Your Preferred Answer on Gun Control

[el_bryanto]

Just taking temperature.

48 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Total Confiscation
	11 (23%)
	Partial Confiscation; strict limits and regulations on private firearms
	15 (31%)
	More Strict Limits and Regulations on private firearms
	2 (4%)
	Stronger and more diligent enforcement of the laws we already have
	11 (23%)
	Our current level of gun control (laws and enforcement) is the appropriate level
	4 (8%)
	We need to make our gun control laws more loose; make guns more available
	2 (4%)
	You dunderhead; why didn't you mention ____________.
	2 (4%)
	Bullshit poll is bullshit!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote.
	1 (2%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[mwrguy]

1. Turn them all in.

[jmg257]

2. IF 'you' want to make a difference,

registration, reduction (confiscation), and banning is the only way.

Maybe not all firearms, but some specific types.

[Buzz Clik]

6. No more loopholes, no more exceptions. Enough already.

All of them.

[jmg257]

9. 'All of them' is certainly very cut and dry.

And understood.

But starting with repeating arms and/or especially semi-autos with removable magazines, or fixed magazines above say 6 rounds, could be a start that stills allow for plenty of models for sporting use and defense.

[Eleanors38]

37. "...starting.....start...". nt

[jmg257]

40. Yep - IF 'you' want to make a difference, gotta start somewhere.

And various simple "AWB"s are a joke for making a difference.

[Eleanors38]

50. See little 'difference' in proposals here. But have at it...

You know how opponents feel about open-ended approaches. So, for your own sense of realpolitik, keep it quiet.

[jmg257]

54. Understood. Referring to proposals, I think

'only repeating arms with fixed mags of limited capacity' being legal vs 'semi-autos with removable mags and some arbitrary feature(s)' being illegal is huge.

If that is what you meant by "proposals".

No need to have at it - that was it!

[daleanime]

3. And require insurance.

[KamaAina]

7. Thank you!

[HereSince1628]

14. That might get insurance companies interested in prevention of gun violence

to reduce their exposure to making payouts,

but I suspect you'd not get many companies to insure in a manner that would be useful to the victims of gun violence.

It's very hard for me to see an insurance company leaving itself exposed to the costs of misuse, criminal use, or even negligent storage of a firearm.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Correct: no carrier in the world will cover criminal acts.

Gun insurance is still a good idea, IMO, for the same reason any kind of liability insurance can make sense: to cover legitimate accidents.

[NobodyHere]

16. Terrorists don't buy insurance

They obviously don't follow the law.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Insurance is readily available...and very cheap.

Gun-specific liability insurance is available for those that might want/need it (it's also already a part of a lot of homeowner's policies, actually). It's cheap...because there aren't a lot of payouts; any time you see cheap premiums on any insurance, it's a sign that the actuarial tables don't suggest high risk for the carrier.

Remember that no insurance carrier in the world will cover a criminal act or any other deliberate destruction. The policies only cover accidents and such.

[daleanime]

22. but not required.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. The only objection I might have with requiring it...

...is that currently the biggest provider of such insurance is the NRA. I hate the idea of further adding to their income (given how much of that money finds its way into Republican campaign coffers). But that's not enough to make me oppose such a mandate. If the gun insurance market greatly expanded, other players would be there in no time, and some of those players would be major insurance companies that the NRA would find it challenging to compete with.

[daleanime]

31. If you created that large of a market....

you don't think anyone would enter it?

[hack89]

48. The NRA would undercut them

The NRA would offer steep discounts if you joined the NRA. Their membership would sky rocket.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. Um...my post explicitly stated I think they'd have serious competitors.

If the gun insurance market greatly expanded, other players would be there in no time, and some of those players would be major insurance companies that the NRA would find it challenging to compete with.

[TeddyR]

55. But why?

What is the purpose of requiring insurance and what does it cover? Won't cover suicides, won't cover murders.

[daleanime]

61. Why require insurance for an dangerous object?

Really?

[Shandris]

4. As of last night, I came around to move a bit on the control issue in favor or...

...more control. I just can't get behind the idea of full confiscation as being a good thing, but I don't think anyone will state that the current state of affairs is a good idea.

