If not gun control, what?

[iiibbb]

I am a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment. I bought my first gun because I was on the wrong side of a situation, that had it worked out otherwise could've ended uglier than it did. It made me realize that you cannot count on the government to protect you 100% of the time, and even if you call 911 there may be several minutes... or hours... or even days before help can arrive.

With that in mind, there are some at least understandable concerns that drive misguided "sensible" gun control laws. What I'm interested in is finding alternative ways to address the problems that don't infringe on the rights of the vast majority who aren't threats to anyone.

For instance, I think addressing poverty can go a long way to stemming violence.

I think decriminalizing certain drugs would help (particularly marijuana(sp).

I work from the assumption that an average law-abiding citizen should have access to the same arms that a basic police officer has: side arm, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles. I also believe that we should have access to hunting rifles etc. To me arms above those basics are negotiable to me.

I am also not opposed to licensing with certain caveats. First, I want the license to mean something. It seems like most of the people demanding licenses also want to force people to lock the guns in their home and never use them. If I'm going to give gov't access to that aspect of my life, I would want it to, at a minimum, relieve the difficulties of traveling across state lines with a weapon (for instance). I would want some insulation from the subjectivity of gun laws from location to location. If we want to treat guns "like cars" then I should be able to take my gun into public locations if I'm "trained and licensed". Preferably concealed (because it is demonstrably more polite and doesn't disturb people... it should never be in view). If we want national licensing, I think it has to come with a consistent national carry law. I don't mind training or testing for public carry. I think peoples' homes should have fewer restrictions.

People want us to limit childrens' access by requiring gun locks. What about households that don't have children. Personally, I think a far more effective policy would be a tax-credit for the purchase of a gun safe... people with or without children would use those sorts of things. Understand, it won't stop every tragedy because irresponsible people will still neglect locks... but most gun-owners look to protect their investment, so they would, in most cases, use a safe.

There must be other social policies that would help with the indirect problems of violence... improving education, reducing poverty, etc. etc.


Where else is the common ground?

[iamjoy]

1. Close The Gun Show Loophole

background checks for all purchases.

I realize this presents a difficulty for individuals who don't have the means for a background check like a business does, but we must find a way.

[Hangingon]

6. No. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

Do we close the classfied ad "loophole" too? How about two friends that decided to sell or trade? I have the right to sell my own property.

[iverglas]

9. miss something, did you?

"background checks for all purchases."

"Gun show loophole" is often used as a proxy for "private sale loophole".

Do we close the classfied ad "loophole" too?

If you ask me: yes.

How about two friends that decided to sell or trade?

If you ask me: yes.

I have the right to sell my own property.

Got a right to sell it to people not eligible to own it?

[ManiacJoe]

10. You are catching on.

> Got a right to sell it to people not eligible to own it?

Not in the USA. To do so is a federal felony since 1968. Unfortunately, private sellers are prohibited from using the NICS check that the dealers are required to use.

I will give you credit for seeing that the "Gun show loophole" is actually the private sale exception. Most people don't get it.

[Hangingon]

11. No I didn't miss the "background checks for all purchases."

It is a private sale. We still have the righht to do that here. Yes, a prudent seller is careful to make the sale to an eligible buyer.

Close the calassified ad loophole too? "If you ask me: yes." I didn't ask. I could care less what your opinion is.

How about two friends that decided to sell or trade? "If you ask me: yes." Again I didn't ask and do not care what your opinion is.

I have the right to sell my own property. "Got a right to sell it to people not eligible to own it?" A seller must obey the law and act in a prudent manner.

Worry about your own problems and we will worry about ours.

[raimius]

12. OK, as long as

...the NICS system (or replacement) is quick, easy to use, available 24/7/365, available to ALL people, and free/cheap. If you have an 800-number and an online system which is easy to use, available, and free/cheap, I would gladly use it. Unfortunately, the government does not allow that...so much for common sense regulations....

[Uben]

2. I have to agree with both you and IAMJOY

I am a gun owner, have been for 40 yrs. I own nineteen guns, nine pistols, seven rifles, three shotguns. Most were inherited from my father, who was an avid hunter and gun collector. I have never fired half of them. All rifles and shotguns are secured in a gun case and all pistol are in my safe. None are loaded, but I do keep a quick-loader next to a .357 revolver in case of emergency.

I clean and oil them twice a year. The only one I have fired in the last fifteen years is my 12 ga. shotgun, which I use to control the cormorant population here at the lake I live at. I have a permit from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. for that.

It all comes down to owner responsibility. I think carry/conceal permits are a necessary thing to deter criminals. As long as there is a threat that anyone may have a conceal/carry permit, they might think twice before displaying a weapon in public!

I have several friends with c/c permits, and to date, not a one has had occasion to fire a gun in defense. I do not have a c/c permit, but am considering getting one.

[baldguy]

3. A few points.

1- A large portion of the firearms market does not fill the needs of hunting/sports or personal protection. It goes to satisfy the almost sexual gratification of gun fetishists.

2- The pattern of gun ownership which is acceptable - even desirous - in a rural or semi-rural setting is absolutely unacceptable in an urban setting.

3- People who live in urban areas - 80% of our population - have the same right to safety & security as those who live in rural areas. That right is threatened by the free availability of firearms.

[aikoaiko]

5. huh?

You wrote:
1- A large portion of the firearms market does not fill the needs of hunting/sports or personal protection. It goes to satisfy the almost sexual gratification of gun fetishists.

me:
This is a truly strange statement.

