Gun control: What's your concession?

[Bgno64]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Gil Smart says there are common-sense proposals to address gun violence, but the NRA and it's allies regard any new laws as extreme - which shows who the extremists really are.

[JoePhilly]

1. You can't discuss reasonable proposals with them because they see any

such discussion as unreasonable in the first place.

Given that, I'm coming to the conclusion that we should drop them from the discussion entirely.

They provide nothing of value and act to simply derail the discussion.

Cut them out entirely.

[bossy22]

5. the problem is the definition of reasonable

I find that many pro-gun control people judge us on only their definition of reasonable- so anyone who questions an "assault weapons ban" is a nut and completely unreasonable. Also I'll admit, the loudest on our side of the debate are a bunch of idiots screaming "we needz to be ablez to takez on the gubbernment". People like me, who believe in some controls but generally want guns to be available for sporting and defense, end up getting drowned out.

That being said, in the spirit of the OP here are my "Concessions" (I don't consider them concessions cause I have generally felt this way even before sandy hook)

Universal Background Checks- I think we should open up the NICS for non-FFLs (dealers) to use. Dealers will often charge a decently high fee for running transfers (can be upwards of $75 per person) and can be a real hassle. A way to do this might be to have a ystem where someone who would be interested in selling a gun could apply for a special "certificate" that would allow them to sell the gun and run a background check even if they aren't a licensed dealer. This would not apply to intra-family transfers (a dad giving a son a gun)

Magazine Restriction- I believe that there should be a lower limit on the magazine capacity of weapons. I don't believe that it should be 10 though. I think 20, or even 15 is a better amount. My reasoning is that many pistols comes standard with magazines greater than 10. Also I believe whatever a "beat cop" would carry should be allowed for civilian carry. Many cops carry pistols with 15 rounds.

Universal CCW- there should be a universal CCW system, similar to the drivers license (where it is recognized in all 50 states but administered at the state level). The Federal Government would prescribe a set of minimum requirements in order for a CCW to be considered "universal". Such requirements will include a background check and a serious training requirement (not as indepth as Law enforcement but one with live fire training and testing). Such license will be good for 5 years and every renewal will require a "range test" to make sure you maintain proficiency with your weapon. The license though will be "shall issue"- meaning that for a person to get the license, they do not need to show a "need"- as long as you are not a criminal, go through the training process, and prove proficiency in firearm use you will be able to get a permit

Gun rationing- I would ration gun sales at 1 per type per person nationally. So this would mean that you can essentially get 2 a month- 1 handgun, 1 long gun. This would cut down on straw purchases where the purchaser buys and bulk and sells to criminals. also, while i understand collectors will have an issue with this, i believe there should be an exemption for them. If you are a collector, you apply for a federal C&R gun license (a collectors license). Anyone who holds this license will be exempt from the gun rationing requirement.

[JoePhilly]

6. I think we could definitely find lots of common ground.

In my construction of "reasonable" ...a person could have almost any weapon they want.

Your CCW model is similar to something I've proposed. It goes like this ...

1) I think we can classify weapons based on how lethal they are during any given usage. And the elements of this could be quantified. You would use metrics like ...

a) Shots fired per minute.
b) Number of shots fired without reload.
c) Damage done to a human target from 3 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 100 feet.
And so on ... I'm not suggest these 3 specifically, just using them as examples.

2) You could do the same for various types of ammo, some of which is designed specifically to deform or fragment to increase the damage to a human target. Again, develop some metrics.

3) Graded Gun licenses. CCW is kind of an example of this. To be able to get a CCW, I have to prove proficiency. I think we could do something similar for some of the more lethal weapons. You want an AR-15, no problem, pass a (periodic) test to prove you can safely handle that weapon.

Then let's get creative ...

Take a gun safety class, get a tax break, or a discount at Walmart.

Turn in a weapon that falls outside the ranges, or donate it it to local police, get money back. Hey, give it to the local gun club, and they give you a discount.

I like what you suggested, and I think you prove that we can find creative approaches that, while they will never stop all gun violence, they could help people do what many would say is critical to gun safety ... "respect the gun".

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. How long will the gun-controllers be opposed to diversity in the Democratic Party on gun issues?

From Bill Clinton's autobiography:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

One poll has indicated that approximately 40% of Democratic households own firearms. Another poll indicates that approximately 22% of Democrats own firearms.

Why, exactly, are anti-gunners crusading for a revival of the 1994 issue?

[thucythucy]

3. "Why, exactly, are anti-gunners crusading

for a revival of the 1994 issue?"

Try Googling "Newtown school massacre" and you'll get an answer to your question.

[L0oniX]

4. DU would be happy to see members who own guns to leave DU. Don't expect them to participate as ...

the big tent turns into a pup tent.

[JoePhilly]

7. Really, is that what DU thinks?

Interesting.

I think what many on DU would like is for those who own guns to participate in an honest discussion of gun regulations, rather than oppose any such discussion when it does occur.

[L0oniX]

9. Don't act like you haven't seen what's been going on ...on DU n/t

There is no other side to guns on DU. Anything anyone says on the other side is taken as an NRA talking point so don't tell me there is any room for any kind of reasonable discussion here.

[JoePhilly]

12. I've just been part of the kind of discussion you just claimed does not exist here on DU.

Start here ... and read down the thread.

If nothing else, it proves what you just said is Bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2166559

And on edit ... I had a very good discussion on this with some one in THIS VERY OP!!!!

Start here and read down ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=91222

[L0oniX]

13. What is bull shit is IMO your ignorance of what has been going on here...

since those kids got murdered. One or two threads on the other side NOW does not change what has been.

[JoePhilly]

14. If that is your attempt to contribute something constructive ...

you failed.

Here is where I am now ... there are those who are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion about gun regulations because they see any such discussion as unreasonable to start with.

And you sound like one of them.

[L0oniX]

15. Well you try getting attacked and insulted for 2 weeks everytime you try to discuss...

the gun issues and see how you feel about it. I have no need to discuss it anymore ...say hi to Hoyt and gang for me.

[JoePhilly]

16. I generally do not displace my frustration with one set of individuals

and apply it to another set of individuals.

The fact that some DU members mistreated you, does not mean that others will.

But, taking such a position does help ensure no progress on the discussion at hand.

[L0oniX]

17. DU does not make the laws and for the most part doesn't influence government decisions.

No one here is going to be able to vote on any gun regulations. No one here is willing to pay enough money to get a law makers attention. What ever gets discussed will not change anything except an ever expanding ignore list.

[derby378]

8. Fortunately, since you don't speak for DU...

...I think I'm gonna stay around for awhile.

I own a Kalashnikov with 30-round magazines, and I'm part of the debate whether you like it or not. Recognize.

My concessions are an improved NICS check (including gun shows) and the establishment of a civilian armory.

[L0oniX]

10. Heh ...you took it the wrong way dude. I own guns for protection and have a CWP. n/t

[derby378]

11. I did it again, didn't I?

DU's a large and growing community. Even some of us old-timers get it wrong once in a while. My apologies.