complain it infringe on rights.

This was tried about 2 years ago ... and we have found an area of common ground ... gun nuts and anti-gunners universally hated it.

[Jenoch]

25. Can you tell me

what was tried two years ago? I don't recall anything like that.

It is unlikely that a law such as this would ever get passed in Minnesota where I live. Rod Grams, a Republican U.S. Senator, won the Iron Range in northern Minnesota, the most heavily Democratic area in the state outside of the Twin Cities, because his Democratic opponent was in favor of more strict gun laws. Of course that was 1994 but things are still pretty much the same.

[av8r1998]

26. There were 2 proposals IIRC

One was Right to carry reciprocity.
If you had a pistol permit, all states had to honor it if they refused to issue a non-resident permit to the extent of their LEAST restrictive permit.

So, NY does not issue non-resident carry permits.
My ct permit would have been vaild in NYC.

While a nice carrot for a gun guy, there were many unintended consequences:
One being under the bill as proposed you would have to follow the laws of the state you're in.
In NY, you may ONLY carry a gun registered to YOU. (The s/n is actually listed on the permit) In CT we don't have that. How could I follow NY's law? (Answer: I couldn't)
The second being an equal protection argument.
VT doesn't HAVE a permit. They don't get the federal protection afforded their rights?

The second proposal was for a Federal Carry Permit.
Again, the fail was in the different requirements states use, as well as how difficult would it be, and would there be an accompanying restriction on carry without it.

Generally speaking, in my experience federal permitting is as unpopular as a new AWB.

[Jenoch]

28. I can certainly see

the problems with a federal carry permit law. When I started To participate in this discussion about permits I was referring to a FOID type permit, not a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[av8r1998]

29. The problems with a FOID

Would be similar ...
Who gets one?
What are the standards/criteria?
May Issue/Shall Issue?

Basically, in my experience, both pro and anti gun people universaly hate federal permitting of any type.
Guess THAT'S "Common Ground" LOL

[Jenoch]

30. Who gets a FOID card?

The same criteria that is used now to buy a gun. The real problem, as you have stated, is the differing rules from state to state. I don't it ever happening at a federal level or in my state either.

[zipplewrath]

27. Get over the idea that violence is a "solution" to anything

On occasion, when you've missed alot of opportunites along the way to avoid violence, it can be a reaction to violence. But as a culture, we have to get over this idea that violence is an appropriate way to address conflict.

1) We have to demilitarize our police departments

I love it when they refer to people a "civilians". As oppose to what? They aren't an army. They are a civil servant.

2) We have to abandon the idea that an appropriate response to excessive government is armed insurrection.

By the time a government becomes so tyranical that armed insurrection will have any justificiation at all, rifles and hand guns won't mean much.

3) We have to make clear that violence includes much more than guns.

It includes bullying, rape, domestic abuse, threats and intimidation. We have to drop the whole "boys will be boys" concept. We have to drop the concept that "she deserved it" or "it's just what kids do". ALL rape is "legitimate" rape and it is all about violence and has nothing to do with sex.

4) We have to deconflict our prisons.

Taking people and sticking them in environments where the inmates run the asylum is just, well insane. We should no more "tolerate" prison violence than we would school violence. Concepts like "we'll see how he likes his boyfriends in prison" have to go. I don't care what he did, we cannot choose a violent reaction. Prisons should be the safest place on the planet. We have total control over them for good god's sake.

5) The death penalty has to go. Need I say more?

6) We have to stop this "violence is on the table" crap with respect to international relations.

First of all, does anyone doubt at this point that the US is more than willing to act violently on the international stage? We have a military that dwarfs practially the rest of the world. Is there any reason to suggest that we DON'T have that capability, other than as a threat? We must be vigilant and explaining that we don't PLAN for violence, we plan to AVOID violence.

7) We need some "PC" attitudes towards language.

The superbowl isn't "war" (thank god). We don't need a "battle plan" for anything, especially sports, much less business. We don't need a "war on cancer" or anything else. The war on drugs is stupid, it's a health problem. And I don't care how much we hate our political opponents, we don't wish death, or any other sort of violence upon them (well maybe a "perp walk" but that's not exactly violence). You don't ever want to "punch someones lights out" or "kill" someone, or "fuck 'em over".


And once we get people on board with these concepts, the idea of maybe keeping clips small, and guns in the hands of sportsman, and keeping weapons that are meant for killing people strictly controlled and monitored won't seem so stupid to so many people.