What about an interesting solution, something new (or...new...I think?): We do it for energy, why not subsidize a third party to DEVELOP a solution? Like...fingerprint locks, perhaps (or even firing mechanisms). Attach a monetary value to it and companies will trip over themselves to get a piece of the pie.

Stop arguing silliness and find workable solutions, that's my approach. Oh. I voted uhh...the one about more regulations. I think it's closest to what I'm saying.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Total.

[Takket]

8. in addition...

I think all new guns should have some sort of ID control so only the person who owns the gun can fire it. we already have IOS devices that can be unlocked with your fingerprint. shouldn't be too hard for a gun. I know things like that are being developed but don't know how far away they are.

I hate to break it to everyone too but, even if laws are changed starting today, because of the number of illegal/off the record firearms floating around everywhere, it will probably be at least a generation before any laws we enact now being to take effect. I suppose this could be helped by a program to retrofit existing guns. Make it free, paid for by the government, give people 1 year to retrofit, and after that one year prosecute the hell out of anyone caught with a gun not up to code.

[Matrosov]

11. Total confiscation

As long as civilians have access to firearms, criminals will find a way to get their hands on those firearms.

We keep looking at Europe as an example of 'common-sense gun control' but Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway in 2011 and just last month terrorists killed +100 in France.

Let's also not forget that many criminals were 'law-abiding gun owners' at some point.

[Matrosov]

13. Before the inevitable 'Are you going to volunteer to help with the confiscation?'

Advocating confiscation always gets a response from at least one of the Tactical Tier 1 Operators in the form of 'Are you going to put yourself in harm's way and volunteer to help with the confiscation?'

No, but then again I am also against murder, rape, and theft, and I don't volunteer to deal with the murderers, rapists, and thieves. I am not in law enforcement, and I'd rather let the professionals handle these things.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. You won't get that question from me. However...

...concern about violent resistance to aggressive confiscation strategies should be very real. Obviously any such task is going to be left to professionals, not volunteers...but should the resistance to confiscation be as widespread as many people think it would be, there aren't remotely enough LEOs in the country to accomplish the task. That's true even if one allows for 100% compliance by LEOs (and that's almost certainly not happening: most rank-and-file officers support civilian gun ownership; many would refuse such orders).

A complete ban + confiscation is an interesting and entertaining thing to discuss in an online forum. Where there are no significant consequences...

[Matrosov]

32. I'll admit

A complete ban + confiscation is an interesting and entertaining thing to discuss in an online forum. Where there are no significant consequences...

I'll admit that there's not a very practical manner in which to go about it.

There could be confiscation in the sense of outlawing private firearm ownership and then asking people to drop by the police station and handing over their weapons. But no doubt the ones who'd least be likely to turn them in would be the ones most likely to use them in a crime.

There could be confiscation in the sense of first requiring all future sales to be registered in a national database, then outlawing private firearm ownership, asking people to turn them in voluntarily, and then having law enforcement go have a chat with anyone in the database who hadn't handed over their weapons yet. But no doubt this would overlook the vast majority of firearms who hadn't been registered.

There could be confiscation in the sense of having law enforcement go from home to home and manually turn every place upside down, searching for firearms. But no doubt this would require insane amounts of resources, and I personally think this is more fitting for a totalitarian state than for the USA.

So while I'd say that total confiscation is the most effective way of stopping gun crime, there's no effective way of engaging in total confiscation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Excellent reply.

I think reducing the number of weapons in society (and in particular the number in the wrong hands) is a very long-term project, and one that will succeed only when it incorporates effective methods of addressing the different and interconnected root causes of various forms of gun crime. We're often mostly fighting symptoms, not diseases.

[Eleanors38]

39. "...online forum... no significant consequences..."

I have to take slight issue, here. By now some control/ban/now confiscation advocates in more "public" settings have learned to keep most of the spittle-flying down, lest they waltz right over one of their most precious doctrines: Gun proliferation is some sorta big problem.

They know what happens when the big mouths start up.

Does anyone need an explanation?

[LiberalArkie]

12. Australia style

[CanonRay]

17. Register them all just like motor vehicles

with a title of ownership which must be transferred. Require insurance and training. If we can do it with cars, we can do it with guns,and it in no way restricts anyone's "2nd Amendment rights".

