Gun control

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Please pick the measure you feel most importantly needs to be passed.

6 votes, 12 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Universal background checks on private sales the same as now on sales through an FFL
	5 (83%)
	Limiting magazine capacity
	0 (0%)
	Enhanced training requirements for ownership, hunting and carry permits
	1 (17%)
	Additional transfer taxes on firearm and ammo sales
	0 (0%)
	Universal registration
	0 (0%)
	12 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Just Saying]

1. I voted registration

But I think background checks is a more realistic goal.

[rdharma]

2. Background checks and registration.

It's so damn simple!

If it's capable of using smokeless powder, register it!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I would tend to agree with you on UBC

[geckosfeet]

3. What is "universal registration"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Government registration of all firearms.

[premium]

14. That would be a non starter for me,

universal background checks? Yes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. For me as well.

thanks

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. Likewise.

Largely useless and potentially disastrous...

[geckosfeet]

21. How would such a thing work? What are the percieved benefits of "universal registration"?

Would it include firearms owned by criminals (how would you get them to comply)? How about collectables and antiques? Black powder? Law enforcement and military? Firearms manufactured before say, 1920?

Just wondering, as it sounds like a costly but useless thing to do.

In terms of funding, staffing and the new infrastructure required for this (and expanded NICS checks) - where does the money come from? Do states build their own systems with their own money that supports a central federal government facility? Or does the federal government create, maintain and run offices and facilities in every state?

Again, just wondering how such a thing would work and what the perceived benefits are.

NICS checks I kind of understand - we want to keep criminals and federally prohibited persons from buying firearms. But how do you provide access to everyone nationwide? I also wonder if the law would include sales to criminals? (It's kind of a chicken and the egg story) How about collectables and antiques? Black powder? Law enforcement and military? Firearms manufactured before say, 1920?

Just kind of thinking about it a little as the details would determine whether or not I could support such things. Given the vague fuzzy and undetermined choices given, I wouldn't support any of them. Well - possibly enhanced training requirements.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. just thoughts

"How would such a thing work?" - It wouldn't.
"What are the percieved benefits of "universal registration"?" - Everyone who ever owns a gun will be known and responsible for all of their guns.

Costly??? - Immeasurably so!

[geckosfeet]

23. Not sure how this really benefits anyone at all except the owner of the data....

"What are the percieved benefits of "universal registration"?" - Everyone who ever owns a gun will be known and responsible for all of their guns.

How does registration ensure responsibility? And how does it address "unregistered" guns - guns owned (presumably) by people who wish their possessions to remain private?

And so what if "Everyone who ever owns a gun will be known". What is the benefit of that? The government can sell the data to marketing companies? Or sell the data to anyone who wants it? Exactly whose benefit are we talking about here?

[Bazinga]

24. Another thought.

Making a list of who owns guns that is public knowledge does no good either side. If you are on the list, it identifies you as someone with valuable, easily stolen and easily sold goods that are a target for thieves. If you are not on the list, it identifies you as a potential soft target. That was my problem with the NY newspaper publishing the names of ccw licensees. Who wins?

My principle has always been that their is prudence in knowing who may own guns, but none in knowing who actually does.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Hey pal...

...I don't believe any of that nonsense, I'm just trying to repeat it for you.

[geckosfeet]

47. Got that. Just taking advantage of the opportunity to elaborate and expand the discussion.

Sorry if it's a bit of overload but a lot of these knee jerk feel sorta good proposals are so full of holes, BS and contradictions that i feel like anyone who actually thinks about them for 30 seconds can see all kinds of problems.

My comments are for the people who don't have 30 seconds or the capacity to think. Also writing helps me to think things out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Got that also.

Without naming names I knew there would be those who would throw out all the options as not 'enough' for them. I'm hoping just finding a popular point that can be agreed on would take the discussion in the direction of progress and get both sides listening a bit more and hopefully learning something.

Thanks...

[Bay Boy]

28. One of the costlyest parts of Universal Registration...

...would be the number of politicians that would lose their jobs by voting for or supporting it.
Some pols in very progressive districts may not be affected but many would.

After all it would require gun owners to fill out forms and turn them over to the government listing all the guns they have bought over their lifetime. I can't imagine much else pissing off gun owners like that would.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. I can

While I don't see it as viable or even useful, there is more than one here that would like to ban all firearms from private ownership. Having the government tell the owner of say a Fabbri Over Under Shotgun that your gun is now illegal just drop it off at the sheriff's office would be amusing but incredibly unrealistic.