2- The pattern of gun ownership which is acceptable - even desirous - in a rural or semi-rural setting is absolutely unacceptable in an urban setting.

me:
What this pattern you speak of?

3- People who live in urban areas - 80% of our population - have the same right to safety & security as those who live in rural areas. That right is threatened by the free availability of firearms.

me:
Good thing guns are not freely available in any sense of the phrase unless frealy avialable means meeting the criteria of local, state, and federal laws.

[Hangingon]

7. Wow. One seldom sees such absolutely pure bullshit.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[solinvictus]

13. Huh?

1- A large portion of the firearms market does not fill the needs of hunting/sports or personal protection. It goes to satisfy the almost sexual gratification of gun fetishists.



2- The pattern of gun ownership which is acceptable - even desirous - in a rural or semi-rural setting is absolutely unacceptable in an urban setting.

3- People who live in urban areas - 80% of our population - have the same right to safety & security as those who live in rural areas. That right is threatened by the free availability of firearms.

1)Who are you to judge what I need to hunt or for personal protection? The ban related to magazine capacity is an impediment to repelling a home invasion. Most home invasions involve multiple assailants ergo, the need for multiple rounds of ammunition and a quick means to reload.

2) Why is it unacceptable in an urban setting? I live in an urban setting, own multiple firearms, and yet strangely enough neither me nor my guns have harmed anyone. I believe you're muddling the issue between an inanimate object and criminal behavior. We (as a nation) need to work harder on crime control rather than punishing law-abiding citizens who exercise constitutional rights.

3) Refer to response #2: if we start applying the laws on the books and tighten mandatory sentencing for violent offenders, I think that would address the problem.

[SteveM]

15. All DUers who think the gun-control issue is dead should read your post...

(1) What was your sexual experience when you fired a gun? Did you get a woody while "doing it?" In 50 years of gun-firing I haven't. And I haven't noticed hard-ons at the range among that "large portion."

(2) What is the "pattern of gun ownership...in rural or semi-rural setting(s)"? When I lived in such a place, we had guns locked in the cabinet, ammo locked separately, and a few arms secreted away for home-defense. What is so objectionable about this practice in an urban "setting?"

(3) Though not enumerated in the Constitution, I agree that "people who live in urban areas...have the same right to safety & security as those who live in rural areas." But is that right threatened by the "free availability" of guns, or by the poverty, discrimination, poor family life, lousy education and bleak economic futures found within communities of the urban poor? I was always taught (and it has been my experience) that the latter is the threat, not an icon subject to the failed policy of prohibition. Further, those folks in urban settings (like where I am now) have the "same right to safety & security as those who live in rural areas" with regards to self-defense. Washington, D.C. clinically disarmed its residents as effectively as Jim Crow legislation. BTW, what do you mean by "free availability?" My guns cost money, and I was subject to NICS.

I think a sound approach with regards the Second Amendment is to remove the federal government from the role of policy and law-making, and leave such to state/local governments. There, such laws & ordinances may be passed. And be subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as any other law.

[wartrace]

16. Wow, you really don't have a clue do you?

Seriously. Wouldn't a gun need to be about a 1.80 caliber for any normal guy to get any sexual gratification from one? I would need at least that or better. Also, there are no teets on any gun I have ever seen. Maybe your on to something that will really sell? Work on it & get back to us. Until you perfect your sexual gratification gun I will just be using mine around the farm. (Hey, are you trying to put some sheep out of work????)

[Old Codger]

4. Reasonable

Is the operative word, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone being against "reasonable" laws that make sense, gun safes are ok up to a point, trigger locks are ok up to a point, BUT if a weapon is kept in the home for self protection you will not have time to spin the dial on your safe or find the key. most likely fumbling around in the dark after being rudely awakened by the sound of someone breaking into your house or one of your children screaming. Guns can be kept loaded and ready, should they be kept out of reach of young children , absolutely, that really isn't that hard to do if you really try. The main thing (IMHO) is training, and common sense, but training is the best way to stop accidents. I agree about the gun show "loophole" it will stop people who should not have guns from buying them at gun shows, doesn't stop private sales at all just at shows. I have nothing against being checked out,Oregon does it in under 5 minutes, costs $10 not a big deal. I do have some qualms on registration though, if you check out ok why would you need to be registered? Registration has almost always (at some future point) lead to confiscation.... Reasonable people can live with reasonable restrictions.

A good link for gun info
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunDrills.pdf

[spin]

14. I have teenagers living in my house,

and my guns are locked away in various gun safes. My primary weapon is in the top drawer of the bedside nightstand in a gun box which I can open with a very simple combination. The key is hidden nearby just in case the electronics of the gun box fails. While I can't access the firearm as fast as if it were hidden in the room but not in the gun box, the safety factor provided by the gun box offsets the speed of obtaining the weapon. I can access the weapon under five seconds. It's a compromise, but life is often filled with compromises.

If anyone has a better suggestion than a gun box please post it.

As for firearm sales between private individuals I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that the buyer would have to pass the Federal background check (NICS )required when you buy a weapon at a gun store. The seller and buyer would journey to a gun store where the background check would be preformed for the same fee required by the store owner when he sells a weapon. If a waiting period is required, the final exchange of the weapon would occur after the time period has expired.

I also oppose registration of firearms. It has indeed led to confiscation in other countries.