[B2G]

19. What does 'partial confiscation' mean? nt

[el_bryanto]

21. The confiscation of those guns that don't meet the new standards

Gathering up automatic weapons or handguns, while leaving hunting rifles available.

Bryant

[TeddyR]

58. There are very, very few

Automatic weapons in public hands and none have been used in a crime since the shootout like a decade ago in N. California. And I'll keep my handgun.

[el_bryanto]

59. You understand I was asked for a definition, right?

[Maedhros]

20. I have an acquaintance who is very much a gun enthusiast.

He owns several handguns and an AR-15, and takes part in three-gun competitions. He is all in favor of more gun control. To his mind, the most important first step is to do as much as we can to stop straw purchases, which makes sense to me.

For my own part, I want much more stringent regulations on concealed carry permits. I think that only trained professionals with a demonstrated need should get them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. I'm a competitive shooter.

I'm pretty serous about long-range rifle competition. I've been a shooter since I was a little girl. I have a CCW license (more on that in a bit...). I also support a good few additional gun regulations, too. I helped with the campaign to enact universal background checks here in Oregon (we did it!). Your friend is far from alone among gun enthusiasts in supporting a number of sensible reforms.

I also agree with his focus on straw purchases. It would seem that they're a bigger source of firearms to ineligible people than theft. The federal law is already there to indict them with, and the penalties are harsh (felony-level harsh). We just need more focus on (and perhaps funding for) enforcement. These people are directly facilitating murder.

While I'm not a professional with a job-based need for a concealed carry permit, I do try to train as if I am (in fact, I almost certainly practice more than 90+% of LEOs...most cops aren't regular shooters). That by no means makes me anywhere near the equal of a serious professional "operator" type, a SWAT officer or a SEAL or suchlike. But I do think the effort I put into being safe and competent (and knowing the law in terms of what I'm allowed to do) make my carrying a non-threat to the public. I strongly agree, however, with tightening up the requirements. I want to see a demonstration of competence and safety at the range and the ability to pass a written examination on the laws regarding use of deadly force in the applicant's jurisdiction.

[Maedhros]

29. With respect to concealed carry, my primary objection is to the marketing of it.

Since the 90s there has been a marked increase in the number of concealed carry permits and the advertising of concealed carry courses. While there certainly are legitimately trained and conscientious people with permits, there are also a lot of absolute knuckleheads carrying firearms. Fewer knuckleheads is my goal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. I'm all for fewer knuckleheads.

I agree: CCW permits should be issued only to people willing to put in the time and effort to become competent (to a reasonable but meaningful standard) and to know the law. Anyone carrying should be expected to know when they can and cannot legally use force, and to hit what they aim at when the answer is "yes." All I had to do was be a warm body at a class. I was disappointed. The classroom part was good (it focused mostly on when it is and is not legal to use force in Oregon), but there was no examination to see if we learned those things. And there were a couple of real mouth-breathers in that class... And of course, no idea if I can handle a gun safely, to say nothing of shoot accurately...

I'm not sure if it's readily enforceable as a part of the law, but at the least, CCW permit holders should be strongly encouraged to practice at the range regularly. I can't state strongly enough how important that is in order to both ensure that you're not a danger to everyone, but also to be able to actually succeed if you have to defend yourself. It's said that people under extreme stress tend to do what they've been trained to do. If you don't practice, you've trained yourself to do nothing.

Okay, I'm rambling. But yeah...it infuriated me , too, that there are people who fail to take the grave responsibility of carrying a weapon as seriously as it demands. If they need the law to goad them into doing so, then fine. Change the law.

[Maedhros]

62. I hear what you're saying.

I had the opportunity to become 'qualified' as an explosives technician, but passed because it was a two-day training program over a weekend. There is no way that anyone can become adequately trained with explosives in that short amount of time.

With respect to CCW, maybe we should have mandatory yearly qualifications similar to law enforcement, and if one can't pass the qualification then the permit is revoked.

[Orsino]

24. "More."

I don't care what the endgame will look like, exactly, as long as it results in a firearms death rate consistent with the rest of the industrialized world. At that point, it would be difficult to say that legislation would reduce it further.

My dream includes requiring licensing, training and insurance for firearms ownership or operation, waiting periods and funding for the tracking of sales.