[Bay Boy]

36. I don't think any sane politician would ever say...

... turn them all in.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Please don't talk about...

...Diane that way.

[Bay Boy]

40. I knew someone would pick up on that...

...but she only wanted certain weapons turned in, not all guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. I think most of us know that also.

The out of context "Turn them all in" quote is some kind of often repeated, dare I say "_____ talking point."
<_____ = right-wing, Republican, NRA...>

[rdharma]

5. What is "universal registration"?

If it uses smokeless powder, register it!

[tosh]

6. All of the above.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Kinda like pistachios...

...Betcha can't take just one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. dumb question:

what about if the manufacturer registered the gun before it ever left the factory?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I suppose then...

...the registration would need to transfer along with ownership.

[rdharma]

10. Give an example. nt

[gejohnston]

12. I chose one but

one should not have to go to an FFL. Going to the local PD and get a printed out "clean bill of health" like MN and MI should be the first choice.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. I would personally prefer if...

...the local PD or sheriff did all of the BG check whether private or new from a dealer.

[gejohnston]

16. MI used to do both until NICS

and both if buy the from the dealer until they realized the same database would be checked twice for the same purchase.
Why them and not NICS?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. I would prefer to restrict NICS access...

...to LE only.

[gejohnston]

18. all the dealer does is dial the FBI or state police

who just tells them deny or proceed. I see where you are coming from.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Yeah

[premium]

20. In my state

it's the Nevada Highway Patrol, they're the CLEA.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Ban. 100%. No private possession of firearms.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Thanks for the reply but...

...the idea was to pick one of the options presented. It seems unlikely that a total ban will be passed or even proposed anytime soon.

While I find it unlikely that registration will be passed, I feel it is repugnant that it is even considered let alone favored in the number 2 spot right now.

[Buzz Clik]

29. After decades of this, ...

... the gun lobby has convinced me that simple solutions like registration and background checks are worthless. And, most certainly, the answer is not more guns. So, ban them all. We've been at this for 40 years. Time to smarten up.

[Bazinga]

30. Would that include law enforcement and military?

Local, state, federal?

Just curious.

[Buzz Clik]

33. private

[premium]

39. If private firearms are banned,

then why would police need them? After all, a ban means no citizen would/could own or posses a firearm so police wouldn't need firearms to protect themselves from other firearms, right?

[Buzz Clik]

45. You didn't ask me to break it down.

I'm not interested in this. Those who oppose gun control control legislation are tireless in their arguments. I am busy.

I stated my opinion. It was not my intent to draft legislation at DU this morning.

[premium]

48. I don't oppose gun control legislation

as long as it's reasonable, well thought out and effective, not just feel good laws like universal registration, AWB, those are non starters for me, I do support UBC, stiffer penalties for straw purchases, stiffer penalties for crimes with a firearm, just to name a few.

Yes, it is your opinion, and I can respect that while I 100% disagree with it.

[Bazinga]

42. And you don't see *any* potential problems with that?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. 40 years? Really? How's that?

Where did you come up with 40 years?

[Buzz Clik]

35. Okay. 80 years.

I've been following the debate for about 40.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Laws regarding arms...

...span the globe and the entire history of government/civilization. I can't say that I've come across a compelling argument for even registration. Often I get to learn things from folks with other points of view. Which I ABSOLUTELY WELCOME!

IMHO this debate in general and how it is carried on here often becomes contentious and sometimes mutual respect is rare. I'd like to hear from anyone with ideas either for or against gun control. I don't expect that the pro-control folks I reply to will change their minds when they read what I have to say but I hope they realize that I'm more interested in learning something from them than just echoing some words of a politician or public figure.

<poke to provoke your thoughts>

[Buzz Clik]

44. I own firearms, but I am sick of the carnage that can happen only with them.

Humans have all sorts of inventive ways of killing themselves and others, accidentally and on purpose, so banning firearms will not stop murders with weapons. However, I refuse to accept that the thousands of deaths with firearms each year cannot be curtailed by restricting firearms. Registration could work to trace some guns to some murders, but it's too easy to avoid registration, even legally.

Gun advocates do not want gun control. Period. They have never met a gun law they ever liked. So, pleasing them and finding a compromise is useless. However, they make a good point that nothing we've tried in the past works, and cities banning firearms is equally useless when there is no ability stop the flow of legally owned guns into the city. So, if nothing we've tried works, ban them all.