Lacking a magic wand, I'll simply say we need more gun control and a societal shift away from the Gun-As-Penis Cult. Let's try it, see what works, and do more of those things. If we can't build a perfect world, we still have no excuse for not making a better one.

[still_one]

26. There is no reason for assault weapons or have large ammunition clips

At a minimum that should be what we should try for

[Warren DeMontague]

28. You can keep your dick or your gun, but not both.

IM KIDDING!!!!

[Rex]

30. Everyone gets an RPG, but gets to fire it only one time. Level the playing field.

So think hard on who you hate the most, they have one too.

[flamingdem]

33. Confiscation in exchange for cash

That has worked well and even netted a rocket launcher in Los Angeles

[Logical]

34. No one who just spent $500 on a gun will turn it in for cash. 20,000 million guns sold this year! nt

[flamingdem]

35. I am not well informed about gun buying, you're making a very good point

However perhaps there are a lot of long guns around that people are willing to get rid of - say if they have kids in the house.

[Logical]

38. I don't mind gun buyback programs. Gets them off the street. So funny how many gun nuts and right...

wingers throw a fit when the city spends money on gun buybacks.

[Eleanors38]

41. Heh. "Gets them off the street." I have a better way...

Quit blowing hard and heavy about bans and confiscations and all the culture war crap. I think most politicians know this and have tone it down. To bad some folks in DU haven't learned that lesson.

Record monthly NICS clearances, record DAY NICS clearances (recent one day: over 186,000). (See NPR Wed.)

Frankly, I don't care about so-called buy-backs (who is getting them "back," Logical? The government?) as long as there is no tax-payer subsidies. I have a couple of old junkers...

[hunter]

36. Rip off their arms.

No, no, not their actual arms, silly.

I think anyone who expresses a certain sort of "gun love" is a potential danger to themselves and others, more so than the average person, most especially the fundamentalists of various sorts, and not necessarily religious fundamentalists. (Nationalists, racists, misogynists, etc...)

Government doesn't have to do all the dirty work, families and friends can discourage gun love, and remove guns from their fools for destruction, same way they might take a drunk person's car keys, or at least remove themselves from danger.

Fools and fundamentalists with gun fetishes shouldn't be tolerated, and I include many law enforcement officers in that group as well.

However the second amendment is interpreted, I think it ought to be as easy for a person to lose their gun privileges as easy as it is for a driver to lose their driving privileges.

[Eleanors38]

42. "Gun love" and intolerance. Such a cheesy way to cut yourself off.

Besides, that "guess who's coming to dinner" approach has been tried.

[hunter]

43. No, you can't bring your guns to my house.

I'll take them and break them.

No smoking here, either.

[Eleanors38]

49. Good. I won't threaten you At All if you come to my house...

because I have no reason to suspect you of violence no matter what's in your pocket or lungs.

[Bradical79]

44. I prefer the 2nd option but

current interpretation of the 2nd amendment seems like it would make that impossible even if Democrats got a majority and actually wanted to make that happen.

I like the idea of making it a somewhat challenging liscense to get. Take classes, tests, certain amount of time on the range with a professional supervising and teaching proper safety and care, background check, age limit...

[LittleBlue]

45. Question for the confiscators: what will you do when people resist?

The majority of the country believes that the 2A guarantees this right to have guns.

So while many people will give up their guns voluntarily, millions will not. A fraction of those will resist arrest. What will you do when the deaths from confiscating guns exceeds any violence previously seen since the Civil War?

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes confiscations will work either isn't living in America, or is completely irrational.

[Calista241]

46. Just wait until a bunch of cops kill a couple black people

For not turning in their weapons. confiscation will end super quick.

[Kaleva]

47. Prohibit the manufacture and importation of semi-automatics for sale to civilians

[oldandhappy]

51. License guns and owners

[B Calm]

52. Too late to do anything now. This country is saturated with guns.

[hrmjustin]

53. More strict laws.

[baldguy]

63. How about this: after every mass shooting, close every gun store in a 300 mi radius for a month.

No money in or out, no phone calls or correspondence answered or made, no merchandise received, ordered or delivered.

Gun advocates should be responsible enough not to stoke irrational fears.