My state, by the way, is trying to make it legal for students to carry guns on college campuses. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea...

[gejohnston]

49. Some countries tried that

Some of them have lower and some have higher murder rates than ours. None of the murder rates dropped because of it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. re: "...banning firearms will not stop murders with weapons."

I would suggest that a necessary component of murder is a weapon. That weapon may be a pistol or a rock or maybe just a foot.

I refuse to accept that the thousands of deaths with firearms each year cannot be curtailed by restricting firearms.

Agreed, sort of. I think this is the logic behind the laws we have now. I think anyone with a humane outlook will say that the only acceptable number of murders is 0. Being realistic, I don't expect that to happen but acknowledging any higher of a target is kind of sick. My town has about 35,000 people. I think I'd be hard pressed to pick out even 1 or 2 that I would judge "okay" to be murdered. (BTW, I don't like the death penalty either.)

This exercise here (this OP) was about finding a place to start.

I think there will be new ideas all the time that could lead to progress. Discussion is the only way to spread those ideas. Progress, IMHO, is about making the next step. These steps will always be about compromise but they are progress.

I used to be a Republican. I'm not now because apparently the biggest Republican plan or modus-operandi is 'do nothing and leave everything the same'.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Or even with firearms, for that matter.

It's not as if the 100% ban the poster advocates would result in a high rate of compliance...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. We all have our doubts.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. How would registration help solve murders or armed robberies?

Crooks are smart enough to know not to leave the gun behind when they commit a crime. Besides, the gun is an expensive piece of equipment. Too expensive to throw away after every crime unless they shoot it. And if they shoot someone, most of them are smart enough to rapidly dispose of the gun in the nearest river or lake, or wipe it clean and throw it in a dumpster, or down a storm drain.

Usually, the only time the gun is recovered is if the criminal is caught before he can dump the gun, and he still has it. In those cases, you have caught the criminal so you don't need to trace the gun.

Further, SCOTUS has already ruled under fifth amendment grounds, that a criminal can't be required to register his illegal gun. That would be self-incrimination.

Registration is completely useless in solving crimes.

[Buzz Clik]

70. Don't ask me. I don't push for registration any more.

[oneshooter]

71. No, you now advocate for a complete ban on possesion. Does that include LE?

And why haven't you destroyed the firearms you own? If you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.

[Buzz Clik]

72. You again. Yeah, I remember when you said that.

I haven't changed my mind, and being the only person in the state to give up my gone is a meaningless gesture.

Are we going to do this dance every time I post on this subject?

[oneshooter]

73. So you are not going to voluntarily give up your firearms?

That means that you really don't believe in a total ban, or that you are a hypocrite. Which is it?

[Buzz Clik]

74. You think this is so clever, but it's a tired, ridiculous approach.

If a ban passed tomorrow, I'd give up my guns willingly and happily. Until then, I'm keeping them.

You get the last word.

[oneshooter]

75. Hypocrite

[CokeMachine]

76. I'd have to vote for hypocrite

If BC is so into gun bans he/she should have given them up long before this. Waiting for a law telling him/her to do it is sounds kinda authoritarian or willing to be subject to authoritarians?

JMHO!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. Taking a stand...

...and using one's own behavior to set an example are attributes of a leader.

JFK donated his salary to charity.
Mahatma Gandhi lived the same way he urged others to live as did Mother Teresa.

While both sides of this debate seem a bit short on "example", the pro-control side seems rather long hypocrisy.

[Rod Walker]

78. Another vote for hypocrite.

[ileus]

60. prior to those 40 years what did we have?

[Buzz Clik]

61. Is this a quiz?

[Jenoch]

34. What is your plan

to achieve your lofty goal?

[oneshooter]

79. Then give up the ones you own for destruction.

[wercal]

46. Ok - if I am picking a measure that needs to be passed...

...I have to ask myself why the measure 'needs' to be passed.

Since the recent attempts at this type of legislation stem from Newtown, these options can be looked at through that prism:

Universal background checks on private sales the same as now on sales through an FFL ...would have had no bearing on Newtown, as the guns used had been bought through an FFL dealer...only to be stolen from mom by the shooter. These checks don't hurt anything...frankly it is already happening. The vast majority of people who sell private guns require an FFL transfer, to protect their own butts, if the buyer does something stupid with the gun. It wouldn't be a huge encumbrance to make it a universal requirement...but again, it would not have stopped Newtown.

Limiting magazine capacity...there is some merit to the idea that the Newtown shooter would have been slowed down with smaller magazines. But, frankly, he had free run of the school for several minutes...walking to several diferent rooms, and going through multiple magazines (nine). Really the magazines didn't stop him one bit - the police did.

Enhanced training requirements for ownership, hunting and carry permits ...there is some merit to the notion that Lanza's mother could have benefited from training, which would have caused her to secure her guns better.

Additional transfer taxes on firearm and ammo sales ...wouldn't have affected Newtown, unless the fees were so prohibitive that people wouldn't be able to purchase weapons and ammo.

Universal registration ...it could be argued that universal registration could have prevented Newtown, but only if that registration were coupled with other information that linked the mother's gun ownership and Lanza's mental problems...and it were taken a step further, and the government prohibited her from possessing the guns. This is a slippery slope that many are hesitant to go down.


So, do any of these 'need' to be done. I dunno. My theory on guns - as long as they exist, criminals are going to get their hands on them. Short of an outright ban on ownership, nothing else will stop this. A gun gets legally sold, and an owner could legally possess it for many years...but then somebody breaks into his house and steals the gun. From that point on, the gun is untraceable. It could be traded and exchanged several times over - and I guarantee there will be no FFL transfer, no matter what the law.

So, IMHO, its either an all out ban (and decades long wait while the 300 million guns in this country are eliminated by attrition)...or there will still be guns in this country, sometimes in the hands of bad people.

All these other proposals range from 'feel good' to punitive, but really have little real effect.

Me? It would be impossible to ban all guns. Plain and simple.

So what do we do?

For starters, lock up criminals who use guns. Just a few days after Newtown, two police officers were killed in my town of Topeka, KS. It turns out that the perp was on probation...for an illegal weapons charge. And, he had a prior violent felony (which made it illegal for him to possess a gun). So this guy has a felont that he served a few months for...gets out and gets arrested for possessing a gun, while on parole!...and is his parole revoked? No. Doe he get any prison time for the weapons charge? Nope, just probation. And he goes on and kills two people a few months later.

So why do any new measures need to be passed? We obviously don't have enough prison space to house violent felons who illegally possess guns. Shouldn't we clean that up first, before worrying about new feel good proposals, which in reality will do little to nothing?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. !! Excellent !!

At least some of this.

True, we don't have enough prison space. We'd be better off in that regard if the war on drugs was cancelled. Drug related offenders are the bulk of prison populations and represent one of the biggest expenses in to the justice system.

IMHO, violent offenders have no place in society. My preference would be life/no parole for those who assault others. For whatever reason if/when they are released, they have no business with a weapon.

However, Newtown is being used as a standard by which to judge laws. That for me is a mistake. Making the standard for a gun-control law be one that would have or might have made a difference there, is a big mistake and a distraction. Those laws will get media coverage and knee-jerk attention but they're mostly more distraction than progress.

[wercal]

57. I agree that the war on drugs has had disastrous results

And I understand your reluctance to use Newtown as a litmus test. However I will point out that the supporters of the latest legislation have literally wrapped themselves with Newtown victims....and just two days ago Joe Biden renewed his push by stating that things 'had changed' since Newtown.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. All of the 'Newtown is a turning point' folks...

...are just more knees jerking.

[gcomeau]

51. Voted checks...

But options 1, 3 and 5 should all certainly be done.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. 1, 3 and 5 being

UBC, additional training and registration being those options you favor but UBC is what you favor most. Why is that?

(I'm not arguing; I choose that also.)

[gcomeau]

55. Just most obvious and easiest to implement... -eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Makes sense.

Always good to hear.

[DWC]

59. This poll is flawed beyond repair. I passed. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. Well thanks for stopping by...

[DWC]

65. You're welcome

[HolyMoley]

66. How about "None of The Above"?

Now, before anyone goes off on me, I really could support Universal Background Checks, but, as long as gun control supporters continue to push for magazine limitations, "assault rifle" bans, licensing and registration, insurance, increased taxes on firearms and ammunition, I'm more than willing to make their agenda as difficult as possible.

Back off, take a breath of fresh air, settle down to reality, and yeah, I'll back something like UBC's and inclusion of mental health records.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. Okay...

...and welcome, HM.

[gejohnston]

68. I could agree to another percent to the

Pittman Robertson fund, making it an even 12 percent. I still don't get the point of insurance other than increasing NRA membership. The idea was first floated by a Wall Streeter in Forbes, making the idea automatically suspect.